http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/01/how-can-varadarajan-american-citizen.html How can Varadarajan, an American citizen continue as Editor, The Hindu? PM should take action.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/06/press-registrars-letter-to-hindu-on.html 13.6.12 Press Registrar's letter to the Hindu on Siddharth Varadarajan, Editor, concealed from some Directors
IANS | New Delhi May 8, 2013 Last Updated at 18:32 ISTHC notice on Swamy's plea that editors must be Indian citizens
The Delhi High Court Wednesday issued notice to the centre on a plea by Janta Party leader Subramanian Swamy that editors of news organisations in India should be citizens of the country.
A division bench of Chief Justice D. Murugesan and Justice Jayant Nath sought a response from the Registrar of Newspapers for India and the information and broadcasting ministry.
It also asked Additional Solicitor General Rajeeve Mehra to explain how it interprets the definition of an editor under the Press and Registration of Books Act and the Indian constitution.
The court posted the matter for further hearing July 24.
The court's directions came on a plea saying editors of news organisations "must be Indian citizens and resident of India", and not foreign citizens.
Swamy said that as per the Press and Registration of Books Act, only Indian citizen can hold the post of an editor in any news organisation.
"No person who is not ordinarily resident in India, or who is an minor, shall be permitted to be the editor, answerable to the government for any infractions of law committed by such newspaper," the plea said, referring to the act.
Seeking a court to pass an order to rectify the existing law, Swamy said: "Rectify the lacunas prevalent in the Press and Registration of Books Act regarding the definition of an editor in section 1 as read with the provision to Section 5(8) of the Act."
"Clarify the definition of editor to bring it in consonance with the current times and keeping in mind the fundamental rights of the citizen of India," the petition further said.
Swamy contended that the media is held to be the fourth estate of democracy for its crucial role and as in the three other estates, the editor be an ordinarily a resident citizen of India.
The editor is responsible under law for what news items are and are not published in the newspaper, and has therefore to be committed to the restrictions under Article 19(2), that is freedom of expression, Swamy said in the plea.
"The editor if not a citizen of India cannot be expected to be committed to our nation and sensitive to Article 19(2)."
Swamy further pleaded that newspaper editorials have a profound effect in national debates and in the forming voter opinion in parliamentary and other elections.
"Only Indian citizens are entitled to this protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. Hence, foreign citizen editors cannot act as fearlessly in safeguarding the citizens' right to information, or be expected to be committed to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the Indian State as required under Article 19(2)," Swamy's petition said.
"Readers/subscribers' fundamental right to information and free expression, which is subject to reasonable restrictions, is prejudiced when the editor, who under the law is the decisive authority for selecting what will be printed, is a foreign citizen."
The plea further added that a 2002 cabinet decision to permit 26 percent FDI in news and current affairs print media imposes a pre-condition that all key editorial posts must lie with Indian citizens who are also ordinarily resident in India.
The editors in the visual and TV media are already required to be citizens of India, the plea noted.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/hc-notice-on-swamy-s-plea-that-editors-must-be-indian-citizens-113050800722_1.html
May 7, 2013
Dr. Subramanian Swamy has filed a PIL Writ petition in Delhi High Court to challenge Hindu editor's appointment since he is a US citizen. HC has issued notices.
The term “ordinarily residing” should be read to mean that the person functioning as Editor of an Indian Newspaper should be a citizen. The term 'ordinarily residing' should be harmoniously constructed with the concept of 'citizenship' which is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Citizenship should be a pre-condition before applying the term 'ordinarily residing' stipulated in the Act.
Serial Number 3 07.07.2012 Reply sent by the Press Registrar vide Letter D.O. No. R22/74/2012/R-III to the Petitioner stating that as per proviso to Section 5 (8) of the Act, an Editor needs to be ordinarily residing in India and the proof of the same has been provided by The Hindu newspaper. Concept of ‘citizenship’ evolved after India attained Independence. The Legislature has in an over sight not amended the definition of Editor to specifically that an Editor should be a citizen of India. Apart from tax laws, the term is no longer in “stand alone” use in any other statute. Furthermore, the concept of ‘ordinary residence’ does not entitle a person to become a citizen of India. A citizen of India should be ordinarily residing in India but an ‘ordinary resident’ does not become a citizen of India unless certain conditions encapsulated in the Citizenship Act, 1955 are fulfilled. The term “ordinarily residing” thus requires the person to be a citizen.
