DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
2021-2022

Media and Law

TITLE OF THE PROJECT:
Judicial Approach on Restriction of Freedom of Media

SUBMITTED BY: UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

AKANKSHA RAWAT Dr. Amandeep Singh
Enrolment No. 170101013 Professor (Law)
B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.) SEMESTER IX Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National
Law University, Lucknow
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me
during the writing of this project.

Words are inadequate in offering my deep sense of gratitude to my Professor for

her precious guidance.

With his enthusiasm, his inspiration and his great efforts to explain things
clearly and simply, he helped throughout my analysis of work with lots of
encouragement, sound advice, and good innovation.

I would also like to thank the librarians of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library who
extended their assistance to me by helping me out consult the relevant books.

I know that despite my best efforts some discrepancies might have crept in
which I believe my humble Professor would forgive.

Thanking You All

AKANKSHA RAWAT
Table of Contents

Introduction...........................................................................................................4

What is Freedom of Media and How It Has Come into Effect?...........................4

Reasonable Grounds of Restriction under Article 19(2):.....................................5

1. Friendly relations with foreign states and Security of State–..................5

2. Decency or morality:................................................................................5

3. Contempt of Court:..................................................................................5

4. Defamation:..............................................................................................6

5. Incitement of an offence:.........................................................................6

6. Integrity and Sovereignty of India:..........................................................6

Case Laws Supporting Freedom of Media:..........................................................6

Case Laws Where the Power of Media Is Subdued by Court:.............................8

Control on Commercial Advertisement:...............................................................9

Measures Taken by Several High Courts to Restrict the Media:........................10

Conclusion..........................................................................................................11

Bibliography.......................................................................................................12
Introduction
Media is considered as forth pillar of democracy and it is well established that if
media freely exchanges its ideas, information and knowledge, people will be
able to form their own idea and will question the decisions of government
logically.

During the pre-independence period, Indian Press was subject to several

shackles by the British authority. Vernacular Press Act, 1878; Indian Press
Act, 1910 & Indian Press (Emergency) Act, 1931 etc were used in impeding
the growth of press. After 1947, such principles changed and freedom of press
was substantiated.

The freedom of media is drafted impliedly under Article 19(1) (a) of the

Constitution, and under Article 19(2), the limitations to this freedom are
stating that no one can publish anything which goes against the provisions of
19(2).

What is Freedom of Media and How It Has Come into

Effect?
India is a vibrant democracy and the fourth estate is indubitably
an indispensable part of it. If the voice of the fourth estate is stifled, India
will become a Nazi State and the hard labour of our freedom fighters and
makers of our Constitution will go down the drain.

Media is considered as forth pillar of democracy and it is well established that if

media freely exchanges its ideas, information and knowledge, people will be
able to form their own idea and will question the decisions of government
logically.
During the pre-independence period, Indian Press was subject to several
shackles by the British authority. Vernacular Press Act, 1878; Indian Press
Act, 1910 & Indian Press (Emergency) Act, 1931 etc were used in impeding
the growth of press. After 1947, such principles changed and freedom of press
was substantiated.

The freedom of media is drafted impliedly under Article 19(1) (a) of the

Constitution, and under Article 19(2), the limitations to this freedom are
stating that no one can publish anything which goes against the provisions of
19(2).

Reasonable Grounds of Restriction under Article 19(2):

1. Friendly relations with foreign states and Security of State–
Saving the fair and just criticism of foreign political ideology, this ground is
placed as restriction on the “freedom of speech and expression” so that the
diplomatic relation between two countries is not maligned and any internal or
external encroachment does not take place. Otherwise it will be a reason of
discomfiture for India.

2.  Decency or morality:
There is no specific definition of the decency or morality in law but it has
greater ambit than the term “sexual morality”. The meanings of such terms
change with time and vary with the societal norms. This ground restricts any
speech and publication degrading the public morals. 

3.  Contempt of Court:
Both the Supreme Court and High Courts are entrusted with powers
under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India respectively to punish
its contempt. The main idea behind the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is that
judicial system and respected Judges cannot be criticized if it is not for greater
public good or if it is not hindering with the fair delivery of justice.

