FREEDOM OF PRESS

PROJECT

TOPIC : FREEDOM OF PRESS

SUBJECT: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW

SUBMITTED TO: ANAND KUMAR SINGH

SUBMITTED BY VIDYA MENON LLM (ITL) 1st Semester ROLL NO: 742

INTRODUCTION Press is not just a medium to express once emotions, feelings and perspectives; but additionally dependable and instrumental for building conclusions and perspectives on different themes of territorial, national and global plan. The vital role of the media is its ability to mobilize the thinking process of millions. The increased role of the media in the present globalized world was aptly described by the Justice Hand of the United States Supreme Court who stated, "The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen and the far spread magazine, rules the country". Freedom of the press is extremely important for the effective functioning of a democracy. Press can be used as an important tool of liberty and progress only if is kept free of all restraints except those that it voluntarily accepts as an earnest of its responsibility with regard to the public. It is then that it can inform and educate the people along the right lines and breed tolerance of thought and expression which again is an indicative feature of a democratic set-up. It is believed that a vigilant public is the custodian of the freedom of press. But its watchdogs are those who man it, and they have an even greater responsibility in preserving that freedom. Press is recognized as the fourth estate i.e. the press has to operate within the framework of these statutes and constitutional provision to act in public and national interest. This is symbolic of the fact that nobody is above law. When the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to its citizens, it ensures that the freedom is not absolute. They shall always be subjected to some reasonable restrictions. If the press or media exceeds its jurisdiction, the courts come forward to ensure that violation of the fundamental rights by the media does not go unchecked.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1. To analyse the concept of freedom of press and its significance in India 2. To discuss the constitutional perspective of freedom of press in India and the reasonable restrictions imposed in the light of landmark judgements 3. To determine the current scenario of freedom of press in India in view of recent incidents and cases 4. To examine the constitutional provisions of freedom of press in U.S.A in comparison with India 5. To recommend and suggest measures for ensuring Freedom of Press in India striking a balance with the other fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What is meant by freedom of press? What is its significance in India? 2. Whether the freedom of press is absolute under the Constitution of India? If not what are the reasonable restrictions that are imposed on this freedom? What are the relevant case laws with regard to it? 3. What is the role of press in the administration of justice? What are the recent cases wherein media has played an effective role in advancing justice? What are the cases wherein media has acted rather irresponsibly? 4. What are the constitutional provisions of freedom of press in U.S.A? How far the provisions are different from that of India? 5. Why is there a need to strike a balance between freedom of press and other fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens? FREEDOM OF PRESS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN INDIA "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers".1 Freedom of the press is the freedom to communicate and express through mediums including various electronic media and published materials. It refers to the right to print, publish, disseminate, circulate and distribute publications without any interference from the state or any other public authority. Freedom of press is implicit in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. However, this Freedom, like any other freedoms, is not absolute and is subject to well known exceptions in the public interests. Press generally refers to the newspaper industry. But in the modern era, besides newspapers, 1 The United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

there are various forms of news media that includes television, radio broadcasting and online news websites. Freedom of press and media is recognized as an essential attribute of a parliamentary democracy. “A free press is the mother of all liberties and of our progress under liberty.” 2 Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice B.N. Hansaria in the Printers (Mysore) Limited v. State of Karnataka stated that “freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all democratic countries. The democratic credentials of a State are judged today by the extent of freedom the press enjoys in that state.”3 For the proper functioning of any democracy it is important that citizens are kept informed about what is happening within the country. Press and media serves as an agency of the people; bringing forward the real picture of the society. Hence the freedom of press and media is a necessary pre-requisite in fulfilling the democratic ideologies. Besides, a free and vigilant press is vital to prevent corruption and injustice, at least to the extent that public opinion can be aroused as a consequence of press investigations and comments. In fact, the main purpose of the free press is to create a fourth institution outside the government to serve as an additional check on the three organs of government namely executive, legislative and judiciary. FREEDOM OF PRESS: CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE IN INDIA Freedom of press is not expressly provided under the Constitution of India. It is implied from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. In interpretation of this guaranteed right, Patanjali Shastri, J., in Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras4, remarked that “there can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation. Indeed, without circulation the publication would be of little value.” Likewise, interpreting the words “freedom of speech and expression” the Madras High Court observed that “the term ‘freedom of speech and expression” would include the liberty to propagate not only one’s own views but also the right to print matters which are not one’s 2Adlai Stevenson 3 A.I.R 1994 S.C 23 4 1950 S.C.R 594 at 597

