JUDGMENT WRITING ON

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. V. Indian Express Newspapers

BY- HEMANT CHAUDHRY (2nd YEAR)

INTERN

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

MOB- 07535919894

GMAIL I’D- [email protected]

 Reliance Petrochemicals ltd. V. Indian Express Newspapers

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner organization had offered for open membership made sure about convertible
debentures in the wake of getting the assent of the Controller of Capital Issues. Before the open
issue was because of open, certain writ petitions and so forth were recorded in some High Courts
testing the award of assent or authorization for the open issue. The petitioner there-upon
recorded an application under Article 139A of the Constitution of India, 1950 for looking to
move of those cases to this Court and implored inter alia for excursion of any order or remains
allowed by the High Courts. On August 19, 1988 this Court, while giving notification on the
exchange applications, coordinated that the open issue be gone before with "without let or
obstacle" and emptied all sets of directive in regard of the said issue. On August 25, 1988 an
article showed up in the Indian Express such that the Controller of Capital Issues had not acted
appropriately and legitimately in allowing the assent to the issue, and that the issue was not a
judicious or a solid endeavor. The solicitor moved the Court for starting disdain procedures
against the respondents for supposed impedance with the due organization of equity by
production of an article remarking on an issue which was sub-judice. The petitioner additionally
looked for directive against the compromised or anticipated production of comparative remarks.
The Court, while declining to take insight of scorn without the assent of the Attorney General,
gave a request for order limiting production of articles, and so forth scrutinizing the lawfulness
or legitimacy of any of the assents, endorsements or authorizations for the open issue. The issue
came up under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court again to consider the inquiry whether there
was any need for the continuation of the request for directive. It was battled that pre-stoppage of
paper article or distribution on issues of open significance was inappropriate and in spite of
freedom of press cherished in the Constitution and the laws; that open reserved a privilege to
think about this issue of debentures which involved open concern, and the papers had a
commitment to educate; and that there was no jury preliminary required here and no probability
of the preliminary being partial since preliminary was by expertly prepared Judges.
 ISSUES OF THE CASE

 Whether prejudging of issue and interference with administration of justice fine or not?
 Whether Court entitled to injunct press from publication of article or not?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

 Supreme Court more likely than not been by all appearances fulfilled that there was no
lawful illness which should hold up traffic of the open issue of the said debentures experiencing
and further, in any occasion, more likely than not been fulfilled that there ought not be any let or
prevention to the said open issue.
 The Controller of Capital Issues had not acted appropriately and legitimately in allowing
the authorization to the issue for different reasons expressed in that.
 The issue was not a prudent or a reliable venture. It was contended that by this article the
respondents have commented on a matter which is sub-judice and was intended to undermine the
effect of the interim order passed by the Court and the ultimate decision of the Court and they
threatened to publish such articles unless restrained by the Court.
 Trial by papers on issues which are sub-judice is perhaps the grossest method of
impedance with the due organization of equity and any risk of that obstruction ought to be
forestalled by both correctional activity of hatred and preventive request of directive of wrong
foreseen to be submitted by the reprobate.
 The production compromised or expected to be distributed would cause exceptionally
grave obstruction with the due organization of equity, and should, along these lines, be denied.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

 The publications alleged to constitute contempt were of such a nature that they were seen
to affect the course of actions actually pending in courts, particularly in the context of the
freedom of press guaranteed under Act 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
 It is also incorporated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948,
Art. 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Art. 19 of the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
 The contempt petition filed by the petitioners in respect of the article published by the
respondents on 25th Aug, 1988 has not been taken cognizance of by us in the absence of the
consent of the Learned Attorney General.
 It is required to assess whether any article that may be published by the respondents, even
assuming that it touches on the issues of validity or legality of the approvals, consents and
permissions referred to in our order of 19th Aug, 1988.
 Such publication should be injuncted by the court and it is like a "gagging order".

LEGAL ASPECTS

 Article 19(1) (a) of Constitution of India, 1950 has been used in this case which includes
the “Freedom of Press” which was held the Fundamental right in the case of Romesh Thapar v.
State of Madras1 and it is not mentioned explicitly in this Article.
 Contempt of Court Act, 1971 has also been used and referred in this case to clarify every
aspect of the law in this case.

COMPARISON OF INDIAN LAW WITH OTHER NATIONS

The freedom of speech and expression of articulation is enunciated under Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution, 1950 which is the right of an individual. This is not limited to “speech” specifically
as it includes other forms of expression. It is preserved in the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations and
the degree to which this right is upheld varies greatly from one country to the another one.

