{"id":192285,"date":"1961-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961"},"modified":"2017-08-26T23:30:45","modified_gmt":"2017-08-26T18:00:45","slug":"sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961","title":{"rendered":"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 305, \t\t 1962 SCR (3) 842<\/div>\n
Author: M R.<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE UNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/09\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSARKAR, A.K.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  305\t\t  1962 SCR  (3) 842\n CITATOR INFO :\n MV\t    1967 SC   1\t (19,103)\n F\t    1973 SC 106\t (12,14,18,23,33,34,42,66,79,83\n R\t    1974 SC1044\t (15)\n E&R\t    1978 SC  68\t (93)\n R\t    1978 SC 597\t (41,67,77,131,182,202)\n R\t    1980 SC 898\t (55)\n R\t    1986 SC 515\t (33,38,64,85,39)\n R\t    1986 SC 872\t (74,75)\n RF\t    1988 SC1136\t (27)\n\n\nACT:\nFundamental   Right-Freedom  of\t speech-Statute\t  regulating\nnumber\tof pages in newspaper according to  price  charged--\nConstitutionality  of--Newspaper (Price and Page) Act,\t1956\n(45  of 1956)-Daily Newspaper Price and Page)  Order,  1960-\nConstitution of India, Art, 19 (1) (a).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Newspaper\t(Price and Page) Act,  1956,  empowered\t the\nCentral\t Government to regulate the prices of newspapers  in\nrelation  to  their  pages and sizes  and  to  regulate\t the\nallocation of space for advertising matter.  Under this\t Act\nthe Central Government made the Daily Newspapers (Price\t and\nPage)  Order,  1960, thereby fixing the\t maximum  number  of\npages  that might be Published by a newspaper  according  to\nthe price charged and prescribing the number of\t supplements\nthat-could be issued.  The petitioner challenged the Act and\nthe  order as contravening Art. 19 (1) (a) of the  Constitu-\ntion.\nHeld, that the Act and the Order were void as they  violated\nArt.  19(1) (a) of the Constitution and A were not saved  by\nArt. 19(2).  The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed\nby  Art. 19(1) (a) included the freedom of the\tpress.\t For\npropagating  his  ideas a citizen had the right\t to  publish\nthem,  to disseminate them and to circulate them, either  by\nword of mouth or by writing.  The right extended not  merely\nto the matter which he was entitled to circulate but also to\nthe\n\t\t\t    843\nvolume\tof circulation.\t The impugned Act and  Order  placed\nrestraints on the latter aspect of the right.  But its\tvery\nobject\tthe  Act was directed against circulation  and\tthus\ninterfered  with  the  freedom\tof  speech  and\t expression.\nArticle 19(2) did not permit the State to abridge this right\nin the interests of the general public.\nBrij  Bhushan  v. The State of Delhi,<\/a> [1950] S.\t C.  R.\t 605\nExpress Newspapers (p) Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1959] S.\nC.  R. 12, Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras<\/a>  [1950]  S.C.R.\n594,  State  of Madras v. V. G. Row,<\/a> [1952] S.\tC.  R.\t597,\nDwarkadas  Shrinivas  v.  The Sholapur\t&  Weaving  Co.,Ltd.<\/a>\n[1954] S. C. R. 674, Virendra v. The State of Punjab,<\/a> [1958]\nS. C. R. 308 and Hamdard Dawakhana (wakf) v. Union of India,\n[1960] 2 S. C. R. 67 1, referred to.\nHeld,  further,\t that the State could not make a  law  which\ndirectly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing\t the\nbetter\tenjoyment  of another freedom.\t Freedom  of  speech\ncould  not be restricted for the purpose of  regulating\t the\ncommercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petitions Nos. 331 of 1960 and 67-68
\nof 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution of  India\t for
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
G.   S.\t Pathak,  R.  Ganapathy Iyer, S. S.  Shukla  and  G.
\nGopalakrishnan for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B.\t  Sen, R. H.
\nDhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
H.   P. Nathwani, J. B. Jadachanji, S. N. Andley,  Rameshwar
\nNath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent No. 1.
\nJ.   B.\t Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P.  L.
\nVohra, for the interveners Nos. 2 and 6.\n<\/p>\n
K.   R. Choudhri, for intervener No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
S.   T.\t Desai,\t E.  Udayarathnam  and\tS.  S.\tShukla,\t for
\nintervener No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
W.   S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for intervener\t No.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\nS.  T.\tDesai,\tE. Udayarathnam and S. S.  Shukla,  for\t the
\npetitioners (In petitions Nos. 67 and 68 of 1961).\n<\/p>\n
844<\/span><\/p>\n
1961.  September 25 The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nMUDHOLKAR, J.-A matter of far-reaching importance  affecting
\nthe freedom of the press is raised in these three  petitions
\nwherein\t the constitutionality of the Newspaper\t (Price\t and
\nPage)  Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspaper (Price  and  Page)
\nOrder, 1960, is questioned.\n<\/p>\n
The first petition is by a private limited company  carrying
\non  business  inter  alia of  publishing  daily\t and  weekly
\nnewspapers  in Marathi named “Sakal” from Poona and  by\t two
\npersons who are the only shareholders in that company.\t The
\nsecond\tand third petitions are preferred by two readers  of
\n“Sakal” who also challenge the constitutionality of the Act.
\nCertain\t parties were allowed to intervene.  They  supported
\nthe  Union of India, the respondent, in all these  petitions
\nand sought to uphold the validity of the Act and the  Order.
\nIn view of the common argument adduced before us it would be
\nconvenient to deal with the first petition only in full.
\n The  newspaper “Sakal” was started in the year 1932 and  it
\nis claimed that it has a net circulation of 52,000 copies on
\nweek  days and 56,000 copies on Sundays in  Maharashtra\t and
\nKarnataka   and\t as  such  plays  a  leading  part  in\t the
\ndissemination  of  news\t and views and\tin  moulding  public
\nopinion in matters of public interest.\n<\/p>\n
The daily addition of the newspaper contains six pages a day
\nfor  five  days in a week and four pages on one\t day.\tThis
\nedition\t is priced at 7 nP.  The Sunday edition consists  of
\nten pages and is priced at 12nP.  About 40% of the space  in
\nthe  newspaper is taken up by advertisement matter  and\t the
\nrest  is &voted to news, articles, features, Views etc.\t  It
\nis  claimed  on behalf of the petitioners that\tone  of\t the
\nspecial\t features  of the newspaper is coverage\t of  foreign
\nnews  and despatches on foreign affairs.  It is\t claimed  on
\nbehalf of the petitioners that this
\n\t\t\t    845<\/span>
\npaper is not aligned with any political party and that\tupon
\ncontroversial  questions  the  public  look  up\t to  it\t for
\nimpartial  appraisement\t of  the  issues  involved  and\t for
\nguidance.\n<\/p>\n
Briefly\t stated\t the effect of the Act and of  the  impugned
\nOrder  is to regulate the number of pages according  to\t the
\nprice  charged,\t prescribe the number of supplements  to  be
\npublisher   and\t prohibit  the\tpublication  and   sale\t  of
\nnewspapers in contravention of any Order made under s. 3  of
\nthe  Act.  The Act also provides for regulating by an  Order
\nunder  s.  3, the sizes and area of  advertising  matter  in
\nrelation  to  the other matters contained  in  a  newspaper.
