Time to Replace the Press Council of India with a Media Council

 The Press Council of India (PCI) owes its origin to the recommendations of the First Press Commission, constituted in 1952 under the chairmanship of Justice G. S. Rajadhyaksha. The Commission was entrusted with examining the condition of the Indian press in the post-Independence era and recommending measures to safeguard press freedom, uphold editorial standards, and improve the service conditions of journalists. Acting on its recommendations, Parliament enacted the Press Council Act, leading to the establishment of the Press Council of India in 1966 as an autonomous statutory body.

The Constitution of India, the supreme law of the land, lays down the framework of governance, guarantees fundamental rights, and embodies the democratic values that sustain a free and independent press. Although freedom of the press is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, it has been consistently recognised by the judiciary as an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Before Independence, newspapers that supported the colonial government—such as The Statesman, The Pioneer, and The Times of India—generally enjoyed better resources and institutional support. In contrast, nationalist newspapers operated under severe constraints and often faced governmental hostility. Journalism during that period was largely a mission driven by patriotism and public service rather than a commercial profession. It was only after Independence that journalism gradually evolved into a recognised profession requiring institutional support and regulation.
Recognising this need, the country's first leadership contemplated the establishment of a Press Commission. Although Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who also held charge of the Information and Broadcasting portfolio, did not live to see the proposal materialise, the idea eventually culminated in the constitution of the First Press Commission in 1952, which was announced by the then Information and Broadcasting Minister BV Keskar.
At that time, the media landscape was confined almost entirely to the print press. Electronic journalism, as we know it today, did not exist; radio broadcasting remained a government monopoly. Consequently, the Commission focused primarily on print journalism and made two landmark recommendations.
The first was the enactment of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, which established a framework for protecting journalists' service conditions and paved the way for tripartite Wage Boards to revise journalists' wages periodically. The second was the creation of the Press Council of India, envisioned as an independent watchdog to preserve press freedom, maintain journalistic standards, formulate ethical norms, and safeguard the public's right to information.
The Council was abolished during the Emergency in 1976, a period widely regarded as one of the darkest chapters in the history of Indian journalism. However, it was reconstituted in 1978 with a renewed mandate to ensure that the press remained both free and responsible in a democratic society.
Over the decades, however, the media ecosystem has undergone a transformation of unprecedented magnitude. The emergence of television news, digital journalism, online publications, streaming platforms, and social media has fundamentally altered the manner in which information is produced, disseminated, and consumed. Print media, once the dominant medium of public discourse, now occupies only one segment of a vastly expanded communications landscape.
Yet the Press Council of India remains largely confined to the print sector. It possesses no jurisdiction over television channels, digital news platforms, streaming services, or social media networks—precisely the spaces where misinformation, disinformation, sensationalism, and ethical violations increasingly originate and proliferate. As a result, the institution has gradually become disconnected from the realities of contemporary media.
See less

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Media's freedom is a fundamental right and an essential part of the constitution; any campaign to elevate it to the status of a fourth pillar is sheer absurdity

      Some journalists and their so-called organisations seem to possess an abysmally low or almost non-existent understanding of the Indian constitution. They are advocating for the media to be granted the status of a fourth pillar, akin to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive. The notion of the press as the "fourth pillar" of democracy is widely acknowledged, particularly in democratic nations, though it is not a formal designation recognised across all countries. It serves as a metaphor for the press's role in holding power accountable and informing the public. In India, the press is often described as the fourth pillar and is constitutionally protected; however, it operates within a framework of laws that balance freedom with other societal values, such as national integrity. While freedom of the press is explicitly provided under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in India, it is implied under Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the freedom of speec...
Read more

Anchor cannot be held responsible for the views of panellists

  The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan delivered a remarkable judgment on 13th June, which should be praised for promoting the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 6th June, the Andhra police arrested one Mr K Srinivas Rao, an anchor of the Telugu TV channel Sakshi, for allegedly abetting defamatory and derogatory remarks made by a panellist on his show about Amravati, the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati is located very close to Vijayawada. The judges stated that the anchor Rao did not make any statement himself; rather, it was one of the participants who contemptuously remarked that Amravati was becoming the ‘capital of sex workers. There is no doubt that these days, the panellists are invited by the TV channels that subscribe to the views and ideas of those particular channels. They are given the freedom to speak only if they adhere to the channels' views; if their opinions do no...
Read more

India has instilled fear in Pakistanis by calling their nuclear bluff

India has decisively defeated Pakistan in a war that lasted only three days; otherwise, Pakistan would not have requested or even agreed to a ceasefire. Wars between even very strong and weak countries have often continued for months. The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, was unique; it lasted for two decades. It was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. North Vietnam received support from China and the Soviet Union, while the South was backed by the United States, Thailand, Australia, and South Korea. The war commenced on 1 November 1955 and concluded on 30 April 1975. The US began direct military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, which lasted until 1973. Today, the Vietnamese refer to this conflict as the Resistance War Against America. From 1965 to 1973, the US expended $120 billion on the conflict. An estimated 58,200 Americans lost their lives, while around 110,000 were injured. Two million Vietnamese perished, and an additional twelve million became refugees...
Read more