POINTS ON THE PIL AGAINST FOREIGN CITIZEN EDITOR
1. The matter herein arises from the violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner, under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as also of the patriotic Indian subscribers of The Hindu newspaper.
2. READ Article 19(2). I submit readers/subscribers’ Right to Information and free expression, which is subject to First Amendment restrictions, is prejudiced when the editor, who is the sole authority for selecting what will be printed, is not a citizen of India, and hence not expected to be committed to our nation.
3. The Editor of the said newspaper is admittedly a foreigner, a US-born citizen [p.47], and therefore not a citizen of India.
4. For an editor to be fearless, he or she must have the secure cover of protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution, in particular the shield of Article 19(1)(a).
5. Thus I submit, it is a imperative under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that an editor must be a citizen for the following reasons:
(a) The Hon’ble Supreme Court [in (2013) 3 SCC 697 at para 14] has held that news items published in a newspaper “cause far–reaching consequences in an individual and country’s life.”
(b) Newspaper editorials have profound effect in national debates and in the formation of opinion of the voter in an parliamentary or any other election.
(c) Only Indian citizens are entitled to this protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Hence foreign citizen editors cannot act as fearlessly, or be committed to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the Indian State as required under Article 19(2).
(d) The editor in the visual media is already required to be a citizen of India.
(e) The 2002 Cabinet decision to permit 26% FDI in news and current affairs print media imposed a pre-condition to require that all key editorial posts must lie with Indian citizens who are also ordinarily resident in India.
6. However, the presently applicable statute, the archaic Press and Registration of Books Act was enacted in 1867 when there was no lawful concept of citizenship.
7. Until after end of World War I in 1919, there was neither a formal concept of citizenship nor of a passport issued for travel purposes.
8. Hence an ambiguity has arisen that requires to be rectified for which it is prayed herein that the Doctrine of Casus Omissus be invoked.
9. However, this Hon’ble Court will not need to look very deep to discern what needs to be read into the existing provisions of the statute, and which can safely said to be most likely and in all probability the intention of Parliament.
10. This is because a new Bill for enactment has been introduced in 2011 in Parliament [p.43], which when enacted will repeal and replace the 1867 Act.
11. It is yet to be passed in Parliament, but on December 20, 2012 the Standing Committee of Parliament reviewed it and approved it for passage by Parliament.
12. The clear intention in the Bill [Section 2 (c ) on p. 46] and which has been cleared for enactment by the Parliament’s Standing Committee, is to require that the editor be a citizen of India who in addition is ordinarily resident in India.
13. Moreover, in 1954, the First Press Commission discussed the subject of foreign nationals as owners and of influence in the press [p.272], and viewed it “with disfavor”.
14. As a consequence, in 1955, the Union Cabinet passed a Resolution which endorsed this view, and this Resolution holds the field today.
Siddharth Varadarajan is NOT an Indian citizen,hence ineligible to be Editor, the Hindu:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/748775/
Cabinet clears changes to PRBP Act, gives more teeth to govt
Swaraj Thapa Posted online: Fri Feb 11 2011, 03:22 hrs
New Delhi : The government will have the power to cancel titles of newspapers if the latter fails to provide annual statement of account for three consecutive years, a new draft Press and Registration of Books and Publications (PRBP) Act, 2009, approved by the Union Cabinet on Thursday, has proposed. Internet editions of newspapers will be covered under the new Act, while those convicted of terrorist acts “or anything done against the security of the state” will be barred from bringing out any publication, says the draft Act that will replace the Press and Registration of Books (PRB) Act, 1867.
Re-framing guidelines and rules for the print media, the PRBP Act proposes penalty provisions for those who bring out publications that fail to conform to the rules laid down by the law. Additionally, it proposes suspension of publication for a period upto 30 days if the publisher fails to print the print-line in the newspaper.