\nPenalties  are\talso  prescribed for  contravention  of\t the
\nprovision of the Act or Order.\n<\/p>\n
We may mention here that in the year 1952 the Government  of
\nIndia  appointed  a Press Commission for  enquiring  into  a
\nlarge number of matters concerning the Press and one of\t the
\nrecommendations of the Commission was to enact a law such as
\nthe  one  impugned before us.  This law is  alleged  by\t the
\nrespondent  to\thave  been  made  to  give  effect  to\tthat
\nrecommendation.\t  Both\tthe sides place\t reliance  upon\t the
\nfinding\t of  the  Press Commission and have  invited  us  to
\naccept\t these\t findings,  though   not   necessarily\t the
\nrecommendations.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners  point out that since the total  number  of
\npages which “Sakal” gives to its reading public on six\tdays
\nin a week is 34, and that as a result of the impugned  Order
\nthey will either have to raise its price from 7 nP. to 8 nP.
\nper day or to reduce the total number of pages to 24.\tThey
\nfurther\t point out that while at present all newspapers\t can
\nissue  any  number of supplements as and when  they  choose,
\nunder the Order they would be prevented from doing so except
\nwith  the permission of the Government.\t According  to\tthem
\nthe Order would have the effect of either compelling them to
\nincrease  the  price  or to reduce the number  of  pages  of
\npractically every newspaper in the country as
\n846<\/span>
\nalso of preventing them from publishing supplements  without
\nextraneous  restrictions,  which  they are  able  to  do  at
\npresent.\n<\/p>\n
It  is the petitioners’ case that the impugned Act  and\t the
\nimpugned Order are pieces of legislation designed to curtail
\nand  which would in effect curtail the freedom of the  press
\nend as such are violative of the right guaranteed under Art.
\n19(1)(a) of the Constitution.  They point out that’ if\tthey
\ncontinue to give in their newspaper the same number of pages
\nas at present, they would have to increase its selling price
\nand that this will adversely affect its circulation.  If, on
\nthe other hand, they reduce the number of pages in order  to
\nconform\t to  the impugned order their right  to\t disseminate
\nnews  and, views will be directly interfered with.  Thus  in
\neither event there will be an interference with their  right
\nunder Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners point out that the impugned Order  reserves
\nto  the\t Central  Government the power to  permit  issue  of
\nsupplements,  except those on January 26 and August 15,\t and
\nthat the result of this would be to place them at the  mercy
\nof  the Government and thus interfere with their freedom  of
\nexpression.\n<\/p>\n
They  further  point  out that the Act\tand  the  Order\t are
\nviolative  of the provisions of Art. 14 of the\tConstitution
\ninasmuch  as their avowed object is to\tpromote\t arbitrarily
\nthe  interests of some newspaper at the expense\t of  others.
\nThey contend that inequality is writ large in the provisions
\nof the Act and of the Order and that there is no  reasonable
\nclassification or basis or any rational relationship between
\nthe  restrictions  imposed  and the  objects  sought  to  be
\nachieved.    According\tto  them,  while   the\t established
\nnewspapers will be hardly affected by these provisions those
\nthat  are endeavouring to come up will be hampered in  their
\nprogress.\n<\/p>\n
847<\/span><\/p>\n
On  behalf  of the respondent, the Union of  India,  in\t the
\nMinistry  of  Information  and\tBroadcasting,  while  it  is
\nadmitted  that\tthe  object of the Act is  to  regulate\t the
\nprices charged for newspapers in relation to their pages, it
\nis  pointed  out that this is being done to  prevent  unfair
\ncompetition  amongst newspapers as also to prevent the\trise
\nof  monopolistic combines so that newspapers may  have\tfair
\nopportunities  of  freer  discussion.\tThe  effect  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act is said to be to  provide  for\t the
\nmaximum matter which a newspaper could make available to the
\npublic at a certain price and that this does not in any\t way
\nrestrict  the rights of the petitioners to  propagate  their
\nideas.\t  The  respondent,  while  admitting  that  by\t the
\noperation  of the impugned Order a limitation is  placed  on
\nthe  space which a newspaper would be able to devote to\t the
\npropagation of its ideas and to news, says that it would  be
\nopen  to those newspapers to increase the space\t by  raising
\nthe price.  According to the respondent the circulation of a
\nnewspaper  will\t not be adversely affected  by\traising\t its
\nprice.\tIt is then contended that even if the circulation is
\nadversely  affected  thereby the fundamental rights  of\t the
\nnewspaper  propritors  guaranteed by Art.  19(1)(a)  of\t the
\nConstitution  will not be infringed.  It is  also  contended
\nthat  the  legislation\tin question  does  not\tdirectly  or
\nindirectly  deal with the subject of freedom of\t speech\t and
\nexpression   and  that\tconsequently  no  question  of\t the
\nviolation of the provisions of Art. 19(1)(a) at all  arises.
\nThe  effect  of\t the Act and the  Order,  according  to\t the
\nrespondent,  would be to promote further the right of  news-
\npapers\tin  general to exercise the freedom  of\t speech\t and
\nexpression.  Thus, according to the respondent, neither\t the
\nintention  nor the effect of the operation of the law is  to
\ntake away or abridge the freedom of speech and expression of
\nthe petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tfurther\t pointed out  that  all\t newspapers  publish
\nadvertisements and that this is a trading activity.  It\t is,
\ntherefore, necessary to differentiate
\n848<\/span>
\nbetween this activity and an activity which would fall under
\nArt. 19(1)(a).\tThe impugned Act and the Order according  to
\nthe   respondent   provide  in\tthe  public   interest\t for
\nrestrictions  on the trading activity of newspapers.  It  is
\npointed\t out that the space allocated to  advertisements  by
\nnewspapers varies from 46% to 59% and that these  advertise-
\nments  bring  in  a substantial revenue\t which\tenables\t the
\nnewspapers  to\tbe  sold  at  a\t price\tbelow  the  cost  of
\nproduction.   Placing reliance upon the statement  contained
\nin  the\t Report of the Press Commission it is  contended  on
\nbehalf\tof the respondent that newspapers of  long  standing
\nwhich have built up a large and stable advertisement revenue
\nbeing in a more advantageous Position than newcomers in\t the
\nfield  of journalism are in a position to squeeze  out\tsuch
\nnewcomers with the result that they are able to destroy\t the
\nfreedom of expression of others.  A free press, it is  said,
\ncannot mean a press composed of a few powerful combines\t and
\nthat in order to ensure freedom of press it is necessary  to
\nsecure full scope for the full development of smaller  news-
\npapers.\n<\/p>\n
It  is further pointed out on behalf of the respondent\tthat
\nthe  diminution of advertisement revenue which would  result
\nfrom  the  operation of the Price Page\tSchedule  cannot  be
\nregarded as an infringement of the right under Art. 19(1)(a)
\nAccording to the respondent the economies of newspapers\t and
\nthe  maximum  number of pages that a paper can give  with  a
\nreasonable margin for advertisement space was worked out  by
\nthe Press Commission which also suggested a tentative  Price
\nPage  Schedule.\t  In  formulating  the\tschedule  the  Press
\nCommission took into account various factors such as cost of
\n(1) newsprint, (2) composing and printing, (3)\tdistribution
\n(4)   commission  payable,  (5)\t editorial  and\t  managerial
\nexpenses and (6) general overhead charges. The present Price
\nPage Schedule is said to be based upon the one formulated by
\nthe Press Commission.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    849<\/span><\/p>\n
It  is\tfurther stated that the present measures  have\tbeen
\nadopted\t upon  the recommendation of  the  Press  Commission
\nwhich after stating that the proper functioning of democracy
\nrequires that every individual should have equal opportunity
\nto  put forward his opinions suggested that measures  should
\nbe  adopted  to\t reduce\t the  differences  due\tto  economic
\nadvantages  and\t other causes to enable newcomers  to  start
\nwith a fair chance of success.\tIt is with this end in\tview
\nthat  the present rates are stated to have been\t prescribed.
