Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH PROJECT ON TELECOMMUNICATION,


PRESS AND MEDIA LAW:
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRICTIONS

SUBMITTED TO: - MR. KUMAR GAURAV

SUBMITTED BY:- DEEPAK KUMAR


1015, B.B.A., L.L.B (HONS.)

1 | Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am feeling highly elated to work on the topic “Freedom of Press and
Constitutional Restrictions” under the guidance of my subject teacher.
I am very grateful to her exemplary guidance. I would like to
enlighten my readers regarding this topic and hope that I have done
my best to pave the way for bringing more luminosity to this topic.

I want to thanks my friends because without their co-operation and


knowledge it would have been difficult for me to collect information
for this project. I also want to thanks our librarian who helped me in
collecting every relevant materials regarding to my topic available to
me at the time of my research work.

At last I am obliged to everybody who was part of my project and


helped me to make this project.

Thanking you
Deepak Kumar
C.N.L.U.

2 | Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------- 4

2. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND------------------------------- 6

3. FREEDOM OF PRESS: CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE----10

4. CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS------------------------------ 12

5. CASE LAWS ------------------------------------------------------------- 15

6. CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------- 17

3 | Page
1. INTRODUCTION:-
The strength and importance of media in a democracy is well recognized. Article 19(1) (a) of
the Indian Constitution, which gives freedom of speech and expression includes within its
ambit, freedom of press. The existence of a free, independent and powerful media is the
cornerstone of a democracy, especially of a highly mixed society like India. Press is not only
a medium to express one's feelings, opinions and views, but it is also responsible and
instrumental for building opinions and views on various topics of regional, national and
international agenda.1

The vital role of the media is its ability to mobilize the thinking process of millions. Press can
be used as an important tool of liberty and progress only if is kept free of all restraints except
those that it voluntarily accepts as an earnest of its responsibility with regard to the public.

Press is recognized as the fourth estate i.e. the press has to operate within the framework of
these statutes and constitutional provision to act in public and national interest. This is
symbolic of the fact that nobody is above law. When the Constitution guarantees freedom of
speech and expression to its citizens, it ensures that the freedom is not absolute. They shall
always be subjected to some reasonable restrictions. If the press or media exceeds its
jurisdiction, the courts come forward to ensure that violation of the fundamental rights by the
media does not go unchecked.2

At this juncture, as we are approaching the sixth decade of our freedom, let us keep in mind
the pertinence of freedom of press and what our former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had said
about press freedom:

"Freedom of Press is an Article of Faith with us, sanctified by our Constitution, validated by
four decades of freedom and indispensable to our future as a Nation."3

1
Justice A.N.Grover, Press and the Law (1990); pg 7.
2
http://indialawjournal.com/volume3/issue_4/article_by_dheerajendra.html, accessed on 18th November 2017
3
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/freedom-of-speech-and-expression, accessed on 18th November 2017

4 | Page
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To analyse the concept of freedom of press and its significance in India


2. To discuss the constitutional perspective of freedom of press in India and the reasonable
restrictions imposed in the light of landmark judgements
3. To examine the constitutional provisions of freedom of press in U.S.A in comparison with
India
4. To recommend and suggest measures for ensuring Freedom of Press in India striking a
balance with the other fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is meant by freedom of press? What is its significance in India?


2. Whether the freedom of press is absolute under the Constitution of India? If not what are
the reasonable restrictions that are imposed on this freedom? What are the relevant case
laws with regard to it?
3. What is the role of press in the administration of justice? What are the recent cases
wherein media has played an effective role in advancing justice? What are the cases
wherein media has acted rather irresponsibly?

METHODOLOGY

The researcher has adopted doctrinal method in order to collect information with
regard to the project. The researcher has used textbooks, website, online journals,
case laws, etc.

