Safeguarding The Interests Of Media Industry Practitioner & Guaranteeing Freedom Of Speech And Expression
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF MEDIA INDUSTRY
PRACTITIONER & GUARANTEEING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION Prof. Dr. Bharathi S, Professor, School of Law, Dayananda University, Bengaluru Dr. Aravinda H.T, Assistant Professor, Visveswarapura College of Law, Bengaluru
1.0 Introduction
India continues to veer closer to socialism than capitalism. The socialist system places the state at the center of economic power, governed by bureaucracy, which, while claiming to protect individuals from repression and to act in the interests of all, ultimately results in the closure of factories due to inefficiency or apathy. In contrast, the capitalist approach promotes economic power concentration and stifles individual liberty. Indeed, there are more people who support giving the sector a free hand than who oppose it in the current situation, when India is rapidly moving toward liberalism. The current makeup of the 16th Lok Sabha, where socialist representation has decreased, likewise reflects this tendency.
But when it comes to safeguarding the interests of the workforce, there don't appear to be any two standards because both the government and the highest court have expressed a strong concern for their welfare. In 1958, a court ruling established that the government could regulate the wages of journalists and other press industry workers. This regulation has no bearing on the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, and the media is treated similarly to other industries in this regard. Until this date, the court has not altered its ruling. This paper aims to analyze the cases that have been determined by the judiciary from this perspective. Laborer exploitation, whether skilled or unskilled, is not a recent development. It has been an issue on a global scale.
Following its independence, India enacted a Constitution that addressed the welfare of the populace and successfully achieved a balance between social interests and individual rights. The term "Socialist" has been inserted to the Constitution's preamble by the 42nd Amendment. Numerous laborer-friendly movements have also been started in India.
As a welfare state, the government takes every precaution to ensure the well-being of its workforce, going above and above in this regard. Legislation is designed to protect workers from exploitation and to improve their working conditions; courts have been quick to construe these laws in favor of these goals. Regretfully, nevertheless, the state of the workforce has not improved. Many people have fled their homes in quest of job, and many more have been compelled to return to their hometowns in order to find work. The government and the judiciary have made significant efforts and passed numerous laws1, but the situation of the working class—including those employed in the newspaper industry—has not improved to a satisfactory degree. In the age of globalization, it is expected that the market be let to control its own operations while taking into account the competitive environment.
The government's sole remaining responsibility is to assist the market by providing the bare minimum of regulatory frameworks. It becomes particularly crucial in the case of the media since, under article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the government may impede on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to press sector personnel in order to defend their interests. Since the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes freedom of the press, the Supreme Court2 has ruled that certain government actions that have an impact on the press or how it operates, whether directly or indirectly, violate the aforementioned Article. In terms of press freedom, the court has exercised extreme caution.
The Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act3, 19554 (henceforth referred to as "the Act") was a piece of legislation passed by the Parliament with the intention of improving working conditions for journalists and other non-journalists employed by newspaper establishments. Nevertheless, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court5 upheld the Act's legality.
1 Brij Bhushan v. Delhi, AIR1950SC129
2 Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 can be referred to as an example of an indirect interference on the part of the government. In the name of making a policy of fair and equitable distribution of the imported newsprint, the government imposed certain restrictions on the use and number of pages of the big newspapers having considerable circulation. 3 After the amendment in 1974 the Act has been renamed as the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.
4 Anshuman Mishra, “Freedom of Press-Emerging Challenges” (2) Journal of the Media Studies 1(2012).
5 The courts have derived it from the right to know which is an essential part of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, since without adequate information, a person cannot form an informed opinion. See State of U.P. v Raj
2.0 The Act does not concern to tabloid staff employed with e-media
The definition of "working journalists6" does not include television journalists or employees of such organizations, therefore journalists who deal with electronic media are exempt from the Act's obligations. A person who works for a newspaper establishment7 is referred to as a "working journalist" under the Act. A journalist with a news channel operating in the Northeast has filed a writ case with the Delhi High Court. The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, has been amended to include journalists working with electronic media, and the union government has been asked to revise and broaden its reach.
