Depriving District, Constituency-Level Journalists Of Accreditation Is Unjustified: Telangana HC Quashes Media Accreditation Rules For Small Newspapers

The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant judgment quashing Schedule E of the Telangana Media Accreditation Rules, 2016, which categorized small newspapers into four tiers for accreditation purposes.

The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao found this categorization arbitrary and unjustified, particularly in its denial of accreditation to journalists working at district and constituency levels for certain categories of small newspapers.

“In the absence of any provision in the policy itself, the action of the respondents in depriving the journalists working at district level and constituency level of the benefit of accreditation cannot be said to be justified. Even otherwise, in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, no explanation worth the name has been offered for dividing the journalists working in small newspapers into four categories viz., A, B, C and D and depriving them of the benefit of accreditation.” The Bench noted.

Background:

The case was brought by journalists employed by various small newspapers published across Telangana. They challenged the validity of Schedule E of G.O.Ms.No.239, issued by the General Administration (I&PR) Department on July 15, 2016. The petitioners argued that the categorization of small newspapers into A, B, C, and D categories for accreditation purposes violated Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court examined the history of media accreditation in the region. Prior to Telangana's formation in 2014, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh government had a policy recognizing three categories of newspapers based on circulation and page numbers. After Telangana's creation, the state government introduced new accreditation rules in 2016, which included the contentious Schedule E.

The petitioners' counsel argued that the 2016 Rules did not permit the categorization of small newspaper journalists into four different categories. They contended that this classification was unconstitutional, citing Supreme Court judgments to support their case.

The court-appointed Amicus Curiae highlighted that the 2016 Rules themselves did not provide criteria for categorizing small newspapers into four tiers, noting that this division appeared only in Schedule E. The Amicus also pointed out that the government's counter-affidavit failed to justify this categorization, especially the denial of accreditation to district and constituency-level journalists in categories C and D.

In its analysis, the court found that the 2016 Rules did not prescribe the division of small newspaper journalists into four categories. It deemed the deprivation of accreditation benefits to district and constituency-level journalists arbitrary, especially given the lack of explanation from the government. The court noted that under the previous policy, even small newspaper journalists at these levels were entitled to accreditation.

“Under the previous policy framed by the erstwhile Government, even the journalists of small newspapers working in district and constituency level were entitled to the benefit of accreditation. In the absence of any explanation on behalf of the respondents, depriving the journalists working in small newspapers at the district and constituency levels of the benefit of accreditation is arbitrary and cannot be termed as justified.”

Based on these considerations, the High Court quashed Schedule E of the 2016 Rules. It directed the state government to frame new guidelines for extending accreditation benefits to small newspaper journalists at district and constituency levels within two months, emphasizing that these guidelines should be based on fair and rational criteria.

WRIT PETITION NO.41756 OF 2016

Counsel for petitioners: Chikkudu Prabhakar

Counsel for respondents: S. Rahul Reddy, Special Government Pleader.

Amicus Curiae: Vivek Jain

Click Here To Read/Download Order