<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1961 (9) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168362</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:15:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (9) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168362</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>