Welcome to all of you. Welcome to all of you to our channel Indian Mass Communication. In this video lecture, we are going to be continuing in our series on landmark cases on freedom of press.
So kindly do let me know whether I am audible, there is no technical glitch. So friends, I am assuming that you have seen two lectures before this. If you have not seen, then kindly go in the playlist and watch them.
Because everything is connected. In this video lecture, we are going to discuss about some of the most important, I would say, trailblazer cases. Okay, so Benetton and Coleman versus Union of India, then Indian Express newspaper versus Union of India.
Then we are also going to discuss about broad. This is the name is wrong. Sorry, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting versus Cricket Association of Bengal and Shreya Singhal versus Union of India.
This is a spelling mistake, I will correct it in the PDF also. So Ministry of INBD versus Cricket Bengal, Cricket Association of Bengal. So if you are new to my channel, my name is Tushar Goyal.
I am a PhD research scholar at Centre for Media Studies, JNU. I have qualified JRF and other several media related exams. So you can consider subscribing to our channel.
You can go to our channel, you will find more than 200 lectures. And... All the lectures are free and open access for everybody So you can go through the lectures and we have an application in website where you can get a lot of PDFs Then previous questions with detailed explanations.
Okay, so the links will be in the description box. So let us begin Last class we discussed 5 cases Romesh Thapar versus state of Madras then we learned about Virender Okay Then we have also learned about the case of Sakal newspaper. Several cases we have already discussed.
This is in continuation of our last class and this is going to be the last lecture in this series. So another landmark case, Benetton Coleman and Coe versus Union of India. As you guys know that Benetton Coleman and Coe is one of the largest, I would say one of the largest conglomerate in Indian media.
You can all. Name few of their subsidiaries Okay So let us first discuss about the backdrop So I will also solve you questions I will solve a lot of PYQs Okay We will solve PYQs also So keywords you have to remember year Okay from the perspective of exam Then what was the conflict And what was the final judgement How it impacted freedom of press Till now we are talking about freedom of press In so many classes That We have already discussed this that there is no separate law for freedom of press. It is implied in freedom of speech and expression in article 19.1. So how this case defined a particular freedom of press?
In this particular case, it was the laws around newsprint. What is a newsprint? We will talk about it now. So in 1962 there was a newsprint control order of 1962 so guys newsprint is this paper on which the newspaper is printed okay and during the formative years of India after independence a lot of this newsprint was imported from other countries okay so as you know this is the basic of economics that government wants to reduce the imports and increase the exports in order to create a balance of payments. So the Newspaper Print Control Order of 1962 was passed under Essential Commodities Act 1952 and also Customs Duty Act 1962 to regulate the production and trade of newsprint in India.
The government wanted to promote the production and trade of newsprint in India. So it tried to discourage the production of newsprint in India. the newspaper organization from using the imported newsprint okay so the order included quantitative control such as page limits that some argued restricted freedom of press and expression okay i am so newsprint then there came newsprint policy after uh newsprint order of 1962 there came newsprint policy in 1972-73 it Place additional restrictions on newspaper establishments like if there is an institution whose two newspapers are already running one of them is daily so it cannot start with another new newspaper.
Prohibition of new newspapers by establishments owning more than two newspapers if at least one is a daily publication limiting the total number of pages to 10 so if they limit the number of pages then where will they publish the articles they have to limit the number of advertisements they can take then restricting the number of pages increase to not more than 20 percent of the newspapers under 10 pages other like if a newspaper has eight pages regularly so they cannot in in any addition or supplements they cannot increase more than two pages so these were few restrictions put in this newsprint policy and newsprint order 1962 okay what was the judgment So, judgment was in the case of Benetton Coleman versus Union of India, the court deemed specific provisions of newsprint policies unconstitutional. Okay. So, all these provisions were considered unconstitutional. They are directly curtailing the freedom of speech and expression.
The Supreme Court found that policies, quantitative restrictions like page limits, then unreasonable limits, you know, there was a quantitative restrictions so the it was also against article 14 of right to equality then justice re emphasized that fundamental importance of press freedom under article 19 1 a this this order was declared unconstitutional okay so the keyword would be the newsprint policy So let's solve a question. Benetton Coleman & Co. v. Union of India case in early 1970 deals with. So this new sprint in this case was put under essential commodities. In essential commodities.
it is usually asked to you know ration it use it in a more you can say uh miser way okay so the right see this is a previous question if they have already asked questions from this particular case so new sprint policy again one more question benton coleman will be matched with what so see there were two things new sprint control order of 1962 and new sprint policy of 1972 these two two things were associated to it okay now how will you do this benetton coleman seek with four okay if one comes then your question is okay there are two options so you can remove them okay we have already talked about them in the last class and we have talked about such light newspaper okay last class we talked about them Let's move ahead. Then another very landmark case Indian Express Newspapers versus Union of India 1985. Okay. So the keyword here.
