LEGAL TERMINOLOGY

Bill vs Act

The main difference between a bill and an act is that initially, for a bill is written down
stating all the changes or details about a new law or an existing one later on if only
approved by the parliament, that particular bill becomes an act. Changing an act is
comparatively more time-consuming as it is already approved. For example, like all
adults were babies once, similarly, all acts were bills once. Acts are passed and applied to
the whole country and have to follow them, but this is not the same with the bills. Both of
them are also related in some terms.

ORDINANCE

Ordinances are laws that are promulgated by the President of India on the
recommendation of the Union Cabinet, which will have the same effect as an Act of
Parliament. They can only be issued when Parliament is not in session. They enable the
Indian government to take immediate legislative action.

REGULATIONS

A Regulation is an official rule. In the Government, certain administrative agencies have

a narrow authority to control conduct, within their areas of responsibility. These agencies
have been delegated legislative power to create and apply the rules, or "regulations".
Derived from "regulate".

STATUTE

Statutes are laws made by Parliament or the Legislature and are also known as Acts. They
may create a new law or modify an existing one. Regulations are the rules that address
the details and practical applications of the law. The authority to make regulations related
to an Act is assigned within that Act.

CODE

A code is a set of rules about how people should behave or about how something
must be done.

NORMS

A legal norm is a binding rule or principle, or norm, that organizations of sovereign

power promulgate and enforce in order to regulate social relations. Legal norms
determine the rights and duties of individuals who are the subjects of legal relations
within the governing jurisdiction at a given point in time.

CONVENTIONS :

Conventions are rules of the constitution which are not enforced by the law courts.
Because they are not enforced by the law courts they are best regarded as non-legal
rules, but because they do in fact regulate the working of the constitution they are an
important concern of the constitutional lawyer.

AFFIDAVIT :

An affidavit is a written statement from an individual which is sworn to be true. It

is an oath that what the individual is saying is the truth. An affidavit is used along
with witness statements to prove the truthfulness of a certain statement in court.

ACCUSED :

to charge with a fault or offense

ACQUITTAL :
The definition of acquittal is the legal act of dismissing charges brought against
someone. An example of acquittal is when charges against a person are dropped
because there is not enough evidence to convict him.

BAIL :

Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or an
appeal, by the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time to legal
authority.

CONVICTION : the act of proving that a person is guilty of a crime in a court of law.

DEFENDANT :

A defendant is a person who has been accused of breaking the law and is being tried in
court.

EVIDENCE

any of the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent
tribunal as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under
investigation before it.

PLAINTIFF

A plaintiff is a person who brings a legal case against someone in a court of law.

PROSECUTION

Prosecution is the action of charging someone with a crime and putting them on trial.

PRIMA FACIE
Prima facie is used to describe something which appears to be true when you first
consider it.

SUB - JUDICE

When something is sub judice, it is the subject of a trial in a court of law. In Britain, this
means that people are not allowed to discuss it in the media
PRESS LAWS BEFORE AND AFTER INDEPENDENCE :

BEFORE INDEPENDENCE :

1. THE CENSORSHIP ACT , 1799

● It was enacted by Lord Wellesley to prevent the French from spreading rumors
which could harm the British.
● According to this, every newspaper should contain the names of the printer,
editor and proprietor.
● Before printing anything, it should be submitted to the secretary of
Censorship.

2. LICENCING REGULATIONS , 1823

It was enacted by John Adams.

● Every publisher was required to get a license from the government.

● In case of default, the penalty was Rs 400 and the press would be
ceased by the government.
● Government has the right to cancel the license also.

Note: The restrictions were directed mainly to Indian language newspapers or

those edited by Indians like Mirat-ul-Akbar (which was published by
Rammohan Roy) had to stop its publication.

3 .Press Act of 1835 or Metcalfe Act :

 ● Charles Metcalfe, also called Liberator of Indian press, repealed 1823
rules by John Adams.
● This continued till 1856 which led to the growth of the newspaper in
India.

