54. Ultimately, the Apex Court, in the abovesaid decision has not expressed about the right of a citizen to publish private broadcasting station or television centre and it was reserved to an appropriate case.

55. In the decision in Rangarajan v. Jagajivanram , 1989 (2) SCC 574, the Hon’ble judges of the Apex Court has dealt with the scope of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and it was held that it means the right to express one’s opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or any other manner. It would thus include the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or public opinion, the communication. But this right is subject to reasonable expression in the larger interest of the community and the count ry as set out under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

56. Though these restrictions are intended to strike appropriate balance between liberty guaranteed and the social interest specified in Article l9(2) of the Constitution, relying on U.S. decisions in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission , 1914 (238) U.S. 230 etc., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Court cannot balance the two interests as if they are of equal weights. The Court’s commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situation created by allowing freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered.

57. While considering the scope of freedom of press, in the decision in Printers (Mysore) Ltd, v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer , 1994 (2) SCC 434. on the basis of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Apex Court has held that special treatment should be given to the newspapers as it has philosophy and historical background. It is also held that the freedom of press has been placed on a higher footing than other enterprises. They nave also approved the draft description of newspaper as a fourth estate.

58. Even in the decision in Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Manubhaib Shah , 1992 (3) SCC 637, the Apex Court has held as follows:-

“8. The words “freedom of speech and expression” must, therefore, be broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by words of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right to propagate one’s views through the print media or through any other communication channel e.g. the radio and the television. Every citizen of this free country, therefore, has the right to air his or her views through the printing and/or the electronic media subject of course to permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The print media, the radio and the tiny screen play the role of public educators, so vital to the growth of a healthy democracy. Freedom to air one’s views is the lifeline of any democractic institution and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication mediums advance publ ic interest by informing the public of the events and developments that have taken place and thereby educating the voters, a role considered significant for the vibrant functioning of a democracy. Therefore, in any set-up, more so in a democratic set-up, like ours, dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon unless it falls within the mischief of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It follows that a citizen for propagation of his or her ideas has a right to publish for circulation his views in periodicals, magazines and journals or through the electronic media since it is well known that these communication channels are great purveyors of news and views and make considerable impact on the minds of the readers and viewers and are known to mould public opinion on vital issues of national importance. Once it is conceded, and it cannot indeed be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document