5 | Page
2. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The chapter on Fundamental rights, Part III in the Indian Constitution, was not incorporated
as a popular concession to international sentiment and thinking on human rights in vogue
after the conclusion of the Second World War. The demand for constitutional guarantees of
human rights for Indians was made as far as way back as in 1895 in the Constitution of India
Bill, popularly called the Swaraj Bill, which was inspired by Lokmanya Tilak, a lawyer and a
great freedom fighter. This bill envisaged for India a Constitution guaranteeing to every
citizen, among other freedoms, the freedom of press.4

Press was introduced into India by British to serve their colonial interests, but was later used
by Indians to foster and profess the Independence struggle. As the role of the press underwent
a major change and it soon turned out to be one of the most effective weapons Indians had at
their disposal during their struggle for freedom from the British. The press was always under
the control of the company, but after it was ferociously being used by revolutionaries as a
medium to express their dissent against the Company's rule, repressive laws were passed and
judgments were given curbing press freedom.

The ‘Founding Fathers and Mothers’ of the Indian Constitution attached great importance to
freedom of speech & expression and the freedom of the press. They believed that freedom of
expression and the freedom of press are indispensable to the operation of a democratic
system. They believed that central to the concept of free press is freedom of political opinion
and at the core of that freedom lies the right to criticize the Government. They endorsed the
thinking of Jawahar Lal Nehru who said5, “I would rather have a completely free press with
all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed and regulated
press.”

According to the constitutional advisor, Dr. B.N. Rau, it was hardly necessary to provide for
the freedom of the press specifically, because freedom of expression would include freedom
of the press.6 In a series of decisions from 1950 onwards the Apex court has ruled that the
freedom of press is implicit in the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.
Consequently freedom of press is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India.

One of the heads of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the draft

4
B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of India’s Constitution: A Study, pp. 219-20.
5
Nehru’s speech on 20th June 1916 in protest against the press Act, 1910
6
B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of India’s Constitution: A Study, pp. 221.

6 | Page
Constitution was ‘sedition’, aptly described by Gandhiji as the ‘Prince of the Indian Penal
Code’. It was frequently invoked to crush the freedom movement and incarnate freedom
fighters, including prominent leaders like Tilak etc. In the heyday of British rule sedition was
construed by the privy Council in the cases of Tilak , Wallace-Johnson and Sadashiv
Bhalerao to include any statement that has even the slightest potential to cause ‘disaffection’,
To restrict speech under the head of ‘sedition’ was galling to the framers of the Constitution.7

FREEDOM OF PRESS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN INDIA

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media
regardless of frontiers".8 Freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s
own convictions and opinions freely by means of mouth, writing, printing pictures or any
other mode. It thus includes the expression of one’s ideas through any communicable medium
or visible representation, such as gesture, signs. It refers to the right to print, publish,
disseminate, circulate and distribute publications without any interference from the state or
any other public authority.

Freedom of press is implicit in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. However, this
Freedom, like any other freedoms, is not absolute and is subject to well known exceptions in
the public interests. Press generally refers to the newspaper industry. But in the modern era,
besides newspapers, there are various forms of news media that includes television, radio
broadcasting and online news websites.9

Freedom of expression has four broad purposes to serve:-

1. It helps an individual to attain self-fulfilment.

2. It assists in the discovery of truth.

3. It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making.

4. It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance


between stability and social change.

In the Romesh Thappar10 case the court laid down an important principle:-

So long as the possibility of the law being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the

7
http://lex-warrier.in/2013/04/a-critical-analysis-on-fundamental-right-of-speech-and expression/#identifier02963,
accessed on 18th November 2017.
8
The United Nations 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
9
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th edition, page- 231.
10
AIR 1950 SC 124.

7 | Page
Constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly unconstitutional and void. In
other words, Clause 2 of Art 19 having allowed the imposition of restrictions on the freedom
of speech and expression only in cases where danger to public security is involved, an
enactment which is capable of being applied to cases where no such danger could arise,
cannot be held to be unconstitutional and valid to any extent.

In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India,11 it has been held that the press plays a
very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the
freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
Freedom of press has three essential elements. They are:

1. Freedom of access to all sources of information,

2. Freedom of publication, and

3. Freedom of circulation.

Art 19(2) was subsequently amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951,
which was enacted with retrospective effect on 18 June, 1951. Art 19(2) was subsequently
amended by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, which was enacted with
prospective.

Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice B.N. Hansaria in the Printers (Mysore) Limited v. State of
Karnataka12 stated that “freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all democratic
countries. The democratic credentials of a State are judged today by the extent of freedom the
press enjoys in that state.”13 Press and media serves as an agency of the people; bringing
forward the real picture of the society. Hence the freedom of press and media is a necessary
pre-requisite in fulfilling the democratic ideologies.

Besides, a free and vigilant press is vital to prevent corruption and injustice, at least to the
extent that public opinion can be aroused as a consequence of press investigations and
comments. In fact, the main purpose of the free press is to create a fourth institution outside
the government to serve as an additional check on the three organs of government namely
executive, legislative and judiciary.

11
AIR 1958 SC 578.
12
1994 SCC (2) 434
13
A.I.R 1994 S.C 23

8 | Page
Some Other Aspects of Freedom of Press:

a) Right To Interview Prisoners.

In Smt. Prabha Dutt v. Union of India14, Supreme Court held that the State cannot refuse an
interviewer from interviewing a prisoner if the convict has assented to that interview. Court
also held that if there is any refusal by the jail authorities then it must be backed by some
weighty reasons. Also the reasons for denying an interview should be recorded in writings.

b) Publication of evidence.

If a court has ordered that the evidence of a witness should not be published in newspapers
then the journalists cannot claim it to be an infringement of their Fundamental Right (Art
19(1) (a)).

c) Fact Finding Committee.

It is not inconsistent with the Art 19(1) (a) for the Central Government to appoint a
committee to enquire into the finances and economics of the newspaper industry.

d) Publication of Government Advertisement.

In Dainik Sambad v. Tripura15, State of Tripura published an advertisement of some of its


policies in all the dailies circulated in the state of Tripura except the petitioner newspaper on
the grounds that the newspaper has previously published some hate articles raising communal
frenzy through its editorials and has always been critical of the Government. The High Court
directed the State Government to distribute its advertisement equally among all newspapers
including the petitioner. The Court said: "Such power should not be used on the newspaper
establishment so as to make the establishment subservient to the Government".

e) Publishing the Conduct of Public Officials.

In Rajgopal case, The Supreme Court held that neither the State nor its agents have any
authority in law to impose any prior restraint on publication of any material in the press on
the ground that it is defamatory of the state or its officers in their public capacity. They can
resort to alternative remedies only after publication by way of suit for defamation.

14
1982 SCR (1)1184
15
AIR 1989 Gau 30

9 | Page
3. FREEDOM OF PRESS: CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
IN INDIA
Freedom of press is not expressly provided under the Constitution of India. It is implied from
the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of
India. In interpretation of this guaranteed right, Patanjali Shastri, J., in Romesh Thapper v.
State of Madras16, remarked that “there can be no doubt that freedom of speech and
expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and that freedom is ensured by the
freedom of circulation. Indeed, without circulation the publication would be of little value.” It
can be restricted provided three distinct and independent prerequisites are satisfied.

1) The restriction imposed must have the authority of law to support it. Freedom of the press
cannot be curtailed by executive orders or administrative instructions which lack the sanction
of law.

2) The law must fall squarely within one or more heads of restrictions specified in Art. 19 (2).
Restrictions on freedom of speech and expression cannot be imposed on such omnibus
grounds as ‘in the interest of the general public’.

3) The restrictions must be reasonable and must not be excessive. The validity of restrictions
imposed is justifiable and open for judicial review by the Indian courts.

Likewise, interpreting the words “freedom of speech and expression” the Madras High Court
observed that “the term ‘freedom of speech and expression” would include the liberty to
propagate not only one’s own views but also the right to print matters which are not one’s
own but have either been borrowed from someone else or are printed under the direction of
that person.”17Hence “liberty of press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and
expression declared by Article 19 (1) (a).”18

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution ensures to all its citizens the liberty of expression.
Freedom of the press has been included as part of freedom of speech and expression under the
Article 19 of the UDHR. The heart of the Article 19 says: “Everyone has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.”

16
1950 S.C.R 594 at 597
17
Srinivasa Bhat v. State of Madras, A.I.R. (1951) Madras 70.
18
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 S.C.R.605.