“It will have several new provisions. We have also defined the terms publication, newspaper, magazine and editor, which were not there. The earlier Act was formulated way back in 1867,” I&B Minister Ambika Soni said...
164.100.24.207/bull2/2012/24.1.2012.pdf This is the document which is the Lok Sabha bulletin which makes a reference that the bill has been sent to Standing Committee.
As introduced in Lok Sabha, Bill No. 124 of 2011 THE PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS BILL, 2011
Definitions 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—(c) “editor” means a person, whether called editor, chief-editor, sub-editor or by
whatever name called, who is a citizen of India and ordinarily resides in India, who controls the selection of the matter that is brought out in a publication;
LOK SABHA
________
BULLETIN – PART II
(General information relating to Parliamentary and other matters)
_______
Nos. 3618-3621 ] [Tuesday , January 24, 2012 /Magha 4, 1933 (Saka)
No. 3618 Legislative Branch-I
Statement regarding Government Bills pending in Lok Sabha
A Statement showing Government Bills pending in Lok Sabha at the end of the
Ninth Session of Fifteenth Lok Sabha is given below :-
36. The Press and Registration of
Books and Publications Bill,
2011
Information and
Broadcasting
Introduced on 16 December, 2011.
The Bill was referred to the
Standing Committee on Information
Technology by the Speaker and
intimation thereof was published in
Bulletin Part-II dated 5 January,
2012 vide para No.3597.
The bill referred to the Standing Committee of Parliament is very specific that an editor is a citizen of India and ordinarily resides in India. This is consistent with FDI guidelines which require editor to be a resident Indian. The key word is INDIAN in this guideline, Siddharth Varadarajan is a FOREIGNER. Citizenship did NOT exist in 1867 when the PRB Act was enacted. The Act is intended ONLY for Indians. Notification of 5 Jan. 2012 from Lok Sabha speaker confirms the intent of the PRB Act to deal with ONLY INDIANS, RESIDENT INDIANS. And, cannot be applied to Foreigners even if resident in India.
Excerpts from the Writ:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
IN RE:
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
…PETITIONER
VERSUS
MR. SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
AND OTHERS
…RESPONDENT
FOR INDEX SEE INSIDE
PETITIONER IN PERSON
DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
A-77, NIZAMUDDIN EAST,
NEW DELHI-110013
MOBILE:
INDEX
S.No
Particulars
Page Nos
1.
Memo of Parties
2.
Synopsis and List of Dates
3.
Writ Petition and Affidavits in Support of the Writ Petition
4.
ANNEXURE P-1, A copy of the letter sent to the Press Registrar on 06.06.2012
5
ANNEXURE P-2, A copy of the Complaint sent to the Press Council of India against the Editor of The Hindu, Respondent No. 1 by the Petitioner on 06.06.2012
6
ANNEXURE P-3, A copy of the Reply sent by the Press Registrar to the Petitioner vide Letter D.O. No. R22/74/2012/R-III on 07.07.2012
7
ANNEXURE P-4, A copy of the letter sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice seeking a clarification on the definition of ‘Editor’ on 16.07.2012
8
ANNEXURE P-5, A Copy of the letter sent to the office of the Prime Minister of India on 21.08.2012 by the Petitioner seeking a further clarification on the definition of ‘Editor’
9
ANNEXURE P-6, A Copy of reply given by the Press Council of India vide letter marked as File No. 14/234/12-13-PCI on 31.08.2012
10
ANNEXURE P-7, A Copy of the reply of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on behalf of the office of the Prime Minister of India vide letter no. D. O. No. 2/15/2012-MUC on 19.12.2012.
11
ANNEXURE P-8, A Copy of the Proposed Press and Registration of Books and Publications Act, 2011
12
Memo of Appearance
13
Proof of Service
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
A-77, NIZAMUDDIN EAST,
NEW DELHI-110013
PETITIONER
VERSUS
2. MR. SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
3. UNION OF INDIA
4. THE HINDU NEWSPAPER
…RESPONDENTS
PETITIONER IN PERSON
DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
NEW DELHI
APRIL 2013
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
This instant Writ Petition seeks a direction from this Hon’ble Court to ascertain the lacunas prevalent in the current Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (herein after referred to as “The Act”) regarding the definition of “Editor” in Section 1 and the Proviso to Section 5(8) of the Act.
