History of Media Legislation in India PDF

CHAPTER II
2. HISTORY OF MEDIA AND

MEDIA LEGISLATION- IN INDIA
2.1. The Bengal Gazette:
The media history in India begins with the launching of various

news journals by European and Anglo-Indian journalists during the
second half of eighteenth century. The first newspaper was the
Bengal Gazette which Mr. Hicky started as a weekly in 1780. The
arrest of the editor Hicky for criticizing the policies of the Governor
General Warren Hastings, was the starting point of the struggle for
liberty of the press. The next Governor General Lord Cornwallis had
a conflict with Mr Duana, the editor of Indian World. Duana was
the next journalist who was arrested for opposing the policies of
the Government. The muzzling of the press continued when some
more anglo-Indian journalists were either censured, arrested or
pressurised by the Governors in General in succession. To counter
the spread of French invasion, the British Indian rulers wanted to
suppress the criticism in the press and brought the Censorship Law
in 1799, which was the beginning of the oppressive legislation
against the print media. The press was made to disclose the names
of the publisher and editors as a legal obligation. The Censorship
Law was slightly modified. Press was not free as they were directed
not to publish animadverting reactions on the authorities, political
transactions or offensive remarks against the public conduct of
public officers, judges, Bishop of Calcutta, discussion having a
tendency to create alarm or suspicion among the natives as to any
intended interference with their religion. They were even opposing
the republication of what appeared in British Journals against the
British Administration.
2.2. End of Censorship:

HISTORY OF MEDIA AND MEDIA LEGISLATION-IN INDIA
During 1818 the Censorship of the press was abolished, which

led to emergence of new journals like Calcutta Journal from J. S.
Buckingham. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the
Governor of Madras, and the Lord Bishop of Calcutta could not
escape the sharp criticism from the bold and fearless journalist
Buckingham. Like two earlier journalists Hicky and Duane, he was
also deported from the Country and sent to England.
2.3. Munro Reforms and the Press:
The Government of India asked Sir Thomas Munro to study the

conditions of the Press in India. In his report he expressed fears
and apprehensions against the press owned by the people of
Indian origin and found no threat from the European Journalists.
He recommended for continuance of the power to deport the
journalists out of the country and censorship against the defiant
press. He saw a growing power in the press, which could even
overthrow the British Power and spread nationalist thoughts. After
accepting the recommendations of Munro, the Government of
India came out with new press regulations and introduced
licensing system. No newspaper or book can be published without
the licence being obtained for that purpose. Every such publication
after the licence has to be submitted for the scrutiny by the
officials. The Government was empowered to stop the circulation
of any newspaper or book by publication of mere notice in the
gazette. Despite the protest from Raja Ram Mohan Roy and
Dwarka Nath Tagore, the new regulations that were placed before
the Supreme Court in March 1823 came into force on 15th April
1823.
2.4. Sir Metcalfe’s Contribution:
These regulations were in force till 1835, when Sir Charles

Metcalfe, with assistance from Lord Macaulay, who was the Law
Member of the Government. For having freed the press in India on
par with the English Press, Lord Metcalfe was recalled. However,
NALSAR Pro
P.G. Diploma in Media Laws 39
the Calcutta city honoured him by building a Hall in his name. But
the freedom from regulation did not continue beyond 1857, as the
mutiny was the new ground for British Indian rulers to re-impose
the restrictions on the press. Act XV of 1857 was enacted to
regulate the establishment of printing presses and to restrain in
certain cases the circulation of printed books and papers. These
restrictions were withdrawn after the Mutiny.
2.5. The Vernacular Press:
After the first freedom struggle in 1857, the vernacular press

came into being. Bengalee and the Amrit Bazar Patrika in Bengal
and the Akbhar-e-am at Lahore were started as news weeklies. A
new Act XXV of 1867 has replaced Act of 1835. The new Act
intends to regulate the printing presses and newspapers and also
to preserve copies of books and also restrictions on those books.
The Press and Books Registration Act of 1867 is still in force with
some amendments in 1893 and 1940.
2.6. Vernacular Press Act:
The Vernacular Press Act has been brought into force with
great speed as that was introduced within just two hours, after a
sanction was obtained from Secretary of State for India through a
telegram. Lord Lytton engineered this draconian law against native
press because of "the increasing violence of the native press,
directly provocative of rebellion". Very soon the Act gained a
name as "The Gagging Act", according to which the magistrate,
with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, can
require a printer or publisher to deposit a security or enter into a
bond binding himself not to print or publish anything likely to
incite feelings of disaffection towards the government or hatred
between the different races of India. The Government has
enormous powers to warn the press and confiscate the machinery.
NALSAR Pro
40 P.G. Diploma in Media Laws
The printer was having only one chance of escaping the clutches of
this draconian law only by submitting proofs to the officials and
dropping all the rejected matter.
After passing this Act, within a year the entire vernacular press
in India was muzzled. Indian people strongly resented the
legislation that imposed severe curbs on free flow of information
and criticism. A big meeting was organised in Townhall of Calcutta,
which was the starting point of the virulent attack against the
Gagging Act. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta said that it was wrong to curb
the vernacular press, which as neither disloyal nor conveying
treasonable ideas. The honest and useful criticism was annihilated
by the Vernacular Press Act, when the print media was still in the
stage of infancy. According to Mody, “the Act was utterly uncalled
for, unduly repressive in character and inspired by sinister motives.
It was a draconian piece of legislation based on the Irish Coercion
Act of 1870 and in some respects brought into existence to deal
with a special emergency”.
Sir Erskine Perry was of the opinion that this Act was “a
retrograde and ill-conceived measure injurious to future progress
of India”. He said: “No imperial legislature could forge a more
powerful weapon for extirpating an obnoxious press”. British rulers
were feeling that it was not safe to make Indian Press free, as that
would definitely affect the interests of British dominance over the
subcontinent and wanted the regulations to continue. It was
difficult for the successor of Lord Lytton, to tackle the agitating
press and growing national struggle. After the Conservative
Government lost in the elections, and Gladstone led the Liberal
Government there was a change in Indian Adminsitration. Lord
Lytton was recalled and Lord Ripon was appointed. He too could
not repeal the Vernacular Press Act at once. However Ripon could
not retain beyond 1882, which act angered the British Rulers,
though was praised by the Indians.
2.7. The press and freedom struggle:

NALSAR Pro
The partition of Bengal was one of the painful historic events in

the history of Indian struggle for freedom and evolution of press
as powerful media. Lord Curzon and his anti-Indian policies were
responsible for intensifying the agitation. Indian Nationalist
movement was growing with a sole mission to throwout the
English men’s bag and baggage from the country. The oppressive
legislation and other repressive measures were fueling the burning
of agitation. Then the British brought another legislation to curb
the press freedom.
2.8. The Newspapers (Incitement of Offences) Act, 1908:
The Newspapers (Incitement of Offences) Act,1908 was passed.

If any newspaper was found inciting the offences, crimes of murder
or any act of violence, this Act would put an end to the existence
of that newspaper. District Magistrate was empowered to
confiscate the printing press where a newspaper containing an
incitement to violence is printed. He can also make he orders
absolute after a show cause notice. The police also was
empowered to attach the printing press and issue warrants for
attachment before the order was made absolute. The matter can
be taken in appeal within 13 days. The government was also
authorized to cancel the declaration of the printer or publisher of
the newspaper. Due to these oppressive measures, the Yugantar,
the Sandhya, and the Bandemataram newspapers stopped their
publication. As the Government was not contended with these
powers, it enacted Indian Press Act in 1910 to impose further curbs
on press from writing ‘seditious’ or ‘disaffectionate’ writings. Dial
the act of 1910 repeal the act of 1908.
2.9. The Indian Press Act 1910:
The Indian Press Act 1910 empowered the magistrate to

