RESPONDENT

2. Whether the column published by Silbil Magazine is covered under the ambit of Freedom
of Press provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

I would rather have a completely free press, with all the dangers involved in the
wrong use of that freedom, than a suppressed or regulated press.
- Jawahar Lal Nehru

It is most humbly submitted to the Honble Court that freedom of speech and
expression is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed to a citizen by the
Constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a)1 and should be jealously guarded by
the Court2. There can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes
freedom of propagation, Publication of ideas3, and that freedom is ensured by the
freedom of circulation4, which in this contemporary world is done by the Press.
Every person has got right to express his views and publish the same through the
medium of Press5. It is now firmly established by a series of decisions of Supreme
Court and is a rule written into the Constitution that Freedom of the press is
comprehended within the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
under Art. 19(1) (a).6

In India before Independence, there was no constitutional or statutory guarantee

of freedom of an individual or media/press. At most, some common law freedom

1
Article 19 (1) (a): All citizens shall have the Right to Freedom of speech & expression.
2
BrijBhushan&Anr. v. The State of Delhi,1950 Cri LJ 1525; S Rangarajan and Ors. v. P Jagjivan Ram and Ors.
(1989) 2 SCC 574; Handyside v. United Kingdom, 1976 EHRR 737.
3
RomeshThapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124; Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Madhubai D. Shah, (1992)
2 SCC 637; Ex parte Jackson, (1877) 96 U.S. 727; Lovell v. City of Griffin, (1937) 303 U.S. 444
4
All-India Bank Employees' Assn. v. National Industrial Tribunal, (1962) 3 SCR 269; Tiger Muthaiya v. State of
Tamil Nadu, 2001 (1) CTC; Srinivas v. State of Madras, AIR 1931 Mad 70; Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v.
LokvidayanSanghatana, (1988) 3 SCC 410
5
Tiger Muthaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (1) CTC 1.
6
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. UOI, (1986) 1 SCC 133; I.R Coelho v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 Reliance
Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 592; SarojIyer v.
MaharashtaMediacal Council of Indian Medicine; AIR 2002 Bom 97; Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and Anr.
v. The UOI (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 578;BrijBhushan&Anr. v. The State of Delhi,1950 Cri LJ 1525;Sakal
Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI.
 could be claimed by the press, as observed by the Privy Council in Channing
Arnold v. King Emperor7.

For achieving the main objects, freedom of the press has been included as part of
freedom of speech and expression which is a universally recognized right adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization on 10th December,
1948. The heart of the declaration contained in Article 19 says as follows:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Silbil Magazine had
published a parody featuring Baba Satyanand only for the purpose of Innocent
humor which is in the ambit of the freedom provided to them by the Constitution
of India under Article 19 (1) (a). According to Blacks law dictionary8 innocent
means free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of
incriminatory circumstances. Its intention was not to defame the appellant as
misunderstood by the latter else it wouldnt have given the Disclaimer of it being
used for humor purpose merely.

Further in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India9 , Honble Supreme

Court stated that Article 19(1) (a) of Constitution of India guarantees to Indian
Citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. It does not delimit the
grant of that right in any manner and there is no reason arising either out of
interpretational dogmas or pragmatic considerations why courts should strain the
language of the Article to cut down amplitude of that right.

It is submitted that Freedom of press is not specifically mentioned in article 19(1)

(a) of the Constitution of India and what is mentioned there is only freedom of
speech and expression. In the Constituent Assembly Debates it was made clear by

7
(1914) 16 BOMLR 544.
8
Blacks law dictionary , pg no. 804 ,eighth edition
9
AIR 1978 SC 597.
 Dr. Ambedkar , Chairman of the Drafting Committee , that no special mention of
the freedom of press was necessary at all as the press and an individual or a
citizen were the same as far as their right of expression was concerned. The
Freedom of Press is regarded as a species of which Freedom of Expression is a
genus, as observed by Honble Supreme court in the case of Sakal Papers V.
Union of India10. Therefore , it is submitted before the Honble Court that Silbil
Magazine also has the same rights what a normal citizen carries in India , so it
would be violative of their rights if they would be asked to stop the circulation of
their august issue of Magazine & pay compensation for just an Innocent humor.

Further, Honble Supreme Court has reiterated that though freedom of press is not
expressly guaranteed as a Fundamental Right , it is implicit in the Freedom of
Speech & Expression. Freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all
democratic countries & the press has rightly been described as the Fourth Estate.
The democratic credentials of a State are judged by the extent of freedom the
Press enjoys in the State11

The freedom of the press and of expression is guarded by the First Amendment12
to the US Constitution which specifically lays down that this freedom be in no
way abridge by the laws. It is not that Indian Leaders were not aware of the US
First Amendment13 or of Jeffersons famous declaration when he said that Were
it left me to decide whether we should have a government without newspaper
or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to
prefer the latter14. The famous philosopher , Voltair once said, I do not agree
with a word you say but I defend to death your right to say it15.

