sign in sign up
<<
Home , ABN Andhra Jyothi, HMTV, Jamim Shah, Mint (newspaper), Sanjay Dina Patil

PRESS COUNCIL OF

Annual Report (April 1, 2009 - March 31, 2010)

New Delhi Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, -110 005 Press Council of India Soochna Bhawan, 8, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 Chairman: Mr. Justice G.N. Ray Editors of Indian Languages (Clause (A) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) NAME ORGANIZATION NOMINATED BY NEWSPAPERS Shri Vishnu Nagar Editors Guild of India, All India Sunday Nai Duniya, Editors’ Conference, New Delhi Samachar Patra Sammelan Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma All India Newspaper Editors’ Muzzafarnagar Conference, Editors Guild of India, Bulletin, Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra All India Newspaper Editors’ Filmi Duniya, Conference, Editors Guild of India, Delhi Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Shri Sheetla Singh Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan, Janmorcha, All India Newspaper Editors’ Uttar Pradesh Conference, Editors Guild of India Ms. Suman Gupta Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan, Saryu Tat Se, All India Newspaper Editors’ Uttar Pradesh Conference, Editors Guild of India Editors of English Newspapers (Clause (A) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Shri Yogesh Chandra Halan Editors Guild of India, All India Asian Defence News, Newspaper Editors’ Conference, New Delhi Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Working Journalists other than Editors (Clause (A) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Shri K. Sreenivas Reddy Indian Journalists Union, Working , News Cameramen’s Association, Andhra Pradesh Press Association Shri Mihir Gangopadhyay Indian Journalists Union, Press Freelancer, (Ganguly) Association, Working News , Cameramen's Association West Bengal Shri M.K. Ajith Kumar Press Association, Working News , Cameramen's Association, New Delhi Indian Journalists Union Shri Joginder Chawla Working News Cameramen’s Freelancer Association, Press Association, Indian Journalists Union Shri G. Prabhakaran Indian Journalists Union, Group Working News Cameramen’s of Publications Association, Press Association NAME ORGANIZATION NOMINATED BY NEWSPAPERS Shri Kalyan Barooah Press Association, Indian Journalists Assam Tribune, Union, Working News Cameramen’s Guwahati Association Shri S.N. Sinha Working News Cameramen’s Freelancer Association, Indian Journalists Union, Press Association, Owners & Managers of Big, Medium and Small Newspapers (Clause (B) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Shri Hormusji Nusserwanji Cama Indian Newspapers Society , Shri T. Venkattram Reddy Indian Newspapers Society , Andhra Pradesh Shri Anil Jugal Kishore Agrawal Indian Newspapers Society Amravati Mandal, Maharashtra Shri Kundan Raman Lal Vyas Indian Newspapers Society Janmbhoomi Pravasi, Maharashtra Shri Ramesh Gupta Indian Newspapers Society Tej Weekly, New Delhi Shri Sushil Jhalani Indian Federation of Small Arun Prabha, and Medium Newspapers Rajasthan Managers of News Agencies (Clause (C) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Shri V.S. Chandrasekar Press Trust of India

Nominees of University Grants Commission, Bar Council of India and Sahitya Academy (Clause (D) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Shri University Grants Commission Shri Milan Kumar Dey Bar Council of India Dr. Lalit Mangotra Sahitya Academy Members of Parliament Nominated by Speaker, and Chairman, Rajya Sabha (Clause (E) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Shri Ananth Kumar (Lok Sabha) Shri (Lok Sabha) Shri Sanjay Dina Patil (Lok Sabha) Shri Prakash Javadekar (Rajya Sabha) Dr. K. Keshava Rao (Rajya Sabha) Secretary : Smt. Vibha Bhargava Contents Foreword Chapter I Review 1 Chapter II Adjudications in Complaints Regarding 40 Threats to Press Freedom Chapter III Adjudications Rendered by the Council in 48 Complaints Filed Against the Press Chapter IV Report on Media Coverage of Batla House 60 Encounter - Adopted by the Press Council of India on 9.6.2009 Chapter V Report on the Complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, 64 Lakhimpur, Khiri (U.P) based Staff Reporter/ Correspondent of , Hindi daily against Smt. N. Padmaja, the then S.P. Lakhimpur, Khiri, (U.P.) -Fact Finding Committee Report Adopted by Press Council of India on 22.2.2010 Chapter VI Report on Charges of Police Brutality on 91 Journalists of Print and Electronic Media in the Osmania University, - Assessment Committee Report Adopted by Press Council of India on 31.3.2010 Chapter VII Finances of the Council 2009-2010 114

Annexures A Statement of Cases (April 1, 2009 - March 31, 2010) 136 B Gazette Notification dated October 9, 2009 137 C Gazette Notification dated November 5, 2009 139 D Graph of Adjudications 2009-2010 140 E Subject Index of Adjudications in Complaints 141 Regarding Threats to Press Freedom (2009-2010) F Subject Index of Adjudications in Complaints 147 Against the Press (2009-2010) G Index of Principles Recorded in Adjudications in 169 Complaints Against the Press H Subject Index of Orders Passed by the Press and 174 Registration Appellate Board (2009-2010) Foreword

The Press Council has been preparing and publishing its Annual Report every year for the previous financial year April-March as required by the provisions of the Press Council Act. The Annual Report mainly contains the summary of the Council’s activities in the previous year, an account of the State of the Press in the country and events relating to it both in this country as well as in the world, refers to some major developments in the media during the year and a statement of the audited accounts. The report is tabled in the Parliament as required by the statute.

The present Annual Report gives an account of the complaints received from and against the press and the number of complaints adjudicated during the year; of the number of meetings held by the Inquiry Committees and the Council and of its other Committees at various places in the country. These meetings have created a wide ranging awareness among the people of the powers and functions of the Council. This has in turn led to the increase in the number of people choosing the forum of the Press Council over the legal procedure in the adjudicatory process. While the report covers in detail the activities of the Council I would like to make special mention of the malaise of news allegedly published on payment during Lok Sabha/Assembly Election this year. The syndrome pretends great danger for our democratic principles and the basic canons of journalism. The issue is being examined by the Press Council of India.

The publication also refers to the various reports prepared by the Council during the period under review on media related issues. The activities of the World Association of Press Councils (WAPC) of which the Press Council of India is a member also finds a place in it. In addition, the work done by the Appellate Board constituted under the Press and Registration of Books Act and Seminars and Conferences held by the Council find a reference in it.

An attempt has been made to cover all the activities of the Council as far as possible keeping in mind the need to make the report as brief as possible. The Council is poised to make strides in future in discharging the functions entrusted to it. If the Parliament makes the relevant amendments to the Press Council Act and the rules under it, which are at present under active consideration of the Government to strengthen Press Council and to enable it to discharge its functions more efficiently and effectively, the Council is bound to emerge as a reckonable institution in the life of the society. The Report is placed in the hands of the readers with the hope that it will prove of interest to them and provide them the requisite information about the working of the Council and the ethics of the Press.

G.N. Ray New Delhi Chairman 31.03.2010 Press Council of India CHAPTER – I General Review

It was a rollercoaster ride for Indian media industry. Product from newspaper companies catering tier I and tier II cities which were not as affected by the slowdown as metropolitan cities registered growth. Overall, it was tough. But as media houses look back, it wasn’t as bad as was anticipated. The softening of newsprint prices helps the print media companies to counter the downturn. The government’s stimulus package by increasing the rate of DAVP also gave respite to newspaper owners. The newspapers could not indulge in price war owing to prevailing economic condition status. Though most of the newspapers were cautious in their approach, expansion continued nonetheless. With a sale of 107 million newspapers daily, India is the biggest newspaper market in the world. Together with and Japan it accounts for over 60% of global newspapers sales. On the global front the financial meltdown continued to drip to profit margin in media. The giant publication houses are fast shrinking and striving to sustain their survival mode. It is being anticipated in West that end of newspaper is destined in coming times. Though several Asian countries including Indian newspapers are likely to thrive for a long time. Globally a billion people read newspaper everyday. According to the WAN-IFRA survey, the newspaper circulation grew on global scale by 1.3% in 2008 and atmost 9% over five years. The data showed consistent newspaper growth in Africa, and South America. Technological innovation which once boosted circulation of newspaper and periodical are now taking heavy toll on the print media. Network and cable news gave severe blow to print media. The reason of shrinking readership has been the non-interest of new generation in reading newspapers. The newspaper houses are now considering the option to start charging for their web news content. Signalling an end to the era to free online access to make up the losses called by declining readership of newspapers. The Press Council, in discharge of its functions, kept an eye on these and more developments as detailed hereinafter. Composition and Objects The Press Council of India is a statutory quasi-judicial body created by an