4.   Defamation:
Covered under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; demotion is held as a
ground of restriction because according to the Indian Constitution, the “freedom
of speech and expression” cannot infringe “right to reputation” of any citizen.

5.  Incitement of an offence:
According to the General Clauses Act, “offence” means, a breach of law or rule,
which mainly stands as illegal act under the law of the land. The Constitution of
India does not allow anyone misusing the “freedom of speech and expression”
to agitate and provoke anyone to commit any offence/ crime.

6.   Integrity and Sovereignty of India:

The Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1963 added this extra ground of
restriction under Article 19(2).1

Case Laws Supporting Freedom of Media:

 

Sakal Paper (P) Ltd., And Others v. Union of India2

1
Shereen Abdeen, Media as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy (2019),
https://www.lawyered.in/legal-disrupt/articles/media-fourth-pillar-democracy.
2
Sakal Paper (P) Ltd., And Others v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
As per the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 Central Government could
regulate the prices of newspapers as per their maximum pages and size and
could also regulate the allocation of space for advertising matters. The
petitioners had to increase the price of their newspaper if they wanted to
increase the page and vice versa.

The petitioners challenged the order as it was direct transgression from the
freedom and liberty of the press since its endorsement indicated mandatory
cutting down the existing number of pages or raising the price.

The Court held that the Act was void, since it was antithetical to Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution and was not eligible to be covered under the restrictions
compiled under Article 19 (2).

R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.3

 The Court upheld that there is no express law or provision which empowers the
government to apply “prior restraint” on any libelous publications against the
officials but later on, if it is proved that such publication was based on false
facts then the authority can ask for compensation or take action against this
damage.

In Brij Bhusan v. State of Delhi4

The Chief Commissioner of Delhi, issued an order as per Section 7 of the East

Punjab Safety Act, 1949, against the “printer”, “publisher” and “editor” of the
magazine named “Organiser”, asking them to submit all second copies of
articles related to India- Pakistan communalism issue. But Court nullified the
order stating that, this order violates the “freedom of speech and expression”

3
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
4
Brij Bhusan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129.
and upheld that the correspondents of the journals are allowed to give their own
perspective on any sensational news of country.

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras5

Here the Government of Madras, prohibited the circulation of a specific journal

named “Cross Road” in Madras under the “Maintenance of Public Order Act,
1949”. The Court held state order invalid stopping the circulation of journal
clearly inhibits the “freedom of propagation of ideas” and this restriction was
invalidated because it was not authorized under Article 19 (2) of the Indian
Constitution.

Case Laws Where the Power of Media Is Subdued by

Court:
 

Rajendra Sail v. M. P. High Court Bar Association and Others6

In the murder trial of a trade union leader, Shankar Guha Niyogi, the accused
were sentenced to life imprisonment except one who was awarded death
sentence. But after appealing against the trial court judgement, the High Court
acquitted the accused.

Based on the comment made by Rajendra K Sail, President of Chhattisgarh

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), a news report was published in
newspaper ‘Hitavada’ on 4th July, 1998, stating the court’s decision as
“rubbish”. The inherent conclusion of the news report was that a Judge who was
on verge of retirement should not have been conferred with the responsibility of
5
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
6
Rajendra Sail v. M. P. High Court Bar Association and Others, AIR 2005 6 SCC 109.
dealing with such a crucial case. This news report was considered as contempt
of court.

It was inferred that though media is entitled to criticize, analyze any judicial act
or the judgment for public good in a somber way but it should not cast any
salacious remark or any personal bias to the judge.

The Case of Privacy:

The Supreme Court’s landmark right to privacy order reevaluated the

boundaries on the freedom of the press when the Madras High Court restrained
a media house from publishing articles concerning the private life
of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi. 

