HC asks Rajya Sabha to revisit rules that allow freelance journalists only sessional passes

The Delhi HC asked the Media Advisory Committee of Rajya Sabha to see whether its rules violate rights of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Delhi High Court | Twitter: @ANI

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Wednesday advised the Media Advisory Committee of the Rajya Sabha to revisit its rules allowing issuance of only sessional passes to freelance journalists for covering proceedings in the Upper House.

Justice Navin Chawla of Delhi High Court asked the committee to examine its guidelines and see whether they violate freedom of speech and expression, as well as rights of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

“…as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, issuance of only sessional passes to freelance journalists would restrict their right to access information when the Parliament is not in session,” the high court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by senior journalist Anil Chamadia, who was challenging an order passed by the committee in July 2017 which allowed only sessional passes, instead of annual ones, to freelance journalists.

This, Chamadia said, violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as well as violated Article 14, by treating accredited journalists differently from their freelance counterparts.

The high court also noted that when the Parliament is not in session, meetings of various Parliamentary Committees are held within the precincts of the House.

“Non-issuance of an annual pass would therefore, deny the freelance journalist of first-hand access to information regarding the decisions taken in such meetings and the deliberations therein,” it observed.

“…it would be advisable for the respondents to revisit its Rules and Guidelines for issuance of passes keeping in view the mandate of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,” the high court said.

Chamadia had informed the court that he was issued a permanent Rajya Sabha Press Gallery pass in January 2009, that was valid till 2017, when the challenged decision was taken. He, therefore, also demanded a direction to the committee to issue a permanent pass to him for covering Rajya Sabha proceedings.

The committee, on the other hand, submitted that it had taken the decision to issue only sessional passes to freelance journalists in 2011. The 2017 decision, it said, was to remove the discrepancy in two types of passes for freelance journalists — annual passes like the one Chamadia had and sessional ones, on the basis of the 2011 decision.

Accepting this submission, the court noted that the 2017 decision rightly did away with the “discriminatory” practice and rejected Chamadia’s challenge to the order.

Since Chamadia had not challenged the 2011 decision, the court refrained from looking into it.

Court recalled 2001 Parliament attack

As a postscript, Justice Chawla acknowledged that nobody, not even a journalist, can claim an open access to the Parliament, as he recalled the 2001 Parliament attack.

The court took note of the fact that rules for admission to Rajya Sabha press gallery/central hall makes distinction between newspapers and provides for issuance of temporary press galley cards to a freelance journalist.

“Without going into the number of passes and the nature of passes issued to these categories, the distinction made between various categories on the basis of circulation or the nature of agency et cetera, cannot be said to be arbitrary,” it observed.

The court nevertheless weighed in Chamadia’s submissions, and said there were “conflicting interests” that had to be balanced and advised the committee to look into its guidelines.