Muristek
Delhi High Court refuses to entertain petition accusing French news agency AFP of racial discrimination
New Delhi, June 11
Maintaining that newspapers and news agencies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as they don't perform public function, the Delhi High Court has refuses to act on allegations of racial discrimination against French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"While it may be true that the second respondent (AFP) had been constituted by an Act by the Parliament of France, it becomes relevant to note that the newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function," Justice Yashwant Varma said in an order passed earlier this month.
Claiming to be a victim of racial discrimination, petitioner Arun Singh had contended that AFP performed a public function and since allegations of racial discrimination had been levelled, the writ petition was maintainable.
He said AFP had been constituted by a law enacted by the French Parliament and its essential functions would indicate that it was an autonomous civil entity constituted for obtaining in France and abroad, complete and objective information and for placing that information at the disposal of users in exchange for payment.
However, the high court found the argument unsustainable. "Regard must be had to the fact that the expression "public function" and "public duty" have been understood to be those which are akin to functions performed by the State in its sovereign capacity," it said, adding the contract of service between Singh and AFP was not imbued with any statutory flavour.
It explained that the expressions "public function" and "public duty" had to be understood as being akin to functions performed by the State in its sovereign capacity.
Citing the Supreme Court's verdicts, the HC said a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 was pre-eminently a public law remedy and was not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs.
While writ could also be issued against any private body or person, especially in view of the words used in Article 226, but the scope of mandamus was limited to enforcement of public duty, it clarified.