2. HISTORY OF MEDIA AND MEDIA LEGISLATION- IN … 1/Chapter-2.pdfHISTORY OF MEDIA AND MEDIA LEGISLATION- IN INDIA ... par with the English Press, ... intends to regulate the printing

CHAPTER II2. HISTORY OF MEDIA AND

MEDIA LEGISLATION- IN INDIA

2.1. The Bengal Gazette:

The media history in India begins with the launching of various news journals by European and Anglo-Indian journalists during the second half of eighteenth century. The first newspaper was the Bengal Gazette which Mr. Hicky started as a weekly in 1780. The arrest of the editor Hicky for criticizing the policies of the Governor General Warren Hastings, was the starting point of the struggle for liberty of the press. The next Governor General Lord Cornwallis had a conflict with Mr Duana, the editor of Indian World. Duana was the next journalist who was arrested for opposing the policies of the Government. The muzzling of the press continued when some more anglo-Indian journalists were either censured, arrested or pressurised by the Governors in General in succession. To counter the spread of French invasion, the British Indian rulers wanted to suppress the criticism in the press and brought the Censorship Law in 1799, which was the beginning of the oppressive legislation against the print media. The press was made to disclose the names of the publisher and editors as a legal obligation. The Censorship Law was slightly modified. Press was not free as they were directed not to publish animadverting reactions on the authorities, political transactions or offensive remarks against the public conduct of public officers, judges, Bishop of Calcutta, discussion having a tendency to create alarm or suspicion among the natives as to any intended interference with their religion. They were even opposing the republication of what appeared in British Journals against the British Administration.

2.2. End of Censorship:

HISTORY OF MEDIA AND MEDIA LEGISLATION-IN INDIA

NALSAR ProP.G. Diploma in Media Laws 39

During 1818 the Censorship of the press was abolished, which led to emergence of new journals like Calcutta Journal from J. S. Buckingham. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Governor of Madras, and the Lord Bishop of Calcutta could not escape the sharp criticism from the bold and fearless journalist Buckingham. Like two earlier journalists Hicky and Duane, he was also deported from the Country and sent to England.

2.3. Munro Reforms and the Press:

The Government of India asked Sir Thomas Munro to study the conditions of the Press in India. In his report he expressed fears and apprehensions against the press owned by the people of Indian origin and found no threat from the European Journalists. He recommended for continuance of the power to deport the journalists out of the country and censorship against the defiant press. He saw a growing power in the press, which could even overthrow the British Power and spread nationalist thoughts. After accepting the recommendations of Munro, the Government of India came out with new press regulations and introduced licensing system. No newspaper or book can be published without the licence being obtained for that purpose. Every such publication after the licence has to be submitted for the scrutiny by the officials. The Government was empowered to stop the circulation of any newspaper or book by publication of mere notice in the gazette. Despite the protest from Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Dwarka Nath Tagore, the new regulations that were placed before the Supreme Court in March 1823 came into force on 15th April 1823.

2.4. Sir Metcalfe’s Contribution:

These regulations were in force till 1835, when Sir Charles Metcalfe, with assistance from Lord Macaulay, who was the Law Member of the Government. For having freed the press in India on par with the English Press, Lord Metcalfe was recalled. However,


NALSAR Pro40 P.G. Diploma in Media Laws

the Calcutta city honoured him by building a Hall in his name. But the freedom from regulation did not continue beyond 1857, as the mutiny was the new ground for British Indian rulers to re-impose the restrictions on the press. Act XV of 1857 was enacted to regulate the establishment of printing presses and to restrain in certain cases the circulation of printed books and papers. These restrictions were withdrawn after the Mutiny.

2.5. The Vernacular Press:

After the first freedom struggle in 1857, the vernacular press came into being. Bengalee and the Amrit Bazar Patrika in Bengal and the Akbhar-e-am at Lahore were started as news weeklies. A new Act XXV of 1867 has replaced Act of 1835. The new Act intends to regulate the printing presses and newspapers and also to preserve copies of books and also restrictions on those books. The Press and Books Registration Act of 1867 is still in force with some amendments in 1893 and 1940.