The instant Petition arises from the fact that the Freedom of Press is regarded as the Fourth Estate of a successful and responsible democracy. The Press and its freedoms are enshrined within Article 19 (especially Article 19(1) (a)) of the Constitution of India. It is one of the most important and vital part of the Indian democracy. ‘The Hindu’ is one of the most important newspapers in the country today, if coverage and readership are kept in mind. Its Chennai Branch Editor is Mr Siddharth Varadarajan, Respondent No. 1 who is an American citizen and has been living and working in India for the past 17 years through a Residential permit and PIO Card. Owing to the important responsibility which an Editor has in spreading news through its articles and shaping opinions of its readers which are primarily citizens of India, such a responsibility should not be given to a foreigner.
Serial No.
Date
Event
1
24.04.2012
Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan, Respondent No. 1, takes over from Mr. N Ram as the newly appointed Editor of The Hindu newspaper for its Chennai Branch.
2
06.06.2012
Complaint sent to the Press Registrar of India by the Petitioner requesting to declare the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 as Null and Void as he is an American Citizen.
The Petitioner had also sent a Complaint against the Editor of The Hindu to the Press Council of India.
3
07.07.2012
Reply sent by the Press Registrar vide Letter D.O. No. R22/74/2012/R-III to the Petitioner stating that as per proviso to Section 5 (8) of the Act, an Editor needs to be ordinarily residing in India and the proof of the same has been provided by The Hindu newspaper. The proof was found satisfactory by the Press Registrar and on the basis of the same a revised Registration Certificate was issued to The Hindu newspaper by the Press Registrar.
4
16.07.2012
Aggrieved from the above mentioned reply of the Press Registrar the Petitioner then requested the Ministry of Law and Justice to clarify to the Press Registrar the definition of Editor as has been amended in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 2011 which includes the requirement of being a citizen of India and accordingly advise the Press Registrar to not allow Respondent No. 1 from being the Editor of the
Hindu newspaper.
5
21.08.2012
The Petitioner wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of India seeking a further clarification as to the definition of ‘Editor’ and also regarding the amendment to the Press and Registration of Books Act.
6
31.08.2012
The Press Council of India vide Letter marked File No. 14/234/12-13-PCI informed the Petitioner that it considered the Complaint of the Petitioner against the Editor of The Hindu newspaper as outside its purview and has hence treated the matter as closed.
7
19.12.2012
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide letter no. D. O. No. 2/12/2012-MUC replied to the Petitioner’s letter to the Prime Minister and stated that the Amendment to the Press and Registration of Books Act include the pre-requisite of being a citizen of India.
8
.04.2013
The Petitioner has exhausted all the avenues to protect the integrity and freedom of the press and seeks the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court in removing a Foreigner, i.e., Respondent No.1, from the important post of Editor of the Chennai Branch of a National Newspaper, i.e., The Hindu.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
A-77, NIZAMUDDIN EAST,
NEW DELHI-110013
PETITIONER
VERSUS
MR. SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
THE HINDU NEWSPAPER
…RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION CONFIRMING/LAYING DOWN /CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF EDITOR TO BRING IT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE CURRENT TIMES AND KEEPING IN MIND THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF INDIA
To the Chief Justice of Delhi and
His Companion Judges
of the Delhi High Court.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES AS UNDER:
1. The instant Writ Petition seeks a direction from this Hon’ble Court as to the ambit of the definition of ‘Editor’ as given in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (herein after referred to as the Act) which in its current form under Section 1 means a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. Furthermore, proviso to Section 5(8) states that an Editor shall be ordinarily residing in India. However, it does not mention the citizenship requirement and on the plain reading of the Act and the definition any person regardless of him/her being a citizen or an alien can become the Editor of a newspaper in India.
