ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

SESSION -2023-24
Project Work
SUBJECT- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- II

B.A.LLB (Hons) ,4th SEMESTER

TOPIC- SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF RIGHT TO FREEOM OF PRESS UNDER

ARTICLE 19(1)(a)

SUBMITTED BY : GHUFRAN AHMAD

Section-A
Roll No.-22LLBWA128

Enroll. No.-GM2089

SUBMITTED TO : PROF. SAIM FAROOQI

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
FACULTY OF LAW
Aligarh Muslim University

Date of Submission – MARCH 28, 2024

 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

HEADING PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………… 3

2. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PRESS………………………………………… 4

3. IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PRESS……………………………… 5-6

4. SCOPE OF FREEDOM OF PRESS……………………………………….. 7-9

5. LANDMARK CASE LAWS………………………………………………. 10-12

6. CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS UPON THE RIGHT TO PRESS… 12-14

7. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………… 15

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………… 16

9. WEBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………. 17

1
 TABLE OF CASES:

• Name of the Case Page No.

1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124………………………….. 5,

2. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi; AIR 1950 SC 129………………………………… 6

3. Indian Express Daily Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515……………….. 5,

4. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106……………………. 11

5. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264………………………….. 11

6. Sakal Newspapers (Private) Ltd. V. Union of India , AIR 1960 SC 305…………. 4

7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865…………………………. 6

8. LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171…………………………………….6

9. Tata Press v. Mahanagar Phone Nigam Ltd, AIR 1995 SC 264………………….. 14

10. State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329……………………………... 11,15

11. Subramanian Swami v Union Of India, AIR 2016 SC 2728……………………… 15

12. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd v SEBI, AIR 2012 SC 3829………….. 9

13. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 162………… 5,

14. Saroj Iyer v Maharashtra Medical (Council) of Indian Medicine , AIR 2002 Bom 97… 7

2
 1. INTRODUCTION

Freedom of the press is universally acknowledged as a fundamental pillar of democracy, serving

as a watchdog, disseminator of information, and catalyst for societal change. In India, this
cherished right finds expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right
to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the freedom of the press. However, like all
fundamental rights, the right to freedom of the press is not absolute and is subject to certain
limitations and restrictions aimed at balancing individual liberties with broader societal interests.

This comprehensive assignment paper aims to delve into the multifaceted aspects of the scope and
limitations of the right to freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a). In any democratic system
reliant on voting, the presence of a free press is indispensable. It serves as a vital mechanism for
ensuring transparency, accountability, and integrity within governance. Over the past decade,
especially, our experience underscores the necessity of a vigilant and unrestricted press to combat
corruption and acts of treason. By subjecting governmental actions to scrutiny and providing
insightful commentary, the press can effectively galvanize public awareness and opinion. By
scrutinizing government actions and providing insightful commentary, the press helps enforce
accountability among elected officials. As we enter a new era, it is crucial to recognize and protect
the press’s role as a guardian of democratic values.

3
 2. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PRESS:

The right to freedom of the press was not originally enshrined in the Indian Constitution. However,
it has evolved over time through landmark judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, which have
incorporated the right to press as an integral part of the Fundamental Right to 'Freedom of Speech
and Expression' under Article 19(1)(a).1 This right is closely linked to the broader concept of free
discourse, allowing individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and sentiments without
censorship.
Freedom of speech and expression encompasses various forms of communication, including
spoken and written words, gestures, illustrations, and signs. It essentially refers to the liberty of
individuals to speak, express, criticize, and convey their views openly. This can be achieved
through spoken words, written articles, or any form of communication conveying a message or
idea. Freedom of the press, in particular, pertains to the ability to print and disseminate information
without undue interference from the government or other authorities. It enables newspapers,
magazines, and other print media to address various issues and news to the public without
censorship or constraints. As technology has advanced, new forms of media have emerged,
including electronic media such as television, radio, and the internet. This expansion has broadened
the concept of freedom of the press to include not only traditional print media but also electronic
platforms that disseminate information to a wider audience. Essentially, freedom of the press
ensures that journalists and media organizations can report news, share opinions, and educate the
public without fear of retaliation or censorship. Unlike the Constitution of the United States, the
Indian Constitution does not explicitly use the term "freedom of the press." However, the concept
is encompassed within the broader right to freedom of expression. This includes the liberty to
disseminate ideas, which is guaranteed by the freedom to publish and circulate information without
prior permission. Essentially, the press is just another form of expression for individuals or citizens.

