Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi (1950)
Syllabus: Polity and Governance (UPSC GS II)
Case Overview
Case No: Petition No. XXIX of 1950
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India (Original Jurisdiction)
Date of Judgment: 26 May 1950
Bench: Chief Justice Sir Saiyid Fazl Ali, Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justice B.K. Mukherjea, and Justice S.R. Das
Petitioner: Brij Bhushan
Respondent: State of Delhi
Provisions Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and Section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949
Introduction
The Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi (1950) case is a landmark judgment safeguarding freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that pre-censorship of press content amounts to a direct violation of this fundamental right unless justified by a clear and immediate threat to public order. The case reaffirmed the essential role of free press in a democratic society.
Background & Facts
Brij Bhushan (printer and publisher) and K.R. Halkani (editor) of The Organizer, an English weekly, were directed under Section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act to submit for pre-censorship all material related to Pakistan before publication.
They challenged the order as unconstitutional, asserting it infringed upon their freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The government defended the order as necessary to maintain public safety and order, arguing that the published material threatened state security.
Issues Raised
- Whether Section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 is constitutionally valid.
- Whether pre-censorship of newspapers violates the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
Relevant Legal Provisions
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty.
- Section 7(1)(c), East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949: Authorizes the government to impose pre-publication scrutiny on content deemed prejudicial to public safety or order.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that Section 7(1)(c) imposed unconstitutional pre-censorship and violated Article 19(1)(a).
Citing Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950), the Court reiterated that freedom of speech includes the freedom to publish and circulate opinions.
The Court clarified that restrictions under Article 19(2) are valid only when there is a clear threat to public order or state security — not mere administrative convenience.
Hence, the Court struck down the order and upheld the petitioners’ right to publish freely.
Significance
- Reinforced freedom of the press as part of the fundamental right to free expression.
- Established that prior restraint (pre-censorship) on the press is unconstitutional unless justified under Article 19(2).
- Laid the foundation for India’s press freedom jurisprudence.
Conclusion
Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi (1950) stands as a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law. It reaffirmed that freedom of speech and press is vital to democracy, and any restriction must meet the strict tests of necessity and reasonableness. This judgment continues to guide debates on media regulation and state control over expression.
