Constitution of India 1950, Arts. 14 & 19 (l)(a)-Newsprint policy for 1972-73 whether violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 -Validity of Remarks V, Vll(a), Vll(c), VIII and X of Policy-Competency of shareholders of company to file petitions under Art.32-Emergency proclaimed under Art. 358 of Constitution-Application in respect of enforcement of fundamental rights whether barred. 

The Import Control Order 1955 passed by the Central Government under ss. 3 and 4A of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 laid restrictions on the import of newsprint. As an essential commodity newsprint was also subject to control under s.3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The Newsprint Control Order 1962 was passed under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Sub-clause 3 of clause 3 of the 1962 Order states that no consumer of newsprint shall in any licensing period consume or use newsprint in excess of quantity authorised by the Controller from time to time. Sub-clause 3A of clause 3 states that no consumer of newsprint other than a publisher of text books of general interest shall use any kind of paper other than newsprint except with the permission in Writing of the Controller. Sub-clause ( 5) of Clause 3 of the 1962 Order st&es that in issuing an authorisation under this clause the Controller shall have regard to the principles laid down in the Import Control Policy with respect to newsprint announced by the Central Government from time to time. The newsprint Policy for 1972-73 was challenged in this Court in petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The questions that fell for consideration were : ( i) whether the petitioners being companies could invoke fundamental rights; (ii) whether Art. 358 of the Constitution was a bar to any challenge by the petitioners on violations of fundamental rights; (iii) whether the restriction on newsprint import under the 1955 Order was violative of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; (iv) whether the newsprint Policy fell within clause 5(1) of the Import, Control Order 1955 and was valid; (V) whether clauses 3 and 3A of clause 3 of the 1962 Newsprint Order were violative of Arts. 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution; (vi) whether Remarks V, VII(a), VII(c), VIII, and X of the Newsprint Policy for 1972-73 were violative of Arts. 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution because of the following objection- able features: (a) No new paper or new edition could be started by a common ownership unit (ie., a newspaper establishment or concern owning two or more news interest newspapers including at least one daily) even within the authorised quota of newsprint; (b) there was a limitation on the maximum number of pages to 10, no adjustment being permitted between circulation and the pages so as to increase the pages, (c) no interchangeability was permitted between different papers of common ownership unit or different editions of the same paper; (d) allowance of 20 per cent increase in page level up to a maximum of 10 had been given to newspapers with less than 10 pages; (e) a big newspaper was prohibited and prevented from increasing the number of pages, page area, and periodicity by reducing circulation to meet its requirement even within its admissible quota; (f) there was discrimination in entitlement between newspapers with an average of more than 10 pages as compared with newspapers of 10 or less than 10 pages.