require a deposit of not less than Rs 500 and not more than Rs
2000 from the keepers of news printing presses and publishers of
newspapers. The local government could even demand a security
NALSAR Pro
deposit of Rs.500 minimum to Rs 5000 maximum from the existing

presses and publishers of newspapers. The magistrate is also
empowered to dispense with the deposit of any security or cancel
or vary any order already issued for the above reasons on any
special reasons. These amounts were very huge money which
would be generally beyond any body’s affordability, much less of
newspapers of the native languages. This Act also defined
‘objectionable’, whose publication was to entitle the Government
to forfeit the security to His Majesty. All attempts, direct or
indirect, to seduce persons as employed in His Majesty’s defence
forces or to intimidate the peop0le to give money for
revolutionary work or to prevent them from giving help in
discovering and punishing revolutionary crime, were included in
the definition of objectionable matter.
The scope of definition of seditious publication was enlarged

to include writings against the Indian Princes, judges, executive
officers and public servants. Section IV was very oppressive, as that
would not allow any scope for independent criticism of any
Government action. Another arbitrary feature of the Act was that
the Provincial government was given power to decide what was an
offending publication and what was an objectionable matter, and
it was not ordinary courts that decide such matters. Apart from
forfeiting the security of the newspaper, the journalists would not
be permitted to start the newspapers a fresh, unless they deposit
not less than Rs 1000 and not more than Rs 10,000. That amount
will be forfeited to His Majesty, if the Government was of the
opinion that the newspaper offended Section IV. Even the
customs officers and officers of post offices were given powers to
detain any packet or parcel or consignment suspected to certain
objectionable matter and deliver the same the provincial
Government. The newspaper can go in appeal from the order of
forfeiture within two months after passing such order, to a three
member special bench of High Court.
NALSAR Pro
The Indian Press Act 1910 was highly oppressive and very
frequently resorted to by the rulers to muzzle the entire press.
There was a big hue and cry all over the country. Despite the
agitation by the Press Association of India, by pointing out
shortcomings of new legislation, the Act was vigorously enforced
during the world war I. Almost all 350 printing were penalized
under this Act. The Securities worth 40000 pounds were demanded
from newspapers. Because of the security deposits, more than 130
newspapers had not started. The Act was heavily used against the
newspapers Punjabee and Hinduvasi etc.
Calcutta High Court was very critical of Section 4 of Indian

Press Act. In a case between Muhammed Ali versus Emperor, Chief
Justice Jenkins and Justice Stephen passed very serious strictures.
The Chief Justice said: “The provisions of Section 4 are very
comprehensive and its language is as wide as human ingenuity
could make it. Indeed it appears to me to embrace the whole
range of varying degrees of assurance from certainty on the one
side to the very limits of impossibility on the other. It is difficult to
see to what lengths the operation of this section might not be
plausibly extended by an ingenious mind. They would certainly
extend to writings that may even command approval. An attack on
tat degraded section of the public, which lives on misery, and
shame of others would come within this widespread net, the praise
of a class might not be free from risk. Much that is regarded as
standard literature might undoubtedly be caught.
The Advocate General has rightly said that the Press Act extend
far beyond the criminal law of India and the burden of proof is cast
on the applicant to that however meritorious the pamphlet may be
still if the applicant establishes the negative the Act requires, the
application must fail. And what is the negative? It is not enough for
the applicant to show that the words of the pamphlet in question
are not likely to bring into hatred or contempt to any class or
section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India or that they have
that tendency either directly or indirectly and whether by way of
NALSAR Pro
inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor or implication. Nor is

that all, for we find that the legislature has added to this the all
embracing phrase ‘or otherwise’.” The Chief Justice concluded
saying, Mr, Muhammad Ali then has lost his book but he has
retained his character, and he is free from the stigma that he
apprehended. And this doubtless will be some consolation to him
when we dismiss, as we must, his present application”.
Justice TV Sheshagiri Ayyar said that the first obnoxious feature