So see these two cases are I would say linked to each other. So in both these cases, Benetton and Coleman and Indian Express Newspapers versus Union of India. They are the conflict is on newsprint. Okay. Newsprint.
I told you this. The newspaper on which we print in the formative years So India was not producing this newsprint We were exporting it Oh sorry we were importing it please Let me correct it we were importing it In a very huge quantity because so many newspapers are published You know that still in India the circulation of so many newspapers It's more than it's in millions and billions So a lot of you can say stress was on imports of these news prints so the government wanted to discourage these uh conglomerates and press uh you know newspapers and it wanted to encourage more production of this new sprint in india so let's talk about this case indian express versus union of india so 1985 government put an import duty now what is import duty if you are ordering something from outside for 100 rupees so government will so this is the way to discourage import of new sprint okay so government put a import duty on the new sprints imported from the abroad along with custom duty also okay so it's a The price of newsprint increased. There was a surge in the price of newsprint. In Benetton and Coleman, they put a quantitative restriction that you can't use this more than 10 pages. Or if you want to buy more supplements, you can't use more than 20%.
What they did in this? They made it expensive. So in 1985, the government of India began levying import duty on newsprints. imported from abroad along with custom duty leading to a surge in newspaper prices.
So the case arose when Indian Express newspapers So Indian Express newspaper, this organization challenged it challenged the imposition of custom duty and import on newsprint arguing that it violated their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. So custom duty on newsprint, we have discussed all these. So what was government's argument? Government's argument was the imposition of customs and import duties on newspaper was a matter of economic policy.
So they can have their own economic policy. The argument of government was that their motive is to increase the revenue of government so that they can have a balance of payments. The duties were imposed to regulate the economy and generate revenue as we just discussed not to restrict. So government's argument was that we We don't want to restrict the freedom of press but it is an economic policy.
It's our power. It's within our limits to put taxes and custom duty on anything. Then the press like any other industry was subject to taxation like any other industry like let's say garment industry. The press is also an industry and these duties were a legitimate exercise of government's power.
These were the arguments of the government. There was no direct or intentional infringement on. freedom of speech and expression then what was the judgment these were the arguments of the petitioners okay imposition of custom duties which we just talked about that it will curb freedom of speech surge in the news price then it will reduce the circulation higher cost these were the arguments of the petitioners okay so what was the argument of the petitioner the this financial burden curtailed the freedom of press by making it economically unviable for small newspapers to operate then higher cost leads to increased prices in newspapers potentially reducing their circulation and reach we have discussed this multiple times that newspaper industry is very price sensitive so a many people might consider a newspaper which is you know which is more cheaper than the other they might not prefer uh the quality of news they might think that they all are same it might be the case also okay so this industry is very price sensitive so what was the judgment the apex court held that government can impose taxes so court ka marna ye tha ki yes government impose kar sakte hai but when we talk about fundamental rights the maulik adhikars okay usko agar koi curb karta hai toh wo jahez nahi hai so apex court held that government can impose taxes on newsprint but only within reasonable limits okay Only within reasonable limits. Not that you are making it so expensive that no one is able to afford it. You have made it unviable.
You have made that entire business unviable. Which does not affect the circulation of newspapers. You can increase it by some amount.
Not very much. Then court ordered the government to review its taxation policy. Because of excessive nature of tax.
Was neither proven by the petitioner. Not refuted by the respondents. The judgement acknowledged that while the state could regulate economic aspects of newspapers, such regulations like these, like custom duties on newsprint, must not curtail its essential freedom of press. So the major judgement was to review its taxation policy. The tax should not be unreasonable.
So it shouldn't be that much that the entire industry becomes unviable. question me deki express newspaper you are going to match it with these are all previous questions pucha gaya hai inse sewaal so imposition of Tax to limit circulation. Direct questions they are asking you.
If you know the story, you can solve them. Otherwise, there is no middle path in it. Okay, let's move on.
Another very important landmark case was the secretary. This is the exact name. I may have typed it wrong in the thumbnail. First of all, it is autocorrect. It is for grammar.
They have spoiled a lot of things. So, the secretary, Ministry of Information Broadcasting versus Cricket Association of Bengal. So this was a very landmark case. We just talked about media committees.
In the 90s, when I told you about Prasar Bharti, so this was also a very big landmark judgment which changed a lot of things. It led to a massive expansion of private channels in India. So let's know about this.
