'37'

    The Press And Registration of Books Act, 1867 is the oldest of the existing Press Laws in India. It has been amended in the years of Independence but the amendments have been made to meet specific situations. No attempt was made to review the Act in totality and bring it in line with the needs and aspirations of the Press in a vibrant democracy like India. There has been no demand from the Press for a thorough overhaul of the Act possibly because it is merely regulatory in nature, the procedure it lays down may be cumbersome but the penalties are light and in many areas the tasks are mentioned but the responsibility for discrouraging them is not assigned. There are many anomalies in the original Act. These have increased because of amendments made from time to time with good intentions, no doubt, but these have further complicated matters.

    In its report, the Second Press Commission had made detailed recommendations about changes in the Act. In 1988, a Bill amending the Act was introduced in Parliament. There was an outcry because the Bill gave sweeping powers to the district authorities to enter the premises of a newspaper establishment. There was the natural fear that power-drunk magistrates and police might misuse these powers. Before anything could be done to rectify these defects, make the procedure for filing the declaration for a newspaper easier and to remove other anomalies in the Act and the Bill, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the Bill died a natural death.

    Busy as successive governments have been with other pressing issues, there has been no concrete action about a thorough overhaul of the PRB Act and the press continues to be regulated by an archaic piece of legislation which is totally out of tune with prevailing conditions and is full of anomalies.

    The anomalies begin with the preamble of the Act itself. It says that the Act is ‘for the regulation of printing presses and newspapers, for the preservation of copies of books and newspapers printed in India and for the registration of such books and newspapers'’ What there may have been little justification for a common legislation for books and newspapers 133 years ago, in today'’ conditions such clubbing together of newspapers and books is ridiculous because their needs are totally different. As for preservation, in 1954 the National Libraries Act was passed. It was meant specifically for delivery of books and newspapers to the national libraries. One can understand that copies of books should be preserved but is it necessary or possible to preserve each and every copy of the more than 40,000 newspapers of various frequency and in various languages in India to be preserved. Who is to provide the funds and the space for this exercise? Both will increase every year and no Government will be able to provide these. The Act does not mention as to who is to preserve the copies of newspapers? The framers of the Act possibly saw that the task was impossible and therefore, did not mention the office to perform it. But if the task is impossible of performance who continue to retain it in the Act and thus make a mockery of it? There is thus an urgent need to remove books from the purview of the Act and also to remove the mention about preservation of copies of newspapers.

    The first Press Commission found it difficult to get figures about the Press in India. It, therefore, suggested that there should be a Registrar of Newspapers whose duty it should be to submit to the Government a report every year on the press in India. There were to be Deputy Registrars under the Press Registrar in every State. These Deputies were never appointed. The Press Registar submits his report on the basis of returns filed by newspapers. Only a small portion of the newspapers submit the annual report. Since these include all the big newspapers and most of the medium newspapers, the annual report of the Press Registrar may not be hundred per cent correct but is very near the truth.

    Amendments to the PRB Act made in 1960 instead of solving problems created new ones. The most important of these was that no officer could authenticate the declaration for printing a newspaper unless the Press Registrar gave the clearance that the title of the proposed newspaper was not the same or similar to that of a newspaper published in the State in any language or in the same language anywhere in India. District authorities all over India from Kashmir in the north to Kerala in the south and Tripura in the east to Rajasthan in the west had to consult the Press Registrar and find out whether the title proposed by the publisher was ‘available’.

    The PRB Act lays down a time limit within which publication has to start after a declaration has been filed. But there is no time limit within which a declaration has to be filed after a clearance has been given by the Press Registrar. Also, very few people file the declaration after publication of a newspaper has ceased. Some publishers want to stick on to the title in the hope that some day they may again resume publication. The heirs hardly ever bother to file a ceasing declaration. If a newspaper is running at a loss, which publisher has the time or money to file a ceasing declaration?

    All these factors combined to create a situation where within 20 years of the amendments made in 1960, the Press Registrar had cleared more than 250,000 titles but the number of newspapers actually being published did not go to more than 45,000. The other titles fell almost equally into three categories, the title had been cleared but no declaration had been filed. A declaration had been filed but jpublication had not begun and publication had begun but the publication had ceased. The Press Registrar has no machinery under him to find out how many newspapers were catually being published in the country. The district authorities before whom declarations were filed were in no better situation. They had more important things to do than keeping an eye on the publication of newspapers. Efforts made by the Press Registrar to activate them through the Chief Secretaries also did not bring any results.

    It is to the credit of the Press Registrar that by giving a public notice, as many as 1,70,000 out of 2,50,000 blocked titles had been unblocked and made available. The unblocking is being carried out on a continuing basis now. It was a regular complaint by prospective publishers that they had to approach the Press Registrar several times before they could get clearance for a title. The prospective publisher was often told that the title he wanted was not available but the Press Registrar was not able to say where if at all a newspaper was being jpublished under the title. The unblocking of titles has removed this irritant.

    While the Press Registrar was able to solve the problem of blocked titles by administrative action, another problem is far more fundamental in nature. It is only if the owner is the same can two newspapers with the same title be published. But the courts have held that the right to publish a newspaper under a title is a right of property. It can therefore be transferred freely. How can anyone then come in the way if a person published a newspaper permits another to bring out an edition from another centre? During the last 40 years such transfers have in fact taken place. The Press Registrar and the district authorities have been forced to accept this violation of the PRB Act. Then again, a person may be bringing out several editions of his newspaper and may say in his will that each of his sons will inherit one or more editions. They will bring out these editions under the same title. The owners would be different and this will be violative of the PRB Act. But can any Act interfere with the basic law of inheritance or transfer of property? It is therefore ridiculous to have such a provision which is violative of basic law but is being infringed with impunity.

    These are only some of the glaring anomalies in the Press and Registration of Books Act. One has to take his mind back to the second half of the 19^th century to understand that the foreign government wanted to put a curb on the Press in India. It honestly felt that freedom of the Press would result in weakening the roots of foreign rule. Their fears were not unjfounded. Almost all national leaders used their newspapers to arouse a feeling of nationalism in the people and to prepare them for participation in the struggle for freedom. Many of them suffered imprisonment. The leaders had a comparatively easy time but lesser mortals were sent to the Andamans to serve their sentence. The Press And Registration of Books Act is a relic of that era. What the Press needs is an Act in keeping with the ethics of the 21^st century. The task of authentication of declaration should be taken away from the district authorities and entrusted to the Press Registrar and his deputies. The clauses about preservation of copies of newspapers and the confusion about jpublication of newspapers with the same or similar titles should be removed. And finally, in this age of lap top printing should we still have a law for registering printing process?