Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Media Law Cases

Article 19 Cases-
1. State of Madras v. VG Row- Test of Reasonability
2. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras
3. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi
4. Virendra v. State of Punjab

1. Ranjit D. Uddeshi v. State of Maharashtra
2. Chandarkant K .Kakodar v. State of Maharashtra
3. Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra
4. Aveek Sarkar v. State of WB
5. Devidas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra
1. New York Times v. Sullivan
2. R. Raj Gopal v. State of TN
3. Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation
4. Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India

1. Sanskar marathe v state of maharashtra
2. S rangarajan v P Jagjeevan ram
3. Brandenburg v. Ohio

Hate Speech:
1. Chaplinsky v New hampshire
2. Turminiello v chicago
3. Beauharnais v illinois
4. National socialist party of america v the village of skokie
5. Snyder v phelps
6. Matal v tam
7. Pravasi Bhalai Sanghthan v. Union of India
8. Jafar Imam Naqvi v. Union of India
9. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar
10. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP
11. Ramesh v. Union of India
12. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam
13. State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate
14. Arumugam seervai v. State of Tamil Nadu
15. Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of AP

Contempt of Court:
1. R v Gray Commented [GS1]:

R. v. Gray (1900, 2 Q.B., 36) was decided the very next year. In that case Darling J. was
attacked by a newspaper because he had warned reporters at an assize trial that they must
not publish indecent matter which was likely to be read out in court. The circumstances of
Darling J. 's appointment to the Bench were apparently intended to give point to the
comment that he " would do well to master the duties of his own profession
before undertaking the regulation of another ". In finding that there had been contempt,
Lord Russell of Killowen declared: "Judges and courts are alike open to criticism, and if
reasonable argument and expostulation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to
law or the public good, no court could or would treat that as contempt of court." But the
above comment, and others in the same strain, were not thus protected as they constituted
"scurrilous abuse of a judge as a judge". It is important to notice that the article was
published after the trial was over and that proceedings were taken in the High Court
several days later; there was therefore no question of interfering in a matter subjudice.
2. E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar

3. P N dua v P shivshankar
4. Narmada bachao andolan v UOI (just mentioned in passing in regards to the case against
arundati roy)

Publications/ Privacy
1. R Rajgopal v state of TN (privacy associated with individiual)
2. MP Sharma v satish chandra
3. Kharak singh v state of UP (reasonable expectation of privacy)
4. Roe v wade
5. Gobind v state of MP
6. PUCL v UOI (telephone tapping case)
7. K S Puttaswamy v UOI
Strict scrutiny test- US

Parliamentary privilege
1. PV Narsimha v. State
2. MSM Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha
3. Raja Rampal v. Honorable Speaker of Lok Sabha
4. Keshav Singh case