Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 673 (TS)

V. Venkataramanaiah v. Union of India

2023-09-29

ALOK ARADHE, N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE, CJ. - Mr. I.Mallikarjuna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. K.Mani Deepika, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of Ss. 5, 6 and 15 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners print and publish fortnightly law journal, namely Law Animated World. Admittedly, the aforesaid law journal is now being published only online. 4. The petitioner No.4, namely I.Balamani, submitted an application on 16/8/2004 to the Magistrate for Newspapers enclosing an application in Annexure-III to the Registrar of Newspapers for India for verification of title. However, the said application was not forwarded to the Registrar of Newspapers for India even after two months on the ground that the user charges of Rs.2,000.00 were not paid by the petitioners. The petitioner No.4 thereupon made a complaint on 16/10/2004 to respondent No.5 stating that the demand of user charges to the extent of Rs.2,000.00 is arbitrary and illegal. 5. The petitioners filed this writ petition on 19/4/2005 in which the validity of Ss. 5, 6 and 15 of the Act has been assailed on the ground that the same are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Sec. 5 of the Act prescribes the rules only as to publication of newspapers, whereas the same requirement is not prescribed in respect of books. It is therefore submitted that Sec. 5 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the requirement contained in Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and the procedure prescribed in Ss. 5 and 6 is not reasonable, fair and just. Therefore, the same constitutes infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has submitted that the provisions of the Act are intra vires and have been enacted to lend certain discipline to the exercise of printing of newspapers. 8. Therefore, the same constitutes infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has submitted that the provisions of the Act are intra vires and have been enacted to lend certain discipline to the exercise of printing of newspapers. 8. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and have perused the record. 9. The Act is enacted with an object of regulating the printing presses and newspapers, for the preservation of copies of books and newspapers printed in India and for the registration of such books and newspapers. The said Act has been amended by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023. However, by the aforesaid amendment, Ss. 5, 6 and 15 of the Act have not been amended. 10. Sec. 1 of the Act is the definitions Sec. in which the expressions "book" and "newspaper" have been defined as under: "Book" includes every volume, part of a volume, and pamphlet, in any language and every sheet of music, map, chart or plan separately printed. "Newspaper" means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news. 11. Sec. 5 of the Act deals with the rules as to publication of newspapers, whereas Sec. 6 of the Act deals with authentication of declaration. Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act are extracted below for the facility of reference: 5. Rules as to publication of newspapers:-No newspaper shall be published in India except in conformity with the rules hereinafter laid down: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sec. 3, every copy of every such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the date of its publication. (2) The printer and the publisher of every such newspaper shall appear in person or by agent authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made under Sec. 20, before a District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published and shall make and subscribe, in duplicate, the following declaration: "I, A.B., declare that I am the printer (or publisher, or printer and publisher) of the newspaper and to be printed or published, or to be printed and published, as the case may be at.....". And the last blank in this form of declaration shall be filled up with a true and precise account of the premises where the printing or publication is conducted. (2-A) Every declaration under rule (2) shall specify the title of the newspaper, the language in which it is to be published and the periodicity of its publication and shall contain such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2-B) Where the printer or publisher of a newspaper making a declaration under rule (2) is not the owner thereof, the declaration shall specify the name of the owner and shall also be accompanied by an authority in writing from the owner authorising such person to make and subscribe such declaration. (2-C) A declaration in respect of a newspaper made under rule (2) and authenticated under Sec. 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. (2-D) Where the title of any newspaper or its language or the periodicity of its publication is changed, the declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued. (2-E) As often as the ownership of a newspaper is changed, a new declaration shall be necessary. (3) As often as the place of printing or publication is changed, a new declaration shall be necessary: Provided that where the change is for a period not exceeding thirty days and the place of printing or publication after the change is within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate referred to in rule (2), no new declaration shall be necessary if- (a) a statement relating to the change is furnished to the said Magistrate within twenty four hours thereof; and (b) the printer or publisher or the printer and publisher of the newspaper continues to be the same. (4) As often as the printer or the publisher who shall have made such declaration as is aforesaid shall leave India for a period exceeding ninety days or where such printer or publisher is by infirmity or otherwise rendered incapable of carrying out his duties for a period exceeding ninety days in circumstances not involving the vacation of his appointment, a new declaration shall be necessary. (5) Every declaration made in respect of a newspaper shall be void, where the newspaper does not commence publication- (a) within six weeks of the authentication of the declaration under Sec. 6, in the case of a newspaper to be published once a week or oftener; and (b) within three moths of the authentication of the declaration under Sec. 6, in the case of any other newspaper, and in every such case, a new declaration shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. (6) Where, in any period of three months, any daily, tri-weekly bi-weekly, weekly or fortnightly newspaper publishes issues the number of which is less than half of what should have been published in accordance with the declaration made in respect thereof, the declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued. (7) Where any other newspaper has ceased publication for a period exceeding twelve months, every declaration made in respect thereof shall cease to have effect, and a new declaration shall be necessary before the newspaper can be republished. (8) Every existing declaration in respect of a newspaper shall be cancelled by the Magistrate before whom a new declaration is made and subscribed in respect of the same: Provided that no person who does not ordinarily reside in India, or who has not attained majority in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (19 of 1875), or of the law to which he is subject in respect of the attainment of majority, shall be permitted to make the declaration prescribed by this Sec. , nor shall any such person edit a newspaper. 6. 6. Authentication of declaration .Each of the two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed as is aforesaid, shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the Magistrate before whom the said declaration shall have been made: Provided that where any declaration is made and subscribed under Sec. 5 in respect of a newspaper, the declaration shall not, save in the case of newspapers owned by the same person, be so authenticated unless the Magistrate is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied that the newspaper proposed to be published does not bear a title which is the same as, or similar to that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State. Deposit:- One of the said originals shall be deposited among the records of the office of the Magistrate, and the other shall be deposited among the records of the High Court of Judicature, or other principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the place where the said declaration shall have been made. Inspection and supply of copies:- The Officer-in-charge of each original shall allow any person to inspect that original on payment of a fee of one rupee, and shall give to any person applying a copy of the said declaration, attested by the seal of the Court which has the custody of the original, on payment of a fee of two rupees. A copy of the declaration attested by the official seal of the Magistrate, or a copy of the order refusing to authenticate the declaration, shall be forwarded as soon as possible to the person making and subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar. 12. Thus, from a perusal of Sec. 5 of the Act, it is evident that it mandates that no newspaper shall be published except in conformity with the rules prescribed therein. Sec. 5(2) of the Act provides that printer and the publisher of every such newspaper shall appear in person or by agent authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made under Sec. 20, before a District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published and shall make and subscribe a duplication which has been prescribed therein. Sec. 5(2A) of the Act provides that every declaration under rule (2) shall specify the title of the newspaper, the language in which it is to be published and the periodicity of its publication and shall contain such other particulars as may be prescribed. 13. Sec. 6 of the Act deals with authentication of declaration and provides that each of the two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed as aforesaid shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the Magistrate before whom the said declaration shall have been made. 14. Sec. 15 of the Act provides for penalty for printing or publishing newspaper without conforming to rules. Sec. 15 reads as under: 15. Penalty for printing or publishing newspaper without conforming to rules:- (1) Whoever shall edit, print or publish any newspaper without conforming to the rules hereinbefore laid down, or whoever shall edit, print or publish or shall cause to be edited, printed or published, any newspaper, knowing that the said rules have not been observed with respect to that newspaper, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished with fine not exceeding two thousand rupees, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. (2) Where an offence is committed in relation to a newspaper under sub-sec. (1), the Magistrate may, in addition to the punishment imposed under the said sub-sec. , also cancel the declaration in respect of the newspaper. 15. There is a presumption of constitutional validity of a provision and the burden is on the person to plead and prove its unconstitutionality. It is trite law that party invoking the protection of Article 14 has to make an averment with details to sustain such a plea and has to adduce material to establish its allegations and the burden is on the party to plead and prove that its right under Article 14 has been infringed [See: State of UP v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1135 ]. It is well settled legal proposition that Article 14 can be invoked if unequals are treated equally or equals are treated differently. It is well settled legal proposition that Article 14 can be invoked if unequals are treated equally or equals are treated differently. It is equally well settled in law that mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of equal protection clause and to attract Article 14 it is necessary to demonstrate that selection or differentiation is unreasonable or arbitrary and does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the object which the legislature has in view while making the law in question. [See: Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 1436 ]. A party invoking the protection of Article 14 has to make an averment with details to sustain such a plea and has to adduce material to establish its allegations and the burden is on the party to plead and prove that its right under Article 14 has been infringed [See: Kartar Singh (supra)]. It is equally well settled that in the absence of any pleading, the challenge to the constitutional validity is to be rejected in limine [State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673 ]. 16. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 . held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation and it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. However, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure. 17. In K.R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2001) 1 SCC 442 . What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure. 17. In K.R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2001) 1 SCC 442 . it has been held that the concept of equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, all that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment and not identical treatment and the guarantee of equal protection of law and equality before the law does not prohibit reasonable classification. It has also been held that equality before law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the legislation and so long as the classification is based on a rational basis and so long as all persons falling in the same class are treated alike, there can be no question of violating the equality clause. 18. The legislature itself has defined the books and newspapers separately. The wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is attracted only when equals are sought to be treated differently. In the instant case, Ss. 5, 6 and 15 of the Act which have been enacted with the salutary object of regulating an activity of printing of newspapers, cannot be struck down on the ground that the same do not provide for similar requirement in respect of a book which is different from newspaper. In the instant case, the equals are not sought to be treated differently. Therefore, the provisions, namely Ss. 5, 6 and 15 of the Act, cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. 19. Though Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India confers a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, however the aforesaid right can be subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The Parliament by enacting Ss. 5, 6 and 15 of the Act, cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. 19. Though Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India confers a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, however the aforesaid right can be subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The Parliament by enacting Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act has sought to regulate the activity of publication of newspapers which is a reasonable restriction and it does not tantamount to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Neither the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1) nor under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been infringed, in the instant case, as the activity of publication of newspaper is sought to be regulated. 20. The petitioners have not been able to rebut the presumption of constitutional validity of a provision. We hold that the provisions of the Act are intra vires and do not suffer from any infirmity. 21. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.