1

SCHOOL OF LAW
NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE IF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
BENGULURU
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASE BREIF

SUBMITTED TO-
Pritam Ghosh
Assistant Professor of Law,
School Of Law
NMIMS
Bengaluru, Karnataka

SUBMITTED BY-
Parichaya Reddy.B
81021219018
BBA, LL. B(HONS)
NMIMS
SCHOOL OF LAW
Bengaluru, Karnataka.

1 1
 2

CONTENTS-

NAME OF THE CASE.....................................................................................................................02

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT...............................................................................................02
CITATION........................................................................................................................................02
DECIDING COURT.........................................................................................................................02
BENCH DECIDING THE MATTER...............................................................................................02
FACTS OF THE CASE-...................................................................................................................03
ISSUES BROUGHT UP IN THE CASE..........................................................................................03
ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER................................................................................ ....04
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT...................................................................................04
JUDGEMENT....................................................................................................................................04
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................05

Name of the case-

Indian Express Newspaper Vs. Union of India
Petitioner- Indian Express newspaper (Bombay) Private ltd. Vs ors

Respondent- Union of India

Citation- 1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR (2) 287

Deciding Court- Supreme Court of India

Bench
V Venkataramiah, E.S.(J)Reddy, O. Chinappa (J)Sen, A.P. (J)

2 2
 3

Facts of the case

For this situation the solicitors were organizations, representatives and, investors just as trusts occupied
with the distribution of papers. At first, the newsprint delighted in the advantage of not going under the
custom obligation yet, after the notices under the Customs Act,1962 with impact from March 1, 1981,
the applicants scrutinized the forced obligation applied on it under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the
helper obligation under the Finance Act 1981.
It was contended that overwhelming such an obligation on the newsprint would influence the cost and
flow and at last severally meddle with both the opportunity of articulation and the opportunity to
rehearse any exchange or occupation under Art 19(1)(a) and, Art 19(1)(g) individually. It was fought
that isolating the paper into little, medium and huge papers would be ultra vires the standard of non-
discretion under Art 14 of the Constitution of India which is uniformity under the watchful eye of the
law.
It was contended by the public authority that the expense borne by the papers and the situation of
unfamiliar trade holds were not important contemplations. The public interest associated with tax
assessment was to build the income of the public authority, a weight that is borne by all residents of the
country. It affirmed that the exclusion conceded to newsprint was not legitimized and, thusly, could be
eliminated by the government.

The issues brought up for this situation were:

1. Regardless of whether it goes under the ambit of limitations gave in Art 19(2).
2. Regardless of whether Art 14 was unfair in the characterization of papers for demanding traditions
obligation.
3. Regardless of whether the Fundamental Rights given under Art 19(1) and (g) are not quite the same
as that of the rights given by the primary revision to the American constitution.
4. Regardless of whether to strike down the notice under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 for what
it's worth in clashes with the Fundamental Rights.
5. Regardless of whether the sensible obstruction was legitimized under Art 19(2) for the sake of
serving the public interest.
6. Regardless of whether it was the obligation of the State to empower training of masses through the
press under Art 41.
7. Regardless of whether charge on information, individuals' entitlement to know the burden of expense
government to be more cautious.

3 3
 4

Arguments from the petitioner

1. Petitioner argued that imposition of this duty (Import duty + Auxiliary duty) had an adverse effect on
cost of newspapers and circulation of newspapers which violated the freedom of
ex expression under Art-19(1)(a) and right to Practice any Trade or Occupation under Article 19 (1) (g).
2. Petitioners argued that Classification of newspapers into small, medium and large newspapers
violated Art-14 of the constitution (Equality before Law). It is arbitrary action of CG.

3. Petitioners argued that tax is levied for public interest and at that time Foreign Exchange Reserve
position of India was Comfortable at that time.

Arguments from the respondent

Respondent Argued that Burden of cost which the newspapers are going to bear and the position? Status
of foreign exchange reserves were irrelevant because tax is collected for public interest, A burden that is
borne by all Citizens not only newspapers. (Including companies non companies).
Judgement
The Supreme Court said that the public authority is allowed to force charges which influence the
distribution of papers as it should be treated as an industry and be liable to charges, similar way different
organizations are. The division of papers into little, medium and huge can be allowed just on the off
chance that it is significantly founded on the monetary contemplations having a contemplated nexus as
for the target of the tax collection and liberated from any sort of intervention. The force of burdening
should not negate with the opportunity of articulation presented under Art 19(1)(a) and the constraint on
adaptability ought to likewise be covered inside the sensible limits.

Workmanship 19(2) of the Indian Constitution discusses the sensible limitations and public interest is
one of the grounds of limitations. The Supreme Court illustrated two essential rules:
[i] Newspapers have as much option to be profited by the taxpayer supported organizations as different
businesses given that they likewise contribute a sensible measure of cash to the public authority through
taxes.
[ii] The taxation rate ought not be excessive.
For this situation, the Supreme Court saw that neither the candidates had the option to demonstrate the
over-the-top taxation rate nor the respondents had the option to counter it properly. It said that a "severe
weight of verification'" need not be released, thinking about obstruction with essential rights. The Court
taught the public authority to rethink the tax collection strategy by assessing whether it comprised an
unnecessary weight on the papers. The public authority's position that such a thought was unessential

4 4
 5

was off base and subsequently, the warning must be amended by bringing this factor into consideration.

Conclusion:
The press is supposed to be the Fourth mainstay of a country and, it is critical that the residents
consistently approach it. By forcing charges on the papers, the stockpile of papers around was seriously
influenced. The press holds the ability to change feelings and form minds, however when we force a
substantial duty on it then we are narrowing down the chance of it coming to an ever-increasing number
of individuals. The press can't be denied of their entitlement to opportunity of articulation by
overburdening it with charges. This would basically be the demise of democracy.

5 5