1
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
In USA, freedom of speech and expression is more widely accepted than in any other country. A
38 nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2015 2 found that Americans are among the
most supportive of this right. The United States have received highest score of 5.73. Freedom of
speech and expression is no stranger to the same.3

Poland was the second most tolerant with a median score of 5.66, followed by Spain and the UK
with the median scores of 5.62 and 4.78 respectively. While many nations acknowledge freedom
of speech and expression as a fundamental right and allow their people to voice their opinions
and ideas freely, this case is not applicable in some of the nations.

FREEDOM OF PRESS

Freedom of press is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including
various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the
absence of interference from an overreaching state through constitutional protection. Article
19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution talks about the Freedom of Press implicitly. In Romesh
Thapar v. State of Madras4, it was observed that "Freedom of Speech and of the Press, establish
at framework of all just association, for without free political conversation, no state funded
instruction, so fundamental for the best possible working of the procedure of mainstream
government, is conceivable." In the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic
Reforms5 it was observed that "Uneven data, disinformation, falsehood and non data, all
similarly makes a clueless populace which makes popular government a joke. The right to speak
freely of Speech and Expression incorporates option to confer and get data which incorporates
freedom to hold conclusions." In Indian Express Newspapers v. UOI6 it has been held that
“press assumes a noteworthy job in the vote based apparatus. The courts have obligation to
maintain the freedom of press and discredit all laws and authoritative activities that abbreviate
that freedom.

2
worldpopulationreview.com
3
Ib.
4
Romesh Thapa v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
5
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms AIR (2002)5 SCC 294
6
Indian Express Newspaper v. UOI (1985) 1 SCC 641
There are numerous examples when the freedom of press has been smothered by the lawmaking
body. In Sakal Papers v. UOI7, the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, which fixed
the quantity of pages and size which a paper could distribute at a cost, was held to be violative of
opportunity of press and not a sensible limitation under Article 19(2). Similarly, in the case of
Bennet Coleman and Co. v. UOI8, the validity of the Newspaper Control Order, which fixed the
most extreme number of pages, was struck somewhere near the court holding it to be violative of
arrangement of Article 19(1) (a) and not to be sensible limitation under Article 19(2). The court
additionally dismissed the supplication of the administration that it would assist little papers with
growing.

PRECEDENTS REFERRED IN THIS CASE

An order of prior restraint was passed by the Supreme Court initially while a civil case was
pending adjudication. There was a public issue of the commercial company; the company began
the open issue in the wake of getting authorization of the Controller of Capital Issues. The assent
was under test by vanous parties in various High Courts and the organization documented an
exchange request in the Supreme Court to bring all the issues under the steady gaze of the
Supreme Court. All things considered which identified with move of every single comparative
case to one Court at first, at the occasion of Reliance Petrochemicals, the Supreme Court passed
a request limiting the Indian Express Newspapers from distributing any article, remark, report or
publication regarding the matter of open issue by the organization. The Indian Express applied
for emptying the request and keeping in mind that clearing the request, the Supreme Court
considered the case law relating to distributions which could be biased and eluded to the special
cases. The Supreme Court alluded to Article 19(l) (a) which manages the right to speak freely of
discourse and articulation and the limitations expressed in Article 19 (2). It called attention to
that the American Constitution doesn't contain any arrangement for inconvenience of sensible
limitations by law. The Supreme Court referred the case Attorney General v. BBC9 . In that case,
the Attorney General had brought proceedings for an injunction to restrain the defendants from
broadcasting a program dealing with matters which is related to an appeal pending before a
7
Sakal Papers v. UOI AIR 1962 SC 305
8
Bennet Coleman and Co. v. UOI AIR 1973 SC 106
9
Attorney General v. BBC AIR 1981 A.C 303
Local Valuation Court on the ground that the broadcast would amount to contempt of court. In
that specific circumstance, (however the House of Lords held that disdain law didn't have any
significant bearing to the Valuation Court), Lord Scarman saw that 'organization of equity' ought
to not under any condition be hampered with. Master Denning in the Court of Appeal had seen
that expertly prepared Judges are not effectively affected by distributions. In any case,
contradicting that perspective on Lord Denning, Lord Dilhorne expressed in yet other oft-cited
section as follows:

'It is here and there stated that no Judge will be impacted in his Judgment by anything said by the
media and therefore that the need to forestall the distribution of issue biased to the becoming
aware of a case just exists where the choice rests with laymen. This case to legal prevalence over
human slightness is one that I discover some trouble in tolerating. Each holder of a Judicial
Office does his most extreme not to leave his psyche alone influenced by what he has seen or
heard or perused outside the Court and he won't intentionally let himself be affected in any
capacity by the media, nor in my view will any layman experienced in the release of Judicial
obligations. By and by, it should, I believe, be perceived that a man will be unable to put what he
has seen, heard or read totally crazy and that might be subliminally influenced by it. It is the law
and it remains the law until it is changed by Parliament. The distributions of issue liable to
partiality the knowing about a case under the steady gaze of an official courtroom will comprise
scorn of court deserving of fine or detainment or both".

