Constitutional Law

Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

AIR 1962 SC 305

Citation: AIR 1962 SC 305
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 25 September 1961
Bench: B.P. Sinha C.J.; A.K. Sarkar; K.C. Das Gupta; N. Rajagopala Ayyangar; J.R. Mudholkar

Facts

Sakal Papers published the Marathi newspaper Sakal from Pune.
Parliament enacted the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, followed by the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960.
The law connected the price of a newspaper with the number of pages it could publish.
A newspaper wishing to publish more pages was required to increase its selling price.
The Order also restricted the number of supplements that could be issued.
The Government argued that the measure would prevent larger newspapers from using their financial strength to dominate the market.
It claimed that limiting pages and regulating prices would help smaller newspapers compete and promote diversity in the press.
Sakal Papers argued that the measure would force it either to:
reduce the number of pages and therefore the quantity of news and views; or
increase its price and lose circulation.
It challenged the legislation under Article 19(1)(a).

Whether freedom of the press forms part of Article 19(1)(a).
Whether regulating the number of pages according to the newspaper’s price directly restricted freedom of speech.
Whether the restriction could be justified as regulation of a newspaper’s business under Article 19(6).
Whether the State could restrict larger newspapers to promote the circulation of smaller newspapers.

Freedom of the press is included in the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
It includes the freedom to:
publish news and views;
determine the volume of publication; and
circulate the newspaper.
A law directly restricting speech must be justified under Article 19(2).
The State cannot rely on Article 19(6), which concerns trade and business, to justify an infringement of Article 19(1)(a).
One person’s fundamental right cannot ordinarily be restricted merely to increase another person’s opportunity to exercise the same right.

The Court examined the practical effect of the price-page regulation.
If Sakal retained its existing price, it would have to reduce the number of pages.
This would reduce the space available for:
political news;
editorial opinion;
public information; and
advertisements supporting the publication financially.
Alternatively, increasing the price would likely reduce readership and circulation.
Both choices directly burdened the newspaper’s ability to communicate with the public.
The Government argued that the law regulated only the commercial side of newspaper publication.
The Court rejected this separation between commercial operation and expressive activity.
Newspapers require revenue, including advertising revenue, to gather news and publish views.
A restriction on pages and circulation therefore directly affected their expressive function.
The purpose of helping smaller newspapers did not bring the restriction within any ground listed in Article 19(2).
Article 19(2) did not permit restrictions merely to improve economic competition between newspapers.
The Court also held that the freedom of one newspaper could not be curtailed so that another newspaper might obtain more circulation.
The State could assist smaller publications through constitutionally permissible measures, but it could not do so by directly reducing the speech and circulation of successful newspapers.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act and the 1960 Order violated Article 19(1)(a).
The restrictions directly reduced the quantity of news and views that a newspaper could publish.
They also burdened circulation by forcing newspapers to increase their prices.
The measures could not be saved under Article 19(2).