was that it substituted the discretion of the executive for the rights
of publicity, audience and appeal. Secondly it specifically violated
the first principle of jurisprudence by directing the accused to
prove that he was innocent. Thirdly, though an appeal was
provided for it has been pointed out in both the Calcutta and the
Madras High Courts that the High Court had no power to question
the discretion of the executive. Furthermore, the provision had the
effect of humiliating the intelligent since the journalists were asked
to furnish security, at the discretion of the Executive, before they
could publish a newspaper. This humiliation no intelligent man
would like to be subjected to and consequently the Act bad been
the cause of considerable disaffection in the country.
The Government of India Act: The Government of India Act was

passed in 1919 and some reforms were initiated under a heavy
pressure of growing nationalist movement. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru
was appointed as the first Indian Law Member. He has headed a
committee to study the working of the India Press Act 1910. The
committee recommended the repeal of the Act.
The press vigorously participated in building the struggle for

freedom. It went on exposing the commissions and omissions of
the British administrators and inspired the masses to move and
fight for independence. The news of the struggle, arrest of the
leaders found more space in these newspapers.
NALSAR Pro
2.10. The Bold and Fearless Press & its Oppression by the
Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931:
Within two decades the British Administration in Indian felt the

need for a most powerful legislative weapon to deter and detain
the speech and expression. Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act
1931 is another piece of draconian legislation aimed at curbing the
journalistic right and containing the expressions of thoughts by
the journalists who were mostly the leaders of the nationalist
movement. This Act has been enacted apparently for curbing the
writing which incites murder or other crimes or violence. This Act
also provides for deposit of security by the keepers of the printing
presses. The Provisional Government was empowered to forfeit the
security under certain circumstances. It also provided for deposit
of value not less than Rs 1000 and not more than Rs 10,000 as a
security in advance, at the time of seeking fresh declaration to start
a newspaper as decided by the magistrate. If even after the
forfeiture of the security and the deposit of new security, the
newspaper published objectionable matter, the Provisional
Government could forfeit the new security also. These provisions
were made equally applicable to the publishers of newspapers
also. Section XI penalized keeping of presses or publishing of
newspapers without making the deposit as required by the
Provincial Government or Magistrate. If a press did not deposit
the security but when on doing its work, it could be forfeited to
His Majesty and the declaration of the publisher was liable to be
cancelled.
This Act marks the return of heavy deposit of money as

security and other regulations, which made the newspaper
publisher and editor subject to the executive orders of executive
officers. A magistrate may authorize any person to publish a
newspaper or news-sheets from time to time. Any police officer is
empowered for that purpose by the Provincial Government could
seize any unauthorized news-sheet or unauthorized newspaper
wherever found. The unauthorized news-sheets or newspapers
NALSAR Pro
were to be produced before the magistrate and could be ordered

to be destroyed. The Government was given powers to seize and
forfeit undeclared presses producing unauthorized news-sheets
and newspapers. The penalty for disseminating unauthorized
news-sheets and newspapers was imprisonment upto 6 months
with or without fine. The Provision Government was also given
powers to declare certain publications forfeited to His Majesty and
also issue search warrants for the same. The customs officers were
empowered to detain certain packages of publications when
imported into British India. The Post office and the Government
were empowered to disallow any transmission of unauthorized
newspapers or news-sheets. There are however, certain provisions
of going in appeal to High Court against the orders of forfeiture.
The special bench of three judges had to be constituted for
hearing of those appeals.
Thus the regime of security deposits and forfeitures for writing

