NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW

RANCHI

“CASE ANALYSIS”
(Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India)

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

SHISHIR KUMAR JHA Dr. K. SHYAMALA

ROLL NO: 654

SECOND SEMESTER

SECTION A
 OVERVIEW

1. CASE NAME: BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. V. UNION OF INDIA &

ORS.

2. I. PETITIONER: BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. & ORS.

II. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

3. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/1972

4. BENCH:
1. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
2. RAY, A.N.
3. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
4. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN
5. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

5. CITATION: 1973 AIR 106

6. JUDICIAL BODY: SUPREME (COURT OF FINAL APPEAL)

7. TYPE OF LAW: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

8. THEMES: LICENSING/ MEDIA REGULATION

9. 9. TAGS: FREEDOM OF PRESS

 CASE SUMMARY
The petitioners challenged the restrictions on the import of newsprint under
Import Order 1955; the regulation of sale, acquisition, and use of newsprint under
Newsprint Order 1962; and the direct regulation of size and circulation of
newspapers under the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73. They contended that these
orders directly affected the right to freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19(1)(a) of India’s Constitution. The Supreme Court of India accepted this
contention and struck down the impugned orders as unconstitutional.

FACTS
The petitioners are media conglomerates involved in the publication of
newspapers. They challenged the restrictions on the import of newsprint under
Import Control Order 1955 and on the manner in which this is used by newspapers
under the Newsprint Order 1962. Further, the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 placed
further restrictions based on four features: first, no new newspapers may be
started by establishments owning more than two newspapers if at least one of
which is a daily; second, the total number of pages may not exceed ten; third, the
increase in number of pages may not be more than 20% for newspapers that are
under ten pages; and, finally, no-interchangeability of newsprint may permitted
between different newspapers of the same establishment or between different
editions of the same paper. Therefore, the petitioners were not allowed to make
adjustments in circulation, etc., under these newsprint policies even within the
quota limit. This was challenged for violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution.
The respondents argued that the petitions were not maintainable because
companies do not enjoy fundamental rights, which are available only to natural
persons. Further, the respondents argued that Article 358—the Constitution’s
provision for “emergency powers”—barred any challenge on grounds of
fundamental rights. They also proposed a subject-matter test of restriction rather
than an “effects test.” Accordingly, the restrictions were valid because they
regulated the commercial operations of newspapers in order to prevent
monopolies, by which any effect on freedom of expression was incidental.
Finally, they asserted that the question of whether newsprint import must be
increased was a question of policy that could not be challenge on any grounds
except “mala fide.”
 DECISION OVERVIEW
J. Ray delivered the opinion of the court. As a preliminary question, the Supreme
Court observed that the petitions were maintainable. The fact that the petitioners
were companies was not a bar to award relief for violation of the rights of
shareholders and editorial staff (who were also petitioners). Further, the bar under
Article 358 did not apply to laws passed before the proclamation of emergency,
and, therefore, the newsprint policy could be challenged as a continuation of the
previous year’s policy and relevant orders.
On merits, the Court noted that freedom of the press was an essential element of
Article 19(1)(a) and the absence of an express mention of such freedoms as a
special category was irrelevant. Free press was to be regarded as an essential
element of freedom of expression in general. The Court also observed that
shortage of newsprint could be tackled by fixing the quotas. However, direct
interference in terms of page limits and other such regulation was not justified.
The page limit meant that the newspapers would either lose economic viability
due to reduction in advertisements or be forced to reduce news content. This
would limit freedom of expression because, in the first case, circulation
would drop due to increased costs, and, in the second, there were quantitative
restrictions on content.
The Court observed that freedom of the press had both quantitative and
qualitative elements and, therefore, the quantitative controls constituted
restrictions on freedom of expression. Since they were not justified on the basis
of shortage of newsprint, they could not be considered to be reasonable
restrictions. The Court held that the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 was
unconstitutional. However, the Newsprint Order and Import Control Order were
considered not to be the source of these restrictions and were not struck down.
J. Beg, in a concurrence, observed that the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 was
outside the scope of the Import Control Order, which provided only for fixing of
quotas and no further interference. Therefore, the question of whether the
restrictions were reasonable did not arise, as the government action had no legal
basis in the first place.
J. Mathew, in a dissent, observed that there was no direct regulation of content
and that a restriction on number of pages did not mean an abridgment of freedom
of expression. He reasoned that the control of newsprint and regulating its
distribution was necessary to ensure that it was efficiently utilized. Insofar as it
made newsprint utilization efficient and prevented monopoly by a few
newspapers, the policy expanded rather than abridged freedom of speech and
expression. He disagreed with the majority judgment and held that the policy was
not unconstitutional.

CASE SIGNIFICANCE
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its
jurisdiction.
India is a common law country and stare decisis applies. Therefore, the judgment
of the Supreme Court will be binding on all lower courts as well as on the
Supreme Court, unless a larger bench is constituted.

REFERENCES
1. Nimisha Agarwal, Media and Its Role in Indian Democracy, 2 Indian
Journal of Legal Philosophy 294 (2014)

2. Surbhi, Managing Media – A Case Study of Bennett, Coleman and

Company Limited, 3 Mass Communicator 17 (2009)
http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:mcomm&volume=3&i
ssue=3&article=002