Press editors and managers are all citizens, and when they write in newspapers, they are thereby
exercising their individual right of expression.2 It is then, settled law in India that the right of
freedom of speech and expression includes the liberty of the press as well.3

1
The Constitution of India,art. 19, Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. - (1) All
citizens shall have the right-(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
2
B.R. Ambedkar, VIII C.A.D. 726.
3
Sakal Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India , AIR 1960 SC 305.

4
 3. IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PRESS:

3.1. Free Trade of Ideas:

The flexibility of the press encourages open talks and the trade of thoughts, basic for a dynamic
vote-based system. This rule was emphasized in the point of interest case of Romesh Thapar v.
State of Madras4, where the Apex Court held that opportunity of discourse and expression
incorporates the flexibility of the press. The court highlighted that a free press is crucial for a law-
based society as it acts as a vehicle for the dispersal of thoughts and opinions. Furthermore, in
another leading case the Supreme Court maintained the significance of opportunity of the press in
keeping up open mindfulness and guaranteeing government responsibility. The court emphasized
that the press plays a crucial part in illuminating citizens around things of open intrigued and
holding government authorities responsible for their actions.5

3.2. Holding People or Substances Accountable:

The press serves as a guard dog by holding people or substances responsible for their activities.
This was apparent in the case of Indian Express Daily papers v. Union of India 6, where the Apex
Court emphasized the part of the media in uncovering debasement and maladministration. The
court emphasized that the press acts as a check on government control by revealing wrongdoing
and guaranteeing straightforwardness in governance.

3.3. Opening up the Voice of the People:

The press serves as a voice for the marginalized and guarantees that their concerns are brought to
the cutting edge of open talk. In the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India7
the Supreme Court maintained the media's right to report on issues influencing marginalized
communities, such as human rights infringement and natural corruption. The court emphasized
that the media plays a significant part in supporting for social equity and increasing the voices of

4
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
5
Indian Express Daily papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515
6
Ibid.
7
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 162

5
marginalized groups. Furthermore, in Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi8, the Apex Court recognized
the media's part in uncovering government debasement and guaranteeing responsibility. The court
held that flexibility of the press incorporates the right to criticize government authorities and
educate in the open intrigued, in this manner enabling citizens to hold their chosen agents
accountable.

3.4. Fourth Pillar of Democracy:

The press is regularly alluded to as the fourth column of majority rule government due to its part
in guaranteeing government responsibility and straightforwardness. In the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Raj Narain 9, the Honorable Apex Court emphasized the significance of a free press in
defending law-based standards. The court held that the media plays a crucial part in advising
citizens almost government activities and guaranteeing that chosen agents are held responsible for
their decisions. Additionally, in LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah 10, the Preeminent Court emphasized the
media's part as a guard dog in revealing debasement and guaranteeing straightforwardness in
government dealings. The court emphasized that a free press is fundamental for keeping up open
believe in equitable educate and anticipating the mishandle of control by government officials.

Overall, these cases highlight the vital part of the press in advancing vote-based system, shielding
crucial rights, and holding people and educate responsible for their activities

8
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
9
State of UttarPradesh v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865.
10
LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171

6
 4. SCOPE OF FREEDOM OF PRESS:

Media substances have certain benefits empowering them to scrutinize legislative activities,
highlight issues of open concern, and spread data quickly through different media stages. These
rights include:

4.1. Freedom to Spread Information:

The opportunity to spread information is vital for the press to fulfill its portion as the protect pooch
of society. This adaptability engages journalists to amass, analyze, and spread information to the
open without undue hindrances from the government or other masters. Without this opportunity,
the press would be unfit to serve as a check on control and hold governments and teach dependable
for their actions.

In the point of intrigued case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras11, the Pre-eminent Court
emphasized the centrality of the opportunity to circulate information as an in a general sense parcel
of the adaptability of talk and expression. The court held that any endeavor to limit or cover the
circulation of information would entirety to a encroachment of the central right to opportunity of
expression.