an objectionable matter has come back, and declaration was made
vulnerable of cancellation, though it was not a licence. The
sweeping powers given by this new legislation were meant for
suppressing the nationalist movement and its reflection in more
vociferous nationalist press. The publication of the photographs of
national movement leaders was considered to be having tendency
to encourage the movement and thus provided enough excuse for
the government to use the weapon of the Indian Press (Emergency
Powers) Act, 1931. The Government imposed several restrictions
on the press, for example the publication of the speeches and
messages of leaders arrested, the statements issued from the
leaders from jail, ‘exaggerated’ reports of political events, notices
and advertisement of meetings, processions and other activities
tending to promote civil disobedience movement or any other
matter in furtherance of the same.
The Government both at the Center and Provinces extensively

used the power available under this oppressive legislation and
many newspapers were forfeited. The printers and publishers of
NALSAR Pro
the Bombay Chronicle were required to deposit Rs. 3000 each for
publishing an article penned by Horniman. Similar demand was
made from Anand Bazar patrika to deposit Rs 1000. The Liberty of
Calcutta was required to pay Rs 6000 as deposit. The Free journal
was asked to deposit Rs. 6,000 which was later forfeited by the
Bombay Government.
This Act was the most powerful weapon in the hands of

dictatorial British Administrators, heavily used to suppress the
nationalist leaders and curb the spread of their messages.
Absolutely the reign of terror continued with the 1931 legislation
against the leaders, workers and journalists who were opposing
the Foreign Rule.
2.11. Foreign Relations Act of 1932:
Apart from the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931,

the British Rulers brought in another ordinance in 1931, which was
replaced by Foreign Relations Act of 1932, which again was a
weapon to muzzle the press. The Government was empowered to
penalize the publications calculated to interfere in the
maintenance of good relations between His Majesty’s Government
and friendly foreign countries. The Government felt it was insecure
as some of the journals were criticizing its policies in adjoining
states.
2.12. Some More Oppressive Laws:
Above all these specific enactments against the press, the

Indian Penal Code also contained several lethal provisions, which
could be used against the press with serious penal consequences.
The Foreign Relations Act of 1932 provided that where an offence
under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code was committed
against the ruler of a State outside states adjoining India, or
against the consort or son of Principal Minister of such a ruler, the
Governor General in Council might make or authorize any person
NALSAR Pro
to make, a complaint in writing of such an offence and any court

competent in other respects to take cognizance of such offence
might take cognizance of that complaint. Any book newspaper or
other document containing such specified defamatory matter
which tended to prejudice the maintenance of friendly relations
between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of such
State, could be treated in the same manner as seditious literature.
The powers available under Press Act were further enhanced and
the scope for taking immediate action against the press was much
more widened by promulgating four ordinances for maintenance
of law and order. Their aim was curbing the encouragement to civil
disobedience movement from every quarter of the country and to
protect the ‘reputation’ of the British Administration from
‘unreasonable’ attacks in the press. It provided authorities with
powers to deal with bands or demonstrators organized on semi-
military lines, for the purpose of entering and spreading
disaffection in the territories of the Indian States.
These four laws continued to be in force up to 1939 when the

World War II broke out. The Government was thirst for some more
powers to curb the resentment of the people against their
repressive regime and brought in the Defence of India Act and
Rules in 1939. These rules empowered the Government to control
the Indian Press for six long years. Any newspaper that dared to
violate these Defence of India Rules was severely dealt with. The
Act and Rules lapsed after the end of the Second World War. Till
then the British Administrators used it to bombard the press and
suppress the raising voices.
2.13. The PTI:
After the intensive agitation for independence and highly

suppressive measures by the British India Rulers, in a free India, a
most historic event happened- the Press Trust of India Limited was
formed in 1948. The PTI took over the task of supervising the flow
of news to and from India. There was an agreement with Reuter’s
NALSAR Pro
news agency, which enabled the Indian Press to get total control
over its internal news flow. This Trust is a non-profit making
organization wherein the members are from the newspapers. PTI
later became an independent and full-fledged Organization and
free from the Reuters.
2.14. Review of the Press Law in Independent India
By the time India became independent, there were several

