New CEO subject to high court order
Tribune News Service

NEW DELHI, Sept 2 — The Delhi High Court today made the appointment of the new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Prasar Bharati Board subject to its final order on a writ petition filed by sacked board CEO, S S Gill.

A Division Bench comprising Mr Justice R. C. Lahoti and Mr Justice C. K. Mahajan said any appointment made by the government to the post of CEO would be "subject to its final order on the writ petition."

The 72-year-old Mr Gill moved the court challenging the Prasar Bharati Ordinance promulgated by the government on Saturday, which restored the original 1990 Act. On the same day, the government appointed All-India Radio Director-General O. P. Kejriwal the new CEO.

The court issued notices to the secretaries of the departments of Information and Broadcasting and Law and Justice, the Cabinet Secretary, Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Prasar Bharati Corporation.

A decision on issuing notices to the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Sushma Swaraj and her Deputy, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, would be taken on September 7.

The court said whether the notices could be issued to the ministers would be decided only after a perusal of the affidavit to be filed by the petitioner on the allegations that the two had made certain statements against Mr Gill.

Mr Gill, in his petition, had challenged the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and termed the government action as "mala fide".

Attorney-General Soli Sorabji, who accepted the notices on behalf of the government, said the allegations of "mala fide" were "unfounded".

Counsel for the former CEO, Mr Kapil Sibal, submitted that the petitioner was not questioning the present arrangement (appointment of the new CEO) made by the government. "There may be any arrangement," he contended.

The court then said any appointment made by the government to the post of the CEO would be "subject to its final order on the writ petition."

The petition said the Ordinance was promulgated by the two ministers "under challenge for the single purpose of ousting him from the office and as such (they) are necessary parties in the order to establish that the real intention behind the promulgation was "mala fide."

Mr Gill further said that he was appointed under the statute and an amendment to the said law amounted to a breach of the contract of appointment between the authorities and him. It was, therefore "unconstitutional".

Seeking direction from the court to the government not to appoint any other person as the CEO during the pendency of the petition, Mr Gill said "the government has not been able till now to show cogently as to how the functioning of the Prasar Bharati Board had suffered during his tenure."

"The government has not shown sufficient reasons for the necessity for the (Prasar Bharati) Amendment Bill of June 1, 1998, introduced in the Lok Sabha when the opposition parties opposed it on the ground that it was aimed at removing a single individual," Mr Gill in his plea contended.

He said the government deliberately avoided to introduce the Bill in the Rajya Sabha during the Budget session as it feared that it might not be able to muster enough support in the Upper House.

"It would be pertinent to point out at this juncture that 124 members (of the Upper House) had signed a memorandum presented to the Prime Minister requesting for the introduction of the Bill and this number (124) constituted an absolute majority in the Upper House," he said.

This memo made it clear that the government’s real intention appeared to be to bypass the Upper House since it was aware that the Bill would be defeated there. The intention of the members was to bring this "legislative impropriety" to the notice of the Prime Minister, Mr Gill claimed.