10 | Page
However being a right emanating from the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of
press in India stands on an equivalent footing as that of a citizen. In other words, press enjoys
no privilege distinct from that guaranteed to a citizen. Thus the guarantee of the above right
would not affect the operation of any existing law, in so far as it is related to, or prevent the
state from making any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any
matter which offended against the decency or morality or which undermined the security of
or which tended to overthrow the state.

There is a whole range of general laws from the Constitution of India—the Press laws, the
Cinematograph Act, the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code etc. which govern
various forms of the media. In addition to these, there are norms of journalistic ethics
prescribed by the Press Council of India, which govern the newspapers; they are not laws, but
professional ethics to be observed by the print media. There are, however, no such guidelines
for the electronic media, since the Press Council has jurisdiction only over the print media.
The electronic media has been consistently resisting prescription of the ethical code by an
independent body like the Press Council.19 After a great deal of public pressure, it has now
established an internal body—the News Broadcasting Association (NBA)—to regulate its
conduct.

Needless to say, the jurisdiction of this body is confined only to those electronic outfits which
submit to its jurisdiction, and the body itself is accountable to those who accept its
jurisdiction and not to the people. Press Council, which is a correcting mechanism and is in
existence in many countries, has been successfully discharging its duties for a long time now
and never has one heard of “censorship” against it in any country. Press Council, which at
present has jurisdiction only over the print media, is admittedly an independent body and
entertains complaints of the media even against the government.

The Press Councils entertain complaints against the media for violation of professional ethics
and the law of the land, which are both pre-known. Lastly, the Press Council Act of India has
been enacted to also preserve and protect the independence of press and journalists. It is for
this reason that during the 1975 Emergency the Press Council Act was suspended by the then
government. The present resistance in our country to the so called external body is from the
electronic media. They are raising a bug bear of “Democracy in Danger”.

19
www.nraismc.com/wp-content/.../205-PRESS-LAW-MEDIA-ETHICS-backup.pdf, accessed on 18th
November 2017.

11 | Page
4. REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS
Article 19 (2) allows the State to make laws with the object of imposing reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) in the interest of:

Public Order and Security of State

If an act has tendency to cause public disorder it would be a valid ground under Article 19 (2)
to impose restrictions, even though it may not lead to breach of public order. Public order is a
state of tranquillity that prevails amongst the members of a political society as a result of the
internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established.20And “security
of state” refers to a serious and aggravated form of public disorder. The speeches and
expressions which encourage violent crimes are related to security of State.21 The
preservation of public order is one of the grounds for imposing restrictions on the freedom of
speech and expression. This ground did not occur in the Constitution as framed in 1950 but
was added later by the First (Amendment) Act, 1951. The expression “public order” is
synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquillity.

It may be noticed that clause (2) uses the words “in the interests of public order” and not “for
the maintenance of public order”. A law may not be designed to directly maintain law and
order yet it may be enacted in the “interests of public order”. Also, not only such utterances as
are directly intended to incite disorder, but also those that have the tendency to lead to
disorder fall within the expression. Thus, a law punishing utterances made with deliberate
intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class is valid, because it imposes a restriction on
the right to free speech in the interest of public order, since such speech or writing has the
tendency to create public disorder even if in some cases such activities may not lead to the
breach of peace.

Defamation

Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. Freedom of press is mostly related to


libel which is written defamatory statement. If a person’s reputation is harmed without
justifiable reason, he can be prosecuted for the criminal wrong of defamation. The law of
criminal defamation is contained in section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. Supreme
Court in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, held that private individuals suing for libel

20
Ramesh Thapper v State of Madras, AIR 1950 Sc 124
21
State of Bihar v ShailaBala, AIR SC329

12 | Page
must prove the statement was false if it involved a matter of public concern.22

Contempt of Court

While exercising the right of freedom of expression one should not commit contempt of court
or make any comment which could be contempt23. The newspapers and media channels have
right to publish reports on the proceedings of the court, subject to the orders of the court
resolving the dispute. If the court specifically orders not to publish a particular evidence of a
witness, that cannot be called as an invalid order. However, truth of criticism against curt by
media is available as a defence available to writer or press or media to the charge of contempt
of court.

Incitement to an offence

If any words written or spoken incite the commission of violent crimes, which include
attempts to insult the religious beliefs of any class, reasonable restrictions can be imposed.
Promotion of disharmony among the classes also can be restricted on the same ground. In
State of Bombay v. Balsara24the Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 24(1) (b) of the
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It provided that no person shall print or publish in any
newspaper, news sheet, book, leaflet or any other single or periodical publication or otherwise
display or distribute any advertisement or other matter which is calculated to encourage or
incite any individual or class of individuals or the public generally to commit an offence
under the Act.

Friendly relations with foreign states

This is another ground justifying the restriction on freedom of speech and expression. State
cannot however prevent all the criticism of foreign policy of the Government. The Covenant
on Freedom of Information and the Press prepared by the United Nations Conference at
Geneva provide for necessary legislative restrictions being placed with regard to the
“systematic diffusion of false and distorted reports which undermines the friendly relations
between people and states.”25

22
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986)
23
E.M.S Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015
24
1951 AIR 318
25
Art. 2 (j) of the Covenant on Freedom of Information and the Press.

13 | Page
Decency and morality

In Regina v Hicklin26 the court adopted the test of obscenity, which is known as the Hicklin
test. The test of obscenity is to note whether the tendency of matter charged as obscenity is to
deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. Freedom of
speech and expression can be reasonable restricted in case it hampers with the decency and
morality.

Sovereignty and integrity of India

This ground was added subsequently in 1963 by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment).
This is provision is aimed at prohibiting anyone from making the statements that challenge
the integrity and sovereignty of India.

In Rajendra Sail v. M.P High Court Bar Assn27, the editor, printer publisher and reporter of a
newspaper, along with the petitioner who was a labour union activist, were summarily
punished with a six months imprisonment by the High Court. Their fault was that they
published derogatory remarks against the judges of a High Court. The Supreme Court held it
to be contempt of court. In D.C Saxena v. Chief Justice of India28, the Supreme Court held
that no one has the power to accuse a judge of his misbehaviour, partiality or incapacity. The
purpose of such protection is to ensure independence of judiciary.

Thus the state has general power to impose reasonable restrictions. Also it must be noted that
these restrictions should not be arbitrary and excessive. There should be a balance between
the freedom guaranteed and the community interest protection.

26
[1968] 3 QB 360
27
[2005] INSC 272 (21 April 2005)
28
1996 SCC (7) 216

14 | Page
5. RELEVANT CASE LAWS
1. Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors29

In this case the petitioners challenged the Newsprint Order (1962) and the Newsprint Policy
(1972). The Newsprint Order placed certain restrictions upon the import of newsprint
(complementarily, publishing newspapers in material other than newsprint was prohibited);
while the Newsprint Policy prohibited common ownership units from starting new
newspapers, limited the maximum number of pages to ten, and allowed a twenty percent
increase in page level to newspapers that had less than ten pages. The Supreme Court rejected
this contention and found the provisions of the Order to be in violation of Article 19(1) (a) of
the Constitution of India. The Court also struck down the rebuttal of the Government that it
would help small newspapers to grow.

2. Sakal Papers Ltd v. Union of India30

In this case, the Daily Newspaper (Price and Control) Order 1960, which fixed a minimum
price and number of pages which a newspaper was entitled to publish was challenged by the
petitioner on the ground that it infringes the freedom of press. The petitioner had to increase
the price of their newspaper without increasing the pages. It was seen that an increase in price
without any increase in number of pages would reduce the volume of circulation. On the
other hand, any reduction in the number of pages would lessen the space of the column, space
for news, views or ideas. The State justified the law as a reasonable restriction on a business
activity of a newspaper in the interest of the general public. However the court struck down
the order rejecting the argument of the State and held that right of freedom of speech and
expression cannot be taken away placing the restrictions on the business activity of a citizen.

