FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION

   Constitution of India adopted on January 26, 1950 has ensured freedom of speech and expression as fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(A). Though there is no special mention as freedom of the press or any special provision in the fundamental rights on the freedom of press, the fourth state that is the press draws its strength from various Supreme Court and High Court judgements. Constitution, legislature and courts together  play a crucial role in safeguarding freedom of speech and expression. Article 19 (1) guarantees 6 fundamental rights to the citizens of India or we, the people, freedom of speech and expression is first among them. According to Supreme Court of India, there was no need for separate mention of freedom of the press other than freedom of speech and expression given to all citizens. Therefore, the press can not claim it has got any special privileges. Similarly, it cannot be subjected to any special restrictions which are not applicable to common citizens. In the US constitution, there is special and separate mention and provision of the freedom of the press. UK which has no written constitution has a long tradition of freedom of speech and expression of the press. It has been the foundation of all philosophy concerning freedom of speech, expression and the press. British Parliament also made a large amount of laws to protect the freedom of the press. The rights of free speech, expression, and the press are in a constant process of   evolution. Our constituent assembly had debated on whether freedom of the press should be clearly mentioned in Article19 (1)(a), but finally decided not to do so. There is no doubt; it could have been easier to understand this Article. There has been no need to drag judiciary more often to define this Article. Freedom of the speech and expression is guaranteed to citizens not to companies which are running the news papers. But Supreme Court of India has clearly stated in so many judgements that without freedom of the press the fourth state cannot provide comprehensive and objective information on all aspects of the country’s social, political, economic and cultural life. In Sakal newspaper pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India case the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgement. The apex court held that the right to propagate one’s ideas was inherent in the concept of freedom of speech and expression. Every citizen had the right to propagate and publish his/her ideas, disseminate and circulate them. In so many other cases also courts upheld the freedom of the press. In Romesh Thapper Vs. State of Madras case the Supreme Court quashed an order issued by Madras government prohibiting entry of ‘Crossroads’ published in Bombay. The court said, “Freedom of speech and propagation of ideas were possible only if circulation was guaranteed”.While Article 19 (1) ensures freedom of speech, Article 19 (2) puts restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in those cases there is danger to public security involved. To elaborate this in 1951, Article 19 (2)was amended to put some more restrictions on the rights conferred by Article 19 (1). This was done in the interest of the state, friendly relations with foreign state, public order, decency, morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. There has been tussle with judiciary, legislature and executive in this regard (19 (2)) and 1975 is a classical example of this.The Sakal case was basically regarding the Price and Page Schedule Act and Order which puts some restrictions on pricing of a newspaper by a paper establishment. The question before Supreme Court was whether the restrictions imposed by this Act and Order were an attack on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. This Act empowered the government to regulate the price of the newspapers particularly that of language (vernacular) newspapers. It also empowered the govt to regulate the space allotted for advertisement besides amount of supplements that could be brought out by the newspapers. The argument of the newspaper concerned was that this was an outright infringement on the fundamental right of freedom of expression. The court upheld this argument and declared the Acts concerned void as they violated the Article 19(1) (a).Article 19 (1) (a) was not protected by Article 19 (2). According to Supreme Court, fixation of the minimum price by govt was not to ensure a reasonable price to the buyers of the newspaper but for cutting down volumeof circulation by making price unattractively high for the class of readers who regularly subscribe to the news papers. This will deter them from purchasing newspapers.

Restrictions on publishing supplements also found to be violative of freedom of expression. The government argument was that the Act was aimed at preventing unfair competition and monopoly which will kill newcomers in the profession. It will result in destruction of freedom of expression and free press. A free press was not composed of a few powerful groups so state intervention was necessary to ensure level-playing ground. Supreme Court held that this could not be justified unless it has validity under clause 2 of Article 19.Though there are enough provisions for freedom of expression in the Constitution of India what is provided inone place is taken away by a sub-clause some where else in the Constitution itself or through an Act. This is acommon complaint by journalists and newspapers.