It has been correctly argued that the aforementioned act's blatant disregard for article 14 of the Constitution occurs when a journalist uses electronic media and is not included in the definition of a working journalist.
3.0 Forming the Statute
Newspapers in India were initially started by prominent figures from the country's political, social, and economic spheres. Large businessmen didn't begin to invest in newspapers until the first part of the 20th century. It quickly assumed the form of an industry and began to exhibit traits of a profitable sector. Numerous businesses owned numerous large newspapers that were Narain, AIR1975SC865; Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express, AIR1989SC190; Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR1995SC1236; Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (1997)4 SCC 306; and Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, AIR2001Del126.
On the question of the availability of the fundamental right under article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, the court has decided various cases in which it has categorically been held that the relief under the article can be granted to the petitioner companies claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. See Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1959] S. C. R. 12; Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1962] 3 S. C. R. 842; R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 S. C. R. 530 and Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR1973SC106. Minority opinion of Mukherjea J in Chiranjit Lal Choudhuri v. The Union of India [1950] S. C. R. 869, can also be taken note of where he says that an incorporated company can come up to this court for enforcement of fundamental rights 6 S.
2(f) of the Act defines the term "working journalist" which means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such, either whole-time or part-time, in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishments, and includes an editor, a leader- writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copytester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such person who-- (i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; (g) all words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act.
7 S. 2 (dd) of the amended Act defines the term "non-journalist newspaper employee" which means a person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, but does not include any such person who-- (i) is a working journalist, or (ii) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. dispersed around the nation. Affected by the development were journalists who were still in the field.
All segments of that workforce group demanded that policies pertaining to the well-being of working journalists—that is, their pay and salaries, retirement benefits, dearness allowance and other allowances, leave policies, and terms of service—be investigated by an unbiased body or authority that would have the authority to establish fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for working journalists as a group. Committees were established in 1947 by the Uttar Pradesh government, in 1948 by the Central Provinces government, and in Berar to investigate the working conditions of newspaper industry employees in the province and state, respectively. The committees offered some suggestions, but the issue still needed to be handled.
The Prime Minister promised to form a commission or committee including press representatives to look into the condition and content of the press during the Parliamentary debate of the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, 1951. The Press (Incitement to Crimes) Bill, which was subsequently renamed the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1952, was the subject of discussion during the Parliamentary debate. During its April 1952 session in Calcutta, the Indian Federation of Working Journalists passed a resolution calling for the creation of a committee to investigate the state of the Indian press. In the end, on September 23, 1952, the Indian government announced the establishment of the press commission, which was to be chaired by G. S. Rajadhyaksha J. On July 14, 1954, the commission concluded its investigation and turned in its report.
12 It was thought that a journalist ought to be paid a minimum salary. The panel evaluated whether the 1947 Industrial Disputes Act8 applied to working journalists and gave a negative response. Parliament passed the Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes) Act, 1955 (I of 1955) in response to the Press Commission's report. Section 3 of the Act stipulated that working journalists would be subject to the same provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as workmen within the meaning of that Act. But, it was deemed insufficient, and in response to pressure for the Press Commission's recommendations to be put into effect, the union government on November 30, 1955, introduced Bill Number 13 of 1955, which regulated the terms of service for working 8 S.
2 (g) says that all words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act. journalists and other employees of newspaper establishments, in the Rajya Sabha. Nearly all of the press commission's recommendations regarding minimum notice periods, bonuses, Sunday rest, leave, provident funds, gratuities9, and other matters were included in the bill; however, the determination of minimum wage rates was left to a minimum wage board that the Central Government would create specifically for that purpose. The commission proposed that the requirements of certain other laws, such as the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 (20 of 1946), be applied to establishments that were larger than a specific minimum size.