own but have either been borrowed from someone else or are printed under the direction of that person.”5Hence “liberty of press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression declared by Article 19 (1) (a)”6 However being a right emanating from the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of press in India stands on an equivalent footing as that of a citizen. In other words, press enjoys no privilege distinct from that guaranteed to a citizen. Like any other freedom, the freedom of press is not absolute. It is subjected to reasonable restrictions as mentioned under Article 19(2). Thus the guarantee of the above right would not affect the operation of any existing law, in so far as it is related to, or prevent the state from making any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offended against the decency or morality or which undermined the security of or which tended to overthrow the state. Reasonable restrictions Article 19 (2) allows the State to make laws with the object of imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) in the interest of: a. Public Order and Security of State If an act has tendency to cause public disorder it would be a valid ground under Article 19 (2) to impose restrictions, even though it may not lead to breach of public order. Public order is a state of tranquillity that prevails amongst the members of a political society as a result of the internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established. 7And “security of state” refers to a serious and aggravated form of public disorder. The speeches and expressions which encourage violent crimes are related to security of State.8 b. Defamation Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. Freedom of press is mostly related to libel which is written defamatory statement. If a person’s reputation is harmed without 5 Srinivasa Bhat v. State of Madras, A.I.R. (1951) Madras 70 at 73 6 Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 S.C.R.605 at 608 7 Ramesh Thapper v State of Madras, AIR 1950 Sc 124 8 State of Bihar v ShailaBala, AIR SC329

justifiable reason, he can be prosecuted for the criminal wrong of defamation. The law of criminal defamation is contained in section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. Supreme Court in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, held that private individuals suing for libel must prove the statement was false if it involved a matter of public concern.9 c. Contempt of Court While exercising the right of freedom of expression one should not commit contempt of court or make any comment which could be contempt 10. The newspapers and media channels have right to publish reports on the proceedings of the court, subject to the orders of the court resolving the dispute. If the court specifically orders not to publish a particular evidence of a witness, that cannot b called as an invalid order. However, truth of criticism against curt by media is available as a defence available to writer or press or media to the charge of contempt of court. d. Incitement to an offence If any words written or spoken incite the commission of violent crimes, which include attempts to insult the religious beliefs of any class, reasonable restrictions can be imposed. Promotion of disharmony among the classes also can be restricted on the same ground. In State of Bombay v. Balsara11the Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 24(1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It provided that no person shall print or publish in any newspaper, news sheet, book, leaflet or any other single or periodical publication or otherwise display or distribute any advertisement or other matter which is calculated to encourage or incite any individual or class of individuals or the public generally to coomit an offence under the Act. e. Friendly relations with foreign states This is another ground justifying the restriction on freedom of speech and expression. State cannot however prevent all the criticism of foreign policy of the Government. The Covenant on Freedom of Information and the Press prepared by the United Nations Conference at 9 Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986) 10 E.M.S Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015 11 1951 AIR 318

