NEW DELHI– The Press Council of India (PCI), a quasi-judicial media body, has been without a chairperson for weeks. The situation has raised concern among media professionals across India. The 15th council is still missing a working head and 13 members, even though a council’s term lasts only three years.
Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai’s regular three-year term, plus the allowed six-month extension, ended on 16 December 2025. With no confirmed replacement in place, the statutory media watchdog is now in an unusual position.
In recent weeks, several media associations have asked the Union government in New Delhi to appoint a new PCI chairperson without delay. Over the same period, official requests were sent seeking updates about the present PCI team, but the PCI office did not respond.
Until recently, the PCI’s official website ( www.presscouncil.nic.in/ ), which is currently not working, continued to list Justice R P Desai as the chairperson. News reports, however, indicate that the retired Supreme Court judge has already taken up the role of chairperson of the Eighth Pay Commission.
The 15th Council Remains Short of Members
The 14th council’s tenure ended on 5 October 2024. Efforts to set up the statutory 15th council have faced repeated delays and disputes.
At present, the PCI has some active members, including Sudhanshu Trivedi and Brij Lal (Rajya Sabha), Sambit Patra, Naresh Mhaske, and Kali Charan Munda (Lok Sabha), Ashwini K Mohapatra (University Grants Commission), Manan Kumar Mishra (Bar Council of India), and K Sreenivasarao (Sahitya Akademi).
Other members include Sudhir Kumar Panda, M V Shreyams Kumar, Gurinder Singh, Arun Kumar Tripathi, Braj Mohan Sharma, and Arti Tripathi (from newspaper ownership or management across large, medium, and small publications).
The PCI is a 28-member body (not counting the chairperson). It was first established in 1966 under the Press Council Act 1965, then re-established in 1979 under the Press Council Act 1978. Its stated purpose is to improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.
Under the structure, 13 seats are meant for professional journalists. This includes six editors and seven working journalists from newspapers. Those 13 seats have remained empty to date, leaving a major gap in representation for working media professionals.
The Rule Change Dispute Behind the Deadlock
The wider crisis began after a proposed change to PCI rules, which would allow member selection from press clubs rather than through the national union of working journalists. Several national journalist bodies opposed the move, and some approached the courts, which added to the delay.
They argue that press clubs often act as social or recreational groups, with their reach limited to a city, town, or region. Many also offer membership to non-working journalists, such as academics, writers, film personalities, and diplomats, to broaden influence. Critics say that the setup can weaken proper representation for working journalists when serious decisions are required.
They also argue that a press club, press guild, or media club cannot function as a true all-India body (even where the name suggests national reach, such as the Press Club of India). By contrast, recognised journalist unions tend to include members from many parts of the country.
What This Means for India’s Print Media
This is the first time the statutory body has become headless. The lack of leadership has renewed attention on who is meant to safeguard the large Indian print media community. India has more than 100,000 registered publications, recorded by the Registrar of Newspapers for India, across many languages and publishing schedules.
The PCI can accept complaints against newspapers, news agencies, editors, and working journalists for professional misconduct and for actions that lower journalistic standards. Yet its powers are limited, and it cannot easily enforce its guidelines through strong penalties against print outlets or individuals.
India also has nearly 400 satellite news channels, along with millions of online portals, WhatsApp-based publishers, and other digital media outlets. These platforms are still outside the PCI’s jurisdiction, along with other modern technology-driven news services.
The PCI does have the authority to comment when it finds the conduct of a government inappropriate, while also supporting press freedom. With the media environment changing fast, calls are growing to bring news channels, radio, and digital platforms under the PCI’s scope, along with greater powers to act.
