HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
March 11,2002
HARBHAJAN SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
NAGENDRA NATH DEY AND ANR. V. SURESH CHANDRA DEY AND ORS. [REFERRED]SIRAJ UL HAQ KHAN OTHERS VS. SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF U P [REFERRED]
D R VENKATACHALAM VS. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER [REFERRED]
F S GANDHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ALLAHABAD [REFERRED]
GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION LTD VS. JANMAHOMED ABDUL RAHIM [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
PRITAM CHAND AND ORS. VS. THE DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-8-29] [REFERRED TO]ANTONY P. MATHEW VS. REGIONAL MANAGER (MARKETING), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA SOUTHERN ZONAL OFFICE AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
K. VENIKATESH VS. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-445] [REFERRED TO]
AHMADKHAN ALIAS BABU MOHMAD JAVEDKHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOVT. OF INDIA VS. M/S. BHARAT ORGANICS LTD. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
VIJU VS. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA SMALL and MEDIUM NEWSPAPERS FEDERATION A REGD SOCIETY VS. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED. (A.P.TRANSCO), VIDYUT SOUDHA, HYDERABAD VS. M/S. EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AND CABLES LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2016-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
KOMMISETTY NAMMALWAR AND CO VS. AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE [LAWS(APH)-2009-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
N G NANDA VS. GURBAX SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED THROUGH B. ARUTSIVAN VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-383] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR DUBEY VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. RAMA MEDICAL STORES VS. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-404] [REFERRED TO]
L. SREDDY VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CO-OP., DEPT. [LAWS(APH)-2017-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED VS. JOHN THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP AND ORS. VS. ATTAKOYA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-134] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVEER DISTRIBUTORS BANGLORE VS. BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2003-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOVT. OF INDIA, PATNA VS. BHARAT ORGANICS LTD. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-6-28] [DISTINGUISHED]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-178] [REFERRED TO]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITHA VENKATRAM AND ORS. VS. DIVYA RAYAPATI [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-446] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMA LIMITED VS. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-148] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-154] [REFERRED TO]
DR. V.K. AGRAWAL VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-222] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
MARITIME INSTITUTE ASSOCIATION VS. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SHIPPING [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
N JAYAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-239] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-376] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MADEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-329] [REFERRED TO]
D. SHARANAPPA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-451] [REFERRED TO]
SCHWING STETTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES EZHILAGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-254] [REFERRED TO]
IIIACHI DEVI VS. JAIN SOCIETY PROTECTION OF ORPHANS INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-57] [REFERRED]
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. PANDARINATHAN GOVINDARAJULU [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
AWADHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALLAHABAD U.P. GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-358] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA YADAV VS. D D A [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-235] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTHASWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
L. RAMAREDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-165] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWIN ASHOKRAO KAROKAR VS. LAXMIKANT GOVIND JOSHI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
DR V K RAJAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SAMAD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
P.V. ANTONY VS. M/S. SWASTIK SWEET HOUSE [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
S HAREESH S/O LATE N SHANTHARAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2018-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHAILENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
J SAI PRASANNA VS. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2008-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SINGH VS. NAGAR PRAMUKH MAHAPAUR NAGAR NIGAM VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2003-2-105] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKISHAN SADARANGANI VS. DEEPA ROHERA, CHAIRPERSON [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I) LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA HEMRAJ DHANGEKAR VS. GANESH MADHUKAR BIDKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAHARAO BHIM SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-196] [REFERRED TO]
M.S.P.L. LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. K SELVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. HASNATHA BI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-374] [REFERRED TO]
JAMNALAL BAJAJ SEVA TRUST A REGISTERED TRUST HAVIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-404] [REFERRED TO]
LANCO ANPARA POWER LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY N O I D A SECTOR 6 GHAZIABAD GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR VS. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-88] [REFERERD TO]
DILIP DESHMUKH VS. STATE OF C.G. AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2003-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
BAISAKHURAMSAHU VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2009-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
Nabendu Dutta VS. Arindam Mukherjee [LAWS(CAL)-2003-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT JAGANNATH GHODKE VS. COMMISSIONER FOR CO OPERATION and REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(BOM)-2003-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA SWAROOP JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2003-12-9] [REFERRED]
N RAVINDRA MURTHY VS. SHRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE [LAWS(APH)-2008-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
PUSALA MURALI KRISHNA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-2008-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK JAIN VS. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-2011-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY GUPTA S/O JAGARNATH GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR PARASHAR VS. STATE BAR COUNCIL OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2009-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
JEET RAM KISHORE VS. SUNDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2004-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
NORASIA LINES MALTA LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-2005-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
HASNATHA BI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-357] [REFERRED TO]