1 Act of Parliament. It was first set up in 1966 under the Indian Press Council Act, 1965, on the recommendations of the first Press Commission, with the twin object of “preserving the freedom of the press” and of “maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India”. The 1965 Act was, however, repealed in 1975 and the Press Council was abolished during emergency. A new Act was enacted in 1978 more or less on the same lines as the Act of 1965 and the Press Council was re-established under it in 1979. The Press Council is headed by a Chairman who has by convention been a sitting/retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Council consists of 28 other members of whom 20 represent the press, five are from the two houses of Parliament who represent the readers’ interest and three are from the cultural, literary and legal fields and are nominated by the University Grants Commission, the Sahitya Academy, and the Bar Council of India respectively. The term of the office of the Chairman and the members is three years. The Press Council Act does not provide for individual membership to newspapers or press persons. However, in reaching out to the newspapers of the country and rendering its adjudicatory and advisory role the Press Council levies an annual fee on newspapers/news agencies/periodicals that contribute to the revenue of the Council. The objects of the Press Council of India as embodied in Section 13 of the Act of 1978 are to preserve the freedom of the Press and to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. The Act also confers an advisory role on the Council in that it can, either suo-motu or on a reference made to it by the Government under Section 13(2) of the Act, undertake, studies and express its opinion in regard to any bill, legislation, law or other matters touching the Press and convey its opinion to the Government or the persons concerned. In a case, of public importance, touching its statutory responsibilities, the Council may suo-motu take cognizance and constitute a Special Committee to make an on-the-spot inquiry. In furtherance of its objects, some of the important functions which the Press Council is required to perform are to help newspapers and news agencies maintain their independence; to build up a code of conduct for newspapers, news agencies and journalists in accordance with high professional standards; to ensure on the part of the newspapers, news agencies and journalists the maintenance of high standards of public taste and foster a due sense of both the rights and responsibilities; to keep under review any development likely to restrict the supply and dissemination of news of public interest and importance; to promote a proper functional relationship among all classes of persons engaged in the production or publication of newspapers or in news agencies; and to

2 concern itself with developments such as concentration of or other aspects of ownership of newspapers and news agencies which may effect the independence of the press. An extremely healthy and unique feature of the Press Council of India is that it is one of few such bodies to have been set up under an Act of Parliament. Most parallel institutions or similar bodies in most countries of the world are voluntary organisations or have come into existence after the Press Council of India. Notwithstanding the fact that a substantial part of its funds is augmented by grant-in-aid from the government, it has full functional autonomy and independence from government control in the discharge of its statutory responsibilities.

Working of the Council April 1, 2009 - March 31, 2010

Reconstitution of the Press Council of India The Press Council Act, 1978 provides for re-constitution of the Council every three years. The tenth three-year term of the Council is to expire on January 6, 2011. The process of reconstitution of the Council for its eleventh term had been set in motion by the Council in its meeting held on February 22, 2010. Thereafter, a press notice had been issued in the last week of March 2010 inviting claims from associations of persons/news agencies of the categories referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Press Council Act. A sub-committee of the Council has been set up for the purpose of scrutinizing the claims received in response to the notice. Meetings of Council and its Committees The Council carries out its statutory obligations as set out in Section 8(1) of Press Council Act, 1978 which says:- “For the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may constitute from among its members, such Committees for general or special purposes as it may deem necessary and every Committee so constituted shall perform such functions as are assigned to it by the Council”. Pursuant to this provision, the Council for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act, constitutes from amongst its members, Committees for

3 general and specific purpose from time to time keeping in view the requirements of the tasks assigned. Generally all Committees i.e. Standing Committees and ad-hoc Committees are headed by the Chairman of the Council. The Committees of the Council, especially the two Inquiry Committees, bear large quantum of work load. The composition of the Inquiry Committees of the Council in the year under review is as follows. Inquiry Committee (I) Shri Vishnu Nagar Shri K. Sreenivas Reddy Shri G. Prabhakaran Shri T. Venkattram Reddy Shri Ramesh Gupta Shri Milan Kumar Dey, Senior Advocate Shri Vilas Muttemwar, M.P. Ms. Suman Gupta Shri M.K. Ajith Kumar Shri S. N. Sinha Shri Kundan Raman Lal Vyas Shri Sushil Jhalani Dr. Sebastian Paul, M.P. (Ceased to be member of the Inquiry Committee/Council upon dissolution of Lok Sabha on May 18, 2009.) Shri Bharatsinh Madhavsinh Solanki, M.P. (Ceased to be member of the Inquiry Committee/Council upon dissolution of Lok Sabha on May 18, 2009.) Shri Ananth Kumar, M.P. Dr. K. Keshava Rao, M.P. Inquiry Committee (II) Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma Shri Sheetla Singh

4 Shri Mihir Gangopadhyay (Ganguly) Shri Kalyan Barooah Shri Anil Jugal Kishore Agrawal Dr. Lalit Mangotra Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra Shri Yogesh Chandra Halan Shri Joginder Chawla Shri Hormusji Nusserwanji Cama Shri V.S. Chandrasekar Shri Paranjoy Guha Thakurta Shri M.A. Kharabela Swain, M.P. (Ceased to be the member of the Inquiry Committee/Council upon dissolution of Lok Sabha on May 18, 2009) Shri Yashwant Sinha, M.P. (Ceased to be member of the Inquiry Committee /Council upon his election to the Lok Sabha w.e.f. May 18, 2009) Shri Sanjay Dina Patil, M.P. Shri Prakash Javadekar, M.P.

The two Inquiry Committees, presided over by the Chairman of the Council shouldered the major quantum of the workload of the Council by initiating inquiries in respect of complaints received by the Council. In the inquiry before the Committees, which is open to public, the parties are entitled to substantiate their stand through relevant evidence, oral or documentary and make submissions in support of their contentions. They are also allowed to be represented by lawyers. At the close of the inquiry, the Committee makes a report of its findings on the allegations contained in the complaint together with its reasons and submits the records of the case to the Council for final decision. During the financial year, the two Inquiry Committees held 10 sittings and heard a total of 223 matters including adjourned cases and made their recommendations in 196 matters to the Council for final adjudication. Besides, 481 matters were decided under the provisio to Section 14(1) of Press Council Act, 1978.

5 The full Council held four meetings during the reviewed year to discuss matters having vital bearing on press freedom and its standards. The workload of the Council has increased manifold. The important Sub Committees which functioned during the period under review were: 1. Fact Finding Committee constituted in the complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Reporter, Amar Ujala, Lakhimpur Khiri, (U.P.) against Ms. N. Padmaja, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, Khiri. 2. Sub-committee constituted in the Complaint of Shri Ritu Krishan Srivastave, Editor, Tamsa Sanket, Hindi weekly, Ambedkar Nagar against police authorities regarding harassment of machine man, Shri Krishan Kumar Dubey. 3. Sub-Committee constituted to examine the issue of threats/problems faced by small and medium newspapers for collection of news and those affecting their stability due to non-adoption of Model Accreditation – Advertisement Rules framed by the Council. Shri V.K. Chopra, Member of the Sub-Committee vide his letter dated 12/2/2009 defined the parameters for the Model New Media Accreditation Rules. He also proposed nine point recommendations, stressing the need for its implementation to protect and promote the genuine small and medium newspapers. 4. Sub-Committee constituted to study the allegations of ‘Paid News Syndrome” based on the reports of money power being pumped into the media during Elections 2009. 5. Assessment Committee constituted to assess facts regarding alleged police brutality on journalists of print and electronic media on February 14 and 15, 2010 at Osmania, University, A.P. Complaints before the Council During the year under review, total of 950 complaints were instituted in the Council. Of these, 180 complaints were by the Press against authorities of the Government for violation of press freedom and 770 complaints were directed against the press for breach of journalistic ethics. With 904 matters pending from the last year, there were a total of 1854 matters for disposal by the Council. Of these, 681 matters were disposed of during the year, either by way of adjudication or through summary disposal by the Chairman on account of settlement by the mediation of the Chairman or due to lack of sufficient grounds

6 for holding inquiries or non-pursuance; withdrawal or on account of matters having become sub-judice. Out of these 681 matters, four matters were directly placed before the Council for adjudication. In all 1173 matters were being processed at the close of the year. A detailed statement of the institution and disposal of complaints is at Annexure-A. Opinion In its advisory capacity the Council provided the Government and other authorities with its views on many issues. Some of the important ones are as follows:- 1. Communication dated 24.3.2009 received from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting seeking comments/ATN on 2nd ARC – 8th report – combating Terrorism – regarding 2. Reference from Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Private Treaties by Media Companies – regarding 3. Petition regarding misuse of Right of Freedom of Speech & Expression by Print and Electronic Media and the need to restrict it under Article 19(2) of the Constitution 4. DGPs/IGPs Conference 2007-follow up action on recommendation on impact of Media-regarding 5. Reference from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting regarding Recommendations made by the Working Group of National Integration Council to study the report of Commissions of Inquiry on communal riots 6. Report of Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry – Memorandum of Action Taken thereon – Reference from Ministry of Information & Broadcasting 7. Judgement of Kerala Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.10.2009 in Appeal No. 698/ 03 filed by Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd Suo-motu cognizance of the incidents of violation against mediapersons and threats to press freedom was undertaken by the Press Council in the following cases: 1. Arrest of News Editor, The Council initiated suo-motu cognizance on the arrest of Shri B. Lenin, News Editor, Dinamalar, , Tamil Nadu on the basis of the allegedly