The word "minimum" was removed from the Bill whenever it appeared during the Rajya Sabha's deliberations. The proposed adjustment was made by the Minister for Labour. He gave the following explanation for discontinuing the same: Remove the phrase "minimum" and replace it with a legitimate wage board that will thoroughly examine this issue. Now, based on my personal experience with wage-related industrial disputes, I think that if it is done, it will effectively end the salary struggle for working journalists going forward. Consequently, the Act was created.
4.0 Prerogative of the serving reporters
The Act offers working journalists additional rights and benefits over and beyond those stipulated in regular labor welfare laws. The primary provisions of the Act are the payment of fixed wages and a few unique safeguards. In addition, the Act mandates that management pay employees regardless of its ability to do so financially. In addition to the definitions specified in the Act, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 definitions also apply to the Act insofar as they pertain to the interpretation of the labor difficulties faced by working journalists, as per the provisions of sections 3 and 2(g). The interests listed below are safeguarded by the Act:
4.1 Notice duration in the event of layoffs
According to Section 3 of the Act, an editor will have a notice term of six months in the event of a layoff, while all other working journalists will have a notice period of three months. 9 The section provided that if an employee voluntarily leaves the service after a period of 3 years in service, he shall be entitled for gratuity. The section imposed an unreasonable restriction
4.2 Disbursement of Fringe Benefit
A working journalist who has been let go without being disciplined, retires from the company at the age of superannuation, voluntarily leaves the company, or passes away while still employed is entitled to a gratuity from the employer upon any of these events. This gratuity is equal to fifteen days' average pay for each year of service completed, or any portion of it that exceeds six months. A working journalist may designate someone else to receive the gratuity under Section 5A. If such a nomination is proposed, only that person will be eligible to get the gratuity unless he passes away before the journalist.
4.3 Work Hours
In compliance with the terms of the Act, a working journalist may or may not be allowed to work no more than 144 hours in any four consecutive weeks. During any seven-day workweek, these journalists are entitled to at least 24 hours of rest. Meals are not included in the 144 hours of work.
4.4 Leave of Absence
According to Section 7 of the Act, every working journalist is entitled to earned leave on full wages for at least one-eleventh of the time spent on duty, as well as leave on medical certificate on half of the wages for at least one-eighteenth of the period of service. This is in addition to any holidays, casual leave, or other types of leave that may be prescribed.
4.5 Fixation and revision of rates of wages of working journalists
Journalists who are employed have a right to a fixed salary that will be increased annually. According to clause 8 of the Act, the Central Government is responsible for setting and modifying salaries. This role will be carried out by a wage board that is established under section 9 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act gives the Central Government the authority to impose the wage board's recommendations. The working journalists are entitled to fixed wages under section 13, which must not be less than the rates mentioned in the order. According to the section, every working journalist has the right to receive pay from his employer at a rate that will never be less than the wage rate set forth in an order issued by the Central Government under section 12.
4.6 Fixing or changing the pay rates for newspaper staff who are not journalists
Following the Act's 1974 revision, the Central Government may also set and change the pay rates for non-journalist newspaper staff under section 13 B of the Act. This will be accomplished by a distinct wage board10 that the Central Government will establish in accordance with section 13 C of the Act. By virtue of the provisions of section 13D, the board established under section 13C must be subject to and governed by the provisions of sections
10 to 13A. Furthermore, the Central Government may create a tribunal under section 13DD to
determine or amend wage rates for non-journalists if it believes the Board established under section 13C has not been able to operate properly.
4.7 Application of specific laws to employees of newspapers
In order to provide protection for newspaper personnel, Chapter III of the Act applies certain enactments to them. Every newspaper establishment where twenty or more newspaper employees or persons are employed is subject to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 194621 and The Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952.
