CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PROJECT REPORT – PRESS MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATION

ASSIGNED TOPIC:

SOCIAL INTEREST AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

SUBMITTED BY

SONAKSHI

ROLL NUMBER: 1054

SUBMITTED TO

MR. KUMAR GAURAV

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW)

i|Page
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Method of Research

The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the available resources at library of the Chanakya National Law University
and also the internet sources.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the project is to present an overview of various aspects relating to ‘Freedom of
Press’.

Scope and Limitations

Though the study of the this topic is an immense project and pages can be written over the topic
but due to certain restrictions and limitations the researcher has not been able to deal with the
topic in great detail.

Sources of Data:

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project: Cases, Books, Journals,
Articles, etc.

Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation

The researcher has followed the bluebook method of citation throughout the course of this
research work.

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I convey my deepest gratitude to my respected faculty of Press , Media and Telecommunication

,Mr. Kumar Gaurav, who has been a constant source of inspiration and guided me throughout
the interval to complete this project on ‘Social Interest and Freedom of Press’ successfully.

I wish to record my gratitude to the librarian and other staffs of CNLU library as no academic
venture of mine can be complete without their assistance and co-operation. I owe sincere
regards to them for providing me valuable information through, journals, textbooks and other
necessary data.

Sonakshi

3|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF STOCK EXCHANGE IN INDIA ............................ 7

3. CAPITAL MARKET ......................................................................................................... 9

4. BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE.................................................................................... 11

5. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE ................................................................................ 13

6. FEATURES OF STOCK EXCHANGE ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.6

7. ROLE OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (SEBI) ............ Error!

Bookmark not defined.8

8. PROCEDURE FOR DEALING AT STOCK EXCHANGE ........................................... 20

9. MECHANISM FOR TRADING IN STOCK EXCHANGE ............................................ 22

10. FOREIGN INVESTORS .................................................................................................. 23

11. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 24

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 25

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION

"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, 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.

1
The United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2
Adlai Stevenson
3
A.I.R 1994 S.C 23

5|Page
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 one’s own views but also the right to print matters which are not one’s own but have either
been borrowed from someone else or are printed under the direction of that person.” 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

4
1950 S.C.R 594 at 597
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

6|Page
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 person’s reputation is harmed without
justifiable reason, he can be prosecuted for the criminal wrong of defamation. The law of
criminal defamation is contained in section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. Supreme Court
in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, held that private individuals suing for libel 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 contempt10. 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

7
Ramesh Thapper v State of Madras, AIR 1950 Sc 124
8
State of Bihar v ShailaBala, AIR SC329
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

7|Page
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 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.

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

8|Page
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.

9|Page
 RELEVANT CASE LAWS

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
circulation .A law which imposes restrictions on grounds of ‘public safety or the ‘maintenance

16
1973 AIR 106
17
1962 AIR 305
18
AIR 1950 SC 124

10 | P a g e
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.
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

19
AIR 1950 SC 129
20
AIR 1958 SC 578
21
1994( 6) SCC 632

11 | P a g e
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.

22
1994 SCC (2) 434
23
AIR 1957 SC 896

12 | P a g e
 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.

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,

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

13 | P a g e
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

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 Anti-Sikh 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.

27
116(2005)DLT 341,2005(79)DRJ 254

14 | P a g e
 COMPARISON WITH THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

The United States has one of the world’s 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
31
to publish that which they do not desire to publish. In Branzburg v. Hayes this right was
described as a fundamental right that is not merely confined to newspapers and periodicals. In
Lovell v. City of Griffin,32”press” was defined as “every sort of publication which affords a

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

15 | P a g e
vehicle of information and opinion. This right has been extended to include 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 24th 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.

16 | P a g e
 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 media’s 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

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. It’s 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

33
Rajeev Dhavan, The Hindu, May 17, 2010
34
1996 CriLJ 3944
35
(1973) 1 QB

17 | P a g e
The problem with freedom of speech is that a free press and a person’s right to be informed
can occasionally infringe upon another person’s right to privacy. Public’s right to know does
not include the right to intimate the private details of one’s 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.

18 | P a g e
 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 citizen’s right
to privacy and public’s right to information vis-a-vis the role of media so that none of the rights
as guaranteed to the citizens are in conflict with each other. To quote our former Prime
Minister, “Freedom of press is an Article of Faith with us, sanctified by our Constitution,
validated by four decades of freedom and indispensible to our future as a nation.

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

19 | P a g e
 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.

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.

20 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

21 | P a g e