JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:—Special leave granted in SLP (C) No. 339 of 1991.

2. These two appeals though arising out of different circumstances and concerning different parties, relate to the scope of our constitutional policy of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The importance of the constitutional question prompted this Court to grant special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. We may properly begin the discussion of this judgment by stating the factual background of the two cases in the light of which we are required to examine the scope of the constitutional liberty of speech and expression.

3. Civil Appeal No. 1254/80 arises out of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2711 of 1979 decided by a Division Bench on 17th June, 1980 reported in AIR 1981 Gujarat 15. The respondent, the executive trustee of the Consumer Education & Research Centre (CERC), Ahmedabad, after undertaking research into the working of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) published on 10th July, 1978 a study paper titled "A fraud on policy holders - a shocking story". This study paper portrayed the discriminatory practices adopted by the LIC which adversely affected the interest of a large number of policy holders. This study paper was widely circulated by the respondent. Mr. N. C. Krishnan, a member of the LIC prepared a counter to the respondents study paper and published the same as an article in the "Hindu", a daily newspaper, challenging the conclusions reached by the respondent in his study paper. The respondent prepared a rejoinder which was published in the same newspaper. The LIC publishes a magazine called the Yogakshema for informing its members, staff and agents about its activities. It is the contention of the LIC that this magazine is an in-house magazine and is not put in the market for sale to the general public. Mr. Krishnans article which was in the nature of a counter to the respondents study paper was published in this magazine. The respondent thereupon requested the LIC to publish his rejoinder to the said article in the said magazine but his request was spurned. The respondent thereafter met the Chairman of the LIC and requested him to revise the decision and to publish the article in the magazine but to no avail. Thereupon he filed the petition contending that the refusal to publish his rejoinder in the magazine violated his fundamental right under Art. 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The High Court came to the conclusion that the LICs stand that the magazine was an in-house magazine was untenable for two reasons, namely (1) it was available to anyone on payment of subscription; and (2) it invited articles for publication therein from members of the public. The High Court took the view that merely because the magazine finds it circulation among officers, employees and agents of the Corporation, it does not acquire the character of an in-house magazine since the same can be purchased by any member of the public on payment of subscription and members of the public are invited to contribute articles for publication in the said magazine. It further held that assuming that the magazine was an in-house magazine as contended by the LIC, the Corporation cannot under the guise of publication of an in-house magazine violate the fundamental right of the respondent. Taking note of the fact that the LIC was a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and the in-house magazine was published with the aid of public funds and public money, the High Court held that in the interest of democracy and free society the magazine should be available to both, an admirer and a critic, for dissemination of information. In this view of the matter the High Court concluded that the LIC had violated the respondents fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by refusing to publish his rejoinder to Mr. Krishnans counter to his study paper