COMMENTARY
INTERVIEWS
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

Gill's Prasar Bharati posting challenged

The Delhi high court on Wednesday issued show-cause notice on a petition challenging the appointment of S S Gill as chief executive officer of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) on the ground of being arbitrary and unconstitutional.

A division bench comprising Justice R C Lahoti and Justice C K Mahajan issued the notice on a petition filed by social activist and journalist Vineet Narain, who has also challenged the ordinance under which the age bar for the CEO was removed, and sought a direction to the government to fix a maximum age of retirement for this post. Gill was appointed late last year by a three-member selection committee comprising Vice-President Krishan Kant, Press Council of India chairman Justice P B Sawant and a nominee of the president.

In his petition, Narain alleged that the Prasar Bharati Act of 1990 had been notified by a 'shaky' government which had made arbitrary changes solely to make Gill eligible for the post and confer additional powers on him by removing parliamentary accountability.

The Prasar Bharati Act, passed in mid-1990, was notified by the United Front government with effect from September 15 last year. Later, an ordinance was promulgated which in effect removed the upper age limit for the executive member of the Prasar Bharati board and also did away with the 22-member parliamentary committee and the Broadcasting Council envisaged in the original Act. The ordinance was re-promulgated in December last, but lapsed on May 6 this year. A bill to revive the original Act is presently pending before the Rajya Sabha, having already been passed by the Lok Sabha.

Gill's arbitrary style of functioning had been commented on by newspapers and the profits and viewership of Doordarshan had also fallen considerably since Gill was appointed, Narain contends.

The functioning had been marred further by concentrating all powers relating to finance, allocation of serials, and matters relating to personnel in Gill, as a result of which the common public perception is that the autonomy of the media has been converted into the autocracy of Gill.

The petitioner has also referred to the case of removal of female newsreaders and said ''it is ironical that a person who has himself been the beneficiary by 16 years due to an arbitrary clause of a notification should in turn discriminate on grounds of sex and age''.

Narain has also questioned the reasons why the post of Director-general of Doordarshan was not filled and said this was done in order to facilitate complete control on the allocation of serials.

Narain has also pointed out that the ordinance-making powers of the president are devised to meet urgent situations and not meant to be used recklessly and under imaginary state of affairs or mala fide against the normal legislative process.

UNI