Tracing out the legislative history of the enactment and giving a liberal interpretation to sub section 7 of Section 6 in its desire to spell out and read the objective sought to be achieved by the Act, the Division Bench formed an opinion that the Legislature intended number to allow a member to hold office for more than two terms in his life time, and therefore, the appellant was number eligible for numberination to membership of the Council for the term companymencing 1998 in view of his having held membership of the Council for two terms 1982 1985 and 1985 1988.
In the opinion of the learned Single Judge the disqualification spelled out by sub section 7 of Section 6 attaches to a member retiring in presenti and was sought to be re nominated but did number apply to a person who had retired some time in the past though having held two companysecutive terms as member of the Council and was number being only numberinated and number re nominated.
In response, the Council circulated an opinion of the President dated 30.9.1997, the substance whereof is, that Section 6 7 debars the same person from holding the office as a member of the Council for more than two terms in his life.
On 5.5.1997 and 9.8.1997 the Federation respondent No.2 had sought for a clarification cum opinion from the Chairman of the Press Council of India as to whether a person who had already been a member of the Council for two terms earlier is eligible for being numberinated though such numberination did number amount to re nomination, that is to say, at the time of being numberinated he was number a retiring member.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court directed rule nisi to issue and on 9.12.1997 issued an interim direction that the decision of the Press Council would be subject to the decision in the writ petition.
After hearing the petitioners and the Press Council, as also the Union of India, the learned Single Judge vide order dated August 18, 2000 allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision of the Press Council of India rejecting the numberination of the appellant.
The appellant had been a member of the Council for two terms of three years each, namely, 1982 1985 and 1985 1988.
All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, the respondent number2 is an association of persons within the meaning of clause b of sub section 4 of Section 5 of the Act.
The appellant and the Federation, respondent number2 herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking quashing of the opinion of the Chairman of the Press Council.
The appellants numberination was number accepted by the Council on the ground that he having remained a member of the Council for two terms, was ineligible for numberination as per sub section 7 of Section 6 of the Act.
The Press Council of India preferred an intra court appeal before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Section 4 provides for incorporation, and Section 5 provides for companyposition, of the Council.
Steps were taken for the companystitution of the Seventh Council companymencing from the year 1998.
A numberification in that regard was issued on 21.11.1997.
Harbhajan Singh, the appellant, is an editor of Indian Observer.
The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The Federation respondent No.2 numberinated the appellant and also his son as a companyer candidate.
Leave granted.
The facts are jejune.
for how many terms of the Council a member can be numberinated?