You know that by the 90s, there was a monopoly of far-sightedness on television. news and also on sports also so the dispute arose when cricket association of bengal cab is short form wanted to telecast cricket matches independently bypassing the state-controlled doodarshan so the cricket association of bengal it wanted to bring private broadcasters okay but the it was a monopoly of doodarshan in 90s the cab arranged for private broadcasters to cover an international tournament like doordarshan pe aata hai wo chahte the ki koi wo khud iske sponsors jhunde ek private player hai so the cab arranged for a private broadcaster to cover an international cricket tournament but faced resistance from government so they were conducting international matches and they wanted a private broadcaster but they faced resistance from government which insisted that only doordarshan could broadcast those matches So this was the landmark judgement. The biggest thing was the airwaves. Let's know the Supreme Court's judgement, let's know the arguments of Cricket Bengal Association.
So the government's control on broadcasting, the arguments of CAV were that government's control on broadcasting infringed upon the basic right of freedom of speech and expression. So, So in freedom of speech and expression see now the focus is shifting from newspapers to television in the next case it will shift on internet so this is also technological determinism how technology is proceeding so we are also seeing you know legal issues in the medium specific cases also next case which are we are going to discuss is on internet okay. So the government's control of broadcasting infringes the basic right to freedom of speech and expression.
So press's freedom is also that they should have right to publish and right to broadcast. If only one broadcaster has all the rights, then there won't be any diversity in views. Then the broadcasting of matches should not be limited to state-run channels. Private broadcasters ought to have opportunity to broadcast such content. So Doordarshan's monopoly.
This was a critical issue and airwaves. So monopoly on airwaves on the broadcasting rights limited to a variety of perspectives and content accessible to public. So judgment was in 1995, the Indian Supreme Court criticized the long held government's monopoly over broadcasting and declared.
This is the key point. The Supreme Court declared airwaves. As a public property, so before this the airwaves or broadcasting it was a monopoly of Doordarshan. Then the Supreme Court held that airwaves are the public property and must be regulated by a public authority. In this case, in the later years it will be Prasad Bharti after 1997 to prevent rights infringement and ensure public interest.
So it also came under freedom of speech and expression. Okay, 1901A. This was the major crux of this issue.
So, let's go to the previous question. There is a test of 25 questions which is going to get updated by tomorrow. We have put a lot of questions for the set exams.
We have put 14 questions from UGCnet. You can solve that too. And we are also going to upload a combined PDF of all these 3 lectures in Unit 6. A lot of students were asking. So, we will upload the combined PDF today night. In the case of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting versus Cricket Association of Bengal, the Supreme Court judgment led to censorship of foreign journals, freeing electronic media from government monopoly, imposition of surcharge on media advertisements, restrictions of media coverage on cricket matches.
So, see how conceptual the question is. I mean, you can't just punch it in. And they have given close-close options.
Cricket cricket. Okay. So the right answer would be freeing electronic media from government's monopoly. He will ask you questions like this.
Okay. This is the last case of today. and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India 2015 when we talk about internet, there are many regulations and broadcasting bill are coming keep reading all these things from exam point of view friends before that, let's go through some more information section 66 of IT act 2000 a very controversial section we will talk about this let's understand a little story so 2012 police arrested two girls okay they posted something offensive so about bala sahab thackeray so uh you you all know bala sahab thackeray okay uh shiv sena so when he passed away there was there was a kind of you know uh mumbai bandh so these two girls they posted some allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on facebook about the proprietary of so shutting down of the city of mumbai after the death of balasaheb thakre then they were booked under section 66a of it act now let us learn what is this section 66a of it act so this act punishes any person who sends through computer resources or communication device any information that is offensive okay this is the keyword we are going to discuss this further we are going to expand it further okay with the knowledge of its falsity information and is transmitted to cause annoyance inconvenience danger so when the these two girls were arrested it uh this k a case came into limelight then there was a lawyer shreya single she she filed a petition okay so shreya single versus union of india as the case suggests and this was one of the landmark cases okay in the recent years so the problem was this section 66a was very offensive or it was very vague so what constitute offensive it is not clearly defined anything okay so what is offensive i am giving you a lecture right now okay this is also so this act says that it punishes any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive what i am speaking right now it might be offensive to some someone They might book me also, they might book you also on writing these chats.
You wrote something. So, what is offensive? It is not defined in this act. So, this is actually curtailing the freedom of speech and expression through internet.
This was the major point of this case. Then, violation of freedom of speech. So, this section clearly violated Article 19.1a of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and disproportionate restrictions.