2.6. Vernacular Press Act:

The Vernacular Press Act has been brought into force with great speed as that was introduced within just two hours, after a sanction was obtained from Secretary of State for India through a telegram. Lord Lytton engineered this draconian law against native press because of "the increasing violence of the native press, directly provocative of rebellion". Very soon the Act gained a name as "The Gagging Act", according to which the magistrate, with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, can require a printer or publisher to deposit a security or enter into a bond binding himself not to print or publish anything likely to incite feelings of disaffection towards the government or hatred between the different races of India. The Government has enormous powers to warn the press and confiscate the machinery.



The printer was having only one chance of escaping the clutches of this draconian law only by submitting proofs to the officials and dropping all the rejected matter.

After passing this Act, within a year the entire vernacular press in India was muzzled. Indian people strongly resented the legislation that imposed severe curbs on free flow of information and criticism. A big meeting was organised in Townhall of Calcutta, which was the starting point of the virulent attack against the Gagging Act. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta said that it was wrong to curb the vernacular press, which as neither disloyal nor conveying treasonable ideas. The honest and useful criticism was annihilated by the Vernacular Press Act, when the print media was still in the stage of infancy. According to Mody, “the Act was utterly uncalled for, unduly repressive in character and inspired by sinister motives. It was a draconian piece of legislation based on the Irish Coercion Act of 1870 and in some respects brought into existence to deal with a special emergency”.

Sir Erskine Perry was of the opinion that this Act was “a retrograde and ill-conceived measure injurious to future progress of India”. He said: “No imperial legislature could forge a more powerful weapon for extirpating an obnoxious press”. British rulers were feeling that it was not safe to make Indian Press free, as that would definitely affect the interests of British dominance over the subcontinent and wanted the regulations to continue. It was difficult for the successor of Lord Lytton, to tackle the agitating press and growing national struggle. After the Conservative Government lost in the elections, and Gladstone led the Liberal Government there was a change in Indian Adminsitration. Lord Lytton was recalled and Lord Ripon was appointed. He too could not repeal the Vernacular Press Act at once. However Ripon could not retain beyond 1882, which act angered the British Rulers, though was praised by the Indians.

2.7. The press and freedom struggle:



The partition of Bengal was one of the painful historic events in the history of Indian struggle for freedom and evolution of press as powerful media. Lord Curzon and his anti-Indian policies were responsible for intensifying the agitation. Indian Nationalist movement was growing with a sole mission to throwout the English men’s bag and baggage from the country. The oppressive legislation and other repressive measures were fueling the burning of agitation. Then the British brought another legislation to curb the press freedom.

2.8. The Newspapers (Incitement of Offences) Act, 1908:

The Newspapers (Incitement of Offences) Act,1908 was passed. If any newspaper was found inciting the offences, crimes of murder or any act of violence, this Act would put an end to the existence of that newspaper. District Magistrate was empowered to confiscate the printing press where a newspaper containing an incitement to violence is printed. He can also make he orders absolute after a show cause notice. The police also was empowered to attach the printing press and issue warrants for attachment before the order was made absolute. The matter can be taken in appeal within 13 days. The government was also authorized to cancel the declaration of the printer or publisher of the newspaper. Due to these oppressive measures, the Yugantar, the Sandhya, and the Bandemataram newspapers stopped their publication. As the Government was not contended with these powers, it enacted Indian Press Act in 1910 to impose further curbs on press from writing ‘seditious’ or ‘disaffectionate’ writings. Dial the act of 1910 repeal the act of 1908.

