POINTS ON THE PIL AGAINST FOREIGN CITIZEN EDITOR In W.P.(C) 2986 of 2013 in Delhi High Court on 21.8.

13

1. The Order passed by this Honble Bench on 8.5 13 is before Your Lordships. 2. The issue framed by this Honble Court is whether the term ordinarily resident in India in Section 1 r/w the proviso to Section 5(8) of the Press and Registration of Books Act [1867] is to mean that print media editor has to be a citizen of India. 3. This presently applicable statute was enacted in 1867 when there was no lawful concept of citizenship. 4. Not until after end of World War I in 1919 was there a formal concept of citizenship and a passport issued for travel purposes. 5. The matter has arisen because the Editor of The Hindu newspaper is admittedly a foreigner, a US-born citizen [p.47], not a citizen of India. 6. The Honble Supreme Court [in (2013) 3 SCC 697 at para 14] has held that news items published in a newspaper cause farreaching consequences in an individual and countrys life. 7. Newspaper editorials have profound effect in national debates and in the formation of opinion of the voter in a parliamentary or any other election [See (2002) 6 SCC 670 para 16, and Indian Express case (1985)1 SCC 641}. 8. The editor is solely responsible for deciding what will and will not be published [op.cit., para ]. 9. And now we are in an election year. 10.A skeletal Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent which logically is neither here nor there. It evades the issue framed by this Honble Court.

11.My submission is: Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, of purposive and harmonious construction, and following the Doctrine of Casus Omissus, the term Ordinarily Resident must be taken to mean citizen of India, but not vice versa. 12.This is also the meaning of ordinarily resident for a voter in the Representation of Peoples Act 1950. 13.The law, for the following reasons, has therefore to be read down to mean that citizenship of India is an essential pre-requisite for an editor: 14.First, the Respondent Union Government has introduced Bill No. 24 in Parliament in 2011 [p. 43]to repeal the said 1867 Act and to enact a new statute in which Clause 2 (c ) [ p. 46] requires Indian citizenship for the print media editor. 15.The Standing Committee of Parliament in 2012 has already cleared the Bill for passage. This Committee has a representation from all parties in both Houses of Parliament. 16.Furthermore, TV and Cable media, FDI in newspapers, and Press Council Act already formally require citizenship. 17.Second, in 1954, the First Press Commission discussed the subject of foreign nationals as owners and of influence in the press [p.272], and viewed it with disfavor. As a consequence, in 1955, the Union Cabinet passed a Resolution which endorsed this view, and this Resolution holds the field today. 18.Third, Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution will not extend to foreign citizens. An editor to be fearless, must have the secure cover of protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution, in particular the shield of Article 19(1)(a). 19.But only Indian citizens are entitled to this protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 20.Moreover, foreign citizen editors cannot be expected to be committed to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the Indian State as required under Article 19(2).

21. Hence, the readers/subscribers Right to Information and free expression, which is subject to First Amendment restrictions, is prejudiced, when the editor, the sole authority for selecting what will and will not be printed, is not a citizen of India. 22.I submit that Media, held to be the Fourth Estate, for its crucial role lucidly explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the afore cited Indian Express case requires, as in the three other Estates, that the editor be an ordinarily resident citizen of India. 23.For which reasons it is prayed herein that Your Lordships hold that ordinarily resident means necessarily an Indian citizen who is also ordinarily resident of the country.