RTI - UNIT IV-converted.pdf

Course Name – LL.B 3rd
2nd
Sem
Subject – Right to Information Law
Teacher - Ram Kumar Bhardwaj
Concept Covered – UNIIT-IV (MEDIA & LAW) Complete
1. Legal Dimension of Media
MEDIA & CRIMINAL LAW
While the Constitution provides a guarantee to freedom of speech and expression,
which is exercised by the media, the criminal law imposes certain restrictions on
that freedom for protecting the social or group interests and public tranquility.
Article 19(2) provides certain grounds, based on which the state can impose
reasonable restrictions on this freedom. Media-persons are basically under the
same obligation as the people in general to abide by general principles of penal
law. Media in its exercise of free criticism may slip either intentionally or through
its routine activity into any kind of criminal liability under different circumstances.
The Indian Penal Code envisages certain crimes which a media person may get
entangled into and face prosecution. The right to free speech of Media persons
cannot extend to cause sedition, by bringing disrepute of the state, or affect the
reputation of individual leading to defamation or represent obscene or base
material disturbing the moral and serene atmosphere of society. In case they do so,
the criminal provisions of Indian Penal Code are attracted. Thus Defamation,
Sedition and Obscenity are the three major areas where the media persons could be
vulnerable to face the prosecution.
1. Media and Crime of Defamation:
Journalist who defames is liable both in civil law and criminal law. Section 499
Indian Penal Code defines defamation:
Whoever by words either spoken of intended o be read, or buy signs or by
visible representation, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such person, is said,
except in cases herein after excepted, to defame that person.
Intention to harm

According to section 499 of the IPC (The Indian Penal Code, 1860), the
person who defames another must have done it intending to harm or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation.
It is not necessary to prove that the complainant actually suffered directly or
indirectly from the scandalous imputation alleged; it is sufficient to show that the
accused intended to, knew or had reason to believe, that the imputation made by
him would harm the reputation of the complainant, irrespective of whether the
harm is actually caused or not. It is not necessary that there should be an intention
to harm the reputation. It is sufficient if there was reason to believe that the
imputation made would harm the reputation of the complainant. Section 499 of the
Indian Penal Code gives four explanations in this regard.
Defamation of the dead
Explanation 1: According to this, the imputation must not only be
defamatory of the deceased but it must also be hurtful to the feelings of his near
relatives. The question depends upon the harm caused and not the harm intended,
for in the case of deceased the latter test is inapplicable.
Defamation of a company or a collection of persons
Explanation 2: A corporation or company could not be liable in respect of
a charge of a murder, incest, or adultery because it could not commit those crimes.
The words complained of must attack the corporation or company in the method of
conducting its affairs; must accuse it of fraud or mismanagement or must attack its
financial position
The class defamed must not be too large to cease to be distinct from the
memory of certain trade or profession. If a person calls the lawyers as thieves or
medical men as a class of cut-throats in disguise or the police force as a hotbed of
corruption, there would not be indictable libel-because the class is too large and the
generalisation too sweeping to affect any of its composing members.
Defamation by innuendo
Explanation 3 says that when a particular passage is prima facie non-
defamatory the complainant can show that it is really defamatory of him from the

circumstances and nature of the publication. Such a passage is called ‘innuendo’.
The language of irony or sarcasm very often will be better, forcible, and impressive
than a bold statement. It is thus necessary for the prosecution to establish that the
words, though innocent their appearance, were intended to be said in a libelous
sense. So it may be libelous to say of an attorney that he is an honest lawyer
meaning thereby he is the reverse of the honest.
Explanation 4 deals with what is considered as harming the reputation. This
explanation specifies various ways in which the reputation of a person may be
harmed. It says that the imputation must directly or indirectly lower the moral or
intellectual character of the person defamed. It includes degradation in caste,
community at feasts and so on. During a feast, a Hindu declared that complainant
had been excommunicated and was not fit to sit down along with others to have
food. It was held that priest was guilty of defamation
Publication
Publication in its primary sense is communication by the defendant to a
person other than the defamed. It is the basis of liability in English civil law of
defamation i.e., in torts. This principle though not accepted as the basic principle of
English Penal Law of defamation is accepted as the basic principle of Indian Penal
Code. (Section 499 Expln.4) Words which may have the effect of provoking other
persons at whom they are uttered are made punishable under Section 504 of the
Indian Penal Code which deals with intentional insults with intent to provoke
breach of peace. The gist of the offence in section 499 seems to lie in the tendency
of the statements verbal or written to create that degree of pain which is felt by a
person who is subjected to unfavorable criticism and comments.
Exceptions
The ten exceptions to Section 499 state cases in which an imputation prima
facie defamatory may be excused. They are occasions when a man is allowed to
speak out or write matters which would ordinarily be defamatory. Those
exceptions are:
1. Imputation of truth for public good,
2. Public conduct of public servants,

