Case Name: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
Equivalent Citation: AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCR 594.
Date of Judgement: 26 May 1950
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case no.: Petition no. XVI of 1950
Case type: Writ of Prohibition and Certiorari
Petitioner: Romesh Thappar
Respondent: The State of Madras
Bench: Saiyid Fazl Ali, Harilal J. Kania, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Sudhi Ranjan Das, B.K Mukherjea
Referred: Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a) and (2), Article 32
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The petitioner, Romesh Thapar, ran a weekly English journal called Cross Roads of which he was the printer, publisher and editor. The journal was printed and published in Bombay.
- The respondent, the Government of Madras, exercising its power conferred by Section 9(I-A) of The Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 issued a notice prohibiting entry into/circulation, sale/distribution of Cross Roads in the State of Madras.
- The Governor of Madras thought it necessary to do this to secure public safety and maintain public order.
- In response to this, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India claiming that the order passed by The State of Madras contravened his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the order of the Madras Government violates the petitioner’s fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression or not?
- Whether Section 9(I-A) of the impugned Act is valid under Section 13(1) of the Constitution by reason of its inconsistency with the petitioner’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression or not?
- Whether the petitioner can directly approach the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution for his relief without first approaching the High Court of the respective State under Article 226?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
The petitioner raised two contentions:
- The order passed by the Governor of Madras banning the entry, publication and circulation of Cross Roads in the State of Madras as violative of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a).
- Section 9(I-A) of The Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 was violative of Section 13(1) of the Constitution as it was inconsistent with the petitioner’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
- Appearing on behalf of the respondent, the Advocate-General of Madras raised a preliminary objection questioning the petitioner resorting directly to the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution when instead he should have first resorted to the High Court of Madras under Article 226 as a matter of procedure.
- He referred to criminal revision petitions under Article 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, applications for bail and applications for transfer under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code as instances where a rule of practice had been established by which a petitioner should first proceed to a Court of lower grade before resorting to a High Court.
- He made reference to Emperor v. Bisheswar Prasad Sinha[1] where such a practice was made used in a criminal revision case.
- He also made reference to two American cases – Urquhart v. Brown[2] and Hooney v. Kolohan[3]. These cases showed that the Supreme Court of the United States requires that all the remedies open to the petitioner in the Federal and State Courts should be exhausted before a remedy, be it habeas corpus or certiorari, be allowed in the Supreme Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (4:1)
- Justice M Patanjali Sastri authored the majority judgement while Justice Fazl Ali opposed it, dissenting the judgement.
- The remedy guaranteed under Article 32 by itself is a fundamental right by including it in Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India is therefore the protector of fundamental rights and hence it cannot refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against the infringement of such rights. No similar provision can be found in the Constitution of the United States.
- Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.
- Unless a law is restricting freedom of speech and expression and the expression is solely directed against the undermining of the security of the State or overthrowing it, such a law cannot fall within the reservation of Article 19(2).
JUDGEMENT
The order of the Madras Government prohibiting the entry and circulation of the Journal Cross Roads in the State of Madras was quashed. The order of the Madras Government was held to be in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Section 9(I-A)of the impugned Act authorizing the imposition of restrictions for the purpose of securing public safety and maintenance of public order does not come within the scope of Article 19(2) and was therefore held to be void and unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION
The press is a medium of social, public and political intercourse. It is the means of expression of opinion, a means of communication of facts of public life[4]. Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras is a landmark judgement which upheld that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of press. Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.
[1] I.L.R. 56 All. 158
[2] 205 U.S. 179(1907)
[3] 294 U.S 103
[4] M. Rao, Constitutional Law, 171 (1st ed., 2013)
This is written by Mahima Susan John, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
