'Was Attempt To Muzzle The Press': Delhi High Court Quashes Centre's Eviction Notices Issued To Indian Express In 1987; Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost

Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the notices issued against the Express were “...an attempt by the then Government to muzzle the press and dry up its source of income.”

The High Court noted that the dispute arose as a result of the then government's action against the media house for its 'fair and independent role' during the emergency imposed during 1975-77.

The Express Newspapers were initially allotted plots at Tilak Bridge, New Delhi. However, after a request made by the then PM Pandit Nehru, the founder of the newspapers, Ram Nath Goenka, surrendered the plots and alternative plots were allotted at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. The lease agreement was executed in 1952 and the agreement for lease was entered in 1954. After the construction of the building, a perpetual lease deed was executed in 1958.

In 1980, the Centre issued notices of re-entry and demolition. The Supreme Court adjudicated the issue in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others (1986). A three judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1986, declared the action of the Indian government against the Express Newspapers to be malafide and politically motivated.

However, after the decision of the Supreme Court, the Centre issued a notice of re-entry and ejection against Express on 2nd November 1987, declaring them illegal. The Centre filed the present suit for recovery of suit property and mense profits.

In the present suit, Centre sought possession of the suit property and other ancillary reliefs including damages and mesne profits. It initially computed dues from the Express at a massive cost of Rs.17,684 crores.

Regarding the Apex Court's judgment, the Delhi High Court observed that “The Supreme Court in its decision, upheld the role of the Press and observed that during the emergency period there was misuse of power which led to press censorship. The Supreme Court then quashed the re-entry notice dated 10th March, 1980, as also other actions contemplated by the then Government. The decision also restrained the Union of India from taking any steps for termination of lease, for non-payment of conversion charges or otherwise for the construction of the building till the final determination of the amount payable by a Civil Court.”

The High Court noted that the decision of the Supreme Court is binding both on the court and government authorities as well. It observed that the Supreme Court quashed the show cause notices of UOI through a majority judgment.

It remarked “As per the leading judgment of Justice Sen, the then Government had contemplated a legislation to provide a forum for adjudication of such disputes, which did not materialise. Thus, the Supreme Court relegated the parties to a civil suit for adjudication of the disputes in respect of conversion charges and occupation charges etc.”

The Court stated that adjudicating the case once again would be in total disregard of the Supreme Court's decision.

“In the opinion of this Court, to re-agitate already adjudicated issues in the manner as is sought to be done by issuing fresh notices of would in the opinion of this Court be in total disregard of the painstaking judgment of the Supreme Court which had already gone into all these issues. Post the decision of the Supreme Court, there were only two courses of action for the Union of India i.e., to raise a demand for the conversion charges and for the additional ground rent along with any reasonable interest and upon failure to pay the same, to file a suit.”

It thus quashed the re-entry notice to Express Newspapers dated 2nd November, 1987 and declared it unlawful and illegal.

With respect to the computation claim by the Centre, the Court noted that it is “...far-fetched, unreasonable and aggravated to say the least.” It noted that after repeated queries from the court and change of various counsels, the computation was reduced to Rs. 765 crores.

The Court held that only charges that are to be paid are conversion charges, additional ground rent and ground rent. It determined the amount to be approximately Rs. 64 lakhs.

It also imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Centre, to be paid to the Express Newspapers.

“Considering the fact that this litigation has been so long drawn even after the decision of the Supreme Court and the Government sought to again terminate the lease and issue notices for re-entry which are illegal and invalid, costs of Rs. 5 lakhs are awarded to Express Newspapers.”