Plain meaning controls re-nomination under the Press Council Act; no lifetime bar after two terms, eligibility upheld.

Section 6(7) of the Press Council Act, 1978 was construed in its plain and ordinary meaning: the bar applies only to a retiring member who is sought to be re-nominated for more than one further term. The Court rejected reading "retiring" as "retired" and declined to treat the provision as a lifetime disqualification after two terms, because no absurdity or frustration of legislative purpose was shown. The provision therefore does not prevent a person from being nominated again merely because of prior service, and the appellant remained eligible for nomination.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 6(7) of the Press Council Act, 1978 disqualifies only a retiring member seeking re-nomination for more than one further term, or whether it bars a person from being nominated for membership after having already served two terms in life.

Analysis: The expression used in the provision was held to be plain and unambiguous. The words "retiring member" and "re-nomination" were construed in their ordinary grammatical sense, and the spell of ineligibility was confined to a member who is retiring and is sought to be re-nominated. The Court rejected an interpretation that would read "retiring" as "retired" or convert the provision into a lifetime bar on holding membership for more than two terms. It was held that courts may depart from literal meaning only where the language produces absurdity, injustice, or stultification of the statutory object, none of which was shown here.

Conclusion: Section 6(7) does not impose a lifetime disqualification for membership after two terms; it bars only re-nomination of a retiring member for more than one further term. The appellant was therefore eligible for nomination.

---