7 defamatory news reports published in Dinamalar on October 9, 2009. It has been reported that Dinamalar had carried a report on film stars following the arrest of an actor on charges of running a prostitution ring. The Council drew the attention of Hon’ble Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu to the incident. Comments have also been sought from the Editor, Dinamalar; the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu; the Secretary, Home (Police); Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. Hon’ble Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu in his response while providing copy of the report on the matter assured the Council his government’s commitment to ensure full protection and justice to mediapersons. The matter is under process. 2. Attack on the Offices of Newspaper Prabha and Jayakirana, Kannada dailies published from Karnataka The Council initiated suo-motu cognizance of the attack on the offices of the newspapers ‘’ and Jayakirana on the basis of certain news reports in some of the prominent national dailies wherein it was reported that the said Kannada dailies had published an article which was a translation of an essay by Bangladeshi writer, Taslima Nasreen on wearing “burka” by Muslim women. The author according to a report has commented on the views of Prophet Mohammed on ‘burka’. The said article provoked the attack at Hassan and Shimoga, the hometown of Karnataka Chief Minister and also resulted in protest by Muslim Organisations and riots thereafter which caused death of two persons. However, it was also reported in the same news reports that Ms. Taslima Nasreen has exclaimed that she had never written any article for any Kannada daily and these hastles were only to malign her character and writings. The Council has called for reports from the State Government and the newspaper vide letter dated 9.3.2010. The matter is under process. Reports Adopted by the Council:- The Council came out with studies and reports on important matters which have a nexus with preservation of the freedom of the Press and maintenance of its standards. These reports are: 1. Report on Media Coverage of Batla House Encounter-Adopted by the Press Council of India on June 9, 2009 2. Report on complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur, Khiri based staff reporter/correspondent of Amar Ujala, Hindi daily against Ms. N. Padmaja,

8 the then Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, Khiri, Uttar Pradesh- Fact Finding Committee Report adopted by the Press Council of India on February 22, 2010. 3. Report on the charges of police brutality on journalists of print and electronic media in the Osmania University, Hyderabad-Assessment Committee Report adopted by the Press Council of India on 31.3.2010 Seminars and Workshops During the period under review the Council encouraged debates on media matters through various seminars/conferences/meets. National Press Day Celebrations, 2009 The National Press Day celebrations this year was centered around “The Changing Face of Indian Media”. The event being national event, this year was commemorated in Hyderabad and the celebrations were inaugurated by Dr. K. Rosaiah, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. To mark the occasion a Souvenir carrying valuable articles on the subject was released by Dr. J. Geeta Reddy, Hon’ble Minister of Information, Public Relations and Tourism, Government of Andhra Pradesh who was also the Guest of Honour of the function. The states also commemorated the day at various levels with discussions on the subject and the newspapers also dedicated the day to declare their commitment to a free and responsible press. Interaction with World Press Bodies The Council interacts with press/media Councils and similar bodies in different parts of the world for active encouragement to preservation of the press freedom and promotion of its standards and ethics worldwide. As a part of these efforts, the Chairman of the Council attended General Body meeting and the Executive Committee meeting of the World Association of Press Councils, an umbrella organization of Press Councils and similar bodies in different parts of the world committed to championing the cause of free speech and freedom of a responsible press on July 9, 2009 at Istanbul in Turkey wherein he was also elected President of the organization for a three year term. This is the second occasion when this prestigious body is being headed by India. Earlier Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, former Chairman, Press Council of India presided over the body as its President between 1997-2001. Mr. Justice G.N. Ray also had an opportunity to meet Greek Press. A long and fruitful discussion with Journalists’ Union of Greek helped in understanding the functioning of Press Council of India and Journalists’ Union beside media scenario of respective countries.

9 Hon’ble Chairman in his capacity as President, WAPC also attended the WAPC meet hosted by Northern Cyprus Press Council at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on March 26-28, 2010. Updation of Norms of Journalistic Conduct

The 2005 edition of ‘Norms of Journalistic Conduct’ for observance by the print media has been updated and the next edition namely, 2010 edition is under print and will be brought out shortly. Website Updation

During the period under review the website of the Council was updated with the following contents:

1. Uploaded Council’s Publications namely, (Quarterly Reviews) PCI Reviews, Press Parishad Samiksha, Annual Report of the Council for 2008-09 (Hindi and English), Compendium of Adjudications 2008-09 (Hindi and English), Souvenir brought out on the occasion of National Press Day, 2009 and Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010.

2. Press Releases issued during the period.

3. Updation of template for information handbook version 1.0.

Beside the website was enriched with the addresses of Hon’ble Chairman delivered during the period. Further, information pertaining to the Council for the benefit of the general public was also uploaded. Press and Registration Appellate Board

Section 8C of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 entrusts to the Press Council of India, the Appellate Jurisdiction over the Magisterial Orders of non-authentication of a Declaration under Section 6 or its subsequent cancellation under Section 8B of the said Act. The Board consists of a Chairman and another member to be nominated by the Press Council of India from among its members. During the year, Shri Ramesh Gupta functioned as a Member of the Board.

At the beginning of the period under review, 12 appeals were pending before the Board and nine more appeals were preferred. The Board held two sittings during the year. Out of these 21 appeals, 10 appeals were disposed off, 11 appeals are pending for consideration before the Appellate Board.

10 Changes in Membership The Central Government in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide its Gazette Notification dated 9.10.2009 (Annexure B) notified the nominations of three Lok Sabha MPs; namely s/Shri Ananth Kumar, Vilas Muttemwar and Sanjay Dina Patil as members of the Council vice the vacancies of Dr. Sebastian Paul, Mr. Bharatsinh Madhavsinh Solanki and Mr. M.A. Kharabela Swain who ceased to be members of the Council upon dissolution of the 14th Lok Sabha. The name of Mr. Prakash Javadekar, MP, Rajya Sabha was notified by the Central Government in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide its Gazette Notification dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure-C) as member of the Council vice vacancy of Mr. Yashwant Sinha who ceased to be member of the Council upon his election to 15th Lok Sabha. Hindi Diwas – 2009 The Council’s house Journal in Hindi namely, ‘Press Parishad Samiksha’ had been selected for second prize by the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs in the House Journal category for the year 2008- 09 and the award was conferred on ‘Hindi Diwas’ by the Hon’ble President of India. (ii) Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has already declared third prize for ‘Press Parishad Samiksha’ under the category “Sarvshreshtha Patrika Puraskaar Yojana” for the year 2007-08. (iii) Regional official language implementation office has also selected Press Council of India, New Delhi for Second Prize for its best performance in Hindi for the year 2008-09. During the period under review quarterly Workshops relating to official language were organised for the benefit of its employees. To emphasize the use of Hindi, Hindi fortnight (Pakhwada) was observed in the Secretariat of the Council from 14.9.2009 to 28.9.2009. On this occasion, a debate was conducted on 16.9.2009 on the subject “Hindi Hum Subki”. The employees of the Council were also given awards under ‘Protsahan Yojana’ and Hindi training for their participation/contribution in encouraging the use of Hindi language in the office practices and procedures. Vigilance Activities The Secretary of the Press Council of India is the Chief Vigilance Officer of the office. The vigilance set up of the Council, consisting of Deputy Secretary and Section Officer (Admn.) functioned under the direct supervision of the Secretary (CVO) and Chairman of the Council. It conducted regular surprise checks to prevent/combat any corrupt practices in the Secretariat.

11 Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The grievance redressal mechanism is in place at the internal and external level which comprises of Director of Grievances being the Secretary, Press Council of India. Such general aggrieved public, who desire to meet the Director of Grievance in connection with their grievances, may do so on all Wednesdays between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. in the office. The staff related grievances are attended to by the Staff Grievance Officer of the Council being the Deputy Secretary. Citizen’s Charter

The Citizen’s Charter of the Council containing all the necessary details of the organisation is available in the booklet form in the Library of the Council, and can be accessed in the official website of the Council. The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and the Library of Parliament of India have been provided with the charter. Timely reviews/internal and external evaluation shall be undertaken by the Council for feedback in the level of satisfaction among citizen’s/client’s. Tributes

The Council deeply condoled the demise of its former Chairman, Mr. Justice A.N. Sen who left for heavenly abode on January 3, 2010, a pioneer of Indian judicial system, who rendered several judgements of far reaching importance. On being nominated to the Chair of the Press Council, he was the one who initiated awareness of the working of the Council by rendering justice at the doorstep of the complainants encouraging increasing number of people to approach the Council for speedy and affordable justice instead of law courts for the redressal of their grievances. More important was his landmark decision in the history of the Press Council of India where ‘in camera’ proceedings of the Inquiry Committee were thrown open to the press and public. Paying rich tributes, the Council passed a resolution in the memory of departed soul. The Council also mourned the demise of its three members namely, (i) Shri Jamna Das Akhtar, (1988-1991), who passed away on September 1, 2009, (ii) Shri Naresh Chandra Rajkhowa, (1998-1991) who passed away on November 23, 2009 and (iii) Shri Ramu Patel, (1985 – 1988 and 1991-1994) who passed away on January 25, 2010. Paying rich tributes to them the Council passed resolution recordings their valuable contributions to the Press Council and their dedicated and selfless service to the nation.

12 The Council also deeply condoled the demise of Shri Prabhash Joshi, veteran of the Indian media, founder editor of Hindi daily, Jansatta who left for heavenly abode on November 5, 2009. Paying rich tribute to the departed soul the Council while observing a two minute silence passed a resolution recording his selfless service to the nation through his writings.