In the case of Union of India v. Naveen Jindal 10 , it was clearly held in this case that the US
First Amendment is in supreme though the privilege under Article 19(l) (a) can be limited as
allowed in Article 19(2) (a), reverberating what was expressed in Reliance Petrochemicals.

In M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal 11 the facts were that a lady ended it all in Calcutta in her
folks' home yet a case was recorded against the spouse and parents in law under the Indian Penal
Code for homicide claiming that it was an instance of share demise. The spouse (appealing party
in the Supreme Court) had recorded various archives to demonstrate that the lady was a
schizophrenic insane patient. The guardians of lady recorded archives to demonstrate their
claims of interest for settlement by the blamed. The preliminary was at this point to begin. The

10
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal 2004(2) SCC 510
11
M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal 2005(2) SCC 686
Courts underneath cannot bail. The Supreme Court conceded between time bail to the blamed
and keeping in mind that passing the last requests, alluded fundamentally to certain news things
in the Calcutta magazine. The Court belittled, two articles distributed in the magazine in an
uneven way setting out just the claims made by the lady's folks however not alluding to the
archives documented by the blamed to demonstrate that the woman was a schizophrenic. The
Supreme Court observed: "These kinds of articles showing up in the media would absolutely
meddle with the course of organization of equity." The Court belittled the articles and
forewarned the Publisher, Editorial manager and Journalist who were answerable for the said
articles against "enjoying such preliminary by media when the issue is sub-judice." and seen that
all others should observe the dismay communicated by the Court.

The Punjab High Court in Rao Hamarain v. Gumori Ram12 stated that ‘Liberty of the press is
subordinate to the administration of justice. The plain duty of a journalist is the reporting and not
the adjudication of cases.’ The Orissa High Court in Bijovananda v. Bala Kush13 observed that
‘the responsibility of the press is greater than the responsibility of an individual because the press
has a larger audience. The freedom of the press should not degenerate into a license to attack
litigants and close the door of justice nor can it include any unrestricted liberty to damage the
reputation of respectable
persons.” in Harijai Singh v. Vijav Kumar14, the Supreme Court stated that the press or
journalists enjoy no special right of freedom of expression and the guarantee of this freedom was
the same as available to eve citizen. The press does not enjoy any special privilege or immunity
from law. Summarizing the position, it will be seen that the right to free speech in US is absolute
and no restraint order against publication is possible unless there is ‘clear and present danger’ to
the right itself. But, the position in India is different. The right to free speech is not absolute as in
US but is conditional and restricted by Article 19(2). Treating a publication as criminal contempt
under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 where the Court comes to the conclusion
that the publication as to matters pending in Court ‘tends’ to interfere {vide Section 2(c)(iii)}
with the administration of justice, amounts to a reasonable restriction on free speech. The view
obtaining in USA that trained Judges or even jurors are not influenced by publication in the
12
Rao Hamarain v. Gumori Ram : AIR 1958 Punjab 273
13
Bijovananda v. Bala Kush AIR 1953
14
Harijai Singh v. Vijav Kumar 1996(6) SCC 466
media as stated by the majority in Nebraska was not accepted in England in Attorney General v.
BBC by Lord Dilhorne who stated that “Judges and Jurors may be influenced subconsciously
and Judges could not claim to be super human was quoted by the Supreme Court in Reliance
Petrochemicals. In what manner they are so influenced may not be visible from their judgment,
but they may be influenced subconsciously.” Even in US, Justice Frankfurter has accepted that
Judges and Jurors are likely to be influenced.

In the above portrayal some broadly famous cases have taken in this investigation as a law
understudy its essential to discover the conditions furthermore, activities taken by police and
response by the people in question and open and court continuing. It's likewise imperative to
nonattendance the job of media and their style of preliminary and contribution in another
exercise. Here is attempt to examination the circumstance and continuing done by each organ of
that. Also, delineate as insightful and sum up the issue also, clarify the how and why. The above
examination uncovers us the gravity of the circumstance as it continues in India. A perfect
proposition will be that the Indian press and the Indian individuals are not at present just enough
to permit the press to encroach in the legal procedure. What will a perfect suggestion is to not
permitting the media preliminary right now. It's very a perfect recommendation to permit
controlled media announcing of the cases once the media should come out of the benefit and
electrifying contemplations. The media needs to assume the job of a facilitator instead of tilting
the scales for either party.

