GHULAM NABI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved of the policy of the respondent-State regarding the release of commercial advertisements to the newspapers the petitioner who is the Printer, Publisher and Editor of daily newspaper "Wadi-Ki-Awaz" has filed this petition with the prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to classify his newspaper and release due share of advertisements to it. It is further prayed that any other writ, order or direction which is deemed necessary may be issued by the Court in this behalf.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that the policy of his newspaper is independent and he indulges in constructive criticism of Government policy by reflecting and educating the public opinion. It is submitted that the petitioners newspaper has a circulation of 5000 copies per day and he publishes 24 issues per month. The respondent-State has laid down a criterion for the issue of government advertisements to the newspapers which allegedly envisages taking into consideration the calculation, regularity, type of reading, clientele, policy of the publication, etc. A committee has been constituted for classification of newspapers for the purposes of release of advertisements. It is alleged that the said committee last met in March, 1985 and decided to prescribe a qualifying period for considering new publications for issue of advertisements prescribing three months to six months for daily newspapers amongst others. A copy of the minutes of the meeting has been annexed with the petition as annexure P-2. After qualifying the period prescribed the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent 2 requesting to release of advertisements to his newspaper in terms of the decision of the committee constituted by the respondent 2. But the said representation was not disposed of which compelled him to file the present writ petition. It is alleged that there is no classification of newspapers in existence as the same used to be in the past and the release of the advertisements in favour of the petitioner is alleged to have been withheld for the reasons not known to him despite the fact that he was entitled to receive the same. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive the advertisements from the respondents as it has qualified to obtain the same on the basis of the length of publication of his newspaper. The public largess is allegedly being distributed in an unreasonable manner and respondents are under an obligation to distribute the commercial advertisements under a policy with the object of encouraging the growth of healthy journalism in the State. The action of the respondents of withholding the advertisements is stated to be arbitrary and controverting their own policy being violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights. It is alleged that the action of the respondents tantamounts to curbing the freedom of speech and expression which includes the freedom of press in the country. It is submitted that the petitioner has no source to sustain the continued publication of his newspaper on which his daily expenditure ranges from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- and in the absence of support in the shape of government advertisements, his paper is likely to closedown which according to the petitioner would amount to curbing the freedom of press, speech and expression of the petitioner in violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Art. 19 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents regarding the distribution of the advertisements is alleged to be discriminatory as according to the petitioner Indian Times, Daily Khidmat, Daily Aina, Daily Kashmir Express, Daily Roshni, Daily Zamindar and Daily Morning Times etc. had been released advertisements disproportionately and completely ignoring their circulation which is alleged to be less than the circulation of the petitioner's newspaper. The petitioner's newspaper is claimed to have been picked up for hostile discrimination for no reason whatsoever and the action of the respondents in making discrimination is alleged to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents is mala fide which emanates from extraneous considerations.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on the affidavit of M.Y.Qadri, Assistant Director of Information, J and K Govt. Srinagar, it is submitted that the petitioner's newspaper has been indulging in yellow journalism and flaunting journalistic code by indulging in publication of scurrilous writings, blackmailing, mud-slinging and supporting the secessionist tendencies. It is alleged that the newspaper of the petitioner has been publishing extracts from operation Gibraltar edited by commando, Jehangir describing the armed intrusion from Pakistan in 1965 and their evil designs in the valley. The petitioner is alleged to be guilty of arousing sentiments of communalism and provocating the youth, besides creating ill-will amongst the people of the State. It is alleged that the paper has been criticising the government policies and programmes which amounts to misrepresentation of fact and blackmailing. The petitioner condemned the launching of family welfare programmes which was described by him as anti-Islamic and aimed at reducing the Muslim population in the State. The paper has been giving coverage of the speeches and activities of secessionists and anti-India forces. The paper has been giving wide publicity to the activities and programmes of Muslim United Front and Jamati Islamia of Anantnag. The claim of the petitioner of having a circulation of five thousand copies daily has been vehemently denied and it is submitted that be published only 125 issues during Mar. 4, 1985 to Aug. 1985 against the required number of 138 issues. Similarly he failed to publish the requisite number of issues during the next six months as well. It is submitted that annexure-A attached with the petition was not the criteria for issuing the Government advertisements but only a recorded note of the meeting held by the Review Committee. The respondents have attached annexure-A with the counter-affidavit which is claimed to he the advertisement policy. It is submitted that meetings of the Review Committee are being held from time to time and its last meeting was held in Sept. 1985 whereas the counter was filed in the court on 29th Oct. 1986. It is further submitted that the daily newspaper of the petitioner is being given due share of the advertisements taking into consideration its regularity and get up. No discrimination has ever been made by the respondents. It is submitted that from 21st Oct. 1985 till the date of the counter-affidavit in the court, the newspaper of the petitioner got advertisements worth Rs. 1,19,046/- which is stated to be on the higher side as compared to the rest of the dailies being published from Srinagar. It is submitted that respondents had the right to withhold the release of advertisements to the newspaper of the petitioner since he has been publishing matters reflecting distorted version of events. The respondents submit that they had no intention to stop the release of advertisements to the paper of the petitioner, however lesser flow of advertisements is an outcome of bringing uniformity in the distribution of advertisements.