(AIR 1995 SC 2438)

 MTNL a govt. company and licensee which

regulates the telecommunication in the
territory of Delhi, New Bombay and Thane
 Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Ltd
itself published a Telephone Directory that
had both ‘white pages’ i.e. phone numbers
(was a free listing) ‘yellow pages’(comprising
paid advertisements)
 Till 1987 it used to publish white pages only

 After 1987 it started publishing Yellow pages.

 The dispute arose claiming by respondents

that only MTNL has a right to publish the
directory being the licensee.
 Tata Press Ltd published its Yellow Pages which
was essentially a buyer’s guide comprising
advertisements given by traders, businessmen.
 Only criterion for acceptance of something for p
ublishing in its pages was that it must pertain to
the contact details and particulars of businessm
en/professionals.
 Three editions of Tata - Pages have already been
published in Bombay in 1992,1993 and 1994.
 Whether publication of Yellow Pages is a
telephone directory under the rules of 458,457 of
the Telegraph Rules (1957) Indian Telegraph
Act,1885?
 Whether the Appellants can be restrained from
printing, publishing and circulating the
compilation?
 Whether the commercial advertisement comes
within the concept of “Freedom Of Speech and
Expression” under Art. 19(1) (a) Constitution Of
India?
 MTNL alone have the right to print/publish
and circulate the list of telephone
subscribers.
 Without express permission of MTNL tatas
cant print/publish and circulate the list of
telephone subscribers
 A permanent injunction restraining tatas
there agents and servants from printing,
publishing and circulating.
 Rules 458,457 of the Telegraph Rules (1957)
bestowed the exclusive rights on MTNL
to publish a “list of telephone numbers” as a
service provider.
 They also stated that commercial
advertisement is outside the concept of
Freedom of Speech and Expression with ref
to humdard dawakhana case.
 Tatas have all the rights to publish print and
circulate the Yellow Pages.

 It is a buyers guide and not a directory as the

advertisements are paid.

 They agued stating that “Commercial

Advertisement” is protected under the Art.19
(1) (a) read with 19 (2) of the Constitution.
 We are of the view that answer to the question whether
the Tata - pages is a Telephone Directory within the
meaning of Rule 458 or is a Buyers Guide/ Trade Directory
depends upon the determination of the larger issue
whether a "commercial advertisement" comes within the
concept of "freedom of speech and expression"
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India. We. therefore, proceed to deal with the
constitutional question.

Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed unde
r Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution can only be restricted under
Article 19(2).
 Court in Hamdard Dawakhana's case:
 It went on further to contextualize the
judgment delivered in Hamdard Dawakhana.
 The holding was a limited one prohibiting an
obnoxious advertisement and cant be
accepted in the view of the advertisement.
 It was a commercial advertisement which
does not falls under Art.19(1)(a)
 Since the sale of that drug was harmful to public
interest ,therefore, advertisements that
promoted the sale of such a drug was
prohibited.
 But that is no reason why ‘commercial
expression’ as a whole should be denied
protection by Art 19(1)(a) just because it is used
to further business interests.
 It stated that in a democratic liberal society
the public at large has an interest in the free flow
of commercial information.
 Court stated that- low prices depends upon
mass production mass production is
dependent upon sales and sales is dependent
on advertisement.
 Publication of advertisements’ which is
a ‘commercial speech’ is protected under
Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution cannot be denied to the
appellants on the interpretation of Rule 458
,rule 457 and 459
 It held that the Tata Press Yellow Pages was
not at all a ‘list of telephone numbers’
of subscribers of MTNL but actually
comprised paid advertisements from
businessmen &
traders and because of this it qualified for
protection under Art 19(1)(a).
 Art. 19(1)(a) also protects the rights of an
individual to listen, read and receive the said
speech.
 ‘Publication of advertisements’ which is a ‘commercial
speech’ and protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution cannot be denied to the appellants by
creating a monopoly in favour of the government or any
other authority.

 Thus its publication was deemed lawful and MTNL’s

plea was not entertained by the Court. But it did state
that Tata Yellow Pages could not publish any entries
similar to those in the White Pages of a telephone
directory if it didn’t want to attract the restrictive
provisions of Rules 458 and 459
THANK YOU……!!!!