he Supreme Court on Monday (July 29, 2024 ) directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to look into the conduct of Advocate Mohd. Kamran, who has filed a defamation case against former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The court asked the Bar Councils OF INDIA AND U.P. to take necessary action on Kamran’s working as a freelance journalist while simultaneously practising as Freelance Journalist.
(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel who appears for the State-respondents.
(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayer:-
“1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Office Order No.1709/Su.Evam.J.Sa.Vi (Press)-1173/ 2007, dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Opposite party no.2 annexed as Annexure No.1 to the instant writ petition.”
(3) It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government has framed certain Guidelines for grant of accreditation to the Journalists and a Government Order in this regard has also been issued on 31.05.2008 constituting the Accreditation Committee. The State Government has further modified the Guidelines of 2008 by Government Order dated 04.07.2008 and Government Order dated 16.06.2009. The petitioner is a State Accredited Journalist for about 22 years. He was given State Accredited Freelance Journalist’s status in 2018 by the Government. He has been performing his professional duties honestly.
(4) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Opposite party no.2- Director Information, Information and Public Relations Department, as it has been passed ignoring the Guidelines of 2008 more particularly Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.10 of the same.
(5) Counsel for the petitioner has read out the impugned order passed by the Opposite party no.2 on 11.12.2023 wherein looking into the changed circumstances from the date when the initial LIU Report was submitted, the Director Information has cancelled the accreditation of the petitioner and in the operative portion of the order dated 11.12.2023 has also mentioned the fact that the U.P. State Press Accreditation Committee shall be informed of the order and the material shall be placed before it in its forthcoming meeting and its approval shall be sought in the matter. It is admitted fact from the order dated 11.12.2023 that the matter was not placed before the Committee first, it was decided only on the basis of a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence and Security) Police Headquarters, Lucknow, dated 23.09.2023.
(6) The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10057 (M/B) of 2015 [Abdul Moiz Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others] wherein in similar circumstances the Court had observed as follows:-
“Having considered the aforesaid submissions, what we find is that the order dated 18.8.2015 categorically records the availability of a letter/report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow indicating that the petitioner is allegedly involved in certain nefarious activities, as such accreditation should be cancelled. Admittedly, the petitioner was not made aware of any such material.
Secondly, the powers are stated to have been invoked under Clause 6.8. Having considered the same and the arguments of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel we find that Clause 6.8 has to be read in harmony with Clause 6.10 which stands amended by the Government Order dated 16.6.2009, copy whereof is Annexure 8 to the writ petition.
A perusal thereof indicates that the committee so constituted has the power to make recommendations whereupon the Director of Information is to finally passed orders on such claim of grant of accreditation. In the event of disagreement with the opinion of the committee, the Director of Information has to record specific reasons for the same. This being the position of grant or refusal to grant such accreditation, it is implied that the initial sifting and consideration of any action for subsequent cancellation to be taken in the matter of accreditation is within the recommendatory power of the committee at the first instance and then only the Director of Information can proceed to take any action thereon.
In the instant case it is on the alleged letter/report of the Senior Superintendent of Police that the action has been taken. This material if any, and it relevant, could have been considered by the committee, and not by the Director of Information without the recommendations, if any, of the committee which is defined under the guidelines. Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the impugned order does not conform to the guidelines so framed by the respondent themselves. We are not inclined to issue notice to the respondent no.3 at this stage as we are disposing of the petition on the legal issues advanced and not on personal malafides but on malice in law.
We find that the order dated 18.8.2015 for all the reasons aforesaid is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 18.8.2015 is quashed without prejudice to the authority to proceed only in accordance with law.”
(7) The judgement rendered by the Division Bench in Abdul Moiz Khan on 28.10.2015 was relied upon by another Bench in Writ Petition No.36669 (M/B) of 2019 [Divya Nautiyal Vs. State of U.P. and others] where the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Director Information and remitted the matter back to the Director Information to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with the Guidelines.
(8) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner was informed of the Deputy Police Commissioner’s report dated 23.09.2023 which has been made the basis of the order dated 11.12.2023 nor he was given any opportunity to rebut the facts mentioned therein. He has also pointed out that from mere perusal of the order dated 11.12.2023 it is evident that the Committee was not apprised of changed circumstances as per the Report of the Dy. Commissioner of Police dated 23.09.2023, the Committee has not made any recommendation. The Director on his own has passed the order impugned.
(9) This Court finds from a perusal of the order itself which says that the matter shall be placed before the Committee in its forthcoming meeting and its approval shall be taken; that the submission of counsel for the petitioner is true.
(10) Without going into the merits of the order dated 11.12.2023 and the question whether the report of the Dy. Commissioner of Police dated 23.09.2023 is correct or not in respect of the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order dated 11.12.2023 only on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and his case was not placed before the Committee for its recommendation to be obtained first before any order could be passed by the Director Information.
(11) It shall be open for the Director Information to place all relevant information gathered by the Police Intelligence Unit before the Committee constituted under the Paragraph 5.1 of the Guidelines of 2008 and the Committee shall consider the case of the petitioner and give opportunity to the petitioner to rebut such information. Such matter shall be placed before the Committee on 24.07.2024.
(12) Since the order is being passed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner shall ensure that the petitioner appears before the Committee on 24.07.2024 to place his case. The Committee shall consider all relevant material on record and give its recommendation in regard to the accreditation given to the petitioner earlier and whether the same can be now extended in changed circumstances within a period of ten days thereafter.
(13) This writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.7.2024 N.PAL