Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 516 (RAJ)

Manohar Ghoghar v. Union of India

2005-02-16

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this writ petition a challenge is given by the petitioner to the decision of the Press Council of India taken in its meeting dated 07.07.1987 at Delhi to admonish the petitioner who is Editor and Publisher of Hindi Weekly titled as "Garib Sathi" published from Jodhpur. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the decision of the Council is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1978) as a decision could be taken by recording reasons. The decision impugned nowhere records such reasons to admonish the petitioner. 2. It is contended by the Counsel appearing for Press Council that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed being suffered by gross delay in bringing grievance before this Court. It is also stated that the Press Council took its decision on basis of the recommendations made by the competent authority constituted by the Council under Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. 4. Section 14(1) of the Act of 1978 reads as under: "14. Power to censure-(1) Where, on receipt of a complaint made to it or otherwise, the Council as reason to believe that a newspaper or news agency has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or a working journalist has committed any professions misconduct, the Council may, after giving the newspaper, or news agency, the editor or journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry in such manner as may be provided by regulations made under this Act and, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist or disapprove the conduct of the editor or the journalist, as the case may be: Provided that the Council may not take cognizance of a complaint if in the opinion of the Chairman, there is no sufficient ground for holding an inquiry. 5. By the force of Section 14 of the Act of 1978 it is obligatory for the Council to provide an effective opportunity of being heard to warn, admonish or censure newspaper, news agency, the editor or the journalist. 5. By the force of Section 14 of the Act of 1978 it is obligatory for the Council to provide an effective opportunity of being heard to warn, admonish or censure newspaper, news agency, the editor or the journalist. The Council while doing so is also required to record reasons in writing. The order impugned passed by the Council under Section 14 of the Act of 1978 reads as under:- "The matter came up for consideration by the Inquiry Committee at its meeting held on May 25, 1987 at Mussoorie. The parties had requested for adjournment of the case. As the complaint had been pending and as the committee felt that it could dispose of the complaint on merits and the materials on record which appeared to be complete, the committee felt that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the mater and keeping it pending. The Committee then proceeded to consider the complaint. On a consideration of the material on record, the Committee felt satisfied that the writings in question were in bad taste and were clearly in violation of journalists norms. In this view of the matter, the Committee decided to uphold the complaint and admonish the editor. It recommends to the Council accordingly. The Council decided accordingly." 5. From reading of the relevant portion of the order impugned it is apparent that the Council has not given any reason to admonish the petitioner. A bare reading of the order impugned shows total non-application of mind by the Council. It was the Committee that decided to uphold the complaint and admonish the petitioner. The Council made an order accordingly. The scheme of the Act of 1978 and the regulations made thereunder empowers Committee to inquire complaint/allegations against a newspaper journal, its editor etc. However, the Committee is having no authority to take decision to admonish the delinquent. The decision with regard to admonish, censure or warn is required to be taken by the Council. Regulation 9 and Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1979 are quite clear in this regard. The Regulations 9 & 10 referred above reads as under: "9. Inquiry by the Committee: Notice of the time, date and place of hearing shall be served on the complainant as well as on the newspaper, news agency editor and working journalists, as the case may be, and shall be sent by registered post, acknowledgment due. The Regulations 9 & 10 referred above reads as under: "9. Inquiry by the Committee: Notice of the time, date and place of hearing shall be served on the complainant as well as on the newspaper, news agency editor and working journalists, as the case may be, and shall be sent by registered post, acknowledgment due. In the inquiry before the Committee the parties shall be entitled to adduce relevant evidence, oral or documentary, and make submission in support of their contentions. (2) At the close of the inquiry the Committee shall make a report of its finding on the allegations contained in the complaint together with its reasons and submit the record of the case to the Council. 10.Decision by the Council:(1) The Council shall after perusing the record of the case, pass order giving its decision, or it may remit the case to the Committee for such further inquiry as the Council may deem necessary and after receipt of its report dispose of the case. .(2) Every case shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members of the council present and voting, and in the event of the votes being equal, the Chairman shall have a casting vote and shall exercise the same. .(3) The order of the Council shall be communicated in writing to the parties of the case. 6. From reading of Regulation 9 it is apparent that at the close of the inquiry the Committee shall make a report to its finding on the allegations contained in the complaint together with its reasons and submit the record to the Council. In the present case, report of the Inquiry Committee is not available on record but what it appears from reading of the decision of the Council that the Committee itself decided to admonish the petitioner and the Council passed an order accordingly. The Committee is having no authority to decide the penalty. In the present case Committee exceeded its jurisdiction while recommending to admonish the petitioner. Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1979 which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1978 makes it obligatory for the Press Council to peruse the record of the case and after due application of mind pass appropriate order with reasons recorded in writing. Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1979 which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1978 makes it obligatory for the Press Council to peruse the record of the case and after due application of mind pass appropriate order with reasons recorded in writing. From reading of the decision impugned violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1978 read with Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1979 is apparent. The Council has simply acted upon the recommendations made by the Committee. It has neither considered the record nor has given its own finding. There is also no reason recorded in writing to admonish the petitioner. In view of it the decision impugned is totally unsustainable in the eye of the law. 7. The delay said to be caused in filing writ petition is of no consequence as the order impugned is in patent violation of Section 14 of the Act of 1978, the Committee while recommending to admonish the petitioner acted beyond the jurisdiction vested with it and also for the reason that no right is accrued to anybody which may be desettled by acceptance of this writ petition. 8. In view of it the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the Press Council of India dated 07.07.1987 with regard to complaint of Sh. Mitha Lal Madhur against "Garib Sathi" is hereby quashed. No orders as to costs.