oppressive legislations dealing with the press. There was a need to
review and reframe the press law repealing the provisions, which
were tools in the hands of suppressive British Regime. The
Government of India had constituted a Press Law Enquiry
Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Ganganath Jha. The
job of the Committee was to collect all the existing laws and make
recommendations to modify and make them suitable to the
changed circumstances. The Central Legislature nominated some
members to the committee. The Indian Newspapers Editors’
Conference recommended three editors as the members. The
Committee made a thorough study of existing law of the press in
India and recommended the following:
1. There is a need to add one explanation to Section 153A of
Indian Penal Code (Promoting enmity between classes) to the
effect that it does not amount to an offence under that
section to advocate a change in the social or economic orders
provided such advocacy does not involve violence.
2. Repeal of the Indian States (Protection) Act of 1934.
3. Repeal of the Foreign Regulations Act of 1932.
4. The Press Advisory Committee should be constituted and it
has to be necessarily consulted by the Provincial Government
before taking any action against the press under Emergency
Powers legislation.
5. There is a need to repeal the Indian Press (Emergency
Powers) Act of 1932 but it was also suggested that certain
NALSAR Pro
provisions of that Act, which did not find place in the ordinary
law of the country’s should be incorporated at suitable
places.
6. Regarding Sedition, Section 124A of Indian Penal Code
should be amended so as to apply to the acts or words,
which either incite disorder or are intended or tend to incite
disorder.
7. The enormous powers available under section 144 of Criminal
Procedure Code should not be applied to the press and
separate provision should be made, if necessary, for dealing
with the press in urgent cases of apprehended danger.
8. A new provision should be made in the law to empower the
courts to order the closing down of a press for a special
period in case of repeated violations of law.
Though some of these recommendations are very constructive,

the committee pleaded for retention of certain sweeping powers
with the administration and even some provisions from the
draconian legislation were recommended to be incorporated in
the ordinary legislation. It is absolutely contradictory to the
concept of freedom of the media as part of freedom of speech and
expression to suggest the provisions for closing down of a
newspaper office under the orders from the court of law.
2.15. Freedom of the Press as Fundamental Right
Then the press freedom was assured by the founders of

Constitution of India that came into force from 26th January 1950.
Liberty of thought and expression found a respectable place in the
Preamble and in Part III, however, with some reasonable
restrictions. The judiciary came to the rescue of the media freedom
whenever there was an attempt by the rulers to bring in any
oppressive legislation to curb this fundamental right.
2.16. First Amendment to the Constitution

NALSAR Pro
The First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951, i.e., the very

first year after the Constitution came into force, was necessitated
by the judicial decisions in favour of free press. Three additional
grounds were added to Article 19(2) to curb the freedom of the
press. Thus the security of states, friendly relations with foreign
states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court,
defamation and incitement to offences can be the reasons for
limiting the freedom of speech and expression.
2.17. The Press (Objectionable Matters) Act: The New Press

Law
During the course of debate in Parliament on the Constitution

(First Amendment) Bill in 1951, there was a proposal to introduce a
Press Bill, exclusively dealing with the press freedom and possible
limitations over it, which is almost similar to the Indian Press
(Emergency Powers) Act of 1931 without those very objectionable
provisions. The Press (Incitement to Crimes) Bill was introduced in
1951. The name of the Bill was changed. The President assented to
it. The salient features of this law are as follows:
1. It is aimed at penalizing the incitement of violence and the