4.2. Right to Criticize:

The press, like any other citizen, has the right to criticize the government, open specialists, courses
of action, and exercises. This right is principal for developing straightforwardness, obligation, and
impartial organization. Criticism serves as a basic component for recognizing and tending to issues
of open concern and progressing awesome governance.12

While the opportunity to criticize is unquestionable in the broader adaptability of expression, it

additionally comes with obligations. Journalists must take after to ethical benchmarks and ensure
that their criticism is sensible, exact, and in the open captivated. Criticism should to be pointed at

11
Supra note 4
12
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1038 (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 7th edn., 2014).

7
moving forward organization and tending to societal challenges or possibly than fundamentally
sensationalizing or attacking individuals or institutions.

4.3. Right to Access Information:

Access to information is crucial for journalists to perform their portion effectively. The press acts
as a bridge between the government and the open, giving citizens with helpful and correct
information around government courses of action, choices, and exercises. Without get to to
information, journalists would be unable to fulfill their commitment to teach the open and hold
those in control accountable. Several true-blue components, such as the Right to Information Act
in India, have been requested to energize get to to information for journalists and citizens. These
laws require government workplaces to reveal information in their possession, subject to certain
exclusions. Be that as it may, challenges remain in ensuring full straightforwardness and
obligation, particularly at the state and neighborhood levels.13

4.4.Right to Conduct Interviews:

The opportunity to conduct interviews licenses journalists to gather firsthand information from
sources, pros, and individuals included in specific events or issues. Interviews deliver imperative
bits of information, perspectives, and setting to news stories, improving open conversation and
understanding. By locks in with a varying expand of voices and suppositions, journalists can
provide a more comprehensive and nuanced portrayal of events and issues.

4.5. Right to Report Court Proceedings:

In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation ltd v SEBI,14 the Supreme Court held that it is the right
of the media to report the judicial proceedings. In Saroj Iyer v Maharashtra Medical (Council) of

13
Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India 276 (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 10th edn., 2021).
14
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation ltd v SEBI, AIR 2012 SC 3829

8
Indian Medicine,15 the Supreme Court held that the right to print faithful reports of the legal
proceedings witnessed is available even if it is against quasi-judicial tribunals

4.6. Right to attend and report administrative proceedings:

Similarly, the press has the right to report on definitive methods, checking government social
occasions, hearings, and regulatory strategies. This right is principal for holding government
specialists and workplaces capable for their exercises and choices. While administrative strategies
may not ceaselessly get the same level of open thought as court cases, they can have essential
proposals for open approach for public good, governance and securing rights of the individual.
Therefore, the press’s right to enquire and report on these strategies is essential for ensuring
straightforwardness, obligation, and open participation in the decision making process.

4.7. Freedom to Serve as an Advertising Platform:

We know that the major income of most of the presses comes from the advertisement, whether it
is a radio, or news channel, or mobile application, or newspaper. It was after Tata Press v
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam16 that the Supreme Court incorporated the right to advertisement as
a part of the right to freedom of expression

4.8. Right to Broadcast:

In the digital era, broadcasting plays a vital role in disseminating information through various
channels like TV, radio, and online platforms, reaching a wide audience in real-time. This
accessibility empowers journalists to cover breaking news, conduct interviews, and present
investigative reports. However, with this opportunity comes the responsibility to uphold ethical
standards, accuracy, integrity, and respect for individuals’ rights. By maintaining these
principles,the press can continue to serve as a cornerstone of democracy, facilitating open
discourse and holding those in power accountable.17

15
Saroj Iyer v Maharashtra Medical (Council) of Indian Medicine , AIR 2002 Bom 97
16
Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam, AIR 1995 SC 2438
17
Supra note 12 at 1042

9
 5. LANDMARK CASE LAWS

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras;

In the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras18, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of
Section 9(1)(A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act,19 which aimed to impose
limitations on the freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The
court ruled that the notification prohibiting the entry, circulation, sale, or distribution of a weekly
journal called Cross Road in the state of Madras was invalid. The government argued that the Act
was necessary for public order maintenance, which was within the scope of Article 19(2) allowing
restrictions on freedom of speech for the security of the state. However, the court rejected this
argument, stating that the Constitution did not include public safety or maintenance of public order
as grounds for restraining freedom of expression under Article 19(2). It emphasized that
restrictions on freedom of expression could only be justified in cases where there is a clear danger
to the security of the nation. Therefore, any law that could potentially be applied in situations not
involving such danger cannot be considered constitutional or valid in any form.

• Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi;

In the legal case Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi,20 the Supreme Court invalidated an order issued
under section 7(0) of the East Punjab Safety Act of 1950. This order required the editor and
publisher of the newspaper Organizers to submit all communal matters, news, views about
Pakistan, including photographs and cartoons, for scrutiny in duplicate before publication.

The court ruled that enforcing pre-censorship on a journal constitutes a constraint on the freedom
of the press, which is an integral aspect of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It underscored that imposing such restrictions based on
grounds of public safety or order is not permissible under the law.

• Express Daily Papers v. Union of India;

18
Supra note 4
19
The impugned Act authorized the state government to prohibit or regulate the entry into, or the circulation, sale or
distribution in, the province of Madras of any document or class of documents for the purpose of securing the safety
of the public or maintaining public order in the province.
20
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 129

10
In the case of Express Daily papers v. Union of India,21 the legality of the Working Journalists Act,
1955, was addressed. This Act was outlined to address different angles of work in the daily paper
industry, counting working conditions, compensation, take off, and hours of work. The contention
against the Act was that it had negative budgetary suggestions for daily papers, restricting their
circulation and capacity to spread data, in this manner encroaching upon Article 19(1)(a) of the
Structure, which ensures the flexibility of discourse and expression. However, the Court held that
the press is not resistant to common laws. The Working Journalists Act was sanctioned to make
strides the working conditions of workers in the daily paper industry, which was regarded
constitutionally substantial and sensible. The enactment pointed to secure the interface of laborers
whereas adjusting the broader societal interface, and in this manner, it was maintained as
constitutional.

• Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India

In the landmark case of Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India,22 the issue at hand was the
government’s imposition of an upper limit on the number of pages newspapers could publish. The
government had introduced the Newsprint Control Order, 1962, which restricted daily newspapers
to a maximum of 10 pages. This restriction was challenged on the grounds that it violated both
Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and
expression and equality before the law, respectively. The judiciary ruled that while the state could
establish policies to ensure fair distribution of newsprint to newspapers, it could not control aspects
such as the growth, circulation, and content of newspapers, including the number of pages they
could publish. Therefore, the court deemed the 1962 Order, which imposed a maximum limit on
newspaper pages, unconstitutional.

• R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu;

In the leading case of R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.23 the issue revolved around prior restrictions
on publishing defamatory material against government officials. The Supreme Court held that the
government lacks the authority to impose such prior restrictions on the press. It ruled that the press

21
Supra note 5
22
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106
23
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., AIR 1995 SC 264

11
cannot be prosecuted for publishing material deemed defamatory to government officials if the
publication is based on public or court records.

6. CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS UPON THE RIGHT TO PRESS

The Indian Constitution enshrines freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right
bestowed upon all Indian citizens. This freedom inherently extends to encompass the rights granted
to the media and press as well. Consequently, any reasonable restrictions applicable to the freedom
of speech and expression under Article 19(2) are also applicable to the freedom of the press. As
such, the liberty enjoyed by both print and electronic media in India can be subject to restrictions
and regulations based on the grounds outlined in Article 19(2).

These reasonable restrictions on the media and press have been briefly discussed as follows with
appropriate cases:-

6.1 Security of the State:

Restrictions on the freedom of the press may be justified in the interest of national security. This
entails curbing any dissemination of news, information, publications, opinions, or other media
content that could potentially disrupt the peace and security of the nation, leading to events such
as rebellion, war, rioting, or breaches of public order.

In the case of State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi,24 the court ruled that any speech or expression by
an individual that incites criminal activities can be deemed detrimental to the security of the state.

6.2 Friendly relations with Foreign States:

The press is prohibited from disseminating any news, information, or content that could potentially
harm or jeopardize the amicable relations between India and foreign states. This restriction aims
to prevent the spread of hostile propaganda that may undermine the peaceful diplomatic relations
maintained by India with other nations.