Matters Considered by the Council

Judgment dated 15.11.2008 in defamation case Cri. Appeal No.14/2004 between Shri Kundan Ramanlal Vyas, Vs. Nitin B. Shah, Thane The Council noted the judgment of the session court on the responsibility of a person other than an editor in selection of material for publication and recalled that in the year 1994, it had considered the issue concerning the cases being filed against the editor before different courts of the country fixing their liability under Section 7 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 and requiring their presence at every such place. It felt that at times the cases were filed as a pressure tactic the issue could be tackled through amendment in Section 205 of Cr. P.C. for exemption for personal appearance. The proposal of the Council did not find favour with the Central Government. Another issue of concern was the liability of the persons, other than the editor, for the publication. The Council took on record the judgment dated 15.11.2008 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in a defamation case Cri. Appeal No.14/2004 between Shri K.R. Vyas, Mumbai Vs. Shri Nitin B. Shah, Thane on the issue holding that Shri K.R. Vyas was not responsible for selection and publication of news item dated 8.4.2000 as envisaged under Section 7 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 and therefore no action lay against him. Setting up of branches of Press Council in States-suggestion from Council for protection of Freedom of Press(CPFP), Chennai The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting sought comments of the Council on representation dated 21.8.2008 of Shri K. Nagaimugan, Coordinator, Centre for Protection of Freedom of Press (CPFP) Chennai, regarding the proposal for setting up branches of the Press Council in the States. The Council recalled its earlier decision taken in the Meeting held on March 20-21, 1991* out rightly rejecting the proposal of State Government of U.P. which suggested the establishment of State level Press Council to tackle

* Council’s 12th Annual Report (April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991) Pgs. 25-26

13 the problem arising out of the rapid increase in the number of newspapers on the following grounds: ‘Newspapers, books and printing presses’ are a subject comprised in Entry 39 of the Concurrent list (list III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India). The Press Council Act, 1978 is a law enacted by Parliament by virtue of its powers with reference to this Entry read with Article 246(2) of the Constitution. It gives the institution of the Press Council a national status and jurisdiction throughout India and it is laid down in the Act that the decisions of the Council shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. Article 254 of the Constitution lays down the principle that if Parliament enacts a law with respect to a matter in the Concurrent List, the jurisdiction of a State Legislature to pass a law inconsistent with or repugnant to the Central Law, in effect, becomes inoperative. Constitutional and financial implications apart, if State-level Press Councils are established in various States, a situation is bound to arise where conflicting decisions are rendered by different Councils in regard to complaints involving similar questions or principle or fact. This will lead to confusion and bewilderment which will bring the very institution of the Press Council itself into disrepute and ridicule. The reason cited by the Government of Uttar Pradesh that ‘there is rapid increase in the number of newspapers and in UP alone there are about 1000 daily, weekly, fortnightly and monthly newspapers/magazines’ and ‘the number of complaints before the Press Council of India is very large and the delay in their adjudication is natural’. It is true that the number of complaints coming before the Council has been increasing from year to year. In many cases, delay takes place because the complainants do not follow the procedure laid down for lodging the complaints. Letters and reminders have to be sent to the complainants requesting them to comply with the procedural requirements before action can be taken. Often, the complainants themselves delay in complying with the procedure. Another important factor responsible for delay, is, that the complainants and/or respondents request for adjournment of cases scheduled for consideration by the Inquiry Committee of the Press Council. Nevertheless, a large number of decisions are rendered promptly and within a reasonable time. The time taken by the Council in rendering decisions is far shorter than the time taken by courts of law. At any rate, the staff strength and other resources of the Press Council of India can be augmented to cope more effectively, with the increasing work-load. The Government of UP or, for that matter, other State Governments, should feel free to send any number of complaints in suitable cases to the Press Council of India. If they are prompt in responding to the

14 communications from the Council, they can rest assured that the Council will render adjudications in those complaints within a reasonable period of time. It decided that no fresh grounds were made out for deviation from the stand already taken. Amendment of Section 16 of Press Council Act, 1978 The matter of amendments to the Press Council Act, 1978 has been considered by the Council time and again in the light of the experience from time to time. Background of the issue can be perused in previous reports of the Council. The Council noted that in discharge of its statutory functions and to ensure the independence and autonomy, the Parliament had provided for the Council to function out of its own fund, comprising of fee levied on the print media and the grant received by it from the Central Government. The Council felt that while it levies, a statutory fee on one target of its functions, the service rendered to the second target. i.e. the authorities of the Centre/State governments are not charged in any manner. It also noted that the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance has advised all autonomous statutory bodies to seek alternative sources of revenues to reduce the dependence on government grant. It further noted that the international fora of the Press Council has generally favoured and furthered the cause of voluntary Press Councils, advocating that any organisation at the mercy of the government for funds will not be able to function independently. However, noting the pressure group operating with the newspapers financing such bodies, the Press Council had stressed the success of the Indian model of the self regulatory body with statutory authority to enforce compulsive jurisdiction on all the newspapers published from the country. Keeping all the facts in sight, the Council, to raise its revenue and maintain its autonomy in true manner, decided upon the following proposed additions to the Section 16 of the Press Council Act, 1978:

ADDITION PROPOSED JUSTIFICATION 16(3) Further the Council may also The Press Council of India, in discharge levy a fee upon the Central/State discharge of its statutory functions, Governments which may be at the renders its adjudications and opinions, rate of 1% of its budgetary all- targeting the print media and the ocation for advertisement released authorities of the Government. To to the print media in the preceding ensure the independence and autonomy

15 financial year. of the Council, the Parliament had provided for the Council to function out of its own fund, comprising of fee levied on the print media and the grant received by it from the Central Government. 4. All such fee shall be payable to It is felt that while the Council levies the Council by the Information a statutory fee on one target of its Directorate of the Central/State functions, the service rendered to the Government based on the second target, i.e., the authorities of advertisement budget reflected in the Centre/State Governments are not Accounts drawn up at the close charged in any manner. It is also to of the financial year and shall be be noted that the Government of India payable within six months thereof. in the Ministry of Finance has advised all autonomous statutory bodies to seek alternative sources of revenues to reduce the dependence on govern- ment grant. It is further to be noted that the international fora of the Press Council has generally favoured and furthered the cause of voluntary Press Councils, advocating that any organi- sation at the mercy of the government for funds, will not be able to function independently. The Indian Press Council has countered this averment citing its own inde- pendent autonomous functioning. However, if the Press Council impose a levy equally on both the targets subject to its jurisdiction, such move will ensure that not only does the Council augment its own sources of revenue but also convinces the international self-regulatory bodies that it is possible to successfully marry statutory status with autonomous authority to promote self-regulation in the Press.

16 Press Coverage of Elections: Paid News Syndrome The Press Council in its meeting held on 9.6.2009 considered various representations addressed to it w.r.t. alleged payments taken/received by media during Lok Sabha elections conducted in April/May this year for coverage relating to candidates. The representations were received from a group of senior journalists, Late Shri Prabash Joshi, S/Shri Kuldip Nayyar, B.G. Verghese, Bhattacharjee and Shri Achuthanand Mishra, the then Vice Chancellor, Makhanlal Chaturvedi University of Journalism and Mass Communication. The Council expressed serious concern over this phenomenon of paid news that could cause a double jeopardy to the Indian democracy through influence on the Press functioning and on the free and fair election process. The members debated the matter at length and noted that as a public utility service, the press exercises its right to inform because the public has the right to know. The press thus functions as a repository of the public trust to convey to it correct and true information when such information is being presented as news content. This was distinct from the opinion conveyed through articles and editorials which the writer expressly claimed and presented as his own. There was thus an urgent need to protect the public’s right to information so that it is not misled in deciding the selection quotient of the candidates in the fray. The Council felt that in pursuance of the mandate given to the Council by the Parliament it was incumbent upon this statutory authority to examine the matter in all its dimension through studies and debates to maintain the faith of public in the media and make appropriate recommendations for precautionary measures before the next election process. Deciding to prepare a discussion paper on the issue, a Sub-Committee comprising of S/Shri Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Sreenivas Reddy was set up to consider the issue and collect evidence/version of the stake holders including the Election Commission of India. The matter was further debated upon by the Council in its meeting held on March 31, 2010. The Council decided that the summary may be redrawn, taking into account the views expressed by the members and in the meantime the Chairman may hold discussions with some more important parliamentarians on the issue. Assaults on journalists in Manipur Shri Kalyan Barooah, Member drew the attention of the Council towards increasing attacks on the mediapersons in the North-East States particularly in Manipur. He emphasized that while the media faced threats from the militants

17 to publish their diktats they also faced action from the authorities for such coverage. While the Council expressed concerned over the threats to the freedom of press in the North East, the Hon’ble Chairman apprised the members that whenever any incident comes to notice, the Council takes suo- motu cognizance of it under regulation 13 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. It has also laid down guidelines on the issue. The Council decided that the Guidelines on Coverage of handouts of Militants/ Terrorists be re-issued to the media in the State of Manipur. Shri Y. C. Halan, Member expressed deep concern over the increasing incidents of attacks on the mediapersons and desired that a study on assault on the journalists/mediapersons over the past 10 years be made to evaluate the situation. The Chairman requested Shri Halan to suggest the guidelines for undertaking the study. The matter is under active consideration of the Council. 27th Conference of the Ministry of Information and Cinemography of State governments and Union Territory Administration SIMCON XXVII The Secretary of the Press Council of India represented the Council at the 27th SIMCON Conference held on December 5, 2009 at New Delhi. Hon’ble Chairman’s address was read, which reviewed the media scenario of the India and emphasized the need of empowerment of the Council by bringing electronic media under its jurisdiction and taking steps for standardization of Media Education etc. Complaints of the Deputy Chief Election Officer, Gujarat State against (i) and (ii) for violation of model code of conduct during the Bye-Election of Gujarat State Legislative Assembly 2009 The Council considered the complaint dated 28.8.2009 of the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Gujarat State against Divya Bhaskar and The Times of India for publishing the advertisements during the bye-election of Gujarat State Legislative Assembly, 2009 and thereby violating the model code of conduct. As per the Election Commission of India’s instruction dated 7.1.2007 regarding model code of conduct Don’ts (i), the direction given in this regard is as under: “Any and all advertisements at the cost of the public exchequer regarding achievements of the party/government in power are prohibited”. The Council had also laid down the following guidelines to the press for observance during election process: “The Press shall not accept or publish any advertisement at the cost of public exchequer regarding achievements of a party/government in power”.