JUDGMENT AT A GLANCE

 Supreme Court passed an order to restrain the Indian Express Newspaper to publish any
article, report, editorial or comment on the subject of public issue by the company.
 Supreme Court referred to Article 19 (1) (a) which talks about Freedom of Speech and
Expression and the restrictions stated in Article 19(2) and rejected the application of Indian
Express for the vacancy of the order.

 Supreme Court passed held the issue of debentures as invalid and asked the company to
refund the application money to the applicants.
 OVERVIEW OF JUDGMENT

The position today, in any case, has drastically changed. We are informed that the issue has been
over-bought in. It is presented that even at this phase there is a potential peril that proceed with
production of articles by the respondents assaulting the legitimacy of the debenture issue will
have the impact of causing an enormous number of candidates for the debentures to freeze and to
look for discount of the application funds previously paid by them. Actually, it is stated, a writ
request of that nature has just been recorded in the Allahabad High Court. Guidance presented
that, in a touchy issue like issue of debentures, even the solicitation for return of cash by any one
individual could trigger off a few uses of a similar sort and that the peril, that the applicant
organization may be approached to discount funds sent in regard of memberships previously
made based on the claims in such articles as the one previously distributed, is genuine and fast
approaching. He presented that it is in this manner as much important today to proceed with the
directive as it was the point at which it was conceded on the 25th of August, 1988.

It has given cautious idea to this dispute encouraged in the interest of the applicant organization.
It is obviously troublesome without any solid information for any individual to arrive at a
resolution regarding how precisely the production of articles of the sort distributed by the
respondents would cause preference in the way fought for by the candidate. It appears to me, in
any case, that the peril caught by the applicant organization isn't as genuine or significant as to
warrant the duration of the directive request passed by us on the 25th of August 1988. Regardless
of whether, with the end goal of contention, one were to expect that such cases for discount will
be made, they can't immediately hurt the interests of the applicant organization. There is no
likelihood that, pending assurance of the issues rose, any court will arrange break help to such
candidates by method for award of such discounts. The solicitor will be obligated to make any
such discount just on the off chance that it is at last chosen by this court or whatever other court
that the issue of debentures is invalid and that the application cash must be discounted. That
obviously the organization should do regardless. There is, in any case, no prompt reason for
anxiety with respect to the solicitor that the production of any such article could prematurely end
the debenture issue in the way it could have done before 31 st August 1988. I, in this manner,
concur that there is no support for the duration of the interval request dated 25th August 1988
anymore.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The judgment has been critically analyzed in a way that the order for the injunction of the
publication of any article, report, comment or column for the issue of the debentures was not
main relevant one because of the provision of Article 19(1) (a) which talks about Freedom of
Speech and Expression and which implicitly includes the Freedom of Press, which infringes the
right of the Indian Express Newspaper, as this does not comes under any of the Reasonable
Restrictions as mentioned under Article 19(2). Also the judgment regarding the refunding of the
money of the applicants was also not fair.

CONCLUSION

After analyzing the facts of the case, issues of the case, arguments from both the sides, overview
of judgment, it has been finally concluded that the facts of the case were totally cleared and fully
transparent and arguments from both the sides were to the point and the relevant one. And the
judgment given by the bench was accurate but some of the points were critically analyzed by the
author in the Article.

SUGGESTION

After doing the judgment writing, no such suggestions to give, but few of them can be like, the
issue of the debentures should not be held invalid because the debentures issued by the company
and the whole process of the issuance includes a huge cost, which leads to the wastage of that
cost and that will be of no use and company has suffered a lot.
 REFERENCES

 Romesh Thapar v State of Madras (1950) AIR SC 124

 Worldpopulationreview.com
 Ib.
 Romesh Thapar v State of Madras (1950) AIR SC 124
 Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)5 AIR SCC 294
 Indian Express Newspaper v UOI (1985) 1 AIR SCC 641
 Sakal Papers v UOI (1962) AIR SC 305
 Bennet Coleman and Co. v UOI (1973) AIR SC 106
 Attorney General v BBC (1981) AIR A.C 303
 Union of India v Naveen Jindal (2004) AIR SCC 510
 M.P. Lohia v State of West Bengal (2005) AIR SCC 686
 Rao Hamarain v Gumori Ram (1958) AIR Punjab 273
 Bijovananda v Bala Kush (1953) AIR
 Harijai Singh v Vijav Kumar (1996) AIR SCC 466

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Hemant Chaudhry, a second year BBA LLB (Hons.) student at IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY,
DEHRADUN. He is currently an intern and campus ambassador at Probono in India. He is
currently pursuing an online certificate course on the subjects of Intellectual Property Rights and
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. He has participated in National Moot Court Competition and
also in National Client Counseling. He has been interning since his first year and he has worked
with NGO and advocates. His area of interest is corporate law. He is very keen in doing research
and doing case studies.