4.8 Additional protections included in the Act
The Act's Chapter IV offers newspaper employees a number of crucial protections. An agreement made by a newspaper employee in violation of the Act's restrictions is voidable under Section 16. It states that the Act's provisions will take force regardless of anything in conflict with them found in other laws or in the conditions of any award, agreement, or service contract, whether they were made before or after the Act's start. Nonetheless, the newspaper employee may acquire such benefits in relation to an issue if such an agreement, etc. , is more advantageous to him.
Section 16A ensures that no employer may fire, retrench, or discharge any newspaper employee due to his obligation to pay wages to newspaper employees at the rates outlined in a Central Government order under section 12, or under section 12 read with section 13AA or section 10 The wage board consists of (a) two persons representing employers in relation to newspaper establishments; (b) two persons representing working journalists; (c) three independent persons, one of whom should be a person who is, or has been, a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court (who has to act as the chairman of the wage board). Under section 11 of the wage board has powers of an industrial tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).
13DD. A newspaper employee may pursue reimbursement from his employer through the government by adhering to the terms of section 17. The sum must be recouped using the same process as recovering land revenue arrears. If there is disagreement about the amount, the state government may, either on its own initiative or in response to an application, submit the case to a labor court that it established in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 194711. Employers are required by Section 17 B of the Act to create and keep muster rolls, records, and registers in the ways that may be specified.
5.0 Confronting the Legal Provisions
The people in charge of the newspaper industry believed that their right to free speech had been violated by the passage of this legislation. As a result, the Act was contested on the grounds that the government had interfered with press freedom. The Act's sections 8 through 11, which deal with how wage rates are set and how to apply them to journalists who are employed, were the primary parts that were contested. As previously mentioned, Section 8 of the Act gives the Federal Government the authority to fix or revise wage rates. Additionally, Section 9 of the Act requires the Federal Government to establish a wage board in order to fix or revise wage rates with regard to employed reporters. By notification dated May 2, 1956, the Central Government created a wage board under section
9 of the Act with the objective of determining wage rates for working journalists in accordance
with the Act's provisions. Equal representation from employers of newspaper businesses and active journalists make up the board. The pay board considered several factors before determining the wages. A series of petitions under article 32 of the Constitution called into question the constitutionality of the Act and the decisions made by the pay board it formed. The Act was challenged as unconstitutional since it was claimed to have violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14, Clauses (a) & (g) of Article 19 (1), and Article 32 of the Constitution. Press freedom is vital, the Supreme Court said, and the provisions of the Act did not infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14, and/or
32. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the part in section 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Act was
11 According to the provisions of s. 3 of the Act, though the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do apply in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, the period of notice given to workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable to the working journalists. unconstitutional because it infringed upon the basic right protected by A. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
6.0 Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
The court provided the following justifications for upholding the Act's provisions in accordance with Article 19(1)(a): This means that the primary goal of the contested Act is to regulate the terms of service. If this is the actual character of the Act, it is impossible to claim that the Act's intended purpose or mode of operation was to interfere with the petitioners' right to free speech and expression. It is clear that the purpose of this measure's enactment is to improve working conditions for employees in the newspaper sector. Furthermore, since employers could have to shoulder a larger financial burden than they did previously or because the way the industry operates might be affected, it could not be claimed that there was any hidden agenda behind the implementation of such a regulation.
These are all unintended consequences that might show up in the way the industry operates in the future, but it cannot be said that the Legislature intended for these consequences to arise when it passed the legislation in an effort to improve working conditions for employees. The petitioners' real argument is that the challenged Act's goals and outcomes do not aim to restrict or deny their right to free speech and expression, regardless of the steps made to assist working journalists.
7.0 Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution
The court came to the conclusion that the Act did not impose unreasonable limits by creating a wage board with the intention of regulating wages, except for section 5 (1)(a)(iii) of the Act. The provisions of Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) of the Constitution served as the foundation for the court's determination of the Act's validity. The court expressed its opinions as follows: However, in the event that an employee leaves the company voluntarily after barely three years of employment, there will be no basis for giving him a gratuity, and any clause of the like included in s. 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Act would be irrational.
Thus, we conclude that this clause unnecessarily restricts the petitioners' ability to conduct business and could be declared unconstitutional. The Act's provisions pertaining to work hours and reasonableness in light of the type and caliber of work performed by employed journalists were maintained by the Supreme Court. Regarding the factors that go into the Wage Board's wage rate fixing, the court restated its findings as follows: The Wage Board, which is chaired by an independent individual and consists of an equal number of representatives from newspaper establishments and working journalists, makes it impossible to claim that the regulations in this regard are in any way inappropriate. The ability of the industry to pay must be taken into account, among other factors, according to the principles for the Wage Board's guidance in fixing such rates of wages.
It's possible that the Wage Board's judgment was made without taking into account some of the crucial factors outlined in Section 9(1) of the Act, or that the Wage Board's process went against the fundamentals of natural justice. However, that would only have an impact on the decision's validity and not the Wage Board's constitution, which, as we've seen, cannot be challenged on this basis.
8.0 Article 14 of the Constitution
It was contended that the Act gave working journalists preferential treatment by fixing their salaries outside of the standard procedure specified in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and by giving them a statutory guarantee of leave, hours worked, and gratuity—a benefit that other people in similar or comparable employment did not receive. The court made the following observations in rejecting the argument12: Labouring reporters can therefore be considered a distinct group from other employees of newspaper businesses, and if legislation was implemented by the Legislature to improve their working circumstances, it was not discriminatory in any way. In this way, they might be picked out for special treatment in comparison to other newspaper employees. Such a classification could not fall under Art. 14's prohibition.
The only thing that is forbidden by this article is that individuals who belong to a specific class or group cannot be treated differently from one another, and this law cannot be accused of doing so. If this subset of working journalists received preferential treatment, there would be no room for criticism that they should
12 Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. v. The Union of India, AIR1958SC578, at 631.
have had special legislation passed for their benefit or that they should have had apparatus built specifically to fix their pay rates at a rate lower than that of other workers under the terms of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. Without such limitations, it would be possible to enact laws governing the payment of gratuities and retrenchment compensation, the regulation of their work hours, and the establishment of their wage rates in relation to other employees of newspaper establishments. It would also be possible to devise a mechanism for determining their wage rates by creating a wage board specifically for that purpose.
9.0 Article 32 of the Constitution
The petitioners' sole argument about the alleged breach of article 3213 was that the Act's failure to require the wage board to explain reasons for its ruling made it more challenging for them to appeal the Supreme Court. Additionally, it was argued that the lack of such a provision in the legislation amounted to an attempt to curtail or undermine the right to petition the Supreme Court, given that article 3214 recognizes the ability to petition the Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari as a basic right. It was not feasible to petition the court for the issuance of a writ of certiorari in the absence of a spoken order, or an order revealing the reasons for the request. Upon closer examination, the court discovered that there is no clause in the statute requiring to provide justification for the ruling.
In rejecting argument, the court noted below: It is undeniably true that if the impugned Act contained any language prohibiting the Wage Board from providing justification for its ruling, it could be interpreted to imply that the Wage Board's15 decision could not be a speaking order and that the petitioners would never be able to obtain a writ of certiorari in this regard. It is also true that in that scenario, the petitioners' complaints would not be able to be addressed by this Court through the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, and citizens' basic right to petition this Court under Article 3216 of the Constitution would be nullified. However, as things stand in this particular case, the contested Act does not contain any such provision. The Wage Board is not required by the contested Act to provide a justification for its ruling.
The Wage Board is free to choose whether or not to provide the reasoning for its choice. We are
13 DD Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis
14 Ibid
15 Two separate wage boards were constituted. One for the working journalists and the other for the non-journalist news paper employees under ss. 9 and 13-C of the Act respectively, under the chairmanship of Gurbax Rai Majithia
16 Supra Note 13, Pg 9
unable to conclude that the petitioners' fundamental right granted under Article 32 was attempted to be violated in any way if there is no such ban.
