The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Press Council of India (PCI), thereby affirming the Single Judge’s decision directing the inclusion of the Press Club, Mumbai, in the list of notified “associations of persons” eligible to participate in the constitution of the 15th Press Council of India. The Court held that the rejection of the Press Club’s claim by the Scrutiny Committee was hyper-technical, arbitrary, and contrary to the object of the Press Council Act, 1978, and that the doctrine of substantial compliance squarely applied.
The case arose from a notice dated June 9, 2024, inviting applications for notification of “associations of persons” for constituting the 15th Press Council of India under Press Council (Procedure for Notification of Associations of Persons) Rules, 2021 (the “Rules”). Although Press Club, Mumbai submitted its claim within time, the Scrutiny Committee, by its recommendation dated September 10, 2024, advised rejection on grounds including alleged illegibility of the registration certificate, discrepancy in nomenclature (“Press Club Bombay” vs “Mumbai Press Club”), incomplete notarisation of documents, lack of proof of submission of minutes, and absence of a clear authorisation letter. Acting on this recommendation, PCI excluded the Press Club from its notification dated October 28, 2024. The Single Judge quashed the rejection, holding that all essential eligibility conditions under Rule 4 of the 2021 Rules stood satisfied. PCI challenged this decision in an appeal.
While considering the matter, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found that the Press Club had produced a fresh registration certificate dated July 19, 2024, clearly establishing continuous registration well beyond the prescribed six-year requirement. That rejection based on the faded original certificate amounted to placing form over substance.
On the issue of nomenclature, the Court accepted the explanation that the club was originally registered in 1971 as “Press Club, Bombay”, and after the city’s renaming in 1995, it came to be known as “Press Club, Mumbai” or “Mumbai Press Club”, all referring to the same legal entity. The Court further held that objections regarding notarisation practices and proof of submission of minutes were procedural and non-essential, and could not defeat an otherwise valid claim. The authorisation to file the claim was also found to be duly established through an affidavit of the Secretary.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 236, the High Court reiterated that minor procedural defects which do not go to the root of eligibility cannot result in rejection, particularly when the object of the statute stands fulfilled. The Court noted that the Scrutiny Committee’s objections did not disclose any deficiency affecting the substance of the claim, and that the learned Single Judge had correctly applied the doctrine of substantial compliance.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upheld the Single Judge’s judgment dated November 22, 2024, and recorded that PCI had already complied with the directions by issuing an addendum notification dated December 2, 2024, which included the Press Club, Mumbai, as a notified association. The Court directed PCI to proceed further with the constitution of the 15th Press Council of India in accordance with law.
Appearance:
For Appellant: ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, with Advocate T. Singhdev, Bhanu Gulati, Yamini Singh, Abhijit Chakravarty, Anum Hussain, R. Kaur, Akansha, S. Kumar, T. Srivastava, P. Rawat, and Vedant Sood.
For Respondents: Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, CGSC Rohan Jaitly, Advocate Dev Pratap Shahi, Varun Pratap Singh, Salim A. Inamdar, Janvi Sindhu, and Krishnesh Bapa.
