Institution of journalism is crumbling, the Rules of accreditation framed but not scrupulously followed: High Court of Himachal Pradesh

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLACWP No. 74814.Reserved on: 26.03.2021Date of decision: 09.04.2021 _____________________________________________________________Vijay Gupta …..Petitioner.VersusState of H.P. and others ..Respondents. CoramThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan Judge.Whether approved for reporting 1 YesFor the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma AdvocateGeneral with Mr. Vinod Thakur Addl. A.G. and Mr. BhupinderThakur Dy. A.G.Tarlok Singh Chauhan JudgeAggrieved by the suspension of his accreditationas a Journalist the petitioner has filed the instant petitionfor the grant of following substantive reliefs:“I. That a writ of certiorari may be issued therebydirecting the respondents to quash and set aside theorder passed by the State Level AccreditationCommittee on 2nd August 2014.(II) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly beissued thereby directing the respondents to renew1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP the accreditation of the petitioner immediately whichis pending since December 2012.(III) That a writ of mandamus may further be issuedthereby directing the respondents to start allocationpublication of government related notices tenders classified advertisements in the news weekly of thepetitioner as is being given to other news agenciesor dailies etc.(IV) That the respondents may be issued a directionthereby directing them not to cancel theaccreditation of the petitioner.”2.It is averred that the petitioner is the Editor ofthe Hindi Weekly namely ‘Him Ujala’ circulated in HimachalPradesh Delhi Uttrakhand Utter Pradesh and Haryanahaving around 6 000 copies circulation per week. Thepetitioner is working in the field of journalism for the pastmore than 13 years and has served the interest of thegeneral public by bringing out the true and correct newsitems. The petitioner news weekly has been given award inthe field of journalism by the Government of HimachalPradesh i.e. ‘Laghu Patrikarita ke Kshetra me NirantarParkashan Hetu’ yet the accreditation of the petitioner hasbeen cancelled only on the ground that there are certainFIRs pending against him.2 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP 3.It is further averred that the impugned action onthe part of the respondent State in stopping publication ofthe tenders and classified ads of the government andfurther not renewing the accreditation of the petitioner is adirect attack on the freedom of press inasmuch as on onehand the petitioner’s news weekly is being financiallycrippled as the publication of the government tenders notices and classified ads is a major source of income ofthe petitioner so as to enable him to run the news weeklyand on the other hand the respondents by not renewing theaccreditation is depriving the petitioner the facilities whichare usually available to the correspondents and journalistsof the State. It is further averred that the freedom of press isone of the pillars of democrary and it is imperative to ensurethat there is no attack on the freedom of press and therefore also the action of the respondents State is illegal.4.Lastly it is averred that the petitioner has beentargeted because he had been publishing news itemsregarding corruption and irregularities committed by thepolitical leaders who had amassed huge wealth.5.The respondents have filed their reply wherein itis averred that the petitioner’s accreditation and suspension3 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP was placed before the Press Accreditation Committee which is the final authority as per Rule 4 of H.P. PressCorrespondents Accreditation and Recognition Rules 2002(for short ‘the Rules’) held on 15.07.2014 who after scrutinyof the record decided to keep under suspension theaccreditation of the petitioner till the final outcome of thecriminal cases pending against him in various Courts.6.It is further averred that the petitioner was givenDistrict Level Accreditation by the respondent departmentfor ‘Him Ujala Weekly’ which was valid upto 31.12.2012. TheDirector Information and Public RelationsWhether Sh. Vijay Gupta Editor Him Ujala Weekly newspaper Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur isa permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh.2)Whether the certificate stated to be issued bythe Executive Magistrate Paonta Sahib DistrictSirmaur on dated 19.02.2008 is fake as alleged bythe complainant. The Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur vide his letter No.Reader ADC 2014 dated 02.07.2014 informed as under:1. Sh. Vijay Gupta S o Sh. Sanjeet Kumar R o RoomNo. 14 Ward No.11 Dashmesh Complex PaontaSahib is not a permanent resident of HimachalPradesh but he has been living at Paonta Sahib forthe last few years.2. The Tehsildar Paonta Sahib has not issuedcertificate on 19.02.2008 in favour of Sh. Vijay Guptaas per his office record. The Deputy Commissioner had further informed that theStation House Officer Paonta Sahib has reported that FIRNo. 84 2014 dated 01.03.2014 has been lodged against thepetitioner under Sections 420 465 468 and 471 IPC on thecomplaint of Sh. Rajinder Thakur. 11.It was also reported that the matter pertain tovarious allegations including the allegation of fake6 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP certificate levelled by Sh. Rajinder Thakur against thepetitioner and the same are under investigation by thepolice and at this stage it cannot be ascertained as towhether the certificate is fake or genuine. 12.Lastly it is averred that accreditation orrecognition is not a matter of right and the same can alwaysbe suspended under the relevant Rules.13.Even though the petitioner has filed rejoinder however the factual matrix as set out in the reply have notbeen controverted and only the provisions of the Rules havebeen reproduced.14.I have heard learned counsel for the parties andhave gone through the material available on record. 15.Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur learned counsel for thepetitioner has vehemently argued that the action of therespondents is arbitrary illegal as the petitioner has beendeprived of the bread and butter without following theprocess of law more particularly the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the Rules which read as under: “14. Disaccreditation or Derecognition ofCorrespondent:7 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP 1) A correspondent shall be liable to bedisaccreditated derecognized if:(a) He commits any offence under the Pressand Registrations Act orHe uses information received andfacilitates acccorded to him for a non journalistic or illegal purposes orIn the course of his duties ascorrespondent he behaves in anundignified or unprofessional manner orcommits an offence involving moralturpitude or(d)He engages himself in work other thanjournalistic such as soliciting business oradvertisements for a newspaper or newsagency or(e)he is convicted by a court of law fordefamation or any other criminal offencearising out of his writings coverage.