SUSHIL CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have complained of violation of their fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution of India by the State Government of Tripura in the matter of issue of advertisements to their respective newspapers.

(2.) The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 386/95 is the Editor and Proprietor of the newspaper Dainik Ganadoot, and the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 455/95 is the Editor of the newspaper Sandyan Patrika. Both the aforesaid newspapers are Bangali Dailies published from Agartala and the petitioners claimed to have invested a huge amounts of money in modernisation of the press in which the newspapers are printed. By a notification dated 20-11-1985 of the Government of Tripura in the department of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, the advertisement policy was notified. In the said policy, it was, inter alia, stated that the Director of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, would issue advertisements only to the approved newspapers/magazines. As far as newspapers are concerned, they were categorised into Categories 'A', 'B' and 'C'. A daily newspaper having a minimum of four page daily and having size not less than 45 cms. x 7 standard col. width or equivalent printed space, and having a paid circulation of more than 4000 copies was categorised as 'A' category newspaper. It was further declared in the said policy that for equitable distribution of advertisement to newspapers a rotation would be maintained to ensure that the newspapers belonging to 'A' category would get 40% of advertisements, newspapers of 'B' category would get 32% of advertisements, and neswspapers belonging to 'C' category would get 28% out of the total advertisments of 100% roster cm. Subsequently, on account of increase in the number of newspapers of 'A' category and decrease in the number of newspapers of 'B' and 'C' categories, 100 point Roster was modified by the Government, and as per the modified 100 point Roster 60% of the total quantum of advertisements were to be allotted to 'A' category newspapers, 22% to 'B' category, and 18% to 'C' category newspapers. The two newspapers belonging to the two writ petitioners, namely, Dainik Ganadoot and Sandyan Patrika,have beencategorised as 'A' category newspapers. The case of the petitioners in the two writ petitions, therefore, is that since their newspapers are approved 'A' category newspapers, they are entitled to their share out of 60% of the total quantum of advertisements issued by the Director of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Government of Tripura. But the petitioners have not been given advertisements to the extent of their said share during the seven months prior to filing of the present writ petitions in the year 1995. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have furnished a chart of the Government advertisements issued to various newspapers which discloses that during the period from January 1995 to March 1995, Dainik Ganadoot got advertisements to the extent of 3,374 cms. and Syandan Patrika got advertisements to the extent of 5,673 cms. while the Daily Desher Katha got advertisements to the extent of 11,686 cms. The petitioners have alleged that the State Government was thus showing undue favour to the newspaper Daily Desher Katha as it wias the media organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) of Tripura State Committee, which is now in power in the State of Tripura. The petitioners have further alleged that they have been criticising the action of the State Government run by the aforesaid Communist Party of India (M) and exposing its weakness in the interest of public, and just to get rid of severe and fair criticism made by the petitioners, the State- respondents are trying to restrict the publication and circulation of the newspapers belonging to the petitioners and are encouraging the publication and wide circulation of the newspapers Daily Desher Katha.In Civil Rule No. 386/95, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the State-respondents to allot advertisements to the newspapers Dainik Ganadoot adequately at par with that of similarly situated newspapers of 'A' category in accordancae with the aforesaid advertisement policy. In Civil Rule No. 455/95, it has been further stated that a Memo. has been issued on 14-12-1993 by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism Department, stating that as per directives of the High Court, the matter relating to issue of advertisement to 'A' category newspapers has been reconsidered by the Government, and the Government has been pleased to restore classified advertisements in favour of Daily Desher Katha under 'A' category, and as the number of 'A' category newspapers now rose to 10, each of the newspapers will get 6% as their share in the Government advertisements meant for such category; whereas the Daily Desher Katha would be entitled to 24% of the classified advertisement till the loss to the tune of 1,17,704 col. cms. of Government classified advertisements sustained by the Daily Desher Katha during the period from March, 1988 to March, 1993 is compensated. In the said Civil Rule No. 455/95, in addition to the prayer for implementing the advertisement policy of the State Govt. of Tripura contained in the notification dated 20-11-1985 the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the aforesaid Memo. dated 14-12-1993.

(3.) At the hearing of the Civil Rules, Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Lodh, counsel appearing for the petitioners, stated that by notification dated 27-2-1988, the Government of Tripura, in the Department of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, stipulated in paragraph 2 thereof that official organ of any political party would not be entitled to get any advertisement from the Government and in accordance with the said notification no advertisement was issued to the newspaper Daily Desher Katha which was the official organ of the CPI (M) of Tripura State Committee and the said newspapers challenged the aforesaid paragraph 2 of the notification dated 27-2-1988 in Civil Rule No. 39/88, and by judgment and order dated 15-12-1992 a Division Bench of this Court quashed the said paragraph 2 of the notification dated 27-2-1988 but did not issue any direction to the State- respondent to compensate the loss that the said newspaper Daily Desher Katha had suffered in the meanwhile on account of non-issuance of Government advertisement to the said newspaper. Yet in the impugned Memo dated 14-12-1993, it appears that the Government has sought to compensate the loss suffered by the said newspaper Daily Desher Katha during the period from March, 1988 to March, 1993, to the tune of 1,17,704 col. cm. of Government classified advertisements by deducting 2% from out of the share of the petitioners and other 'A' category newspapers and allowed 24% of the Governmentclassified advertisements in favour of the newspapers Daily Desher Katha, Mr. Lodh cited a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam v. M/s. Omega Printers and Publishers Private Limited, (1995) 1 GLR 161 : (AIR 1995 Gauhati 49) in which the Division Bench did not approve the view of the learned single Judge whose decision was in appeal before the Division Bench that the loss which the paper 'Sentinel' had suffered by receiving less advertisement should be covered by giving more advertisement in future. In the said judgment, the Division Bench further held that in case such a relief was granted to 'Sentinel', the necessary corollary which would follow was that the paper would start receiving more advertisements, and that would result in increasing its circulation and decreasing the circulations of other papers. Mr. Lodh also cited a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 : (AIR 1986 SC 515), for the proposition that the exercise of the power by the Government which affects the freedom of press is subject to scrutiny by Courts. He also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No. 889/87 (Dainik Sambad v. State of Tripura), in which the Division Bench has observed that there has been discrimination in implementing the aforesaid policy of advertisement and has directed the State Government to see that the avowed policy of equal distribution of its advertisements is carried out by its agents and servants.