To struggle against censorship, whatever its nature, and whatever the power under which it exists, is my duty as a writer, as are calls for freedom of the press. I am a passionate supporter of that freedom, and I consider that if any writer were to imagine that he could prove he didn't need that freedom, then he would be like a fish affirming in public that it didn't need water.” - Mikhail Bulgakov

Why is there a need to study freedom of press differently than freedom of expression?
Journalism is considered as forth pillar of democracy, the other three being legislature, executive and judiciary. Freedom of press is seen as foundation of democratic society. A free exchange of ideas, free exchange of information and knowledge, debating and expression of different viewpoints is important for smooth functioning of democracy. This will enable people to take informed decisions. only when there is a churning of different thoughts and information, people will be able to exercise their rights as questioning decisions of government. Such environment can be created only when freedom of press is achieved.

Journalism which was previously limited only to press, now includes even electronic media. Freedom of press includes freedom of writing, printing, drawing, pictures, film, movie, word of mouth etc. It includes freedom of communication & right to express opinion. All forms of expression are covered under this article.

During the pre-independence period, i.e. during the reign of the British, Indian Press had faced several restraints. Acts like Indian Press Act, 1910 & Indian Press (Emergency) Act etc resulted in curtailing the freedom of press. During the second world war the conditions worsened. After Independence , there were fundamental changes in the perspective towards freedom of press.

Legal provisions and constitution take upon responsibility to protect freedom of press. In India, freedom of press is not expressly protected by Indian legal system but it is impliedly protected under article 19(1) (a) of the constitution, which states - All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, since no freedom can be absolute, even right to freedom of press is also not absolute. Freedom of press is also not absolute. It faces certain restrictions under article 19(2), which is as follows-
Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 provides a mechanism to investigate alleged corruption and misuse of power by public servants. It aims at protecting anyone who exposes alleged wrongdoing in government bodies, projects and offices. The wrongdoing includes fraud, corruption or mismanagement. This act indirectly protects journalists practicing investigative journalism.

Maharashtra was the first and the only state to enact a bill to protect journalists.
Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2017 any incident of violence against media persons or damage or loss of property of media persons or media institutions is punishable under this act.

Concept of Media Trial-
Judiciary commands respect and non interference from other spheres of society. Interference by media is neither desirable nor tolerable.

M. P. Lohia v State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 790, was related to suicide of wife due to her harassment for dowry. The lower court had rejected an application for grant of anticipatory bail. Special leave petition was pending before Supreme Court. An article was published in a magazine. It was based on an interview of the family of deceased, which extensively quoted the father of the deceased as to his version of the case which could all be material to be decided in forthcoming trial.

Supreme Court was of the view that such article appearing in media would interfere in functioning of judiciary. Supreme Court went further to caution the publisher, editor and the journalist, responsible for the said article, since they engaged in a trial by media, which is likely to affect reputation of the judiciary and judicial proceedings adversely.

Relationship between freedom of press and right to privacy-
The right to privacy emanates from natural rights, which are basic, inherent and inalienable rights. Article 21 which guarantees right to life guarantees right to privacy impliedly. Media has crossed its limits of fair reporting, specifically in cases sub judice.

Rajendra Sail v. M. P. High Court Bar Association - In the murder trial of Shankar Guha Niyogi, a trade union leader, the accused were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life except one who was awarded death sentence. on appeal, the High Court reversed the trial court judgment and acquitted the accused. A news report was published in newspaper 'Hitavada' on 4th July, 1998 under the caption 'Sail terms High Court decision in Niyogi murder case as rubbish’. That report was based on the speech delivered by appellant Rajendra Sail in a rally organized to commemorate the death of Shankar Guha Niyogi and interview given by him soon after the speech to appellant Ravi Pandey, the correspondent of the newspaper.

The news report stated that a Judge who was on verge of retirement should not have been entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with such a crucial case. It went further stating Rajendra Sail as saying that he was a key witness in the murder trial and in spite of engaging a well known advocate as public prosecutor nobody could have made much difference when the judges were already prejudiced and that he had substantial evidence to prove that one of the judges who decided the matter was bribed.The aforesaid news item led to initiation of contempt action on an application filed by Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar.

It was held that while the media can, in the public interest, resort to reasonable criticism of a judicial act or the judgment of a Court for public good, it should not cast scurrilous aspersions on, or impute improper motives or personal bias to the judge. Nor should they scandalize the Court or the judiciary as a whole, or make personal allegations of lack of ability or integrity against a judge. The judgments of Courts are public documents and can be commented upon, analyzed and criticized, but it has to be in a dignified manner without attributing motives.

Aarushi Talwar Murder Case-The brutal murder of 14 year old teenager at Noida – Supreme Court took a view that transparency and secrecy in an investigation are two different things. The apex court not only questioned a section of media but also CBI for reckless reporting. The reporting had resulted in tarnishing the reputation of the victim and her family members. It also affected ongoing judicial proceedings.
Taj attack case- 26/11 case- controversial role of media was questioned again.