\nThe  respondent\t further  points out that the  bulk  of\t the
\nIndian language newspapers priced at 7nP. will not find\t any
\ndifficulty  whatsoever in conforming to the requirements  of
\nthe order because they give five or less than five pages  on
\nweek days.  Only a few newspapers will be remotely  affected
\nby the order but in their case the issue of large number  of
\npages  is due to factors not connected with the\t functioning
\nof  the\t freedom of speech and expression  but\tfor  reasons
\nconnected  with\t their\tbusiness  activities.\t Newspapers,
\naccording  to  the respondent, are able to give\t more  pages
\nbecause of their large advertisement revenue or because they
\nbelong\tto  a  group or chain of  newspapers  which  do\t not
\nentirely   depend  upon\t the  individual  income   of\teach
\nnewspaper.\n<\/p>\n
It  is said that the petitioners in particular are  able  to
\ngive additional number of pages because they devote a larger
\nvolume of space to advertisements than others and that\tthis
\nis not something done ‘in the lawful exercise of their right
\nof  freedom  of\t speech and expression or of  the  right  of
\ndissemination of news and views.  It is, however, as already
\nstated,\t admitted  on  behalf  of  the\trespondent  that   a
\nnewspaper  is a product sold below the’ cost of\t production.
\nThe  conclusion\t suggested by the respondent is that  it  is
\nonly  by  increasing the revenue from advertisement  that  a
\nnewspaper can increase the number of its pages.
\nAccording  to  the  respondent,\t the  true  purpose  of\t the
\nimpugned legislation being the prevention
\n850<\/span>
\nof  unfair  competition\t which has resulted  in\t denying  to
\nothers\ta  right  of  propagation  of  ideas  by  publishing
\nnewspapers, this legislation cannot be said to infringe\t the
\nright  of  freedom of expression of a newspaper but  on\t the
\nother  hand  said to be one which  promotes  and  encourages
\nhealhty journalism.  The impugned provisions will, according
\nto  the respondent, affect only those classes of  newspapers
\nwhich  unfairly\t compete  with the smaller  one-a,  kind  of
\ncompetition  which is considered by the Press Commission  as
\nunhealthy and against the interests of healthy journalism in
\na growing democracy.  It is then said that “it is  necessary
\nto  avoid  unfair competition and even\tto  promote  healthy
\ncompetition  that  papers have to be put on  a\tcriteria  of
\nequality  and  that  this could only  be  done\tby  directly
\nrestricting  the  publication of large number  of  pages  as
\nagainst\t the price charged.” Then it is contended that\twhat
\nis aimed at by the impugned legislation is the avoidance  of
\nconcentration of ownership without interfering with  healthy
\ncompetition between equals equally situated.
\nIt  is further stated that not only was the statute  enacted
\non  the recommendation of the Press Commission but that\t the
\nPrice Page Schedule itself was introduced in response to the
\ndemand\t pressed   by\tthe   Indian   Language\t  Newspapers
\nAssociation.  It is pointed out on behalf of the  respondent
\nthat  the  quantity of import of newsprint is based  on\t the
\naverage number of pages of newspapers published in 1957\t and
\nthat, therefore, no newspaper has the unrestricted right  to
\nincrease  the number of pages over the 1957 figure.   It  is
\nalso pointed out that the draft Price Page Schedule has been
\napproved  by the Indian Language Newspapers Association\t and
\nthat  this Association has recommended that the life of\t the
\nPrice Page Act and Order should be extended by another\tfive
\nto  ten years.\tIt is denied that the provisions of the\t Act
\ninfringe   the\t rights\t conferred  by\tArt.   14   of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    851<\/span><\/p>\n
We  have already indicated earlier, briefly, the  effect  of
\nthe  impugned  Act and the Order.  In  order  to  appreciate
\nfully the contentions raised before us it would be useful to
\ngive in brief a summary of the provisions of the Act and  of
\nthe impugned Order.\n<\/p>\n
First,\tthere is the preamble which says that the object  of
\nthe  Act is to secure to newspapers fuller opportunities  of
\nfreedom\t or  expression by  preventing\tunfair\tcompetition.
\nThis  is sought to be achieved by the regulation  of  prices
\ncharged for newspapers in relation to their pages.  In\tthis
\nmanner the legislature expects to prevent unfair competition
\namong newspapers.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section  3 of s. 1 provides that the Act shall cease  to
\nhave effect on the expiration of a period of five years from
\nits  commencement except as respects things done or  omitted
\nto  be done before the expiration.  The Act came into  force
\non September 7, 1956 and was thus due to expire on September
\n6, 1961.  The Attorney-General, however, told us that it was
\nproposed  to  extend  to the life of the Act  by  a  further
\nperiod of five years and we understand that its life has now
\nbeen  extended for an indefinite period.  Section 2  defines
\n“daily newspaper” and “newspaper”.\n<\/p>\n
Section 3 is the most important provision in the Act.  It is
\nthis  provision\t which empowers the  Central  Government  to
\nregulate prices and pages of newspapers.  Sub-section (1) of
\ns. 3 empowers the Central Government to regulate the  prices
\nof newspapers in relation to their pages and sizes if it  is
\nof opinion that it is necessary to do so for the purpose  of
\npreventing  unfair  competition\t among\tnewspapers  and\t  in
\nparticular  those  published in Indian languages.   It\talso
\nempowers the Government to regulate the allocation of  space
\nto  be allotted for advertising matter.\t Sub-section (2)  of
\nthat  section provides for an order under sub-s. (1)  to  be
\nmade in relation to newspapers generally or in relation to
\n852<\/span>
\nany class of newspapers and further provides for the  making
\nof different provisions for daily newspapers and  newspapers
\nappearing  at  other periodical intervals as “,well  as\t for
\ndifferent  classes of newspapers.  Sub-seotion (3)  provides
\nthat the Central Government, in making the Order, shall have
\ndue  regard to a reasonable flexibility with respect to\t the
\nfall  of news and flow of advertisements and  other  matters
\nconnected  with\t the  normal working  of  newspapers.\tSub-
\nsection\t (4) makes it obligatory upon the Central  Goverment
\nto consult associations of publishers and such publishers as
\nare  likely to be affected by the Order as it may think\t fit
\nwith respect to the action proposed to be taken.  Section  4
\nprohibits   publication\t or  sale  of  newspapers   in\t the
\nterritories to which the Act extends in contravention of any
\nof the provisions of an order made under s. 3.
