Constitutional Law

Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India

AIR 1973 SC 106; (1972) 2 SCC 788

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 106; (1972) 2 SCC 788
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 30 October 1972
Bench: S.M. Sikri C.J.; A.N. Ray; P. Jaganmohan Reddy; K.K. Mathew; M.H. Beg

Facts

India depended heavily upon imported newsprint, which was treated as a scarce essential commodity.
The Government regulated its distribution through the Newsprint Control Order and the Newsprint Policy for 1972–73.
The policy imposed several restrictions, including:
a ceiling of ten pages on newspapers;
restrictions on starting new newspapers and editions;
limitations on increasing circulation;
restrictions on transferring newsprint allocation between newspapers belonging to the same establishment.
Bennett Coleman, which published newspapers including The Times of India, challenged these restrictions.
The company, along with editors, shareholders and readers, argued that the policy prevented newspapers from growing and publishing the volume of news and opinion they considered necessary.
The Government maintained that the policy fairly distributed scarce newsprint and promoted smaller newspapers.

Whether a newspaper company could challenge restrictions affecting the Article 19(1)(a) rights of its shareholders, editors and readers.
Whether restrictions on newsprint quantity and newspaper pages directly burdened freedom of the press.
Whether promoting smaller newspapers justified restricting the growth of larger newspapers.
Whether the policy was protected as economic regulation.

Freedom of the press includes:
freedom of publication;
freedom of circulation;
freedom to determine the number of pages; and
freedom to achieve reasonable growth.
The Court must examine the direct and inevitable effect of the governmental measure, not merely its stated purpose.
A measure formally regulating a physical resource may violate Article 19(1)(a) if its direct effect is to restrict news, views or circulation.
The State may distribute scarce resources, but it cannot use scarcity regulation to control or reduce protected expression.
The freedom of larger newspapers cannot be restricted merely to favour smaller newspapers.

The Court rejected the argument that the case concerned only the company’s commercial interests.
Editors, shareholders and readers had directly affected expressive rights.
The company could therefore maintain the petition where the restrictions on its operations simultaneously restricted the rights of those individuals.
The ten-page ceiling prevented larger newspapers from publishing additional news and opinion even if they were prepared to use their existing allocation efficiently.
Restrictions on new editions prevented newspapers from reaching new geographical audiences.
The prohibition on adjusting newsprint between publications prevented an establishment from responding to actual reader demand.
These restrictions affected both the quantity of expression and its circulation.
The Government argued that the objective was to create equality among newspapers.
The majority held that equality could not be achieved by compulsorily limiting the growth of successful publications.
The policy did not create additional newsprint for smaller newspapers merely by preventing larger newspapers from expanding.
The Court accepted that the Government could regulate and distribute scarce imported newsprint.
However, allocation rules had to remain neutral toward editorial content, circulation and growth.
Justice Mathew dissented, giving greater weight to distributive equality and the State’s objective of preventing concentration in the newspaper industry.

The majority struck down the principal restrictions under the 1972–73 Newsprint Policy.
The page ceiling, growth restrictions, prohibition on new editions and limitations on interchangeability violated Article 19(1)(a).
The direct effect of these measures was to restrict the quantity and circulation of protected expression.