The Petitioner wants to bring it to the notice of this Hon’ble court that the Act was first constituted in the year 1867, during the British Colonial rule in India. At the time of its conception, there was no concept of Citizen/Alien prevalent in the country as India was occupied and serving as one of the colonies of the British kingdom. Hence there was no democracy or any freedoms given to Indians. But, after India attained Independence in 1947, it introduced Democracy as well as the concept of Citizenship and fundamental rights. Although the Act has been amended time and again, the Legislature has in an over sight not amended the definition of Editor. This over sight comes into greater highlight as on DATE (24.04.2012) Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan, Respondent No. 1, became the Editor of the Chennai Branch of The Hindu Newspaper. It is important to point out that Respondent No. 1 is an American Citizen, temporarily residing in India on a Residential Permit and PIO Card. An Editor is responsible completely for the news/articles printed in the newspaper under his command and being the Editor of a highly respected and important newspaper is a very responsible job as it shapes the daily opinions of innumerable readers of the said newspaper. Such a job should not be handed over to a foreigner in the primary capacity of Editor.
2. The Petitioner No.1 is not an idle busybody. He is a nationally known public figure, active in politics and public affairs. He is deeply concerned with the protection of the Rule of Law and the enforcement of the statutory duties of the Government as well as purity in public life.
a. The Petitioner No.1 holds a doctorate in Economics from the world famous Harvard University in the U.S.A., where, before returning to India he had taught Economics – and he has continued to teach there for some decades in the summer semester; and he had also taught Economics at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, as a full Professor. He is a senior politician, a Member of Parliament for five terms, who has been a senior Cabinet Minister in the Central Government, holding the portfolios of Commerce and Law & Justice, and later he was Chairman of the Commission for Labour Standards, a post of Cabinet Rank. Twice he has been elected to the Rajya Sabha from the State of Uttar Pradesh, to the Lok Sabha twice from Maharashtra and once from the State of Tamil Nadu. He has numerous books and articles to his credit. He has lectured both in India and abroad on national concerns as well as on Economics. He has initiated and conscientiously fought many public interest litigations. He regards this as a duty he owes his country.
b. In particular, Petitioner No.1 being a bonafide law abiding citizen believes that it is his duty to set into motion the legal process whenever instances of grave offences committed against human beings which affects the society at large are brought to his notice which ,in his opinion ,causes great miscarriage of justice. It is this duty he seeks to perform in the instant case, as set out herein below.
3. QUESTION OF LAW
The matter raises an important question of law of general public importance that arises out of the question of the status and rights of an Editor in a National Newspaper in not only safeguarding and upholding the rights of the citizens of this country and informing its readers with fairness and accuracy every important piece of information and news but also in accepting the duties of an Editor which include full responsibility for the news items presented by the newspaper. It is for this responsibility that Article 19 of the Constitution of India gives the Freedom of Press to the media. Enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) is the freedom of the newspaper to report any news/article/story with complete truth and honesty without fear. The post of an Editor of a newspaper is one of the most important and powerful ones in modern times. An Editor is responsible for the printing of each and every article/story/opinion in the newspaper. Hence it is under the guidance and supervision of an Editor that the reader forms his/her opinions after reading the newspaper.
Therefore, the post of an Editor is without doubt one of the most important posts in a democracy. Furthermore, when this important position is given to a foreigner, who does not enjoy all the fundamental rights under the Constitution of India and does he have any moral sense of duty towards upholding the idea of democracy and the rights of its citizens, it can lead to a situation in which travesty of law and justice are the only outcome.
This matter of law also arises in India from the following facts and circumstances:
a. On 24.04.2012, The Hindu, one of the most read national newspaper appointed Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan, Respondent No. 1, as Editor of its Chennai Branch.
b. That the Petitioner found out that Respondent No. 1 is not a citizen of India rather he is an American born citizen, holding an American passport till date.
c. That although the Respondent No. 1 has been residing in India for the last 17 years and he is married to an Indian citizen and also has acquired property in India. But till date the Respondent No. 1 has extended his visa and works in India on the basis of a residential permit and PIO card.
d. That Respondent No.1 has never tried to acquire the citizenship of India even though he earns his bread and butter from employment in India, he is married to an Indian citizen and has acquired property in India and till date is granted rights and freedoms under the American Constitution. (KINDLY SEE ARTICLE 5 OF CONSTITUTION, IN CASE IT CAN BE INCLUDED)
e. That owing to the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is clear to the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 is an American citizen in his head and in his heart.
f. That the post of an Editor of an important national newspaper with wide coverage as its readers, who are primarily the citizens of India should not be given to a Foreigner.
