Assertion (A): The Union Government can exercise limited control over the volume of circulation of Indian newspapers.
Reason (R): The control over the volume of newspaper circulation is prima facie an unreasonable restriction on the press freedom.
(A) Both (A) and (R) are true.
(B) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
(C) (A) is true, but (R) is false.
(D) (A) is false, but (R) is true.
Correct Ans: (D)
Explanation:
The Union Government does not have the power to control the volume of circulation of Indian newspapers. Any attempt to regulate circulation would violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including press freedom. Courts have consistently ruled that restricting circulation affects the right to information and media independence.
The Reason (R) is true because any control over newspaper circulation is considered an unreasonable restriction. The Supreme Court in Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962) struck down government-imposed restrictions on newspaper page limits and pricing, declaring them unconstitutional. The Court ruled that press freedom includes not just content but also the right to circulate without interference.
Since the Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true, the correct answer is (D). The government cannot lawfully impose limits on newspaper circulation, as doing so would restrict media access to the public. While the state can regulate media under reasonable restrictions like national security and public order, controlling circulation is not considered a valid ground.
In conclusion, press freedom is fundamental to democracy, and any attempt to regulate newspaper circulation would undermine independent journalism. Courts have consistently upheld this right, ensuring a free and unrestricted media environment in India.