scurrilous writings.
2. Pre-censorship was totally opposed.
3. No action shall be taken against the newspaper unless it
actually abused its freedom by the publication of some
objectionable matter.
4. No demand of security arbitrarily.
5. Security can be asked only on proof of abuse of freedom of
press by publication of objectionable matter.
6. The demand of security or its forfeiture has to be made only
by the Sessions Judge and not by the executive.
NALSAR Pro
7. The Sessions Judge shall pass such orders only after full-
fledged trial.
8. The Sessions Judge has to hear both the Government and the
keeper of the press or publisher of a newspaper.
9. The publisher or the keeper of press could claim the right to
be tried b a special jury composed of persons particularly
qualified to sit in judgment over cases of abuse of the
freedom of the press.
10. A right of appeal shall be provided to the High Court on all
points involved in every case.
11. The amount of security was not to be excessive and in no
case more than the amount specified in the complaint made
by the competent authority was to be ordered.
12. Provision was made for return of the security if no further
action was taken in respect of the press o the newspaper or
news-sheet for a period of two years from the date of
deposit.
13. Provision was made against double penalty.
14. Any offence punishable under the Act and any abetment of
such offence were made cognizable and bailable.
15. This Act repealed all earlier laws relating to the press.
2.18. What is Objectionable Matter?
The new Act defined what the objectionable matter is. Because
it was crucial as it decides the offence or otherwise of the
publication. Section 3 of the Act defines the expression
‘objectionable matter’ as follows: “Objectionable matter means any
words, signs, or visible representations which are likely to incite or
encourage any person to resort to violence or sabotage for the
purpose of overthrowing or undermining the Government
established by law in India or in any State thereof or its authority in
NALSAR Pro
any area; or incite or encourage any person to commit murder,

sabotage or any offence involving violence; or incite or encourage
any person to interfere with the supply and distribution of food or
other essential commodities or with essential services; or to seduce
any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the
police forces from his allegiance to his duty or prejudice the
recruiting of persons to serve in any such force or prejudice the
discipline of any such force; or promote the feelings of enmity or
hatred between different sections of the people of India; or which
are grossly indecent or scurrilous or obscene or intended for
blackmail.
The legislation was bitterly opposed by the press and people

from every corner of the country even while it was being passed.
However the Bill was passed and the Act remained in force for two
years, which was reviewed and extended for another two years and
finally it was allowed to lapse in 1954.
2.19. First Press Commission
The Government of India appointed the first press Commission

on 23rd September 1952 consisting of 11 members under the
Chairmanship of Justice G.S. Rajadhyaksha. The Commission
submitted its report in August 1954. One of the significant
recommendations of this Commission was establishment of the
Press Council of India consisting of 25 members of whom 13 or
more were to be working journalists of standing in the profession
including the working editors. Either former or sitting judge of a
High Court has to be appointed as the Chairman. It has to
safeguard the freedom of the press and help the press to maintain
its independence, apart from making all efforts to promote
professional standards.
1. The First Press Commission recommended that the State

Trading Corporation for Newsprint was to be entrusted with
the monopoly of imports and could take over the entire output
NALSAR Pro
of Indian Paper Mills on a fair basis and sell the same along
with imported newsprint at equated prices.
2. The Commission also recommended that the publication of

newspapers and periodicals should be made a central
responsibility. It suggested the banning of cross-word puzzle
competition forms, introduction of price page schedule for
newspapers and suggested that advertisement should not
cover more than 40 per cent of total space.
3. The Commission pleaded for single unit papers and suggested
that in case of multiple editions, each unit should be separated
from the others in the matter of accounts. It was discouraging
the chains also. Where a chain consisted of a number of
groups, each group was to be separated from the others.
4. It also suggested adoption of a strict code of advertising by an

association of publishers. The Commission recommended
enactment of legislation to regulate the newspaper industry
making it punishable with fine or imprisonment to give
fraudulent advertisement.
5. The Commission opposed the concentration of ownership of

Indian newspapers and advised the review of situation by the
Press Council at the end of five years and to make appropriate
recommendations on newspapers ownership issue.
6. The Commission advocated no role for the state in control over
news agencies. The news agencies should not be owned or
controlled by the State and any assistance from the State to
the news agencies should be without strings attached. The
State should have no voice in the control of the agency either
editorially or administratively.
7. Referring to Management of Press Trust of India the

Commission recommended that a public corporation based on
the existing organization but controlled by a Board of Trustees
under a chairman to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India
NALSAR Pro
to manage the PTI. No organizational changes were suggested

for United News of India. It also suggested provision of
representation to employees on the Board of Trustees.
After Independence several laws relating to press were passed.

