1980 Supreme(AP) 276

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GANGADHARA RAO, ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, PUNNAIAH
Ushodaya Publications (P) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-10-80

The impugned G.O. read with the guidelines issued subsequently infringes the petitioners fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

G.O. Ms. No. 572, General Administration (I. P. R.) Department dated 10-8-1979 by which all advertisements of Government Departments, Public Sector Undertakings and Government Companies are directed to be released only by the Director, Information and Public Relations to the various newspapers keeping in view the subject-matter of the advertisement, was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court held that the impugned G.O. read with the guidelines issued subsequently infringes the petitioners fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court further held that the G.O. is not violative of Article 14 but the conditions contained in Clauses (iii), (v), (vii) in the guidelines have to be struck down as violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a leading Telugu daily, challenged the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 572, General Administration (I. P. R.) Department dated 10-8-1979 by which all advertisements of Government Departments, Public Sector Undertakings and Government Companies are directed to be released only by the Director, Information and Public Relations to the various newspapers keeping in view the subject-matter of the advertisement. The petitioner contended that the impugned G.O. read with the guidelines issued subsequently infringes the petitioners fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned G.O. read with the guidelines issued subsequently infringes the petitioners fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court further held that the G.O. is not violative of Article 14 but the conditions contained in Clauses (iii), (v), (vii) in the guidelines have to be struck down as violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned G.O. read with the guidelines issued subsequently infringes the petitioners fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the G.O. is violative of Article 14?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned G.O. read with the guidelines issued subsequently infringes the petitioners fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The court observed that the impugned G.O. by directing that the advertisements to be made by Departments of Government, Government Companies etc. , should be left to the discretion of the Director Information and Public Relations, has a direct and immediate effect on the circulation of the petitioners newspaper and thus infringes the right of the freedom of press guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and the restrictions imposed are not reasonable restrictions within the meaning of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. 2. The court held that the G.O. is not violative of Article 14 but the conditions contained in Clauses (iii), (v), (vii) in the guidelines have to be struck down as violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court observed that the impugned G.O. on the face of it, may not be discriminatory, there was hostile discrimination against the petitioners in implementing the G.O.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in so far as the court held that conditions (iii) (v) and (vii); of the guidelines issued in January, 1980 are violative of Article 14 and have to be struck down and that the direction given to the Visakhapatnam Municipality not to issue advertisements is contrary to the G.O. There will be a declaration that the G.O. will not apply to municipalities and local bodies which do not come within the definition of Public Sector undertakings and Government Companies. In other respects, the writ petition was dismissed.