S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for intervener No.
They supported the Union of India, the respondent, in all these petitions and sought to uphold the validity of the Act and the Order.
Certain parties were allowed to intervene.
T. Desai, E. Udayarathnam and S. S. Shukla, for intervener No.
S. Pathak, R. Ganapathy Iyer, S. S. Shukla and G. Gopalakrishnan for the petitioners.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, B. Sen, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
The second and third petitions are preferred by two readers of Sakal who also challenge the companystitutionality of the Act.
T. Desai, E. Udayarathnam and S. S. Shukla, for the petitioners In petitions Nos.
P. Nathwani, J. B. Jadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent No.
September 25 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. A matter of far reaching importance affecting the freedom of the press is raised in these three petitions wherein the companystitutionality of the Newspaper Price and Page Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspaper Price and Page Order, 1960, is questioned.
R. Choudhri, for intervener No.
67 and 68 of 1961 .
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
2 and 6.
331 of 1960 and 67 68 of 1961.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the interveners Nos.
The first petition is by a private limited companypany carrying on business inter alia of publishing daily and weekly newspapers in Marathi named Sakal from Poona and by two persons who are the only shareholders in that companypany.
Petitions under Art.
