Commercial Speech, Content Regulation / Censorship, Licensing / Media Regulation
Irwin toy ltd. v. Quebec
Closed Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
The Supreme Court of India directed the central government to re-examine its taxation policy by evaluating whether it constituted an excessive burden on newspapers. The petitioners, including newspaper companies and employees, argued that an import duty led to an increased cost of newspapers and a drop in circulation, thereby adversely affecting freedom of speech and expression. The Court reasoned that a government can levy taxes on the publication of newspapers, however within reasonable limits so as to not encroach upon freedom of expression. Yet, the Court observed that neither the petitioners nor respondents proved the excessive nature of tax burdens, therefore calling upon the government to re-evaluate its taxation policy regarding the newspapers.
The petitioners in this case were companies, employees, and shareholders thereof, as well as trusts engaged in the publication of newspapers. They challenged the import duty on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981, as modified by notifications under the Customs Act 1962 with effect from March 1, 1981. Prior to this notification, newsprint had enjoyed exemption from customs duty.
The petitioners contended that the imposition of this duty had an adverse effect on costs and circulation and, therefore, had a crippling effect on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the freedom to practice any trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g). They further asserted that no public interest justified such an interference with these fundamental rights because the foreign exchange position of India was comfortable at the time. Finally, they submitted that the classification of newspapers into small, medium, and large newspapers violated the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law).
The government argued that the burden of cost borne by the newspapers and the position of foreign exchange reserves were irrelevant considerations. The public interest involved in taxation was to increase the revenue of the government, a burden that is borne by all citizens of the country. It asserted that the exemption granted to newsprint was not justified and, therefore, could be removed by the government.
The Supreme Court of India observed that the government was indeed empowered to levy taxes affecting the publication of newspapers because such publication could be characterized as an industry and must be subject to the same levies as other industries. It also allowed that the classification into small, medium, and large based on economic considerations had a rational nexus with the objective of taxation and could not be considered arbitrary. However, where the power of taxation encroaches upon the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), the restriction on the freedom must be within reasonable limits.
Reasonable limits have been outlined in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, wherein “public interest” is a ground that may be taken to restrict freedom of expression. The Court concluded that two basic principles must be borne in mind: first, newspapers enjoy the benefits of government services like all other industries and must accordingly contribute a reasonable share of government revenue through taxation; and second, the burden of taxation must not be excessive.
In context of the present petition, the Court observed that the excessive nature of the burden was neither adequately proven by the petitioners nor adequately refuted by the respondents. It stated that a “strict burden of proof’” need not be discharged, considering the possibility of interference with fundamental rights. It therefore directed the government to re-examine the taxation policy by evaluating whether it constituted an excessive burden on the newspapers. The government’s stance that such a consideration was irrelevant was incorrect and, therefore, the notification had to be revised by taking this factor into consideration.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
This case notes that the media’s role as the fourth estate is invaluable to democracy and, therefore, must be protected from executive interference. It noted that an excessive burden of taxation could not be placed on the media. This standard expands the freedom of the press to dimensions beyond direct regulation of content to economic control. The burden of taxation on newspapers must be such that they can be feasibly discharged. This standard protects the press from levies that would cripple the industry and regulates the ability of the government to affect supply of newspapers within the country.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
India is a common law country and stare decisis applies. Therefore, this case being a judgment by the Supreme Court will serve as a binding precedent on lower courts and future decisions of the Supreme Court unless a larger bench is constituted.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.