2.9. The Indian Press Act 1910:

The Indian Press Act 1910 empowered the magistrate to require a deposit of not less than Rs 500 and not more than Rs 2000 from the keepers of news printing presses and publishers of newspapers. The local government could even demand a security



deposit of Rs.500 minimum to Rs 5000 maximum from the existing presses and publishers of newspapers. The magistrate is also empowered to dispense with the deposit of any security or cancel or vary any order already issued for the above reasons on any special reasons. These amounts were very huge money which would be generally beyond any body’s affordability, much less of newspapers of the native languages. This Act also defined ‘objectionable’, whose publication was to entitle the Government to forfeit the security to His Majesty. All attempts, direct or indirect, to seduce persons as employed in His Majesty’s defence forces or to intimidate the peop0le to give money for revolutionary work or to prevent them from giving help in discovering and punishing revolutionary crime, were included in the definition of objectionable matter.

The scope of definition of seditious publication was enlarged to include writings against the Indian Princes, judges, executive officers and public servants. Section IV was very oppressive, as that would not allow any scope for independent criticism of any Government action. Another arbitrary feature of the Act was that the Provincial government was given power to decide what was an offending publication and what was an objectionable matter, and it was not ordinary courts that decide such matters. Apart from forfeiting the security of the newspaper, the journalists would not be permitted to start the newspapers a fresh, unless they deposit not less than Rs 1000 and not more than Rs 10,000. That amount will be forfeited to His Majesty, if the Government was of the opinion that the newspaper offended Section IV. Even the customs officers and officers of post offices were given powers to detain any packet or parcel or consignment suspected to certain objectionable matter and deliver the same the provincial Government. The newspaper can go in appeal from the order of forfeiture within two months after passing such order, to a three member special bench of High Court.



The Indian Press Act 1910 was highly oppressive and very frequently resorted to by the rulers to muzzle the entire press. There was a big hue and cry all over the country. Despite the agitation by the Press Association of India, by pointing out shortcomings of new legislation, the Act was vigorously enforced during the world war I. Almost all 350 printing were penalized under this Act. The Securities worth 40000 pounds were demanded from newspapers. Because of the security deposits, more than 130 newspapers had not started. The Act was heavily used against the newspapers Punjabee and Hinduvasi etc.

Calcutta High Court was very critical of Section 4 of Indian Press Act. In a case between Muhammed Ali versus Emperor, Chief Justice Jenkins and Justice Stephen passed very serious strictures. The Chief Justice said: “The provisions of Section 4 are very comprehensive and its language is as wide as human ingenuity could make it. Indeed it appears to me to embrace the whole range of varying degrees of assurance from certainty on the one side to the very limits of impossibility on the other. It is difficult to see to what lengths the operation of this section might not be plausibly extended by an ingenious mind. They would certainly extend to writings that may even command approval. An attack on tat degraded section of the public, which lives on misery, and shame of others would come within this widespread net, the praise of a class might not be free from risk. Much that is regarded as standard literature might undoubtedly be caught.

The Advocate General has rightly said that the Press Act extend far beyond the criminal law of India and the burden of proof is cast on the applicant to that however meritorious the pamphlet may be still if the applicant establishes the negative the Act requires, the application must fail. And what is the negative? It is not enough forthe applicant to show that the words of the pamphlet in question are not likely to bring into hatred or contempt to any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India or that they have that tendency either directly or indirectly and whether by way of



inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor or implication. Nor is that all, for we find that the legislature has added to this the all embracing phrase ‘or otherwise’.” The Chief Justice concluded saying, Mr, Muhammad Ali then has lost his book but he has retained his character, and he is free from the stigma that he apprehended. And this doubtless will be some consolation to him when we dismiss, as we must, his present application”.

