Meet Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, the new Chairperson of Press Council of India

Press Council of India Image Courtesy: oneindia.com

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, a 72-year-old former Supreme Court judge, has been appointed as the Chairperson of the Press Council of India (PCI). A committee comprising Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and PCI member Prakash Dubey, has reportedly approved her appointment as the PCI chairperson at a meeting held on Tuesday.

In exercise of powers under Section 5(2) and 6(1) of the Press Council of India Act 1978, the Central Government notified the appointment of Justice Desai as the PCI Chairperson and the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notification in this regard today, reported LiveLaw.

Justice Desai’s career so far

Justice Desai began her career in 1973 when she started practicing as a lawyer in Bombay High Court. She then went on to become a public prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra and eventually served as a judge on the Bombay High Court until 2011 before being appointed as the Supreme Court Judge on September 13, 2011. It is pertinent to note that she was the fifth woman to be appointed as a Supreme Court Judge in India.

In a unique instance, she, along with Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, formed an “all women bench” which heard matters for the day in April 2013 due to non-availability of another judge who was supposed to be part of the bench, reported Mint.

Justice Desai was the one who took initiative as a prosecutor along with Justice JN Patel in 1993 to set up the special court at Arthur Road to try the serial bomb blasts case.

After her retirement, she initially served as the Chairperson of Election Appellate Tribunal and later as the Chairperson of the Advance Ruling Authority [Income Tax]. She has also headed an eight-person Search Committee constituted by the Government of India under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 to search for and recommend a Chairperson and members for India’s anti-corruption ombudsman agency, the Lokpal.

Justice Desai presides over a 5-member panel recently formed by the Uttarakhand government to examine the relevant personal laws in the State and to implement Uniform Civil Code (UCC), as reported by The Indian Express.

As published in the Bar Association of India’s journal, in her farewell speech organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Desai said, “I am often asked how smooth my journey to the highest court in the country was. I want to answer that question today. It was very difficult at times, even turbulent, making me wonder whether it was a mistake to enter this profession. A few kind individuals and my determination saw me through.”

She had recently headed the Delimitation Commission on Jammu and Kashmir, which was set up to redraw the assembly constituencies of the Union Territory. As the head of the Delimitation Commission, she oversaw the addition of five assembly constituencies (AC) to Jammu Division and one to Kashmir. Five Jammu and Kashmir Lok Sabha members, three from the National Conference and two from the BJP, were associate members to the commission. Though the Commission was set up in March 2020, after the passage of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill in Parliament in August 2019, and was asked to complete its work within a year, it was granted an extension of one more year due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and a second extension of two months at the end of this period.

When J&K was a state, Jammu had 37 ACs, Kashmir had 46 and Ladakh had four – taking the state total to 87. After the abrogation of Article 370, Ladakh became a separate union territory (UT) as did J&K. After delimitation, total ACs in J&K stand at 90 – 43 in Jammu and 47 in Kashmir division. The recommendations came into effect on May 20, 2022.

After delimitation, some critics claim that the seat allocation is disproportionately in favour of the Jammu region. As this extremely informative video by Newslaundry explains, before delimitation, Jammu had 44-5 percent of the seats and had also nearly 43.8 percent of the voting population, and Kashmir had 55 percent seats with 56 percent of the population. After delimitation, Jammu has cornered approximately 48 percent of ACs, while Kashmir’s chunk has been cut to roughly 52 percent.

As the 2021 Census had to be suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the recommendations were made based on 2011 Census figures. Now, it is well known, that Jammu has a predominantly Hindu population, while Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. This has given rise to concerns about communally polarising vote bank politics. The recommendations are also seen as controversial given how different interest groups have moved court over the validity of the J&K Reorganisation Act and the abrogation of Article 370. The National Conference opposed the recommendations, dubbing them as “gerrymandering”, and even the PDP was not in favour of it.

Notable judicial pronouncements by Justice Desai

1) Supreme Court allows voters to cast negative vote by pressing a button saying none of the candidates is worthy of his vote

In September 2013, a three-judge bench consisting of the Chief Justice Justice P Sathasivam, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi of the Supreme Court of India, held that citizens have right to cast negative vote rejecting all candidates contesting polls, a decision which would encourage people not satisfied with contestants to turn up for voting.

The Bench reportedly said the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option “will accelerate effective political participation in the present state of the democratic system and the voters will in fact be empowered.” The right to cast a negative vote, “at a time when electioneering is in full swing, will foster the purity of the electoral process and also fulfil one of its objectives, namely, wide participation of people.”

2) Registration of FIR in cognisable offences was mandatory

In November 2013, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the then Chief Justice P Sathasivam and comprising of Justices BS Chauhan, Ranjana Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and SA Bobde, held that registration of FIR in cognisable offence is a must and action must be taken against police officials for not lodging a case in such offences.

The Bench reportedly said, “We hold registration of FIR mandatory under Section 154 of the (Criminal Procedure) Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. A police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering an FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register FIRs if information received by them discloses a cognizable offence.”

3) Striking down Haj subsidy

In May 2012, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Altamas Kabir and Ranjana Prakash Desai directed the Centre to gradually reduce the amount of subsidies being given to Haj pilgrims so that within 10 years it is eliminated, and the money was used for the “uplift of the community in education and other indices of social development,” reported Mint.

While hearing an appeal filed by the Centre challenging a Bombay High Court judgement which had directed the Ministry of External Affairs to allow certain private operators to handle 800 of the 11,000 pilgrims earmarked under the VIP quota subsidised by the government, the bench expanded the purview of the plea and decided to look into the legality of the government’s policy on granting subsidies to Haj pilgrims, reported the Hindu.

“We have no doubt that a very large majority of Muslims applying to the Haj Committee would not be aware of the economics of their pilgrimage. And if all the facts are made known, a good many of the pilgrims would not be very comfortable in the knowledge that their Haj is funded to a substantial extent by the government,” reportedly said the bench.

4) Ajmal Kasab:

In February 2011, the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice R V More upheld the death sentence to Ajmal Kasab in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case. As reported by the New Indian Express, it took less than two minutes for Justice Ranjana Desai to read out the confirmation of the death sentence to the Pakistani terrorist, terming the case as “rarest of rare” and observing that the 24-year-old was beyond scope of any rehabilitation.

The bench reportedly held Kasab guilty on four counts, including waging a war against the nation, killing dozens of passengers at CST and murdering senior police officers like Hemant Karkare, Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. The bench observed that the court was more than confident that the death penalty should be awarded to Kasab.

In light of his acts, she reportedly stated, “The lone mitigating circumstance of his young age must recede in the background. The brutality, perversity and cruelty exhibited by Kasab by committing multiple murders of innocent men, women, children, aged persons and policemen without provocation for a motive which has no moral justification makes this case the gravest case of extreme culpability.”

5) Seize licensed arms during elections

In 2009, the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice Rajesh Ketkar, gave direction to the Election Commission (EC) to seize licenced arms from people during elections. The Court observed, “This order is issued under Article 324 of the Constitution of India which vests Superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission. Under clause 6, a direction is issued that prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code be issued banning the carrying of licensed arms as soon as an election is announced and should be effective till declaration of results.”

6) Guidelines to curb baby thefts in BMC hospitals

In 2009, the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice R G Ketkar framed guidelines to to be implemented by the government and the BMC to prevent baby thefts in public hospitals.

The court reportedly laid out 234 remedial measures including installation of a computerized biometrics system which would record footprints, fingerprints and birthmarks, if any, within two hours of the child’s birth or admission.