Imposition of Precensorchip on Press

Imposition of Pre-censorship on Press Imposition of pre-censorship on a journal previous to its publication would amount to an infringement of Article 19(l) (a). This question regarding the validity of censorship came for consideration in the case of Bri/ Bhushan v. State of Delhi for the first time. In Bry Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 S.C. 129, the Supreme Court has held that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press. Prohibiting a newspaper from publication of its own views or the views of its correspondents concerning what may be the burning topic of the day, is a serious encroachment on the valuable right of the freedom of speech and expression. The liberty of the press is thus implicit in the concept of the freedom of speech and expression. It may be noted that Article 19 (1) (a) applies to citizens only and so a non-citizen running a newspaper is not entitled to the right of freedom of speech and expression. In Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 S.C. 106, the Supreme Court had to Judge the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, 1960, which fixed the minimum number of pages (10 pages) which a newspaper could publish. It was challenged that this order was volatile of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Government defended the measure on the ground that it would help small newspapers to grow and prevent a monopolistic combination of big newspapers. The Court held that the newsprint policy was not reasonable restriction within the ambit of Article 19 (2). Thus, the newsprint policy abridges petitioner’s right of the freedom of speech and expression. In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 S.C. 481, the Supreme Court held that pre-censorship of films was Justified under Article 19 (2) on the ground that films have to be so treated separately from other forms of art and expression because a motion picture was able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art. Hence, classification of films between two categories, Le., “A” for adults only, and “U” for all, was held to be valid.

Upload
santhoshledictateur
Category

Documents
view
8
download
2

Embed Size (px):

description

Transcript of Imposition of Precensorchip on Press

Imposition of Pre-censorship on PressImposition of pre-censorship on a journal previous to its publication would amount to an infringement of Article 19(l) (a). This question regarding the validity of censorship came for consideration in the case of Bri/ Bhushan v. State of Delhi for the first time. In Bry Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 S.C. 129, the Supreme Court has held that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press. Prohibiting a newspaper frompublication of its own views or the views of its correspondents concerning what may be the burning topic of the day, is a serious encroachment on the valuable right of the freedom of speech and expression. The liberty of the press is thus implicit in the concept of the freedom of speech and expression. It may be noted that Article 19 (1) (a) applies to citizens only and so a non-citizen running a newspaper is not entitled to the right of freedom of speech and expression. In Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 S.C. 106, the Supreme Court had to Judge the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, 1960, which fixed the minimum number of pages (10 pages) which a newspaper could publish. It was challenged that this order was volatile of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Government defended the measure on the ground that it would help small newspapers to grow and prevent a monopolistic combination of big newspapers. The Court held that the newsprint policy was not reasonable restriction within the ambit of Article 19 (2). Thus, the newsprint policy abridges petitioner’s right of the freedom of speech and expression. In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 S.C. 481, the Supreme Court held that pre-censorship offilms was Justified under Article 19 (2) on the ground that films have to be so treated separately from other forms of art and expression because a motion picture was able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art. Hence, classification of films between two categories, Le., “A” for adults only, and “U” for all, was held to be valid.