The development can only be described as unfortunate: the government-mandated media watchdog of the world’s largest democracy has failed to appoint a chairperson in time. The Press Council of India (PCI), a statutory quasi-judicial body, is currently without a head, as the full three-year term of its chairperson expired on December 16, 2025, without any formal announcement of reappointment or succession.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, who assumed charge on June 17, 2022, became the first woman chairperson of the Press Council of India. Her tenure was later extended by six months. However, as of now, neither the PCI’s official website (https://presscouncil.nic.in/) nor any government communiqué has clarified whether she has been reappointed or whether another individual has been entrusted with the responsibility.
It is worth recalling that the PCI—an autonomous body originally established in 1966 under the Press Council Act, 1965—remained inactive for nearly a year after the tenure of the 14th Council ended on October 5, 2024. Even now, the statutory 15th Press Council has not been fully constituted, raising serious concerns about institutional continuity and regulatory oversight.
Council Without Journalists
Mandated to safeguard and nurture press freedom in India, the Press Council currently remains devoid of elected working journalists and editors among its members. Apart from the chairperson (whose term ended in mid-December), the PCI presently has only five functioning members:
- Sudhanshu Trivedi and Brij Lal (nominated from the Rajya Sabha)
- Ashwini K. Mohapatra (University Grants Commission)
- Manan Kumar Mishra (Bar Council of India)
- K. Sreenivasarao (Sahitya Akademi)
According to the PCI website, these members assumed office on December 20, 2024, for a three-year term.
Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw had earlier informed that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had nominated three members—Sambit Patra, Naresh Mhaske, and Kali Charan Munda—to the 15th Council. Additionally, six members representing newspaper ownership and management—Sudhir Kumar Panda, M.V. Shreyams Kumar, Gurinder Singh, Arun Kumar Tripathi, Braj Mohan Sharma, and Arti Tripathi—have also been included.
However, the core deficit remains glaring: the 28-member PCI must include 13 representatives of professional journalists, comprising six editors and seven working journalists. All these seats remain vacant, undermining the very spirit of the Council’s mandate.
Who Guards the Press?
With the PCI functioning without a chairperson and without journalist representatives, a fundamental question arises: who safeguards India’s print media ecosystem today?
India hosts over 100,000 registered publications, recognised by the Registrar of Newspapers for India, spanning multiple languages and publishing frequencies. The country also supports nearly 400 satellite news channels, in addition to millions of digital news portals, WhatsApp channels, and other online media platforms. Yet it must be noted that the PCI’s jurisdiction is limited strictly to newspapers, periodicals, and news agencies. Television, radio, and digital media remain outside its statutory purview.
Even within its limited scope, the Press Council possesses restricted enforcement powers. It may censure newspapers, editors, or journalists for professional misconduct and receive complaints regarding violations of journalistic ethics. Importantly, the Council is also empowered to make observations against governments when their actions threaten press freedom. This limitation has repeatedly fuelled demands to bring television, radio, and digital media under the PCI’s ambit, though no consensus has emerged so far.
The Roots of the Crisis
The present stalemate originated when several all-India journalist organisations opposed amendments to PCI rules that proposed selecting journalist representatives from press clubs instead of recognised national unions of working journalists. Some organisations challenged the changes in court, further complicating the situation.
Their argument is straightforward: press clubs are largely recreational or local bodies, usually confined to a city or region. Many offer memberships to non-working journalists—academics, writers, film personalities, even diplomats—to enhance prestige and influence. Consequently, critics argue, such bodies cannot genuinely represent the professional concerns of working journalists nationwide.
In contrast, recognised journalist unions traditionally comprise members from across different regions of India, enabling them to reflect broader professional realities. The contention remains unresolved, leaving the Press Council of India—ironically tasked with protecting press freedom—institutionally weakened and directionless.
Until the Council is fully constituted and provided with a chairperson, the credibility and relevance of India’s apex print media watchdog remain in serious question.
