The Hindu Business Line : An Act that is 138 years old!

THE latest issue of `The Chartered Accountant', journal of the ICAI, should have reached the one-lakh-plus members a few days ago. What may arouse the curiosity of many is not only the facelift to the magazine and the envelope it is sent in, but also the imprint that it carries.

The July issue (Vol. 54 No. 1) notes: "Printed and published by Vijay Kapur (Anil Mehra) on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) in accordance with order dated August 5, 2005 of Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 11689 of 2005 and published at... " Were you to wonder if there are two names of one person, the note clarifies: "The name of both Vijay Kapur (Anil Mehra) are printed owing to the sub-judice disputes raised by Living Media India Ltd."

Comparing the June issue and the current one you'd know that printing has shifted from "Thomson Press (India) Limited, Faridabad, Haryana" to "Spenta Multimedia, Mumbai", and I'm sure with the present president of the ICAI from the Western region, there should be better control now. Well, there can be doubts if next year, when our man from the South ascends the throne, the CA journal operations would move to Chennai, like how camp offices used to move with the sahibs.

Keeping such misgivings aside, let us study the case in question: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs Union of India, that the Delhi High Court decided on August 5.

First the story: From 1997 to June 2005, it was Anil Mehra who was printing and publishing the journal on behalf of Living Media. "It appears that disputes arose" between the ICAI and Living Media, and the Institute "switched to another printer", viz. Spenta. Aggrieved, Living Media went to the court, "seeking an injunction" against the ICAI "from changing the printer and publisher". But the suit got dismissed on July 15.

Meanwhile, there was a different development, under Section 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ("the earliest surviving enactment specifically directed towards the press," as http://mib.nic.in would say). This section, titled `cancellation of declaration' speaks of the power of the Magistrate with regard to cancellation of declaration made in respect of a newspaper, after due procedure of opportunity of being heard.

"Accordingly, such opportunity was given to the printer and publisher", i.e.Living Media and Mehra, "as they were the persons concerned and affected by the order of cancellation deleting their name".

However, the Institute wasn't happy that before cancellation, it was not given notice. It may be debated whether the ICAI took a hasty step about changing the printer and publisher without giving due thought to the legalities.

Be that as it may, what interests is the argument put forth by the Institute: That "the publication containing vital information and input for the profession is also studied by the students of Chartered Accountancy as well as all the practitioners, its non-publication can lead to a vacuum and loss to the students community which this Court should not countenance."

Mr Justice Mukul Mudgal said, "I am of the view that the publication ought not to cease while the dispute between the parties is pending under the Act." That should gladden the hearts of the Institute. But if you are worried about this double-negative statement, "Non-publication of the journal catering to professionals and students can never be said to be in public interest," may I offer something to put a smile on your face: `publication of the journal is in public interest'?

What is of significance is that towards the end of his order, Mr Justice Mudgal observed: "I cannot help but notice that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 was enacted in the year 1867, i.e. 138 years ago. The provisions of the Act particularly Section 5(2) require the printer/publisher of a newspaper to appear in person or through an agent before a Magistrate for the declaration in respect of the publication of newspapers and every change carried out in relation to the newspaper."

About this, the judge said that the provisions reflect `a colonial mindset', anachronistic to `the contemporary democratic era' where "freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution", a powerful pillar of our democracy.

"It is for the Government to consider whether such outdated norms embodied in the Act which are reflective of the expression of the imperial power of the ruler over printers and publishers of newspapers ought to remain on the statute book," suggested the judge. That's ample food for thought.

E&OE@TheHindu.co.in

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page