Newspapers, agencies do not perform public function; not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently stated that even though a newspaper or a press agency may have been constituted by an Act of the parliament, such an organisation engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be seen as carrying out a 'public function' [Prakash Singh vs. Union of India]..Hence, such organisations cannot be subject to writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 which is a public law remedy and not available against private wrongs. Single-judge Justice Yashwant Varma, therefore, dismissed a plea filed by one Prakash Singh, who alleged racial discrimination and harassment by a French news agency, 'Agence France Presse'."While it may be true that the second respondent had been constituted by an Act by the Parliament of France, it becomes relevant to note that the newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function," the Court said. .Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent news agency had been constituted by a law passed by the the parliament of France. It was also submitted that its essential functions would indicate that it was an autonomous civil entity constituted for obtaining in France and abroad, complete and objective information and for placing that information at the disposal of users in exchange for payment.The Court, however, expounded the meaning of expressions like “public function” and “public duty” to be understood as being akin to functions performed by the State in its sovereign capacity.The Court further noted that the contract of service between the petitioner and the French news agency did not have any statutory flavour.In this regard, the Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. vs. Kago Kunya & Ors. and Binny Ltd. Vs. Sadasivan. In the latter case, it was held that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is pre-eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs. While writ could also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the words used in Article 226, but the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty, the top court's judgment had said. In view of the above, the High Court held that the petition was not maintainable..Advocate Raghav Awasthi appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Piyush Beriwal and Geetanjali Tyagi appeared for Union of India. Advocate Krishnan Kartik appeared for the news agency..[Read Order]