Authored By: V.Chithra
Chennai Dr Ambedkar Government Law College Pudupakkam
Court Name: Supreme Court
Bench: Justice E.S Venkataramaiah, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice A.P. Sen
Date of Judgment: 6 th December 1986
Petitioners: Indian Express Newspaper Pvt.Ltd & Ors
Respondents: Union of India & Ors
Introduction
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India is one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions on the freedom of the press in India. The case arose from a challenge to the imposition of import duties on newsprint and raised fundamental questions about the extent to which the State may use its taxation power in ways that directly affect the press. The judgment is landmark not only because it confirmed that freedom of the press is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but also because it established that the government’s taxing power is not immune from judicial review when it encroaches upon fundamental rights. The principles articulated in this case have been applied in several later decisions, including the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling on internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners — shareholders and employees of companies engaged in editing, printing, and publishing newspapers, periodicals, and magazines — filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Prior to 1985, the Government of India did not levy import duties on newsprint. However, in 1985, the government decided to impose customs duties and auxiliary duties on newsprint imported from abroad. As a result of this decision, publishers were compelled to increase the price of their newspapers. The price rise led to a decline in circulation, which in turn reduced the revenue of the petitioner companies. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the tax was unconstitutional, arguing that it violated their right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the imposition of duties was lawful, made in the public interest, and fell squarely within the government’s constitutional power to levy taxes.
Issues Raised
-
Whether the imposition of import duties on newsprint violated the petitioners’ right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
-
Whether the classification of newspaper companies by size violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Applicable Constitutional Provisions
Article 14 — Right to Equality
Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equal treatment under the law. It mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. The petitioners contended that the government’s classification of newspaper companies into small, medium, and large categories was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The Court, however, held that the classification was reasonable, was based on intelligible differentia, and did not violate the guarantee of equality.
Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. Although freedom of the press is not expressly mentioned in the Article, the Supreme Court held that it is necessarily implied in and protected by its language. The Court reaffirmed that freedom of the press forms an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, and that any law or governmental action — including taxation — that has a direct and proximate effect on the press is subject to scrutiny under this provision.
Article 19(1)(g) — Freedom of Trade and Profession
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees to all citizens the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The petitioners argued that the imposition of duties reduced their revenues to such an extent that it interfered with their right to carry on their business. The Court held that the tax did not amount to a violation of Article 19(1)(g) on the facts of this case.
Arguments of the Petitioners
-
The government violated the petitioners’ right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), because the imposition of import duties on newsprint led directly to a reduction in the circulation of their newspapers, thereby curtailing the dissemination of information and ideas.
-
The government violated the petitioners’ right to carry on their trade and business under Article 19(1)(g). The duty burden forced them to raise the cover price of their newspapers, causing readers to stop purchasing them, and resulting in a sharp decline in revenue.
-
The true purpose of the tax was not to raise revenue but to suppress press freedom and limit public access to the information published in newspapers. The tax was therefore a colourable exercise of the taxation power designed to achieve an unconstitutional object.
Arguments of the Respondents
-
The government had no intention to restrict the freedom of the press. The import duty was imposed in the public interest and for the legitimate purpose of raising government revenue.
-
The tax was reasonable and proportionate. The government was constitutionally empowered to levy such duties, and the mere fact that a tax incidentally affects a particular business does not render it unconstitutional.
Cases Referred
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
The Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar strongly affirmed freedom of the press, holding that the freedom to circulate and disseminate ideas and information is vital to the preservation of a free and democratic society. The Court recognised that freedom of thought, expression, and the press constitutes the foundation of all democratic organisations.
2. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788
Bennett Coleman concerned the constitutional validity of the Newsprint Control Policy, which imposed restrictions on the founding of new newspapers and the expansion of existing ones. The Supreme Court struck down the restrictions, holding that the government’s newsprint policy was an unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court emphasised that the press serves as an essential intermediary between the government and the public, and that deliberate restrictions on newspaper circulation amount to a calculated suppression of free expression.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition insofar as it sought to have the import duties declared unconstitutional on their face, but the judgment is in no sense a simple vindication of governmental power. On the contrary, it is one of the most important and press-protective constitutional rulings in Indian legal history.
On Article 19(1)(a) and Freedom of the Press
The Court held that freedom of the press is an integral and implied component of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), even though the Article does not expressly mention the press. Critically, the Court held that any law — including a taxation law — that directly and proximately affects newspaper circulation falls within the scope of Article 19(1)(a) and is therefore subject to challenge on the ground that it violates fundamental rights. The Court thus firmly rejected any suggestion that the government’s taxing power is immune from constitutional scrutiny merely because it is exercised under a fiscal entry in the Seventh Schedule.
On Judicial Review of Taxation Power
The Court made clear that the mere existence of the government’s power to levy duties under Entry 92 of List I of the Seventh Schedule does not place that power beyond the reach of judicial review. If a tax is found to directly and substantially curtail press freedom, it can be struck down under Article 19(1)(a). In this way, the judgment both confirmed the press’s constitutional protection and preserved the government’s legitimate fiscal authority — drawing a careful line between the two.
On Article 14
The Court held that the classification of newspaper companies into small, medium, and large categories was based on a rational and intelligible basis, and did not violate the right to equality under Article 14.
On Article 19(1)(g)
The Court held that the imposition of import duties on newsprint did not, on the facts, amount to an infringement of the petitioners’ right to carry on their trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
Subsequent Significance
The principles established in this case have had a long-reaching impact on Indian constitutional law. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court relied on this judgment to hold that the government’s prolonged suspension of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir was subject to Article 19(1)(a) scrutiny, and that restrictions on fundamental rights cannot be imposed arbitrarily or without adequate justification. The continuity between these two cases illustrates that the Indian Express judgment’s insistence on judicial review of governmental actions that affect the free flow of information remains an enduring and living principle.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India is a landmark ruling in Indian constitutional law. Its significance lies not merely in the outcome of the particular dispute before the Court, but in the principles it established for the relationship between press freedom and state power. By holding that freedom of the press is implied in Article 19(1)(a) and that even the government’s fiscal powers are subject to fundamental rights review, the Court affirmed that the press occupies a constitutionally protected space in Indian democracy. At the same time, by declining to strike down the specific tax at issue, the judgment preserved the State’s legitimate power to legislate in the public interest. This careful balance — protecting press freedom without immunising the press from all regulation — reflects a mature and nuanced approach to constitutional adjudication, and explains why this case continues to be cited in the highest courts of the country.
Reference(S):
-
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515; (1985) 1 SCC 641
-
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
-
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788
-
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637
-
Constitution of India — Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 19(2), 32
-
Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 92
