Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Audio / Visual Broadcasting, Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    July 22, 1992
  • Outcome
    Affirmed Lower Court, Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional
  • Case Number
    1992 (3) S.C.R. 595 or 1993 AIR 171
  • Region & Country
    India, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Content Regulation / Censorship
  • Tags
    Academic Freedom

Content Attribution Policy

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:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of India held that the right to respond to objections to one’s position was an integral part of freedom of expression. Both appeals in the case refer to separate instances of when a state-controlled entity refused to publish or broadcast work that criticized the government. The Court reasoned that government-controlled means of publication have a greater burden to recognize an individual’s right to defend themselves and if a State censors content, then it is obligated to provide reasons valid in law.


Facts

The appeals in question concern two separate incidents of criticism of government machinery.

The first instance concerned an academic publication criticizing the Life Insurance Corporation of India’s [“LIC”] schemes. The magazine run by LIC published a reply to this research paper but refused to publish the rejoinder written by the author of the paper.

The second instance concerned a documentary film on the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, a case concerning the leak of lethal gases and the liability of Union Carbide for the deaths so caused. This film won a national award. During the presentation of the award, the Central Information Commissioner stated that it would be screened on Doordarshan channel as part of a series on award-winning short films. However, Doordarshan refused to broadcast.

LIC and Doordarshan are State-controlled entities and therefore, Fundamental Rights were considered to be enforceable against them in separate writ petitions before High Courts. The appeal from both cases were combined to decide on a common question of law.

The appellants averred that the LIC publication was an in-house newsletter and therefore, they were allowed to exercise discretion. Similarly, the film series did not cover all short films and Doordarshan was allowed to set forth its own criterion.

The respondents viewed the discretion in both cases as one that allows the State to suppress dissent. They considered the content regulation to be a violation of their right to freedom of expression.


Decision Overview

The Court held that freedom of expression includes not just the freedom to circulate one’s views but also the right to defend them. In recognizing this right, it placed a greater burden on publications made using public money. Thus, the claims of discretion in both cases was rejected. Where the State rejects content, it is obligated to present reasons that are valid in law. Reasons such as the content only presents one side of the debate goes against the principle of freedom to express one’s perception about an event. Therefore, such reasons were held to be invalid.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

It expands expression by recognizing that the right to defend one’s position was an integral part of freedom of expression. It also places a high burden on rejection of content by government-controlled media by requiring them to provide reasoned decisions that are valid in law.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • UDHR, art. 19

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • India, Const., art. 19(1)(a) & (2)
  • India, Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, (1962) 3 S.C.R. 842
  • India, Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 594
  • India, Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 S.C.R. 287
  • India, Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574
  • India, Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 780

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
  • U.S., Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
  • U.S., Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915)
  • U.S., New York Times Co. v. United States (Pentagon Papers), 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

As a decision of the Supreme Court, it has binding preferential value on future decisions of the same Court as well as all other Courts in the territory of India.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback