Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India||Case Summary||1972 2 SCC 788||Freedom of the Press

Freedom of the Press

FACTS

Bennett Coleman & Co., the publisher of The Times of India, challenged the Newsprint Policy of 1972, which restricted the import and allocation of newsprint. The policy limited the number of pages newspapers could publish, disproportionately affecting larger newspapers. The petitioners argued that these restrictions violated their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The government defended the policy, claiming it was necessary to ensure the equitable distribution of limited newsprint resources and prevent monopolization by large newspapers.

ISSUES

1. Does the restriction on newsprint allocation violate the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?

2. Can the government justify such restrictions on economic grounds?

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press.

2. Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on free speech for reasons such as national security, public order, and defamation, but not economic considerations.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bennett Coleman & Co., holding that the Newsprint Policy violated the fundamental right to free speech. The Court reasoned that:

1. The restriction on newsprint indirectly controlled the content of newspapers, limiting editorial freedom.

2. The government’s justification based on economic regulation was invalid, as Article 19(2) does not allow restrictions on free speech for economic reasons.

3. The right to print and publish is an integral part of the freedom of speech, and limiting pages effectively suppresses press freedom.

SIGNIFICANCE

1. Affirmed press freedom as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).

2. Declared that indirect restrictions on press freedom, even for economic reasons, are unconstitutional.

3. Strengthened protection against government control over media resources.

This case remains a landmark ruling that reinforced the independence of the press in India and set limits on government interference with media operations.

Vinita Pathak