Removal from the Press Gallery was lawful after authorities cancelled an inadvertently issued gallery pass.

The petitioner, a freelance journalist holding an identity card issued by the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Assam, sought a Media Gallery Pass for the winter session of the Assam Legislative Assembly.

His application, forwarded by the Editor of Daily Gana Sangbad, was received by the Assembly authorities on 18 November 2025.

The Passes Committee found that the petitioner had not furnished current or latest copies of the newspaper and rejected his application on 23 November 2025.

Despite the rejection, a Press Gallery Pass was inadvertently issued to the petitioner on 24 November 2025.

The authorities subsequently converted it into an Assembly Premises Pass, restricting access to the building, and claimed that the petitioner was informed telephonically.

On 25 November 2025, the petitioner was removed from the Press Gallery and submitted a representation, alleging that he had been unlawfully denied access despite having been issued a valid Pass.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking an enquiry into the incident and restoration of his right to attend future Assembly Sessions.

Whether the petitioner’s removal from the Press Gallery, after the Press Gallery Pass had been modified or cancelled and replaced with an Assembly Premises Pass, was legally impermissible.

Whether the Assam Legislative Assembly’s Guidelines for Issuance of Passes required a recommendation from the Editor-in-Chief of the concerned Media House and the Press Secretary of the Assembly for granting a Media Gallery Pass.

Whether the existing Guidelines sufficiently recognised digital press media for the purpose of issuing Media Gallery Passes.

The Court applied the Assam Legislative Assembly’s Guidelines for Issuance of Passes, framed on 8 December 2021, particularly Clause 13(d) and (e), under which Building Passes for accredited or recognised print/electronic media personnel require recommendations from the Editor-in-Chief of the concerned Media House and the Press Secretary of the Assam Legislative Assembly; a Media Gallery Pass similarly requires those recommendations.

The Court also recognised the constitutional and democratic importance of the press as the “fourth pillar of democracy” and observed that contemporary press media includes digital media, although the Guidelines expressly referred only to print and electronic media.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited as the basis of the decision.

The Court found that the petitioner’s original application had been rejected because he failed to provide current copies establishing that Daily Gana Sangbad was in publication.

The subsequent Press Gallery Pass issued on 24 November 2025 was treated as an inadvertent administrative error, since it was issued after the earlier rejection.

The authorities converted that Pass into an Assembly Premises Pass and claimed to have informed the petitioner of the change.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had submitted a fresh application on 24 November 2025 without disclosing the earlier application or its rejection, and that he failed to explain this circumstance.

Accordingly, once the Press Gallery Pass had been modified or cancelled, the petitioner had no subsisting entitlement to enter the Press Gallery, and his removal could not be faulted.

However, while examining the Guidelines, the Court observed that they did not expressly provide for digital press media and recommended that the Assembly consider including digital journalists within the framework for Media Gallery Passes.

The writ petition seeking an enquiry and restoration of access to future Assembly Sessions was therefore dismissed.

The Court nevertheless expressed the expectation that the Assam Legislative Assembly would consider suitably recognising digital press media while issuing Media Gallery Passes.