Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.12. In Re: Harijai Singh and another [AIR 1997 SC 73], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"In an organised society, the rights of the Press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded."

8.13. In Sanjoy Narayan Editor in Chief Hindustan & Ors v. Hon. High Court of Allahabad Thr.R.G. [JT 2011(9) SC 74], it was held in para.6 as follows:

11.6 The touchstone to control, restrict and prevent freedom as provided under Art.19(1) are referred in Art.19(2) of the Constitution which are threat of security to the State, public order, integrity and unity of India decency or morality of friendly relation with Foreign States etc. The concept of advocacy, discussion and incitement has to be adjudged in the light of ground for restriction under Art.19(2) of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [2015 5 SCC 1] after observing persuasive value of American decision, held as follows:

11.9. In the context of Press freedom, what could be the prohibited line for the Press? A Press can advocate presidential form of system in India, instead of Parliamentary system. Though this may appear, is against the very basic structure of the Indian Constitution, it will not amount to threat to the State security or results in public order. However, a Press cannot advocate or incite public for control of the State by a particular religion or by use of theocracy in the governance. This would necessarily pose threat to the unity and integrity of the country which composed of plural religious society or communities. An advocacy or incitement has to be differentiated from discussion. A discussion, in normal course is a deliberation of issues among public. A discussion normally cannot have any impact upon the security of the State or Unity and integrity of the State or also of public order. However, advocacy or incitement, necessarily fall within the prohibited line. The objective line of test is based on the purpose of reporting by the Press. Any distorted version with the intention to polarise people on communal line, certainly would fall within the prohibited line. The proximate relationship between advocacy or incitement and threat caused to the unity and integrity of the Nation or security of the State or public order or decency or morality and other areas referred in Article 19 (2), is the gauge to restrict freedom of speech and of the Press. If security of India and sovereignty and integrity of India or friendly relationship with foreign state is imminent, necessarily, it warrants urgent action to deny the very right to function as a Press based on the registration. It all depends upon the assessment of the dissemination of information and ideas reported for such action. In the matter relating to the public order or decency or morality, it is also open for the State to regulate activity to remove the evil. As has been noted it is all for the State to adjudge after analysing the function of the Press.

13.6. However, due procedure has a different connotation when substantive scrutiny is made based on the materials relied on to take action even based on the grounds referred under Art.19(2) of the Constitution. It is to be noted that the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information Broadcasting, issued an advertisement policy in respect of advertisements to be published by various Ministries and Governmental organisations of India. By the above policy, the Union Government has taken a decision to avoid releasing advertisements to newspapers/journals which incite or tend to incite communal passion, preach violence, offend sovereignty and integrity of India or socially accepted norms of public decency and behaviour. The Government undoubtedly have enough power to regulate freedom of Press. There are large number of newspapers which have got registration and being published from the State. The Government of India has a definite policy to deal with similar issues, in a sense that all the publishers would have to satisfy the norms as laid down in the policy. This is essentially required when there are numerous players operating and the same shall apply equally to all of them. However, nothing is seen from the records as to whether the State has adopted any such policy applicable to all newspapers, though such policy is reflected from the counter affidavit of the Government . Even in the absence of such a policy, the Government is entitled to evolve such norms. But that must be applied in an objective manner to all whom it is intended to govern. Otherwise, it would result in arbitrariness and selective discrimination to deny advertisement. It is a requirement to weed out arbitrariness to formulate a definite procedure by the Government to have a substantive scrutiny of the information provided in the newspaper to deny the advertisement. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned about unguided and unrestricted powers in an authority to affect the rights of a person without laying down any policy or principle which is to guide the authority, in exercise of the power. Thus, this Court is of the view that in the absence of constitution of any mechanism by way of formation of a Committee to assess and evaluate the information and ideas provided in the newspaper, the decision taken to deny advertisement is unjustifiable.