To Date: 19.06.2026
The Chairperson,
Press Council of India
New Delhi- 11003
Sub: Request /suggestion for replacing the Press Council with the Media Council
Respected Madam,
Time to Replace the Press Council of India with a Media Council
The Press Council of India (PCI) owes its origin to the recommendations of the First Press Commission, constituted in 1952 under the chairmanship of Justice G. S. Rajadhyaksha. The Commission was entrusted with examining the condition of the Indian press in the post-Independence era and recommending measures to safeguard press freedom, uphold editorial standards, and improve the service conditions of journalists. Acting on its recommendations, Parliament enacted the Press Council Act, leading to the establishment of the Press Council of India in 1966 as an autonomous statutory body.
The Constitution of India, the supreme law of the land, lays down the framework of governance, guarantees fundamental rights, and embodies the democratic values that sustain a free and independent press. Although freedom of the press is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, it has been consistently recognised by the judiciary as an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Before Independence, newspapers that supported the colonial government—such as The Statesman, The Pioneer, and The Times of India—generally enjoyed better resources and institutional support. In contrast, nationalist newspapers operated under severe constraints and often faced governmental hostility. Journalism during that period was largely a mission driven by patriotism and public service rather than a commercial profession. It was only after Independence that journalism gradually evolved into a recognised profession requiring institutional support and regulation.
Recognising this need, the country’s first leadership contemplated the establishment of a Press Commission. Although Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who also held charge of the Information and Broadcasting portfolio, did not live to see the proposal materialise, the idea eventually culminated in the constitution of the First Press Commission in 1952, which was announced by the then Information and Broadcasting Minister BV Keskar.
At that time, the media landscape was confined almost entirely to the print press. Electronic journalism, as we know it today, did not exist; radio broadcasting remained a government monopoly. Consequently, the Commission focused primarily on print journalism and made two landmark recommendations.
The first was the enactment of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, which established a framework for protecting journalists’ service conditions and paved the way for tripartite Wage Boards to revise journalists’ wages periodically. The second was the creation of the Press Council of India, envisioned as an independent watchdog to preserve press freedom, maintain journalistic standards, formulate ethical norms, and safeguard the public’s right to information.
The Council was abolished during the Emergency in 1976, a period widely regarded as one of the darkest chapters in the history of Indian journalism. However, it was reconstituted in 1978 with a renewed mandate to ensure that the press remained both free and responsible in a democratic society.
Over the decades, however, the media ecosystem has undergone a transformation of unprecedented magnitude. The emergence of television news, digital journalism, online publications, streaming platforms, and social media has fundamentally altered the manner in which information is produced, disseminated, and consumed. Print media, once the dominant medium of public discourse, now occupies only one segment of a vastly expanded communications landscape.
Yet the Press Council of India remains largely confined to the print sector. It possesses no jurisdiction over television channels, digital news platforms, streaming services, or social media networks—precisely the spaces where misinformation, disinformation, sensationalism, and ethical violations increasingly originate and proliferate. As a result, the institution has gradually become disconnected from the realities of contemporary media.
The limitations of the Council are not merely jurisdictional. It is often criticised for lacking effective enforcement powers. Its authority is confined largely to issuing warnings, admonitions, or censures. It cannot impose meaningful penalties, levy fines, suspend operations, or enforce compliance with its decisions. Consequently, many of its rulings are ignored, reducing its effectiveness and diminishing its relevance.
Moreover, the rise of corporate ownership, concentration of media power, paid news, advertorial masquerading as journalism, and growing ideological polarisation have transformed the media environment in ways that the existing statutory framework is ill-equipped to address. Political considerations and institutional constraints have frequently undermined the Council’s credibility and capacity to act as an independent regulator.
In the digital era, the regulatory focus has increasingly shifted toward the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and various rules framed under the Information Technology Act. These mechanisms now address much of the content regulation relating to digital and broadcast media, further marginalising the role of the Press Council.
Adding to its diminishing relevance is the fact that the Working Journalists Act, one of the principal legislative pillars recommended by the First Press Commission, has effectively been subsumed within the new labour codes, including the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, the Industrial Relations Code, the Code on Wages, and the Code on Social Security. With the dilution and fragmentation of the original statutory framework governing journalists’ service conditions, one of the historical justifications for the existence of the Press Council has substantially weakened.
The time has therefore come for a fundamental reappraisal of media regulation in India. Rather than attempting to retrofit an institution designed for the print era, Parliament should consider replacing the Press Council of India with a comprehensive Media Council of India. Such a body should encompass print, electronic, digital, and emerging forms of media under a single regulatory framework. It must be independent of both governmental and corporate influence, representative of diverse stakeholders, and vested with limited but meaningful enforcement powers to ensure accountability.
A Media Council equipped with adequate statutory authority, transparent procedures, and jurisdiction across all media platforms would be better suited to protect freedom of expression while promoting responsibility, accuracy, ethical conduct, and public trust. In an age where information travels instantly across multiple platforms and reaches millions within seconds, India requires a regulator designed for the realities of the twenty-first century, not one conceived for the media environment of the 1950s. Media Council must be constituted with the peers of the profession.
The Press Council of India played an important role in the formative decades of Indian democracy. Its historical contribution deserves recognition and respect. However, institutions must evolve with changing times. The continued existence of a body whose jurisdiction and powers are increasingly inadequate serves neither the media nor the public interest. The moment is ripe to bid farewell to the Press Council of India and establish a robust, modern, and effective Media Council capable of meeting the challenges of the contemporary information age.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Parmanand Pandey
Secy. Gen.: IFWJ
Time to replace Press Council with Media Council
