Freedom of the press cannot be curtailed by newsprint rationing that directly limits circulation, pages and newspaper growth.

Freedom of the press was treated as part of Article 19(1)(a), and the challenge by shareholders, editors and newspaper companies was held maintainable because the impugned policy directly burdened newspaper operations; Article 358 did not bar the challenge. The Newsprint Policy for 1972-73, including the 10-page ceiling, limits on circulation and page growth, prohibition on interchangeability within common ownership units, and restrictions on new editions or newspapers, was found to directly control circulation, page content and financial viability, thereby abridging press freedom. The policy also operated unequally without a rational basis and was held unconstitutional under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners, including shareholders, editors and the newspaper companies, could maintain the challenge and whether Article 358 barred the petitions; (ii) Whether the Newsprint Policy for 1972-73, including the 10-page ceiling, restrictions on circulation and page growth, prohibition on interchangeability within common ownership units, and bar on new editions or new newspapers, violated Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners, including shareholders, editors and the newspaper companies, could maintain the challenge and whether Article 358 barred the petitions.

Analysis: The right to freedom of speech and expression was held to include the freedom of the press, and the individual rights of shareholders and editors were treated as capable of being affected by the impugned policy when the company's newspaper activity was directly burdened. The earlier pronouncements on shareholder locus standi in relation to measures affecting the company were applied. Article 358 was held not to protect a continuation of pre-emergency executive action that remained unconstitutional in its operation, and the challenge was therefore not barred.

Conclusion: The petitions were maintainable, and Article 358 did not defeat the challenge.

Issue (ii): Whether the Newsprint Policy for 1972-73, including the 10-page ceiling, restrictions on circulation and page growth, prohibition on interchangeability within common ownership units, and bar on new editions or new newspapers, violated Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The decisive test was the direct effect of the policy upon the freedom of speech and expression. A measure ostensibly dealing with rationing of newsprint could still be unconstitutional if, in substance, it controlled the growth, circulation, page content and reach of newspapers. The 10-page ceiling, denial of adjustability between circulation and pages, prohibition on interchangeability, and restraint on new editions or new newspapers were found to impair circulation, reduce pages, diminish advertising space and financial viability, and thereby abridge the freedom of the press. The policy also treated unequal newspapers alike and lacked a rational basis in its classification and distributional effect.

Conclusion: The impugned policy provisions were unconstitutional under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14.

Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision is that the challenged newsprint policy restrictions could not stand, while the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy framed in the guise of rationing newsprint is unconstitutional if its direct effect is to control the circulation, page growth, and editorial reach of newspapers, because such restrictions abridge the freedom of the press and, when arbitrary or unequal in operation, also offend equality.

---