The Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India case is a watershed moment in the annals of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It serves as a testament to the unwavering commitment of the Indian judiciary in upholding the freedom of the press against potential state interference.
Background of the Case: The Government of India introduced a newsprint policy that put a cap on the number of pages a newspaper could publish, ostensibly to regulate the distribution of this scarce resource during a period of its shortage. The Bennett Coleman & Co., which owned The Times of India, challenged the validity of this policy, asserting that it violated their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Key Takeaways from the Judgement:
- Freedom of the Press: The Supreme Court held that the freedom of the press is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court observed that the press plays a crucial role in the democratic machinery, and any attempt to curtail its voice would be a violation of the Constitution.
- Effect of the Policy: The Court noted that by limiting the page volume, the policy effectively curtailed the newspaper’s capacity to present news and views. Such a limitation would directly impact its revenue, its ability to gather news, and, most importantly, its capacity to cater to the diverse needs of society.
- Economic Restrictions as Indirect Curtailment: The judgment recognized that economic restrictions could indirectly restrict the freedom of speech and expression. While the government argued the policy was a mere economic regulation, the Court held that its effect was a direct abridgment of the petitioner’s freedom of expression.
- Forward-Thinking Judgement: At a time when freedom of the press was under threat in many parts of the world, the Supreme Court of India stood firm in its defense. The decision is a testament to the foresight and progressive thinking of the judiciary.
- Underlying Motives Scrutinized: The Court’s examination of the newsprint policy was not just limited to its face value but also its potential underlying motives and its practical implications. This comprehensive analysis ensured that seemingly benign policies with far-reaching consequences could not stand the scrutiny of the Constitution.
- Protecting the Fourth Pillar: By siding with Bennett Coleman & Co., the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that the media, often dubbed the ‘fourth pillar’ of democracy, must remain free from potential government interference.
Conclusion: The Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India case reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional rights. By unequivocally upholding the freedom of the press, the Supreme Court sent a clear message: the sanctity of the Fourth Pillar is not to be compromised, and any indirect attempts to curtail it would meet with the firm hand of judicial scrutiny.