Is PRB Act Relevant after Independence?

Prabhakar Kulkarni
Freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Constitution of India. As the Constitution came in force two years after Independence the action to follow the Constitution was a bit delayed. But it is still delayed after seventy one years as the guaranteed freedom is being controlled or curtailed by legislation which is the British legacy.That a newspaper needs to be registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act (The PRB Act ) which is enacted by the British in 1867 is now continued after Independence in forms of periodical amendments.
The PRB Act is one of the Acts enacted by the British with a view to rule India and keep the Indian population under constant vigilance and control and to curb any activity in the trail of the Independence movement. In fact such Acts of the British should have been abolished immediately after Independence. But the Congress rule after more than forty five years and other opposition alliances later have not considered this vital point and while some Acts are repealed, most are yet to be considered for repealing, the PRB Act being one them.
This PRB Act is again to be amended and the bill for the purpose which is introduced in 2011 is still pending. The basic point is whether such Act controlling the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and that too which is a British legacy should be continued or not after Independence. Any citizen of India can use the freedom of expression in available form or by publishing a newspaper or a book. It is not necessary that he or she should approach a collector or any authority for permission or approval of the said publication.When freedom for this action is guaranteed there no reason why it needs to be controlled by any legislation or control by any authority. If one starts a newspaper or wants to publish a book there are other laws like the legal provision by local Government body or any other Act for professional establishment of a printing press or any other organization. If publication or expression affects one’s social prestige there is law to take action for defamation. If media organization is a company there is company Act to control or regulate the company. There are number of other legal provisions for use or misuse of freedom of expression. Hence no specific Act is needed so that there will not be any action to curb the freedom which is guaranteed under the Constitution.
Even the system to acknowledge journalists by way of government accreditation is not sound under the Constitutional provision. To identify a journalist is a prerogative of the employer or editor where he or she works or chief of an organization which employs journalist. In regard to free lancers the very publication of his contribution is an identity.  The system to provide government’s accreditation has offered a tool in government’s hands to control journalists and through them to curb the very freedom of expression.
The recent instance is that of a threat by former Union information minister Smriti Irani who used accreditation as a weapon. The only weapon which is being used by states and Union governments against journalists is recognition or non-recognition by way of accreditation provided to journalists. Smriti Irani was therefore wrong in threatening journalists by withholding their accreditation on the basis of the veracity or otherwise of news stories.  Modi government is right in removing the information department from Irani and handing it over to another minister. In fact Government has no right to accredit journalists. This is the basic issue which  should be duly considered by both the newspaper or media organizations and States and Union Governments.
The recent decision of the Delhi High court regarding the election  news in particular is another legal evidence to point out that media organizations are free enough to manage their own affairs, particularly the space to be used by paid material supplied by the concerned agencies. Paid news falls within the citizen’s right to free speech and the Election Commission has no business trying to stop it, according to the Delhi High Court which says that the EC’s remit is confined to the poll expenditure of a candidate, and not the content of the advertising she/he spends on. So how to use the citizen’s right to free speech which is guaranteed under the Constitution of India is a prerogative of every citizen. He or she may use this freedom in any way convenient or affordable and expression by way of publication of a newspaper or electronic media is also a matter of choice.
Hence an Act which controls and tries to exploit the freedom of expression which is a constitutional provision needs to be repealed and the PRB Act is one of such Acts. All journalists, newspapers, editors, electronic media persons and citizens of India are at par as freedom of expression is applicable to all and as the Constitution has not mentioned any need for any legislation for the purpose, no government in democracy should curb such freedom under a legislation.
(The author is a senior journalist and columnist)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com

Follow our WhatsApp channel