Geneva provide for necessary legislative restrictions being placed with regard to the “systematic diffusion of false and distorted reports which undermines the friendly relations between people and states.”12 f. Decency and morality In Regina v Hicklin13 the court adopted the test of obscenity, which is known as the Hicklin test. The test of obscenity is to note whether the tendency of matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. Freedom of speech and expression can be reasonable restricted in case it hampers with the decency and morality. g. Sovereignty and integrity of India This ground was added subsequently in 1963 by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment). This is provision is aimed at prohibiting anyone from making the statements that challenge the integrity and sovereignty of India. In Rajendra Sail v. M.P High Court Bar Assn14, the editor, printer publisher and reporter of a newspaper, along with the petitioner who was a labour union activist, were summarily punished with a six months imprisonment by the High Court. Their fault was that they published derogatory remarks against the judges of a High Court. The Supreme Court held it to be contempt of court. In D.C Saxena v. Chief Justice of India15, the Supreme Court held that no one has the power to accuse a judge of his misbehaviour, partiality or incapacity. The purpose of such protection is to ensure independence of judiciary. Thus the state has general power to impose reasonable restrictions. Also it must be noted that these restrictions should not be arbitrary and excessive. There should be a balance between the freedom guaranteed and the community interest protection. Relevant case laws 12 Art. 2 (j) of the Covenant on Freedom of Information and the Press 13 [1968] 3 QB 360 14 [2005] INSC 272 (21 April 2005) 15 1996 SCC (7) 216

1. Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors16 In this case the petitioners challenged the Newsprint Order (1962) and the Newsprint Policy (1972). The Newsprint Order placed certain restrictions upon the import of newsprint (complementarily, publishing newspapers in material other than newsprint was prohibited); while the Newsprint Policy prohibited common ownership units from starting new newspapers, limited the maximum number of pages to ten, and allowed a twenty percent increase in page level to newspapers that had less than ten pages. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and found the provisions of the Order to be in violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The Court also struck down the rebuttal of the Government that it would help small newspapers to grow. 2. Sakal Papers Ltd v. Union of India17 In this case, the Daily Newspaper (Price and Control) Order 1960, which fixed a minimum price and number of pages which a newspaper was entitled to publish was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it infringes the freedom of press. The petitioner had to increase the price of their newspaper without increasing the pages. It was seen that an increase in price without any increase in number of pages would reduce the volume of circulation. On the other hand, any reduction in the number of pages would lessen the space of the column, space for news, views or ideas. The State justified the law as a reasonable restriction on a business activity of a newspaper in the interest of the general public. However the court struck down the order rejecting the argument of the State and held that right of freedom of speech and expression cannot be taken away placing the restrictions on the business activity of a citizen. 3. Ramesh Thapper v. State of Madras18 In the instant case, a law formulated by the Government of Madras in banning the entry and circulation of an English journal "Cross Road", printed and published in Bombay within its state was challenged by the petitioner. The Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and this freedom is ensured by the freedom of 16 1973 AIR 106 17 1962 AIR 305 18 AIR 1950 SC 124

circulation .A law which imposes restrictions on grounds of ‘public safety or the ‘maintenance of public order’ falls outside the scope of the authorized restrictions under clause (2) and is therefore void and unconstitutional. 4. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi 19 In this case, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued an order under Section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, which required the editor, printer and publisher of a English weekly of Delhi to submit it for scrutiny all communal matters, news and views, about the Pakistan include ing the photographs and cartoons other than those derived from official source of supplied by the news agencies. The court struck down the order and held that pre-censorship of a journal is a restriction on the liberty of press. The court further laid down that prohibiting a newspaper from publishing its own views was nothing but a serious encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression. 5. Express Newspapers v. Union of India20 In this case the validity of the Working Journalist Act 1955 which was enacted to regulate conditions of service of persons employed in newspaper industries was challenged. The court held that press was not immune from laws of general application or ordinary forms of taxation or laws of industrial relations .Since the Act was passed to improve the service conditions of the women in the newspaper industry, it was found to be valid. 6. R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu21 The Supreme Court held that the government has no authority in law to impose a prior – restrain upon publication of defamatory material against its officials. Public authorities who apprehend that they or their colleagues may be defamed by the publication of any material cannot prevent from exercising their freedom. The court was of the opinion that if the matter in the publication was based on false facts on in any manner injurious, the concerned persons could take action for damages after the publications. However no action could be taken prior to the publication. 19 AIR 1950 SC 129 20 AIR 1958 SC 578 21 1994( 6) SCC 632