3. Public Conduct of public men other than public servants,
4. Comment on cases and conduct of witnesses and others concerned,
5. Merits of cases, decisions and judicial proceedings,
6. Merits of a public performance, literary criticisms,
7. Censure in good faith by one in authority,
8. Complaint to authority,
9. Imputation for protection of interest,
10. Caution in good faith.
It is pointed out that the ninth exception states a general principle of which
exceptions 7, 8 and 10 are particular instances so that the last four exceptions really
fall under privilege i.e., communication made on privileged occasion that is in the
discharge of a duty or protection of an interest in the person who makes it.
In Lingam Gouda V. Basan Gouda Patil C.R. Criminal appeal No.173 of
1927 decided on Sept.22,1927 (Unrep.Bom) it was held: "if one repeats, another
writes a libel, and a third approves what is written they are all makers of it, as all
who concur and assent to the doing of an unlawful act are guilty; and murdering a
person, in which all who are present and encourage the act are guilty, though the
sound was given by one only.
Taki Hussain 1884,7 All 205 (222) F.B. Publication legally means
communication of defamatory matter, to the third person other than the defamed
one. Direct communication to the defamed was held to be no publication under the
Code by a majority of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court
Balasubramania Mudaliar V. Rajagopalachariar 1944 46 Cr. L.J. 71 -
The publisher of a newspaper is responsible for defamatory matter published in
such paper whether he knows the contents of such paper or not. The editor of a
journal is in no better position than any other ordinary subject with regard to his
liability for libel. He is bound to take due care and caution before he makes a
libelous statement.

Landmark Cases
In the Supreme Court decision in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
A.I.R.1966 s.C.97 the accused was secretary of Punjab Praja Socialist Party. He
wrote a defamatory article in Blitz about Surinder Singh, son of the Chief Minister
of Punjab, Pratap Singh Kairon. Two defamatory statements reveal that he is the
leader of smugglers and is responsible for a large number of crimes being
committed in Punjab State. The statement added that because the culprit happens to
be the Chief Minister’s son, the cases are always shelved up. ‘There was evidence
that certain pending cases against some smugglers were withdrawn by the State at
the instance of the Chief Minister. The truth of these allegations was not proved
beyond the shadow of doubt in the trial of the defamation case.
The accused pleaded that imputation made in good faith and for public good
falling under Exception 9 though he has stated in the original trial court that he
relied on the truth of his statements falling under the First exception to S.499. Trial
Court and High Court found against the accused, even on the plea of ‘good faith’
under ninth exception, namely on the ground that heehaw not conclusively
established the truth of the allegation. High Court sentenced him to undergo three
months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The Supreme Court
allowed the appeal of the accused and set aside the order of conviction by holding
that in the circumstances of the case that the appellant was entitled to the
protection of the Ninth Exception.
Sewakram v. R.K. Karanjia A.I.R. 1981 S.C.1514 During the period of
Emergency Sewakram who is a senior lawyer practicing at Bhopal, was placed
under detention under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security
Act, 1971 and was lodged at the central Jail Bhopal. There were among other
detenues three lady detainees, including Smt. Uma Shukla. She was found to have
conceived. She got the pregnancy terminated. In an ex parte confidential inquiry by
a Deputy Secretary to the Government (Homes) it was found that the pregnancy
was due to illicit relations between Sewakram and Smt. Shukla, the Blitz in its
three editions in English, Hindi and Urdu flashed a summary of the report. The
story included that (i) there was a mixing of male and female detainees in the
central Jail, (ii) Sewakram had the opportunity and access to mix with Smt. Shukla
freely and (iii) Smt. Shukla became pregnant by Sewakram. The news item was per

se defamatory. After revocation of Emergency, Mr. Sewakram lodged a criminal
complaint for defamation. Mr. Karanjia prayed the Court to order the production of
inquiry report, which was rejected by the Magistrate. Mr. Karanjia filed a revision
before the High Court, wherein the inquiry report was produced and the High
Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the respondent's case clearly
falls within the ambit of exception 9 of S.499. In reaching that conclusion the
Court observed that ‘it would be abuse of the process of the court if the trial is
allowed to proceed which ultimately would turn out to be vexatious proceeding. It
was held that the publication of report was for the welfare of the society. A public
institution like prison had to be maintained in rigid discipline; the rules did not
permit mixing of male prisoners with female prisoners and yet the report said the
prison authorities connived at such a thing. The balance of public benefit lay in tits
publicity rather than in hushing up the whole episode. The report had further
shown that the publication had been honestly made in the belief of the truth of the
report and also upon the reasonable ground for such a belief, after the exercise of
such means to verify its truth as would be taken by a man of ordinary prudence
under similar circumstances.
The case went to Supreme Court on a technical ground whether an appellate
court like High Court can quash the original trial of the case where it was not
prayed for, and in a miscellaneous application. The majority of Supreme Court
bench allowed the appeal. Behraul Islam J. dissented and said that the quashing of
original proceeding is correct. The Supreme Court also agreed that the publication
of the defamatory statement by Blitz is for public good and thus falls under the
exception 9 to S.199
Sections 500,501 and 502 of IPC -1860 prescribe punishments for various
defamatory statements
Sec. 500: Whoever defames another shall be published with simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.
Sec. 501: Printing or engraving of defamatory matter is made publishable with
simple imprisonment for 2 years or with fine or with both.
Sec. 502: Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance
containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be

punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or
with fine or with both.
Media and Crime of Sedition
Criticism of government is not sedition. The expression ‘sedition’ generally
means defamation of state. But the legal meaning of ‘sedition’ is different.
Definition: Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defines and punishes sedition as
follows:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the
Government established by law in India, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment
which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1: The expression 'disaffection includes disloyalty and all
feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2: Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the
Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without
exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or
other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite
hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this
section.
Supreme Court in Kedar Nath case (1962) 2 Cr L J 103, AIR 1962 SC
955 - Moreover a citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about
the government; or its measures, by way of criticism, or comment so long as
he does not incite people to violence. When he does so and incites people to
violence, he loses the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and
freedom is different from licence. It further observed that the restrictions

imposed by these provisions cannot but be said to be in the interest of public
order and within the ambit of permissible legislative interference. The
explanations appended to the main body of section make it clear. It is only
when the words used have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating
public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to
prevent such activity in the interest of public order. Section 124-A is a proof
of this that the Government can be criticised by all legitimate means and the
State cannot do anything.
Media and Crime of Obscenity
The society is now reeling under the impact of unending flow of cinema, story,
dance and drama through small screen of television and of pornography in its
vulgar form in personal computer with World Wide Web. The television with
powerful, multi-channel visual splendors is totally occupying the young minds. Its
utility in educating, informing and news giving is camouflaged by its misuse in
dishing out obscene and indecent stuff in the name of entertainment. Images of
women in electronic media, either by way of commercial advertisements or themes
of serials or repeated show of films, can straight away influence the young minds.
It is the need of civilized world to protect the human dignity and medium of
any kind has to project the image of humanity in decent form. The
commodification of women as the object of sex and obscene writing or visual, or
sensational theme of a serial or film represents the moral and cultural levels of a
society.
While all other media have their own limitations of reach, the TV and
Internet have no technological, territorial or literacy limitations. The writing is for
those who know to read and write, and the film as such is meant for which they
have to pay. TV at present is playing a role of "medium of the medium" by
becoming a vehicle for films based on stories and novels. Seeing a cinema in
theatre requires preparedness, whereas the TV which has become an inevitable
ingredient of either drawing room or bed room, repeats a film either in totally or in
part for umpteen number of times without requiring any preparedness on the on the
part of audience except to switch on the set. A song and dance part or a fight

sequence is having a tremendous impact because of its repetition in TV, the most
powerful and effective vehicle of thoughts at present.
The internet as an information infrastructure, a communicative device, is
viewed as a tool for democratising speech on a global basis. Some say that no
national law can regulate the net users and TV viewers. Before understanding the
effectiveness of any control over distorting image of the women, it is necessary to
know the existing legal controls over the media.
Offences affecting public decency and morals, IPC:
Indian Penal Code incorporates offences affecting public decency and
morals. S. 292 punishes selling or letting or distributing the objects (book or
pamphlet etc) which are lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or its effect
tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear. Section
292 punishes selling of such objects to a person under the age of 20 years. Section
294 punishes public exhibition, selling or singing of obscene object.
Hicklin Test: As quoted in Ranjit D. Udeshi Case by Supreme Court
Validity It has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case
whether in the context of its surroundings, the questioned act is obscene or not. As
stated in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State AIR 1965 SC 881 none has so far attempted to
define 'obscenity'. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of
Section 292 and applied what is known as the Hicklin test as the right test to
determine obscenity. The test laid down by the Chief Justice Cockburn in Queen v.
Hicklin, was referred:
Whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and
corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose
hand a publication of this sort may fall… it is quite certain that it would suggest to
the minds of the young of either sex, or even to persons of more advanced years,
thoughts of a most impure and libidinous character"
The Supreme Court recently allowed some scenes of female frontal nudity
and ghastly rape in the feature film "Bandit Queen" saying that they were essential
to explain why Phoolan became a bandit Queen. The Court refused to cancel the

