The Press Club, Mumbai v. Press Council of India & Ors.

4. No proof of submission of minutes to the appropriate Authority

5. There is no clear authorization letter to fil the claim. However, it has been mentioned in a paragraph of the declaration.

12. On 27th September, 2024, during the meeting of the members of the 14th Press Council of India, the agenda included discussions on the Reconstitution of the Council specifically addressing Item No. 13 concerning the claims submitted by various stakeholders.

13. The deliberations with respect to the Petitioner’s claims are as follows:

1. Mr. Umesh Chandra Mishra, (Editor, Teesri Aankh Express) Uttar Pradesh

2. Dr. Bhai Paramjeet Singh, (Sampadak, Garjdi Saver, Punjabi & Hindi Newspaper) Punjab The Scrutiny Committee as constituted vide order dated 25.07.2024 by the Hon’ble Chairperson under the provisions of Rule 5 of Press Council (Procedure for Notification of Associations of Persons) Rules, 2021 comprising the following members:

1. Shri Sujeet Kumar, Convenor (Member, PCI, 14th Term)

2. Shri Madhav Kaushik (Member, PCI, 14th Term)

3. Prof. J.S Rajput (Member, PCI, 19th Term) All the claims received alongwith the objections were placed before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny committee after having scrutinized all the documents submitted by the claimanant Associations alongwith the objections received submitted its report to the Council on 27.09.2024. The Rule 5 of Press Council (Procedure for Notification of Associations of Persons) Rules, 2021 was read out before the Council - Rule 5. Scrutiny of Claims.- (1) The claims filed by associations of persons under rule 3 shall be scrutinized by a Scrutiny Committee consisting of three persons to be nominated by the Chairman from amongst members of the Council who are not associated in any manner with any of such claimant associations and shall submit its report to the Council. (2) The council shall, after considering the report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee, take appropriate decision and notify the associations of persons as required under sub-section (4) of Section 5: Provided that where the decision of the Council is at variance with the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, such decision shall be taken by not less than three-fourth majority of members, other than members of the Scrutiny Committee, present and voting, and in case of equality of votes, the Chairman shall have the casting vote. The Council proceeded to consider the report of the Scrutiny Committee. All the claims in the Scrutiny Committee report (attached as annexure A) and recommendations thereupon were read out before the full Council and disapprovals, if any, on each decision were sought. Not a single decision could muster three-fourth (3/4) of total members present (1 member through video conferencing) and voting (17), Accordingly, the Council adopted the Scrutiny Committee report in its entirety by majority. However, eight votes were against the recommendations in case of Claim No. 27, i.e., Mumbai Press Club filed under the Category Working journalists other than Editors.” (Emphasis Supplied)

14. Pursuant to this decision, on 28th October 2024, in accordance with Section 5(4) of the PC Act, and the applicable rules, the associations of persons referred to in clauses (a) and (b), as well as news agencies for the purpose of clause (c) of sub-section (3) of that section, were officially notified by publication in the Gazette.

15. Petitioner made representations against the said decision; however, no resolution was forthcoming, prompting the filing of the present writ petition.

16. Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, argues that the reasons for rejection noted above are entirely erroneous and untenable. The Petitioner Club has been in existence since 1971 and possess all requisite documents to support their eligibility. The Petitioner, in fact, is a notified Association of Persons in 14th Press Council which expired on 05th October

2024. Therefore, Mr. Sibal contends that the rejection of the Petitioner’s credentials is ex facie arbitrary and devoid of merit being contrary to the records. He urges the Court to intervene and set aside the impugned decisions.

17. Opposing the Petition, Mr. T. Singhdev, representing the Press Council of India, submits that the scrutiny of the documents has to be done in terms of the Rule 4 of the PC Rules to ascertain the eligibility of Association of Persons. He asserts that the Petitioner must demonstrably fulfil the criteria of being registered under the relevant law for at least six years prior to the last date for filing claims. Additionally, all documents and proofs must be duly certified by the competent authority under the relevant statute. Mr. Singhdev maintains that the reasons for rejection are the result of a meticulous examination of the submitted documents, and the discrepancies identified therein fully justify the Petitioner's disqualification.

18. Moreover, he points out that the Petitioner approached the Court after a considerable delay and without challenging the notification dated 28th October 2024, through which the Associations of Persons have already been notified. He urges that any intervention by the Court at this juncture would disrupt the entire process, which has already reached its conclusion.

19. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions.

20. The recommendations/objections raised by the Scrutiny Committee of Respondent No. 1 reproduced in paragraph 11 of this order are arbitrary and ex facie erroneous, contrary to the record, and unsustainable in the face of law. Each of the Committee’s objections is addressed in detail below: Objection regarding the Copy of Registration Certificate not being legible:

(i) The Scrutiny Committee’s first objection pertains to the alleged illegibility of the copy of the Registration Certificate. We must acknowledge that the original Registration Certificate dates back to 1971, a document over half a century old. Naturally, with the passage of time, the original certificate has faded, and consequently, the photocopy submitted is faint. However, upon careful examination, the photocopy remains legible.

(ii) The criteria under Rule 4 of the PC Rules require that the association be registered under the relevant laws for at least six years prior to the last date of filing the claims. In compliance with these requirements, the Petitioner not only submitted the original Registration Certificate but also provided a fresh Certificate of Registration dated 19th July 2024. This updated Certificate was issued by the Assistant Registrar of Societies, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai, and submitted along with the Petitioner’s claim dated 18th July, 2024. Therefore, the requirement under the rules stood fully satisfied. The Certificate of Registration dated 19th July, 2024 is clear and ex facie legible.

