Mere Dissemination of News by Agency or Newspaper does not qualify as Public Function.

Mere Dissemination of News by Agency or Newspaper does not qualify as Public Function.

"Newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function"

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition against Agence France-Presse ("Agency"), a French private international news agency on the grounds that dissemination of news by an agency or a newspaper is not a public function.

This present petition arose after one Mr. Prakash Singh ("Petitioner") laid allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against the Agency.

Addressing the issue of maintainability of the petition, the single judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma noted that the mere act of disseminating news by an agency or a newspaper cannot be construed as an act of public function or public duty.

Relying on the case of Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. vs. Kago Kunya & Ors., the Court took note that a public function can only be performed by a state in its sovereign capacity, and hence there is no public law element in the enforcement of a private contract of service.

The Petitioner points out that the Agency in question is constituted by an Act of the Parliament of France and therefore, its essential functions of placing information at the disposal of the users in exchange for money indicates that it is an autonomous civil entity.

Attention was drawn towards the fundamental obligation under Article 2 of the Charter that mandated the Agency's compliance. The obligations include that the Agency will not fall under the control of any political or economic grouping and will disseminate impartial and trustworthy information.

Petitioner urged the Court to sustain the submissions on the grounds that the functions of the Agency are indeed a public function.

Emphasising on the case of Ramakrishna (supra.) the Court observed that "A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it… ….contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions."

The Court further placed reliance on the case Binny Ltd. Vs. Sadasivan and held that "A body is performing a "public function" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest"

In light of the aforesaid observations, the Court dismissed the maintainability of the petition.