https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185237 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a State-controlled broadcaster could not deny telecast of a certified documentary merely because it was said to be outdated, unfair, or critical of the State, where no valid statutory ground for restraint was shown.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. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:42:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185237 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a State-controlled broadcaster could not deny telecast of a certified documentary merely because it was said to be outdated, unfair, or critical of the State, where no valid statutory ground for restraint was shown.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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185237