K K BIRLA Vs. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Act to establish a Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and oF maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India was enacted by Parliament, being Press Council Act 1965 (Act 34 of 1965), (hereinafter called the 'Act'). In furtherance or its object the Press Council is empowered to help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence. The Jurisdiction of the Press Council was invoked by two complaints under sections 12(2) (a) and (e) of the Act. What is the meaning and scope of the terms 'Freedom of Press', Independence of Newspapers' and the Independence of the Editor of a Newspaper' is one of the interesting questions which goes to the "out of the jurisdiction of the Press Council that has arisen in this case.

(2.) On November 4, 1974. respondent 27, Shri D. R. Mankekar, addressed a complaint to the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Press Council') under section 12(2) (a) of the Act and Regulation 16 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) alleging inter alia, that he is a Journalist of 40 years' standing and concerned with maintaining the independence of the Press from pressures of any sort, including pressures from the proprietors of newspapers; that the freedom of the Press is synonymous with the freedom of the editor from external pressure to pursue the editorial policy; that Shri B. G. Verghese, Editor of the Hindustan Times has been following an independent editorial policy exposing the defects and misdeeds of the Establishment; that Shri K. K. Birla (the petitioner in the writ petition) conceived the idea of terminating the services of Shri B. G. Verghese so that he might be replaced by one who is more amenable to Shri Birla's dictates or v/ho would not initiate or incur the displeasure of the Government by his writings in the newspapers; that the petitioner for promoting his business interest, is beholden to the Government and is, therefore, either under the pressure from the Government or is desirous of placating the Establishment to further his business interest; that there was thus a threat to the termination of the services of Shri B. G. Verghese; that the free- G; dom of speech and expression which is mentioned in Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution includes the freedom of the Press of and the freedom of the Press has no meaning unless the editor is free from pressure, including pressure from the proprietor; that Shri B. G Verghese was sought to be punished by terminating his services for the sin of exercising his right of freedom of expression; and that the threat of the termination of the services of Shri B. G. Verghese has greatly agitated Journalists who are interested in a free Press with an independent Editor free from pressures.

(3.) On November 5, 1974 respondent 28, Shri C. P. Ramachandran, the Chairman of Hindustan Times Committee and Assistant Editor of the Daily Hindustan Times, New Delhi, also addressed a complaint to the Chairman of the Press Council under sections 12(2)(a) and (e) of the Act, read with Regulation 16 to remove, what he alleges, a grave threat to the freedom of the Press and independence of the newspapers flowing from the decision of the Management of the Hindustan Times Ltd. to remove Shri B. G. Verghese from the editorship of the newspaper and its allied English publications. After referring to the constitution and objects of the Hindustan Times Ltd. respondent 28 alleged in the complaint, inter alia, that Shri K. K. Birla, (petitioner herein) had sent a notice to Shri B. G. Verghese in August last asking Shri Verghese to cease to be the Editor with effect from February 28, 1975, but the petitioner has declined to disclose the reasons for the action; that the petitioner is contemplating a new editorial structure for the Hindustan Times Ltd. and its allied publications, which will completely whittle down the independence of the editor and other members of the editorial staff and thus undermine the integrity of the profession; that the threat is inherent not only in the action proposed to be taken against the present editor but also in the new dispensation which is expected to follow his removal; that during the last six years of his editorship, Shri Verghese has not only scrupulously and faithfully pursued the policy described in the Memorandum of Assoriation of the Hindustan Times Ltd., but also brought prestige to the newspaper in doing so; that Shri Birla himself is against faithfully implementing the policies and in fact is seeking to suppress them; that it is conceivable that powerful persons in the ruling party and the administration to whom independence of the Press is anathema and who like to use Hindustan Times for furthering their political and other interests have exerted pressure on the petitioner; that the petitioner who has extensive industrial and business interests has taken the action to terminate the services of Shri B. G. Verghese because he finds the editorial policy that is being pursued by Shri B. G. Verghese embarrassing and unsuitable for the pursuance of these interests, and that alternatively, it is clear that he is seeking to ingratiate himself with Government agencies and/or the ruling party for the same purpose. It is also stated that besides refusing to give the reasons for the proposed removal of Shri Verghese as the Editor, Shri Birla has threatened legal action against Shri Verghess if, he published the correspondence that passed between him and Shri Birla on the subject.