PROF SUNIL DANG Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is restricted and confined to the curtailment of the publication of syndicated articles and material, which initially was 7-1/2% and has been raised to twenty per cent during the pendency of these proceedings. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has relied on Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) versus Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641, and in particular, to the observations in paragraph 84 thereof, in which the Supreme Court had opined that the freedom of the press means freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers. Therefore, placing any limits on the amount of syndicated material that can be printed in a newspaper, journal magazine or periodical etc. would amount to an infringement of the rights and freedom of the Press. Mr. Tripathi has also relied on Secretary, Ministry of L and B versus Cricket Association, Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236, of which the following paragraphs are relevant:

(2.) The fundamental right can be limited only by reasonable restrictions under a law made for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The burden is on the authority to justify the restrictions. Public order is not the same thing as public safety and hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on the ground that public safety is endangered. Unlike in the American Constitution, limitations on fundamental rights are specifically spelt under Article 19 (2) of our Constitution. Hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on grounds other than those specified under Article 19 (2).

(3.) The third decision relied upon is Bijoe Emmanuel And Others versus State of Kerala And Others, (1986) 3 SCC 615, where the Apex Court has observed that:-