censor certification to the film, saying that the scenes were not obscene. 1996(4)
SCC 1
MEDIA AND TORT LAW DEFAMATION
The media’s most dreaded professional hazard is the defamation litigation.
In fact a journalist who reports in hurry to meet the deadlines amidst competition,
is more vulnerable for both civil suit demanding compensation for defamation and
also a criminal charge which if successful might land him in jail. Because the
defamation is a two-in-one choice available to every citizen to protect his
reputation against defamatory publication made by newspapers. One can either sue
for damages and/or also prosecute defamer.
Defamation is a ground on which a constitutional limitation on the right to
freedom of the expression, as mentioned Article 19(2) could be legally imposed.
Thus the expression “Defamation” has been given constitutional status. This word
includes expressions like libel and slander covering many other species of libel,
such as obscene libels, seditious libels, and offensive libels and so on. The law of
defamation does not infringe the right of freedom of speech guaranteed by article
19(1) (a). It is saved by Article 19(2) as it was included as one of the specific
purposes for which a reasonable restriction can be imposed.
The law relating to the tort of defamation, from the point of view of
distribution of legislative power, would fall under “actionable wrongs” mentioned
in Entry 8 of the Concurrent List in the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Criminal law also falls under the Concurrent List. This would cover the offence of
defamation. Questions of defamation frequently arise in regard to newspapers. The
particular topic of “newspapers, books and reprinting presses” is also covered by
entry 39 of the Concurrent List. Special forms of communication such as wireless,
broad casting and the like find a mention in entry 31 of the Union List. The field of
legislation relating to defamation is thus within parliament competence.
Defamation is both a crime as well as civil wrong. The criminal law of
defamation is codified in India. If state wants to prohibit a particular conduct, it has

to specifically define it and pass a law to prospectively punish such conduct. This
is a constitutional right under Article 20(1). However the civil wrong of
defamation is not a codified law in India and the rules and principles of liability
that are applied by our courts are mostly those borrowed from the common law as
explained in UK. Because of this historical background, extensive reference to
English law becomes necessary to understand the civil liability for defamation.
A journalist working for any media is supposed to know that he has a duty
not to injure the reputation of another person by false publications, with or without
intention, because every citizen has a right to reputation. Right to reputation is a
facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Where any
authority in discharge of its duties traverses into the realm of personal reputation, it
must provide a chance to the person concerned to have a say in the matter, as
decided by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v Lal Krishna Advani [(2003) 8
SCC 361] Noted writer Weir It can be stated that the right of reputation is one of
the most important things in a man’s life. The right of reputation is a jus in rem,
which can be defined as a right, good against the whole world.
Media and Legislature-Privileges of the Legislature
PRIVILEGES IN INDIA : India was ruled by English people for a long time For
the proper functioning of the government, they made laws, while adopting their
own pattern prevailing in England with certain modifications i.e. they made laws in
accordance with situations and circumstances at that time. The system copied or
based on English pattern exercised a great influence upon the members of the
Constituent Assembly who drafted the Indian Constitution, so, naturally, this
Constitution carries with it the British concept of Parliamentary privileges
In India, the privileges, immunities etc. of Parliament and its members are
provided under Article 105 and that of State Legislatures under Article 194 of the
Constitution '". The position under clause (1) & (2) of Article 105 is that subject to
the provisions of the Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the
procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in the Parliament.

In other respects under clause (3) of Article 105 (As it stands today after 44th
Amendment of 1978) the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of
Parliament and of its members and committees shall be such as may be defined
from time to time by Parliament and until so defined, shall be those of that House
and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of
section 15 of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978. Article 194 (3)
contains identical provision in respect of State Legislature.
Under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, therefore, the privileges of our
Parliament are identical with those of the House of Commons as they existed on
the Jan 26th 1950. The Supreme Court, however, in special reference no 1 of 1964
held that the Parliament can not claim all the privileges as enjoyed by the House of
Commons at the Commencement of the Constitution. It can exercise only those
privileges of the House of Commons which are incidental to legislative functions.
As a House continues to enjoy the same privileges as it enjoyed at the
commencement of the Constitution, the answer to the question that, what were the
privileges of parliament and the State Legislature being enjoyed at the
commencement of 44 Amendment is that they enjoyed the same privileges which
were being enjoyed by House of Commons at the commencement of Constitution.
This amendment, therefore, merely excluded the name or reference of the House of
Commons from Article 105 and 194 but retained the same position to continue
which was existing at the commencement of the Constitution. The parliamentary
privileges restrict the freedom of press and while publishing the reports of
proceedings of a House of Parliament or of its committees or on a conduct of a
member or members inside or out side the House, a lot of caution is required to be
undertaken by the press.
The following privileges of the parliament affect the freedom of press.
(1) Right to Exclude Strangers - The parliament has the privilege to exclude the
strangers'. The Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, whenever, thinks fit
under the rules of the House, may order the withdrawl of strangers from any part of
the House, including the representatives of the press. The Parliament has not yet
exercised these rights. However, it may exclude press whenever holding a secret
session though such chances are quite rare. The Parliament is also empowered to

