HINDUSTAN TIMES AND ORS. versus STATE OF UP. AND ANR.

HINDUSTAN TIMES AND ORS. versus STATE OF UP. AND ANR.

The impugned executive orders directing deduction of 5% from government advertisement payments in newspapers for forming a fund for pension to working journalists are unconstitutional, void and beyond the legislative competence of the State. The State, having no legislative power in this field (already occupied by Parliament under Central Acts), cannot deprive the petitioners of their property save by `law`, as understood under Article 300A. The impost amounts to a tax/fee imposed without legal authority, and being enforced due to unequal bargaining power and not through valid law, violates Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution as well as Section 23 of the Contract Act.

Parties
Petitioner: Hindustan Times; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Decision After Hearing; Petition Allowed
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Executive Powers Under Article 162, Article 14 and Equality, Right to Property Under Article 300 a, Retiral Benefits for Journalists, Imposition of Imposts/levies, Freedom of Press, Unequal Bargaining Power in Government Contracts
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Labour Law Contract Law Media Law Executive Powers Under Article 162 Article 14 and Equality Right to Property Under Article 300 a +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hindustan Times

Petitioner

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Decision After Hearing; Petition Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the executive directives issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh to deduct 5% from payment due for government advertisements in newspapers to constitute a pension fund for working journalists is valid in law
  2. 2 Whether such directives are within the legislative competence of the State
  3. 3 Whether the directives violate Articles 14, 16, 300A of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned executive orders directing deduction of 5% from government advertisement payments in newspapers for forming a fund for pension to working journalists are unconstitutional, void and beyond the legislative competence of the State. The State, having no legislative power in this field (already occupied by Parliament under Central Acts), cannot deprive the petitioners of their property save by `law`, as understood under Article 300A. The impost amounts to a tax/fee imposed without legal authority, and being enforced due to unequal bargaining power and not through valid law, violates Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution as well as Section 23 of the Contract Act.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • The impugned orders dated 24th September, 1991 and 16th October, 1991 directing deduction of 5% from government advertisement payments are declared unconstitutional and void.
  • No order as to costs.