Commercial Advertisements-
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India-The Supreme Court considered the question of whether advertisements protected under Art. 19(1)(a). In this case, Parliament enacted an Act with a view to control advertisements of drugs in certain cases. The Act was challenged on the ground that restrictions on advertisements was a direct abridgment of the freedom of expression. The Court stated that a true character of an advertisement is to be determined by the object which it seeks to promote.

An advertisement promoting drugs and commodities, the sale of which is not in public interest, could not be regarded as propagating any idea and, as such, could not claim the protection of Art. 19(1)(a). An advertisement meant to further business falls within the concept of trade and commerce and cannot be regarded as a part of freedom of speech.

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - The Supreme Court observed that all commercial advertisements cannot be denied the protection of Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution , merely because they are issued by businessmen. Advertising pays large portion of the costs of supplying the public with newspapers.

As one can see, the above two judgments seem conflicting , reading both the judgments together, the Supreme Court has concluded in Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., that ‘commercial speech’ cannot be denied the protection of Art. 19 (1)(a) merely because the same is issued by businessmen. The public has a right to receive the ‘commercial speech’.

Case laws-
1.Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others v The Union of India on 25 September, 1961-
Citation- 1962 AIR 305
The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 was challenged. As per the act, the Central Government could regulate the prices of newspapers as per their pages and size and could also regulate the allocation of space for advertising matters. The Act fixed the maximum number of pages that might be published by the newspaper according to the price charged and prescribing the nature of supplements that could be issued. The petitioners were required to increase the price of their newspaper if they were increasing the pages. on the other hand, if the petitioners were to reduce the price, they were required to decrease the number of pages.

The order was challenged as violative of the freedom of press, since its adoption meant either the reduction in the existing number of pages or raising the price. This amounted to directed infringement of the liberty of the press.

The Court held that the Act and the Order were void, being violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. They were also not saved by Article 19 (2).

2. K. A. Abbas v Union of India
Equivalent Citation- 1971 AIR 481, 1971 SCR (2) 446
K.A.Abbas wanted to screen his documentary- A Tale of Four Cities. The Film Board refused unrestricted screening of it, because it included scenes from a Bombay red-light district. The board asked Abbas to edit certain scenes if the documentary was to qualify for a screening certificate. Abbas refused to do so.
Abbas contended that the board was violating his freedom of expression.

This case was important since it focused on freedom of media .The Apex court held that such censorship was governed by the standards of reasonable restrictions within Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Article 19(2) explains reasonable restrictions on right to freedom. The absence of the word ‘reasonable’ in the Cinematograph Act was considered inconclusive in this regard. In this case, the word ‘reasonable’ was related to public order or tranquility. With respect to the issue of insufficient guidelines in the Act and the arbitrary exercise of powers under the Act, the Court found that the guidelines given under the Act read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution were sufficiently clear. The court also opined that the guidelines to differentiate between artistic expression and non-artistic expression in assessing obscenity. This alone was however considered insufficient to strike down the provisions of the Act.

Express Newspapers(Private) Ltd and another v Union of India and others
Equivalent citations: AIR 1958 SC 578, (1961) ILLJ 339 SC, (1964) ILLJ 9 SC, 1959 1 SCR 12
The constitutional validity of the Working journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, and the legality of the decision of the Wage Board, constituted there under, purporting to act under s. 9 of the Act was challenged. Working journalistsand Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 , provided for the payment of gratuity to a working journalist who had been in continuous service, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, for not less than three years, even when he voluntarily resigned from service, regulated hours of workand leave, provided for the payment of retrenchment compensationwith retrospective effect in certain cases and by S. 9(1)laid down the principles that the Wage Board was to follow in fixing the rates of wages of working journalists. Under those principles, the Wage Board was to have regard to the cost of living, the prevalent rates of wages for comparable employments, the circumstances relating to the newspaper industry in different regions of the country and to any other circumstances which it might consider relevant.

The petitioners contended on various grounds that the provisions of the impugned Act violated their fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14 and 32 of the Constitutionand that the decision of the Wage Board fixing the ratesand scales of wages, which wasarrived at withoutany consideration whatsoever as to the capacity of the newspaper industry to pay the same, imposed heavy a financial burden on the industry and spelled its total ruin and it transgressed the principles of natural justice Thus, the act be declared illegal and void.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned Act, with the sole exception of S. 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Act which infringed. Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The section in question was severable and the only ultra vires part of the act. Section 9(1) of the Act, properly construed, made it in cum- bent on the Wage Board to take into consideration the capacity of the newspaper to the industry to pay the rates and scales of wages recommended by it, thus the point that challenged validity of decisions of wage board was not accepted. Held, further, that there could be no doubt, in view ofthe interpretation of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by this Court, that liberty of the press was an essentialpart of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed bythat Article.

Conclusion
With due regard to the fact that there is abuse of freedom of press, it cannot be denied that freedom of press is the inalienable part of smooth functioning of democracy. It is responsibility of government as well as journalists to protect freedom of press. There is a need to come up with more legislative provisions and protective mechanisms that aim at achieving freedom of press. At the end I would like to quote Alex Morritt- “Oil may run out, liquidity may dry up, but as long as ink flows freely, the next chapter of Life will continue to be written."