\nSection\t 5 provides for furnishing returns by newspapers  to
\nthe Press Registrar.  Sub-section (1)of s.    6\t    provides
\npenalties for publication and sale of\tnewspapers\t  in
\ncontravention of the provisions of s.\t4.  Sub-section\t (2)
\nof  s.\t6 provides penalties for some  other  contraventions
\nwith  which we are not concerned.  Section 7, which  is\t the
\nlast section, prohibits the Court from taking cognizance  of
\noffences under the Act except upon a complaint in writing by
\nthe Press Registrar or by an officer authorised by him.
\nIt  will  thus\tbe seen that the Act  can  be  brought\tinto
\npractical  operation only after the Central  Government\t has
\ntaken  action  under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 and  made  an  order
\nregulating any of the matters referred to in that section.
\nOn  October 24, 1960 in exercise of the powers conferred  by
\ns.\t3      the\tCentral\t     Government,       after
\nconsultationwiththe.Association of Newspapers and Publishers
\nlikely to be affected thereunder, made the Daily  Newspapers
\n(Price and Page) Order, 1960.  This Order came into force on
\nDecember 12, 1960.  It contains a schedule to the Act  which
\nis in two
\n853<\/span>
\nParts,\tPart  I\t and  Part II.\t Part  I  applies  to  daily
\nnewspapers  published  on  six days in a week  and  Part  II
\napplies to weeklies.  Paragraph 3 of the Order provides that
\nwhere  the price charged for daily newspapers is any of\t the
\nprices\tspecified in col.  I of Part I of the  Schedule\t the
\ntotal  number of pages of all the issues of  that  newspaper
\npublished  during  six days in a week shall not\t exceed\t the
\nmaximum\t number\t of pages shown against that price  in\tthat
\npart.\tParagraph  4  deals with weekly\t editions  of  daily
\nnewspapers.   Paragraph 5 provides that the total number  of
\npages of all the issues of a daily newspaper published shall
\nnot exceed the maximum number of pages assigned under  para-
\ngraphs\t3  and\t4 or under paragraph  3,  according  as\t the
\nnewspaper  is  published on seven days in a week or  on\t six
\ndays.  Then there is a proviso to this paragraph which\truns
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Provided that where there is a weekly edition
\n\t      of any newspaper referred to in clause (b) and
\n\t      the  price charged therefor is different\tfrom
\n\t      that  charged on other days, the total  number
\n\t      of  pages of all the issues of that  newspaper
\n\t      published\t during a week shall not exceed\t the
\n\t      maximum  number  of  pares  assigned  to\tsuch
\n\t      newspaper under paragraph 4 and five-sixths of
\n\t      the  maximum  number of pages assigned  to  it
\n\t      under paragraph 3.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paragraph 6 permits the publication of additional number  of
\npages  during  the  week not  exceeding\t six.\tParagraph  7
\npermits\t the  publication of supplements on January  26\t and
\nAugust\t15 each year and also once in every quarter on\tsuch
\nspecial\t occasion as the publisher thinks fit.\tParagraph  8
\nempowers the Central Government to permit the publication of
\nadditional  supplem  nts or special editions  in  excess  of
\nthose  referred to in paragraph 7 and prescribes the  number
\nof pages which could be. published.  Paragraph 9 relaxes  to
\na certain extent the rigour of the provisions of  paragraphs
\n4 to 6,
\n854<\/span>
\nin  that it provides that the daily newspaper shall  not  be
\ndeemed\tto  have  contravened the provisions  of  the  Order
\nunless\tthe  number  of\t pages of all  the  issues  of\tthat
\nnewspaper published during any period of twelve\t consecutive
\nweeks  exceeds the quota assigned to such  newspaper  during
\nthat period.\n<\/p>\n
A  bare\t perusal  of the Act and the  Order  thus  makes  it
\nabundantly clear that the right of a news-, paper to publish
\nnews and views and to utilise as many pages as it likes\t for
\nthat purpose is made to depend upon the price charged to the
\nreaders.  Prior to the promulgation of the Order every news-
\npaper  was free to charge whatever price it chose, and\tthus
\nhad  a right unhampered by State regulation to publish\tnews
\nand views.  This liberty is obviously interfered with by the
\nOrder which provides for the maximum number of pages for the
\nparticular  price  charged.  The question  is  whether\tthis
\namounts\t to  any abridgment of the right of a  newspaper  to
\nfreedom of expression.\tOur Constitution does not  expressly
\nprovide\t for  the freedom of press but it has been  held  by
\nthis  Court  that this freedom is included  in\t“freedom  of
\nspeech and expression” guaranteed by cl. (1)(a) of Art.\t 19,
\nvide Brij Bhushan v. The State of Delhi<\/a>(1).  This freedom is
\nnot  absolute for, cl. (2) of Art. 19  permits\trestrictions
\nbeing placed upon it in certain circumstances.\tThat  clause
\nruns thus
\n\t      “Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall
\n\t      affect  the operation of any existing law,  or
\n\t      prevent  the State from making any law, in  so
\n\t      far  as such law imposes\treasonable  restric-
\n\t      tions  on the exercise of the right  conferred
\n\t      by the said sub-clause in the interests of the
\n\t      security of the State, friendly relations with
\n\t      foreign  States,\tpublic\torder,\tdecency\t  or
\n\t      morality, or in relation to contempt of court,
\n\t      defamation or incitement to an offence.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   [1950] S.C.R. 605. 610.\n<\/p>\n
 855<\/span><\/p>\n
It is not claimed on behalf of the State that either the Act
\nor the Order made thereunder can be justified by any of\t the
\ncircumstances  set  out\t in  this  clause.   The  right\t  to
\npropagate  one’s  ideas\t is inherent in\t the  conception  of
\nfreedom\t of  speech  and expression.   For  the\t purpose  of
\npropagating  his ideas every citizen has a right to  publish
\nthem,  to  disseminate them and to circulate  them.   He  is
\nentitled  to  do so either by word of mouth or\tby  writing.
\nThe  right  garanteed  thus  extends,  subject\tto  any\t law
\ncompetent  under Art. 19(2), not merely to the matter  which
\nhe  is\tentitled  to circulate, but also to  the  volume  of
\ncirculation.   In  other words, the citizen is\tentitled  to
\npropagate  his\tviews  and reach any  class  and  number  of
\nreaders\t as he choses subject of course to  the\t limitations
\npermissible  under  a law competent under  Art.\t 19(2).\t  It
\ncannot be gainsaid that the impugned order seeks to place  a
\nrestraint on the latter aspect of the right by prescribing a
\nprice  page  schedule.\tWe may add that the  fixation  of  a
\nminimum\t price for the number of pages which a newspaper  is
\nentitled  to  publish  is  obviously  not  for\tensuring   a
\nreasonable  price  to  the  buyers  of\tnewspapers  but\t for
\nexpressly  cutting  down the volume of circulation  of\tsome
\nnewspapers by making the price so unattractively high for  a
\nclass  of  its readers as is likely to deter  it  from\tpur-
\nchasing such newspapers.\n<\/p>\n
It  it; not disputed that every newspaper evolves a plan  of
\nits  own  for carrying on its activities.. Bearing  in\tmind
\nfactors\t such as the place of publication, the class of\t the
\nreading\t public\t which may be excepted to subscribe  to\t the
\npaper, the conditions of labour, the price of material, the,
\navailability of advertisements and so on it decides upon its
\nsize, the proportion of different kinds of matter  published
\nin the newspaper, such as news, comments, views of  readers,
\nadvertisements etc., and the price to be charged.. The\tplan
\nevolved\t   by  it  is  sought to  be  rudely  shaken  if  not
\ncompletely Upset by an order which it is open to the Central
\n856<\/span>
\nGovernment to make under s. 3(1) with a view to\t curtailment
\nof  circulation of newspapers.\tNo doubt, under s. 3(4)\t the
\nGovernment   is\t  required  to\t consult   associations\t  of
\npublishers.  Apart from the fact that the Government is\t not
\nbound\tby  the\t opinion  of  the  associations,  the\tmere
\ncircumstance that consultation with them is made obligatory,
\nthe  action of the Government in formulating an\t order\tdoes
\nnot  cease to be a direct interference with the\t freedom  of
\nspeech and expression of a citizen.\n<\/p>\n
After the schedule comes into force it will not be open to a
\nnewspaper  proprietor to charge less than a certain  minimum
\nprice  if he wants to give a particular number of  pages  in
\nhis  newspaper.\t If he should contravene this order he\twill
\nincur a penalty.  Similarly he cannot publish supplements in
\nexcess\tof  four  as and when he chooses,  except  with\t the
\npermission  of Government.  The Order does not indicate\t the
\ncircumstances which would entitle a newspaper proprietor  to
\nsecure\tthe special permission of  Government.\t Apparently,
\nwhether\t to allow an additional supplement or not  would  be
\ndependent  on the sweet will and pleasure of the  Government
\nand  this  would  necessarily  strike at  the  root  of\t the
\nindependence of the press.\n<\/p>\n
In  Express  Newspapers\t (Private) Ltd.,  v.  The  Union  of
\nIndia<\/a>(,)  this\tCourt has laid down that while there  is  no
\nimmunity to the press from the operation of the general laws
\nit  would  not be legitimate to subject the  press  to\tlaws
\nwhich take away or abridge the freedom of speech and expres-
\nsion  or adopt measures calculated and intended\t to  curtail
\ncirculation and thereby narrow the scope of dissemination of
\ninformation,  or fetter its freedom to choose its  means  of
\nexercising the right or would undermine its independence  by
\ndriving\t it  to\t seek Government aid.\tThis  Court  further
\npointed out` that a law which lays upon the Press  excessive
\nand prohibitive, burdens which would restrict the
\n(1)  [1959]   6.  C. R. 12.\n<\/p>\n
857<\/span>
\n3<\/span><\/p>\n
circulation of a newspaper would not be saved by Art.  19(2)
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
It  must-be  borne  in mind that the  Constitution  must  be
\ninterpreted in a broad way and not in a narrow and  pedantic
\nsense.\t  Certain   rights  have  been\tenshrined   in\t our
\nConstitution   as   fundamental\t  and,\t therefore,    while
\nconsidering the nature and content of those rights the Court
\nmust  not  be too astute to interpret  the  language-of\t the
\nConstitution in so literal a sense as to whittle them  down.
\nOn the other hand the Court must interpret the\tConstitution
\nin  a  manner which would enable the citizen  to  enjoy\t the
\nrights\tguaranteed by it in the fullest measure subject,  of
\ncourse, to permissible restrictions.  Bearing this principle
\nin  mind  it  would be clear that the right  to\t freedom  of
\nspeech\tand expression carries with it the right to  publish
\nand circulate one’s ideas, opinions and views with  complete
\nfreedom\t  and  by  resorting  to  any  available  means\t  of
\npublication  subject again to such restrictions as could  be
\nlegitimately  imposed under cl. (2) of Art. 19.\t  The  first
\ndecision  of  this  Court in which this\t was  recognized  is
\nRomesh\tThapar v. State of Madras<\/a> (1).\tThere.,\t this  Court
\nheld that freedom of speech and expression includes  freedom
\nof propagation of ideas and that this freedom is ensured  by
\nthe  freedom  of circulation.  In that case this  Court\t has
\nalso  pointed out that freedom of speech and expression\t are
\ntie  foundation\t of  all democratic  organisations  and\t are
\nessential  for\tthe proper functioning of the  processes  of
\ndemocracy.  There and in other cases this Court pointed\t out
\nthat  very  narrow  and stringent limits have  been  set  to
\npermissible  legislative abridgment of the right of  freedom
\nof  speech and expression.  In State of Madras v. V. G.\t Row<\/a>
\n(2) the question of the reasonableness of restrictions which
\ncould be posed upon a fundamental right has been considered.
\nThis Court has pointed out that the nature
\n(1) [1950] S.C.R. 594.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1952] S.C.R. 597.\n<\/p>\n
858<\/span><\/p>\n
of the right alleged to have been infringed, the  underlying
\npurpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and scope of
\nthe evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of
\nthe  imposition and the prevailing conditions at  that\ttime
\nshould\tall enter into the judicial verdict.   In  Dwarkadas
\nShrinivas  v. The Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co., Ltd.<\/a>\t (1)
\nthis   Court  has  pointed  out\t that  in   construing\t the
\nConstitution it is the substance ” and the practical  result
\nof  the\t act of the State that should be  considered  rather
\nthan  its purely legal aspect. The correct approach in\tsuch
\ncases  should be to enquire as to what in substance  is\t the
\nloss  or  injury caused to the citizen and not\tmerely\twhat
\nmanner and method has been  adopted by the State in  placing
\nthe restriction. In Virendra v. The State of Punjab<\/a> (2) this
\nCourt has observed at p. 319 as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It is certainly a serious encroachment on the
\n\t      valuable\tand  cherished right of\t freedom  of
\n\t      speech  and  expression  if  a  newspaper\t  is
\n\t      ,prevented  from\tpublishing its\town  or\t the
\n\t      views  of\t its correspondents relating  to  or
\n\t      concerning  what may be the burning  topic  of
\n\t      the day”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  impugned order requires all newspapers to\traise  their
\nprices if they want to maintain the present number of pages.
\nThe  effect  of raising the selling price of  newspaper\t has
\nbeen  considered by the Press Commission.  In Paragraph\t 164
\nof the ‘Report it is observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The selling price of a paper would  naturally
\n\t      have  an important effect on its\tcirculation.