10
AIR 1962 SC 305
11
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Asst. commercial tax officer [(1994) 2 SCC 434].
12
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It
forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individuals religious
practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of
individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their
government.
13
Ibid.
14
Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington , 1787. ME 6:57
15
S.G. Tallentyre , The Friends of Voltaire
 Further ,the First Amendment 16 to the US Constitution played a major role in
widening the scope of Freedom of Speech & Expression ,like New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan 17 was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that
established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports
about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel 18 and hence
allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States.
It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual
malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a
"public figure", prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the
statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. In the case
in hand though Baba Satyanand is a public figure but he is yet not able to prove
the malafide intentions of the Silbil Magazine since the latter had no such
intentions in publishing that parody column.

Similarly in the case of Hustler magazine v. Falwell 19 where the facts were
similar as that in the present case , the Honble Supreme Court of US had held
that, In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public
interest and concern, the First 20 and Fourteenth Amendments 21 prohibit public
figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional
infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as
the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a
false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i. e., with knowledge
that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was
true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not

16
Supra note 12.
17
376 U.S. 254 (1964)
18
Buescher, John. "The 4th Estate as the 4th Branch." Teachinghistory.org, accessed 2 September 2011.
19
(1988) No. 86-1278.
20
Supra note 12.
21
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, a
nd subject to the jurisdiction thereof, arecitizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State s
hall make or enforce any lawwhich shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor sh
all any State deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person withi
n its jurisdiction theequal protection of the laws."
 sufficient to deny First Amendment 22 protection to speech that is patently
offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not
reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure
involved. Since the abovementioned case had the similar facts as that of the case
in hand, the court may consider its judgement while giving the final verdict.

Just after India adopted the Constitution in November 1949, Freedom of Press
was questioned in Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras 23 and Brij Bhushan v.
State of Delhi24, where the Honble Supreme Court stated that the freedom of the
press was an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Further in the case of Indian Express Newspapers V. Union of India25, Honble

Supreme Court held that the press plays a very significant role in the democratic
machinery. The courts have the duty to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate
all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom. Freedom of press
has three essential elements.

They are:
1. Freedom of access to all sources of information,
2. Freedom of publication, and
3. Freedom of circulation.

Furthermore, Venkataramiah, J. of the Supreme Court of India in Indian

Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 26 has stated:
In todays free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political
intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making
formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the
developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are
not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance
the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic

22
Supra note 8.
23
AIR 1950 SC 124.
24
AIR 1950 SC 129.
25
AIR 1986 SC 515.
26
Supra note 25.
 electorate [Government] cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being
purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often
carry material which would not be palatable to Governments and other
authorities.The fundamental principle which was involved in freedom of press is
the peoples right to know. It therefore received a generous support from all
those who believe in the free flow of the information and participation of the
people in the administration; it is the primary duty of all national courts to uphold
this freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with
this freedom, are contrary to the constitutional mandate. And it may not give a
good message in the society if this freedom would be suppressed by the Honble
Court in the present case.

Freedom of speech is the bulwark of democratic government. This freedom is

essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. The freedom of
speech and expression is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It occupies a
preferred position in the hierarchy of the liberties giving succor and protection to
all other liberties. It has been truly said that it is the mother of all other liberties.27

Equally, in S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr.,28 Court stated, in paragraph 45

that the importance of freedom of speech and expression though not absolute was
necessary as we need to tolerate unpopular views. This right requires the free flow
of opinions and ideas essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry. While
an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for meaningful governance, the culture of
open dialogue is generally of great societal importance.

Furthermore, the problem of defining the area of freedom of expression it appears

to conflict the various social interest enumerated under article 19(2) may briefly
be touched upon here. There needs to be a compromise between the interest of
freedom of expression and special interests. But we cannot simplify balance
between two interests as if they are of equal weight. Our commitment of freedom
of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created

27
Report of the Second Press Comm., Vol. I, 35-35
28
(2010) 5 SCC 600
 by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered.
The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should
have proximate or direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought
should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the
expression should be inseparably locked up with the action
contemplated like the equivalent of a "spark in a powder keg". 29 And the parody
published by the Silbil Magazine is nowhere a danger to the public interest , it
was just a part of the humor which had no relation with the actual facts .