withdraw press cards of any particular journalist if any default is committed by
him. The Lok Sabha has, infact, withdrawn press cards twice Once of a special
correspondent of Blitz and on another occasion of a special correspondent of
Hindustan New Delhi. Any person including a press representative excluded from
the House under rule 248 of the House when It sits in a secret session.'
(2) Right to prohibit the publication of its proceedings:
It is another important privilege which has been enforced by the Parliament on
various occasions with a specific intention, only to prevent malafide publication of
any inaccurate report or expunged portions of any proceeding Unlike England, in
India, there is no rule or standing order of the Parliament prohibiting the
publication of its proceedings. In M.S.M. Sharma V. Sri Krishna Sinha A.I.R.
1959 S.C. 395 (Searchlight case) the question before the Court was whether the
legislature is empowered to prohibit the publication of expunged portion of the
proceeding of the House. The Supreme Court gave the answer in affirmative and
held that Article 105 (3) and Article 194(3) confer all those powers and privileges
on Parliament and State Legislature.
(3) Power to Commit for Contempt:
One of the most important privileges available to Parliament is the power to
commit for its contempt and also defined as the 'keystone of Parliamentary
privilege'. The power is identical with that of House of Commons in England. The
power to punish for contempt was not available to the legislature under the
Government of India Act, 1919. For the first time Government of India Act,
1935 conferred such powers. The question is whether the existence of such
punitive powers affects the freedom of press. To answer such question it is to be
kept in mind the difference between the existence of power and exercise of that
power. In India, like the House of Commons, it has been the practice of each of the
House to exercise privilege under great limitation and conditions. In majority of
the cases the Parliament though oversensitive to its privileges did not take any
action when the editor or person making the defamatory statement as the case may
be expressed his sincere regret In the Blitz case the editor of the newspaper was
reprimanded by the Lok Sabha but the Privilege Committee recognised the right of
fair comment and observed as following.

"Nobody would deny the members or as a matter of fact, any citizen, the
right of fair comment. But if the comments contain personal attack on individual
members of parliament on account of their conduct in Parliament, or if the
language of the comment is vulgar or abusive, they can not be deemed to come
within the bounds of fair comment or justifiable criticism”.
It is, therefore, clear that the privileges of the Parliament as discussed above are of
extreme importance for the smooth and proper functioning of the parliament and
State Legislatures and whenever, these privileges are violated by the press, it
would be guilty of committing contempt of parliament or State Legislature. Under
the following circumstances the press has been held guilty of committing the
contempt:
(1) Comments in a newspaper casting reflections on the character or proceedings
of the House, or of its committees, or member or members collectively and thereby
lowering their prestige in the eyes of the public
(2) Pre - mature publication of a motion tabled before the House and of
proceedings of a Committee of a House or the proceedings of a meeting thereof by
a newspaper before the committee completes its task and presents its report to the
house.
(3) Publication of proceedings of a committee of a House before it is presented to
the House concerned.
(4) Misreporting of the proceeding of the House, or of a report of a Parliamentary
Committee or, of a member of the House by newspaper
(5) Casting aspersions on the impartiality of the speaker attributing malafides to
him in discharge of his duties in the House.
(6) Publication of expunged portion of the proceedings of a House
(7) Publication of a document or paper presented to a committee before the
committee's report is presented to the House.
(8) Comments on the officers of the House casting reflections

The position of the parliamentary privileges when they are in conflict with
the freeedom of press has been settled in re-under Article 143 of the Constitution
of India. The advisory opinion of the Supreme Court in this case however has
made Article 105 (3) quite ambiguous in its approach as if and when a law is made
defining the privileges it would be subject to Article 19 (1) (a) but in case if no law
is made then the same provision would yield to parliamentary privileges. However,
inspite of the fact that freedom of press is subject to privileges of the House, there
are certain enactments which give protection to press against a third party if
substantial and true report of the proceeding of either House is published. In 1956
Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication), Act was passed. Under the
Act, no liability, Civil or Criminal, attaches to the publication of proceedings of
either Hosue, provided it is true and without malice and also for public good. This
Act was repealed in Dec. 1975 during Emergency but re-enacted in April 1977 and
currently is the law relating to the publication of proceeding of either House of
Parliament. The law also extends to the radio broadcasts. The Act of 1977
therefore, provides immunity from any civil or criminal liability for publishing any
proceedings of either Hosue of Parliament, if the following conditions are fulfilled,
(i) The report of the proceedings is substantially true;
(ii) It is not made with malice; and
(iii) It is made for public good.
The protection thus, extended by the aforesaid Act is confined not only to the
wrong or offence of defamation but also comprehends any other wrong or offence
which might possibly be caused by such publication, eg, obscenity, incitement to
an offence, sedition etc. notwithstanding that they are otherwise punishable under
Indian Penal Code or any other law in force, in the year 1978 Article 361 - A was
inserted into the Constitution through the 44th Constitutional Amendment. The
amendement provided the constitutional protection to the Parlimentary
Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977 and to the similar state
enactments.
Media & Judiciary-contempt of Court
Power to punish for contempt of court is given in Articles 129 and 215, Section
228 of Indian Penal Code and in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Contempt of

Court is classified in to Civil Contempt and Criminal contempt. Civil Contempt
refers to a wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, order writ or other process
of a court or a wilful breach of or undertaking given to the Court. This concept is
very clearly defined and does not require much deliberation as opposed to Criminal
Contempt. Criminal Contempt has been defined as “ the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations or otherwise) of
any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to
scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or prejudices or
interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding or
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner. Hence it is seen that as per the
definition, whether or not an act or rather the publication of something can be
called contempt of court depends a lot on the facts of the case and the discretion of
the Court. Hence there have been numerous judgements that have interpreted the
provisions.
What amounts to scandalising the court was discussed in the case of Brahma
Prakash Sharma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 10 The Court after
examining various decisions of English courts observed that there were two
important aspects in this regard.
The first aspect being that the reflection on the conduct or character of a
judge in reference to the discharge of his judicial duties would not be contempt if
such reflection is made in the exercise of the right of fair and reasonable criticism
which every citizen possesses in respect of public acts done in the seat of justice.
Secondly, when attacks or comments are made on a judge or judges, disparaging in
character and derogatory to their dignity, care should be taken to distinguish
between what is a libel on the judge and what amounts really to contempt of court.
The fact that a statement is defamatory so far as the judge is concerned does not
necessarily make it contempt. The Court held that the position that emerged was
that a defamatory attack on a judge may be a libel so far as the judge is concerned
and it would be open to him to proceed against the libel or in a proper action if he
so chooses. If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated
to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such
court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One is a wrong done to the
public. It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the

minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to
deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the
court's administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the
mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. The above
judgement was passed in the year 1953, which was well before the Contempt of
Court Act came in to force. However the case is important in order to interpret and
understand the provisions of the Act. In contrast to the provisions of what
constitutes contempt there are many more provisions in the Act that provide
situations that do not amount to contempt. It is important to note from the point of
view of the media that innocent publication and distribution of matter does not
amount to contempt. The important exceptions are fair and accurate report of
judicial proceedings and fair criticism of judicial act.
Media and Human Rights
It is here that the media can play a salutary role in creating larger awareness
of the concept of human rights, Basic human rights that would constitute the right
of every individual to his fundamental freedom without distinction as to race, sex,
language or religion.
Human society has developed from Stone Age to space age. But while some
nations or societies have developed apace the others seem to be nowhere in the
race. The rights which citizens enjoy vary depending upon the economic, social,
political and cultural developments.
In view of the fact that there is a revolutionary change and growth in every
sphere of life and mainly in the communication and media world, media today,
plays a decisive role in the development of society. Thus the role of media in
protection of human rights cannot be ignored or minimized. Media is a
communicator of the public. Today its role extends not only to giving facts as
news, it also analyses and comments on the facts and thus shapes the views of the
people. The impact of media on society today is beyond doubt and debate. The
media has been setting for the nation its social, political economic and even
cultural agenda. With the advent of satellite channels its impact is even sharper and
deeper. With twenty-four hours news-channels, people cannot remain neutral to
and unaffected by what the channels are serving day and night. It is, therefore, of

paramount importance that the media plays an important and ethical role at all
levels and in all parts of the country and the world.
Media and Executive-Official Secrets Act,
The Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) is a comprehensive document relating
to official secrets and it defines a number of offences. The Act is aimed at
maintaining the security of the State against leakage of secret information,
sabotage and the like. It is India’s anti-espionage legislation held over from British
colonisation. It states clearly that any action which involves helping an enemy state
against India is liable. It also states that one cannot approach, inspect, or even pass
over a prohibited government site or area. According to this Act, helping the
enemy state can be in the form of communicating a sketch, plan, model of an
official secret, or of official codes or passwords, to the enemy. The disclosure of
any information that is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, or friendly relations with foreign States, is punishable by this
act. The Act is important from the points of view of the Press since many of the
acts prohibited by law may be committed by newspapers and journalists, as private
individual, while performing their duties.
The OSA, 1923 broadly has two parts – One relating to spying for the enemy
(Section 3 & 4). The other relates to unauthorised communication of any other
official code or pass words, or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or
information (Section 5).
Punishments under the Act range from three to fourteen years imprisonment. A
person prosecuted under this Act can be charged with the crime even if the action
was unintentional and not intended to endanger the security of the state. The Act
only empowers persons in positions of authority to handle official secrets, and
others who handle it in prohibited areas or outside them are liable for punishment.
In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this Act, the fact that he
has been in communication with, or attempted to communicate with a foreign
agent, whether within or outside India is relevant and enough to necessitate
prosecution. Journalists also have to help members of the police forces above the
rank of the sub-Inspector and members of the Armed forces with investigation

regarding an offence, up to and including revealing his sources of information (If
required). When a company is seen as the offender under this Act, everyone
involved with the management of the company including the board of directors can
be liable for punishment. In the case of a newspaper everyone including the editor,
publisher and the proprietor can be jailed for an offence.
2.Media in Constitutional Framework
FreedomofPress-Article19(1)(a)
To preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that people should have the
freedom of express their feelings and to make their views known to the people at
large. The press, a powerful medium of mass communication, should be free to
play its role in building a strong viable society. Denial of freedom of the press to
citizens would necessarily undermine the power to influence public opinion and be
counter to democracy.
Freedom of press is not specifically mentioned in article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution and what is mentioned there is only freedom of speech and
expression. In the Constituent Assembly Debates it was made clear by Dr.
Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, that no special mention of the
freedom of press was necessary at all as the press and an an individual or a citizen
were the same as far as their right of expression was concerned.
The framers of the Indian constitution considered freedom of the press as an
essential part of the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed in Article 19
(1) (a) of the Constitution.
In Romesh Thaper vs State of Madras and Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi, the
Supreme Court took it for granted the fact that the freedom of the press was an
essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. It was observed by
Patanjali Sastri J. in Romesh Thaper that freedom of speech and expression
included propagation of ideas, and that freedom was ensured by the freedom of
circulation.
It is clear that the right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right
to publish and circulate one’s ideast, opinions and other views with complete
freedom and by resorting to all available means of publication. The right to
freedom of the press includes the right to propagate ideas and views and to publish
and circulate them. However, the freedom of the press is not absolute, just as the