4. Licensing Act, 1857:

● Due to the emergency caused by the revolt of 1857, the government

imposed licensing instructions on the procedure laid in the Press act of
1835.
● The government even reserved the right to stop publication and
circulation of the book, newspaper or printed matter.

5. Registration Act, 1867:

● It replaced the Press act of 1835 or Metcalfe’s Act.

● It was regulatory in nature.
● Every newspaper/book should have the name of the publisher, place of
the publication and the name of the printer.
● A copy of the published material was required to be submitted to the
local government within a month.

6. Vernacular Press Act, 1878:

● The vernacular press (local language press) used to criticize British rule.
Therefore they came down heavily to curb vernacular press in 1878.
● It was nicknamed ‘Gagging Act’.
● Lord Lytton was responsible for this act.
 ● According to this, Magistrates were authorized to ask any publisher of a
newspaper to give assurance of not publishing anything threatening
peace and security in the country.
● Magistrate decision was final in any dispute.
● This law was not applicable to the English press.
● This Act empowered the government to issue search warrants, and
enter newspaper premises even without court orders.

More stringent laws were enacted when the freedom movement gained
momentum. Every reporting was closely monitored and comments against the
government were not tolerated.

● Under this, Surendranath Banerjee was the first Indian journalist to be

imprisoned for criticizing a judge of Calcutta high court in 1883.
● Balgangadhar Tilak was mostly associated with the nationalist fight for
the freedom of the press.
● He was related to building up nationalist sentiment through
Ganpati(1893) and Shivaji(1896) festivals and newspapers Kesari and
Maratha.

The Gagging law was repealed in 1881 by Lord Ripon.

7. Newspaper Act, 1908:

● Magistrates were empowered to confiscate printing press or property

connected to the newspaper, which published objectionable material
like incitement to murder or acts of violence.
● Newspapers were allowed to appeal in high court within 15 days.
Indian Press Act, 1910:

This Act revived the worst features of the VPA—local government was
empowered to demand a security at registration from the printer/publisher
and forfeit/deregister if it was an offending newspaper, and the printer of a
newspaper was required to submit two copies of each issue to local
government free of charge.

Tilak as the leader of militant nationalists was tried on charges of sedition

and transported to Mandalay (Burma) for six years. This led to countrywide
protests. In Bombay, textile workers and railway workshop workers took on
the Army in streets and went on strike for days. Lenin hailed this as the
entrance of the Indian working class on the political stage.

The Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931:

● Impact of the Gandhian movement provoked the government to issue

an ordinance in 1930.
● Provincial governments were given the power to suppress the press.
● In 1932 provisions of the act further amplified in the form of criminal
amendment act.
● During the 2nd World War pre-censorship was reinforced and amended
under the Press emergent Act in 1931 and official secrets Act.
● Under this act, Congress and its activities were declared illegal.

Press regulating Act, 1942:

 ● Registration of journalists was made compulsory.
● Messages regarding civil disturbances and news regarding acts of
sabotage were restricted.
● There were limitations on headlines and space given to news on
disturbances.
● The government had authority on arbitrary censorship.

AFTER INDEPENDENCE :

Press Enquiry Committee, 1947:

The Committee was set up to examine press laws in the light of

fundamental rights formulated by the Constituent Assembly. It
recommended repeal of Indian Emergency Powers Act, 1931, amendments
in Press and Registration of Books Act, modifications in Sections 124-A and
156-A of IPC, among others.

Press (Objectionable Matters) Act, 1951:

The Act was passed along with amendment to Article 19 (2) of the
Constitution. The Act empowered the government to demand and forfeit
security for publication of “objectionable matter”. Aggrieved owners and
printers were given the right to demand trial by jury. It remained in force
till 1956.

Press Commission under Justice Rajadhyaksha:

The commission recommended in 1954 the establishment of All India Press
Council, fixing the press-page schedule system for newspapers, banning
crossword puzzle competitions, evol­ving a strict code of advertisements by
newspapers, and the desirability of preventing concentration in ownership
of Indian newspapers.

