This appeal has arisen from a civil suit instituted before the Bombay by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (the Nigam) and the Union of India for a declaration that they alone have the right to print/publish the list of telephone subscribers and that the same cannot be printed or published by any other person without express permission of the Nigam/Union of India. A further declaration was sought that the Tata Press Limited (Tatas) have no right whatsoever to print, publish and circulate the compilation called "Tata Press Yellow Pages" (Tata- pages). A permanent injunction restraining the Tatas, their agents and servants from printing and/or publishing and/or circulating the "Tata - Pages" being violative of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (the Act) and the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (the rules) - was also sought from the Court. The City Civil Court, Bombay by its judgment dated August 7, 1993 dismissed the suit. First appeal filed by the Nigam and the Union of India was heard by a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court and the learned judge by the judgment dated April 27, 1994 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit. Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Tatas was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the impugned judgment dated September 8, 1994. This appeal, by way of special leave, is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the learned single judge. "Tata Press yellow pages" comprising paid advertisements from businessmen, traders and professionals. We are, however, of the view that the appellants cannot publish any "list of telephone subscribers" without the permission of the telegraph authority. Rule 458 of the Rules is mandatory and has to be complied with. The appellant shall not publish in the "Tata Press yellow pages" any entries similar to those which are printed in the 'white Pages' of the "telephone directory" published by the Nigam under the Rules. We make it clear that the appellant cannot print/publish an entry containing only the telephone number, the initials, the surname and the address of the businessmen, trader or professional concerned.

1. Tata Press Ltd.
Vs.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
BY HARSH KUMAR

2. Facts of the Case
MTNL government. a company and holder of
communications licensing authority in Delhi, New
Bombay and Thane.
Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Ltd has published a
Telephone Directory which has both ‘white pages’ i.e.
telephone numbers (free list) and ‘yellow pages’
(including paid ads).

3. Facts of the Case
Until 1987 it usually published only white
pages
After 1987 it began to print Yellow pages.
Controversy arose when respondents claimed
that only MTNL had the right to publish the list
of licenses for the licensee.

4. Facts of the Case
Tata Press Ltd published its Yellow Pages which was
actually a consumer guide that included ads provided to
traders, entrepreneurs.
The only condition for receiving a publication on its
pages was that it must direct contact details and
business / professional details.
Three Tata - Pages editions have been published in
Bombay in 1992,1993 and 1994.

5. Issues
That the publication of the Yellow Pages is a telephone
reference under the rules 458,457 of the Telegraph Rules
(1957) Indian Telegraph Act, 1885?
Should Complainants be barred from printing,
publishing and distributing compounds?
That commercial advertising comes within the concept
of “Freedom of Speech and Speech” under Art. 19 (1) (a)
The Constitution of India?

6. Respondents Arguments
MTNL alone has the right to print / publish and
distribute the subscription list.
Without explicit permission of MTNL tatas cannot
print / publish and distribute subscriber lists
Permanent order prohibiting tatas where agents and
employees in printing, publishing and circulation

7. Respondents Arguments
The 458,457 rules of the Telegraph Act (1957)
granted exclusive rights to MTNL to publish a
"telephone number list" as a service provider.
They also point out that commercial advertising is
outside the scope of Freedom of Speech and
Expression and refers to humdard dawakhana case.

8. Appellant Arguments
Tatas owns all rights to publish and distribute the
Yellow Pages.
It is a consumer guide and not a directory as ads are
paid.
They argue that the "Commercial Advertisement" is
protected under Art.19 (1) (a) read and 19 (2) of the
Constitution.

9. Judgement of the Court
We are of the opinion that the answer to the question of whether
Tata - a pamphlet in terms of Rule 458 or the Buyers Guide / Trade
Directory depends on determining the fact that "commercial
advertising" comes within the concept of "freedom of speech and
expression" guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a). ) Of the
Constitution of India. We. therefore, continue to address the
question of the constitution.
 The Right To Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Art 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution may be limited only under Article
19 (2).

10. Judgement of the Court
The court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana:
It went on to state the verdict handed down to Hamdard
Dawakhana.
Capture was a restriction on disgusting ad and is not
acceptable with ad viewing.
It was a commercial advertisement that does not fall under
Art.19 (1) (a)

11. Judgement of the Court
Since the sale of the drug was a threat to public interest,
advertisements for the sale of the drug were therefore
prohibited.
But that is not the reason why the whole ‘commercial
discourse’ should be denied protection by Art 19 (1) (a) simply
because it is used to further business interests.
He stated that in a democratic society, the general public is
interested in the free flow of commercial information.

12. Judgement of the Court
The court said- lower prices depend on mass
production depending on sales and sales depend on
advertising.
 The publication of advertisements' term
'commercial' is protected under Article 19 (1) (a).
Section 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution may not be
invoked by the plaintiffs as defined in Act 458, Act
457 and 459.

13. Conclusion
It concluded that Tata Press Yellow Pages was not at
all ‘not a list of telephone numbers’ for MTNL
subscribers but actually contained paid
advertisements from businesses and traders and was
therefore eligible for protection under Art 19 (1) (a).
Art. 19 (1) (a) also protects the human right to listen,
read and receive speech.

14. Conclusion
‘Publication of advertisements’ i.e. ‘commercial discourse’ and
protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution may not be
denied to the plaintiffs by creating an authorized agreement with
the government or any other official.
Its publication was therefore considered legal and the MTNL
application was not approved by the Court. But it did say that
Tata Yellow Pages could not publish any entries similar to those in
the White Pages telephone directory if it did not want to attract
restrictive provisions of Rules 458 and 459

15. Thank you…