freedom of the press, particularly, of newspapers and periodicals is a species of

which freedom of expression is a genus

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Constituent Assembly stated:
"The press is merely another way of stating an individual or a citizen. The Press
has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised
by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of a press or the manager are
all citizens and therefore when they choose to write in newspapers.
One of the most exhaustive and illuminating exposition of the importance of the
press and its being regarded as "the mother of all other liberties" in a democratic
society is contained in the judgment of Venkataramiah J. in Indian Express
Newspaper v The Union of India".

INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER UNION VS UOI (1958)

FACTS:-These petitions on behalf of certain newspaper establishments
challenged the constitutional validity of the Working journalists (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, and the legality of the decision
of the Wage Board, constituted thereunder, purporting to act under s. 9 of the
Act. The impugned Act, which was passed in order to implement the
recommendations of the Press Commission and had for its object the regulation
of the conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in
newspaper establishments, provided, inter alia, for the payment of gratuity to a
working journalist who had been in continuous service, whether before or after
the commencement of the Act, for not less than three years, even when he
voluntarily resigned from service, regulated hours of work and leave, provided
for the payment of retrenchment compensation with retrospective effect in
certain cases and by s. 9(1) laid down the principles that the Wage Board was to
follow in fixing the rates of wages of working journalists. Under those principles
the Wage Board was to have regard to the cost of living, the prevalent rates of
wages for comparable employments, the circumstances relating to the
newspaper industry in different regions of the country and to any other
circumstances which it might consider relevant.
CONTENTION:- The petitioners contended on various grounds that the provisions
of the impugned Act violated their fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(a),
imposed too heavy a financial burden on the industry and spelled its total ruin.
(Other-side) The provisions of the Act are clearly designed to regulate the
conditions of service of journalists and not the freedom of expression or speech,
and therefore no question of the infringement of fundamental right under Art.
19(1)(a) arises.
HELD:- BHAGWATI J.
There is paucity of authority in India on the nature, scope and extent of this
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Art. 19 (1)
(a) of the Constitution as until now SC has got chance to interpret consti only 2
cases i.e Ramesh Thaper v. The State of Madras and Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The
State of Delhi , so it heavily relied upon Grosjean v. American Press Co. and
Associated Press v. National Labour Relations Board in which the SC had

observed that the " The application to newspapers of the Anti-Trust Laws, the
National Labour Relations Act, or the Fair Labour Standards Act, does not abridge
the freedom of the press.".

Law were to single out the press for laying prohibitive burdens on it that would
restrict the circulation, penalise its freedom of choice as to personnel, prevent
newspapers from being started and compel the press to seek Government aid, it
would be violative of Art. 19(1)(a) and would fall outside the protection afforded
by Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.
The impugned Act, judged by its provisions, was not such a law but was a
beneficent legislation intended to regulate the conditions of service of the
working journalists and the consequences aforesaid could not be the direct and
inevitable result of it. Although there could be no doubt that it directly affected
the press and fell outside the categories of protection mentioned in Art. 19(2), it
had not the effect of taking away or abridging the freedom of speech and
expression of the petitioners and did not, therefore, infringe Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.