BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. V. UNION OF INDIA (1972) 2 SCC 788

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. V. UNION OF INDIA (1972) 2 SCC 788

 

FACTS

The Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 deals with white printing paper (including water- lined newsprint which contained mechanical wood pulp amounting to not less than 78 per cent. of the fibre content). Licences are issued for newsprint. The Newsprint Control Order, 1962 (1962 Newsprint Order) is made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Petitions were filed challenging the Import Policy for Newsprint for the year April, 1972 to March, 1973. The Newsprint Policy is impeached as an infringement of fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and right to equality in Article 14 of the Constitution. Some provisions of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962, are challenged as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This Hon'ble court, by a majority declared the policy as unconstitutional. While the government could evolve the policy of evolving newspapers on a fair and equitable basis, considering the interests of small, medium and large newspapers, the government could not control the growth of such newspapers. It was observed that the newspaper policy became the newspaper control policy. While newsprint quota could be fixed on a reasonable basis, post quota restrictions couldn’t be imposed. The newspapers should be left free to determine their page numbers, circulation and new editions within their fixed quota. The current policy of limiting the papers (small or large) in english or hindi was considered as discriminatory as it treated unequals as equals.
2. This Hon'ble court also rejected the contention of the government that stated that the test to adjudge the validity of a regulatory provision should be its subject matter, its pith and substance and not its effect or result and enunciated an approved test that which was to determine whether the effect of the impugned action is to take away or abridge the fundamental rights.
3. This Hon'ble court also held that the object of the restrictions imposed on the newspapers has nothing to do with the availability of newsprint or foreign exchange because they were post quota restrictions which fell outside the purview of Article 19(2). Hence the court applied the test of direct effect of law on the fundamental rights.
4. The court maintained that the freedom of press embodies the right of people to speak and express the freedom of speech and expression isn’t only in the volume of circulation but also in the volume of news and views. In other words, the press has a right of free publication and their circulation without any obvious restraint on publication.