'Court Can't Order For Constitution Of State Level Press Council In Absence Of Statutory Provisions': Madras High Court May Recall Its Order

The Bench was referring to judgment dated 18^th August, 2021 passed by a Division Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran (since retired) and P Velmurugan, directing the State Government to appoint Press Council of Tamil Nadu (PCTN) within three months. It was also instructed that the proposed governing body must be headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. Additionally, it must have as its members a team of experienced and reputed journalists (both working and retired), retired civil servants and Police officials in the rank of IAS and IPS.

Today, when the matter came up for reporting compliance, the Acting Chief Justice opined that the previous Division Bench might have enlarged the scope of the writ petitions before it and digressed into other realms by overreaching its jurisdiction.

"We are not convinced by the Order passed by the Division Bench. We are being frank. The court cannot enlarge the scope of petition like that. Directions were given to the state to form Press Council of Tamil Nadu (PCTN). However, we should restrict ourselves to the court's jurisdiction. We cannot frame rules for constitution of a state level press council body, and lay down other rules like who should be the Chairman or the extent of its authority."

The Bench noted that the Press Council Act, 1978 does not provide for the constitution of State Press Councils and such State Councils cannot yield the powers for registration of complaints against newspaper entities or news agencies or seek reply from the parties concerned. The bench expressed its apprehension that the statutory provisions does not permit the constitution of State Press Councils, and they would be in no way equivalent to bodies like State Bar Councils.

It further noted that there are no existing rules governing State Press Councils or their functioning. Unlike Section 14 of the Press Council Act which accords Press Council of India (PCI) with the power to censure newspapers or news agencies that deviate from journalist ethics, either upon the receipt of a complaint or otherwise, nothing has been inscribed in the statute or otherwise about State Press Councils.

"Come to paragraph 58 of the Division Bench Order. Under what provisions were directions given by the court to constitute PCTN? The state should have filed a review application against the said directions issued. It is appropriate to defer the matter for now. If we realise that something is not right, we are always willing to recall the order," said the Bench.

The counsel for the state replied that the order was not challenged considering the suo motu directions issued by the court.

"There is also another question of whether the subject matter falls under the State List or Union List", the bench added.

Finally, the matter was adjourned to January and in the meanwhile, the counsels have been asked to find if there are any state legislations for formation of Press Councils, and if there are any specific provisions that apply to the State of Tamil Nadu. The court has also asked the members of the Bar and the Press Council of India to assist it in the matter.

"The learned counsels appearing for the parties referred to Press Council Act, 1978 which empowers the Government of India to constitute Press Council of India. The provisions of the Act does not provide anything on State Councils...This aforesaid matter is required to be dealt with on the threshold and if it is found that the directions have been given without the existence of statutory provisions, the court may suo motu review the order. Members of the Bar can also assist the court in this matter. A direction is also given to the Press Council of India to assist the court on the issue referred to above."

Background

Before the Division Bench, both writ petitions were filed by S. Sekaran, who claimed to be a press reporter and publishing a magazine 'Manida manam'. The first writ petition (W.P.No.32091/ 2019) was filed seeking directions to the Director-General of Police, CBCID, to form a team and investigate on due process of law against the report conveying fallacious investigation data submitted by the special officer, Idol Wing in the idol theft case.

The second writ petition (Writ Petition No.31647/ 2019) was filed seeking directions to the Director-General of Police as well as DGP, CB-CID to form a team and investigate on due process of law against the economic offence piloted by Airavath trust. Airavath Trust had allegedly received donations on social media under the pretext that it was taking steps to restore a dissolved special Division Bench of the High Court set to exclusively adjudicate upon all cases related to idol thefts.

It is pertinent to note here that the original division bench, during the course of proceedings, observed that one of the identity cards produced by the reporter belonged to a police officer who had been suspended from service owing to his alleged involvement in an idol theft case. Therefore, the Court had directed the petitioner to explain how he had come in possession of the suspended police officer's identity card.

Case Title: S.Sekaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors., S. Sekaran v. The Director General Of Police & Ors.

Case No: WP/32091/2019 (PIL) & WP 31647/2019 (PIL)

Inputs by Aaratrika Bhaumik

Click Here To Read/ Download Order