EVERSHINE MONUMENTS (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. GRANITE EXPORTERS) VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. ABAD FISHERIES [LAWS(KER)-2016-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. EDHAYAM FROZEN FOODS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHA TYAGI VS. KAMLESH DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
NOVA ADS VS. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAINT GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. DALMIA CEMENTS (BHARATH) LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMINARAYAN VS. SHIVLAL GUJAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2002-10-121] [REFERRED TO]
ANJUMAN ISLAMIA TRUST VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2002-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
VIJI JOSEPH VS. P.CHANDER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-165] [REFERRED TO]
SARWOTTAM ISPAT (P) LIMITED, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE, VS. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2004-2-145] [REFERRED]
NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU, S/O. LATE KHARJURA NAIDU VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2016-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
D. MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
KAZIRANGA TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-5-52] [FOLLOWED ON]
MANITA KHURANA VS. INDRA KHURANA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
MALAKAPPA VS. ANNAPURNA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
AMINA BHARATRAM VS. SUMANT BHARATRAM [LAWS(DLH)-2014-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
BALCHANDRA SHIRSAT VS. MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
BABU MOULANA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2019-3-596] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)The controversy centres around the interpretation of sub-section (7) of S. 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (hereinafter 'the Act,' for short), viz., for how many terms of the Council a member can be nominated
(2.)The facts are jejune. 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 Cl. (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, namely, 1982-1985 and 1985-1988. Steps were taken for the constitution of the Seventh Council commencing from the year 1998. A Notification in that regard was issued on 21-11-1997. On 5-5-1997 and 9-8-1997 the Federation-respondent No. 2 had 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 renomination, that is to say, at the time of being nominated he was not a retiring member. In response, the Council circulated an opinion of the President dated 30-9-1997, the substance whereof is, that S. 6(7) debars the same person from holding the office as a member of the Council for more than two terms in his life. The appellant and the Federation, respondent No. 2 herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking quashing of the opinion of the Chairman of the Press Council. A learned single Judge of the High Court directed rule nisi to issue and on 9-12-1997 issued an interim direction that the decision of the Press Council would be subject to the decision in the writ petition. The Federation-respondent No. 2 nominated the appellant and also his son as cover candidate. The appellant's nomination was not accepted by the Council on the ground that he having remained a member of the Council for two terms, was ineligible for nomination as per sub-section (7) of S. 6 of the Act.
(3.)After hearing the petitioners and the Press Council, as also the Union of India, the learned single Judge vide order dated August 18, 2000 allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision of the Press Council of India rejecting the nomination of the appellant. The learned single Judge formed an opinion that the language of the statue was plain, admitting of no ambiguity, and therefore, deserves to be assigned the plain meaning which naturally flows from a reading thereof. In the opinion of the learned single Judge the disqualification spelled out by sub-section (7) of S. 6 attaches to a member 'retiring' in presenti and was sought to be 're-nominated' but did not apply to a person who had 'retired' some time in the past though having held two consecutive terms as member of the Council and was now being only 'nominated' and 'not renominated.' The Press Council of India preferred an intra-Court appeal before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. Tracing out the legislative history of the enactment and giving a liberal interpretation to sub-section (7) of S. 6 in its desire to spell out and read the objective sought to be achieved by the Act, the Division Bench formed an opinion that the Legislature intended not to allow a member to hold office for more than two terms in his life-time, and therefore, the appellant was not eligible for nomination to membership of the Council for the term commencing 1998 in view of his having held membership of the Council for two terms 1982-1985 and 1985-1988. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
(2.)The facts are jejune. 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 Cl. (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, namely, 1982-1985 and 1985-1988. Steps were taken for the constitution of the Seventh Council commencing from the year 1998. A Notification in that regard was issued on 21-11-1997. On 5-5-1997 and 9-8-1997 the Federation-respondent No. 2 had 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 renomination, that is to say, at the time of being nominated he was not a retiring member. In response, the Council circulated an opinion of the President dated 30-9-1997, the substance whereof is, that S. 6(7) debars the same person from holding the office as a member of the Council for more than two terms in his life. The appellant and the Federation, respondent No. 2 herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking quashing of the opinion of the Chairman of the Press Council. A learned single Judge of the High Court directed rule nisi to issue and on 9-12-1997 issued an interim direction that the decision of the Press Council would be subject to the decision in the writ petition. The Federation-respondent No. 2 nominated the appellant and also his son as cover candidate. The appellant's nomination was not accepted by the Council on the ground that he having remained a member of the Council for two terms, was ineligible for nomination as per sub-section (7) of S. 6 of the Act.
(3.)After hearing the petitioners and the Press Council, as also the Union of India, the learned single Judge vide order dated August 18, 2000 allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision of the Press Council of India rejecting the nomination of the appellant. The learned single Judge formed an opinion that the language of the statue was plain, admitting of no ambiguity, and therefore, deserves to be assigned the plain meaning which naturally flows from a reading thereof. In the opinion of the learned single Judge the disqualification spelled out by sub-section (7) of S. 6 attaches to a member 'retiring' in presenti and was sought to be 're-nominated' but did not apply to a person who had 'retired' some time in the past though having held two consecutive terms as member of the Council and was now being only 'nominated' and 'not renominated.' The Press Council of India preferred an intra-Court appeal before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. Tracing out the legislative history of the enactment and giving a liberal interpretation to sub-section (7) of S. 6 in its desire to spell out and read the objective sought to be achieved by the Act, the Division Bench formed an opinion that the Legislature intended not to allow a member to hold office for more than two terms in his life-time, and therefore, the appellant was not eligible for nomination to membership of the Council for the term commencing 1998 in view of his having held membership of the Council for two terms 1982-1985 and 1985-1988. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.