Court further held that the right to privacy and right of freedom of press have to be balanced. If publication of truth is in public interest it would not amount to defamation. On the other hand, if it has got nothing to do with public interest and relates to privacy of an individual, then it would certainly be defamatory. In the instant case, the petitioners were entitled to publish the autobiography by Auto Shankar as it appeared from public records. 7. Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer22 In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that no sales tax could be imposed on the sale of newspapers in the country. However the court clarified that this does not mean that press shall be immune either from taxation or from general law relating to industrial relations or from the State regulation of services of its employees. The prohibition is applicable only on the imposition of any restriction to disseminate information and to the circulation of the newspaper. 8. Virendra v. State of Punjab23 In the this case, in respect of a publisher being prohibited to publish his view the Supreme Court observed that it is certainly a serious encroachment on the valuable and cherished right to freedom of speech, if a newspaper is prevented from publishing its own view or the view of its correspondents. ROLE OF PRESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE Current scenario of press and its achievements As discussed, press is regarded as one of the pillars of democracy as it continues to act as a watchdog of the three organs of democracy. In the present day, role of press in the administration of justice has gained significant proportions. The sting operations carried out against public servants by media houses are gaining popularity. Medias are justified in carrying out deliberate operations, as this is probably the only way the defaulters can be caught red handed. It helps the investigating authorities to bring out the truth in unrevealed cases. 22 1994 SCC (2) 434 23 AIR 1957 SC 896

Some of the famous cases that would have gone unpunished but for the intervention of media includes the Jessica Lal case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Nithesh Katara case, Aarushi murder case and the Bijal joshi rape case. In all these cases the courts have appreciated the investigative journalism of media. In State v.Siddharth Vashisth & Manu Sharma24popularly called as the Jessica Lal murder case, following an intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings. The trial court judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2006. Similarly in State (Through CBI) v. Santhosh Kumar Singh25,popularly called as the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, the intense media spotlight

led to an accelerated trial,

unprecedented in the tangled Indian court system. The case is one of several in India that highlight the ineffectiveness of traditional criminal law system, especially when it comes to high profile perpetrators. The acquittal of Santosh Singh in the case in 1999 had led to a massive public outcry and the investigating agency CBI, under considerable pressure, challenged the judgment in the Delhi High Court on February 29, 2000. Another case was that of the Dr. Rajesh Talwar And Another v. Central Bureau Of Investigation26, known as the Aarushi murder case. The high-profile Arushi/Hemraj twin murder case is a classic example where media's effort was lauded as well as criticized. One of the victims was a student of an elite school, her well-heeled doctor parents were the suspects. After Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini mattoo case, this case was also under intense media scrutiny after the case was marked with shoddy investigation. Vishal Yadav v. State of Delhi27 is another case in which the media played a very important role in bringing the criminals before law. Press- the need to act in a more responsible manner

24 2001 IIAD Delhi 829,2001 Cri LJ 2404,90(2001)DLT 548 25 2007 Cri LJ 964,133(2006)DLT 393 26 2013 (82) ACC 303 27 116(2005)DLT 341,2005(79)DRJ 254

