PROJECT

TOPIC : FREEDOM OF PRESS

SUBJECT: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW

SUBMITTED TO:
ANAND KUMAR SINGH

SUBMITTED BY
VIDYA MENON
LLM (ITL) 1st Semester
ROLL NO: 742

INTRODUCTION
Press is not just a medium to express once emotions, feelings and perspectives; but
additionally dependable and instrumental for building conclusions and perspectives on
different themes of territorial, national and global plan. The vital role of the media is its
ability to mobilize the thinking process of millions. The increased role of the media in the
present globalized world was aptly described by the Justice Hand of the United States
Supreme Court who stated, "The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen and the far
spread magazine, rules the country".
Freedom of the press is extremely important for the effective functioning of a democracy.
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. It is then that it can inform and educate the people along the right lines and
breed tolerance of thought and expression which again is an indicative feature of a
democratic set-up. It is believed that a vigilant public is the custodian of the freedom of press.
But its watchdogs are those who man it, and they have an even greater responsibility in
preserving that freedom.
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.

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 determine the current scenario of freedom of press in India in view of recent incidents
and cases
4. To examine the constitutional provisions of freedom of press in U.S.A in comparison with
India
5. 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?
4. What are the constitutional provisions of freedom of press in U.S.A? How far the
provisions are different from that of India?
5. Why is there a need to strike a balance between freedom of press and other fundamental
rights guaranteed to the citizens?
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".1 Freedom of the press is the freedom to communicate and express
through mediums including various electronic media and published materials. 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,
1 The United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

there are various forms of news media that includes television, radio broadcasting and online
news websites.
Freedom of press and media is recognized as an essential attribute of a parliamentary
democracy. A free press is the mother of all liberties and of our progress under liberty. 2
Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice B.N. Hansaria in the Printers (Mysore) Limited v. State of
Karnataka 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.3 For the proper functioning of any democracy it is important that
citizens are kept informed about what is happening within the country. 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.
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 Madras4, 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.
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 ones own views but also the right to print matters which are not ones
2Adlai Stevenson
3 A.I.R 1994 S.C 23
4 1950 S.C.R 594 at 597

own but have either been borrowed from someone else or are printed under the direction of
that person.5Hence liberty of press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and
expression declared by Article 19 (1) (a)6
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. Like any other freedom, the freedom of
press is not absolute. It is subjected to reasonable restrictions as mentioned under Article
19(2). 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.
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:
a. 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. 7And 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.8
b. 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 persons reputation is harmed without
5 Srinivasa Bhat v. State of Madras, A.I.R. (1951) Madras 70 at 73
6 Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 S.C.R.605 at 608
7 Ramesh Thapper v State of Madras, AIR 1950 Sc 124
8 State of Bihar v ShailaBala, AIR SC329

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
must prove the statement was false if it involved a matter of public concern.9
c. 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 contempt 10. 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 b 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.
d. 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. Balsara11the 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 coomit an
offence under the Act.
e. 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
9 Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986)
10 E.M.S Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015
11 1951 AIR 318

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.12
f. Decency and morality
In Regina v Hicklin13 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.
g. 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 Assn14, 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 India15, 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.
Relevant case laws
12 Art. 2 (j) of the Covenant on Freedom of Information and the Press
13 [1968] 3 QB 360
14 [2005] INSC 272 (21 April 2005)
15 1996 SCC (7) 216

1. Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors16
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 India17
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 Madras18
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
16 1973 AIR 106
17 1962 AIR 305
18 AIR 1950 SC 124

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.
4. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi 19
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
include ing 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 India20
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 Nadu21
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.
19 AIR 1950 SC 129
20 AIR 1958 SC 578
21 1994( 6) SCC 632

Court further held that the right to privacy and right of freedom of press have to be balanced.
If publication of truth is in public interest it would not amount to defamation. On the other
hand, if it has got nothing to do with public interest and relates to privacy of an individual,
then it would certainly be defamatory. In the instant case, the petitioners were entitled to
publish the autobiography by Auto Shankar as it appeared from public records.
7. Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer22
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.
8. Virendra v. State of Punjab23
In the this case, in respect of a publisher being prohibited to publish his view the Supreme
Court observed that it is certainly a serious encroachment on the valuable and cherished right
to freedom of speech, if a newspaper is prevented from publishing its own view or the view
of its correspondents.
ROLE OF PRESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Current scenario of press and its achievements
As discussed, press is regarded as one of the pillars of democracy as it continues to act as a
watchdog of the three organs of democracy. In the present day, role of press in the
administration of justice has gained significant proportions. The sting operations carried out
against public servants by media houses are gaining popularity. Medias are justified in
carrying out deliberate operations, as this is probably the only way the defaulters can be
caught red handed. It helps the investigating authorities to bring out the truth in unrevealed
cases.
22 1994 SCC (2) 434
23 AIR 1957 SC 896

