BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF DELHI.

BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF DELHI.

The majority held that section 7(1)(c) authorised the imposition of pre-publication censorship on the press and that such authorization was not a law 'relating to a matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State' within the meaning of Article 19(2); accordingly section 7(1)(c) (as applied) was unconstitutional and void and the impugned order of the Chief Commissioner dated 2 March 1950 was quashed.

Parties
Petitioner (printer and Publisher): Brij Bhushan; Petitioner (editor): K. R. Halkani; Respondent: The State of Delhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 May 1950
Procedural Posture
Original Writ Petition Under Article 32 (certiorari and Prohibition) / Judgment (petition Allowed)
Outcome
Petition allowed by the majority; impugned order quashed; section held unconstitutional (majority)
Legal Topics
Freedom of Speech and Expression, Pre Publication Censorship, Article 19(1)(a) and (2), East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 S.7(1)(c), Public Safety and Public Order, Sedition
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Press Law Freedom of Speech and Expression Pre Publication Censorship Article 19(1)(a) and (2) East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 S.7(1)(c) Public Safety and Public Order +1 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brij Bhushan

Petitioner (printer and Publisher)

K. R. Halkani

Petitioner (editor)

The State of Delhi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Original Writ Petition Under Article 32 (certiorari and Prohibition) / Judgment (petition Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 (as extended to Delhi) authorising pre-publication scrutiny is a valid restriction on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether 'public safety' and 'maintenance of public order' as used in the Act fall within 'matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State' in Article 19(2)
  3. 3 Whether the Chief Commissioner's order of 2 March 1950 requiring pre-publication scrutiny of certain subject-matter in the weekly Organizer was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that section 7(1)(c) authorised the imposition of pre-publication censorship on the press and that such authorization was not a law 'relating to a matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State' within the meaning of Article 19(2); accordingly section 7(1)(c) (as applied) was unconstitutional and void and the impugned order of the Chief Commissioner dated 2 March 1950 was quashed.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed by the majority; impugned order quashed; section held unconstitutional (majority)

Orders

  • Petition allowed
  • Impugned order of the Chief Commissioner dated 2 March 1950 quashed