Participation Without Protest Bars Challenge Later: Delhi High Court Dismisses Working News Cameramen’s Plea in Press Council Nomination Row

“Once you take a chance in the process, you can’t turn around and challenge it” – Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling concerning the constitution of the 15th Press Council of India, dismissed a writ petition filed by the Working News Cameramen’s Association, which sought to challenge its exclusion from the list of “eligible associations of persons” under Section 5(3)(a) of the Press Council of India Act, 1978. The Court held that the petitioner’s participation without protest, coupled with inordinate and unexplained delay, barred it from invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed:

“The petitioner, by not acting with requisite promptness... is disentitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.” [Para 46]

The ruling affirms key doctrines in administrative law — acquiescence, delay and laches, and estoppel by conduct — especially in public nomination processes governed by strict timelines.

Scrutiny Committee Rejection and Consequential Exclusion from Notification

The petitioner-association had submitted its claim for notification under a notice dated 09.06.2024 issued by the Press Council of India (PCI), inviting applications from associations seeking to nominate members to the upcoming 15th Council.

The Scrutiny Committee, in its report dated 10.09.2024, rejected the claim of the petitioner citing deficiencies in notarisation, documentation, and compliance with eligibility criteria under the Press Council (Procedure for Notification of Associations of Persons) Rules, 2021. These recommendations were approved by the Council and a notification dated 28.10.2024 was issued, excluding the petitioner.

Subsequent to this, the Council invited panels of names from notified associations through a notification dated 13.11.2024, initiating the final leg of the nomination process.

The petitioner, however, filed the present writ petition only on 16.12.2024, after the process had substantially progressed and another association (Mumbai Press Club) had secured relief in a separate but timely petition.

“You cannot challenge the rules of the game after playing the match” – Estoppel Applies

The Court decisively held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the very notice dated 09.06.2024 it had acted upon without protest:

“Once the petitioner submitted its application pursuant to the notice... it cannot be permitted now to challenge the same; rather, such a challenge is barred.” [Para 47]

Rejecting the argument that notarisation requirements in the notice were ultra vires the Notaries Act, 1952, the Court observed that since the petitioner never questioned these conditions at the relevant time, they cannot be challenged belatedly.

Delay Defeats Equity: High Court Finds Inordinate Delay Fatal

The Bench stressed that promptitude is essential in such statutory processes, especially where public bodies like the PCI are involved:

“Delay in filing the instant writ petition is fatal… The process of constitution of the Council needs to be continued without any unwanted interruption.” [Para 44]

Noting that the Council had already acted upon the Scrutiny Committee's recommendations and progressed with nominations, the Court found it inequitable to unravel the process at such a late stage. The petition was filed more than two months after the rejection recommendation and nearly a month after the notification, without any valid explanation.

No Parity With Other Cases Without Timely Action

The petitioner sought parity with an earlier judgment dated 22.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16202/2024 (Mumbai Press Club), where relief was granted.

But the Court rejected this submission:

“The said writ petition was filed within reasonable time… the petitioner is not entitled to seek any parity.” [Para 48]

Thus, timeliness was the distinguishing factor — parity in law must be accompanied by similarity in conduct, which was lacking in the present case.

No Examination on Merits: Natural Justice and Document Disputes Not Considered

Since the Court dismissed the petition on threshold grounds, it refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the Scrutiny Committee's reasons — such as the alleged lack of notarisation, non-submission of minutes, or documentary inconsistencies.

“We need not go into the merits of the factual aspects… We are not exercising our discretion… to entertain this writ petition.” [Para 49]

Hence, the arguments regarding violation of natural justice, improper rejection, and interpretation of the Notaries Act remained unexamined.

No Relief for Participation Followed by Protest

Ultimately, the Court held that a party cannot first participate in a statutory process without protest, wait for the outcome, and then challenge the process upon rejection. The conduct of the petitioner — in submitting to the process, failing to act promptly, and seeking relief only after another party succeeded — was deemed inconsistent with equitable relief under Article 226.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 16 January 2026