Holding

Section 6(7) of the Press Council Act, 1978 disqualifies only a retiring member from being re‑nominated for more than one term and does not preclude a former member who has served two terms from being nominated afresh.

Summary

Harbhajan Singh, a former editor of the Indian Observer, had served two consecutive three‑year terms as a member of the Press Council of India (1982‑85 and 1985‑88). When the Federation sought to nominate him again for the seventh Council, the Press Council rejected his nomination, relying on Section 6(7) of the Press Council Act, 1978, which it interpreted as barring any person who had already served two terms from any further nomination. Singh challenged this view before the Delhi High Court, which held that the provision only disqualified a "retiring" member from being "re‑nominated" for more than one term, and allowed his nomination. The Press Council appealed, but the Division Bench read the provision to prohibit more than two terms in a lifetime, a view the Supreme Court rejected. The Supreme Court affirmed that the plain, grammatical meaning of the statute limits only a retiring member’s re‑nomination, not the total number of terms a former member may serve, and restored the High Court’s decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and Singh’s nomination was deemed valid.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6(7) of the Press Council Act, 1978 bars a person who has already served two terms from being nominated again to the Council.
How the terms ‘retiring member’ and ‘re‑nomination’ should be interpreted under the provision.

Subjects

statutory interpretationpress councileligibilitynominationterm limitordinary meaninglegislative intent

Judgment

HARBHAJAN SINGH A
v.
' PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH I I, 2002

[R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.) B

Press Council Act, J978-Section 6(7)-Member of Press Council-
Eligibility for nomination-Member holding office for two terms in the past-
.. y Whether the provision debars such person from being nominated again--
c
Held, no-8ince the provision debars a 'retiring' member from 'renomination
a11d not a 'retired' member from 'nomination'.

Interpretation of statutes-While interpreting a provision ordinary,
grammatical and fall meaning is to be assigned to the words used.
D
The question for consideration in the present appeal is whether Section
6(7) of Press Council Act, 1978 debars a person who had been a member of

- the Council for two terms in the past from being nominated.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: I.I. Section 6(7) of the Press Council Act, 1978 must be assigned
its ordinary, grammatical and natural meaning as the language is plain and
simple. There is no evidence available, either intrinsic or external, to read
the word 'retiring' as 'retired'. Nor can the word 're-nomination' be read as
nomination for an independent term detached from the previous term of
F
membership or otherwise than in succession. The provision on its plain reading
does not disqualify or make ineligible a person from holding the office of a
member of the Council for more than two terms in his life. The use of the
words 'retiring' as qualifying 'member' coupled with the use of word 're-
nomination' clearly suggests that a member is disqualified for being a member
for the third terms in continuation in view of his having held the office of G
membership for more than two terms just preceding, one of which terms, the
"" later one, was held on re-nomination. Such an interpretation does not lead to
any hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly and, therefore,
the rule of ordinary and natural meaning being followed cannot be departed
from. [378-F; 379-B)
369 H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.

A 1.2. A retiring member is ineligible for re-nomination. 'Not more than
one term' qualifies 're-nomination'. The words 'retiring', used in present
tense, and 're-nomination', speak aloud of the intention of the Legislature. If >--
the word 'retiring' was capable of being read as 'retired' (sometime in past)
then there would have been no occasion to use 're-nomination' in the
construction of the sentence. If the intention of law framers would have been
B not to permit a person to be a member of council for more than two terms in
his lifetime then a different, better and stronger framing of the provision was
expected. It could have been said-'no member shall be eligible for nomination
for more than two terms', or it could have been said-'a retired member shall
not be eligible for nomination for more than two terms'. (373-D-G]
c Nagendra Nath Dey and Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Dey and Ors., AIR (1932) ~
....
P.C. 165; General Accident Fire Life Assurance Corporation Ltd v. Janmahomed
Abdul Rahim, AIR (1941) P.C. 6; Siraj-il-Haq Khan and Ors. v. The Sunni
Central Board ofWaqfU.P. and Ors., [1959) SCR 1287; F.S. Gandhi (Dead) by
" v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1990) 3 SCC 624 and D.R Venkatq.chalam
Lrs. ~

D v. Dy. Transport Commissioner and Ors. etc., (1977] 2 SCC 273, referred to.