9.1 Defiance of the resolution of the wage board
The petitioners not only contested the Act's constitutionality but also contended that the wage board's ruling was illegal and void. Under the circumstances, it was not possible to dispute the wage board's judgment on the grounds that the petitioners' basic rights were violated by the decision itself, or that the impugned Act under which it was issued was supra vires. In light of this, the court determined that the challenge could only be filed under the third defense, which holds that the ruling is outside the bounds of the Act. In this context, it was asserted that no consideration of any kind was given to the wage board's decision to establish the wage rates. The contention in support of the disagreement was the panel's judgment is unconstitutional and void because it failed to apply the correct criteria and violated natural justice principles.
The Apex Court ruled stated that the wage panels verdict was done beyond one’s legal power or authority and stated that by taking this course, all of the board associates appeared to have forgotten that the industry's ability to pay was a necessary precondition for determining the wage structure. This establishes a decisive error in the board's outcome. Naturally, we would not have been willing to accept the situation if we had been confident that the Board had taken this part of it into consideration. However, there is no getting around the finding that the Board breached section 9's necessary condition in this case, as it completely neglected a crucial requirement for fixing the pay structure. As a result, the Board's decision violates ultra vires the Act itself.
In circumstances such as these, when special Boards are established to establish wage structures, this Court would ordinarily decline to convene as an appellate court on factual issues. By attending this workshop, all of the Board members seem to have forgotten how important it is to consider the industry's ability to pay when deciding on the compensation structure. If we had been convinced that the Board had taken this aspect of the case into account, we would not have been willing to accept any challenge to the decision's validity on the grounds that the capacity to pay had not been appropriately appraised. In situations like this, where special Boards are set up to set salary structures, this Court would normally reject to assemble as an appeal court.
However, in this particular case, a prerequisite for the establishment of a wage structure has been entirely disregarded, making it impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Board has violated section 9's mandatory requirement and, as a result, its decision is outside the bounds of the law.
10.0 Finale
In every industry, employers and employees are never on an equal basis. There is a huge disparity. When it comes to their rights and interests, employers cannot be allowed to act freely. It is evident from the fact that the court made the following observation when it heard an argument that electronic media is expanding quickly because it is not constrained by antiquated legislation like the Act and can make decisions on the employees that work for them. The advent of electronic media has presented additional challenges for the newspaper industry, similar to those that the Press Commission detailed in the Express Newspaper (P) Ltd17.
Therefore, the need for a pay board for working journalists and other newspaper employees in the newspaper industry is supported by the petitioners' assertion that, despite the rise of the newspaper industry, that of electronic media is actually developing at a relatively exponential rate. In 1955, the Act was passed into law. To date, there have been several amendments made to the same. Since the Act's creation, the pay boards established under its provisions have also been challenged, but the court has consistently maintained the legality of the Act's provisions—with the exception of a small number of extremely minor ones. It demonstrates how the government and the Supreme Court have both taken the necessary actions to defend the welfares of employees in the newspaper segment, and ideally employees in the electronic media will also have access to a comparable level of protection.
17 AIR1958SC578, the judgement was delivered by a constitution bench. The court reiterated its earlier view that the Act was a beneficent legislation intended to regulate the conditions of service of the working journalists and it did not have the effect of taking away or abridging the freedom of speech and expression of the petitioners (employers) and did not, therefore, infringe art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court also held the Act not in violation of the provisions of art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in view of the test of reasonableness laid down by it. On the alternative challenge to the constitutionality of the Act, that selecting working journalists for giving favoured treatment is violative of art. 14 as it is not a reasonable classification as permissible in the aforesaid art. , the court held that the newspaper industry can be treated as a separate class.
So far as the challenge to the constitutionality of the Amendment Act, 1974 is concerned