4. That aggrieved from the present case and the circumstances relating to it, the Petitioner decided to do the following:
a. On 06.06.2012, the Petitioner had sent a complaint to the Press Registrar requesting to declare the appointment of Respondent No.1 as Editor of The Hindu as null and void as he is not a citizen of India. A copy of the same letter is appended hereto as ANNEXURE P-1.
b. Also on 06.06.2012, the Petitioner had sent a Complaint to the Press Council of India against the Editor of The Hindu. A copy of the same is appended hereto as ANNEXURE P-2. (DO NOT HAVE THIS LETTER WITH ME)
c. On 07.07.2012, the Press Registrar replied to the complaint vide letter D. O. No. R22/74/2012/R-III and rejected the request of the Petitioner stating that as the Respondent No.1 holds a valid residential permit and PIO Card which are the only requirements for being an Editor, i.e., ordinarily residing in India, under the proviso to Section 5(8) of the Act, the Press Registrar has issued a revised registration certificate to The Hindu. A copy of the reply is hereby appended as ANNEXURE P-3.
d. Aggrieved by the reply of the Press Registrar, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Ministry of Law and Justice on 16.07.2012 seeking a clarification to the concept of ‘ordinarily resident’ as the Law Ministry had introduced an Amendment to the Act and stated in the new definition that an ‘Editor’ needs to be a citizen of India under Section 2 of the Amended Act. The Petitioner further requested the Law ministry to inform the Press Registrar of the said amendments and ask for withdrawal of Respondent No. 1 as Editor of The Hindu. A Copy of the said letter is appended as ANNEXURE P-4.
e. The Petitioner further seeked a clarification from the Prime Minister of India’s office regarding the Amendment to the Act and the definition of ‘Editor’ vide letter dated 21.08.2012. A copy of the letter is appended hereto as ANNEXURE P-5. DO NOT HAVE THE COPY OF THIS LETTER WITH ME.
f. The Petitioner received a reply on the Complaint against the Editor of The Hindu from the Press Registrar’s office vide Letter marked as File No.14/234/12-13-PCI in which the Council rejected the Complaint of the Petitioner stating that the same is outside the purview of its charter and closed the matter henceforth. A copy of the reply is appended hereto as ANNEXURE P-6.
g. The Petitioner received a reply from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on behalf of the Prime Minister’s office on 19.12.2012 vide a letter D. O. No. 2/15/2012-MUC. The letter explained the current scenario and the proposed amendment to the definition of ‘Editor’ which would include being a citizen of India as a pre-requisite. A copy of the reply is appended hereto as ANNEXURE P-7.
h. The Press Registrar and the Press Council of India are the 2 main bodies which deal with the rights, duties and conduct of journalists (including Editors) and newspapers. The Petitioner had tried to bring the current facts and scenario to the notice of both these bodies but to no avail. Hence, the current Writ Petition is filed in this Hon’ble Court.
5. It is the Petitioners contention that the post of an Editor of a newspaper, especially an important National newspaper like The Hindu, should not be given to a Foreigner on the following among other grounds, which grounds are taken in the alternate and without prejudice to one another.
GROUNDS
A. It is submitted that the definition of the term ‘Editor’ in the Act is as stated below:
i. Under Section 1, the Interpretation Clause, ‘Editor’ means the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper.
ii. The Proviso of Section 5 (8) states that no person who does not ordinarily reside in India …..nor shall any such person edit a newspaper.
