Download Indian Express Newspaper

The recent decisions by the Australian government in 2023 with respect to the international students have made many Indian students apprehensive. Indianexpress.com talk to experts from both sides and students to understand the present situation.

The Indian Express is an English-language Indian daily newspaper founded in 1932 by Ramnath Goenka from the monies of capitalists partner Raja Mohan Prasad and is held in a trust by current legal heirs for the family of Raja Mohan Prasad as per the trust deed given by Ramnath Goenka to Raja Mohan Prasad. It is published in Mumbai by the Indian Express Group. In 1999, eight years after the group's founder Ramnath Goenka's death in 1991,[2] the group was split between the family members. The southern editions took the name The New Indian Express, while the northern editions, based in Mumbai, retained the original Indian Express name with "The" prefixed to the title.[3]

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://bytlly.com/2y3KMN 🔥

In 1932, the Indian Express was started by an Ayurvedic doctor, P. Varadarajulu Naidu, at Chennai, being published by his "Tamil Nadu" press.[citation needed] Soon under financial difficulties, he sold the newspaper to Swaminathan Sadanand, the founder of The Free Press Journal, a national news agency.[citation needed] In 1933, the Indian Express opened its second office in Madurai, launching the Tamil edition, Dinamani. Sadanand introduced several innovations and reduced the price of the newspaper. Faced with financial difficulties, he sold a part of his stake to Ramanath Goenka as convertible debentures. In 1935, when The Free Press Journal finally collapsed, and after a protracted court battle with Goenka, Sadanand lost ownership of Indian Express.[4] In 1939, Goenka bought Andhra Prabha, another prominent Telugu daily newspaper. The name Three Musketeers was often used for the three dailies namely, Indian Express, Dinamani and Andhra Prabha.

In 1940, the whole premises was gutted by fire. The Hindu, a rival newspaper, helped considerably in re-launching the paper, by getting it printed temporarily at one of its Swadesimithran's press and later offering its recently vacated premises at 2, Mount Road, on rent to Goenka, which later became the landmark Express Estates.[5] This relocation also helped the Express obtain better high speed printing machines. The district judge who did inquiry into the fire concluded that a short circuit or a cigarette butt could have ignited the fire and said that the growing city had inadequate fire control support.[5] In 1952, the paper had a circulation of 44,469.[6]

After Ramnath Goenka's death in 1991, two of the grandsons, Manoj Kumar Sonthalia and Vivek Goenka split the group into two. Indian Express Mumbai with all the North Indian editions went to Vivek Goenka, and all the Southern editions which were grouped as Express Publications Madurai Limited with Chennai as headquarters went to MK Sonthalia.[7][8] Indian Express began publishing daily on the internet on 8 July 1996. Five months later, the website expressindia.com attracted "700,000 hits every day, excepting weekends when it fell to 60% of its normal levels".[9]

On December 6, 1984, the Supreme Court of India directed the central government to re-examine its taxation policy by evaluating whether it constituted an excessive burden on newspapers. The petitioners, including newspaper companies and employees, argued that an import duty led to an increased cost of newspapers and a drop in circulation, thereby adversely affecting freedom of speech and expression. The Court reasoned that a government can levy taxes on the publication of newspapers, however this must be within reasonable limits so as to not encroach upon freedom of expression. Yet, the Court observed that neither the petitioners nor respondents proved the excessive nature of tax burdens, and therefore called upon the government to re-evaluate its taxation policy regarding the newspapers.

The petitioners in this case were companies, employees, and shareholders thereof, as well as trusts engaged in the publication of newspapers. They challenged the import duty on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981, as modified by notifications under the Customs Act 1962 with effect from March 1, 1981. Prior to this notification, newsprint had enjoyed exemption from customs duty.

The petitioners contended that the imposition of this duty had an adverse effect on costs and circulation and, therefore, had a crippling effect on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the freedom to practice any trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g). They further asserted that no public interest justified such an interference with these fundamental rights because the foreign exchange position of India was comfortable at the time. Finally, they submitted that the classification of newspapers into small, medium, and large newspapers violated the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law).

The government argued that the burden of cost borne by the newspapers and the position of foreign exchange reserves were irrelevant considerations. The public interest involved in taxation was to increase the revenue of the government, a burden that is borne by all citizens of the country. It asserted that the exemption granted to newsprint was not justified and, therefore, could be removed by the government.

The present case was presided over by Justices E.S. Venkataramiah, O. Chinnappa Reddy and A.P. Sen of the Supreme Court of India. The central issue for consideration was whether the imposition of taxes on newspapers was violative of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

To buttress their arguments, the petitioners placed strong reliance on the Sakal case [AIR 1962 SC 305] and the Bennett Coleman case [AIR 1973 SC 106] to argue that any tax on newsprint which is the most important component of a newspaper is unconstitutional.

Firstly, in the Sakal case, constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 arose for consideration. The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 regulated the number of pages according to the price charged, prescribed the number of supplements to be published and prohibited the publication and sale of newspapers in contravention of the Act. The Government in that case pleaded that the Act was passed in the public interest to restrict unfair competition amongst different newspapers. The Court had rejected this contention and observed that the government can place restrictions on the right to carry on business on the basis of public interest under Article 19(6) however, the same could not be the basis for restricting freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, as per the judges, the freedom of speech could not be indirectly taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the business activities of a citizen.

Secondly in the Bennett Coleman case, the question which arose for consideration was related to the validity of a restriction imposed under the newsprint policy which had certain objectionable features such as a big newspaper was prohibited and prevented from increasing the number of pages, page area and periodicity by reducing circulation to meet the requirement even within its admissible quota etc. The majority in that case held that the fixation of a page limit had not only deprived the petitioners of their economic vitality but also restricted their freedom of expression. It also held that such restriction of pages resulted in a reduction of advertisement revenue and thus adversely affected the capacity of a newspaper to carry on its activity which is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The judges further highlighted that the freedom of expression serves four broad social purposes: (i) it helps an individual to attain self fulfilment, (ii) it assists in the discovery of truth, (iii) it strengthens the capacity of an individual to participate in decision making, and (iv) it provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. While underlining the importance of freedom of speech and expression, the Court observed that the Government should be more cautious when levying taxes on matters concerning the newspaper industry than when levying taxes on other matters.

Goenka started his independent journey as a partner in a financial broking company in 1926. In the same year, at just 22, he was elected to the Madras Legislative Council as a trade and commerce representative. He was involved in a variety of business ventures. It was also in these years that his tryst with real estate began which, as Verghese writes, time and again proved a hedge against the political and commercial misfortunes faced by his newspapers.

Besides taking over Indian Express and Dinamani, Goenka started Andhra Prabha in 1938 and eventually owned a chain of newspapers throughout South India. In 1944, he started the Nationalist with Syama Prasad Mukherjee and also handed him the sister paper, Bharat, but they soon parted ways.

Indian Express buys 15,000-sq ft office space in South Mumbai for Rs 34 cr -standard.com/article/companies/indian-express-buys-15-000-sq-ft-office-space-in-south-mumbai-for-rs-34-cr-117022600698_1.html

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the government was indeed empowered to levy taxes affecting the publication of newspapers but within reasonable limits and so as not to impinge on the freedom of expression. In the particular facts before it, the Court observed that the excessive nature of the burden owing to the levy of duties on newsprint was neither adequately proven by the petitioners nor adequately refuted by the respondents. In a finely nuanced judgment, the Court directed the government to re-examine the taxation policy by evaluating whether it constituted an excessive burden on the newspapers. 2351a5e196