Delivery of Books and Newspapers (Public Libraries) Act 1954, the
Working Journalists’ (Conditions of Service & Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1955, The Newspapers (Price and Page) Act, 1956,
Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act 1960 are
some of them. The Constitution of India was amended relating to
provisions concerning the freedom of speech and expression.
Prasar Bharathi was passed to regulate the management of Radio
and Television under government. The Cable Act was made. The
Broadcast Regulation Bill is being revised. Several sections of
Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code deal with
definition of offences, prescription of punishments and procedure
for trial, concerning the media. Information Technology Act, 2000
is amended in 2008 which has several provisions affecting the
media, especially the new media Internet.
History of media legislation continues, as several new

enactments deal with the freedom of speech and expression.
Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006, is latest on the list.
Right to Information Act 2005 provide new tool for citizens
including the media to secure information. With Information
Technology and the Internet, supported by the access right (Right
to information) the citizen journalism has emerged in cyber space
making it possible for every one to post his opinions, writings,
criticism etc on websites, blogs and facebook like groups.
NALSAR Pro

History of Media Legislation in India PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

History of Media Legislation in India PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Media Legislation in India PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER II

2. HISTORY OF MEDIA AND

The media history in India begins with the launching of various

2.2. End of Censorship:

During 1818 the Censorship of the press was abolished, which

2.3. Munro Reforms and the Press:

The Government of India asked Sir Thomas Munro to study the

2.4. Sir Metcalfe’s Contribution:

These regulations were in force till 1835, when Sir Charles

2.5. The Vernacular Press:

After the first freedom struggle in 1857, the vernacular press

2.6. Vernacular Press Act:

2.7. The press and freedom struggle:

The partition of Bengal was one of the painful historic events in

2.8. The Newspapers (Incitement of Offences) Act, 1908:

The Newspapers (Incitement of Offences) Act,1908 was passed.

2.9. The Indian Press Act 1910:

The Indian Press Act 1910 empowered the magistrate to

deposit of Rs.500 minimum to Rs 5000 maximum from the existing

The scope of definition of seditious publication was enlarged

Calcutta High Court was very critical of Section 4 of Indian

inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor or implication. Nor is

Justice TV Sheshagiri Ayyar said that the first obnoxious feature

The Government of India Act: The Government of India Act was

The press vigorously participated in building the struggle for

Within two decades the British Administration in Indian felt the

This Act marks the return of heavy deposit of money as

were to be produced before the magistrate and could be ordered

Thus the regime of security deposits and forfeitures for writing

The Government both at the Center and Provinces extensively

This Act was the most powerful weapon in the hands of

2.11. Foreign Relations Act of 1932:

Apart from the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931,

2.12. Some More Oppressive Laws:

Above all these specific enactments against the press, the

to make, a complaint in writing of such an offence and any court

These four laws continued to be in force up to 1939 when the

2.13. The PTI:

After the intensive agitation for independence and highly

2.14. Review of the Press Law in Independent India

By the time India became independent, there were several

Though some of these recommendations are very constructive,

2.15. Freedom of the Press as Fundamental Right

Then the press freedom was assured by the founders of

2.16. First Amendment to the Constitution

The First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951, i.e., the very

2.17. The Press (Objectionable Matters) Act: The New Press

During the course of debate in Parliament on the Constitution

1. It is aimed at penalizing the incitement of violence and the

2.18. What is Objectionable Matter?

any area; or incite or encourage any person to commit murder,

The legislation was bitterly opposed by the press and people

2.19. First Press Commission

The Government of India appointed the first press Commission

1. The First Press Commission recommended that the State

2. The Commission also recommended that the publication of

4. It also suggested adoption of a strict code of advertising by an