Justice TV Sheshagiri Ayyar said that the first obnoxious feature was that it substituted the discretion of the executive for the rights of publicity, audience and appeal. Secondly it specifically violated the first principle of jurisprudence by directing the accused to prove that he was innocent. Thirdly, though an appeal was provided for it has been pointed out in both the Calcutta and the Madras High Courts that the High Court had no power to question the discretion of the executive. Furthermore, the provision had the effect of humiliating the intelligent since the journalists were asked to furnish security, at the discretion of the Executive, before they could publish a newspaper. This humiliation no intelligent man would like to be subjected to and consequently the Act bad been the cause of considerable disaffection in the country.

The Government of India Act: The Government of India Act was passed in 1919 and some reforms were initiated under a heavy pressure of growing nationalist movement. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru was appointed as the first Indian Law Member. He has headed a committee to study the working of the India Press Act 1910. The committee recommended the repeal of the Act.

The press vigorously participated in building the struggle for freedom. It went on exposing the commissions and omissions of the British administrators and inspired the masses to move and fight for independence. The news of the struggle, arrest of the leaders found more space in these newspapers.



2.10. The Bold and Fearless Press & its Oppression by the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931:

Within two decades the British Administration in Indian felt the need for a most powerful legislative weapon to deter and detain the speech and expression. Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 is another piece of draconian legislation aimed at curbing the journalistic right and containing the expressions of thoughts by the journalists who were mostly the leaders of the nationalist movement. This Act has been enacted apparently for curbing the writing which incites murder or other crimes or violence. This Act also provides for deposit of security by the keepers of the printing presses. The Provisional Government was empowered to forfeit the security under certain circumstances. It also provided for deposit of value not less than Rs 1000 and not more than Rs 10,000 as a security in advance, at the time of seeking fresh declaration to start a newspaper as decided by the magistrate. If even after the forfeiture of the security and the deposit of new security, the newspaper published objectionable matter, the Provisional Government could forfeit the new security also. These provisions were made equally applicable to the publishers of newspapers also. Section XI penalized keeping of presses or publishing of newspapers without making the deposit as required by the Provincial Government or Magistrate. If a press did not deposit the security but when on doing its work, it could be forfeited to His Majesty and the declaration of the publisher was liable to be cancelled.

This Act marks the return of heavy deposit of money as security and other regulations, which made the newspaper publisher and editor subject to the executive orders of executive officers. A magistrate may authorize any person to publish a newspaper or news-sheets from time to time. Any police officer is empowered for that purpose by the Provincial Government could seize any unauthorized news-sheet or unauthorized newspaper wherever found. The unauthorized news-sheets or newspapers



were to be produced before the magistrate and could be ordered to be destroyed. The Government was given powers to seize and forfeit undeclared presses producing unauthorized news-sheets and newspapers. The penalty for disseminating unauthorized news-sheets and newspapers was imprisonment upto 6 months with or without fine. The Provision Government was also given powers to declare certain publications forfeited to His Majesty and also issue search warrants for the same. The customs officers were empowered to detain certain packages of publications when imported into British India. The Post office and the Government were empowered to disallow any transmission of unauthorized newspapers or news-sheets. There are however, certain provisions of going in appeal to High Court against the orders of forfeiture. The special bench of three judges had to be constituted for hearing of those appeals.

Thus the regime of security deposits and forfeitures for writing an objectionable matter has come back, and declaration was made vulnerable of cancellation, though it was not a licence. The sweeping powers given by this new legislation were meant for suppressing the nationalist movement and its reflection in more vociferous nationalist press. The publication of the photographs of national movement leaders was considered to be having tendency to encourage the movement and thus provided enough excuse for the government to use the weapon of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. The Government imposed several restrictions on the press, for example the publication of the speeches and messages of leaders arrested, the statements issued from the leaders from jail, ‘exaggerated’ reports of political events, notices and advertisement of meetings, processions and other activities tending to promote civil disobedience movement or any other matter in furtherance of the same.