Other Acts passed include Delivering of Books and Newspapers (Public

Libraries) Act, 1954; Working Journalists (Conditions of Services) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955; Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956;
and Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publications) Act, 1960.
BILL TO ACT : CASE STUDY OF LOKPAL

The Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's ombudsman Bill) is a draft anti-corruption bill drawn up by
prominent civil society activists seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent
body that would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within a year and
envisages trial in the case getting over in the next one year.

Drafted by Justice Santosh Hegde (former Supreme Court Judge and former Lokayukta of
Karnataka), Prashant Bhushan (Supreme Court Lawyer) and Arvind Kejriwal (RTI activist),
the draft Bill envisages a system where a corrupt person found guilty would go to jail within
two years of the complaint being made and his ill-gotten wealth being confiscated. It also
seeks power to the Jan Lokpal to prosecute politicians and bureaucrats without government
permission.

Retired IPS officer Kiran Bedi and other known people like Swami Agnivesh, Sri Sri Ravi
Shankar, Anna Hazare and Mallika Sarabhai are also part of the movement, called India
Against Corruption. Its website describes the movement as "an expression of collective
anger of people of India against corruption. We have all come together to
force/request/persuade/pressurize the Government to enact the Jan Lokpal Bill. We feel
that if this Bill were enacted it would create an effective deterrence against corruption."

Anna Hazare, anti-corruption crusader, went on a fast-unto-death in April, demanding that

this Bill, drafted by the civil society, be adopted. Four days into his fast, the government
agreed to set up a joint committee with an equal number of members from the government
and civil society side to draft the Lokpal Bill together. The two sides met several times but
could not agree on fundamental elements like including the PM under the purview of the
Lokpal. Eventually, both sides drafted their own version of the Bill.

The government has introduced its version in Parliament in this session. Team Anna is up in
arms and calls the government version the "Joke Pal Bill." Anna Hazare declared that he
would begin another fast in Delhi on August 16. Hours before he was to begin his hunger
strike, the Delhi Police detained and later arrested him. There are widespread protests all
over the country against his arrest.

The website of the India Against Corruption movement calls the Lokpal Bill of the
government an "eyewash" and has on it a critique of that government Bill.

A look at the salient features of Jan Lokpal Bill:

1. An institution called LOKPAL at the center and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up
2. Like the Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of
the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations.

3. Cases against corrupt people will not linger on for years anymore: Investigations in any
case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be completed in the next one year
so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years.

4 The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of
conviction.

5. How will it help a common citizen: If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed
time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which
will be given as compensation to the complainant.

6. So, you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being
made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in
prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month's time. You could also report any
case of corruption to Lokpal like ration being siphoned off, poor quality roads being
constructed or panchayat funds being siphoned off. Lokpal will have to complete its
investigations in a year, trial will be over in next one year and the guilty will go to jail within
two years.

7. But won't the government appoint corrupt and weak people as Lokpal members? That
won't be possible because its members will be selected by judges, citizens and
constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and
participatory process.

8. What if some officer in Lokpal becomes corrupt? The entire functioning of Lokpal/
Lokayukta will be completely transparent. Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall
be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months.

9. What will happen to existing anti-corruption agencies? CVC, departmental vigilance and
anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. Lokpal will have complete powers
and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.

10. It will be the duty of the Lokpal to provide protection to those who are being victimized
for raising their voice against corruption.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION

What is Freedom of Press?

Freedom of the press refers to the minimal interference of the state in the
operation of press on any form of communication including, print (newspapers,
magazines, journals, reports); audio (radios, podcasts); video (news channels,
OTT platforms like YouTube) and over other electronic mediums like news apps,
social media feeds, etc.

The liberty of the press in the words of Lord Mansfield is, “consists of printing
without any license subject to the consequences of law”. Therefore, we can
conclude that freedom of the press refers to having the freedom to express
what one pleases without any prior permission from law.