(iii) The Scrutiny Committee’s insistence on the legibility of the original certificate, while disregarding the clear and updated Certificate of Registration, amounts to placing form over substance. Such an approach is antithetical to the principles of fairness and natural justice. It is a well-settled legal principle that procedural rules are handmaidens of justice and should not be used to thwart substantive rights. In light of the above, it is clear that the Scrutiny Committee’s objection regarding the legibility of the Registration Certificate is devoid of merit. Objection Regarding the Discrepancy in Name Between the Certificate and the Application.

(i) The second objection pertains to the alleged fundamental discrepancy between the name on the Registration Certificate and the name used in the application. Specifically, the Certificate issued by the competent authority is in the name of “Press Club Bombay,” while the application was submitted under the name “Mumbai Press Club.” The Committee deemed this inconsistency significant enough to warrant rejection of the application.

(ii) To address this objection, it is imperative to consider the historical context in which the Petitioner club was established. The Petitioner was incorporated as a society in the year 1971 under the name “Press Club Bombay,” corresponding to the official name of the city at that time. However, in November 1995, the city’s name was officially changed from ‘Bombay’ to ‘Mumbai.’ As a direct consequence, the Petitioner began using the name “Press Club Mumbai” to align with the new nomenclature. Over the years, it has also become popularly known as “Mumbai Press Club.”

(iii) In the claim dated 18th

July 2024, the very first sentence explicitly states: “The Press Club, Mumbai (Mumbai Press Club) is a member of...” This phrasing clearly indicates that the claim is made by “The Press Club, Mumbai,” and it defines “Mumbai Press Club” as its synonymous identity. The parenthetical reference serves to clarify any potential ambiguity, effectively bridging any nominal differences arising from the change of the name of the city change. The use of both names is deliberate and transparent. Furthermore, the letterhead on which the claim is submitted bears the logo of “Mumbai Press Club,” consistent with its current and commonly used name. Importantly, at the bottom of the letterhead, the registration details of the Petitioner are provided, including: The registered name as per the Certificate of Registration: “The Press Club, Bombay”. The Petitioner has provided satisfactory explanations, supported by documentation, to establish that the names “Press Club Bombay” and “Mumbai Press Club” refer to the same legal entity. The Scrutiny Committee has overlooked the substantive continuity of the Petitioner’s identity and operations. Objection Regarding Notarization of Documents

(i) The third objection revolves around the notarization of the documents

(Copy of list of members, copy of the constitution/by-laws of the Mumbai Press Club and minutes of meeting) submitted by the Petitioner. The Committee has observed that all pages of the documents must carry the signature along with the seal of a Notary Public for authentication to be valid. Mr. Sibal has explained that in Mumbai, the established and customary practice for notarization involves affixing the official seal, signature, and stamp of the Notary Public on the last page of the document, while the intervening pages bear a blue rubber stamp of the Notary. This is a standard procedure recognized and accepted across all courts in Mumbai, including the High Court of Bombay. He has further argued that contrary to the Committee’s assertion, it is factually incorrect to state that only the first and last pages are notarized. The intervening pages indeed bear the Notary’s stamp, thereby authenticating the entire document

(ii) In light of the foregoing explanation, the Committee’s insistence on having every page carry the Notary's signature and seal overlooks the substantive compliance demonstrated by the Petitioner. The document, in its entirety, has been duly notarized. Regarding the Minutes of the Meetings, the statement that only the first page and two other pages carry the Notary’s signature is also factually erroneous. Each set of Minutes has been notarized as a separate document, following the standard notarization procedure elaborated above. Thus, every set of Minutes submitted by the Petitioner has been duly authenticated and notarized. Therefore, the said ground is ex facie arbitrary, unsustainable, erroneous, misconceived and illegal. No proof of submission of minutes to the appropriate Authority:

(i) The proof of submission of Minutes to the appropriate Authority is not an eligibility criterion under the PC Rules. No statutory requirement for separate submission of Minutes to the Registrar of Societies has been shown to the Court. Therefore, the said ground cannot be the basis for rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. ii.) It is apparent that the said ground for recommending rejection is also unsustainable, illegal, arbitrary and is beyond the statutory requirements, as well as Respondent No. 1’s own notice dated 09th June, 2024. There is no clear authorization letter to file the claim:

(i) The declaration in the form of a sworn Affidavit of the then Secretary of the Petitioner submitted along with the claim dated 18th July, 2024 mentions the authorisation to file the claim. The Secretary of the Petitioner is ex-officio entitled and authorised to file the said claim. Further, the said secretary has sworn on an Affidavit to this effect and in paragraph 5 thereof expressly stated that the Petitioner has authorised him to make the necessary application and declaration and provide the necessary documentation for the same. In these circumstances, this ground too is without substance or merit, is entirely arbitrary and cannot be sustained either in fact or in law.

21. In light of the above analysis, it becomes evident that the objections are either factually incorrect or legally untenable. The Committee’s approach appears to be overly formalistic, placing undue emphasis on procedural niceties. Administrative bodies vested with the power to affect rights and interests must exercise their discretion judiciously and fairly, adhering to the principles of natural justice. In this case, the Scrutiny Committee has failed to do so. The rejection of the Petitioner’s application is, therefore, arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The Petitioner, being a longstanding association established in 1971, has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and provided the necessary documentation as per the requirements. In the opinion of the Court, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee dated 10th September, 2024 and the subsequent decision dated 27th September, 2024 of the 14th Press Council of India, is ex-facie, arbitrary and requires judicial intervention.

22. The petition is allowed in the following terms: a). the impugned recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee dated 10th September 2024, insofar as they pertain to the Petitioner, are quashed. b). Respondent No.1 is directed to include the name of the Petitioner in the list of Associations of Persons and issue appropriate notification to that effect and other consequential orders in accordance with law. c). The above directions shall be complied within a fortnight from today.

23. The present petition is disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 22, 2024