Press circulation and advertising restraints under price-based newspaper regulation were held to directly infringe freedom of speech.

The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 regulated newspaper page limits and advertising space by reference to the price charged. The scheme was analysed as a direct restraint on press circulation because it forced publishers either to raise the selling price or reduce pages, and it also curtailed advertising space in a way that affected effective circulation. Freedom of speech and expression was treated as including publication, dissemination and circulation of ideas, and the stated aims of preventing unfair competition or aiding smaller newspapers could not justify a direct invasion of Article 19(1)(a). The Act and Order were held unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960, which regulated newspaper page limits and advertising space with reference to price charged, infringed the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The freedom of speech and expression was held to include the freedom to publish, disseminate and circulate ideas, and the freedom of circulation was treated as an integral part of that guarantee. The impugned scheme made the number of pages a newspaper could publish depend upon the price charged, and thereby restrained circulation directly by compelling either a higher selling price or a reduction in pages. The regulation of advertising space was also held to have a direct impact on circulation and thus on the effective exercise of the press freedom. The object of preventing unfair competition or assisting smaller newspapers could not justify a direct invasion of Article 19(1)(a), because the permissible limits of restriction are confined to Article 19(2).

Conclusion: The Act and the Order were held to directly abridge the freedom of speech and expression and were unconstitutional. Section 3(1) was struck down, and the impugned Order fell with it.

---