Telangana High Court upholds validity of Press and Registration of Books Act provisions

The Telangana High Court recently upheld the Constitutional validity of Sections 5, 6 and 15 of the Press and Registration of Books Act. [V Venkataramanaiah v. The Union Of India]..A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice NV Shravan Kumar opined that the regulation of newspaper publication by these provisions was a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech and expression..While Section 5 lays down the rules for publication of newspapers, Section 6 deals with authentication of a declaration regarding the owner, printer, title, language and periodicity of the publication. Section 15 provides for penalty if the rules are violated..The owners of law journal, Law Animated World, in 2005 challenged Section 5 on the ground that it prescribes such rules only for newspapers and not books. The other two provisions were challenged for being violative of Article 19(1) (freedom of speech, expression, etc.) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. .The Court noted that the legislature itself has defined the books and newspapers separately. The Court added that the provisions in question cannot be struck down on the ground that the same does not provide for similar requirements in respect of book publishing, as it is not a case where equals are sought to be treated differently.“The wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is attracted only when equals are sought to be treated differently,” it observed..On the regulation of newspapers, the Court said the Article 19(1)(a) or the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions.“The parliament by enacting Sections 5 and 6 of the Act has sought to regulate the activity of publication of newspapers which is a reasonable restriction,” the bench ruled.It added that the same does not tantamount to any infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.The Court concluded that the petitioners were not able to rebut the presumption of constitutional validity of the rules and accordingly dismissed the petition..Advocate I Mallikarjuna Sharma represented the petitioners, the printers and publisher of Law Animated World.Advocate K Mani Deepika represented the Union of India..[Read Judgment]