It was determined that no one can impose any blanket injunction (An

injunction issued against multiple activities, or against multiple parties with
respect to the same activity, or both) on the right of press to publish, the Court
accentuated that the media “cannot take the excuse of public interest to
publish anything which seem interesting before them”. Justice Subramaniam
remarked on this aspect, “all matters in which the public takes interest may
not be in public interest.”7

Control on Commercial Advertisement:

 

Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) Lal v. Union of India and Others8

The Supreme Court considered the question of whether advertisements are also
protected under Article 19(1)(a). This is a landmark case where Supreme Court

7
V.Prem Shankar, Defamation case: DMK chief M Karunanidhi appears before Madras High Court (2016), The
Economic Times.
8
Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) Lal v. Union of India and Others, 1960 AIR 554 SCR(2)671.
started to control the advertisement sector too. The Court stated that original
attribute of an advertisement can be decided by the object it is promoting.

Advertisement promoting drugs and commodities cannot claim the protection

under Article 19(1) if the sale is not in public interest. And the noteworthy point
here is that advertisement is there to make progress in business, so it falls under
the head of trade and commerce and cannot be regarded as a part of freedom of
speech.

But later in a conflicting judgement of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)

Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that in some cases the
commercial advertisements will be protected under Art. 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution, and the right will not be denied merely because it is used by a
businessman.

Measures Taken by Several High Courts to Restrict the

Media:
 Investigative journalism house Cobrapost started a documentary titled
‘Operation 136: Part II’ and accused various media houses of being paid
news outlets. When Dainik Bhaskar pleaded against this in Delhi High
Court, an ex parte interim stay was released on the documentary.9
 In April, 2018, the Patiala House Court restrained media house which
was reporting on the investigation in the medical college bribery
case registered against former high court judge, Justice IM Quddusi.

9
The Wire Staff, Dainik Bhaskar Gets High Court to Block Fake News Exposé (2018), The Wire.
 Because court was of the view that this publication was bound to bring
disrepute to the plaintiff, so the restrain was necessary.10
 In August 2018, anticipating that press report will hamper the
investigation and trial, the Patna High Court curtailed the media from
reporting on the Muzaffarpur Shelter Home case but notwithstanding any
point mentioned by Patna HC, Supreme Court requested the media to
give impartial and unbiased review and report on the case.
 The Bangalore City Civil Court took action of passing an interim
injunction over forty media houses and social networking sites from
publishing any disparaging material against BJP candidate Tejasvi
Surya after he filed defamation suit in the civil court after several
newspapers made false allegations on his name.11

Conclusion
Thus from the above piece, we got to know there are numerous factors which
make media partial. India is a vibrant democracy and the fourth estate is
indubitably an indispensable part of it. If the voice of the fourth estate is stifled,
India will become a Nazi State and the hard labour of our freedom fighters and
makers of our Constitution will go down the drain. Racial, religious, political
factors cloud the transparency of media. The news portrayal is not always
perfect due to the competition and also due to the general feeling of controlling
the viewers i.e. a large percentage of population. To stop this genuine hazard
and to make the media more trustworthy the government legislatures should be
more effective and strict.

10
Aditi Singh, Delhi Court summons former High Court judge IM Quddusi & Ors in medical college bribery case
(2019), https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-court-summons-former-high-court-judge-im-quddusi-ors-
in-medical-college-bribery-case.
11
Special Correspondent, Tejasvi Surya case: High Court reserves verdict on plea against media gag ordeR
(2019), The Hindu.
Bibliography
Websites:

 Shereen Abdeen, Media as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy (2019),

Available at: https://www.lawyered.in/legal-disrupt/articles/media-fourth-
pillar-democracy/ [accessed on 17/12/21].
 V.Prem Shankar, Defamation case: DMK chief M Karunanidhi appears
before Madras High Court (2016), The Economic Times [accessed on
17/12/21].
 The Wire Staff, Dainik Bhaskar Gets High Court to Block Fake News
Exposé (2018), The Wire [accessed on 18/12/21].
 Aditi Singh, Delhi Court summons former High Court judge IM Quddusi
& Ors in medical college bribery case (2019),
https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-court-summons-former-high-
court-judge-im-quddusi-ors-in-medical-college-bribery-case. [accessed
on 18/12/21].
 Special Correspondent, Tejasvi Surya case: High Court reserves verdict
on plea against media gag ordeR (2019), The Hindu [accessed on
18/12/21].

Relevant cases from:

SCC Online.