FREEDOM OF PRESS

The Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950, and fundamental rights were
given to the people of India. According to Article 19(1)(a), freedom of speech and expression is
given. In India, the freedom of the press derives from Article 19(1)(a) but is subject to
restrictions. Article 19(1)(g) requires people to "practise any profession or to pursue any
occupation, trade or business." In order to avoid misuse of power by the State and to prevent
oppressive and dictatorial rule in India, the need for both democratic rights and the right to
freedom of the press under free speech arises. The state would not be kept accountable to the
people if there was no freedom of expression in India, and they would have control of the
narrative. This paper dives into three instances in which the State has abused its authority to
enforce limits on fundamental rights. As seen in Romesh Thappar v. Madras State (1950), the
consequences of which were seen in the first amendment to India's Constitution. The court
accelerated the liberty of the press, according to Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1961).
It founded the media as the fourth wing of democracy in Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of
India (1985), which needed to be protected from the intervention of the state.
The most critical mechanism in democracy is freedom of the press. A democracy does not exist
without a free press. The press is, in reality, a great medium which conveys the truth to people.
However, if the press is not open, it cannot work entirely. People must have learned the saying
that everlasting vigilance is the cost of democracy. It is therefore the duty of the media to remain
responsible for the welfare of people. In addition, people's freedom is monitored by the media.
To ensure they do not abuse it, the press watches those in control. Freedom of the press is needed
in order to do this.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950):
The Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 19491, allowed the State to unconstitutionally ban
circulation, sale, or distribution of newspapers to attain “public safety” or maintaining “public
order” in the State of Madras. "In the exercise of Section 9 (1-A) of the Act, the Governor of 
Madras prohibited the publication of a "leftist" journal, "Cross Roads," run by Romesh Thappar. 
India's Supreme Court agreed with the petition and 
allowed the state to limit freedom of expression unconstitutionally. "In the exercise of Section 9
(1-A) of the Act, the Governor of Madras prohibited the publication of a "leftist" journal, "Cross
Roads," run by Romesh Thappar. India's Supreme Court agreed with the petition and allowed the
1
The Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, (1949), Section 9(1-A).
state to limit freedom of expression unconstitutionally. Which caused Thappar to challenge said
restriction. Usually, the word "public safety" would mean safeguarding public order or protecting
their freedom from public threat. This would mean that public safety might also be called
something that would ensure public safety or avoid any risk to public health.

M. Patanjali Sastri, J stated:

'...if a law limiting freedom of speech and expression is aimed primarily at undermining It
follows that Section 9(1-A) authorizing the imposition of restrictions for the greater purpose of
protecting public protection or preserving public order falls beyond the scope of the permitted
restrictions referred to in Clause 9(1-A) (2). Therefore, is indeed invalid and unlawful.'or
overthrowing the protection of the State, the law does not fall within the limits it seeks to
enforce, and may have been generally conceived in the interests of public order.

The view of Sastri, J. meant that the sense under which the word "public order" was used was too
broad to apply to the imposition of limits on freedom of expression and speech. The object of the
term and use of public order will be to ensure public safety and prevent the safety of the State
from being compromised or the State from being overthrown. Preventing the circulation of
newspapers with a view to (1) preserving public safety and (2) maintaining public order is highly
ambiguous in relation to the two terms of the Act. This made the act broader than the scope of
which restricted freedom of speech and expression was permitted. J Saiyid Fazl Ali, however,
disagreed and argued that the maintenance of peace and public tranquility was linked to
maintaining the state's stability, according to the precedent set in Brij Bhushan v. the State of
Delhi (1950). He disagreed with the majority opinion on this precedent and stressed that
limitations on freedom of speech were lawfully enforced by the Madras Maintenance of Public
Order Act, 1949. Only a restricted restriction on freedom of expression was envisaged in the
Constitution, which would mean that any other restriction on that limited restriction on freedom
of expression should be considered invalid.

Any legislation that can be used within the statutory limits but crosses those limits at the same
time should be deemed to be void. This section of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act,
1949, was then ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it allowed the state to limit
freedom of speech.

The Court also sided with the plaintiff (Romesh Thappar) and lifted the ban on 'Cross Roads'
circulation, selling, or delivery.
In the first amendment to the Constitution of India under Article 19(2), the case of Romesh
Thappar v. the State of Madras led to the addition of the words'public order 'as a fair constraint,
which, on the other hand, made public safety beyond those restrictions. Sastri, both J. Yeah, and
Ali, J. In their judgments, mention the word "sedition". Sedition is described by Section 124A of
the Indian Penal Code as:
“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with
[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added or imprisonment which may extend to three
years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”
The Indian Penal Code's Section 124A allows the government to imprison or fine any person
who makes any derogatory comments to encourage
Hatred or a sense of disloyalty to the government. Sastri, J claimed that the word "sedition" was
removed in Article 13(2) of the draft Constitution of India before it was adopted as Article 19 (2)
The exclusion of sedition from the proposal for Article 13(2) has shown that any disloyalty or
disaffection to the Government must not be viewed as a reason for the implementation of a
restriction on freedom of speech and of the press unless it is intended to weaken the protection of
the State. As a limitation on free speech and expression, the concept of sedition as used in the
Irish Constitution did not comply with the framers of the Constitution. Therefore, as a limitation
of freedom of speech and expression, very few restrictions have been used. This view did not
correspond with that of J. Ali. He went to the state newspaper, , “Cross Roads” was seditious.
The newspaper’s publication, sale, and distribution were undermining the security of the State
and are attempting to disturb public tranquility.
This case served as the basis for the establishment of press freedom. The press serves as a
cornerstone of democracy in a democratic system of government. The use of a "leftist"
newspaper to instigate violence or threaten state security is exceedingly ambiguous.
The law of sedition that have been inherited by the colonial rule are still to this day restricting the
press’ ability to do its job. This case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) laid the
precedents used in the cases of Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Indian Express
Newspapers v. Union of India.
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1961):
The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 19562 gave the power to the government to control the
prices that publishers could charge for newspapers based on the number of pages and the content
in it. The act states that:

2
The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956
 “If the Central Government is of opinion that for the purpose of preventing unfair
competition among newspapers so that newspapers generally and in particular,
newspapers with smaller resources and those published in Indian languages may have
fuller opportunities of freedom of expression it is necessary or expedient so to do, the
Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, make
an order providing for the regulation of the prices charged for newspapers in relation to
their maximum or minimum number of pages, sizes or areas and for the space to be
allotted for advertising matter in relations to other matters therein.”
Newsprint (ink for printing newspapers) is supplied by the Central Government in a restricted
supply, which would mean that larger publishers would use a larger quantity of newsprint at the
time. They argued that, according to their proposal, newspapers should charge readers in order to
avoid a monopoly. In turn, this led to a breach of freedom of expression. This in turn led to a
violation of freedom of speech. This led to the case of Sakkal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of
India (1961). The petitioner questioned the law's validity as well as the 1960 Daily Newspapers
(Price and Page) Order, which granted the government the unlawful restriction of freedom of
speech and expression. Under Article 19(1), freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in
the Constitution (a). Freedom of the press is recognised as part of Article 19(1)(a), i.e. freedom
of expression and of speech, but is not guaranteed in the Indian Constitution. The petitioners
claimed that they would have to increase the selling price of the newspaper if they persisted with
the same amount of pages they used prior to the Act.

This would lead to a reduction in its popularity, but it would directly conflict with their right to
free speech and expression if they were to reduce the number of pages. The Ministry claimed
that, among other newspapers, the price increase was being undertaken to stop "unfair
competition."
The court took into account that by regulating the number of pages of newspapers, there was a
direct relation to the cost of sale of them. Both the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and
Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order had a direct interference to (1) the content of the
paper, and (2) the cost of their paper which would be affecting its circulation. Both of these were
violative of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
Variable pricing concerning advertising space makes the newspaper run at a loss due to its effect
on circulation. The court held that this was a direct violation of the freedom of speech and
expression, and that restriction on advertising “in the interests of the general public”3 is too
vague and is concerning Article 19(6). Finally, the court deemed that the Newspaper (Price and
Page) Act, 1956 and Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order were unconstitutional since they
directly interfered with the freedom of speech and expression.

This case was another landmark, that pushed on the notion of freedom of press. It reinforced that
any restriction in relation to the page count, price, advertisements, and circulation of a newspaper
was directly interfering with the freedom of speech and expression. This was the case of Sakal
Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India.
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985):
Newsprint for printing newspapers is imported by the government of India. No tax was levied on
it, but an import duty was later imposed by the government, which led to an increase in the cost
of newspapers as well as a decline in its circulation. This prompted the petitioners, Indian
Express Newspapers, to challenge the import duty under the 1975 Customs Tariff Act and the
1981 Finance Act auxiliary duty . This made the government re-evaluate the approach of
taxation. . Indian Express Newspapers claimed that the imposing duty had adverse effects on
their cost and circulation. This also meant that it affected the freedom of expression under Article
19(1)(a) as well as the freedom to practice any trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g).

The Supreme Court of India held that the government was empowered to impose taxes that
would affect the distribution or circulation of newspapers. The press is characterized as an
industry and the government is allowed to levy taxes on other industries as well. In Article 19(2)
the first amendment to the Constitution of India added the word “public order” and can be a
reasonable limit. The court laid two principles (1) newspapers, like all other sectors, benefit from
government programs and must also pay a proportional share of government income by taxation,
(2) the tax burden must not be unfair. The excessive form of that burden of taxation was neither
adequately proven by the plaintiff nor disproved well enough by the defendant. The court then
guided the government to reevaluate the taxation policy to the extent of which was an excessive
burden on the plaintiff.

Sdfnjksdfnccskjd
cbjksdbnjsbdfbesdjcbdsiubcudscfesdbcfsdjkcbdsjbcjksdbcjkdbksskkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
India's Supreme Court ruled that the state was empowered to introduce taxes that would
3
INDIA CONST ART 19, CL 6.
influence the distribution or publication of newspapers. The press is described as an industry and
taxes on other industries are also permitted to be imposed by the government. The word "public
order" was added to the first amendment of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and may
constitute a fair limit. The court laid two principles (1) newspapers, like all other sectors, benefit
from government programs and must also pay a proportional share of government income by
taxation, (2) the tax burden must not be unfair.4 The excessive form of that burden of taxation
was neither adequately proven by the plaintiff nor disproved well enough by the defendant. The
court then guided the government to reevaluate the taxation policy to the extent of which was an
excessive burden on the plaintiff.

The case founded the media as the fourth wing of democracy, so it should be protected from the
government's own intervention. Any unfair media tax burden should not be levied. If the
government still supplies the ink to newspaper publishers to this day, so they will set a standard
for the media. The tax burden levied directly correlates with the ability of the sector to print, edit
and distribute newspapers. The tax burden should be such that it does not place an excess burden
on the industry in order to allow the media to exercise their duty.

Conclusion:
In the above situations, the executive's intervention with the fourth wing of democracy, the press,
is clear. The State had sought to restrict the freedom of speech and expression and to control the
costs of distributing newspapers in the industry. The aim of the framers of the Indian
Constitution was to enforce only a minimal restriction on fundamental rights, but these cases
show that more restrictions on fundamental rights have been imposed by the government.

The position of the press has been reduced to a mere business where heads are more concerned
with earning a buck than with upholding democracy's fourth wing.

Radhika: Comments overall:

- It is important to rework the research questions and the overall structure.

- So far, the study of the three decisions is good, but it depends on how the research questions are
presented.
Uday: It is not clear how imposing a tax infringes on the freedom of press. The explanation of
the case of Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India must be elaborated to make the reader
understand the infringement of the press. The explanation and your opinions on the other two
cases are well written.
Arshan Kazi : The writer opens with a concise explanation of the Article 19 (1) (a) and Article
19 (1) (g) and further explains the necessities of these Articles. Although there is a need for
further analysis of the two articles mentioned so as to provide a better understanding of this
research paper and the levity of these articles themselves.

4
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Others), AIR, 1986, SC, 515.
The writer has provided three brilliant cases which provide essential insight into the topic of this
paper although the quality of these arguments would be enhanced if the writer provided relevant
framed research questions. The case laws provided for the precedents gave a better clarity into
why and how the judgements were what they turned out to be.
The writer could have expanded a bit more on the sedition avenue where the government can ban
a paper on the basis of sedition and because of this the entire burden of proof gets shifted onto
the defendant and how these laws suppress a citizens freedom of speech (if innocent) with the
fear of having to prove their own innocence where the governments word is held above theirs
and this form of punishment might pressurise most into holding in their words. A further
expansion onto the business angle of this essay is required too.
Otherwise this essay provides an eloquent insight on the government's nasty habit to meddle with
the press and infringe rights.
The press has been granted the duty to track and balance the administration and the government.
Whenever there is a lurking social evil or exploitation and inequality, the press is the first to raise
a voice. In addition, we expect the press to check and disseminate the truth and statistics that
affect the choices of people. Unless the press has the right to do all this, people will be in the
dark.
Therefore, we see how the voiceless would lose their voice if any one of these protections is
stripped from the press. Worse still, if the press is refused their work, the people in charge will
rule the nation according to their will.

Moreover, we see how censorship of the press is nothing less than a dictatorship.
When the government imposes censorship on the press, it obviously means they are
trying to hide something. A person only hides lies and not the truth. Thus, this way
the citizens will be manipulated into thinking there is nothing wrong with the
government.
Subsequently, when there remains no agency to report the truth, the government will
gain absolute power.

In short, freedom of the press is important for the smooth functioning of democracy.
It is important for people to be socially aware of happenings in the world. One must
have the power to criticize the government; it will keep the administration on their
toes to do better for the country.
India is ranked very poorly at 140th out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, according
to a report published in April 2019 by Reporters Without Borders. In 2018, at least six journalists
were assassinated in their line of work. The study also finds that "journalist hatred has
degenerated into violence, contributing to an increase in fear around the world, particularly at
election time."

The several risks that Indian journalists face are illustrated by these facts. Also against reputed
journalists who venture to talk against the mainstream narrative, especially against the Hindutva
narrative in recent times, there have been several organized hate campaigns.

As a constitutional right in India, freedom of the press is secured. In order to maintain a

democratic way of life, this freedom is necessary. It is shown, though, that this right in real life is
being denied and only exists on paper. By censoring the media, regimes in power frequently
control public opinion. The press is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy, and if this
pillar is at risk, then democracy is at risk, ipso facto.