freedom of expression is not. Public Interest has to be safeguard by article 19(1)(2)
which lays down reasonable limitations to the freedom of expression in matters
affecting:
a. Sovereignty and integrity of the State
b. Security of the State
c. Friendly relations with foreign countries
d. Public order
e. Decency and morality
f. Contempt of court
g. Defamation
h. Incitement to an offence
Freedom of Press Defined
It is an absence of statutory and administrative control on dissemination of
information, ideas, knowledge and thoughts.
The freedom of the press and of expression is guarded by the First Amendment to
the US Constitution which specifically lays down that this freedom be in no way
abridge by the laws. It is not Indian Leaders were not aware of the US First
Amendment or of Jefferson’s famous declaration when he said that “Were it left
me to decide whether we should have a government without newspaper or
newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the
latter.” Jawahar Lal Nehru echoed similar views “I would rather have a completely
free press, with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom, than a
suppressed or regulated press.” Voltair once said, “I do not agree with a word you
say but I defend to death your right to say it.”
Mrs. Gandhi has never had much faith in the press. Her misgivings about the press
wee first expressed in her address to the International Press Institute Assembly in
New Delhi on November 15, 1966, when she blamed the press for for giving wide
publicity to student unrest in the country. She said, “How much liberty should the
press have in country like India which is engaged in fighting a war against poverty,
backwardness, superstition and ignorance.” Mrs. Gandhi would not suggest
restrictions that might be imposed on the press but said that it was for the leading
editions, and journalists of the country to decide. Nine years later when Mrs.
Gandhi declared emergency action was taken against the press immediately and
complete censorship was imposed.
Kuldip Nayar, a veteran journalist wrote to Mrs. Gandhi soon after she imposed the

emergency, “if newspaper have criticized the government, it is largely because of
its sluggish administration, slow progress in the economy field and the gap
between promise and performance. My concept of a free press is to ferret out the
truth and let the public know.”
To preserve the democratic way of life, it is essential that people should have the
freedom to express their feelings to make their views known to the people at large.
The press, a powerful media of mass communication should be free to play its role
in building a strong viable society. Denial of the freedom of press to citizens would
necessarily undermine the power to influence public opinion.
Besides the restrictions imposed on the press by the Constitution, there exists
various other laws which further curtail press freedom and the right of the citizen
to information as well as the right to freedom of speech and expression. They are
all in force in the interest of public order of the sovereignity and security of the
state.
Development of the Meaning of Freedom of Press
Historically, the origin of the concept of freedom of press took place in the
England. From the earliest times, in the West, persecution for the expression of
opinion even in matter relating to science or philosophy was restored to by both the
Church and the State, to suppress alleged heresay, corruption of the youth or
sedition. Such restraints, through licensing and censorship, came to be accentuated
after the invention of printing towards the latter part of the 15th Century, and the
appearance of newspaper in the 17th Century, - which demonstrated how powerful
the press was as a medium of expression.
Shortly after their emergence, newspaper came to take up the cause of the
Opposition against monarchical absolutism, which in turn, led to different methods
of suppression. It is in protest against such governmental interference that freedom
of the Press was built up in England. Opposition to governmental interference,
which had been brewing on for some time, was supported by logical arguments by
Milton in his Areopagitica (1644), for instance, that free men must have the
‘liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all
liberties’. Any for of censorship was intolerable, whether imposed by a royal
decree or by legislation.
In fact, Milton’s Areopagitica was a protest addressed to the Long Parliament
which had taken up licensing, after the abolition of the Star Chamber. It was as a
result of such agition that the Licensing Act of 1662 was eventually refused to be

