Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Binoo K. John vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 18 September, 1985 cites

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961

3. The freedom of the press is nothing but the freedom of the citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This fundamental right, however, is not absolute although the liberty of the press is essential for the smooth functioning of a democratic system of Government. The freedom of the press therefore, is not higher than the freedom of a citizen. It is subject to the same restrictions as are imposed on a citizen by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In other words, subject to such restrictions that may be imposed under Article 19(2), fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) carries with it the right to publish and circulate one's own ideas and views. (Vide Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 144 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 October, 1972

15. The freedom of Press therefore is exercisable, subject of course to such reasonable restrictions that are imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. To decide the issue before us, it is however, unnecessary to go into this aspect of the matter. It is enough if it is understood that "freedom of the press is both qualitative and quantitative. Freedom lies both in circulation and in content." Vide Bennett Coleman & Co. case .
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 330 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Pandit M. S. M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha And Others on 12 December, 1958

The Supreme Court in M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha , relied on this decision of the Privy Council and held that, "Further, being only a right (freedom of the press) flowing from the freedom of speech and expression, the liberty of the Press in India stands on no higher footing than the freedom of speech and expression of a citizen and that no privilege attaches to the Press as such, that is to say, as distinct from the freedom of the citizen."
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978

As observed by the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case "Visits to prisoners by family and friends are a solace in insulation and only a dehumanised system can derive vicarious delight in depriving prison inmates of this humane amenity;" The Supreme Court in conclusion has said, "....Subject to considerations of security and discipline, liberal visits by family members, close friends and legitimate callers, are part of the prisoners' kit of rights and shall be respected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 442 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Prabha Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 November, 1981

In the case on hand the Superintendent has not refused permission. However, the Government by Ext. P2, without assigning any reason, except to say that such permission cannot be granted under the guidelines, has refused permission for the interview. As the Supreme Court held in Prabha Dutt's case 1982 Cri. LJ 148 only for weighty reasons, which, however, should always be recorded in writing, interview requested for, can appropriately be refused. The rejection of the request of the petitioner for permission to interview Vellathooval Stephen and Somaduttan by Ext. P2, therefore, is liable to be vacated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next