COMMENTARY
INTERVIEWS
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

Prasar Bharati: HC makes new CEO appointment subject to outcome of Gill's petition

The Delhi high court today declined to restrain the Centre from appointing a new chief executive officer for the Prasar Bharati Corporation. But it issued show cause notices to the ministries of information and broadcasting, and law, justice and company affairs on the petition filed by S S Gill, who was ousted from the post following an ordinance.

A division bench, comprising Justices R C Lahoti and C K Mahajan, however, made any government decision on the appointment subject to the outcome of the petition.

Gill had challenged the constitutional validity of the Presidential ordinance and sought that it be quashed on the same ground. Contending that the ordinance violated Article 123 of the Constitution since no urgency had been justified for its issuance, Gill stated that the Prasar Bharati (Amendment) Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha, should have been brought up in the Rajya Sabha.

The judges also issued notices to the Cabinet Secretary and the Prasar Bharati Corporation and directed the four to file their replies within four weeks. The matter would come up for further hearing on October 14.

Although Gill had also impleaded Information and Broadcasting Minister Sushma Swaraj and his deputy Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi as parties in the matter, the bench found no ground to issue notices to them now. It directed the petitioner to move an affidavit making the cause for the issuance of the notices.

''The question whether notices should be issued to Swaraj and Naqvi would be decided on Monday after the petitioner would move an affidavit referring to various newspaper reports and statements the two had made,'' the bench said.

The bench said: ''Your (Gill's) petition is conspicuously silent about the two persons (Swaraj and Naqvi) who have been impleaded as parties and in the absence of this, no ground was made for issuance of the notice.''

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gill, stated that the affidavit would be filed tomorrow and the statements or the contents of the newspaper reports had not been denied by the two ministers.

Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, appearing along with Additional Solicitor General Madan Lokur, while accepting the notices for the ministries and the board, opposed the petitioner's contention for an order of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any or further steps towards appointment of any other individual as the CEO.

Sorabjee stated that the only intention of the petitioner in approaching the high court was to get some media publicity. But Sibal took strong exception to the statement saying: ''There was no motive to attract the media. Our purpose was only to seek justice against the unconstitutional presidential ordinance.''

The ousted CEO wanted a court declaration that the ordinance was ultra vires of the Consititution, illegal, null and void. All records relating to the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Amendment Ordinance 1998 should be called for to ascertain the factual position, he prayed.

The Presidential ordinance issued on August 29 restored the Prasar Bharati Act as passed in 1990, making 72-year-old Gill ineligible to continue in the post. Gill's appointment as the CEO was facilitated after the United Front government had in October last year promulgated an ordinance removing the upper age limit of 62 year for the member (executive), also known as the CEO, as prescribed by the 1990 Act.

Questioning the BJP government's decision not to table the Prasar Bharati (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by the Lok Sabha, in the Rajya Sabha, Gill alleged that this was done because the government feared that the bill would not be passed.

Swaraj had in one of her statements clarified that since the Amendment Bill was sent to the President on August 3 and even on August 4, his assent had not been received and hence the Bill could be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.

Contending that the ordinance was a single person legislation, Sibal submitted that it was issued to ensure that Gill does not remain with the Prasar Bharati.

The petition prayed for a court declaration terming the ordinance as unconstitutional and quashing the same on this ground. No person should be appointed to the post till the disposal of the petition, Gill urged the court.

He contended that though his tenure as the CEO was supposed to be for six years, the ordinance of 1998 was promulgated to terminate in a patently illegal manner his appointment as the CEO prior to the expiry of the period.

The factual background coupled with the public position that Swaraj and Naqvi had taken against him, raised the irresistible presumption that the only purpose behind the promulgation of the ordinance was to ensure his removal from office and no other, the petition filed through counsel, Niti Dikshit stated.

It was submitted that the court could examine the circumstances behind the promulgation of the ordinance and ascertain for itself whether any circumstances existed which rendered it necessary thatsuch immediate action be taken.

UNI
EARLIER REPORT:
Gill moves court over ouster from Prasar Bharati