Does the restriction of the press fall below particular circumstances below Article 19 (2)?

Tap to follow:

Does the restriction of the press fall under the special cases referred to in Article 19 (2), written by Avdhesh Parashar, a student at Maharashtra National Law University Aurangabad?



A private news organization distributed papers, documented petitions against the state, and tested the agency’s newsprint strategy, which limited the number of pages a paper could qualify for printing. The sales organization scrutinized the sacred legitimacy of the Newspaper Act (Price and Page) of 1956, which allowed the central government to manage the cost of paper according to its pages and the allocation of space for the publication of topics.
The sales organization also checked that the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, adopted by the authority under the Newspaper Act, abuses the right to freedom of expression and that articulation is guaranteed in accordance with Article 19 paragraph 1. (a) the Indian Constitution.


The state’s guidelines assert that the guideline’s aim was to prevent off-line rivalries and the rise of infrastructural restrictions within the paper business. Because of the economies of scale, the establishment of enormous papers were able to keep costs at a level that the more recent and modest papers could not keep up with and which could not subsequently enter the market and be effectively present would be forced to exit by he offers one of the furnishing papers.
It is also argued that the guidelines should promote freedom of expression and articulation by opening up the market. The state tried to legitimize its activities by describing them as sensible restrictions on the business of paper offices for reasons of public interest.
In any event, the Hon’ble Court dismissed each of these disputes, ruling that the Newspaper Act and Newspaper Ordinance were illegal.


It was ruled by the Hon’ble Court that the Newspaper Act and Newspaper Ordinance were illegal and the plaintiffs pleading was upheld by the court. After adequately settling the current issue, an undisputed decision of the court ruled that the distribution of paper is not only related to the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation, but also to run a business under Article 19 (1) (g). which basically indicated sensible restrictions on the paper business.
One non-exceptional remark was made by Judge Mudholkar in the judgment that Article 19 (1) (a) covered both the subject matter and the scope of the paper. The contested directive entails a direct restriction on the circulation and volume of the paper, and in that sense this was an encroachment on the privilege of the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation and is not saved by the special case provided for in Article 19 paragraph 2. This is one of the milestone decisions that the press set out in the Indian Statute as an opportunity to reiterate that it is a violation of Article 19 (1) (a) to limit the number of pages, costs, promotions and paper flow.
Because of Bennett Coleman & Co. against Union of India [AIR 1973 SC 106]The dominant part stressed that the right to freedom of expression and articulation is not only in the scope of the course but also in the scope of the news.
Justice Ray made a remark in his ruling that the press opportunity qualifies the papers for achieving any volume of circulation and the press opportunity is both subjective and quantitative so that the opportunity is available for both use and content. As a result, the court rejected the Newspaper Printing Directive established by the Authority in the period 1972-1973 as a violation of Article 19 (1) (a), as the provisions mentioned in the approach did not fall under one of the provisions, the special cases mentioned in Article 19 (2).

Comments are closed.