The Government both at the Center and Provinces extensively used the power available under this oppressive legislation and many newspapers were forfeited. The printers and publishers of



the Bombay Chronicle were required to deposit Rs. 3000 each for publishing an article penned by Horniman. Similar demand was made from Anand Bazar patrika to deposit Rs 1000. The Liberty of Calcutta was required to pay Rs 6000 as deposit. The Free journal was asked to deposit Rs. 6,000 which was later forfeited by the Bombay Government.

This Act was the most powerful weapon in the hands of dictatorial British Administrators, heavily used to suppress the nationalist leaders and curb the spread of their messages. Absolutely the reign of terror continued with the 1931 legislation against the leaders, workers and journalists who were opposing the Foreign Rule.

2.11. Foreign Relations Act of 1932:

Apart from the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931, the British Rulers brought in another ordinance in 1931, which was replaced by Foreign Relations Act of 1932, which again was a weapon to muzzle the press. The Government was empowered to penalize the publications calculated to interfere in the maintenance of good relations between His Majesty’s Government and friendly foreign countries. The Government felt it was insecure as some of the journals were criticizing its policies in adjoining states.

2.12. Some More Oppressive Laws:

Above all these specific enactments against the press, the Indian Penal Code also contained several lethal provisions, which could be used against the press with serious penal consequences. The Foreign Relations Act of 1932 provided that where an offence under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code was committed against the ruler of a State outside states adjoining India, or against the consort or son of Principal Minister of such a ruler, the Governor General in Council might make or authorize any person



to make, a complaint in writing of such an offence and any court competent in other respects to take cognizance of such offence might take cognizance of that complaint. Any book newspaper or other document containing such specified defamatory matter which tended to prejudice the maintenance of friendly relations between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of such State, could be treated in the same manner as seditious literature. The powers available under Press Act were further enhanced and the scope for taking immediate action against the press was much more widened by promulgating four ordinances for maintenance of law and order. Their aim was curbing the encouragement to civil disobedience movement from every quarter of the country and to protect the ‘reputation’ of the British Administration from ‘unreasonable’ attacks in the press. It provided authorities with powers to deal with bands or demonstrators organized on semi-military lines, for the purpose of entering and spreading disaffection in the territories of the Indian States.

These four laws continued to be in force up to 1939 when the World War II broke out. The Government was thirst for some more powers to curb the resentment of the people against their repressive regime and brought in the Defence of India Act and Rules in 1939. These rules empowered the Government to control the Indian Press for six long years. Any newspaper that dared to violate these Defence of India Rules was severely dealt with. The Act and Rules lapsed after the end of the Second World War. Till then the British Administrators used it to bombard the press and suppress the raising voices.

2.13. The PTI:

After the intensive agitation for independence and highly suppressive measures by the British India Rulers, in a free India, a most historic event happened- the Press Trust of India Limited was formed in 1948. The PTI took over the task of supervising the flow of news to and from India. There was an agreement with Reuter’s



news agency, which enabled the Indian Press to get total control over its internal news flow. This Trust is a non-profit making organization wherein the members are from the newspapers. PTIlater became an independent and full-fledged Organization and free from the Reuters.

2.14. Review of the Press Law in Independent India

By the time India became independent, there were several oppressive legislations dealing with the press. There was a need to review and reframe the press law repealing the provisions, which were tools in the hands of suppressive British Regime. The Government of India had constituted a Press Law Enquiry Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Ganganath Jha. The job of the Committee was to collect all the existing laws and make recommendations to modify and make them suitable to the changed circumstances. The Central Legislature nominated some members to the committee. The Indian Newspapers Editors’ Conference recommended three editors as the members. The Committee made a thorough study of existing law of the press in India and recommended the following:

1. There is a need to add one explanation to Section 153A of Indian Penal Code (Promoting enmity between classes) to the effect that it does not amount to an offence under that section to advocate a change in the social or economic orders provided such advocacy does not involve violence.