So, as you all know that 19.2 is reasonable restrictions. The argument of Shreya Singhal was that this particular section 66 was putting disproportionate restrictions. Then what was the judgment?
In a 52-page judgment, the Supreme Court struck down this section 66A. and it was misused even after it was struck down this is a different story, you can read it on the internet very controversial section the court held that section 66A was vague, over broad leading to arbitrary application and enforcement it was not clearly defined, what is offensive? who is going to define it?
so we see a lot of hate speech on twitter but they are never arrested ok what what what what is going to you know what what is going to be the definition of offensive what comes under offensive and what is not offensive it is not clearly defined the term used in sections such as grossly offensive and of menacing character were not clearly defined this was also uh the judgment that this particular section was creating chilling effect on free speech so what is chilling effect chilling effect is when people refrain themselves from expressing Okay, because they feel that they might be punished later. So the Supreme Court found that this section had a chilling effect on the free speech. The court observed that the vague and broad language of section 66 had a chilling effect on free speech, deterring individuals from expressing their views online out of fear of prosecution.
So these were some 10-11 important landmark judgments, out of which repeatedly questions were asked. in the last few years. But friends, when we talk about judgments, there are lakhs of cases in the court every day. And there are thousands of cases which closely freedom of speech related to speech, defamation, but these were major cases.
But don't be limited to this, there are some more cases which are important. They are not related to freedom of speech but they are related to media. If we talk about, you must have heard about this, Keshav Nanda Bharti vs Union of India. So when we talk about basic structure, doctrine, this case is very important.
You read about this, Keshav Nanda Bharti vs Union of India. Ok. Then when we talk about the blue book, there was another case, State of UP versus Raj Narayan.
There was a recent case about Prashant Bhushan on defamation. That is also important, you can read about it. Now see there is no limit to reading, but I am telling you some cases whose year and major you should know the judgment from the perspective of the exam. There was a defamatory case related to Prashant Bhushan.
Then there was another case on Vinod Dua. You can read each article about him. The other 10-11 cases we have done are very defining cases which set a precedent. Like we talk about pre censorship or CAB, Cricket Authority Association of Bengal. It ended the monopoly of far vision.
When we talk about Shreya Singhal, he removed the whole section. When we talk about Ramesh Thapar vs. State of Madras, he brought a complete amendment in the constitution. The first amendment. So, the effect of those cases and the aftermath were very high. And that's why they were so landmark.
So, guys, that was all from my side. I'm going to update this combined PDF of all these three lectures on the application. Go through the PDFs again and again.
Best way to revise it. We will go through the whole story and put so many images so that you remember some things Secondly, there is going to be a test on this particular topic also And we are going to come up with more tests And please maintain the momentum Day by day UGC NIT becomes UPSC You can say so So many questions are being raised on UPSC in the recent case So please carry the momentum I know there is a lot of noise around you about the recent happenings, recent news by CBI. But please, I would say focus on your exam preparation.
You cannot ignore those noises. But don't listen to those noises on YouTube. You kids are asking me or I don't know anything. I know as much as you know. Tell me the truth.
Okay. I will tell you seriously. I will tell you the truth.
I will tell you the truth. No YouTuber knows anything. That the exam will be again. exam will be again, we know that exam will be again till the time there is no notification, how can anyone tell ok, so don't believe any youtuber until and unless his uncle uncle uncle something is in the government ok, so son you guys focus on studies and focus on the newspaper reports if something is printed in the newspaper come in hindu, come in indian express come in hindustan times, then it is credible So there is a lot of speculation on YouTube. Everyday there are videos and there are thousands of views on those videos.
So please, those who have prepared well, please don't lose the momentum because other people they are catching you very fast. I see daily I get a lot of analytics on my YouTube that these many people are watching your videos. Okay, these many views on this particular video.
so i can easily sense a lot of people who are uh who started little late they are now catching up okay and uh on on my application i see a lot of people they are live for eight hours i get all these uh updates also here they are catching on all the tests also so the competition is going to get straight you know i would say much better so those who had already prepared well in the previous attempt kindly don't lose the momentum okay focus on paper one Focus on paper too. We are doing some advanced topics, do them too. Because the people who were a little behind are catching things now.
Give a good smile and then let's call this a day. We have put so much content for you and everything is free on YouTube. If you don't watch it, what will happen?
This is the same thing that you have served everything, sir, you also feed it with your hand. You can't do that, right? You can't feed it with your hand.
So now watch the things. So with that let's call this a day and a very good night to all of you. Take care. Bye.
If you like this video, if you learn something from this video, you can like this and thank you.