Judicial Mandamus and the Boundaries of Media Freedom:
Revisiting the Delhi High Court’s Direction to the Press Council in Balvinder
Kapoor v. Press Council of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 9275/2025)
Arguing/Main Counsel for Petitioner: Animesh Shukla
Briefing & Drafting Counsel to Animesh Shukla: Aarati Sah
The Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in Balvinder Kapoor v. Press Council of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 9275/2025, revives an essential question in constitutional and media law: to what extent can courts compel statutory regulatory bodies to act against unethical journalism, and where do we draw the line between press freedom and public accountability? On 8th of July 2025, the Court issued a writ
of mandamus directing the Press Council of India (PCI) (regulatory body at Central level) to discharge its obligations under Sections 13 and 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978, following its failure to act against repeated defamatory and baseless reporting by a media outlet.
The judgment brings to light a core legal issue: the enforceability of statutory duties vested in regulatory bodies and the boundaries of the constitutional guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a). Particularly in recent years, the media ecosystem seen a proliferation of platforms that present themselves as journalistic entities while operating outside the norms of editorial responsibility and legal accountability. In such a landscape, the role of statutory watchdogs like the Press Council of India becomes constitutionally significant.
Sections 13 and 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 empower the PCI to uphold journalistic standards and to inquire into allegations of professional misconduct. Section 14 specifically authorizes the Council to warn, admonish, censure, or disapprove of any publication or journalist found violating ethical
norms. These provisions are not merely declaratory—they establish a quasijudicial framework of accountability within the media, designed to protect both public interest and individual reputation.
In Balvinder Kapoor, the PCI’s prolonged inaction on a substantiated complaint triggered judicial scrutiny. The Delhi High Court rightly held that when a complaint discloses prima facie unethical conduct, the Council cannot abdicate its statutory role. Its refusal to act amounts to a dereliction of public duty, attracting the Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Freedom of the Press vs. Right to Reputation:
The legal tension in such cases inevitably invokes Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) expressly permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in specific contexts, including defamation. The bare
reading of constitutional provision as under : “Article 19(2) – Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such
law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right… in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) and Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) has reiterated that reputation is a facet of the right to life under Article 21, and that malicious, false speech enjoys no constitutional immunity. In this light, judicial oversight of regulatory bodies becomes not only permissible but necessary when statutory guardians fail to act.
Though the case did not involve a classic “media trial”, it reflects the growing problem of misinformation and sensationalist journalism. Numerous digital outlets now engage in selective targeting, often for economic or political motives, exploiting the lack of effective enforcement by statutory regulators. Courts in India have, on occasion, flagged this trend, but judicial interventions mandating regulatory action have remained rare.
The High Court’s decision in Balvinder Kapoor is therefore notable for holding the Press Council institutionally accountable. It affirms that where the statutory mechanism fails to address a genuine complaint, judicial review can and must be invoked—not to interfere with press freedom, but to safeguard the constitutional balance between free expression and personal dignity.
In the Indian constitutional framework, freedom is never unbounded. The media enjoys autonomy not as a privilege, but as a trust. That trust is conditional upon truth, fairness, and ethical responsibility. Regulatory bodies like the Press Council are vital in maintaining this balance—but only when they act. Where they do not, judicial mandamus is not an overreach, but a constitutional necessity.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling thus reaffirms both the justiciability of statutory obligations and the limits of free speech when it morphs into targeted defamation. As media platforms continue to evolve, the law must ensure that freedom is exercised with accountability, and that statutory silence does not become institutional complicity.
