Full Judgment
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Kapil Dev and Sri S.N. Shukla, the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner no. 1, a correspondent of M/s Filmco Photonews,having its registered office at 109/246, R.K. Nagar, Kanpur and petitioner no.2, a Cameraman, are representative of the said news agency which isrecognised by the Government of India as well as State of U.P. The aforesaidnews agency carries out the business of covering news to be published innewspapers as well as for telecast through electronic media includingDoordarshan and other news channels. M/s Filmco Photonews, of which the petitioners are representatives asCorrespondent and Cameraman, is registered with the Registrar ofNewspapers, Government of India w.e.f. 23.9.88 and the petitionerss arerecognized as representatives of the said news agency by the PressRecognition Committee since 1989 under the U.P. Press Representative Recognition Rules, 1978. The petitioners were also issued Press Cards andwere given all the benefits, which were otherwise available to such accreditedjournalists.
3. It was in the year 2003 that the petitioners were refused the renewal oftheir accreditation by the State Government on the ground that they were nothaving any independent channel of their own. The petitioners filed a writpetition before this Court challenging the aforesaid order bearing writ petitionno. 802 (MB) of 2003. It was urged by the petitioners that non renewal ofpress card/accreditation to the petitioners on the ground that they were nothaving independent channel was not reasonable and that even free lancejournalists and other press persons, who do not own an independent channel,have been given the press cards. The writ petition was finally disposed of by aDivision Bench of this Court in which one of us (Pradeep Kant, J.) was amember, with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation, which wasto be considered and decided by the State Government taking intoconsideration that the petitioners have been allowed the same privilege orstatus, right from the year 1989 and whether on non-possession of anyindependent channel by the press person, the renewal of such press cards canbe refused.
4. The representations of the petitioners were considered and wererejected by means of the impugned orders dated 11.3.03 and 22.1.03. Theimpugned orders say that earlier petitioners' recognition was not allowed forwant of an independent channel with them and the petitioner, though havesubmitted certain certificates saying that they have been providing news to theChannels but they do not relate to any news and relate to advertisement. Apartfrom this telecast of ten-minute programme in the name of 'Jagriti', onDoordarshan covers social, cultural and film related news and not politicalnews. On this ground renewal of petitioners' recognition/issuance of presscards has been refused.
5. There is no such provision for a journalist or the news reporter eitherto own an independent channel or that he necessarily has to cover politicalnews. The grounds mentioned in the impugned orders do not flow from theRules. It may also be taken note of that right to information in respect ofsocial, cultural and film is also the right of the citizens and dissemination ofsuch information cannot be termed otherwise than news or information whichis telecast through T.V. channels, on reports being submitted by thejournalists.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioners were issued press cards/grantedrecognition with the same terms and conditions and were supplying theinformation with this very background from the year 1989, we do not find anyreason for denying recognition to them, at such a later stage.Sri Kapil Dev has submitted that as a matter of fact under the 1978 Rules, there is no provision for considering the renewal or the recognition orissuance of press cards every year, rather provision is that in case it is foundthat privilege given to the accredited journalists is being used for the reasonsgiven in Rules 22, 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1978, action can be taken forcancellation of such accreditation or press cards. We do not intend to enterinto this question, as we have already observed that rejection of the presscard/recognition for the year 2003 and onwards is wholly bad in law.We, therefore, quash the orders dated 11.3.03 and 22.1.03 and directthe State Government to reconsider and decide the matter of issuance of presscards/grant of recognition/accreditation to the petitioners for the year 2004-05and onwards in accordance with law within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.