Suthendran v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal., (1976) 3 All ER 611;
Maradana Mosque (Board of Trustees) v. Badi-ud-Din Mahmud and Anr., (1966)
1 All ER 545 and Salomon v. Saloman and Co., (1897) AC 22 38, referred to. _,._
Statutory Interpretation by Cross (Third Edition 1995); .Principle ofStatutory
E
Interpretation by justice G.P. Singh, (Eighth Edition, 2001), referred to.

2. Ordinary, grammatical and full meaning is to be assigned to the words
used while interpreting a provision to honour the golden rule of interpretation
Legislature chooses appropriate words to express what it intends, and, ,.,...,
F therefore, must be attributed with such intention as is conveyed by the words
employed so long as this does not result in absurdity or anomaly or unless
material-intrinsic or external-is available to permit a departure from the rule.
[373-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2035 of
G 2002.
...,
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3 .200 l of the Delhi High Court
in· L.P.A. No. 416 of 2000.

K. Ramamurthy, S.K. Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Hema Sahu and C.L. Sahu
H for the Appellant.
HARBHAJAN SINGH v. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 3 71

H.N. Salve, Solicitor General, P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Rohit Alex A
and Ms. Ruchi Khurana for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. The controversy centres around the intelpretation of
sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (hereinafter 'the B
Act', for short), 1'iz., for how many terms of the Council a member can be
nominated?

The facts are jejune. Harbhajan Singh, the appellant, is an editor of
Indian Observer. All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, the
respondent no. 2 is an 'association of persons' within the meaning of clause C
(b) of sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act. The appellant had been a
member of the Council for two terms of three years each, namely, 1982-1985
and 1985-1988. Steps were taken for the constitution of the Seventh Council
commencing from the year 1998. A notification in that regard was issued on
21.11.1997. On 5.5.1997 and 9.8.1997 the Federation-respondent No. 2 had D
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 nominated though such
nomination did not amount to re-nomination, that is to say, at the time of
r being nominated he was not a retiring member. In response, the Council
circulated an opinion of the President dated 30.9.1997, the substance whereof E
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. The appellant and
the Federation, respondent no. 2 herein, filed a writ petition before the High
Court of Delhi seeking quashing of the opinion of the Chairman of the Press
Council. A learned Single Judge of the High Court directed rule nisi to issue F
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. The Federation
-respondent No.2 nominated the appellant and also his son as a cover
candidate. The appellant's nomination was not accepted by the Council on
the ground that he having remained a member of the Council for two terms,
was ineligible for nomination as per sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Act. G

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 nomination of the appellant. The learned Single Judge formed
an opinion that the language of the statute was plain, admitting of no ambiguity, H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A and therefore, deserves to be assigned the plain meaning which naturally
flows from a reading thereof. 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 not
apply to a person who had 'retired' some time in the past though having held
two consecutive terms as member of the Council and was now being only
B 'nominated' and 'not re-nominated'. The Press Council oflndia preferred an
intra-court appeal before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal and set
aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 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
C achieved by the Act, the Division Bench formed an opinion that the Legislature
intended not to allow a member to hold office for more than two terms in his
life-time, and therefore, the appellant was not eligible for nomination to
membership of the Council for the term commencing 1998 in view of his
having held membership of the Council for two terms - 1982-1985 and 1985-
D 1988. The appellant has filed this appeai by special leave.

Leave granted.

The Act, as its preamble shows, proposed to establish a Press Council
for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintaining
and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.
E Section 4 provides for incorporation, and Section 5 provides for composition,
of the Council. The details are irrelevant for our purpose. Section 6, in so far
as relevant for our purpose, provides that the Chairman and other members
of the council shall hold office for a period of three years. Sub-section (7)
reads as under:-

F (7) A retiring member shall be eligible for re-nomination for not
more than one term."
According to the appellant, all that the provision bars is a member
holding two terms of office successively. According to the respondent Council
the total number of terms for which a member can hold office, whether in
G succession or otherwise, is two, as the provision makes it permissible for any
member to seek re-nomination for one term only. This is the narrow
controversy.

Clearly the language of Sub-Section (7) of Section 6 abovesaid, is
plain and simple. There are two manners. of reading the provision. Read
H positively, it confers a right on a retiring member to seek re-nomination .
•
HARBHAJAN SINGH v. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 373
Read in a negative manner, the provision speaks of a retiring member not A
< being eligible for re-nomination for more than one term. The spell of
""' ""
ineligibility is cast on 're-nomination' of a member who is 'retiring'. The
event determinative of eligibility or ineligibility is 're-nomination', and the
person, by reference to whom it is to be read, is 'a retiring member'. 'Retiring
member' is to be read in contra-distinction with a member/person retired
some time in past, and so, would be called a retired or former member. 'Re' B
means again, and is freely used as prefix. It gives colour of 'again' to the
verb with which it is placed. 'Re-nomination' is an act or process of being
nominated again. Any person who had held office of member some time in
past, ifbeing nominated now, cannot be described as being 'again nominated'.
"' It is only a member just retiring who can be called 'being again nominated'
or 're-nominated'. No other meaning can be assigned except by doing violence
c
to the language employed. Legislature does not waste its words. Ordinary,
grammatical and full meaning is to be assigned to the words used while
interpreting a provision to honour the rule - Legislature chooses appropriate
words to express what it intends, and therefore, must be attributed with such
intention as is conveyed by the words employed so long as this does not D
result in absurdity or anomaly or unless material - intrinsic or external - is
available to permit a departure from the rule.

The provision is cast in present tense. A retiring member is ineligible
for re-nomination. 'Not more than one term' qualifies 're-nomination'. The
words 'retiring', used in present tense, and 're-no1nination' speak aloud of E
the intention of the Legislature. If the word 'retiring' was capable of being
read as 'retired' (sometime in past) then there would have been no occasion
~
to use 're-nomination' in the construction of the sentence. If the intention of
law framers would have been not to permit a person to be a member of
council for more than two terms in his lifetime then a different, better and F
stronger framing of the provision was expected. It could have been said -
'no member shall be eligible for nomination for more than two terms', or it
could have been said-'a retired member shall not be eligible for nomination
for more than two terms'.
-;
.... Cross in Statutory Interpretation (Third Edition, 1995) states : G
"The governing idea here is that if a statutory provision is intelligible
in the context of ordinary language, it ought, without more, to be
interpreted in accordance with the meaning an ordinary speaker of
the language would ascribe to it as its obvious meaning, unless there
is sufficient reason for a different interpretation..... Thus, an 'ordinary H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

meaning' or 'grammatical meaning' does not imply that the judge :i
A ~ >-
attributes a meaning to the words of a statute independently of their 'jlt:
context or of the purpose of the statute, but rather that he adopts a
meaning which is appropriate in relation to the immediately obvious
and unresearched context and purpose in and for which they are used.
By enabling citizens (and their advisers) to rely on ordinary meanings
B unless notice is given to the contrary, the legislature contributes to
legal certainty and predictability for citizens and to greater transparency
in its own decisions, both of which are important values in a democratic
society" (p. 32 ibid). The learned author cites three quotations from
speeches of Lord Reid in House of Lords cases, the gist whereof is: :..
~
c (i) in determining the meaning of any word or phrase in a statute ask
for the natural or ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its
context in the statute and follow the same unless that meaning leads
to some result which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the
legislative intent; (ii) rules of construction are our servants and not
masters; and (iii) a statutory provision cannot be assigned a meaning
D which it cannot reasonably bear; if more than one meaning are capable
you can choose one but beyond that you must not go (p.40, ibid).
Justice G.P. Singh in his celebrated work-Principles of Statutory ~-

Interpretation (Eighth .Edition, 2001) states (at page 54)-"The
intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the
E language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has
been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence a
construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of
words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be ,__
avoided." The learned author states at another place (at page 74, ibid) ~ ~
..__
that the rule of literal construction whereby the words have to be r
F assigned their natural and grammatical meaning can be depa~ed from
·but subject to caution. The golden rule ·is that the words of statute r..___
~

must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. A, departure is )-
permissible if it can be shown that the legal context iin which the
words are used or the object of the statute in which they occur requires ......
G a different meaning. To quote, "Such a meaning cannot be departed ..,.,
from by the judges 'in the light of their own views as to policy'
although they can 'adopt a purposive interpretation if they can find
in the statute read as a whole or in material to which they are permitted
by law to refer as aids to interpretation an expression of Parliament's
purpose or policy'. A modem statement of the rule is to be found in
H the' speech of Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Suthendran v. Immigration
I-

1
HARBHAJAN SINGH v. PRESS C~UNCIL OF INDIA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 375

Appeal Tribunal, (1976) 3 All ER 611, 616 to the effect- 'Parliament A
is prima facie to be credited with meaning what is said in an Act of
Parliament. The drafting of statutes, so important to a people who
hope to live under the rule of law, will never be satisfactory unless
courts seek whenever possible to apply 'the golden rule' of
construction, that is to read the statutory language, grammatically and B
terminologically, in the ordinary and primary sense which it bears in
its context, without omission or addition. Of course, Parliament is to
be credited with good sense; so that when such an approach produces
injustice, absurdity, contradiction or stultification or statutory objective
the language may be modified sufficiently to avoid such disadvantage,
though no further'." C
Sir Dinshah Mulla, while interpreting Article 182 of the Limitation Act,
1908 emphasised the need of testing the question of interpretation upon the
plain words of the Article and opined that there is no warrant for reading into
the words quoted any qualification and the strict grammatical meaning of the
words is the only safe guide. (see Nagendra Nath Dey and Anr. v. Suresh D
Chandra Dey and Ors., AIR (1932) P.C. 165). Viscount Maugham in General
Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul
Rahim, AIR (1941) P.C. 6 approved the principle that it may be desirable for
an act to re.ceive such construction as the language in its plain meaning
imports. The same principle has been followed by the Supreme Court of E
India in several decisions. Suffice it to refer to Siraj-il-Haq Khan and Ors.
v. The Sunni Central Board ofWdqfUP. and Ors., [1959] SCR 1287, wherein
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that effect must be
given to the strict grammatical meaning of the words used. Without multiplying
the authorities we would still like to refer to two more decisions whi~h we
think are apposite. In F.S. Gandhi (Dead) by Lrs. v. Commissioner of Wealth F
Tax, [ 1990] 3 SCC 624, the expression "where the interest is available to an
assessee for a period not exceeding six years from the date the interest vests
in the assessee" contained in Section 2(e)(2)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957
came up for consideration and the emphasis was on the significance of "is"
on the import of the provision. This Court held that the word "is", normally G
refers to the present and often a future meaning. It may also have a past
signification as in the sense of "has been". However, in the setting in which
"is" was used followed by the word "available", it was held - "the word 'is'
must be construed as referring to the present and the future. In that sense it
would mean that the interest is presently available and is to be available in
future for a period not exceeding six years". The High Court had construed H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A the word "is" to mean "has been" which construction was discarded by this
r-
I

Court. The tense of the sentence played a pre-dominant role in the interpretation )--

placed on the relevant provision by this Court in F.S. Gandhi's case. In·
Maradana Mosque (Board of Trustees) v. Badi-ud-Din Mahmud and Anr.,
(1966) I All ER 545, under the relevant Statute the Minister was empowered
to declare that the school should cease to be an unaided school and that the
B Director should be the Manager of it, if the Minister was satisfied that an ,-

unaided school "is being administered" in contravention of any provisions of
the Act. Their Lordships opined, "Before the Minister had jurisdiction to
make the order he must be satisfied that 'any school....is being so administered
in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act'. The present tense is
c clear. It would have been easy to say 'has been administered' or 'in the '"(

administration of the school any breach of any of the provisions of this Act
has been committed', if such was .the intention of the legislature; but for
reasons which common sense may easily supply, it was enacted that the
•
Minister should concern himself with the present conduct of the school, not
the past, when making the order. This does not mean, of course, that a school
D may habitually misconduct itself and yet repeatedly save itself from any
order of the Minister by correcting its fauits as soon as they are called to its
attention. Such behaviour might well bring it within the words 'is being
~

administered' but in the present case no such situation arose. There was,
therefore, no ground on which the Minister could be 'satisfied' at the time
E of making the order. As appears from the passages of his broadcast statement
which are cited above, he failed to consider the right que~tion. He considered
only whether a breach had been committed, and not whether the school was
at the time of his order being carried on in contravention of any of the·
provisions of the Act. Thus he had no jurisdiction to make the order at the ~.

date on which he made it".
F
The Division Bench, in its impugned judgment, entered into tracing the
legislative history and tried to find out the object of enactment and intention
of the Legislature. The effort made by the Division Bench can be appreciated
but regrettably tht; deductions drawn by the Bench are based on no material.
G In fact, the learned Judges of the Division Bench fell into the same error as
has been pointed out above, that is, of attributing such intention to Legislature Y'

as suited their own view of the policy behind enactment. M.H. Beg, J. warned
against beginning with ~ theory as to what the real purpose or need is or
could be, for the danger is that we may be injecting a subjective notion or
purpose of our own into what is, after all a legal question of construction or
H interpretation. His Lordship emphasized the need of avoiding the danger of
~

I=
HARBHAJAN SINGH v. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA (R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 377

· a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on our own A
~ preconceived notions of an ideological structure or scheme into which the
provision to be interpretated is somehow fitted. (See, concurring judgment of
MH. Beg, J. in D.R. Venkatachalam etc. v. Dy. Transport Commissioner and.
Ors. etc., [1977] 2 SCC 273. The Division Bench has not culled out and
placed material on record, either available intrinsically in the Act or from any B
external aid to interpretation, so as to lead to the inference drawn by the
Division Bench and sustain departure from the golden rule of interpretation.

