Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The writ petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to rectify what the petitioner perceives to be a lacuna in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) regarding the definition of 'Editor' in the context of the proviso to sub-Section 8 of Section 5 of the said Act. The prayer in the petition to remove respondent No. 3 from the post of Editor of the daily newspaper: 'The Hindu', was rendered infructuous because during the pendency of the writ petition the respondent No. 3 resigned from the post of Editor of 'The Hindu' and thus the issue was argued in Court on the larger issue: Whether citizenship of India should be the pre-requisite for a person to be appointed as the Editor of a publication in India.

2. A journey, concerning the interpretation of a statute, must commence by highlighting the statutory provision around which the debate centers, including its historical perspective, and thus we straight away proceed to note the applicable statutory provisions.

3. The word 'Editor' has been defined by the said Act:-

'Editor' means the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper.

4. The proviso to sub-Section 8 of Section 5 of the said Act, which is the focus of attention, reads as under:-

Provided that no person who does not ordinarily reside in India or who has not attained majority in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875), or of the law to which he is subject in respect of the attainment of majority, shall be permitted to make the declaration prescribed by this Section, nor shall any such person edit a newspaper.

5. A plain reading of the proviso would make it apparent that it concerns two distinct categories of persons who are the subject matter of the proviso. The first is those who are obliged to make a declaration prescribed by Section 5; and the second are those who edit a newspaper. As regards the persons who are obliged to make a declaration prescribed by the Section, sub-Section 2 would evidence that they would be the printer and/or the publisher of a newspaper. The second would be the persons who edit a newspaper.

6. We are concerned in the writ petition with the second category i.e. the persons who edit newspapers.

7. The proviso requires that the persons making the declaration required by Section 5 as also persons who edit a newspaper should 'ordinarily reside in India'.

8. Originally enacted in the year 1867, the proviso was sans the words 'who does not ordinarily reside in India or'. The proviso as originally enacted read as under:-

Provided that no person who has not attained majority in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875), or of the law to which he is subject in respect of the attainment of majority, shall be permitted to make the declaration prescribed by this Section, nor shall any such person edit a newspaper.

9. The said Act, as proclaimed by its preamble, was enacted to regulate the printing press, newspapers and books. Newspapers would include periodicals as per the definition of a newspaper.

10. The statement of objects and reasons to Act No. 26 of 1960: 'The Press and Registration of Books (Amendment) Act, 1960', concerning the amendment to the proviso to sub-Section 8 of Section 5 of the said Act clarifies, that though the Act contemplated that the printer, publisher and editor of a newspaper should ordinarily be residents in India, there was no specific provision to this effect in the Act and thus the proposed amendment was to make clear, beyond the possibility of doubt, what was already implicit in the statute book.

11. The law was well-settled by the year 1960, on the subject of the civil and criminal liability of the printer, publisher and the editor of a newspaper, with reference to the contents of the publication. Whereas a printer and publisher were vicariously liable for the matter published in a newspaper, the edito