“Tell Your Hawker”: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Direction To Supply Complete Copies Of Times Of India

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined to entertain the plea, questioning the maintainability of a writ petition against a private newspaper.

The petition was filed by Gouri Shanker Rathore, who appeared before the Court in person. Rathore sought directions requiring the respondents to ensure that buyers of the newspaper receive the complete edition, including all supplements and the full number of pages published each day.

At the outset, the bench raised a fundamental question regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

“Article 12… how does a writ lie against Times of India? Is Times of India a State so that we can entertain a writ petition against it?” Justice Mehta asked during the hearing.

The Court observed that the petition sought to invoke constitutional jurisdiction against a private entity that does not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Rathore had approached the top court seeking directions to the Central government as well as the newspaper to ensure that complete copies of the publication were supplied to all readers.

In addition, the petitioner requested the Court to restrain the respondents from “cheating” readers by allegedly not supplying all supplements or by providing newspapers with fewer pages than published. He further prayed for a direction requiring the newspaper to donate ₹10 crore to animal shelters and other welfare initiatives.

During the hearing, Rathore argued that the newspaper had adopted discriminatory practices in the supply of its editions and supplements to readers.

According to him, such differentiation in supply created inequality among newspaper buyers. “The discrimination and inequality lack intelligible differentia and rational nexus,” he submitted before the bench.

However, the Court remained unconvinced by the arguments and reiterated its concerns regarding the maintainability of the petition.

Justice Nath remarked that the grievance raised by the petitioner appeared to be a private or consumer issue rather than a matter warranting the exercise of the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. “All you have to do is tell your hawker to provide you all the supplements and the Sunday magazine. You can’t come in Article 32,” Justice Nath said.

The bench indicated that the issue could be resolved at a local level between the reader and the newspaper vendor, rather than through constitutional litigation before the apex court.

Rathore told the Court that members of the public were facing similar problems and that he had already written to the newspaper regarding the alleged issue. “The public is suffering. I have already written to them,” he said.

At this stage, the Court made a light-hearted remark while responding to the petitioner’s concerns.

“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 bench observed.

The Court suggested that the matter was better addressed outside the framework of a writ petition under Article 32, particularly since the respondents included a private newspaper entity.

After briefly hearing the petitioner and considering the nature of the reliefs sought, the bench dismissed the plea. With these observations, the Court dismissed the public interest litigation filed by Rathore.