Further, in the case of Ajay Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors30 HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI defined relationship between humor and faith in his
golden words:

As far as the aspect of the subject film making fun of or laughing at certain
religious rituals of Hindus is concerned, it is often said that "Humor is, in fact,
prelude to faith; and laughter is the beginning of prayer". The saintliest men
frequently have a humorous glint in their eyes; they retain the capacity to laugh at
both themselves and at others. Russell Heddendorf, Professor of Sociology in his
book From Faith to Fun: The Secularization of Humor has observed that religion
and humor overlap as world views. Both deal with paradox but in different ways.
Both imply some moral values in the perspective they take. Each, in its own way
interprets the reality of daily life. Religion relies on faith and humor on fantasy,
with each performing important function for society. We may add that humor
cannot be divorced from reality. We can laugh only in the context of what is
known to us and not in abstract. If it were to be held that there can be no
contextual humor as the same is bound to be considered to be offensive by
someone or the other in the know of the context, there indeed would be no humor
and it will indeed be a sad day. A cartoonist has gone to the extent of quipping,
without humor we are all dead.

29
S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 1989 SCR (2) 204.
30
AIR 2015 Del 92
 Furthermore, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai in Ajay gautam31 case added Humor
is to be very prominently found even in discourses of Yogis. A true Yogi is
cheerful and communicates that mood to his audience directly through his
charisma as well as verbally through witty similes. So as per the abovementioned
statement of Honble Sahai J. , Baba Satyanand is not able to justify the definition
of a true yogi who cant even tolerate innocent parody and demands such a huge
amount of 1 crore for such a small humor.
Furthermore , Justice Brandeis in his famous concurring judgment in Whitney v.
California32 , they recognized the risks to which all human institutions are
subject. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they
amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To
justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that
serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable
ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent and that the evil to be
prevented is a serious one. Since no such danger is forseen in the present case so
Silbil Magazines Freedom of Press should not be suppressed.

2.1 The circulation of august issue published by Silbil Magazine be stopped.

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the circulation of the Silbil
magazines august issue should not be banned as it would cause a huge loss to the
Silbil magazine. Whatever has been published by Silbil magazine in its parody
column was out of innocent humor and not with any malafide intention, so it
would be unfair with the publishers if the circulation of the august issue would be
banned.
Further in the case of Ajay Gautam Honble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai33 said that
Humor is prelude to faith and laughter is the beginning of prayer. Religion

31
Ibid.

32 71 L. Ed. 1095 said: 11

33
Supra note 30.
 relies on faith and humor on fantasy, with each performing important function for
society. We can laugh only in the context of what is known to us and not in
abstract. If it were to be held that there can be no contextual humor as the same is
bound to be considered to be offensive by someone or the other in the know of the
context, there indeed would be no humor and it will indeed be a sad day. A
cartoonist has gone to the extent of quipping, without humor we are all dead.
Since only Baba Satyanand and his followers felt that the former had been
defamed ,the circulation should not be stopped as there was no defamation at all
on the part of the Silbil Magazine .

Honble Supreme court has justified it with time and again in the cases
like Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras34 and Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi35 ,
where it was observed by that freedom of speech and expression included
propagation of ideas, and that freedom was ensured by the freedom of circulation
as without liberty of circulation, publication would be of little value. The right
to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and
circulate ones ideas, opinions and other views with complete freedom and by
resorting to all available means of publication.

Further as per the Constitution of India, a citizen is entitled to enjoy each and
every one of the freedoms together and Art. 19(1) does not prefer one Freedom to
another. The state cannot make a law which directly restricts one freedom even
for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. To preserve the democratic
way of life it is essential that people should have the freedom to express their
feelings and to make their views known to the people at large. The press, a
powerful medium of mass communication, should be free to play its role in
building a strong viable society. Denial of freedom of the press to citizens would
necessarily undermine the power to influence public opinion and be counter to
democracy.

34
Supra note 23.
35
Supra note 24.
 Furthermore in the case of Sakal Papers v. Union of India 36 , the Court
emphasized , The freedom of speech & expression of opinion is of paramount
importance under a democratic constitution which envisages changes in the
composition of legislatures and Governments and must be preserved.

Moreover in Bennett Coleman & co. v. Union of India37 , The Court maintained
that the Freedom of the Press embodies the right of the people to speak and
express. The freedom of speech & expression is not only in the volume of
circulation but also in the volume of news and views . The press has the right of
free publication and their circulation without any obvious restraint on publication.
In the words of the court : Freedom of the press is both qualitative and
quantitative. Freedom lies both in circulation and in content. So banning the
circulation of the august issue of Silbil Magazine would violate the Freedom of
Press guaranteed to it by the Constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a).

36
Supra note 14.
37
AIR 1973 SC 106.