Some of the famous cases that would have gone unpunished but for the intervention of media
includes the Jessica Lal case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Nithesh Katara case, Aarushi
murder case and the Bijal joshi rape case. In all these cases the courts have appreciated the
investigative journalism of media.
In State v.Siddharth Vashisth & Manu Sharma24popularly called as the Jessica Lal murder
case, following an intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi
High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings. The trial court
judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He
was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2006.
Similarly in State (Through CBI) v. Santhosh Kumar Singh25,popularly called as the
Priyadarshini Mattoo case, the intense media spotlight

led to an accelerated trial,

unprecedented in the tangled Indian court system. The case is one of several in India that
highlight the ineffectiveness of traditional criminal law system, especially when it comes to
high profile perpetrators. The acquittal of Santosh Singh in the case in 1999 had led to a
massive public outcry and the investigating agency CBI, under considerable pressure,
challenged the judgment in the Delhi High Court on February 29, 2000. Another case was
that of the Dr. Rajesh Talwar And Another v. Central Bureau Of Investigation26, known as the
Aarushi murder case. The high-profile Arushi/Hemraj twin murder case is a classic example
where media's effort was lauded as well as criticized. One of the victims was a student of an
elite school, her well-heeled doctor parents were the suspects. After Jessica Lal and
Priyadarshini mattoo case, this case was also under intense media scrutiny after the case was
marked with shoddy investigation. Vishal Yadav v. State of Delhi27 is another case in which
the media played a very important role in bringing the criminals before law.
Press- the need to act in a more responsible manner

24 2001 IIAD Delhi 829,2001 Cri LJ 2404,90(2001)DLT 548

25 2007 Cri LJ 964,133(2006)DLT 393
26 2013 (82) ACC 303
27 116(2005)DLT 341,2005(79)DRJ 254

Though the press has assumed critical parts for open welfare yet on occasion it has acted
recklessly. For example the electronic media built up the Abhi-Ash wedding in a manner that
other imperative news were dismissed. In Prof. Sabharwal's case, when Prof. Sabharwal was
executed by ABVP activists, there were various news channels & daily paper reporter were
available & they had proof of the homicide however the media acted unreliably & the police
called it an 'Open & Shut Case'.
Likewise, when Mumbai was under fear danger in 26/11 the media acted rather negligently
by telecasting live the long sixty hours Operation Black Tornedo by the security powers to
battle the assault at The Taj Hotel & Nariman House. It included live feed of air dropping
NSG Commandoes on the housetop of Nariman House. Similarly was the IPL issue wherein
all sorts of speculative stories revolved around the relationship between the Minister, Shashi
Tharoor, and Sunanda Pushkar in air and in print. The accent was on denigrating the character
and competence of the businesswoman. This kind of investigative journalism' has nothing to
do with the truth-telling function of the news media. What it does is to prejudice the course of
public judgment and eventually justice. On occasion news channel covers news, for example,
'Bollywood Gossips' & 'Page 3' and so forth which has lessened them to a negligible
'Entertainment Channel'. There are numerous essential issues which ought to be secured by
the media however unfortunately it doesn't. In April 2009, Union Home Minister
P.Chidambaram was tending to the media at a question and answer session a columnist tossed
a shoe at the minister on challenge of aquital of a Congress pioneer accused for driving AntiSikh riots in 1984. The reporter, Jarnal Singh was a journalist of Dainik Jagran, a local daily
paper. Later on he apologized to the Union Home pastor for his demonstration. This was a
standout amongst the most condemnable act which demonstrated the appalling side of the
press.
COMPARISON WITH THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION
The United States has one of the worlds strongest systems of legal protection for freedom of
the press. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides the core guarantee of press
freedom and freedom of speech. It reads Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the

government for a redress of grievance.28 Article 19(1) (a) finds its roots in the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Unlike the Indian Constitution, the First Amendment to the American Constitution makes a
specific or separate provision for the freedom of press. Further, while the restriction on the
right to freedom of speech and expression are expressly spelt out in Article 19(2), this is not
so under the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court has read into the rights of the press
certain implicit restrictions which are, in principal, no different from Article 19(2). One such
restriction is the defamation law. The courts have given the press broad protection from libel
and defamation suits that involve commentary on public figures, though libel formally
remains a criminal offense in a number of states. In deciding New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan29, The Supreme Court held that when a publication involves a public figure, in order
to support a suit for libel, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the publisher acted
with "actual malice,"
Under the American Constitution, the free press clause protects the rights of individuals to
express themselves through publication and dissemination of information, opinions and ideas
without the interference from the government. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo30,
the Court unanimously struck down a state law requiring newspapers criticizing political
candidates to publish their responses. The state claimed that the law had been passed to
ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is
mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not
force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish. In Branzburg v. Hayes
31