The learned single Judge followed the correct track on the path of
interpretation of statutes by reading what has been said and comparing with
·,. what has not been said. The learned single Judge gave at least three illustrations C
of what could have been said but has not been said so as to find out how the
Legislature would have constructed the provision in question if the intention
would have been not to permit a person to be a member of the council for
more than two terms. It would be advantageous to restate briefly the three
illustrations from the judgment of the learned single Judge which are as
under: D
(i) Jn the Schedule appended to the Delhi University Act, l 922 called
'The Schedule-The Statutes of the University', para 5(1) provides for
composition of the Executive Council as comprising the various members as
specified. Clause (2) provides-"No person shall be a member under item
(ix) or (x) of Clause (I) for more than two consecutive terms". E

(ii) Section (I) of the Twenty-second Amendment of the US Constitution
provides-"No person shall be elected to the office of the President for more
than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as
President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was F
elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

(iii) In Section 31(5) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 it
is provided-"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, a person shall
be disqualified for election as, or for being, the president, vice-president,. G
chairman, vice-chairman, managing director, secretary, joint secretary or
treasurer ofa committee: (a) ifhe has held any such office on that committee
during two consecutive terms whether full or part; . . . . . . ."

In all the three illustrations of drafting, the intended bar against holding
the given office for more than two terms (as provided) is clearly and H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A categorically spelled out.

Baving given the three illustrations, the learned single Judge held that
if the construction suggested by the Council was to be accepted, one would
be required to read 'retiring member' as 'a retired member'. Yet another
reason assigned by the learned single Judge, and rightly so, is that the right
B to be appointed as a member having been conferred by the law, ineligibility
entailing prohibition or bar on being appointed to an office should be clearly
stated or positively spelled out, in absence whereof the same cannot be read
into the provision on the basis of the assumed intention of fulfilling the
object of the statute. The learned single Judge quoted very apt and appropfiate
C observations of Lord Watson in Salomon v. Saloman and Co., (1897) AC 22,
38 to the effect :-

"Intention of the Legislature' is a common but very slippery phrase,
which, popularly understood, may signify anything from intention
embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the
D Legislature probably would have meant, although there has been an
omission to enact it. In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature
intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately
ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express
words or by reasonable and necessary implication."

E The Division Bench has, during the course of the judgment, noted that
Press Council was intended to be an independent body and if any person was
permitted to remain a member of the Council for more than two terms, it will
erode independence of the body as the elements of vested interest would
creep in and this would also defeat the object of Sub-Section (7) of Section
6 of the Act. We fail to find any justification for such an observation much
F less any basis for forming such an opinion. Simply because the Press Council
has taken a particular view of the relevant provision it can hardly be a ground
for the Court to Jean in favour of such a construction.

We are clearly of the opinion that Sub-Secti<Jn (7) of Section 6 of the
G Press Council Act must be assigned. its ordinary, grammatical and natural
meaning as the language is plain and simple. There is no evidep.ce available, ~
either intrinsic or external, to read the word 'retiring' as '.retired'. Nor can the
word 're-nomination' be read as nomination for an independent term detached
from the previous term of membership or otherwise than in succession. The
provision on its plain reading does not disqualify o_r make ineligible a person
H from holding the office of a member of the Council for more than two terms
HARBHAJAN SINGH v. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 3 79

in his life. The use of the words 'retiring' as qualifying 'member' coupled A
with the use of word 're-nomination' clearly suggests that a member is
disqualified for being a member for the third term in continuation in view of
his having held the office of membership for more than two terms just
preceding, one of which terms, the later one, was held on re-nomination.
Such an interpretation does not lead to any hardship, inconvenience, injustice, B
absurdity or anomaly and, therefore, the rule of ordinary and natural meaning
being followed cannot be departed from.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the
Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned single Judge is restored.
No order as to the costs.
c
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.