Why Freedom of the Press?

As per Indian Newspapers v Union of India, the objective of the press is to

supplement the public interest by printing the facts and opinions without which
the citizens of the country cannot make well informed rational judgments.
Freedom of the press is at the crux of social and political inter-course. It is the
paramount duty of the judiciary to prop the freedom of the press and refute all
laws and executive actions that interfere with it as opposed to the constitutional
provisions.

Press is a medium of availing knowledge and spreading the vital information of

events, developments, incidents of national interest to the whole nation and
thus free and fair operation of the press makes the backbone of civil society
which is capable of critical and independent thinking and forms its opinion about
the country and the government after scrutinizing the facts of the situation
wisely.

Article 19 and Freedom of Press

Freedom of the press is implicit under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution, which provides for the freedom of speech and expression under
Part III (fundamental rights). It does not explicitly provide the term “freedom of
the press” anywhere but it becomes quite clear from this Constituent assembly
debate when Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar replies to a question of “Article 19 not
including ‘freedom of the press’” saying that the press is just another method of
quoting an individual citizen and when anyone chooses to write in a newspaper,
they are merely exercising their right of expression and thus, there is absolutely
no need to separately mentions the freedom of the press.

Scope of Freedom of Press under Article 19(1)(a)

Freedom to spread information

Without this liberty, freedom of the press is nugatory. Though this right is also
implicit in the freedom of expression, Romesh Thapar v State of Madras makes
it explicit. The mainline of difference between the freedom of the press and
freedom of expression for an individual is that an individual can’t communicate
to masses on his own, but a press can by means of its publications on various
mediums like print, broadcasts, electronic, etc. Thus, freedom to spread
information is an intrinsic part of freedom of the press.

Freedom to criticize

The press, just like individuals, have the liberty to criticize the government, its
officials, its policies, its actions, its laws, its statements, etc. However, the press
cannot abuse this right and cannot provoke the public against the government
or cannot abet riots, rebels, or mutiny or insecurity of the state or the
government.

Freedom to receive the information

Again, the heart of the liberty to press. If the press is not equipped with the
information, it cannot empower the public with the knowledge and thus, the
right of expression will become futile because there will be no access to
information on whose basis anything can be expressed.
Freedom to conduct interview

This right is necessary to bring in first hand knowledge from the experts on the
particular subjects and to enlighten the society at large. Though this right is not
absolute, there are three caveats to it as follow:

1. Interview will only take place on the consent of the interviewee;

2. Interview shall stop when the interviewee wants to it to be;
3. Interviewer can’t force the interviewee to answer any question against
his/her will.

Freedom to report court proceedings

In the words of Jeremy Bentham, “the soul of justice is publicity”. In Sahara

India Real Estate Corpn ltd v SEBI, SC held that it is the right of the media to
report the judicial proceedings. In Saroj Iyer v Maharashtra Medical (Council) of
Indian Medicine, SC held that the right to print faithful reports of the legal
proceedings witnessed is available even if it is against quasi-judicial tribunals.

Freedom to attend and report legislative proceedings

Article 361 of the Constitution equips us with the right of publishing a kosher
report of the parliamentary proceedings. The only limitation of this freedom is
that there should be no mala fide intention behind such publications. When the
right of reporting of legislative proceedings which is implicitly envisaged in the
right of expression (A.19) is in discord with parliamentary privileges (A.105 and
A. 194), the right of speech and expression shall overshadow the parliamentary
privileges. Today it is mandatory to do a live telecast of the parliamentary
proceedings.

Freedom to act as an advertising platform

We know that the major income of most of the presses comes from the
advertisement, whether it is a radio, or news channel, or mobile application, or
newspaper. It was after Tata Press v Mahanagar Telephone Nigam that SC
incorporated the right to advertisement as a part of the right to freedom of
expression.
Freedom to broadcast

In the modern age of technology, power to broadcast is essential as it is one of

the major channels to spread information. This right not only includes
broadcasting on news channels, radios, but also on the internet like websites,
blogs, mobile applications. We have witnessed some of the most reliable
journalism on these platforms like Alt News, ThePrint, TheWire, Quint, etc.

