Freedom of speech: restrictions on acquisition, sale and consumption of newsprint Essay

Bennett Coleman d Co. vs. Union Of.India

A landmark case both in freedom of expression as well as the Right to know, was Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India in which the petitioners, a publishing house bringing out one of the leading dailies challenged the governments newsprint policy which put restrictions on acquisition, sale and consumption of newsprint. This was challenged as restricting the Petitioners Rights to freedom of speech and expression. The court struck down the newsprint control order saying that it directly affected the Petitioners Right to freely publish and circulate their paper. In that, it violated their Right to freedom of speech and expression. The judges also remarked, It is indisputable that by freedom of the press meant the Right of all citizens to speak, publish and express their views and

Freedom of speech and expression includes within its compass the Right of all citizens to read and be informed.

The dissenting judgment of Justice K.K.Mathew also noted, The freedom of speech protects two kinds of interests. There is an individual interest, the need of men to express their opinion on matters vital to them and a social interest in the attainment of truth so that the country may not only accept the wisest course but also carry it out in the wisest way. Now in the method of political government the point of ultimate interest is not in the words of the speakers but in the hearts of the hearers.

This principle was even more clearly enunciated in a latter case i.e. social interest where the court remarked, The basic purpose of freedom of speech and expression is that all members should be able to form their beliefs and communicate them freely to others. In some, the Fundamental principle involved here is the peoples Right to know. The courts have upheld the Right to information in several cases related to environmental issues.

Prabha Dutt Vs. Union of India

In the area of civil liberties, the courts have built up the Right to have a transparent criminal justice system free from arbitrariness. In Prabha Dutt vs. Union of India the Court held that their accepting clear evidence that the prisoners had refused to be interviewed, there could be no reason for refusing permission to the media to interview prisoners in death row. Repeated violations of civil Rights by the police and other law enforcement agencies have compelled the courts to give, time and again, directions to the concerned agencies for ensuring transparency in their functioning in order to avoid violations like illegal arrests and detention, torture in custody and the like.

In cases concerning the Right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution the Courts have said that it is the legal obligation of the judge or the magistrate before whom the accused is produced to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to free legal aid.