Delhi High Court Advised the Parliament’s Media Advisory Committee to Revisit their Guidelines on the Issuance of Press Gallery Passes to Freelance Journalists

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

In this case, the petitioner challenged the Rajya Sabha’s Media Advisory Committee’s decision taken on 6.6.2017.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner is a freelance journalist. He claims to have been covering the proceedings in the Rajya Sabha as well as the Lok Sabha since 1991.

The respondents claimed that the freelance journalists were not given Press Gallery Passes till 2008. On 19.09.2008, MAC decided to consider the request of these journalists for Rajya Sabha Press Gallery Pass. So, in 2009, the petitioner and three other journalists got recommended for an annual pass under the freelance category.

In a MAC meeting held on 19.11.2011, it decided to issue only sessional passes to the freelance journalists. Based on these suggestions, on 06.03.2015, they laid down the guidelines for journalists under the freelance category.

The petitioner held the Permanent Rajya Sabha Press Gallery till the impugned decision of the MAC on 06.07.2017. The decision only allowed sessional passes to the freelance journalist. Earlier, they had only issued an annual pass to them.

The petitioner prays that a permanent pass should be issued to him by the respondent by way of a Writ of Mandamus.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner challenged the above decision on the ground that it violates his fundamental right. He contended that it not only violates Article 19(1)(a) but also Article 14 of the Constitution. It fails to give a reasonable basis of why it makes a freelance journalist a separate category. This distinction between freelance and accredited journalist has no basis in law.

He claims that it seeks to create a divide and treat freelance journalists unequally. It makes freelance journalists inferior to journalists affiliated with media houses. For substantiating the same, the counsel relied on Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (1) SCC 641 and Naveen Jain v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2019 SC 5087.

Arguments of the Respondent

Respondents stated that an anomalous situation arose with the adoption of the guidelines. The three freelance journalists had annual passes while others admitted to the gallery had sessional passes.

A sub-committee of MAC was set up in May 2017, to recommend the number of freelance journalists to be admitted. It was also asked to rationalize the existence of two types of passes in the freelance category.

It observed that issuing two types of passes for journalists who are professionally equal is discriminatory and unjust. The committee also recommended that only sessional passes should be issued to freelance journalists. It further suggested that they should stop annual passes to the three freelance journalists. Subsequently, MAC accepted these recommendations on 06.07.2017.

The Respondents placed reliance on Dr. Jagdish Prasad Gaur v. The Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha & Ors. It held that the entry to Parliament House is in the nature of privilege. Also, it is open to the Secretariat of the two Houses to regulate the entry therein.

The decision of 06.07.2017 merely does away with the discrimination with sessional and permanent passes. The petitioner can still report proceedings of the Rajya Sabha with the sessional pass.

The counsel submitted that the decision is neither violative of Art. 19(1)(a) nor Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Observation of the Court

The Court noted that the Petitioner has challenged only the decision dated 06.07.2017 of the MAC. This decision removed the discrimination between the same class of journalists.

The Court observed that no person has an unfettered right to enter the same. The Court noted the same in view of the attack on the Indian Parliament by terrorists on 13th December 2001.

Court’s Decision

The bench comprised of Justice Navin Chawla held that the Court did not find any merit in the same. Hence, the Court dismissed the petition with the above observations. As a result, the Court upheld the decision of the MAC on 6.07.2017 which removes the current discrimination. Further, the Court advised the respondents to revisit their guidelines for issuance of passes.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -