The predicament this case deals with is the constitutional question - whether or not

"commercial advertisement" falls within the scope of" freedom of speech and expression"
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. And a pretty simple probe as
to what should be the mandatory conditions for a document to be included in a telephone
directory.
This judgement was path-breaking because it covers the scope of “commercial
advertisement” within the scope of Article 19(1)(a) and advertising has a significant influence
on people's perceptions of life, the world, and themselves, particularly in relation to their
beliefs, behaviours, and choices specially in a developing economy like India. The decision
changed the scope of fundamental rights in India because it not only recognised that the
concept of "commercial speech" is protected under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) of
the Constitution but also recognised a number of commercial speech related issues that the
Supreme Court had not before addressed in its rulings.
The honourable court has expanded the definition of "free expression," which is vital for a
dynamic legal system to operate efficiently while keeping in mind the latest trends.
Though , it cannot be stated that every commercial deals with issues of free speech or that it
is a representation of ideas. It is always important to consider the advertisement's character
and the activity it hopes to promote in accordance with Art. 19(1). The bench hence gave the
example of “advertisement of illegal drugs or goods whose sale is not in the interests of the
general public is not speech within the sense of freedom of speech and would not be covered
by Art. 19(1) since it relates to commerce or trade rather than the propagation of ideas” . As
the major goal, aim, object, and scope of the Act is to prevent self-medication or self-
treatment, and it has been forbidden to promote certain pharmaceuticals and treatments in
advertisements for that reason . Overall, this ruling clarifies the application of several statutes
by further elaborating their interpretive elements, not only for the specific legal matter under
discussion here but also for additional cases.
The Constitution's Article 19(1)(a) guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression may only
be curtailed under Article 19(2). Hence, the aforementioned right cannot be denied by
establishing a monopoly in favour of the government or any other authority. Court On the
interpretation of rules 458 and 459 ,held and rightly so that the appellants' right to the
"publication of ads," which is a "commercial expression" and guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution, cannot be denied and held that "commercial speech" is a fundamental
right under the scope of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that the paid advertisements
that make up the "Yellow Pages" attached to the phone book are not a public utility service
which must be taken into consideration when interpreting Rules 458 and 459 of the Rules.
This decision made by the bench is ought to widen the definition “freedom of speech and
expression” under the scope of Article 19. Additionally, it has established a standard for the
future by defining "freedom" as the legitimate right of a person or organisation to operate
within the bounds of established laws and by talking about the constraints that are once more
provided by laws that grant "freedom." And that Freedom of Expression implies not only the
freedom to speak but also to distribute and access of the information through various media
modes.
legal Service India. (n.d.). Advertisement and Freedom of Speech and Expression. Retrieved
October 15, 2022, from http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1317/Advertisement-and-
Freedom-of-Speech-and-Expression.html