The Allahabad High Court recently dealt with a dispute involving media house Amar Ujala and the Uttar Pradesh administration over denial of government advertisements. The court took note of the circumstances and emphasized a balanced administrative approach.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by M/S Amar Ujala Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order dated October 15, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Sambhal.
According to the petitioner, the administration had stopped extending cooperation to the publication, effectively denying it government advertisements. The newspaper argued that this action was discriminatory, especially since it had already issued a corrigendum on September 18, 2025, clarifying an earlier news report related to a Gurudwara dispute.
Read also:- Madras High Court Shields Lawyer from Defamation Case, Allows Trial Against Co-Accused
The petitioner maintained that despite compliance with the Commissioner’s directions, the District Magistrate acted without verifying the corrected publication.
During the hearing, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Vivek Saran examined the records and noted that the issue had largely been addressed through the corrigendum.
“The matter appears to be quite trivial at this stage,” the bench observed, pointing out that the publisher had already complied with the Commissioner’s order through its subsequent publication.
Read also:- Supreme Court Allows Hotel Owner to Join Building Rules Case, Sets Aside Punjab & Haryana HC Order
The court also expressed concern over the nature of the administrative action. It remarked that such “dictatorial” orders could affect the autonomy of the press, often referred to as the “Fourth Estate.”
At the same time, the court acknowledged that authorities have appropriate legal forums to raise grievances against publishers.
The State informed the court that a notice had been issued to the petitioner on December 17, 2025, seeking an explanation. The administration indicated that further action would depend on the petitioner’s response.
Read also:- No Pension Without 20 Years’ Service: Supreme Court Dismisses SBI Employee’s Claim
Disposing of the petition, the High Court directed that if the petitioner submits a fresh application along with a certified copy of the order within two weeks, the District Magistrate must reconsider the matter.
The court instructed the authority to take a “pragmatic view,” especially in light of the corrections already made, and pass a reasoned order within one week thereafter.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Amar Ujala Limited vs State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Writ-C No. 44086 of 2025
Judge: Justice Ajit Kumar, Justice Vivek Saran
Decision Date: March 25, 2026
