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.
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. F
reedom of press has three essential elements. They are:
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. F
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.
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.
EmoticonEmoticon