18 Having examined the documents before it the Council noted that in the present case the election schedule was limited to bye-elections in some constituencies. It was, therefore, incumbent primarily on the government to ensure that the advertisements were not issued in the area covered by these constituencies in holding the election which were likely to be circulated in the areas. It therefore, opined that more careful scrutiny was required by the press as well as the authorities. It however, felt that the matter did not warrant any action against the newspaper under the guidelines in force. C.W. No. 6592/2007- All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation (AISMNF), Delhi versus Press Council of India and others The Council’s counsel submitted that the present writ petition had become infructuous on the ground that there was no challenge to the Gazette Notification dated January 7, 2008 which notified the full Council. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Court had already disposed off a writ petition on February 13, 2009 filed by another organisation i.e. Indian Federation of Working Journalists, seeking the same relief as sought in present writ petition. The Hon’ble High Court disposed off the writ petition after hearing the parties. Communication dated 10.3.2010 received from Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Member, Press Council of India regarding proposed amendments to Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Member, Press Council of India and Editor-in- Chief, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) vide his letter dated 10.3.2010 forwarded a copy of the proposed amendments to Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 alongwith INS letter dated 22.2.2010 and RNI D.O. letter dated 18.2.2010. Shri Sharma submitted that the proposed amendments would seriously interfere in the freedom of press and it would also violate the fundamental right of the people conferred in the Constitution of India. He further submitted that immediate consideration is required on it in the interest of freedom of press. The matter is under active consideration and will be placed before the Council in the next financial year.

State of Press in India

The media industry in the country had a tumultuous year of 2009. The Indian economy also shared the sign of global recession. Electronic as well as print media in India too felt the heat of the recession. Though the industry is

19 managing to sustain in pressures, the picture will be clearer in coming years. According to Price Water House Cooper’s report on Indian Entertainment, Media Outlook, 2009, the Indian print media is expected to grow by 5-6%, over the period 2009-2013. The print media growth rate which went down to 7.5% in 2008 further slide down to 4.1% in 2009. The relative shares of newspaper publishing and magazines are not expected to change significantly and are expected to remain the same at around 87% in favour of newspaper publishing.

An indicator of how the newspaper did in 2009 is the readership. The total readership of all English, Hindi and regional dailies combined in R2 according to Indian Readership Survey in 2009 is 35.6 crore which is 4.3 percent increase from the last year. As per the Indian Readership Survey Round-2 , a Hindi daily remained No. 1 publication of the country, followed by , a Hindi daily both having multiple editions while , a Hindi daily recorded continuous growth in its readership. The Times of India, an English newspaper, held the top slot in English newspapers segment.

The fact that newspaper reading habit in India is deeply inculcated which is more visible in the Generation “x”, is one of the reasons the newspaper houses are sustaining the pressures of global economic downturn. Increasing literacy rate in India has been significant element which has reinforced the demand of newspaper sales in the country.

In a major development, the government was successful in its attempt to develop a political acceptance on the establishment of a Broadcasting Sector Regulator at the State Information Minister’s Conference (SIMCON) held in the city on December 5, 2009. Consensus was also evolved at (i) digitalization in broadcasting sector, (ii) need for a more contemporary Press and Registration of Books Act and (iii) curbing piracy and rationalisation of entertainment tax across the states. The government in consultation with the Indian Broadcasting Foundation finalized the content code for media in wake of Mumbai terror attack and vulgarity and obscenity in the media. The government is also in the process of finalizing the setting up of a empowered nodal group which would act as a single point authority for disbursement of news during major crisis like the 26/11, Mumbai terror attack. The government as part of stimulus package hike in February 2009 announced a waiver of 15% agency Commission and hiked 10% rate of advertisement for a specific period which came as good news to newspaper owners.

The Prime Minister took a revolutionary decision when he gave green signal to the proposal to increase Foreign Direct Investment in print media from 26% to 49%. This will double the present percentage of FDI in print media.

20 During the fifteenth general election, last year, a disturbing trend was highlighted by the section of media, that is, payment of money by candidates to representatives of media companies for favourable coverage or the phenomenon popularly known as “paid news”. Trend of “Paid News” goes beyond the corruption of individual journalists and media companies. It has become pervasive, structured and highly organised and is in the process of undermining democracy in India. The Press Council of India expressed grave concern on this evil practice and while accepting the representations from various quarters including veteran journalists, set up a Sub-Committee to look into the issue and propose remedial action. The matter is under active consideration of the Council. The government on the other hand has been considering the proposal to fortify the Press Council of India to tackle the “paid news” phenomenon. The Rajya Sabha on November 25, 2009 passed a bill restricting the publication of results of all exit polls till the last round of voting is completed. Some significant decisions were taken by the Punjab government. One of the extremely important decision taken on June 28, 2009 related to the writings and publications which spread violence. The cabinet decided to formulate tough laws to deal with such writings. Inspired by the procedure followed by the London Police, Delhi Police has come out with a series of guidelines on police- press interaction as claimed by the Delhi Police Commissioner before the High Court in February, 2010. A senior officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and above will interact with the media for disseminating information on major crimes. Adding to the controversies surrounding the third season of Indian Premier League (IPL) the News Broadcasters announced that they would not cover the event in the light of the stringent media policy that IPL authorities have come up with, this year. To arrive at a possible resolution in the matter, the government intervened and after many discussions with the IPL authorities and media organisations settlement was reached. The year under review witnessed several ups and downs and trials and triumphs in the fourth estate. It is, however, a matter of deep pain and anguish that of late there has been a growing wave of violence in certain parts of the country which has engulfed harassment and physical harm to innocent citizens including newspapermen and journalists. The press especially in North-Eastern region and in the states of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh continued to reel under immense pressure from insurgent groups, maoist and naxalities and the respective local authorities/governments. The

21 journalists in these regions are forced to work in very unsafe conditions. In Manipur, local papers often resort to suspending of publication following threat from militant groups. Most of the time, such groups want newspapers to carry their statements without any editing at the same time pressing them not to publish statements of their opposing outfits. The police authorities recently served notice to media journalists in strife torn Bastar region asking them to explain the basis of reports quoting Maoist ‘versions’ of recent encounters in Dantewada, killing substantial number of CRPF jawans. IBN channel at Vikhroli in Mumbai was attacked by a mob of 25 persons claiming to be members of on November 20, 2009. Many journalists including Editor-in-Chief of the channel, Nikhil Wagle was assaulted for allegedly running a channel against Sena Chief, Bal Thackeray following his remarks against . Undeterred by the condemnation from all quarters for attacking the offices of IBN channels, Shiv Sena justified the action of its activists by saying “Media is not God”. The party accused the media of playing god and deliberately launching smear campaign with ulterior motives. The Supreme Court on April 2, 2009 refused to set aside the Delhi High Court decision quoting the ban on smoking on screen as being detrimental to artistic expression. The Supreme Court and Delhi High Court expressed disapproval of lawyers approaching media to brief about their pending cases and asked Bar Council of India to step in. There has been a proposal to constitute a Committee to evolve guidelines for reporting of cases by the media in which investigations are on or in cases that are sub-judice. The Court also wants rules for the police and the media to be followed regarding release and publication of “Confessional Statements” by accused in various cases when they are in police custody. Chief Justice of India, Shri K.G. Balakrishanan, asked the media not to interpret court’s judgements observing that it leads to “distortion” of facts. He urged “Senior editors” to intervene and ensure that wrong version of judgments are not reported, and said there should be some “moral bindings” on journalists while reporting court proceedings.

