Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. N. SAIKIA, C.J. AND T. C. DAS, JJ.
Dainik Sambad and another -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 889 of 1987
Decided On : 15-12-1987
PRESS COUNCIL - JURISDICTION - DISCRIMINATION - GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENT - FREEDOM OF PRESS - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS - PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978 - ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(A), 19(1)(G), 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - TRIPURA ADVERTISEMENT POLICY RULES - CONSTITUTIONALITY - RESTRICTION ON FREEDOM OF PRESS - REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS - ARTICLE 19(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - NEWSPRINT DUTY - TAXATION - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE - CENSORSHIP - PRECEDENTSHIP - SEIZURE - INTERFERENCE WITH TRANSIT OF NEWSPAPER - SCRUTINY DEPOSIT - RESTRICTION ON PRICE, PAGES, AND ADVERTISEMENT AREA - WITHHOLDING OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENT - INCREASE OF POSTAL RATES - TAXATION ON NEWSPRINT - CANALISATION OF IMPORT OF NEWSPRINT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCRIMINATORY ALLOTMENT OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENT - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY - EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT - PRESS COUNCIL'S JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - DIRECTIONS - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a daily newspaper published in Tripura, and its owner and Editor, filed a writ petition alleging violation of their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners raised five grievances: (i) discrimination against the newspaper by excluding its Editor from the Press Advisory Committee while including others; (ii) discrimination in fixing the rates structure for Government advertisement; (iii) reduction in the quantum of advertisements allotted to the newspaper; (iv) unconstitutionality of the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules empowering the Government to stop issuance of Government advertisement to a newspaper that incites communal feelings or breaches, violates, or offends socially accepted conventions of public decency and morals; and (v) unconstitutionality of the order stopping subscription of 408 copies of the newspaper to the Government information centers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Press Council of India is an independent statutory body entrusted with the responsibility of preserving the freedom of the press and maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. The Court noted that the Press Council had exercised jurisdiction in several cases involving discretionary allotment of advertisements to different newspapers by State Governments and had rendered decisions in favor of newspapers that had been discriminated against. The Court also observed that the Press Council had the power to censure, admonish, or warn newspapers or news agencies for offenses against journalistic ethics or public taste or for professional misconduct by editors or journalists.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when the Press Council of India is already in seisin of the matter. 2. Whether the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules empowering the Government to stop issuance of Government advertisement to a newspaper that incites communal feelings or breaches, violates, or offends socially accepted conventions of public decency and morals are unconstitutional. 3. Whether the order stopping subscription of 408 copies of the newspaper to the Government information centers is unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it has jurisdiction to interfere in cases of discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, even if the matter is already before the Press Council of India. The Court reasoned that the Press Council is not a court of law and its decisions are not binding on the courts. 2. The Court declined to decide on the constitutionality of the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules as the matter was already before the Press Council of India. 3. The Court also declined to decide on the constitutionality of the order stopping subscription of 408 copies of the newspaper to the Government information centers as the matter was already before the Press Council of India.
Final Decision: The Court directed the State Government to ensure that its avowed policy of equal distribution of advertisements is carried out by its agents and servants and to take measures to sincerely and faithfully implement the policy insofar as the petitioner newspaper is concerned. The Court made no order as to costs.
SAIKIA, C.J.:- This petition is taken up for hearing at the Notice of Motion stage as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner 1, Dainik Sambad, is a daily newspaper published in Bengali from Agartala, Tripura and petitioner 2 is its owner and Editor. The petitioners allege violation of rights under Arts.14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (g), and 300A of the Constitution of India making mainly five grievances in this petition, namely, (i) that while constituting the Press Advisory Committee with a view to guide the Government of Tripura in matters of its advertisement policy and other matters concerning the press, it discriminated against and interfered with freedom of press of Dainik Sambad by excluding its Editor from the Committee while including those of Weekly Desher Katha, Tapari, Tripura Reporters Guild, and Gandaut; (ii) that the Government has discriminated against the petitioners while fixing the rates structure for Government advertisement in its advertisement policy, particularly in respect of display advertisements fixing Rs. 4/- per column centimetre, which the D.A.V.P. pays Rs. 7.50 per column centimetre; (iii) that contrary to the advertisement policy of the Government of Tripura, the petitioners have been discriminated against by reducing the quantum of advertisements allotted to Dainik Sambad; (iv) that the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules empowering the Government to Tripura to stop issuance of Government advertisement to a newspaper which according to it incites communal feelings or breach, violation or offends socially accepted conventions of public decency and morals, are unconstitutional, void and inoperative; and (v) that the order stopping subscription of 408 copies of Dainik Sambad to the Government information centres, is unconstitutional and void.
3. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this is a fit case where this Court should intervene to remove the manifold discrimination against the newspaper Dainik Sambad.
4. Mr. A. Chakravarty, the learned Government Advocate, Tripura, submits, inter alia, that the Dainik Sambad has always been critical of the Government of Tripura, and in its Editorials it raises communal frenzy and refuses to publish contradictions and the Government of Tripura is not bound to give advertisement to it equally with other newspapers so as to facilitate its circulation; that the Government has not passed any order to reduce advertisement to Dainik Sambad though it appears that it has been reduced; that as several months of the year are still left the argument of discrimination is futile one; and that the Press Council of India having been in seisin of the entire matter this Court should not exercise jurisdiction, inasmuch as pendency of this petition in this High Court will deprive the Press Council of its jurisdiction in the matter.
5. The first question to be decided, therefore, is whether this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when the Press Council of India is already in the seisin of the matter. Mr. Chakravarty, referring to para 52 of the counter-affidavit of the respondents 1, 2 and 3, submits that according to the Press Council Act, 1978 the Council is the only statutory judicial body to look after the independence of the journalists and to safeguard freedom of the press; that S.13 of the Press Council Act read with Ss.12 and 14 would clearly show that the Press Council of India is also the supreme authority to give any verdict against any Government either State or Union Government; and, therefore, the Press Council of India is the appropriate forum to decide any matter pertaining to the press and it is competent enough to grant relief either to the press or to any person or authorities or against the press. Mr. Chakravarty further submits that the petitioners themselves have rightly chosen the Press Council of India to place their grievances regarding alleged reduction of issue of advertisement
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
