The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned that authorities passing orders in a dictatorial manner could undermine the autonomy of the press.
A Bench comprising of Justice Vivek Saran and Justice Ajit Kumar made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Amar Ujala Limited, the publisher of the newspaper Amar Ujala.
The petition challenged an October 15, 2025, order passed by the District Magistrate (DM) of Sambhal, which allegedly resulted in the newspaper not receiving government advertisements.
The dispute arose from a news report published by Amar Ujala regarding a dispute at a Gurudwara.
According to the petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner passed an order on September 16, 2025 after the report was published. The newspaper later issued a corrigendum in its September 18, 2025 edition clarifying the earlier report.
Despite this, the petitioner argued, the District Magistrate passed the order under challenge without verifying the clarification. The newspaper contended that the action was discriminatory and beyond the authority of the district administration.
In its ruling dated March 25, the High Court stressed that orders passed by authorities should not affect the independence of the fourth estate (media).
“Any dictatorial order like the one that has been passed, would certainly be impeaching upon the autonomy of the Fourth (Estate)," it said.
The High Court also noted that the controversy about the initial report had largely lost significance since the newspaper had already complied with the Commissioner’s directions by publishing the clarification.
“We find it to be quite a trivial issue now at this stage when the Commissioner's directions contained in the order dated 16.9.2025 have got literally complied with in the publication of the News Daily edition of 18.9.2025,” observed the Court.
Additionally, it observed that if authorities had grievances against a publisher, there were appropriate legal forums available to pursue action.
The State informed the Court that the District Magistrate had already issued a notice to the publisher on December 17, 2025, asking it to submit an explanation regarding the disputed news report.
Taking note of this, the High Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh application before the District Magistrate within two weeks, along with a certified copy of the Court’s order.
The Court further directed the District Magistrate to pass a reasoned order within one week thereafter, while considering the corrigendum published by the newspaper on September 18, 2025. The petition was accordingly closed.
Bombay High Court Quashes Election Commission Decision To Hold By-election for Goa's Ponda
Bar
and
Bench
09 April 2026
The Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) notification for the conduct of a byelection at Ponda to fill the legislative assembly seat left vacant following the demise of Congress MLA Ravi Naik...
EAS Sarma Flags ‘Non-transparent’ Allotment of PSP Sites in Andhra Pradesh, Seeks Probe by Central Agencies
Moneylife Digital Team
07 April 2026
Raising serious concerns over the allocation of sites for pumped storage hydro-electric projects (PSPs) in Andhra Pradesh, former Union secretary EAS Sarma alleged that successive state governments have allotted valuable natural...
Kalpakkam Goes Critical: India's Nuclear Gamble Finally Pays Off
The Reactor that Breeds its own Fuel
On 6 April 2026 evening, prime minister Narendra Modi announced that the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu had attained criticality. The announcement was understated...
Consumer Forum Refused To Give Certified Copies of Arrest Orders: Salman Khan to NCDRC in Case over Rajshree Ad
SN Thyagarajan (Bar
and
Bench)
07 April 2026
Bollywood actor Salman Khan on Tuesday told the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that the Jaipur District Consumer Commission treated him unfairly and refused to provide certified copies of its orders in...