Media Round Up Shri P. Sainath, Rural Affairs Editor of The Hindu, Karan Thapar and Nidhi Razdan and Neelesh Mishra were among 29 journalists who were conferred the coveted Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. Political columnist and commentator, Neeraj Choudhary was awarded Prem Bhatia award for excellence in journalism. The Wall Street Journal Asia, the region’s

22 leading international business newspaper commenced printing in India in a comprehensive arrangement with The Express Group. The launch of the locally printed edition follows the Indian government’s decision to allow foreign investment in the publication of facsimile editions of foreign newspapers and its approval of Dow Jones and Company’s proposal to publish a facsimile edition of The Wall Street Journal Asia in India. Senior journalist Harish Khare has been appointed the media advisor to Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh while former Air India Chairman and Managing Director, Raghu Menon has been appointed as Secretary Information and Broadcasting. Eminent journalist and writer Ms. Mrinal Pande has been appointed as the Chairperson of the Prasar Bharti. and its sister’s publication Mint bagged six trophies across the production and photography categories at the 8th Asia Media Awards 2009 given by IFRA, the world’s leading association of newspaper and media publishing. The International Press Institute of India Award for excellence in journalism was given to for its sustained investigation into the Malegaon and Modasa blast of 2008 and the alleged role of Hindu extremists and organisations and to Ms. Bidisha Goshal for her reports on the exploitations of widows of debt burdened farmers in Maharashtra. Journalists Shoma Chaudhary of Tehlaka and Monalisa Changkija of the Nagaland Page were conferred with Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Woman Mediapersons for the year 2009. The Hindustan Times and its sister publication Mint entered into exclusive content partnership with the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal respectively. With this, the Mint has now become national level paper having multi edition in seven states of India. Editor-in-Chief of Group Newspapers, H.K. Dua took oath as a Member of Parliament and has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Najam Sethi, the former Editor-in-Chief of the Friday Times, and Daily Times, was presented the 2009 Golden Pen of Freedom, the annual press freedom prize of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN- IFRA) during the opening ceremony of the 62nd World Newspaper Congress and 16th World’s Editor’s Forum (WEF) held in Hyderabad on December 1, 2009. Renowned journalist and Chief Editor of Nai Duniya, Dr. Alok Mehta will be conferred with Pandit Haridutt Sharma Award. This award is conferred on the journalist who has done commemorable work in unity, peace and harmony. Lokmanya Tilak National Journalism Award was conferred on the Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, N. Ram.

23 Publication of Indian edition of the foreign magazine Fortune under title Fortune India has been approved by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Prior to this, Spectator India and Forbes India had also been permitted by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry for publication in India.

World Media in Indian Press

United States of America

An advertisement dressed up as a news story on the front page of The Los Angeles Times has reporters at the newspaper fuming and the publisher defending the move. The advertisement, for the NBC television series Southland, appeared on page one of The Times on April 10, 2009. Although it was labelled “advertisement,”the ad resembled a news story complete with a bold –type headline. According to the blog MediaMemo, more than 100 staffers at the newspaper signed a petition protesting the appearance of the fake news story ad on the front page. “We, the journalists of the newsroom strenuously object to the decision to sell an ad, in the form of a phony news story, on the front page of The Los Angeles Times”, mediamemo. Allthingsd.Com quoted the petition as saying. The NBC ad may have provided some quick cash, but it has caused incalculable damage to this institution,” it said, “Placing a fake news article on A-1 makes a mockery of our integrity and our journalistic standards the petition said. The Times said about 70 readers had complained about the ad, which was published over the objections of the newspaper’s editor, Mr. Russ Stanton. Publisher, Eddy Hartenstein told The Times he had decided to run the ad despite protests from the newsroom because he was trying to ensure the newspaper’s survival. (, New Delhi dated April 12, 2009)

The New York Times received five Pulitzer prizes on April 21, 2009 for investigative, breaking news and international reporting, feature photography and criticism, leading a field of smaller newspapers in the most coveted awards in the US news industry. In a year in which online publishers were allowed to compete for the first time, the strength of the award winners showed that journalism still offered tremendous value even as it faces a financial meltdown, said Columbia University. The only online outlet to get a mention was politifact.com, a section of the St. Petersburg Times, which was recognized for its fact-checking project of candidates’ assertions in the US presidential campaign. The Las Vegas Sun won the prestigious public service prize for reporting on the high death rate among construction workers on the Las Vegas strip, while The Los Angeles Times won for explanatory reporting on the growing cost and threat of wildfires. The New York Times prizes included awards for photography

24 of Barack Obama on the campaign trail and for uncovering the sex scandal that led to the resignation of New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer. Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post won the commentary prize for his columns on the election campaign of Barack Obama. The prize for fiction went to Elizabeth Strout, whose book “Olive Kitteridge” is a collection of stories centered on coastal Maine. (The Tribune, Chandigarh dated April 22, 2009) North Korea, facing UN sanctions for last month’s nuclear test, on June 8, 2009 raised the stakes in its growing confrontation with Washington by sentencing two US journalists to 12 years hard labour for grave crimes. The journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling of US media outlet Current TV, were arrested in March working on a story near the border between North Korea and China. The trial for the two, working for the company co-founded by former US Vice President, Al Gore, opened on June 4, 2009. “We are deeply concerned by the reported sentencing of the two American citizen journalists by North Korean authorities and we are engaged through all possible channels to secure their release,” the White House said in a statement. The State Department urged North Korea to release the two journalists. (, New Delhi dated June 9, 2009) Abe Rosenthal, The New York Times, famous Executive Editor who passed away in 2006, once said that he could not imagine a world without the New York Times (NYT). But today, Rupert Murdoch says that the day is not too far off when not just the New York Times, but many other newspapers, won’t be around. The newspaper baron might be overreacting. It is possible that many countries in the West see the end of the newspapers sooner than anticipated, with Japan following suit. But in several countries in Asia, including India, newspapers are likely to thrive for a long time. In the US, the financial meltdown is bringing down the print media. The latest to be affected is the McClatchy Company which owns the Miami Herald and three other newspapers. The constant talk is whether the NYT will survive, and if so, who would own it? In the last couple years, the NYT has been losing circulation and its revenue from advertisement has been declining. The Washington Post is in no better position. It is also losing readership and revenue. The decline of the USA Today, unfortunately, has been very fast and steep. While the print media has changed to suit changing needs and tastes, it looks like the new generation is just not interested in reading newspapers. However, it is noteworthy that the Wall Street Journal has not lost much, both in terms of circulation and revenue. The Financial Times too is holding on, if not gaining. Presently, like the Wall Street Journal, The Economist has been a successful venture in the US. It has gained in circulation and its revenue from advertisement is respectable. What has been the plight of the print media, the same is awaiting the cable TV and

25 the web-driven products. When there is too much fun and frolic, readers are bound to turn to journals like The Economist, Foreign Affairs instead of Time and Newsweek, even in their new incarnations. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated June 9, 2009) So far in 2009, the magazine business looks a lot like the Jon and Kate Goselin divorce splayed all over the supermarket tabloids: you have to look very hard to find a winner. With already-dismal ad figures for the first half of 2009, magazine publishers turned in their circulation figures recently, showing that newsstand sales plummeted 12.4 per cent in the first half of this year. Newsstand sales are thought to be a bellwether for the economy, or at least for how willing consumers are to fork over $5 for an impulse purchase. The good news was that paid subscriptions actually increased a bit, meaning that over all, circulation fell 1.2 per cent, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations report. Readers seemed to be getting slightly exhausted with celebrity weeklies, too. Ok! Magazine, In Touch Weekly, and Star Magazine all posted more than 10 per cent declines in subscriptions, with bigger drops at the newsstand. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated September 10, 2009) The Washington Post is closing down three of its national bureaus in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. “The Washington Post, in a significant retrenchment, is closing its remaining US bureaus outside the capital area,” the Post said. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated November 26, 2009) For the last six years, The Berkeley Daily Planet has published a freewheeling assortment of submissions from readers, who offer sharp-elbowed views on everything from raucous college parties (generally bad) to the war in Iraq (ditto). But since March, that running commentary has been under attack by a small but vociferous group of critics who accuse the paper’s editor, Becky O’ Malley, of publishing too many letters and other commentary pieces critical of Israel. Those accusations are the basis of a campaign to drive away the paper’s advertisers and a website that strongly suggests The Planet and its editor are anti-Semitic. O’Malley denies any personal or editorial bias, and bristles at the suggestion that she should not publish letters about Israel in a city like Berkeley, which has a sizable Jewish community and a populace and City Council- that often weigh in on Middle East and international affairs. She says she has no intention of stopping the publication of submitted letters, citing a commitment to free speech that is a legacy of the city where the Free Speech Movement was born in the 1960s. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated November 29, 2009) Nikhil Deogun, one of the top editors of The Wall Street Journal, will become CNBC’s new Managing Editor. Deogun, a Doon School alumnus who