24
State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329

12
6.3 Public Order.

The press and media face reasonable restrictions concerning public order, which prevent them
from disseminating content that could disrupt societal peace and law and order. These restrictions
were introduced through the First Constitution Amendment Act in 1951. In the case of Romesh
Thappar v. State of Madras,25 the court opined that restrictions on freedom of speech and
expression cannot be imposed merely for routine breaches of public order.

6.4 Sovereignty and Integrity of India.

The press is restrained from making any statement, publication, or broadcast that harms the
sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. This means that freedom of speech and expression,
including press freedom, cannot be exercised if such freedoms undermine India’s authority and
integrity. Section 124A26 of the Indian Penal Code addresses sedition, punishing statements that
incite hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction toward the Indian government.

6.5 Decency or Morality

The press and media are required to ensure that their publications and broadcasts adhere to
standards of decency and morality. This entails refraining from disseminating material that is
obscene or morally questionable, especially to vulnerable audiences.27 Legal provisions, such as
Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, reinforce these restrictions and uphold moral values in public
communication.

25
Supra note 4
26
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s.124A, Sedition.—Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs,
or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into 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 with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added,
or with fine.
27
Id., ss. 292,293.

13
6.6 Contempt of Court:

Contempt of court can be civil or criminal,28 involving intentional disobedience of court orders or
publications that scandalize the judiciary. The Constitution allows courts to punish contempt, so
press freedom must respect judicial authority. Actions undermining the judiciary are not protected
under freedom of expression.

6.7 Defamation

Defamation involves damaging someone’s reputation, either through libel or slander. It’s
prohibited under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The press is restricted from publishing
defamatory material. In Subramanian Swami’s case,29 the court recognized the right to reputation
as part of Article 21, emphasizing that freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to defame
others.

6.8 Incitement to an offence:

The press cannot encourage or incite people to commit crimes. This restriction prohibits the
publication or broadcast of material that may provoke individuals to commit offenses. In the case
of Shailabala Devi,30 the court held that freedom of speech and expression must not lead to
incitement of serious crimes like murder.

28
The Contempts Of Courts Act (Act 70 of 1971), s.2
29
Subramaniam Swamy v. UOI, AIR 2016 SC 2728
30
Supra note 24

14
 • CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, freedom of the press, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, is
integral to democracy, serving as a vital mechanism for transparency, accountability, and societal
progress. Despite its importance, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable
restrictions outlined in Article 19(2), such as concerns for national security, public order, and
decency. Through landmark cases, the judiciary has affirmed the press’s role as a watchdog and
protector of democratic values, ensuring its liberty to disseminate information, criticize authority,
and serve as a platform for public discourse. By upholding press freedom within the bounds of
these restrictions, India can maintain a vibrant and responsible media landscape conducive to
democracy and societal welfare.

15
 ©BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• BOOKS REFERRED:

1. JAIN, M P, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 7th Edn.,

2014).
2. SHUKLA, V.N, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, ( Eastern Book Company,
Agra, 13th Edn., 2019)

3. KUMAR NARENDRA, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (Allahabad Law Agency,

Faridabad, 10th Edn., 2021).

4. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,

(Lexisnexis Butterworths, Wadhwa and Company Law Publisher, Nagpur, 8th
Edn., 2007)

• STATUTES REFERRED:

➢ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

➢ THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860( Act 45 of 1860)

16
 • WEBLIOGRAPHY

1.Freedom Of Press In India: Legal Perspective, article available at:

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-11810-freedom-of-press-in-india-legal-
perspective.html

2. Press Freedom in India , article available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/freedom-

of-press-in-india

3. ‘Denying security clearance to a Media Channel for critical views has ‘chilling effect’
on Press Freedom’: Breakdown of Supreme Court’s Media One Verdict , blog available at:
https://blog.scconline.gen.in/post/2023/04/06/sealed-cover-public-interest-immunity-
natural-justice-non-disclosure-of-material-fairer-alternative-open-justice-supreme-court-
cji-chandrachud-hima-kohli-legal-updates-national-security-research-new-2/

17