TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Press Council Act on Term Limits: No Disqualification for Lifetime Service</h1> <h3>HARBHAJAN SINGH Versus PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court interpreted sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978, regarding the eligibility for nomination after serving two ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978.2. Eligibility for nomination after serving two terms as a member of the Press Council.Summary:Issue 1: Interpretation of sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978The controversy centers around the interpretation of sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978, specifically regarding the number of terms a member can be nominated. The appellant, Harbhajan Singh, had served two terms (1982-1985 and 1985-1988) and was nominated again for the Seventh Council in 1998. The Press Council of India, however, rejected his nomination based on the interpretation that Section 6(7) bars a person from holding office for more than two terms in his lifetime.Issue 2: Eligibility for nomination after serving two terms as a member of the Press CouncilThe learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the Press Council's decision, interpreting that the disqualification in sub-section (7) of Section 6 applies only to a member 'retiring' in the present and seeking 're-nomination', not to someone who had served two terms in the past and is now being nominated afresh. The Division Bench, however, reversed this decision, interpreting the legislative intent as barring any person from holding office for more than two terms in their lifetime.The Supreme Court granted special leave and examined the language of sub-section (7) of Section 6, emphasizing the plain and ordinary meaning of the words. The Court noted that the provision is cast in the present tense, indicating that a 'retiring member' is ineligible for 're-nomination' for more than one term. The Court found no basis to read 'retiring' as 'retired' or 're-nomination' as a nomination for an independent term detached from previous terms.The Supreme Court held that the provision does not disqualify a person from holding office for more than two terms in their lifetime. The interpretation that a member is disqualified for a third consecutive term, having held office for more than two terms just preceding, was upheld. The Court restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Division Bench's judgment. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