\n\t      In this connection we have examined the effect
\n\t      of price-cuts adopted by two English papers at
\n\t      Bombay on the circulation of those two  papers
\n\t      as well as of the leading paper which did\t not
\n\t      reduce its price’ Prior to 27th October, 1952,
\n\t      Times   of   India  which\t had   the   highest
\n\t      circulation  at  Bombay  was  being  sold\t  at
\n\t      Rs.0-2-6
\n\t      (1) [1954] S.C.R. 674.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) [1958] S.C.R. 308.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      859<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      while Free Press Journal and National Standard
\n\t      which rank next in circulation were being sold
\n\t      for  Rs.0-2-0.  On 27th  October,\t 1952,\tFree
\n\t      Press Journal reduced its price to Rs, 0- 1 -0
\n\t      and within a year bad claimed to have  doubled
\n\t      its  circulation.\t  On  1st  July,  1953,\t the
\n\t      National Standard was converted into a  Bombay
\n\t      edition of Indian Express with a selling price
\n\t      of  Rs.  0-  1-6.\t Within six  months  it\t too
\n\t      claimed to have doubled its circulation…Dur-
\n\t      ing  this period the Times of India which\t did
\n\t      not  reduce  its selling\tprice  continued  to
\n\t      retain  its readership.  Thus it would  appear
\n\t      that Free Press Journal and Indian Express  by
\n\t      reducing their price have been able to tap new
\n\t      readership which was latent in the market\t but
\n\t      which   could  not  pay  the   higher   prices
\n\t      prevailing earlier”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Then in’ paragraph 165 it is observed
\n\t      “There  is another instance  illustrating\t the
\n\t      ,effect  of selling price on the\tcirculation.
\n\t      The two leading Tamil papers Swadesamitran and
\n\t      Dinamani\tin Madras, anticipating towards\t the
\n\t      end of 1950 a steep rise in the price of news-
\n\t      print, came to an understanding and raised the
\n\t      price of their papers from Rs.0-1-0 to Rs 0-1-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.  (These  papers normally carried 30  to  36
\n\t      pages  per week).\t The increase in price\tfrom
\n\t      Rs. 0- 1 -0 per copy to Rs. 0-1-6 was  brought
\n\t      into  effect  from  1st  January,\t 1951.\t The
\n\t      result  was a drastic fall in  circulation  in
\n\t      both  their  cases.  Subsequently in  view  of
\n\t      this fall in circulation they agreed to reduce
\n\t      their  prices  to the old figure.\t  While\t the
\n\t      original\tfall  in circulation came  about  in
\n\t      three months duration one paper took more than
\n\t      9 months to recover its old circulation  while
\n\t      the  other had not done so……… It may  be
\n\t\t\t    mentioned\tin   this   connection\t that\tth
\ne
\n\t      circulation    of\t   a\tcompeting     paper,
\n\t      Thanthi……… did not rise during the three
\n\t      860<\/span>
\n\t      months   when  the  two  leading\tpapers\t had
\n\t      increased\t the  price …….nor did  it\tfall
\n\t      when  the\t prices of the leading\tpapers\twere
\n\t      lowered  again.\tThe  conclusion,  therefore,
\n\t      appears  to  be that over 33,000\treaders\t had
\n\t      stopped  taking any papers because the  price-
\n\t      had been raised;……… The period  examined
\n\t      coincided\t with  an  accentuation\t of  draught
\n\t      conditions  in Tamil Nadu; a certain  fall  in
\n\t      circulation  all\tround can be  attributed  to
\n\t      these conditions.\t Nevertheless, it cannot  be
\n\t      denied  -that  a change in price\tdid  have  a
\n\t      profound\teffect on the circulation  of  those
\n\t      two papers”.\n<\/p>\n
Though the prices of newspapers appear to be on the low side
\nit  is a fact that even so many people find it difficult  to
\npay that small price.  This is what has been pointed out  by
\nthe  Press  Commission\tin  paragraph  52  of  its   report.
\nAccording  to  it the most common reason for people  in\t not
\npurchasing  newspapers is the cost of the newspaper and\t the
\ninability  of the household to spare the  necessary  amount.
\nThis  conclusion is based upon the evidence of a very  large
\nnumber\tof individuals and representatives of  Associations.
\nWe  would,  therefore, be justified in relying upon  it\t and
\nholding\t that  raising the price of a newspaper\t even  by  a
\nsmall amount such as one nP. in order that its present\tsize
\nbe maintained would adversely affect its circulation.
\nIt is, however, said that it is not necessary for newspapers
\nto  raise  their  prices but that they\tcould  reduce  their
\nnumber\tof pages.  For one things, requiring  newspapers  to
\nreduce their sizes would be compelling them to restrict\t the
\ndissemination of news and views and thus directly  affecting
\ntheir  right under Art. 19(1)(a).  But it is said  that\t the
\nobject\tcould  be achieved by reducing\tthe  advertisements.
\nThat  is to say, the newspapers would be able to devote\t the
\nsame space which they are devoting today to the\t publication
\nof  news and views by reducing to the necessary\t extent\t the
\nspace  allotted to advertisements.  It is pointed  out\tthat
\nnews-\n<\/p>\n
 861<\/span><\/p>\n
papers\t allot\t a   disproportionately\t  large\t  space\t  to
\nadvertisements,\t It is true that many newspapers  do  devote
\nvery  large  areas to advertisements.  But then the  Act  is
\nintended  to apply also to newspapers which may carry no  or
\nvery  few advertisements.  Again, after the commencement  of
\nthe  Act and the coming into force of the Order a  newspaper
\nwhich  has  a  right to publish any  ‘number  of  pages\t for
\ncarrying its news and views will be restrained from doing so
\nexcept\tupon the condition that it raises the selling  price
\nas provided in the schedule to the Order.  This would be the
\ndirect\tand immediate effect of the Order and As such  would
\nbe  violative of the right of newspapers guaranteed by\tArt.
\n19(1)(a).\n<\/p>\n
Again,\ts.  3(1)  of the Act in so far\tas  it\tpermits\t the
\nallocation of space to advertisements also directly  affects
\nfreedom\t of circulation.  If the area for advertisements  is
\ncurtailed the price of the newspaper will be forced up.\t  If
\nthat happens, the circulation will inevitably go down.\tThis
\nwould be no remote, but a direct consequence of\t curtailment
\nof advertisements.\n<\/p>\n
We  would  consider this matter in another  way\t also.\t The
\nadvertisement revenue of a newspaper is proportionate to its
\ncirculation.  Thus the higher the circulation of a newspaper
\nthe  larger  would be its advertisement revenue.   So  if  a
\nnewspaper  with a high circulation were to raise  its  price
\nits  circulation would go down and this in turn would  bring
\ndown  also the advertisement revenue.  That would force\t the
\nnewspaper  either  to  close down or  to  raise\t its  price.
\nRaising the price further would affect the circulation still
\nmore  and  thus\t a vicious cycle would set  in\twhich  would
\nultimately end in the closure of the newspaper.\t If, on\t the
\nother  hand,  the  space for advertisement  is\treduced\t the
\nearnings  of a newspaper would go down and it  would  either
\nhave to run at a loss or close down or raise its price.\t The
\nobject of the Act in regulating the space for advertisements
\nis stated to
\n862<\/span>
\nbe to\t  prevant “unfair’ competition.\t It is thus directed
\nagainst circulation of a newspaper.  When a law is  intended
\nto  bring  about  this-result  there  would  be\t a’   direct
\ninterference  with  the\t right\tof  freedom  of\t speech\t and
\nexpression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a).
\nSince the very object of the’ impugned law is to affect\t the
\ncirculation  of\t certain newspapers which, are\tsaid  to  be
\npractising unfair competition it is difficult to  appreciate
\nhow  it could be sustained.  The right to freedom of  speech
\nand  expression is an individual right guaranteed  to  every
\ncitizen\t by  Art. 19(1)(a) of the  Constitution.   There  is
\nnothing\t in el. (2) of Art. 19 which permits the  State,  to
\nabridge this right on the ground of conferring benefits upon
\nthe  public in general or upon a section of the public.\t  It
\nis not open to the State to curtail or infringe the  freedom
\nof  speech  of one for promoting the general  welfare  of  a
\nsection\t or  a group of people unless its  action  could  be
\njustified  under a law competent under el. (2) of  Art.\t 19.
\nIt  is\tadmitted  that the  impugned  provisions  cannot  be
\njustified  on  the  grounds referred to\t in  the  aforesaid.
\nclause.\n<\/p>\n
It was, however, contended on behalf of the State that there
\nare   two  aspects  of\tthe  activities\t of   newspapers-the
\ndissemination  of news and views and the commercial  aspect.
\nThese  two  aspects,  it is said  fare\tdifferent  from\t one
\nanother\t and  under cl. (6) of Art. 19 restrictions  can  be
\nplaced\ton the latter right in the interest of\tthe  general
\npublic.\t  So  far as it is relevant for the purpose  of\t the
\nargument el. (6) reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Nothing  in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall  affect
\nthe operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or
\nprevent\t the  State  from making any  law  imposing  in\t the
\ninterests of the general public, reasonable’restrictions  on
\nthe  exercise  of  the\tright conferred\t by  the  said\tsub-
\nclause . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n<\/p>\n
863<\/span><\/p>\n
It  may well be within the power of the State to  place,  in
\nthe  interest of the general public, restrictions  upon\t the
\nright  of a citizen to carry on business but it is not\topen
\nto  the\t State\tto  achieve  this  object  by  directly\t and
\nimmediately  curtailing\t any other freedom of  that  citizen
\nguaranteed by the Constitution\t   and\t  which\t   is\t not
\nsusceptible of abridgement    on the same grounds as are Bet
\nout in cl. (6) of   Art.  19.  Therefore, the\t       right
\nof freedom of  speech  cannot be taken away with the  object
\nof  placing  restrictions on the business  activities  of  a
\ncitizen.   Freedom of speech can be restricted only  in\t the
\ninterests  of the security of the State, friendly  relations
\nwith foreign State, public order, decency or morality or  in
\nrelation  to contempt of court, defamation or incitement  to
\nan  offence.   It  cannot,  like the  freedom  to  carry  on
\nbusiness,  be  curtailed  in the  interest  of\tthe  general
\npublic.\t If a law directly affecting it is challenged it  is
\nno   answer  that  the\trestrictions  enacted  by   it\t are
\njustifiable under cls. (3) to (6).  For, the scheme of\tArt.
\nis  to enumerate different freedoms separately and  then  to
\nspecify\t the  extent of restrictions to which  they  may  be
\nsubjected  and the objects for securing which this could  be
\ndone.  A citizen is entitled to enjoy each and every one  of
\nthe  freedoms  together\t and el. (1)  does  not\t prefer\t one
\nfreedom\t to  another.\tThat is the plain  meaning  of\tthis
\nclause.\t  It follows from this that the State cannot make  a
\nlaw  which directly restricts one freedom even for  scouring
\nthe  better enjoyment of another freedom.  All\tthe  greater
\nreason, therefore for holding that the State cannot directly
\nrestrict  one  freedom by placing an  otherwise\t permissible
\nrestriction on another freedom.\n<\/p>\n
Viewing\t the question from this angle it would be seen\tthat
\nthe  reference\tto  the Press being a business\tand  to\t the
\nrestriction  imposed by the impugned Act being referable  or
\njustified  as a proper restriction on the right to carry  on
\nthe business of publishing a, newspaper would be
\n864<\/span>
\nwholly\tirrelevant for considering whether the impugned\t Act
\ninfringes  or  does not infringe the freedom  guaranteed  by
\nArt. 19(1)(a).\n<\/p>\n
The  only question that would then remain would\t be  whether
\nthe impugned enactment directly impinges on the guarantee of
\nfreedom of speech and expression.  It would directly impinge
\non  this freedom either by placing restraint upon it  or  by
\nplacing restraint upon something which is an essential\tpart
\nof that freedom.  The freedom of a newspaper to publish\t any
\nnumber of pages or to circulate it to any number of  persons
\nis  each  an  integral part of the  freedom  of\t speech\t and
\nexpression.  A restraint placed upon either of them would be
\na direct infringement of the right of freedom of speech\t and
\nexpression.   Perhaps an illustration would make  the  point
\nclear.\t Let  us suppose that the enactment  had  said\tthat
\nnewspaper “A’ or newspaper “B’ (ignoring for the moment\t the
\nobjection  to the illustration based upon Art. 14 shall\t not
\nhave more than a specified number of subscribers. Could such
\na  law\tbe  valid in the face of the  guarantee\t under\tArt.
\n19(1)(a)?   The\t answer must unhesitatingly be\tno,  because
\nsuch  a law would be recognized as directly  impinging\tupon
\nthe  freedom  of  expression which  encompasses\t freedom  of
\ncirculation and to restrain the citizen from propagating his
\nviews to any other beyond the limit or number prescribed  by
\nthe statute.  If this were so, the fact that the legislation
\nachieves  the same result by means of the schedule of  rates
\nmakes  no  difference and the impact on\t the  freedom  would
\nstill  be direct notwithstanding that it does not appear  so
\non its face.\n<\/p>\n
Here  the Act by enacting As. 4 and 5 directly\tprohibits  a
\nnewspaper  from exercising that right, should the  newspaper
\nfail  to comply with the requirement of an order made  under
\ns.  3.\tThis is a direct invasion of the  right\t under\tArt.
\n19(1)(a) and not an incidental or problematic effect thereon
\nas
\n865<\/span>
\nwas found in the.  Express Newspapers case(1).\tIn that case
\nthe   challenge\t to  certain  provisions  of  the    Working
\nJournalists  (Conditions.  of  Service)\t and   Miscellaneous
\nProvisions  Act,  1955 on the round that  it  infringes\t the
\nright  guaranteed  by Art. 19 ,(1)(&) of  the  Constitution.
\nThat  challenge failed because the object of that  enactment
\nwas  to secure the amelioration of the condition of  working
\njournalists and also because the law did not have the effect
\nof  directly  interfering with the right  of  the  newspaper
\nproprietors   guaranteed  under\t Art.  19  (1)(a)   of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThe distinction between direct and  indirect
\neffect of ‘a law upon the freedom of press has been adverted
\nto in that case.  At p.\t 135,  Bhagwati, J., who  spoke\t for
\nthe Court has said  :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “All   the   consequences\t which\t have\tbeen
\n\t      visualised in this behalf by the\tpetitioners,
\n\t      viz., the tendency to curtail circulation\t and
\n\t      thereby  narrow the scope of dissemination  of
\n\t      information,\t fetters       on\t the
\n\t      petitioners’freedom  to  choose the  means  of
\n\t      exercising   the\tright,\tlikelihood  of\t the
\n\t      independence of the press being undermined  by
\n\t      having  to seek government aid;………\tetc.
