By Dr. Sailaja Petikam
The court has held that Section 3(1) of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 made thereunder were unconstitutional as being in violation of Article 19(1)(a).
Levy of duty or tax on Newspaper Industry
In Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641] the petitioner challenged the imposition of import duty and the levy of auxiliary duty on the newsprint on the ground of infringement of freedom of press as it imposed a burden beyond the capacity of the industry and also affects the circulation of the newspapers and periodicals.
The Supreme Court has held that the newspaper has no immunity from general laws like taxation or labour laws. The Court has rejected the plea that no duty can be levied on the Newspaper industry.
The levy of duty or tax on the newspaper industry will be valid if it is within reasonable limit. The Court has held that levy of duty or tax on the newspaper industry is subject to review by courts in the light of the provisions of the Constitution.
Regulation of conditions of service of workmen in Newspaper Industry
In Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, (AIR 1958 SC 578), the validity of the regulation of conditions of service of workmen in Newspaper Industry through Working Journalists (Constitution of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 was challenged.
The Court has held that the object of the Act was the amelioration of the conditions of the workmen in the newspaper industry.
The Court has made it clear that the press has no immunity from general laws like taxation or industrial laws; consequently, the Court has held that the Act is valid.
Commercial Advertisement
Advertisement is undoubtedly a form of speech. But every form of advertisement is not a form of speech or expression of ideas. Advertisement when it takes the form of commercial advertisement no longer falls within the concept of freedom of speech for the object of such advertisement is not the promotion of ideas – social, political or economic or furtherance of literature or human thought.
Hence, an advertisement of commercial nature is not protected under Article 19(1)(a).
Pre-Censorship
Censorship of the press is not specifically prohibited by a provision of the Constitution. Like other restrictions, its constitutionality has to be judged by the test of reasonableness within the meaning of Article 19(2).
Imposition of pre-censorship on a journal or newspaper previous to its publication is a restriction on the freedom of press and will amount to an infringement of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). However, the pre-censorship may be valid if it can be justified on any ground of reasonable restriction permitted by Article 19(2).
But the imposition of pre-censorship in emergency circumstances, e.g. for the prevention of breach of peace or communal disturbance, will be valid.
It would be noted that when a Proclamation of Emergency is made under Article 352, Article 19 itself remains suspended automatically under Article 358, so that pre-censorship may be imposed, without any restraint.
Thus immediately after the proclamation of Emergency on the ground of internal disturbance in June 1975, a Censorship Order was issued (June 26, 1975), under Rule 48(1) of the Rules made under the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971.
It should be noted that after the election of 1977, the Proclamation of Internal Emergency was revoked on the 21st March 1977 and the Pre-Censorship Order was revoked on the 22nd of March 1977.
Constitutionality of Censorship of Films and Press
Censorship is of two kinds, namely, censorship usual and pre-censorship. Censorship means an order directing a person not to write or publish anything or deliver any speech about the matter prohibited to be made public or not to show any objectionable scene in any film. Mainly the film censor means cutting the indecent material.
Censorship is valid in film and not for press. In A.K. Abbas v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 481), it has been held that censorship of films including prior restraints is justified under the Constitution.
However, in Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 515), it has been held that imposition of heavy tax restriction on newspapers virtually amounts to pre-censorship of a newspaper, which is prohibited in Constitution. However, reasonable restriction can be imposed on press under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The State is not debarred from exercising any of its legitimate powers, so long as the impact of such legislation is not directly to affect the circulation or other aspects of the freedom of the press.
Censorship of press has been rejected by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 129), stating that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propaganda of ideas and that the freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.
In Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (AIR 1996 SC 1846), popularly known as Bandit Queen Case, the Supreme Court has held that the Certificate issued to the film ‘Bandit Queen’ upon conditions imposed by the Appellate Tribunal is valid.
Conclusion
The media should provide to the largest number of people easy access to information which is reliable, relevant and abundant. The role of media must preserve their credibility and act as catalyst for social change.
But not to strengthen, preserve and promote undemocratic traditional cultures and values. Their activities should not contradict the objective of ensuring that discrimination based on gender, religion, caste, languages etc. is not perpetuated.