considering whether the impugned Act infringes or does not infringes the freedom guaranteed

by Art. 19(1)(a). This means the freedom of speech cannot be restricted for the purpose of
regulating the commercial aspects of the activities of the newspapers.
Bennett Coleman & Co. V. Union of India, is a case of great significance in the area of
freedom of speech and expression. India faces a shortage of indigenous newsprint. Because
of the shortage of foreign exchange, quantity of newsprint imported was not adequate to meet
all requirements. Some restrictions, therefore, become necessary on the consumption of
newsprint. Accordingly, s system of newsprint quota for newspapers was evolved. The actual
consumption of newsprint by newspaper during 1970-71 & 1971-72, whichever was less, was
taken as the base. For dailies with a circulation up to 1,00,000 copies, 10% increase in the
basic entitlement was to be granted, but for newspapers with a larger circulation, the increase
was to be only 3%. Newspapers with less than 10 pages daily could raise the number of pages
by 20% subject to the ceiling of 10. A few more restrictions were imposed on the user of
newsprint. This newsprint policy was challenged in the Supreme Court.
By a majority, the Supreme Court declared the policy unconstitutional. While the
Government could evolve a policy of allotting newsprint on a fair and equitable basis,
keeping in view the interests of small, medium and big newspapers, the Government could
not, in the grab of regulating distribution of newsprint, control the growth the circulation of
newspapers. In effect, here the newsprint policy became the newspaper control policy. While
newsprint quota could be fixed on a reasonable basis, post-quota restrictions could not be
imposed. The newspapers should be left free to determine their pages, circulation and new
editions within their fixed quota. The policy of limiting all papers whether small or large, to
10 pages was held to be discriminatory as it treated unequal as equals. The restrictions
imposed cut at the very root of the guaranteed freedom. In the words of the Court, Freedom
of the press is both qualitative and quantitative. Freedom lies both in circulation and in
content.
The Supreme Court in concluded in Tata Press Case that commercial speech cannot be
denied the protection of Art. 19(1)(a) merely because the same is issued by business man.
Commercial Speech is a part of freedom of speech guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a). The
public at large has a right to receive the commercial speech. The protection of Art. 19(1)(a)
is available both to the speaker as well as the recipient of the speech.
The Supreme Court accepted as valid the printing of yellow pages by the Tata Press. Printing
of a directory of telephone subscribers is to be done exclusively by the Telephone
Department as a part of its service to the telephone subscribers. But yellow pages only
contain commercial advertisements and Art. 19(1)(a) guarantee freedom to publish the same.
In LIC V. Manubhai D. Shah, the Supreme Court stated a liberal interpretation should be
given to the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Rt. 19(1)(a) . The Court
has characterized this right as a basic human right. This right includes the right to
propagate ones views through the print media or through any other communication channel,
e.g. the radio and television. Thus, every citizen has the right to air his or her views through