26 was born in Assam and raised in Kolkata, was the Journal’s International Editor and a Deputy Managing Editor. He was a respected mergers-and-acquisitions reporter before becoming an editor. He also served as Deputy Bureau Chief in Washington. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated December 17, 2009) United Kingdom British media watchdog on April 3, 2009 fined The BBC a total of £150,000 after it found that the Broadcasting Code had been breached by two episodes of now-defunt Russell Brand Show in October. “The BBC broadcast explicit, intimate and confidential information about Georgina Baillie, the granddaughter of the actor Andrew Sachs, in both programs without their consent.” Ofcom said, adding that this “not only unwarrantably and seriously infringed their privacy but was also gratuitously offensive, humiliating and demeaning”. “Overall weaknesses set the scene for serious failures of the BBC’s compliance systems that resulted in the repeated broadcast of exceptionally offensive, humiliating and demeaning material”, Ofcom added. The BBC on April 3, 2009 said it accepted “Ofcom’s findings”. “As we said last October, this material should never have been broadcast and we apologized unreservedly for that, “a statement read. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated April 4, 2009) Peter Hill, the editor of the Daily Express, told MPs that he did not offer to resign over his newspaper’s inaccurate reporting of Madeline McCann’s disappearance. Hill added that he had “certainly not” offered his resignation over his paper’s Madeline McCann coverage, because all other media organisations had reported allegations by the Portuguese police that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were suspects in her disappearance. In March last year Daily Express owner Express Newspaper paid £550,000 in damages to the McCanns for more than 100 “seriously defamatory” stories about Madeline’s disappearance published in Hill’s paper and sister titles the Sunday Express, Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday. The four newspapers also printed front-page apologies, while Express Newspapers apologized to the McCanns at the High Court in London. “If the editors had to resign every time there was a libel action against them, there wouldn’t be any editors”, Hill said, giving evidence to the committee’s inquiry into libel, privacy and press standards. In evidence to the Commons Culture Select Committee last month, Gerry McCann said that the Express Newspapers titles had been the worst offenders in the UK media in their coverage of Madeline’s disappearance. However, Hill refused to accept that his newspaper’s reporting had been worse than other titles’. He said the McCanns had complained about 38 headlines in the Daily Express but that the paper had published 80 other stories that were positive to the family. Hill added that he advocated settling the legal complaint and paying compensation to avoid putting

27 the McCanns through the ordeal of a libel action. “I accept that we did libel Mr. and Mrs. McCann because under the law, we clearly didn’t tell the truth about them,” he said. (The Website Edition, The Guardian, dated April 28, 2009) As a young boy, Euan Blair’s famous parents did their utmost to protect him from the intrusive gaze of the British media, eliciting a series of agreements from newspapers in an attempt to ensure the former Prime Minister’s young family were kept out of the limelight. It was a truce that was repeatedly broken, most famously when Fleet Street revealed a teenage Euan had enjoyed a drunken night out which ended when he was picked up by Police in London’s Leicester Square. Now that he is a 25 year old trainee banker, Tony Blair’s eldest son has taken matters into his own hands. He has begun legal action against Sunday Express for invasion of privacy, after the paper ran a prominent diary about his personal life. Lawyers acting for Blair issued a High Court writ last week claiming damages of up to £50,000. The article, printed in March, appears to have been removed from the paper’s website. According to the writ, Blair, represented by Solicitors Arkins, is suing the paper for “invasion of privacy” and misuse of “private information”, citing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. “Although his parents have been public figures (he) has not held any official or public office, or performed any such duties”. A spokesman for Tony Blair said he was aware of the case but chose not to comment. Express Newspapers, which publishes The Sunday Express, also declined to comment. (The Website Edition, The Guardian, dated April 30, 2009) The press watchdog has rejected a privacy complaint against the Sun from England football team captain, John Terry after the paper reported that his mother and mother-in-law had been cautioned for shoplifting. Coverage of Terry’s wedding, rights to which he sold to a national magazine, featured his mother, Sue Terry, and mother-in-law Sue poole, heavily and this meant that this connection to them was established in the public mind, the Press Complaints Commission ruled. Terry complained through his Solicitors, Kingsley Napley, that the story was almost entirely focused on him, when he was not genuinely relevant to the story because he was not involved in the incident. The PCC said that Terry was relevant because his mother and mother-in-law were accused of shoplifting from Tesco, one of the England team’s corporate sponsors, and Marks & Spencer, which supplied suits to the team. Terry complained that three stories in the Sun in March identified him, claiming they were in breach of clause 9 of the editors’ code of the practice, which covers reporting of crime. (Website Edition of The Guardian, dated May 13, 2009) Media magnate Rupert Murdoch, owner of Star TV, was at the centre of growing scandal after it was reported on July 9, 2009, that one of his leading British tabloids, The News of the World, had been involved in “criminal

28 methods” to get stories. Police launched an investigation into claims in a front page splash in The Guardian that The News of the World hired detectives who hacked into mobile phone messages of “thousands” of prominent figures, including politicians and celebrities, to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data. Andrew Neill, a former editor of The Sunday Times and one- time close associate of Mr. Murdoch, described it as one of the “most significant media stories of modern times”. Those targeted included London Mayor Boris Johnson, former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and actor Gwyneth Palthrow. Mr. Murdoch’s News Group, publisher of The News of the World, reportedly paid out more than £1 million to settle legal cases that threatened to expose evidence of its journalists’ “repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods” to obtain stories. However, Mr. Murdoch, who also owns The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun, denied any knowledge saying: “If that had happened, I would know about it”. The scandal threatened to acquire a political complexion as a former editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, is now the Tory leader David Cameron’s Director of Communications. Mr. Coulson, was forced to quit the News of the World in 2007 after one of his reporters, Clive Goodman, was jailed for hacking into the mobile phones of three royal staff members. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated July 10, 2009) Owners of the British tabloid News of the World have been accused of a “cover-up” over allegations of widespread phone-hacking by its staff as part of an illegal news-gathering operation. Deposing before a Parliamentary Committee investigating the allegations, Nick Davies, The Guardian journalist who broke the story, produced documents in support of his claims. Rupert Murdoch’s News International which owns NoW has denied “systematic” use of illegal methods by the newspaper’s reporters and accused The Guardian of being “selective and misleading”. Responding to the company’s denial, Mr. Davies told MP’s: “News International have been involved in covering up their journalists’ ‘involvement with private investigators who are breaking the law”. The Guardian Editor, Alan Rusbridger said: “This is not a campaign to oust anyone, to reopen the police inquiry, for more prosecutions (or to) force anyone to resign. We have not called for any of those”. One of the key questions, he said, was whether self regulation of the press was “effective” .Tim Toulmin, Director of the Press Complaints Commission, said it was widely regarded as a “serious oversight” on Mr. Coulson’s part that as Editor he did not know what was going on. The PCC would investigate whether it was “misled” into believing that the practice of phone-hacking was not widespread. John Whittingdale, Chairman of the Committee, said that The Guardian revelations “raised questions” about the extent of phone hacking. The newspaper has

29 alleged that mobile phones of “thousands” of public figures were hacked by private detectives hired by NoW staff to get stories and that the tabloid paid more than £1 million pounds in damages to at least three people after forcing them to sign a “gagging clause”. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated July 16, 2009) What happens when a place loses it’s newspaper? Most of the 80 or so local papers that have closed in Britain since the beginning of last year were the second-or third strongest publications in their markets. But the weekly Bedworth Echo, which published its last issue on July 10th was the only paper dedicated to the town’s news. A small former mining settlement in the Midlands, Bedworth also lacks a radio station. Although it will still be covered by newspapers focused on its bigger neighbours, it is now a town without news. It will not be the last. With a few exceptions local newspapers are declining quickly. Trinity Mirror, which owned The Echo, shut 27 local newspapers last year and has already closed 22 this year. An advertising slump has hit local newspapers much harder than national papers or other media. The growing reach of national brands like Rightmove and Auto Trader means that local papers have lost their grip on property and car advertising. Most painful has been the disappearance of job-ads. Public-Sector recruitment has shifted mostly to official websites in the past few years and recession has eroded the rest. In July 1999 an edition of The Echo carried 17 pages of job advertisements. The final issue had one-fifth of one page. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated July 29, 2009) Days after Rupert Murdoch announced plans for his newspaper to start charging for their web news content, signaling an end to the era of free online access, other British newspapers were reported to be considering following the “Murdoch model” to make up for losses caused by declining readership and advertising. The Financial Times, which already charges for some of its exclusive online services, and the left-wing Independent were both said to be in advanced stages of introducing versions of the pay-as-you-go scheme. FT’s Chief Executive, John Ridding, said there was “significant potential for pricing per piece and per time period” arguing that the whole point of Internet was “flexible consumption” and “reader choice”. Mr. Murdoch’s decision followed a big slump in the earnings of his company, News Corp, which owns The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and The News of the World. He said his company could produce “significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content”. He is expected to launch the new scheme, starting with The Sunday Times later this year. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated August 9, 2009) Richard Desmond’s Express Newspapers has been found to have disguised advertorials as features in a tactic the advertising watchdog said aimed to “intentionally” dodge the advertising code. The Advertising Standards Authority