(2)The power to disaccreditate or derecognizecorrespondent will vest in the PressAccreditation Committee which shall notexercise this power except after giving to thecorrespondent concerned a show causenotice and also an opportunity of being heard.Provided that the order of Director shallbe competent in the case of an emergencyand a grave misconduct on the part of acorrespondent to suspend his accreditation orrecognition pending the completion ofproceedings before the Press AccreditationCommittee.Provided that the order of disaccreditation or derecognition shall containreasons therefore.8 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP 3)A correspondent aggrieved by an orderpassed by the Press Accreditation Committeeunder this rule may prefer a review petitionbefore the Accreditation Committee within 15days of the passing of the order or aftercommunication of the order to him her if it ispassed in his her absence.”16.To say the least the submissions made byMr. Ashok Kumar Thakur learned counsel for the petitioneris totally fallacious and reliance placed on Rule 14istotally misplaced as the same relates to a correspondent who is liable to be disaccreditated derecognized. Whereas in the instant case the accreditation of the petitioner hassimply been suspended till the final outcome of the criminalcase in exercise of sub ruleof 14 which reads as under:“(2)The power to disaccreditate or derecognizecorrespondent will vest in the Press AccreditationCommittee which shall not exercise this powerexcept after giving to the correspondentconcerned a show cause notice and also anopportunity of being heard.Provided that the order of Director shallbe competent in the case of an emergencyand a grave misconduct on the part of acorrespondent to suspend his accreditation orrecognition pending the completion of9 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP proceedings before the Press AccreditationCommittee.Provided that the order of disaccreditation or derecognition shall containreasons therefore.”17.In this view of the matter obviously no fault canbe attributed to the action of the respondents.18.The media has often been called the handmaidenof justice the watchdog of society and the judiciary thedispenser of justice and the catalyst for social reforms.Hence it is the utmost responsibility of all the mediahouses news channels journalists and press to ensure thattheir conduct is above board and they discharge their dutiesin a responsible manner. 19.A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in SuryaPrakash Khatri vs. Smt. Madhu Trehan 1992yet it isnoticed that more than one person of one13 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP organisation has been given accreditation andthe Rules are openly flouted. This practicedeprives many deserving Journalists to getaccreditation.iv)Even though there is a clear bar forretaining official accommodation in case ofJournalists alike Government servants havingtheir own house flats in Shimla. However it isnoticed that many of the Journalists who haveown houses flats and some have constructed theflats over the subsidised land in the JournalistsHousing Society near “Asia The Dawn” nearSankat Mochan temple are still retaining theGovernment accommodation and such tendencyneeds to be curbed forthwith and suchpossession is required to be handed over to theGovernment immediately.25.In the given facts and circumstances of the casewhile dismissing this petition this Court deems it imperativeto pass the following directions:(i)Respondent No.1 is directed to review andrevise the accreditation granted to differentcategories strictly in accordance with the Rules of2016 as amended from time to time and14 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 19 04 HCHP thereafter grant fresh accreditation strictly inaccordance with these rules.(ii) Amendment be carried out in Rules 2016making a time bound provision for granting refusing accreditation and in case of rejection aprovision be made making it mandatory forrecording reasons for such rejection. It must beensured that only one journalist from onepublication newspaper be granted accreditation(State or District level) in accordance with therules.26.The instant petition is disposed of on theaforesaid terms so also the pending application(s) if any.27.Needful be done within three months.List for compliance on 09.07.2021.9th April 2021. (GR) Judge15 

Summary: High time that the State reviews and revises the list of accreditation so as to ensure that only genuine and credible correspondents are accorded accreditation. This was said in the case of Vijay Gupta v State of H.P and Others [CWP No. 7487 of 2014] by Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Editor of the Hindi Weekly namely ‘Him Ujala’. He has been working in the field of journalism for the past more than 13 years yet his accreditation had been cancelled on the ground that there are certain FIRs pending against him. Hence, a plea was filed. The petitioner averred that the State stopping publication of the tenders and classified ads of the government and not renewing the accreditation of the petitioner, is a direct attack on the freedom of press. This is financially crippling his news weekly and is depriving him the facilities which are usually available to the correspondents and journalists of the State. It was further averred that the freedom of press is one of the pillars of democracy and it is imperative to ensure that there is no attack on the freedom of press and, therefore, the action of the State is illegal. Lastly, it was averred that the petitioner has been targeted because he had been publishing news items regarding corruption and irregularities committed by the political leaders, who had amassed huge wealth. On the other hand, the respondents averred that the petitioner’s accreditation and suspension was placed before the Press Accreditation Committee, which is the final authority as per Rule 4 of H.P. Press Correspondents Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 2002, who after scrutiny of the record decided to keep under suspension the accreditation of the petitioner till the final outcome of the criminal cases pending against him in various Courts. Lastly, it was averred that accreditation or recognition is not a matter of right and the same can always be suspended under the relevant Rules. The Court referred to the case of Surya Prakash Khatri vs. Smt. Madhu Trehan [1992 (2001) DLT 665], where it was said that “power of the Press is almost like nuclear power – it can create and it can destroy”. Considering this, the Court stressed that “because of mushroom growth of journalist and because of the cut-throat competition amongst the journalists themselves, their standards are declining leading to the decline of the institution of journalism itself. This is further compounded by the accreditation offered by the State Government to so called “journalists”, who in the real sense are not journalists but only enjoy the facilities accorded and available to accredited journalists”.