Freedom of speech through State media requires fair access to rejoinders and certified films absent valid constitutional restraint.

Freedom of speech and expression extends to circulating views and answering criticism through State-controlled print and audio-visual media, subject only to constitutionally permissible restrictions. A public-funded publisher could not arbitrarily refuse a rejoinder to criticism already published in its magazine when the reply did not attract any restriction under Article 19(2); the refusal was unconstitutional. Likewise, a State-controlled broadcaster could not deny telecast of a certified documentary merely because it was said to be outdated, unfair, or critical of the State, where no valid statutory ground for restraint was shown. Both refusals were treated as unlawful and the respondent's right to publication and telecast was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a State-controlled publisher could refuse to publish a rejoinder to criticism already carried in its magazine without infringing the right to freedom of speech and expression and the guarantee of equality; and (ii) whether Doordarshan could refuse telecast of a documentary film on the ground that its contents were outdated, not fair and balanced, or otherwise unsuitable for telecast.

Issue (i): whether a State-controlled publisher could refuse to publish a rejoinder to criticism already carried in its magazine without infringing the right to freedom of speech and expression and the guarantee of equality.

Analysis: The right to freedom of speech and expression was held to include the freedom to circulate views and to answer criticism through available media, subject only to constitutionally permissible restrictions. Where a State instrumentality uses a magazine funded from public money and publishes a critical article in it, fairness requires that the opposing viewpoint also be presented, especially when the rejoinder does not fall within any restriction recognised by Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The refusal was found arbitrary because it denied a fair presentation of both sides and could not be justified merely by characterising the magazine as an internal publication.

Conclusion: The refusal to publish the rejoinder was unconstitutional, and the direction to publish it was upheld in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): whether Doordarshan could refuse telecast of a documentary film on the ground that its contents were outdated, not fair and balanced, or otherwise unsuitable for telecast.

Analysis: The freedom of speech and expression was held to extend to the communication of ideas through films, and prior restraint on exhibition was permissible only within the limits of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and the governing principles under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The film had already received certification and the reasons advanced for refusal did not show any valid breach of the applicable statutory norms. Mere criticism of the State, pendency of compensation claims, or the passage of time did not justify denial of telecast. As a State-controlled broadcaster financed by public funds, Doordarshan was bound to act on valid grounds and could not exclude the film arbitrarily.

Conclusion: The refusal to telecast the film was not justified, and the direction to telecast was upheld in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: Both State-controlled media bodies were held bound by constitutional standards of fairness and free expression, and their refusals to carry the respondent's views or film were sustained as unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi: Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to disseminate one's views through print and audio-visual media, and a State-controlled medium acting with public funds cannot arbitrarily deny publication or telecast where no valid restriction under Article 19(2) is established.

---