Completely Malicious Act Of The Then Government Only Meant To Muzzle Free Press: Delhi HC Quashes 47-Year-Old Eviction Notice Against The Indian Express

The Delhi High Court quashed a 47-year-old eviction notice issued by the Central government against The Indian Express, which sought to evict the newspaper from its iconic office on Bahadur Shah Zafar Road in New Delhi.

The Bench quoted Nelson Mandela: “A free press is one of the pillars of democracy.”

The SIngle-Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh noted that the eviction notice, which had been issued by the government in 1980 and subsequently followed by further notices, was part of a concerted effort to "muzzle" the newspaper and undermine its financial stability.

The Court also observed that the notice by which the government attempted to terminate the lease of the building was never properly served on The Indian Express.

"The issuance of notices to tenants with a direction to them to deposit the rent with the L&DO [Land and Development Office] is a completely malicious act on behalf of the then Government. It was only meant to muzzle Express Newspapers and also dry up its sources of income and nothing more," Justice Singh stated in her judgment. "Thus, the said notices are held to be arbitrary and mala fide. In fact, the notice dated 2nd November, 1987, by which the lease was terminated, was never served upon Express Newspapers, and a copy was procured thereafter. Express Newspapers came to know of the same from a news item in Times of India dated 15th November, 1987. Such conduct of the Government of the day is nothing but motivated, to say the least," the Court said.

The case has a long and complex history, rooted in the tumultuous period of the Emergency in India during the mid-1970s. The Indian Express, under the leadership of its founder, Ram Nath Goenka, had been a vocal critic of the excesses committed by the government during the emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. In what was widely seen as retribution for this critical stance, the government issued a notice of re-entry and demolition against The Indian Express in March 1980, claiming that the newspaper had violated the terms of its lease.

The land on which the Express Building stands was originally allotted to Ram Nath Goenka by the Jawaharlal Nehru government in the 1950s. The plot was initially located near Tilak Bridge, but Goenka agreed to surrender that property and accepted a different plot on Bahadur Shah Zafar Road at the personal request of Prime Minister Nehru. The relationship between The Indian Express and successive governments, however, soured over time, culminating in the issuance of the eviction notice.

Faced with the threat of eviction, the Indian Express challenged the government’s actions in the courts. The matter reached the Apex Court, which delivered a landmark judgment in 1986 in the case titled Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd and Others v Union of India and Others. The Apex Court quashed the government’s eviction notices, ruling that they were violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the government did not relent in its efforts to evict The Indian Express. Shortly after the 1986 judgment, the government began issuing new notices to the newspaper. Matters came to a head in November 1987 when a report appeared in The Times of India stating that the Union Government had taken over the Express Building after issuing yet another notice of termination. The Indian Express, however, maintained that it had never received this notice and promptly wrote to the government to clarify the situation.

The ensuing legal battle dragged on for decades, with both sides leveling a host of allegations against each other. The government accused the Indian Express of using the premises for unauthorized commercial purposes and making unauthorized constructions.

The Indian Express, on the other hand, argued that the government’s actions were a continuation of its earlier attempts to stifle press freedom and that the eviction notices were unlawful and motivated by malice.

In the course of the litigation, the government demanded an astronomical sum of Rs. 17,684 crores from the Indian Express as compensation, a figure that was later reduced to Rs. 765 crores after repeated queries from the Court. The Single-Judge, however, dismissed these demands as "far-fetched, unreasonable, and aggravated."

"The amount computed by the Central government is far-fetched, unreasonable, and aggravated," the Court noted. It further criticized the government for issuing the fresh notice of termination in "total disregard of the painstaking judgment of the Supreme Court" in 1986.

"To re-agitate already adjudicated issues in the manner as is sought to be done by issuing fresh notices of termination 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," the Court said.

Conclusively, the Court ruled in favour of the Indian Express, quashing the eviction notice and declaring that the newspaper had not violated the terms of its lease. The Court also ordered the government to pay Rs. 5 lakh in costs to the Indian Express, noting that the protracted litigation, which spanned nearly five decades, had been a result of the government’s illegal actions.

In addition to quashing the eviction notice, the Court ruled that the only amount the Indian Express was liable to pay was Rs. 64 lakh, covering conversion charges and additional ground rent.

"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. The same be paid within one month. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Express Newspapers Limited & Ors & Connected Matters [Neutral Citation No. 2024: DHC: 6559]

Click here to read/download the Judgment