Navigating Press Ethics and Freedom: The Press Council of India Act 1978

In any democracy, a free press is essential – but freedom without accountability can be just as dangerous as censorship. India recognised this early on. The Press Council of India Act, 1978 was Parliament’s answer to a fundamental question: how do you keep the press free and responsible at the same time? The Act created the Press Council of India (PCI), a statutory body tasked with the twin objectives of preserving press freedom and maintaining journalistic standards. Decades later, this legislation remains central to India’s media governance – though not without significant debate about its relevance in today’s fast-changing media environment.

The historical roots: from the First Press Commission to the PCI 🔗

The story of the Press Council begins in 1952, when the Government of India set up the First Press Commission under the chairmanship of Justice G.S. Rajadhyaksha. The Commission was tasked with examining the state of the press in independent India. After India gained freedom, sections of the press had drifted towards sensationalism, defamatory content, and biased reporting driven by owners’ personal interests. The Commission submitted its report in 1954 and made several key recommendations – most notably, the establishment of a statutory Press Council that would protect press freedom while enforcing professional standards.

Acting on these recommendations, Parliament established the Press Council of India in 1966 under the Indian Press Council Act, 1965. The first chairman was Justice J.R. Mudholkar, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. The Council began functioning on November 16, 1966 – a date now celebrated annually as National Press Day.

Abolition during the Emergency and re-establishment 🔗

The original Press Council was dissolved in 1975 when the Indian Press Council Act, 1965 was repealed during the national Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The suppression of the PCI during this period underscored how fragile press institutions can be under authoritarian pressure. After the Emergency ended, there was strong demand to restore the body. Parliament responded by enacting the Press Council Act, 1978 (Act No. 37 of 1978), and the PCI was re-established in 1979 with essentially the same objectives – preserving press freedom and improving journalistic standards.

Objectives of the Press Council of India Act, 1978 🔗

The Act’s preamble states its purpose clearly: to establish a Press Council for preserving the freedom of the press and for maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. These dual objectives sit at the heart of everything the PCI does. It must simultaneously act as a shield – protecting newspapers and journalists from government interference – and as a check – holding the press accountable for ethical violations.

This balancing act is deliberate. The framers of the Act recognised that an entirely unregulated press could harm public interest through misinformation, sensationalism, or invasion of privacy. At the same time, any regulation had to be careful enough not to become a tool for government censorship.

Composition of the Press Council of India 🔗

Under the 1978 Act, the PCI consists of a chairman and 28 other members. The original 1965 Act had provided for only 25 members. The chairman is, by convention, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. The selection of the chairman is done by a committee comprising the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and a person elected from among the Council’s own members. This selection process was specifically designed to insulate the appointment from government influence.

The 28 members represent a broad cross-section of stakeholders. Out of these, 20 members come from the media – including editors, working journalists, and those involved in managing newspapers and news agencies. Five members are parliamentarians (three from the Lok Sabha and two from the Rajya Sabha). The remaining three members are nominees of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Bar Council of India, and the Sahitya Akademi, representing the public interest. The term of the chairman and members is three years.

Key functions under Section 13 🔗

The functions of the PCI are outlined in Section 13 of the Act. These can be grouped into several broad areas:

Preservation of press independence: The PCI’s primary job is ensuring that newspapers can operate without undue interference from the government or powerful private entities. If a newspaper or journalist faces pressure – whether through denial of government advertising, denial of accreditation, or threats – they can approach the PCI for redress.

Building a code of conduct: The Council is responsible for developing and enforcing a code of journalistic ethics. These norms cover accuracy and fairness, pre-publication verification, caution against defamatory writing, right to privacy, reporting on communal disputes, obscenity, sensationalism, and much more.

Reviewing threats to news flow: The PCI reviews any developments that might restrict the supply and dissemination of news of public interest. This includes monitoring monopoly trends in newspaper ownership and concentration of media power.

Studying foreign media influence: The 1978 Act added a new function – undertaking studies of foreign newspapers and publications operating in India, including those brought out by foreign embassies, to assess their circulation and impact.

Advisory role on legislation: The PCI can study and express opinions on bills, legislation, and other matters related to the press, either on its own initiative or upon referral by the government.

Powers of the PCI: Sections 14 and 15 🔗

Power to censure (Section 14) 🔗

This is the PCI’s primary enforcement mechanism. Under Section 14, if the Council receives a complaint – or acts on its own – and finds that a newspaper, news agency, editor, or journalist has violated recognised ethical standards, it can warn, admonish, or censure the offending party. It can also disapprove the conduct of the editor or journalist involved. Additionally, the PCI can direct a newspaper to publish the details of the inquiry, ensuring that the publication’s own readers know about the ethical violation.

Before taking any action, the Council must give the concerned party an opportunity to be heard. The chairman can dismiss a complaint if there are no sufficient grounds for inquiry. Importantly, the Council cannot investigate any matter that is already pending before a court of law.

General powers (Section 15) 🔗

For the purpose of conducting inquiries, the PCI has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It can summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, and demand the production of public records. Every inquiry by the Council is treated as a judicial proceeding under Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, meaning that perjury before the PCI is a punishable offence.

One significant protection built into the Act: the PCI cannot compel any newspaper, news agency, editor, or journalist to reveal the source of their news or information. This provision safeguards the confidentiality that is fundamental to investigative journalism.

Decisions of the PCI are final and cannot be challenged in any court of law.

The complaint mechanism 🔗

Any person can file a complaint with the PCI if they believe a newspaper has breached recognised ethical standards through the publication or non-publication of news, articles, cartoons, or advertisements. Under the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979, the complainant must first write to the editor of the newspaper, pointing out the objectionable content and giving the editor a chance to address it. If the complainant remains unsatisfied, they can then escalate the matter to the PCI.

The complaint must include the name and address of the respondent, specify how the content violates the Press Council Act, and declare that no court proceedings are pending on the same matter. Time limits apply: complaints must be filed within two months for dailies, weeklies, and news agencies, and within four months for other publications.

On the other side, a newspaper, editor, or journalist can also complain to the PCI under Section 13 if they believe their press freedom has been violated by a government body, organisation, or individual.

The “toothless tiger” debate: limitations of the PCI 🔗

Despite its statutory status and quasi-judicial powers, the PCI faces two critical limitations that have fuelled decades of criticism.

No punitive powers 🔗

The PCI cannot impose fines, revoke publishing licenses, or send anyone to jail. Its strongest action is a public censure – essentially, a formal public scolding. This has led critics to label it a “toothless tiger.” In the landmark case of Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (2007), the PCI itself acknowledged its inability to ensure compliance with its directions due to the lack of punitive power.

However, supporters argue that this was an intentional design choice. Giving a press regulator the power to punish could easily turn it into a tool of censorship. The PCI’s moral authority – the weight of public shaming – was meant to be its primary deterrent, keeping the balance tilted in favour of freedom over control.

No jurisdiction over electronic media 🔗

The PCI’s authority is limited strictly to print media – newspapers, periodicals, magazines, and news agencies. It has no power to regulate electronic media such as television, radio, or internet platforms. When the Act was passed in 1978, print was the dominant medium. Television news was limited to the state-run Doordarshan. The explosion of private satellite news channels in the 1990s and the digital revolution of the 2000s were entirely unforeseen.

This means that today, hundreds of 24/7 television news channels and thousands of digital news portals operate entirely outside the PCI’s oversight.

The PCI in action: notable interventions 🔗

Despite its limitations, the PCI has made several notable interventions over the years. In July 2006, it censured three major publications – the Times of India (Delhi and Pune editions), Punjab Kesari (Delhi), and Mid-Day (Mumbai) – for violating norms of journalistic conduct.

In 2010, the PCI conducted a significant investigation into the practice of “paid news” – where news space and favourable coverage were exchanged for money. The Council found substantial evidence of corrupt practices and collusion between media organisations, politicians, and political parties, particularly during the 2009 elections. The investigation highlighted how “paid news” had evolved into various forms, including cash payments, gifts, foreign trips, and even formal agreements between media companies and corporations.

The Council has also developed detailed Norms of Journalistic Conduct covering areas like accuracy, fairness, right to privacy, reporting on communal issues, coverage of suicides, trial by media, and more. These norms, while not legally enforceable with penalties, serve as the primary ethical benchmark for India’s print media.

The case for a unified media council 🔗

The most pressing debate around the PCI today is whether India needs to move beyond it and create a single, unified media council covering print, television, and digital platforms.

Currently, the regulatory landscape is fragmented. Print media falls under the PCI. Television news channels are loosely governed by the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA), a voluntary, self-regulatory body – not a statutory one created by Parliament. Digital media was brought under a code of ethics through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which reference the PCI’s norms but operate through a different framework.

Former PCI Chairman Justice Markandey Katju publicly argued that television and radio should be brought under the PCI’s scope or a similar regulatory body. Several journalist unions have also urged the government to expand the PCI’s jurisdiction to cover news channels, radio, and digital outlets – and, if necessary, rename it the Media Council of India.

Proponents of a unified council argue that in an era of media convergence – where a single news organisation often runs a newspaper, a website, and a TV channel – having separate regulatory standards for each platform is inconsistent and ineffective. A unified body could ensure that ethical standards around accuracy, fairness, and decency apply equally regardless of the medium.

Opponents, however, worry that a more powerful, broader council could become a tool for government control over all forms of media – a risk that India’s constitutional framework has always sought to minimise.

Press freedom in India: the larger context 🔗

The PCI operates within the broader framework of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. While the Constitution does not explicitly mention “freedom of the press,” the Supreme Court has consistently held that press freedom is implicit in this fundamental right. However, this freedom is not absolute – it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including those related to sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency, morality, defamation, and contempt of court.

The PCI sits at the intersection of these constitutional principles. It is neither a censor nor a court. It is, at its core, a moral authority – an institution designed to encourage ethical self-regulation in the press while standing guard against external threats to press freedom. Whether this model is sufficient for the challenges of the 21st century is the question that policymakers, journalists, and citizens continue to grapple with.

What do you think? In a media environment dominated by television news and social media, can a body designed in 1978 for print media still play a meaningful role? Or is it time for India to create an entirely new institution that governs ethics across all media platforms?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1744?view_type=browse
2. https://indianmediastudies.com/press-commission-of-india/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Council_of_India
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/press-council-of-india/
5. https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/india-press-council-of-india
6. https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/regulation-of-media-in-india-a-brief-overview?page=37&per-page=1
7. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/press-council-of-india
8. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7091-media-and-press-council-of-india-act.html