Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 3 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961
12. Admittedly, the purpose for which this prize scheme
was conducted to increase the circulation of the newspaper. The argument
of the petitioner is that by imposing the restriction on the prize
scheme, the attempt or steps taken by the petitioner to increase its
circulation is curtailed. According to the petitioner, in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakal Papers (P) Limited and Others v.
The Union of India (1962 S.C.R. 842) any restriction on the circulation
would amount to restriction on the freedom of press; Therefore, no
restriction can be imposed on the circulation. Inasmuch as the conduct
of prize schemes involving skill, is not unconstitutional, defining such
prize schemes as Unfair Trade Practice amounts to infringement of the
freedom of press. The argument of the State is, that the petitioner
under the guise of freedom of press, indulge in Unfair Trade Practice.
The argument of the third respondent is that, but for the prize
competition, most of the purchasers would not have purchased the
commemorative volume. Therefore, only in order to sell those volumes,
the prize scheme has been introduced. Therefore, it is Unfair Trade
Practice.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950
It referred to the decision in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras ((1950)
S.C.R. 594), where it was held,
" ....freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of
propagation of ideas and that this freedom is ensured by the freedom of
circulation. In that case, this Court has also pointed out that freedom
of speech and expression are the foundation of all democratic functioning
of the processes of democracy. "