Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 25 September 1961 · 5 judges · 1962 AIR 305; 1962 SCR (3) 842
Section 3(1) of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the 1960 Order made under it, which tied a newspaper's pages to its price, were struck down as directly infringing Article 19(1)(a).
Facts
The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, enacted on a recommendation of the Press Commission, empowered the Central Government to regulate the prices of newspapers in relation to their pages and the space given to advertisements, to prevent unfair competition. The Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960 fixed the maximum pages a newspaper could publish for the price charged and restricted supplements except with Government permission. The publisher of the Marathi daily 'Sakal' and its two shareholders challenged the Act and Order under Article 32, saying they would have to raise the price or cut pages, either way curtailing circulation. Two readers filed connected petitions. The Union defended the law as a regulation of the business side of newspapers, aimed at preventing monopolies and helping smaller papers.
Questions before the Court
- Do the Act and the Order, by linking the number of pages to the price of a newspaper, infringe the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?
- Can the law be sustained as a reasonable restriction on the business of newspapers under Article 19(6), or by its object of preventing unfair competition and monopolies?
What the Court held
- Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to propagate one's ideas and extends not only to the matter circulated but also to the volume of circulation. The freedom of a newspaper to publish any number of pages or to circulate to any number of persons is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a).
- The price and page schedule and the control of advertisement space directly curtail circulation. This is a direct invasion of Article 19(1)(a), not an incidental or remote effect as in Express Newspapers.
- Freedom of speech can be restricted only on the grounds in Article 19(2), not in the interest of the general public. The State cannot curtail it by placing restrictions on the business activities of a citizen under Article 19(6), and cannot curtail one person's freedom to promote the welfare of a section of the public.
- A desirable object, such as preventing monopolies, unfair practices or helping small newspapers, does not validate means that directly infringe a fundamental right. Section 3(1), the pivotal provision, and the Order were declared unconstitutional and the main petition was allowed with costs.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that freedom of circulation is part of freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a), and that a law directly aimed at circulation cannot be saved by calling it a regulation of the business side of newspapers. It states that the only restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) are those permitted by Article 19(2), and that each freedom in Article 19(1) has its own limits, so one freedom cannot be curtailed through restrictions permissible on another.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The right to propagate one's ideas is inherent in the conception of freedom of speech and expression. For the purpose of propagating his ideas every citizen has a right to publish them, to disseminate them and to circulate them. He is entitled to do so either by word of mouth or by writing. The right garanteed thus extends, subject to any law competent under Art. 19(2), not merely to the matter which he is entitled to circulate, but also to the volume of circulation.”
“It may well be within the power of the State to place, in the interest of the general public, restrictions upon the right of a citizen to carry on business but it is not open to the State to achieve this object by directly and immediately curtailing any other freedom of that citizen guaranteed by the Constitution and which is not susceptible of abridgement on the same grounds as are Bet out in cl. (6) of Art. 19.”
“The freedom of a newspaper to publish any number of pages or to circulate it to any number of persons is each an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression. A restraint placed upon either of them would be a direct infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression.”
“Since circulation of a newspaper is a part of the right of freedom of speech the Act must be regarded as one directed against the freedom of speech. It has selected the fact or thing which is an essential and basic attribute of the conception of the freedom of speech viz., the right to circulate one's views to all whom one can reach or care to reach for the imposition of a restriction.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 19(6), Constitution
- Section 3(1), Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956
- Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960
Related judgments
- Follows Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)“this Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that this freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.” (page 10)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India
- Case
- Petitions Nos. 331 of 1960 and 67-68 of 1961 (Original Jurisdiction)
- Decided
- 25 September 1961
- Bench
- Mudholkar, J.R., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P. (CJ), Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The judgment of the Court was delivered by J.R. Mudholkar, J.
Questions on this case
4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.