A bare reading of the above sections shows that in order to become an Editor, one needs to ‘ordinarily reside in India’. The concept of ‘ordinary residence’ which was introduced in the Act of 1867 has become redundant in the modern times especially since 1950 when the Constitution came into effect, and now is only used for the purpose of taxation. Apart from tax laws, the term is no longer in “stand alone” use in any other statute. Furthermore, the concept of ‘ordinary residence’ does not entitle a person to become a citizen of India. A citizen of India should be ordinarily residing in India but an ‘ordinary resident’ does not become a citizen of India unless certain conditions encapsulated in the Citizenship Act, 1955 are fulfilled.
Moreover, an Indian citizen is dis-entitled from certain rights of citizenship if he or she is not ordinarily resident in India e.g., as a voter u/s….Representation of People’s Act (1951?).
In other words, the term “ordinarily resident” thus requires the person to be a citizen to have application. A person for example cannot become a voter merely because he or she is ordinarily resident in the country. That person has to be first an Indian citizen before the term ordinarily resident become applicable.
In 1867 when the Act was promulgated, there was no legal concept of citizen or passport. This concept was developed after World War I.
B. The lacunae in the definition of ‘Editor’ has already been noticed by the Legislature and the Press and Registration of Books and Publications Bill 2011, which is pending before the Parliament, defines an ‘Editor’ as:
“Section 2(c): ‘Editor’ means a person, whether called Editor, chief-Editor, sub-Editor, or by whatever name called, who is a citizen of India and ordinarily resides in India, who controls the selection of the matter that is brought out in a publication.”
A copy of the above mentioned Bill has been appended hereto as ANNEXURE P-8.
Hence, keeping in pace with the modern times, the Legislature has introduced this amendment to the definition of the Editor. However, as the Bill has yet not been passed in the Parliament. Therefore, on this ground and the Doctrine of Casus Omissus, it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to fill the lacunae in the law arising from the circumstances prevailing when the Act of 1867 was promulgated.
C. Further after attaining independence from the British rule in 1947, India introduced the system of Citizenship through the Citizenship Act, 1955. The citizens of India are provided with important freedoms and rights under the Constitution of India. One of the pillars of Fundamental rights is Article 19 which includes the Freedom of the Press. Through the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court and the various High courts of India this Freedom of Press has become an important milestone in achieving the independence of the Fourth estate in our democracy. This freedom is given to the Journalists and other members of the Press and Newspapers community to safeguard and secure the right to receive and give information in the form of news, articles, opinions etc. with complete honesty and without any fear of hostility from any member of the community. There are a catena of judgments stating that Article 19 is granted only to the citizens of India and foreigners’ rights are restricted to Article 21, i.e., Right to Life. Since Article 19 itself is not given to any foreigner, it means that the Freedom of Press under Article 19 (1) (a) cannot be ascertained by any foreigner in India. This contention is reinforced in the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts in India, a few of which are set out herein below:
i. A 9 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Trading Corporation of India vs. CTO AIR 1963 SC 1811 stated that Article 19 lays down that ‘all citizens’ shall have the rights to freedoms enumerated in Clauses (a) to (g)…the makers of the Constitution deliberately and advisedly made a clear distinction between fundamental rights available “to any persons and those guaranteed to all citizens”.
ii. In the case of Anwar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1971) 3 SCC 104, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that Article 19 is not available to a foreigner in India.
iii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Loius De Raedt vs Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 554 stated that foreigners not acquiring citizenship under Article 5 are not entitled to claim rights under Article 19. They only have rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. The Petitioners have not filed any other Petition on the subject matter of this Petition, either in this Court or any other Court.
7. Due notice has been served on all parties affected, via the Respondents.
8. PRAYER
The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case, and after hearings thereon and the law in the case, issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,
a. Reading down into the current prevailing law the definition of ‘Editor’ to include being a citizen of India as a pre-requisite for being regarded as ordinarily resident in India, which is clearly the object and intention of the Union of India as expressed in the relevant clause in the Bill introduced in Parliament.
b. Direct the Press Registrar to remove Respondent No. 1 from the post of Editor of The Hindu.
c. Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
PETITIONER IN PERSON
Delhi
April 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
IN RE:
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY …PETITIONER
VERSUS
MR. SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT