Freedon of Press and reasonable restrictions

FREEDOM OF PRESS IN INDIA

The freedom of press is the mother of all other freedoms. This freedom can be used to create a brave new world or to bring about universal catastrophe. There are media laws which curtail press freedom and the right of the citizen to information, as well as right to freedom of speech and expression, besides the restrictions imposed by constitution. Press freedom can be weighed from two sides.

1. The external and internal pressures such as interference by political and business leaders, pressure from advertisers, physical attacks on the press people, and so on.

2. Various media laws, such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, The Copy Right Act, 1957, impose restrictions on the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and expression by the press.

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The second Press Commission has suggested certain amendments in the existing press laws to expand the scope of press freedom and at the same time to project the right to privacy of the individual and prevent newspapers from indulging into free style of character assassination.

1) Security of State: Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on fredom of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. The term "security of state" refers only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g. rebellion, waging war against the State, insurrection and not ordinary breaches of public order and public safety, e.g. unlawful assembly, riot, affray. Thus speeches or expression on the part of an individual, which incite to or encourage the commission of violent crimes, such as, murder are matters, which would undermine the security of State.

2) Friendly relations with foreign states: This ground was added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The object behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may jeopardise the maintainance of good relations between India, and that state. No similar provision is present in any other Constitution of the world. In India, the Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by Indian citizens against foreign dignitaries. Interest of friendly relations with foreign States, would not justify the suppression of fair criticism of foreign policy of the Government. It is to be noted that member of the commonwealth including Pakistan is not a "foreign state" for the purposes of this Constitution. The result is that freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted on the ground that the matter is adverse to Pakistan.

3) Public Order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established." Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. The test for determining whether an act affects law and order or public order is to see whether the act leads to the disturbances of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or whether it affects merely an individual being the tranquility of the society undisturbed.

4) Decency or morality: The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning. Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from time to time and from place to place.

5) Contempt of Court: Restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed if it exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court. According to the Section 2 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt.' Contempt of court is a court order which in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority. Often referred to simply as "contempt," such as a person "held in contempt," it is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process.

A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.

In civil cases involving disputes between private citizens, the behaviour resulting in the ruling is often directed at one of the parties involved rather than at the court directly.

A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:

·         Existence of a lawful order

·         The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order

·         The potential contemnor's ability to comply

·         The potential contemnor's failure to comply

6) Defamation: A statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to defamation. Defamation consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law in relating to defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.

7) Incitement to an offence: This ground was also added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right to incite people to commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for the time being in force.

8) Sedition: As understood by English law, sedition embraces all those practices whether by words, or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State and lead ignorant person to subvert the government. It should be noted that the sedition is not mentioned in clause (2) of Art. 19 as one of the grounds on which restrictions on freedom of speech and expression may be imposed. Sedition implies the misdemeanor of publishing orally or in any other manner of communi­cation, with the intention of exciting disaffection, hatred or contempt against the government estab­lished by law. Whomever by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise beings or attempts to bring in to hatred or contempt, disaffection towards the Government estab­lished by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added or with fine.

The Press, as identified with Newspapers, wields immense power in a democratic society. Dickens has called the Press "the mighty engine". So great is its influence that some have called it the Fourth Estate. Napoleon used to say— "Your hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." For, the press forms opinions, shapes movements and controls policies through well-informed criti­cism. The most powerful autocrat is forced to take note of public opinion as reflected in a free press. That is why a regimented press is the instrument of autocracy, and a dictator deprives the press of its freedom.

A free press is the symbol of a free people. An independent, well-informed press is a powerful check on arbitrary governments and irresponsible administrators. For newspapers are agents of the public, which bring to the notice of the people acts of injustice or oppression, or mal-administration that would otherwise have remained hidden away from public knowledge. They augur misgovernment at a distance and sniff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze' (Burke). They exercise a constant vigilance on the rulers, which is salutary for all.

Nowadays it is difficult for the press to be free. Either a newspaper is controlled by some financial magnates entirely and it has to voice their views or it is the mouthpiece of a party, and it must think as the party might direct; or it is under the thumb of the government and in that case its usefulness is reduced and independence compromised.

For whoever controls it, necessarily limits its freedom by his own interests, i.e. calls the tune. In America, the great newspapers are in the bands of powerful financial syndicates; in England, they are in the hands of capitalists; in Russia they are mostly controlled by the government. But freedom of the press in each case depends on the way it reflects the will, the purpose of the people as a whole, in preference to that of any class or community or individual.

In is, therefore, rightly claimed that in a Socialist country as the people become economically free, the government acquires an increasingly representative character. The journalists then can write freely and fearlessly. The best way to ensure freedom of the press is to publish all news from accredited sources, to allow free ventilation of opinion, to do away with all controls except in the interest of public safety or welfare.

Freedom of the press should be a valued privilege and has to be safeguarded. It is a sacred right, which should be zealously promoted. Governments owe it to themselves to guarantee it from all arbitrary interference. Editors owe it to the public to maintain an honest and fearless attitude in favour of the people, against party or class interests. And the people owe it to their country to demand and defend such freedom as a priceless heritage.

Source: Internet