The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL demanding that Times of India readers receive newspapers with all supplements and magazines. The Court said such issues cannot be raised under Article 32 and advised the petitioner to resolve it with the local hawker.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition that sought directions to ensure that readers of the Times of India receive the newspaper with all its supplements and magazines. The case was filed by Gauri Shanker Rathore, who claimed that buyers were sometimes not receiving the complete newspaper package, including the Sunday magazine and other supplements.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. During the hearing, the Court questioned why such a grievance had been brought directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The judges indicated that the issue appeared to be a small consumer-level problem that could be easily resolved locally rather than through constitutional litigation.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Times of India (ToI) Journalists
Addressing the petitioner, the Bench remarked,
“All you have to do is tell your hawker to provide you all the supplements and the Sunday magazine etc. You can’t come in Article 32.”
Rathore had approached the apex court seeking directions against the Union government as well as the Times of India. He requested the Court to ensure that every buyer receives a complete copy of the newspaper, including all supplements and additional magazines that are supposed to come with the publication.
The petitioner further argued that readers were being cheated when the full set of pages or supplements was not supplied with the newspaper. He sought a direction restraining the respondents from engaging in any practice that results in non-supply of supplements or a shortage of printed pages in the newspaper delivered to customers.
In an unusual request, Rathore also asked the Court to direct the Times of India to donate ₹10 crore to animal shelters and other welfare initiatives for allegedly misleading readers through incomplete newspaper deliveries.
While presenting his arguments, Rathore claimed that the newspaper had created discriminatory categories in the way it distributed editions and supplements to readers. According to him, this unequal distribution affected readers who paid for the newspaper but did not receive the full content.
During the hearing, he submitted,
“The discrimination and inequality lack intelligible differentia and rational nexus.”
The Supreme Court, however, was not convinced by the argument. The judges questioned whether the newspaper could even be treated as a “State” entity against which a writ petition could be filed under Article 32.
Raising this issue, the Bench asked,
“Is Times of India a State that we can entertain a writ petition against them?”
The Court explained that the petitioner’s grievance appeared to be more of a consumer complaint or a private dispute rather than a constitutional issue that required intervention by the apex court. The judges suggested that such problems could be resolved by speaking to the local newspaper vendor or by approaching other appropriate forums.
Despite the Court’s observations, Rathore insisted that the issue was not limited to him alone and that many members of the public were facing similar problems. He also told the Bench that he had already contacted the newspaper to raise his concerns.
“The public is suffering. I have already written to them,”
he said.
While declining to entertain the plea, the Supreme Court also made a light-hearted remark on how the petitioner could raise the issue more effectively. The judges suggested that public pressure through social media could possibly draw a response from the newspaper.
“You should start a social media campaign against Times of India. They’ll come running to your house. As it is, newspapers are facing a lot of difficulty,”
the Court remarked.
With these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, indicating that the matter did not warrant the Court’s intervention under Article 32 and could instead be handled through ordinary consumer-level solutions.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Times of India