\n\t      would  be\t remote\t and  depend  upon   various
\n\t      factors  which may or may not come into  play.
\n\t      Unless  these  were the direct  or  inevitable
\n\t      consequences  of the measures enacted  in\t the
\n\t      impugned\tAct,  it would not  be\tpossible  to
\n\t      strike  down  the legislation as\thaving\tthat
\n\t      effect and operation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That the impugned Act was intended to effect circulation and
\nthus  directly affect the freedom of speech  is\t discernible
\nalso  from  the preamble which we way here quote.   It\truns
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “An  Act to provide for the regulation of\t the
\n\t      prices  charged for newspapers in relation  to
\n\t      their pages and of matters connected therewith
\n\t      for the purpose of preventing unfair
\n\t      (1)   (1959) S.C..R. 12
\n\t      866<\/span>
\n\t      competition  among  newspapers so\t that  news.
\n\t      papers   may  have  fuller  opportunities\t  of
\n\t      freedom of expression.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Its  object thus is to regulate something which, as  already
\nstated,\t is  directly  related\tto  the\t circulation  of   a
\nnewspaper.   Since  circulation of a newspaper is a part  of
\nthe  right of freedom of speech the Act must be regarded  as
\none directed against the freedom of speech.  It has selected
\nthe fact or thing which is an essential and basic  attribute
\nof  the conception of the freedom of speech viz., the  right
\nto  circulate one’s views to all whom one can reach or\tcare
\nto  reach for the imposition of a restriction.\tIt seeks  to
\nachieve\t its object of enabling what are termed the  smaller
\nnewspapers to secure larger circulation by provisions  which
\nwithout disguise are aimed at restricting the circulation of
\nwhat  are  termed the larger papers  with  better  financial
\nstrength.  The impugned law far from being one, which merely
\ninterferes with the right of freedom of speech incidentally,
\ndoes  so  directly  though it seeks to achieve\tthe  and  by
\npurporting  to regulate the business aspect of a  newspaper.
\nSuch a course is not permissible and the courts must be ever
\nvigilant  in guarding perhaps the most precious of  all\t the
\nfreedoms  guaranteed  by our Constitution.  The\t reason\t for
\nthis  is obvious.  The freedom of speech and  expression  of
\nopinion\t is  of\t paramount  importance\tunder  a  democratic
\nConstitution  which envisages changes in the composition  of
\nlegislatures  and  governments and must\t be  preserved.\t  No
\ndoubt, the law in question was made upon the  recommendation
\nof  the Press Commission but since its object is  to  affect
\ndirectly the right of circulation of newspapers which  would
\nnecessarily  undermine\ttheir  power  to  influence   public
\nopinion\t it  cannot. but be regarded as a  dangerous  weapon
\nwhich is capable of being used against democracy itself.
\nIn  these  circumstances  the Act and the  Order  cannot  be
\nsustain d upon the ground that it merely
\n867<\/span>
\nimplements a recommendation of the Press Commission and\t was
\nthus  not  made with an ulterior object.   The\tdecision  in
\nHamdard\t Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Union of India<\/a> (1)\t upon  which
\nreliance  was  placed by the respondent in  support  of\t the
\ncontention  that  where an enactment is\t challenged  on\t the
\nground\tof violation of fundamental rights it is  legitimate
\nto  take  into consideration several factors  including\t the
\npurpose\t of  the legislation, the mischief  intended  to  be
\nsuppressed,  the remedy purposed by the legislature and\t the
\ntrue  reason for that remedy does not, therefore, arise\t for
\nconsideration.\tSimilarly since the Act taken in conjunction
\nwith  the order made thereunder operates as a  restraint  on
\nthe freedom of Speech and expression of newspapers the\tmere
\nfact  that  its object was to suppress unfair  practices  by
\nnewspapers  would  not\tvalidate them.\tCarrying  on  unfair
\npractices may be a matter for condemnation.  But that  would
\nbe  no\tground\tfor placing restrictions  on  the  right  of
\ncirculation.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t argued that the object of the Act  was\t to  prevent
\nmonopolies  and\t that  monopolies are  obnoxious.   We\twill
\nassume\tthat monopolies are always against  public  interest
\nand  deserve  to be suppressed.\t Even so, upon the  view  we
\nhave taken that the intendment of the Act and the direct and
\nimmediate  effect of the Act taken along with  the  impugned
\norder  was to interfere with the freedom of  circulation  of
\nnewspapers the circumstance that its object was to  suppress
\nmonopolies and prevent unfair practices is of no assistance.
\nThe  legitimacy of the result intended to be “achieved\tdoes
\nnot  necessarily  imply that every means to  achieve  it  is
\npermissible;   for  even  if  the  end\tis   desirable\t and
\npermissible,  the  means employed must\tnot  transgress\t the
\nlimits\tlaid  down  by the Constitution,  if  they  directly
\nimpinge\t on any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by\t the
\nConstitution it is no answer when the constitutionality
\n(1)  [1960] 2 S.C. R. 671.\n<\/p>\n
868<\/span><\/p>\n
of the measure is challenged that apart from the fundamental
\nright infringed the provision is otherwise legal.
\nFinally it was said that one of its objects is to give\tsome
\nkind of protection to small or newly started newspapers and,
\ntherefore, the Act is good.  Such an object may be desirable
\nbut  for attaining it the State cannot make inroads  on\t the
\nright of, other newspapers which Art. 19(1)(a) guarantees to
\nthem.  There may be other ways of helping them and it is for
\nor the State to search for them but the one they have chosen
\nfalls foul of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
To  repeat,  the only restrictions which may be\t imposed  on
\nthe,  rights of an individual under Art. 19(1)(a) are  those
\nwhich cl. (2) of Art. 19 permits and no other.
\nComing to Writ Petitions 67 and 68 of 1961, considering that
\nthe  relief granted by us in the main petition will  redress
\nthe  grievance of the petitioners in these two petitions  it
\nwill be only of academic interest to decide whether they, as
\nreaders of newspapers, can complain of an interference\twith
\ntheir right under Art. (19) (1) (a).  We, therefore, refrain
\nfrom making any Order on their petitions.\n<\/p>\n
Upon the view we take it would follow that s.\t  3(1)\t  of
\nthe Act, which is its pivotal provision, is  unconstitutional
\nand  therefore, the Daily newspaper (Price and Page)  Order,
\n1960  made thereunder is also unconstitutional.\t If a.\t3(1)
\nis struck down as bad, nothing remains in the Act itself.
\nAccordingly  we\t allow\tthis  petition\twith  costs.\t‘The
\npetitioners  in\t W.  Ps. 67 and 68 of 1961 as  well  as\t the
\ninterveners will bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
869<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 305, 1962 SCR (3) 842 Author: M R. Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: SAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-26T18:00:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"43 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T18:00:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961\"},\"wordCount\":8219,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961\",\"name\":\"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T18:00:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-26T18:00:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"43 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961","datePublished":"1961-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T18:00:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961"},"wordCount":8219,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961","name":"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T18:00:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakal-papers-p-ltd-and-others-vs-the-union-of-india-on-25-september-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}