Indian Express News Paper vs. Union of India, 1984

• Indian Constitution 
  • In 1985 the Government of India began levying heavy import duty on the newsprints that were imported from abroad along with customs duty.
  • This led to an increase in the price of the newspapers and reduced their circulation.
  • In this case, the petitioners were the companies, employees, and shareholders as well as the trusts who were indulged in the circulation of newspapers.
  • They also challenged the obligation that was imposed on the newsprint under the Customs Tax Act of year 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981.
  • Before the enactment of these acts the newspapers enjoyed an exception from the customs duty.
  • The companies pleaded that forcing of such duty had a huge effect on cost and the circulation of newspapers and a devastating impact on the freedom of expression under article 19(1) (a) and also had a impact on the flexibility to practice any trade and occupation under article 19(1) (g).
  • They also contended that no open interest favored their interference with these rights.
  • The petitioners also submitted that the classification of newspapers into the three categories i.e small, medium, and large newspapers also violated the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.
  • Whereas on the other side the government pleaded that the over cost borne by the newspapers is irrelevant consideration.
  • The public interest which was involved in the taxation policy was just to increase the revenue of the government and therefore it clarifies that the exception which is given to newspapers cannot be justified and the government can abolish all those exceptions.

• Whether in the name of public interest, reasonable interference is justified.
• Whether Article 14, classification of newspaper for imposing customs duty is discriminatory.
• Whether government should be more cautious about the people’s right to know the imposition of the tax.
• Whether a sole guide help in understanding the principles of freedom of speech and expression.
• Is freedom of press restrictions is included under article 19(2)
• Tax on knowledge, persons right to know the imposition of the tax government to be more cautious.

The SC of India observed that the government was in reality enabled to exact charges influencing the distribution of newspapers in light of the fact that such distribution could be characterized as an industry and must be dependent upon the same levies as other industries. It also permitted that the characterization into small, medium, and large based on financial distribution had a normal nexus with the goal of tax assessment and could not be viewed as arbitrary. In any case, where the power of tax collection infringes upon the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), the limitation on the freedom must be within reasonable limits.

• Reasonable limits have been illustrated in the Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, wherein “Public Interest” is a ground that might be taken to restrict freedom of expression. The court inferred that two fundamental principles must be borne in mind: firstly, newspapers appreciate the advantage of taxpayer government services like every single other industry and should contribute a sensible portion of government income through tax collection; and secondly, the weight of taxation must not be extreme.
• Yet, the court observed that neither the respondents nor petitioners demonstrated the excessive nature of tax burdens, in this way calling upon the government to rethink its taxation policy regarding the newspaper.

• A possible rule is provided in the case of Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India. (1984) Responding to a challenge to an import obligation set upon newsprint, the Court differentiated between those general taxes or duties that would require newspapers to form a similar contribution to the exchequer as other individuals and businesses in a similar position and those that imposed a fiscal burden over and over such contribution. In Indian Express Newspapers, the petition was permitted; maybe then, the conclusion that’s to be drawn, on a combined perusing of all these cases, is that by encompassing a “direct impact” test has essentially differentiated between interference with freedom of speech and expression as well as the conditions under which freedom must be exerted. Two of those establishment conditions seem to be an unregulated marketplace and common authoritative provisions dealing with taxation and proportioning of newsprint that is applicable across the board.
• In Indian Express Newspapers, the petition was permitted; possibly at that point, the conclusion that’s to be drawn, on a combined examining of all these cases, is that by including a “direct effect” test, the Court has distinguished between interferences with the freedom of speech and expression and background conditions inside which that freedom must be exercised. Two of those establishment conditions appear to be an unregulated marketplace and common authoritative provisions dealing with taxation and proportioning of newsprint that’s applicable across the board.