this right was described as a fundamental right that is not merely confined to newspapers

and periodicals. In Lovell v. City of Griffin,32press was defined as every sort of publication
which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. This right has been extended to include
28 US Constitution , First Amendment , Article 1
29 376 U.S 254 (1964)
30 418 U.S 241
31 408 US. 665
32 Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444

newspapers, books, movies as well as video games. Similarly people who blog, Twitter or use
other social media are protected equally by the free speech and free press clause. In Obsidian
Finance Group, LLC. v. Cox, (2014) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
held that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist
and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. As far as India is
concerned, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, had criminalized the
publishing of any information on Facebook, Twittter and other website that could be deemed
to be "false, or was for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction,
insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will. However recently on 24 th
March 2015, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the court struck down section 66A of the
Information Technology Act 2000 both in terms of liberty of the individual and from the
point of view of democratic governance.
Thus it can be concluded that for the most part, from a legal and social viewpoint the freedom
of the press in America is far more robust in comparison to the Indian guarantee.
FREEDOM OF PRESS VIS-A-VIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: THE NEED TO
STRIKE A BALANCE
Human beings across the world have always strived to strike a balance between working and
resting, reporting and judging, befriending and avoiding, warmth and coldness, speech and
expression, joy and frustration and many intermingled aspects of daily and social
life. Likewise, in the modern era where television and internet sweeping information across
the world in a matter of seconds, the Supreme Court of India is attempting to strike a balance
between the medias right to freedom of speech and expression and other fundamental rights
such as rights of the accused to a fair trial, protection of witnesses, public's right to know and
right to privacy
Freedom of press and fair trial
The tension between the courts and the media revolves around two general concerns. The
first is that there should be no trial by media'; and the second is that it is not for the press or
anyone else to prejudge' a case. Justice demands that people should be tried by courts of
law and not be pilloried by the press.33

33Rajeev Dhavan, The Hindu, May 17, 2010

Media trials put at risk the due process of administration. In Sushil Sharma v. The State
(Delhi Administration) and Ors34 it was held by the Delhi High Court that conviction, if any,
would be based not on media's report but what facts are placed on record. Similarly in A.G v.
Times News papers Ltd35 , Lord Denning stated that court would not allow trial by news
papers or trial by television or trial by any medium other than the court of law.
Thus trial by media should not be encouraged. However press and media shall have the
freedom to express freely its views and opinion about the issue at hand. In many cases press
has played an active role in bringing an issue to the limelight and have thereby paved way to
impart justice. Thus effort must be placed so as to make sure that freedom of press does not
result in trial by media. Its only then that a fair trial can be ensured to an accused under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, every person is presumed to be innocent till proved
guilty in a court and no one can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it
goes to trial.
Freedom of press and right to privacy/right to know
The problem with freedom of speech is that a free press and a persons right to be informed
can occasionally infringe upon another persons right to privacy. Publics right to know does
not include the right to intimate the private details of ones neighbours. Unless the
information can be proven to be of great public interest, there shall be no obligation to bring
the matter under public sensational stories. Where and when line of distinction is to be drawn
between the freedom of press and right to privacy has been an issue of debate. Most
journalists defend the public's right to know contending that detailed, accessible information
results in a constituency who better comprehends the legitimate procedure. Thus again efforts
must be placed to ensure that freedom of press does not encroach into the right to privacy of
an individual. Besides, Press has a duty to keep the public informed of all matters. Right to
information of the public must not be used in any manner so as to interfere with the privacy
of an individual. Therefore, all these rights are to be read in broad sense so that one does not
interfere with the other. In other words, court has to take utmost care to ensure that freedom/
right is guaranteed to the citizens under Part III of the Constitution are not in conflict with the
other.
34 1996 CriLJ 3944
35 (1973) 1 QB

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

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." In an
organised society, the rights of press are to be recognized with its duties and responsibilities
towards the society. The wide power of press freedom shall not be utilized for wrong doings.
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 citizens right to privacy and publics 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.
SUGGESTIONS
In a democratic country, the government cannot function properly unless the people are well
informed and are free to participate in the public issues having the widest choice of alternate
solutions to the problem that arise. 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. The
following suggestions are offered in this connection:
1. Freedom of press should be expressly provided as a specific fundamental right under
Article 19 of the Constitution of India
2. Freedom of press should be reasonably restricted so that it does not encroach into the
right to privacy of an individual or hampers the right to fair trial of the accused

3. Trial by media should be discouraged for the simple reason that it media cannot be
allowed to usurp the powers of the court and thereby undermine the confidence of the
public in judicial system.
4. Reasonable restrictions should be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression

in social networking sites as it has now become the most common medium of
communicating with the public at large.