Though the press has assumed critical parts for open welfare yet on occasion it has acted recklessly. For example the electronic media built up the Abhi-Ash wedding in a manner that other imperative news were dismissed. In Prof. Sabharwal's case, when Prof. Sabharwal was executed by ABVP activists, there were various news channels & daily paper reporter were available & they had proof of the homicide however the media acted unreliably & the police called it an 'Open & Shut Case'. Likewise, when Mumbai was under fear danger in 26/11 the media acted rather negligently by telecasting live the long sixty hours Operation Black Tornedo by the security powers to battle the assault at The Taj Hotel & Nariman House. It included live feed of air dropping NSG Commandoes on the housetop of Nariman House. Similarly was the IPL issue wherein all sorts of speculative stories revolved around the relationship between the Minister, Shashi Tharoor, and Sunanda Pushkar in air and in print. The accent was on denigrating the character and competence of the businesswoman. This kind of ‘investigative journalism' has nothing to do with the truth-telling function of the news media. What it does is to prejudice the course of public judgment and eventually justice. On occasion news channel covers news, for example, 'Bollywood Gossips' & 'Page 3' and so forth which has lessened them to a negligible 'Entertainment Channel'. There are numerous essential issues which ought to be secured by the media however unfortunately it doesn't. In April 2009, Union Home Minister P.Chidambaram was tending to the media at a question and answer session a columnist tossed a shoe at the minister on challenge of aquital of a Congress pioneer accused for driving AntiSikh riots in 1984. The reporter, Jarnal Singh was a journalist of Dainik Jagran, a local daily paper. Later on he apologized to the Union Home pastor for his demonstration. This was a standout amongst the most condemnable act which demonstrated the appalling side of the press. COMPARISON WITH THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION The United States has one of the world’s strongest systems of legal protection for freedom of the press. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides the core guarantee of press freedom and freedom of speech. It reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the

government for a redress of grievance.28 Article 19(1) (a) finds its roots in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Unlike the Indian Constitution, the First Amendment to the American Constitution makes a specific or separate provision for the freedom of press. Further, while the restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression are expressly spelt out in Article 19(2), this is not so under the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court has read into the rights of the press certain implicit restrictions which are, in principal, no different from Article 19(2). One such restriction is the defamation law. The courts have given the press broad protection from libel and defamation suits that involve commentary on public figures, though libel formally remains a criminal offense in a number of states. In deciding New York Times Co. v. Sullivan29, The Supreme Court held that when a publication involves a public figure, in order to support a suit for libel, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the publisher acted with "actual malice," Under the American Constitution, the free press clause protects the rights of individuals to express themselves through publication and dissemination of information, opinions and ideas without the interference from the government. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo30, the Court unanimously struck down a state law requiring newspapers criticizing political candidates to publish their responses. The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish. In Branzburg v. Hayes 31

this right was described as a fundamental right that is not merely confined to newspapers

and periodicals. In Lovell v. City of Griffin,32”press” was defined as “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. This right has been extended to include 28 US Constitution , First Amendment , Article 1 29 376 U.S 254 (1964) 30 418 U.S 241 31 408 US. 665 32 Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444

newspapers, books, movies as well as video games. Similarly people who blog, Twitter or use other social media are protected equally by the free speech and free press clause. In Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. v. Cox, (2014) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. As far as India is concerned, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, had criminalized the publishing of any information on Facebook, Twittter and other website that could be deemed to be "false, or was for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will. However recently on 24 th March 2015, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the court struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 both in terms of “liberty of the individual” and from the point of view of democratic governance. Thus it can be concluded that for the most part, from a legal and social viewpoint the freedom of the press in America is far more robust in comparison to the Indian guarantee. FREEDOM OF PRESS VIS-A-VIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: THE NEED TO STRIKE A BALANCE Human beings across the world have always strived to strike a balance between working and resting, reporting and judging, befriending and avoiding, warmth and coldness, speech and expression, joy and frustration and many intermingled aspects of daily and social life. Likewise, in the modern era where television and internet sweeping information across the world in a matter of seconds, the Supreme Court of India is attempting to strike a balance between the media’s right to freedom of speech and expression and other fundamental rights such as rights of the accused to a fair trial, protection of witnesses, public's right to know and right to privacy Freedom of press and fair trial “The tension between the courts and the media revolves around two general concerns. The first is that there should be no ‘trial by media'; and the second is that it is not for the press or anyone else to ‘prejudge' a case. Justice demands that people should be tried by courts of law and not be pilloried by the press.”33