Reasonable Limitations of Press’ Freedom

We know that unrestricted freedom, that is, liberty without any reasonable
restrictions on it always hampers the very purpose of granting that freedom in
the first place, that is to empower the individuals as it backfires and makes the
rights of individual collapse with one another. As freedom of press derives its
powers from Article 19(1)(a), it is also subject to the reasonable limitations
imposed on A.19(1)(a) under A19(2) which are explained as follow:

Sovereignty and integrity of the state

It was inserted by an amendment to control the extreme reactions of the

people, who were protesting for separate entities of the different regions of
India. Any form of speech or any expression which hampers the sovereignty or
integrity of the state would be covered under this restriction. The right of
freedom to speech and expression can’t be allowed to be used as a weapon
against the sovereignty or integrity of the state.

At this juncture, it is essential to take cognisance of the fact that ‘sedition’ is no

ground to impose reasonable restrictions as envisaged under Article 19(2) of
the Constitution.

Security of the state

The freedom of expression cannot be exercised in a way so that it becomes a
threat to the security of the state in any manner. Any communication which
incites the people to cause social unrest, rebels, violence, riots, etc against the
state and its subjects would be covered under this restriction.

In State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi, SC held that the speeches made by any
person (citizen or non-citizen) which encourage the people to commit offences
like dacoity, murder, robbery, etc is without a doubt a threat to the security of
the state. Hence such a speech will be considered as a prejudice towards the
sovereignty or integrity of the state, and the order to stop or curtail such
communication is covered under reasonable restrictions of A.19(2).

Public Order

This term was inserted by the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951. This
clause was added to curtail the effects of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras
where the SC had held that the right to circulation is an intrinsic organ of Right
to freedom of expression.

The term “public order” has a broad meaning and covers a multitude of actions
which may endanger the security of the state. In Madhu Limaye v Sub Divisional
Magistrate Monghyr SC held that the term “public order” can be construed as
“no insurrections or riots or disturbance to public peace.”

In Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP the constitutionality of the Section 295A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) was being questioned. The argument advanced was
that the mentioned section infringes the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression guaranteed under Part III in Article 19(1)(a) under the Constitution.
The petitioner, who was the printer, publisher and the editor was held guilty of
offenses under Section 295A of the IPC. Further, it was contended that this
section has no protection under the reasonable restrictions of A.19(2) of the
constitution. The SC dismissed this argument and held that if an individual by
exercising his/her right the freedom of expression causes public disorder, then
he or she can be prosecuted under the mentioned section which comes within
the purview of reasonable restrictions.

Decency or morality
For preserving the decency or morality in the country, the state has the
authority to limit the freedom of speech and expression of an individual. Further
elaboration of this ground is reflected in Sections 292 to 294 of the IPC. The
mentioned sections list down some acts as crime such as selling obscene
publications to young individuals, making indecent gestures in Public places etc.
In Ranjit Udeshi v State of Maharashtra SC held that the S. 292 of IPC is
constitutional as it prohibits obscenity in public places and promulgates public
decency and morality. It was further supplemented in Chandrakant Kalyandas
Kakodkar v State of Maharashtra by SC that while tackling the question of
decency and morality, the court has to consider the proposition as to whether or
not the indecent or immoral acts were sufficient to pollute the mind of the
young individuals or is there a possibility that their minds would become
depraved.

Contempt of Court

There is no doubt that freedom of speech and expression is very crucial for
societal development, but on the other hand, providing and maintaining justice
and equity is also equally substantial. Though, the freedom of speech and
expression reckons but it can’t be wielded to cancel out courts’ actions of
justice.

