Passage
The Editors Guild of India has expressed concern over the “draconian provisions” of the Press and Registration of Periodicals (PRP) Bill, 2023, that can have an adverse impact on freedom of the press. The Guild added: “Editors Guild of India would like the proposed bill to ensure that publishing of news in India remains free of encumbrances and intrusive checks on publishers by the Registrar, and that the primary emphasis of the Registrar and the PRP remains ‘registration’ and not ‘regulation’, as the latter has the potential of restricting freedom of the press.”
“In the definitions section, the term ‘specified authority’ gives power to government agencies beyond the Press Registrar, to conduct the functions of the Registrar, which could even include police and other law enforcement agencies. Given the intrusive, expansive, and vague nature of powers that the bill in any case allows to the Press Registrar, the power to further delegate this power to other government agencies including law enforcement agencies is deeply distressing,” the Guild said.
The statement says sections 4(1) and 11(4) allow the Registrar to deny the right to bring out a periodical and cancel the certificate of registration of a periodical to persons convicted of “terrorist act or unlawful activity” or “for having done anything against the security of the State”.
“Interestingly, the PRB Act, 1867, had no such provisions. Given the liberal and arbitrary use of UAPA (which is the basis for defining ‘terrorist act’ and ‘unlawful activity’), as well as other criminal laws, including sedition, against journalists and media organisations to suppress freedom of speech, the Guild is deeply concerned by the introduction of these new provisions, and the way they can be misused to deny the right to bring out news publications to persons who are critical of governments,” it said.
Among the other worrisome provisions listed by the Guild is Section 6(b), which gives power to the Press Registrar (as well as any other “specified authority”) to enter the premises of a periodical to “inspect or take copies of the relevant records or documents or ask any questions necessary for obtaining any information required to be furnished”.
PRP Bill denies the right to publish periodicals to a person who has been found to have committed a terrorist act and has been convicted by a competent Court in India. Which of the following is most appropriate reason?
Correct Answer :
The right to publish a periodical is denied because they may not be neutral in reporting and may incite violence and spread disaffection against the state being themselves involved in terrorist acts.
Solution :
The correct answer is: The right to publish a periodical is denied because they may not be neutral in reporting and may incite violence and spread disaffection against the state being themselves involved in terrorist acts.
Step-by-step Explanation:
1. Analyze the Passage Context:
The passage discusses the Press and Registration of Periodicals (PRP) Bill, 2023, specifically highlighting sections 4(1) and 11(4). These provisions allow the Registrar to deny or cancel the registration of a periodical if a person is convicted of a "terrorist act or unlawful activity" or acting "against the security of the State."
2. Evaluate the Options based on Legal/Logical Reasonings:
- Option 1: "The right to publish a periodical is denied because criminals do not possess any fundamental rights." This is incorrect because even convicted individuals retain basic human rights and certain legal protections; rights are restricted reasonably, not completely erased.
- Option 2: "The right to publish a periodical is denied because such a person is a threat to the society and nation." While broadly true, it lacks the specific rationale regarding the misuse of press freedom.
- Option 3: "The right to publish a periodical is denied because they may not be neutral in reporting and may incite violence and spread disaffection against the state being themselves involved in terrorist acts." This provides the most precise logical reason. Allowing individuals convicted of terrorism to publish media creates a risk that the platform will be used to spread disaffection, radicalize readers, or incite violence against public order and national security.
3. Conclusion:
Therefore, the most appropriate reason restricting publication rights for convicts of terrorist acts is to prevent non-neutral reporting, incitement to violence, and the spreading of disaffection against the state.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