renewed by the House of Commons, in 1694, though the reasons given were
technical.
The history of Freedom of Press, in England, is thus a triumph of the people
against the power of the licensor.
Since there is no written Constitution nor any guarantee of fundamental right in
England, the concept of freedom of press, like the wider concept of freedom of
expression, has been basically negative.
In other words, freedom of press, in England, means the right to print and publish
anything which is not prohibited by law or made an offence, such as sedition,
contempt of court, obscenity, defamation, blasphemy.
Status of Freedom of Press in India
In Romesh Thapar v/s State of Madras, Patanjali Shastri,CJ, observed that
“Freedom of speech & of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic
organization, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential
for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.” In
this case, entry and circulation of the English journal “Cross Road”, printed and
published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras. The same was
held to be violative of the freedom of speech and expression, as “without liberty of
circulation, publication would be of little value”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Union of India v/s Association for
Democratic Reforms, “One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation
and non information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes
democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and
receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions”. In Indian Express
Newspapers v/s Union of India, it has been held that the press plays a very
significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the
freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge
that freedom. Freedom of press has three essential elements. They are:
1. Freedom of access to all sources of information,
2. Freedom of publication, and
3. Freedom of circulation.
There are many instances when the freedom of press has been suppressed by the
legislature. In Sakal Papers v/s Union of India, the Daily Newspapers (Price and
Page) Order, 1960, which fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper

could publish at a price was held to be violative of freedom of press and not a
reasonable restriction under the Article 19(2). Similarly, in Bennett Coleman and
Co. v/s Union of India, the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, which fixed
the maximum number of pages, was struck down by the Court holding it to be
violative of provision of Article 19(1)(a) and not to be reasonable restriction under
Article 19(2). The Court also rejected the plea of the Government that it would
help small newspapers to grow.
Freedom of Press in India: Constitutional Perspective
In India before Independence, there was no constitutional or statutory guarantee of
freedom of an individual or media/press. At most, some common law freedom
could be claimed by the press, as observed by the Privy Council in Channing
Arnold v. King Emperor.
“The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the freedom of the subject and
to whatever length, the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, but
apart from statute law his privilege is no other and no higher. The range of his
assertions, his criticisms or his comments is as wide as, and no wider than that of
any other subject.”
With object and views, the Preamble of the Indian Constitution ensures to all
citizens inter alia, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. The
constitutional significance of the freedom of speech consists in the Preamble of
Constitution and is transformed as fundamental and human right in Article 19(1)(a)
as “freedom of speech and expression.
For achieving the main objects, freedom of the press has been included as part of
freedom of speech and expression which is a universally recognized right adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization on 10th December,
1948. The heart of the declaration contained in Article 19 says as follows:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The same view of freedom of holding opinions without interference has been taken
by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms in which
the Court has observed as follows: (SCC p. 317, para 38)
“One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non information, all

equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. …
Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information
which includes freedom to hold opinions.”
In India, freedom of press is implied from the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) says
that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. But this
right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed on the expression of this right for
certain purposes under Article 19(2).
Keeping this view in mind Venkataramiah, J. of the Supreme Court of India
in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India has stated:
“In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political
intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making
formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the
developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are
not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance
the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic
electorate [Government] cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being
purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often
carry material which would not be palatable to Governments and other
authorities.”
The above statement of the Supreme Court illustrates that the freedom of press is
essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. Democracy means
Government of the people, by the people and for the people; it is obvious that
every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order
to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making a choice, free and
general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential. This explains the
constitutional viewpoint of the freedom of press in India.
The fundamental principle which was involved in freedom of press is the “people’s
right to know”. It therefore received a generous support from all those who believe
in the free flow of the information and participation of the people in the
administration; it is the primary duty of all national courts to uphold this freedom
and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with this freedom,
are contrary to the constitutional mandate.
Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
various judgments and the views expressed by various jurists, it is crystal clear that

the freedom of the press flows from the freedom of expression which is guaranteed
to “all citizens” by Article 19(1)(a). Press stands on no higher footing than any
other citizen and cannot claim any privilege (unless conferred specifically by law),
as such, as distinct from those of any other citizen. The press cannot be subjected
to any special restrictions which could not be imposed on any citizen of the
country.
Conclusion
At last it can be concluded that, The Freedom of the Press is nowhere mentioned in
the Indian constitution. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is
provided in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is believed that Freedom of
Speech and Expression in Article 19 of the Indian constitution include freedom of
the press.
Freedom of expression enables one to express one’s own voices as well as those of
others. But freedom of the press must be subject to those restrictions which apply
to the freedom of speech and expression. The restrictions mentioned in Art. 19 are
defamation, contempt of court, decency or morality, security of the state, friendly
relations with other states, incitement to an offence, public order and maintenance
of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The status of freedom of the press is the same as that of an ordinary citizen. The
press cannot claim any immunity from taxation, is subject to the same laws
regulating industrial relations, and press employees are subject to the same laws
regulating industrial employment.
References
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1847/Freedom-of-Press---Article-19(1)(a).html
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/19633/10/10_chapter3.pdf
http://nalsarpro.softpal.in/Portals/23/Courses/ML/Modules/Module_II.pdf
https://sg.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/143397/8/08_chapter%202.pdf
http://www.kkhsou.in/main/masscom/media_freedom.html
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/52360/12/12_chapter%205.pdf
http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1054/1/006_The%20Law%20of%20Privilege%20
and%20the%20Press.pdf

RTI - UNIT IV-converted.pdf

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to RTI - UNIT IV-converted.pdf (20)

More from FirozeKs1 (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

RTI - UNIT IV-converted.pdf