In 2017, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgment in the case of "Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras" that had far-reaching implications for the freedom of press in India. This judgment declared that freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press, is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and is subject only to reasonable restrictions that are imposed in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. This judgment is significant because it recognized the freedom of the press as a fundamental right and emphasized its importance in a democracy. It also set the standard for what constitutes reasonable restrictions on this right, ensuring that the press can continue to report on matters of public interest without fear of censorship or retribution. However, it's important to note that there have been subsequent cases where the freedom of the press has been challenged, and journalists have faced threats and intimidation for their reporting. It's essential to uphold the principles laid down in the Romesh Thapar case and protect the freedom of the press to ensure a vibrant and democratic society.
The case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that deals with the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
In 1950, Romesh Thapar, an editor of a magazine called Cross Roads, challenged the order of the State of Madras government that had banned the entry and circulation of the magazine within the state. The order was issued under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, on the grounds that the magazine contained articles that could incite public disorder. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered in May 1950, held that the order of the State of Madras government was a violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right and is necessary for the functioning of democracy. The Court also observed that the restriction imposed by the government was not reasonable and was not covered under the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The judgment in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras set an important precedent for the protection of free speech in India. It established that the government cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression and that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that is essential for the functioning of a democratic society.
Background of the case
The petitioner Mr. Thapar was a well-known communist of his time and was very skeptical of the policies of the then Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, especially his foreign policy.
He published a few articles in his weekly English magazine called Crossroads that expressed his skepticism in this regard. As he was writing these articles, a communist movement was gathering steam in parts of Madras and the authorities felt that the petitioner’s articles will not be helpful with regard to stopping the enthusiasm among the members of the said communist movement. In the month of March 1950, the Government of Madras by virtue of an order imposed a ban on the entry and circulation of the magazine in these areas. The order was issued pursuant to Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 which empowered the government to prohibit the circulation, sale or distribution of the journal in certain parts of the province of Madras for the purpose of ensuring ‘public safety’ or preserving ‘public order.’ Aggrieved by this government order Mr. Thapar approached the Supreme Court with the contention that the impugned order infringed upon his fundamental right to free speech and expression.
Issues before the court
The issue that the Court was to adjudicate upon was whether the order under Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act was in violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution or did it fall within the restrictions provided in Article 19(2). The Court also had to determine whether the impugned provision was void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution by virtue of it being in violation of the fundamental right of free speech and expression. The Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State of Madras also raised an additional issue whereby he argued that the petitioner has to first approach the High Court under Article 226 and only when he had exhausted that remedy, he could bring his grievances to the Supreme Court.
Judgement of the case
In the case of Romesh Thapar vs. The State of Madras, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on May 26, 1950. The case concerned the constitutionality of Section 9(1)(a) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which allowed the state government to prohibit the entry and circulation of any publication deemed to be prejudicial to public order.
The Court held that the provision was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Court observed that the right to free speech and expression was a cornerstone of democracy and that the restriction on this right could only be imposed in specific circumstances and in the interest of public order.
The Court further held that the provision was too vague and wide, and could potentially be used to suppress dissenting voices and curtail the right to freedom of expression. The Court emphasized that freedom of speech and expression was not an absolute right and could be subjected to reasonable restrictions in certain situations. However, the Court stated that such restrictions must be reasonable and necessary to serve a legitimate state interest.
The Court's decision in this case has had far-reaching implications for the protection of civil liberties and free speech in India. It established a critical precedent for the protection of dissenting voices and the right to free expression, and has been cited in subsequent cases involving freedom of speech and expression.
Conclusion
It has to be noted that this judgement came during the phase while post-constitutional India was still in its nascent stage. But the rationale behind this judgement set a healthy precedent both in terms of protecting press freedom and defining the scope of reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights as provided in Part III of the Constitution. The Court by putting restrictions on the powers of the State to interfere with individual rights paved the way for other judgements that championed the cause of the individual against the might of the State which further led to immense confidence among the masses in the high levels of integrity among the judicial branch of the government. Reacting to this judgment, the Parliament amended the Constitution in 1951. 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 added ‘Public Order’ as a reasonable restriction under 19(2) on the Freedom of Speech & Expression – 19(1)(a).