33Rajeev Dhavan, The Hindu, May 17, 2010

Media trials put at risk the due process of administration. In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors34 it was held by the Delhi High Court that conviction, if any, would be based not on media's report but what facts are placed on record. Similarly in A.G v. Times News papers Ltd35 , Lord Denning stated that court would not allow “trial by news papers” or “trial by television” or trial by any medium other than the court of law.” Thus trial by media should not be encouraged. However press and media shall have the freedom to express freely its views and opinion about the issue at hand. In many cases press has played an active role in bringing an issue to the limelight and have thereby paved way to impart justice. Thus effort must be placed so as to make sure that freedom of press does not result in trial by media. It’s only then that a fair trial can be ensured to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, every person is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a court” and no one “can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it goes to trial.” Freedom of press and right to privacy/right to know The problem with freedom of speech is that a free press and a person’s right to be informed can occasionally infringe upon another person’s right to privacy. Public’s right to know does not include the right to intimate the private details of one’s neighbours. Unless the information can be proven to be of great public interest, there shall be no obligation to bring the matter under public sensational stories. Where and when line of distinction is to be drawn between the freedom of press and right to privacy has been an issue of debate. Most journalists defend the public's right to know contending that detailed, accessible information results in a constituency who better comprehends the legitimate procedure. Thus again efforts must be placed to ensure that freedom of press does not encroach into the right to privacy of an individual. Besides, Press has a duty to keep the public informed of all matters. Right to information of the public must not be used in any manner so as to interfere with the privacy of an individual. Therefore, all these rights are to be read in broad sense so that one does not interfere with the other. In other words, court has to take utmost care to ensure that freedom/ right is guaranteed to the citizens under Part III of the Constitution are not in conflict with the other. 34 1996 CriLJ 3944 35 (1973) 1 QB

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Freedom of press is central to the survival of democracy. Democracy without the free movement of the press is a misnomer. However, it has to be remembered that this freedom is not absolute unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as providing unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount an uncontrolled license. All freedoms are subjected to reasonable restrictions, the absence of which would lead to disorder and anarchy. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “"The role of journalism should be service. The Press is a great power, but just as an unchained torrent of water submerges the whole countryside and devastates crops, even so an uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy." In an organised society, the rights of press are to be recognized with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. The wide power of press freedom shall not be utilized for wrong doings. The presentation of the news has to be truthful and comprehensive without any distorted expression. Thus press has a greater responsibility to guard against false news and publications for the simple reason that its utterance can have greater circulation and impact on the people at large. Apart from this, there is also essential to strike a proper balance between citizen’s right to privacy and public’s right to information vis-a-vis the role of media so that none of the rights as guaranteed to the citizens are in conflict with each other. To quote our former Prime Minister, “Freedom of press is an Article of Faith with us, sanctified by our Constitution, validated by four decades of freedom and indispensible to our future as a nation.” SUGGESTIONS In a democratic country, the government cannot function properly unless the people are well informed and are free to participate in the public issues having the widest choice of alternate solutions to the problem that arise. Press serve as a link between the government and the public at large and hence they are vested with the obligation to communicate and disseminate information in a bona fide manner. This can be attained only if the press is allowed to represent its different points of view without any interference from the government. The following suggestions are offered in this connection: 1. Freedom of press should be expressly provided as a specific fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India 2. Freedom of press should be reasonably restricted so that it does not encroach into the right to privacy of an individual or hampers the right to fair trial of the accused

3. Trial by media should be discouraged for the simple reason that it media cannot be allowed to usurp the powers of the court and thereby undermine the confidence of the public in judicial system. 4. Reasonable restrictions should be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression

in social networking sites as it has now become the most common medium of communicating with the public at large.