2. Repeal of the Indian States (Protection) Act of 1934.

3. Repeal of the Foreign Regulations Act of 1932.

4. The Press Advisory Committee should be constituted and it has to be necessarily consulted by the Provincial Government before taking any action against the press under Emergency Powers legislation.

5. There is a need to repeal the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1932 but it was also suggested that certain



provisions of that Act, which did not find place in the ordinarylaw of the country’s should be incorporated at suitable places.

6. Regarding Sedition, Section 124A of Indian Penal Code should be amended so as to apply to the acts or words, which either incite disorder or are intended or tend to incite disorder.

7. The enormous powers available under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code should not be applied to the press and separate provision should be made, if necessary, for dealing with the press in urgent cases of apprehended danger.

8. A new provision should be made in the law to empower the courts to order the closing down of a press for a special period in case of repeated violations of law.

Though some of these recommendations are very constructive, the committee pleaded for retention of certain sweeping powers with the administration and even some provisions from the draconian legislation were recommended to be incorporated in the ordinary legislation. It is absolutely contradictory to the concept of freedom of the media as part of freedom of speech and expression to suggest the provisions for closing down of a newspaper office under the orders from the court of law.

2.15. Freedom of the Press as Fundamental Right

Then the press freedom was assured by the founders of Constitution of India that came into force from 26th January 1950. Liberty of thought and expression found a respectable place in the Preamble and in Part III, however, with some reasonable restrictions. The judiciary came to the rescue of the media freedom whenever there was an attempt by the rulers to bring in any oppressive legislation to curb this fundamental right.

2.16. First Amendment to the Constitution



The First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951, i.e., the very first year after the Constitution came into force, was necessitated by the judicial decisions in favour of free press. Three additional grounds were added to Article 19(2) to curb the freedom of the press. Thus the security of states, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to offences can be the reasons for limiting the freedom of speech and expression.

2.17. The Press (Objectionable Matters) Act: The New Press Law

During the course of debate in Parliament on the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill in 1951, there was a proposal to introduce a Press Bill, exclusively dealing with the press freedom and possible limitations over it, which is almost similar to the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931 without those very objectionable provisions. The Press (Incitement to Crimes) Bill was introduced in 1951. The name of the Bill was changed. The President assented to it. The salient features of this law are as follows:

1. It is aimed at penalizing the incitement of violence and the scurrilous writings.

2. Pre-censorship was totally opposed.

3. No action shall be taken against the newspaper unless it actually abused its freedom by the publication of some objectionable matter.

4. No demand of security arbitrarily.

5. Security can be asked only on proof of abuse of freedom of press by publication of objectionable matter.

6. The demand of security or its forfeiture has to be made only by the Sessions Judge and not by the executive.



7. The Sessions Judge shall pass such orders only after full-fledged trial.

8. The Sessions Judge has to hear both the Government and the keeper of the press or publisher of a newspaper.

9. The publisher or the keeper of press could claim the right to be tried b a special jury composed of persons particularly qualified to sit in judgment over cases of abuse of the freedom of the press.

10. A right of appeal shall be provided to the High Court on all points involved in every case.

11. The amount of security was not to be excessive and in no case more than the amount specified in the complaint made by the competent authority was to be ordered.

12. Provision was made for return of the security if no further action was taken in respect of the press o the newspaper or news-sheet for a period of two years from the date of deposit.

13. Provision was made against double penalty.

14. Any offence punishable under the Act and any abetment of such offence were made cognizable and bailable.

15. This Act repealed all earlier laws relating to the press.

2.18. What is Objectionable Matter?

The new Act defined what the objectionable matter is. Because it was crucial as it decides the offence or otherwise of the publication. Section 3 of the Act defines the expression ‘objectionable matter’ as follows: “Objectionable matter means any words, signs, or visible representations which are likely to incite or encourage any person to resort to violence or sabotage for the purpose of overthrowing or undermining the Government established by law in India or in any State thereof or its authority in



any area; or incite or encourage any person to commit murder, sabotage or any offence involving violence; or incite or encourage any person to interfere with the supply and distribution of food or other essential commodities or with essential services; or to seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the police forces from his allegiance to his duty or prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any such force or prejudice the discipline of any such force; or promote the feelings of enmity or hatred between different sections of the people of India; or which are grossly indecent or scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail.

