Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
The case of Sakal Papers v. Union of India, which was decided asfar back as 1961 , raised questions of far reaching constitutional importance which have yet not been satisfactorily answered. Three of the critical questions raised in that case have been addressed in this paper: first , the exact nature and scope of free
4 Ιουλ 2024 · In the 1962 case of Sakal Papers Ltd vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and its 1960 Order, which regulated the pricing and page limits of newspapers to control advertising space.
The case of Sakal Papers v. Union of India, which was decided as far back as 1961, raised questions of far reaching constitutional importance which have yet not been satisfactorily answered.
The second and third petitions are preferred by two readers of "Sakal" who also challenge the constitutionality of the Act. Certain parties were allowed to intervene. They supported the Union of India, the respondent, in all these petitions and sought to uphold the validity of the Act and the Order.
21 Φεβ 2023 · The case of ‘ Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1961)’ is considered a landmark case on freedom of press in India. In this case, three petitions wherein the constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960, was questioned.
5 Απρ 2024 · In the Sakal Papers case, the Supreme Court of India struck down the provisions of the 1956 and 1960 Acts, holding them unconstitutional. This case marked a milestone in the development of constitutional law in India, specifically concerning the freedom of speech and expression.
survive, will fall within the mischief of article 19 (1) (a). In Sakal Papers v. Union of Indiai 7 the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 was held to be unconstitutional. The order sought to regulate the number of pages according to the price charged. The restriction was held to violate the freedom under article 19 (1) (a) and was not ...
