protect freedom of press

?FREEDOM OF PRESS IS VITAL AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDER QUESTION AFTER ALL ?SAMNA? (A Marathi daily) QUESTIONED, BEING A PRESS ITSELF AND ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTED THE ATTACKING IBN-LOKMAT OFFICE AT VIKROLI RECENTLY AS IT PUBLISHED SOME NEWS AGAINST SOME POLITICAL HOOLIGANISM? ? ? BY A FORMER AFP PRESSMAN Dr. G. Balakrishnan, PhD.

In India today we have six out of seven fundamental rights, after amendment of Article 19, by deleting of Art.19(1)(f), of Indian Constitution.
It is also stated Supreme Court need not rely on American constitution for the purpose of examining the seven freedoms contained in Article 19 because social conditions and habit of Indians are different.(Pathumna v. St of Kerala AIR 1978 SC 771*; see also Jagmohan Singh v. St of UP, AIR 1973 SC 947 , 952).
The requirements of Reasonableness, (no general pattern possible)( St of Madras v. VG Rao, Air 1952 SC 196, 200; Santok Singh V Delhi Admn AIR 1973 SC111091, 1095), Art.14, unreasonable necessity of nexus (arbitrariness, or unguided or uncanalized restrictions vested in such power is treated as unreasonable restriction) on rights guaranteed under Art 19(a test of non compliance of either Art 19(5) or (6), (Collector of Customs v. Nathela Sampathu Chetty AIR 1962 SC316). Discretion vested in an Administrative Authority not properly controlled, - unreasonable, Municipal Corporation v. Jan Mohd. Usmanbhai, AIR 1986 SC1205.
Necessity of nexus (direct and proximate nexus) is also treated as a frustration of fundamental right. (*, Kochuni KK v. St of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080).
Judicial Review: Restriction imposed by Legislature is subject to judicial review, (Chintaman Rao v St of MP AIR 1951 S C 118, : Babu Ram v Bajnath Singh AIR 1962 SC 1476). The Courts will examine the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the nature and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied?, (ST of Madras v VG Rao AIR 1952 SC 196, 200: Narendra Kumar v UOI, SAIR 1960 SC 430.)
Procedural and substantive ? Courts will examine aspects of restrictions. Procedural fairness requires the observance of principle of Natural Justice,? although it may be excluded by necessary implication.(Haradan Saha, v St of WB(1975) 3 SCC 198?.)








Natural Justice: Principle of Natural Justice is a ground to determine the reasonableness of a particular restriction (Earlier held Natural Justice would not apply where Order is administrative in nature).It has been held that even administrative orders have to comply with the requirements of natural justice.(Kraipac A K v UOI, AIR 1970,SC150)( READERS MAY NOTE ISSUE OF EXCLUSION OF PRINCIPLES OF Natural Justice IS A SEPARATE TOPIC REQUIRES CAREFUL STUDY, (Jain & Jain, Principles of Administrative Law 4th Edn.,( p.219 ? 294); Wade , Administrative Law 7th Edn pp463 -570m, see also commentaries on Art 14..)
Due Process of US though not directly applied and yet various tests of reasonableness laid down in, Art 19(2) to 19 (6). This Coincides with tests of ?due process? clause of American Constitution, though it is not identical in Indian Constitution. The latter is deliberately avoided in view of its flexibility and vagueness IN FAVOR OF A MORE DEFINITE WORD ?REASONABLE?. Therefore care should be exercised before literal application of American decisions.( Collector of Customs v Nathela Sampathu chetty AIR 1962 SC 316).
In this connection, it is ideal to refer by interested to read details for six principles well summarized by Saghir Ahmed J in the case MRF Ltd v Inspector, Kerala Govt. (1998) 8 SCC 227(set out in para13 of SCC).
Similarly 11 principles on the nature of restrictions summarized in Papanasam Labor Union v Madura coats Ltd., (1995)1 SCC 501.
Supreme Court on Art 19 and other constitutional provisions, over ruled on ?not inter related stance? in AK Gopalan v St of Madras, AIR1950 SC 27?, in its judgment in Menaka Gandhi v UOI AIR1978 SC 597, holding they are inter related.
Patanjali Shastri held in AK Gopalan v. St of Maras, AIR 1950 SC 27, that ?freedom for free Indian citizens? is well guaranteed but it is not so in the case of a citizen who committed a crime and he is lawfully deprived of that freedom under Art 19. And still it is valid position. So abetted crime alleged cannot enjoy that freedom and so Samna as a non citizen and its editors are looked as allegedly committed crime when they attacked the Lokmat-IBN, and their further advancing their view that attack on the Press is further abetting the crime and are punishable for alleged offence by a court of law, after all no body can take law into his own hands to do whatever he likes.




Freedom of speech and Expression in the Indian Constitution is also a freedom of press, as most of the Articles of the Indian Constitution is clearly written down and Indian Constitution scrupulously followed American and Irish Constitution and British Constitution?s basic rights, the view one can take is more or less the view of Thomas Jefferson?s is a replica of Virginian Declaration of 1776 and it said..?Freedom of Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of Liberty and can never be restrained (in democratic constitutional countries) and it added ?The Liberty of Press is Essential to the Security of Freedom in a State, it ought not be restricted and accordingly First Amendment to American Constitution restricted the Congress from abridging freedom of the Press and clearly associated ? ?associated Freedom of Press?.
It will be interesting to note Thomas Jefferson wanted to unite two streams of Liberation- English and French Schools of thought. . He held the view that he government provide both security and opportunity for the Individual and for that he needed active press is essential as a way of educating people.. ?To work freely Press must be free from control by State?.
Thomas Jefferson suffered great calumnies from the pres and still he in his second address to Congress said -?Government could not stand up under criticism deserved to fall. ?Those ways of American founding fathers of American Constitution clearly electrified Indian founding fathers of Indian Constitution and influenced and galvanized them?.
So freedom of Press is well recognized in India and most of the suceeding Indian governments recognize this important factor as Press is the educator of people of what is going on..?
Incidentally Samna is also a press and it can speak out on policies frankly and fearlessly but if it wants to enjoy that freedom it should equally allow other fellow press men too similarly; and their reporters, newsmen should have been the part of newsmen gathered to decry attack on the Lokmat-IBN and that should have been a landmark.
Samna should at all costs not lose the freedom of press and preserve the liberty of press and it should not be a part of libertine movement please.
Editors should work for press freedom and that will be healthy trend and that will heal many a problem of people please. (Ends)