The legislation was bitterly opposed by the press and people from every corner of the country even while it was being passed. However the Bill was passed and the Act remained in force for two years, which was reviewed and extended for another two years and finally it was allowed to lapse in 1954.

2.19. First Press Commission

The Government of India appointed the first press Commission on 23rd September 1952 consisting of 11 members under the Chairmanship of Justice G.S. Rajadhyaksha. The Commission submitted its report in August 1954. One of the significant recommendations of this Commission was establishment of the Press Council of India consisting of 25 members of whom 13 or more were to be working journalists of standing in the profession including the working editors. Either former or sitting judge of a High Court has to be appointed as the Chairman. It has to safeguard the freedom of the press and help the press to maintain its independence, apart from making all efforts to promote professional standards.

1. The First Press Commission recommended that the State Trading Corporation for Newsprint was to be entrusted with the monopoly of imports and could take over the entire output



of Indian Paper Mills on a fair basis and sell the same along with imported newsprint at equated prices.

2. The Commission also recommended that the publication of newspapers and periodicals should be made a central responsibility. It suggested the banning of cross-word puzzle competition forms, introduction of price page schedule for newspapers and suggested that advertisement should not cover more than 40 per cent of total space.

3. The Commission pleaded for single unit papers and suggested that in case of multiple editions, each unit should be separated from the others in the matter of accounts. It was discouraging the chains also. Where a chain consisted of a number of groups, each group was to be separated from the others.

4. It also suggested adoption of a strict code of advertising by an association of publishers. The Commission recommended enactment of legislation to regulate the newspaper industry making it punishable with fine or imprisonment to give fraudulent advertisement.

5. The Commission opposed the concentration of ownership of Indian newspapers and advised the review of situation by the Press Council at the end of five years and to make appropriate recommendations on newspapers ownership issue.

6. The Commission advocated no role for the state in control over news agencies. The news agencies should not be owned or controlled by the State and any assistance from the State to the news agencies should be without strings attached. The State should have no voice in the control of the agency either editorially or administratively.

7. Referring to Management of Press Trust of India the Commission recommended that a public corporation based on the existing organization but controlled by a Board of Trustees under a chairman to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India



to manage the PTI. No organizational changes were suggested for United News of India. It also suggested provision of representation to employees on the Board of Trustees.

After Independence several laws relating to press were passed. Delivery of Books and Newspapers (Public Libraries) Act 1954, the Working Journalists’ (Conditions of Service & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, The Newspapers (Price and Page) Act, 1956, Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act 1960 are some of them. The Constitution of India was amended relating to provisions concerning the freedom of speech and expression. Prasar Bharathi was passed to regulate the management of Radio and Television under government. The Cable Act was made. The Broadcast Regulation Bill is being revised. Several sections of Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code deal with definition of offences, prescription of punishments and procedure for trial, concerning the media. Information Technology Act, 2000 is amended in 2008 which has several provisions affecting the media, especially the new media Internet.

History of media legislation continues, as several new enactments deal with the freedom of speech and expression. Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006, is latest on the list. Right to Information Act 2005 provide new tool for citizens including the media to secure information. With Information Technology and the Internet, supported by the access right (Right to information) the citizen journalism has emerged in cyber space making it possible for every one to post his opinions, writings, criticism etc on websites, blogs and facebook like groups.

Documents

2. HISTORY OF MEDIA AND MEDIA LEGISLATION- IN … 1/Chapter-2.pdfHISTORY OF MEDIA AND MEDIA LEGISLATION- IN INDIA ... par with the English Press, ... intends to regulate the printing