The SC under Article 129 & the HCs under Article 215 of the constitution is
empowered to take punitive actions for contempt of court. It was further held in
C.K. Daphtary v O.P. Gupta it was held that the S.228 of IPC and A.129 of the
constitution are valid and are covered within the purview of reasonable
restrictions enshrined in Article 19(2) of the constitution. Thus,we can infer from
the above discussion that the freedom of speech and expression is prone to
Articles 19(2), 129, and 215 of the constitution.

Defamation

Article 19(1)(a) in no manner gives a license to cause damage to the reputation

of a person in the name of freedom of speech and expression. Causing damage
to an individual’s reputation is considered as defamation and is a stringent
limitation to the right of freedom of speech and expression.
No one is allowed to expose a person to hate, ridicule or contempt by means of
any expression, signs or gestures. Defamation is considered as a very stringent
act and therefore it is prohibited by the Civil Laws of Torts.Also, it is an offense
under S. 499 of the IPC. As something is enshrined as wrong under two
statutes, it is obvious that it has a defense under reasonable restrictions of
Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Friendly relations with Foreign states.

Just like with the term “public order”, this ground was also inserted in Article
19(2) of the Constitution via Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. This
main objective of incorporating this restriction was to counter the antagonistic
and mala fide propaganda against any foreign country which may have friendly
connections with the Republic of India.

Such activities can jeopardize the government’s efforts to promulgate and

maintain friendly relations with foreign nations and bring lucrative results out of
those results for India. In Jagan Nath v Union of India, SC held that all
commonwealth countries are foreign countries for the purpose of Article 19 (2).
However, another fact to take cognisance of is that, members of the
commonwealth countries including Pakistan aren’t the members of foreign
states for the purpose of the Indian constitution.

Incitement to an offense

As per the criminal jurisprudence, the act of incitement or abetment to an

offense is a distinct and independent offense per se. Exercising the freedom of
speech and expression to incite an offense would be considered as a threat to
the public order.

Just like the terms “public order” and “friendly relations with foreign states”, this
ground of reasonable restriction was incorporated in the constitution via the
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. In State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi, it
was held by SC that any communication which leads to incitement of any
criminal act can be restricted and any order for such ban will fall within the
purview of reasonable restrictions envisaged in Article 19(2) of constitution.
The above-mentioned seven grounds of reasonable restrictions act as a line in
the sand for the demarcation of the right to freedom of speech and expression
which also includes the right to freedom of press. So, one can infer that the
right to free press prevails within the boundaries of reasonable restrictions
enshrined in Article 19(2) of the constitution.

Conclusion
Currently, India’s rank in the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without
Borders is 140th amongst 180 countries. This rank has taken some serious
declines in the last decade from 133 to 136 in 2017; 136 to 138 in 2018; 138 to
140 in 2019. This dip is due to the beating, prosecution and even deaths of
journalists on the line of work. We often see videos of journalists getting
lynched and being publicly beaten for trying to expose politicians or government
officials. This shows some serious concern pertaining to the freedom given to
press in the country with the world’s biggest Constitution and bureaucratic
setup.

Press is supposed to be the voice of the public to the government, but in

modern times, a contrast to this can be observed, where some of the major
mainstream media houses are marketing the politicals parties while criticizing
the oppositions parties and not discussing the relevant issues like public
welfare, corruption, analysis of government schemes, etc. Though it is also true
that forums like WhatsApp, YouTube, and Facebook which are totally
independent are have become prone to fake news leading to mob lynching,
fear-mongering, hate speech, propaganda spreading and indecency promoting,
which highlights the need of some reasonable restrictions of the press.

Though, without a shred of doubt, for preserving democracy and not promoting
informed citizenry in the nation, we have to give reasonable freedom to the
press. The present government has tried to curb this freedom by amending RTI
Act, Whistleblower Act, and proposing the Sedition Act in the parliament which
in the opinion of the author goes against the basic tenets of the constitution of
tearing apart the very fabric of democracy