The Bombay High Court’s bench at Aurangabad took suo-motu cognizance of newspaper reports regarding a circular signed by Chief Secretary Ajoy Mehta according to which print media was exempted from lockdown but home delivery of newspapers was prohibited.
While referring to news published in ‘Lokmat’ and ‘The Hindu’, the bench consisting of Justice PB Varale also took cognizance of a statement issued by Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray on twitter which states-.
“While we support its operation and the need to reach out to the people, we want to also ensure the highest safety from a virus that the world is still grappling with. The sale of print media newspapers, magazines and production is allowed at stalls/shops already established, as deemed fit by the media houses. We urge the media to refrain from home deliveries.”
Pointing towards the contradictory nature of the statement wherein on one hand print media is exempted from lockdown allowing them to continue with production and sale of newspapers and magazines at shops and stalls, the circular issued on the 18th of April prohibited the door to door delivery of the same the bench observed-
“One fails to understand, when the State Government is permitting the purchase of newspapers at the stalls and the shops established, as to why the door-to-door delivery of the newspapers is prohibited. If the State Government is permitting the public general to approach the stalls and shops to purchase the newspapers meaning thereby there would be one reason or excuse for the public general to move out of the houses in the lockdown period, it would certainly cause some movements on the streets and on the other hand, the State Government is prohibiting the door-to-door delivery/distribution of newspapers, whereby the general public may get the newspapers at their door-step through the delivery boys and need not move on the streets for purchase of newspapers.”
Furthermore, Court pointed out that while magazines are published periodically i.e. weekly or monthly the newspapers are published on a daily basis and hence distributed to the consumers regularly.
“The State Government, having regard to the spread of coronavirus can certainly consider the issue of restricting door-to-door delivery of newspapers in particular areas. One also fails to understand the logic behind the situation, wherein the newspapers are permitted to be printed and published by the media houses but they are not permitted to be distributed door-to-door and there is only a restricted distribution.”
The court also observed that the above mentioned notification was silent on whether the decision was applicable to certain areas or districts or was it a blanket decision of the State Government.
Pointing towards the hardships faced by common man while accessing e-paper, the court stated-
“It is common knowledge that though the majority of newspapers are available by way of e-paper mode, it is not possible for the majority of the general public to have access to e-paper as they may not be conversant with the technology or are used to reading hard copies of a newspaper.”
While appointing Advocate Satyajit Bora as Amicus Curiae in the matter the court has directed him to file a Public Interest Litigation in the matter by April 24.
The HC has also asked the government to file a response by April 27.
A similar petition was heard by the Nagpur bench on Monday. It had been petition filed by Maharashtra Union of Working Journalists and Nagpur Union of Working Journalists wherein the said notice was challenged.
Read the order here:
