The fundamental right of the freedom of the press, implicit in the right the freedom of speech and expression, is essential for political liberty and proper functioning of democracy. The American Press Commission has said. “Freedom of the press is essential to political liberty. When man cannot freely convey their thoughts to one another, no freedom is secured, where freedom of expression exists the beginning of a free society and means for every retention of liberty are already present. Free-expression is therefore, unique among liberties”. The Indian Press Commission has also expressed a similar view. It says that “Democracy can thrive not only under the vigilant eye of its Legislature, but also under the care and guidance of public opinion and the press is par excellence, the vehicle through which opinion can become articulate.” Unlike the American Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution does not expressly mention the liberty of the press but it has been held that liberty of the press is included in the freedom of speech and expression. The “press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of press or the manager are merely exercising the right of the expression, and therefore, no special mention is necessary of the freedom of the press.”
“The liberty of the press” as defined by Lord Mansfield, “consists in printing without any licence subject to the consequences of law.” Thus the liberty of the press means liberty to print and publish what one pleases, without previous permission. The freedom of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It includes also pamphlets and circulars and every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.

In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, speaking about the utility of freedom of press the court observed:-
“The expression “freedom of the press” has not been used in Article 19 but it is comprehended within Article 19(1) (a). The expression means freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers. There can not be any interference with that freedom in the name of public interest. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. Freedom of the press is the heart of social and political intercourse. It is the primary duty of the courts to uphold the freedom of the press and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it contrary to the constitutional mandate.”

Freedom of speech is a preferred right very zealously guarded by Supreme Court. Democracy is one of two basic features of the Constitution and democracy will be meaningless without guarantee of freedom of speech.
Sub clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 says that “all citizens have right to freedom of speech and expression.”

Corresponding provision of American Constitution in the First Amendment Declares :
“The Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of the press.”
The addition of the word ”expression” clarifies that the article not only guarantees right to speech by words of mouth but also to express his opinions or convictions in any form, such as gestures, writing, pictures.

Although unlike American provision Article 19(1) (a) does not mention freedom of press, the words “Speech and expression” are wide enough to include freedom of press and it has now been authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court that freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) includes freedom of press as well.

In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer, the Supreme Court has held that no sales tax can be imposed on sale of newspapers in the country. However, the court clarified that this does not mean that press is immune either from taxation or from general law relating to industrial relations or from the State regulation of condition of service of its employees. The prohibition is upon the imposition of any restriction to disseminate information and to the circulation of newspaper.

Freedom of press has always been a cherished right on all democratic countries. The newspaper not only survey news but also ideas, opinion and ideologies, besides much else. They are supposed to guard public interest by bringing to fore the misdeeds, failings and lapses of the government and other bodies exercising governing power. Rightly, therefore, it has been described as the Fourth Estate.

A citizen’s right to propagate and publish extended not merely to the matter to which he was entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating commercial aspect of the activities of the newspapers. A newspaper cannot survive and sell itself at a price which is not within the reach of a common man unless it is allowed to take in advertisement.

The court held that the freedom of press stands at a higher footing than other enterprises. In view of this, the test for determing the vires of a statute taxing newsprint have, therefore, to be different from the test usually adopted for testing the vires of other taxing statutes. The judges held that the newspapers are entitled to the benefit of concessional Central Sales Tax of 4 per cent on purchase of raw materials which they require for printing and publishing of the newspapers. The definition of ‘goods’ in Section 2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act was amended to bring the said definition in accord with the amendments brought in the Constitution (6th Amendment Act) by which Entry 92A was introduced in List I which prohibits imposition of Sales Tax on sale of newspapers was aimed at exempting the sale of newspapers from the levy of Central Sales Tax. The amendment in the Act was not intended to create a burden but to remove the burden.

As gathered from Dr. Ambedkar’s speech Press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The major question which arises is that since the guarantee U/A 19(1) (a) is confined to “citizens”, a Non Citizen, running a press, is entitled to the benefit of the liberty of press or not.

In this respect, the position of the press run by the foreigner or foreign journalist in India, may be under greater control than before independence, when there was no constitutional provision to rely on, in favour of either a citizen or non-citizen. A non-citizen, (e.g.) a foreigner, who runs a newspaper cannot claim the freedom of press as a fundamental right.

So, it follows from this that not only an alien, but also a company even though incorporated in India, would not be entitled to complain of any invasion of freedom of expression or of the press, because it has been held that citizenship under constitution is confined to Natural Persons.

Moreover, as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the constitution are enforceable under Article 32 or 226 of the constitution in case they are infringed, it has however, been held that though a company, not being a ‘Citizen’ may not be entitled to a fundamental right under Article - 19, may not be entitled to apply for the enforcement of such right under Article 32 or 226 of the constitution, the rights of the shareholders are necessarily affected where the rights of the company are affected. Hence, where a newspaper company, incorporated in India, its Indian shareholders who are citizens of India, may challenge the constitutionality of a law or government’s order which infringe the freedom of expression of such press or newspaper and such a proceeding would not be thrown away merely because the company has been added as co-petitioner.
Even reader of a newspaper has been held to be entitled to challenge the constitutionality of a law which reduced or was likely to reduce the circulation of the newspaper by curtailing its size or space available for advertisement or by fixing a minimum price for the number of pages to be printed.
T
he Supreme Court observed as there was a lack of precedents regarding the scope of the freedom of press, so reference to American cases was legitimate and proper as the Article 19(1)(a) of our constitution ‘is based on’ on the first amendment to the U.S. constitution and summed up:
The freedom of speech comprehends the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech and of the press is fundamental personal right of the citizens.
The freedom of the press rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.

Such freedom is the foundation of free government, of free people. The purpose of such guarantee is to prevent public authorities from assuming the guardianship of the public mind; and
the freedom of the press includes freedom from restriction in respect of employment in the editorial force.

END OF PART II
TO BE CONTINUED.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITH THE AUTHOR.

HEMA THAKKAR
ADVOCATE
DELHI HIGH COURT,INDIA.