3. Ramesh Thapper v. State of Madras31

In the instant case, a law formulated by the Government of Madras in banning the entry and
circulation of an English journal "Cross Road", printed and published in Bombay within its
state was challenged by the petitioner. The Court held that freedom of speech and expression
includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and this freedom is ensured by the freedom of
circulation .A law which imposes restrictions on grounds of ‘public safety or the
‘maintenance of public order’ falls outside the scope of the authorized restrictions under
clause (2) and is therefore void and unconstitutional.

29
1973 AIR 106
30
1962 AIR 305
31
AIR 1950 SC 124

15 | Page
4. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi 32

In this case, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued an order under Section 7 of the East
Punjab Safety Act, 1949, which required the editor, printer and publisher of a English weekly
of Delhi to submit it for scrutiny all communal matters, news and views, about the Pakistan
including the photographs and cartoons other than those derived from official source of
supplied by the news agencies. The court struck down the order and held that pre-censorship
of a journal is a restriction on the liberty of press. The court further laid down that prohibiting
a newspaper from publishing its own views was nothing but a serious encroachment on the
freedom of speech and expression.

5. Express Newspapers v. Union of India33

In this case the validity of the Working Journalist Act 1955 which was enacted to regulate
conditions of service of persons employed in newspaper industries was challenged. The court
held that press was not immune from laws of general application or ordinary forms of
taxation or laws of industrial relations .Since the Act was passed to improve the service
conditions of the women in the newspaper industry, it was found to be valid.
6. R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu34

The Supreme Court held that the government has no authority in law to impose a prior –
restrain upon publication of defamatory material against its officials. Public authorities who
apprehend that they or their colleagues may be defamed by the publication of any material
cannot prevent from exercising their freedom. The court was of the opinion that if the matter
in the publication was based on false facts on in any manner injurious, the concerned persons
could take action for damages after the publications. However no action could be taken prior
to the publication.
7. Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer35

In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that no sales tax could be imposed on the sale of
newspapers in the country. However the court clarified that this does not mean that press shall
be immune either from taxation or from general law relating to industrial relations or from the
State regulation of services of its employees. The prohibition is applicable only on the
imposition of any restriction to disseminate information and to the circulation of the
newspaper.

32
AIR 1950 SC 129
33
AIR 1958 SC 578
34
1994( 6) SCC 632
35
1994 SCC (2) 434

16 | Page
6. CONCLUSION
Freedom of press is central to the survival of democracy. Democracy without the free
movement of the press is a misnomer. However, it has to be remembered that this freedom is
not absolute unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as providing
unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount an uncontrolled license. All
freedoms are subjected to reasonable restrictions, the absence of which would lead to disorder
and anarchy. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “"The role of journalism should be service.
The Press is a great power, but just as an unchained torrent of water submerges the whole
countryside and devastates crops, even so an uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy." Press
serve as a link between the government and the public at large and hence they are vested with
the obligation to communicate and disseminate information in a bona fide manner. This can
be attained only if the press is allowed to represent its different points of view without any
interference from the government.

In an organised society, the rights of press are to be recognized with its duties and
responsibilities towards the society. The presentation of the news has to be truthful and
comprehensive without any distorted expression. Thus press has a greater responsibility to
guard against false news and publications for the simple reason that its utterance can have
greater circulation and impact on the people at large. Apart from this, there is also essential to
strike a proper balance between citizen’s right to privacy and public’s right to information
vis-a-vis the role of media so that none of the rights as guaranteed to the citizens are in
conflict with each other. To quote our former Prime Minister, “Freedom of press is an Article
of Faith with us, sanctified by our Constitution, validated by four decades of freedom and
indispensible to our future as a nation.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/freedom-of-speech-and-expression/
2. Indian Constitutional Law, 7th edition, M.P Jain
3. http://indialawjournal.com/volume3/issue_4/article_by_dheerajendra.html
4. http://lex-warrier.in/2013/04/a-critical-analysis-on-fundamental-right-of-speech-and-
expression/#identifier_0_2963
5. www.nraismc.com/wp-content/.../205-PRESS-LAW-MEDIA-ETHICS-backup.pdf,
6. Justice A.N.Grover, Press and the Law (1990)
7. B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of India’s Constitution: A Study

17 | Page

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen