PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978

Facts: Harbhajan Singh, the appellant, is an editor of Indian Observer. All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, the respondent No. 2 is an 'association of persons' within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of S. 5 of the Act. The appellant had been a member of the Council for two terms of three years each sought for a clarification-cum-opinion from the Chairman of the Press Council of India as to whether a person who had already been a member of the Council for two terms earlier is eligible for being nominated though such nomination did not amount to re-nomination, that is to say, at the time of being nominated he was not a retiring member. In response the Chairman stated that Section 6(7) debars the same person from holding the office as a member of the Council for more than two terms in his life. On filing appeal the single judge gave judgment in appellants favor. Aggrieved by the same the council approached the SC by way of writ petition.

Held: We are clearly of the opinion that Sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act must be assigned its ordinary, grammatical and natural meaning as the language is plain and simple. There is no evidence available, either intrinsic or external, to read the word 'retiring' as 'retired'. Nor can the word 're-nomination' be read as nomination for an independent term detached from the previous term of membership or otherwise than in succession. The provision on its plain reading does not disqualify or make ineligible a person from holding the office of a member of the Council for more than two terms in his life. Hence, judgment by single judge was restored.

Facts: A Writ Petition has been filed impugning practice being followed by Respondents Hindustan and by RIL of displaying names, images and photographs of high constitutional functionaries in private advertisements and thereby conveying a misleading impression to public. The Press Council of India has also issued a Show Cause Notice to the Editor, "Hindustan", to show cause as to why action not be initiated against it under Section 14 of the Press Council of India Act, 1978.

Held: The court held that the Press Council of India has been specifically conferred with the authority, both by the "Norms of Journalists" as well as by the PTI Act, to take appropriate action in cases of infraction of Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978the Press Council (Procedure of Enquiry) Rules, 1979, provides a detailed procedure, for enquiry, on receipt of any complaint, which would lead the Press Council of India to believe that a newspaper or news agency has offended the standard of journalists' ethics of public taste, or otherwise infracted the provisions of the Press Council Act, 1978, or any Norms issued by the Press Council of India thereunder. The said course of action, qua the complaint received from the petitioner against the "Hindustan", has already been set in motion in by the Press Council of India by issuance, to the "Hindustan", of the Show Cause Notice. therefore the writ was dismissed.

Facts: a newspaper report appeared in the daily newspaper "The Pioneer" under the caption "Court hampering drive against construction mafia". It also carried a photograph of the then Lt. Governor with the notation under it as "Drive will continue: P.K. Dave". The said report was authored by correspondent Rahul Pandey. Upon perusal of the aforesaid news report, this Court on 18.10.1996, suo moto, Issued notice to the correspondent, Mr. Rahul Pandey, and the Editor of the newspaper 'The Pioneer', Mr. Chandan Mitra, to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated against them for publication of the aforesaid news report. The Court, however, required him to file an additional affidavit and furnish the basis for the newspaper report. He was also required to produce his notes of interview, if any. The respondent/contemnor sought to be permitted, non-disclosure of his source of information, on the ground that without such protection, the said sources would be deterred in future in providing information to the press. Reliance was also placed on Section 15(2) of the Press Council Act, as an additional reason for not compelling a journalist to disclose his sources of information.

Held: There may be exceptional cases in which on balancing the various interest, the Court decides that the source should be disclosed. In order to be deserving of freedom, the Press must show itself worthwhile of it. A free Press must be a responsible Press. If a newspaper should act irresponsibly then it forfeits its claim to protect its source of information. The principle that emerges is that the Courts ought not to compel confidences bona fide given to be breached unless necessary in the interest of justice. In the instant case, it is not necessary to direct disclosure of source as we have concluded that the news report was written without requisite material or factual foundation. There was no verification of facts or research and analysis. It is a case of the author acting irresponsibly and accepting whatever is told to him in an alleged interview. Besides, the respondents as noticed earlier initially were not willing to disclose the source or the name of person interviewed. However, soon thereafter in view of the legal position and the "altered circumstances" the counsel indicated their willingness to disclose the name of person interviewed. Later on, at the third stage, the respondents/ contemnor did a voile face and declined to disclose the person interviewed or the source of information, on the ground that it would adversely affect their information gathering capacity in future. In these circumstances, we have justifiably and legitimately drawn an adverse inference that there is no factual foundation or requisite material available with the respondents/ contemnor, for publication of News port. No useful purpose would be served by insisting on the disclosure of the person interviewed or the source of information.

Facts: In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the challenge was to the nomination of Respondent No. 3 as a member of the Press Council of India. The contention of the petitioners was mainly that respondent No. 3 was an employee of one of the petitioners and to avoid the rigours of sub-section (3) of section 5, the respondent No. 3 had suppressed this fact and mis-represented that he was an employee of another newspaper.

Held: In the ordinary course, one association may not be aware of the names recommended by the other's. This may result in the recommendation of common names, or names of more than one person under clause (a) and clause (b) interested in any newspaper or group of newspapers under the same control of management. In the very nature of things, this function would have to be performed by the Chairman after he receives panels of names recommended by the various associations. The Rules do not specifically prescribe the manner in which this duty coupled with power has to be performed. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Council, it has been stated that in such cases also, names are picked up by draw of lots from among the concerned persons. A recommendation for nomination of one person cannot be said to be vitiated merely because a recommendation may also have been made of the name of another person interested in the same establishment. It cannot be anticipated in such a case as to who would be nominated or excluded by the operation of the second proviso. The Council as a body, has not been assigned any role to play in the process of making nominations of members under Section 5. The appointing authority, in respect of the category referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) is the retiring Chairman, who alone is the nominating authority. There is no machinery provided in the statute for investigation into any objection with regard to the nomination of any person.