30 heavily criticised the company, part of Desmond’s Northern & Shell group, following an investigation the watchdog undertook after it noted that the paper on several occasions ran almost identical features about certain products on the same page as regular adverts for the same products. The ASA said the articles were “always and uniquely favourable to the product featured in the accompanying ads and contained claims that have been or would be likely to be prohibited in advertisements.” “We considered that the average reader would have understood the entire page to be a feature on the product, no matter the distinct styles of the top and bottom of the pages,” said the ASA in its ruling. The ASA challenged the newspaper that in each case the so-called feature was, in fact, controlled by the advertiser – not Express Newspapers – and that the paper had not made this clear by branding the content as an advertorial. The ASA also challenged various claims made about the effectiveness of each product. The Daily Express claimed the pieces had been put together following “usual journalistic practice”, which included sending the finished copy to the advertiser. The ASA said that it was “unusual for genuine editorial pieces to appear in the same or similar form in the same publication on different dates. The ASA ordered the Daily Express to ensure that advertorials were clearly labelled and said that all the claims that had been made about the products should not appear again. (The Website Edition, The Guardian, dated August 12, 2009) BBC executives are considering the part privatization of the corporation’s lucrative commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, as part of a wide-ranging review, the Director General, Mark Thompson, has told The Guardian. Among the options under consideration is a stockmarket listing of the business, which had annual revenues of about £1bn last year. BBC Worldwide sells the rights to popular shows such as Strictly Come Dancing to international buyers. “One of the things we should look at over this period is whether 100 per cent ownership of Worldwide is essential to going forward,” Thompson said. If the BBC decides to go ahead with part-privatisation, investors could buy shares while the Corporation would keep control of the commercial arm, which also publishes magazines and licenses merchandise from popular programs such as Top Gear. Although BBC Worldwide has been in talks with rival Channel 4 about a potential joint venture, a sale of the business has never been mooted. (The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated September 15, 2009) The BBC News website has won the Online News Association’s internet award for breaking news for its coverage of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. (The Statesman, New Delhi dated October 6, 2009) The London Evening Standard has become free newspaper after more than 180 years of sales. The afternoon paper- a favourite with London public

31 transport users –hopes to hike its circulation from 2,50,000 to 6, 00,000. The paper dropped its 50 pence cover price on October 12, 2009. The Evening Standard dates back to 1827 but is now competing against several free newspapers in the London market. Russian tycoon owner, Alexander Lebedev says it is the first quality newspaper to become a free sheet and expects many others to follow. (, New Delhi dated October 13, 2009) So many people have called the Press Complaints Commission toothless that it has almost become part of its brand; the PCC. Today’s ruling on the Jan Moir Column about Stephen Gately’s death will undoubtedly fuel calls for its abolition. Yet this ruling, in which the PCC argues that freedom of expression must come before distaste and even distress that Moir has caused, is far from toothless. The Commission had three opportunities to condemn the Daily Mail for publishing Moir’s piece only six days after Gately’s sudden death in Majorca, and the day before his funeral. The complaint brought by Gately’s partner, Andrew Cowles, argued that the Mail had breached clause 1 (accuracy); clause 5 (intrusion into grief or shock); and clause 12 (discrimination) of the editors’ code of practice. In a detailed adjudication, the PCC explains why it has not upheld any of these complaints. In terms of accuracy, it reasons that Moir’s piece was clearly labelled as her opinion, and that any inaccuracies in the piece were repeated from other coverage in the days since Gately’s death. In terms of her intrusion into the family’s grief, the commission argues that the sheer volume of other press coverage had already placed the issue firmly in the public domain. And in terms of discrimination the PCC sticks to its belief that discrimination against a group (gay men) is different from discrimination against an individual, and that, while Moir is clearly guilty of the former, she is innocent of the latter. (The Website Edition, The Guardian, dated February 18, 2010) Iceland Free speech campaigners were cheered by plans put before Iceland’s parliaments last week to reinvent the island nation as a “journalism heaven” for those fleeing stringent libel laws elsewhere. But news of the development overlooked one rather depressing local factor- the widespread collapse of trust in much of Iceland’s national media. Many regard the country’s main newspapers as mouthpieces for the partisan political interests that failed to prevent last year’s economic collapse. A particular focus of contempt is Morgunbladid, the oldest established daily. Since last year, its editor-in-chief has been David Oddson, Iceland’s Prime Minister during 13 years of light touch regulation and privatisation, and the man later incharge of the Central Bank when the collapse finally occurred. Mr. Oddson’s arrival coincided with mass lay-offs of experienced journalists, while critics accused him of using the paper to rewrite history after

32 quotation marks appeared around the word “collapse”. Investigative journalism and criticism of the establishment aren’t dead yet, though. Away from the big two national dailies, some of the most impressive recent scoops have been down to DV, the nearest thing. A major upsurge in blogging has also occurred although perhaps this isn’t surprising given the role social networking sites played in last year’s “saucepan revolution”.(The Hindu, New Delhi dated February 22, 2010) Egypt Two senior Egyptian editors, one a member of the ruling party and the other an expert of Jewish affairs, have been punished by country’s journalists union for violating its ban on contacts with Israel. Hala Mustafa, editor-in-chief of the state-run weekly Democratiya, was reprimanded by Egypt’s Journalists Union for meeting Shalom Cohen, Israel’s ambassador to the country. The Union also punished Hussein Serag, deputy editor of the magazine ‘October’, suspending him from writing for three months for his 25th visit to Israel. (The Statesman, New Delhi dated February 5, 2010) UAE The United Arab Emirates’ most popular newspaper suspended publication on July 6, 2009 for 20 days in compliance with a court ruling after being sued for a story alleging some of the Abu Dhabi ruling family’s horses were doped. The suspension against the Arabic-language Al Emarat Al Yourn was issued by the Abu Dhabi Federal Supreme Court, which is the highest court of the Emirates. The court also imposed fines of 20,000 dirhams ($ 5,445) on the paper’s editor and chief executive. According to official documents, the newspaper was suspended for “intentionally publishing inaccurate and untrue information” about horses owned by two sons of Sheik Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a prominent member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family and the Emirates’ former deputy Prime Minister. The newspaper in a 2006 article alleged that their horses were drugged to enhance performance. The stable owners sued the newspaper, editor, Sami al-Reyami and chief executive, Abdullah al-Sayegh for libel and defamation. A lower court ordered the suspension, but the newspaper appealed to the High Court. The Dubai-based Arab Media Group, the newspaper‘s owner, said in a brief statement the group was “committed to the laws and regulations of the UAE and will fully adhere to the court’s decision with immediate effect. (The Pioneer, New Delhi dated July 7, 2009) Iran As Iran witnesses protests over its presidential election results, authorities restricted journalists, including Iranians working for foreign media from reporting

33 on the streets, and said they could only work from their offices, conducting telephone interviews and monitoring official sources such as state television. The rules prevent media outlets from sending independent photos or video of street protests or rallies. Foreign reporters present in Iran to cover last week’s elections began leaving the country. Iranian officials said they will not extend their visas. Website such as Twitter and Facebook have become a focal point for young, urban Iranians opposed to Ahmadinejad, who defeated Mousavi in June 12, 2009 presidential election and whose government controls the state media. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated June 17, 2009) A pro-reform editor who was detained shortly after Iran’s disputed election in June has been freed on bail of 1 billion rails (about $100,000), an Iranian news agency reported on October 30, 2009. Labour news agency ILNA said Mohammad Qouchani, editor –in-chief of Etemad-e Melli newspaper, was released from Tehran’s Evin jail on October 29, 2009. A reformist website Tagheer.com, said he had spent 131 days in detention. Etemad-e Melli, the newspaper of reformist cleric and defeated Presidential Candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, was shut down by the authorities in August. Thousands of people were arrested after the June election, which sparked huge street protests and plunged Iran into political turmoil. Most of the detainees have since been released but more than 100 senior reformers, activists, journalists and others, have been put on trial accused of fomenting street unrest. The opposition has denounced the court sessions as “show trials”. (The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated October 31, 2009) Journalists have become a prime target in an Iranian government crackdown on the opposition following last June’s disputed presidential election, with 52 of them currently held-making Iran the top jailer of journalists in the world, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The wave of arrests has sent a chill through journalists in Iran at a time when the opposition is struggling to maintain its challenge against the government in the face of a heavy crackdown on pro-reform figures. “We have a kind of guerilla journalists, who wear masks, have no names, write under pseudonyms and send e-mails without mentioning their real names to news outlets outside Iran, or publish in weblogs with pseudonyms”, said Valizadeh, who now lives in Paris. (The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated March 12, 2010) Asia With a sale of 107 million newspapers daily, India is the biggest newspaper market in the world. Together with China and Japan, it accounts for over 60 per cent of the global newspaper sales. “Despite endless predictions about the death of newspapers, they actually continue to grow, at least on global scale,” Timothy

34 Balding, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) said in his presentation at the ongoing 62nd World Newspaper Congress at Hyderabad. Interestingly, the USA accounts for only 14 per cent of the total newspaper sales. Globally, 1.9 billion people read newspaper every day, which is 34 per cent of the world population, while 24 per cent use the Internet. (The Tribune, Chandigarh dated December 3, 2009) Twelve journalists, including one in India, were killed in South Asia this year, mostly in conflict areas, according to a report released on December 29, 2009 by an organisation working for the rights of mediapersons. Maximum seven deaths were reported from Pakistan. Two journalists were killed in Afghanistan this year while and Sri Lanka reported killing of one journalist each the report said. Over-commercialisation, monopolization and excessive political clout also chipped away professional and ethical norms, specially in India and Pakistan, the report said. In most countries of the region, the regulatory environment is ill-defined, especially for the electronic media. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated December 30, 2009) China China plans to spend billions of dollars over the next few years to develop media and entertainment companies that it hopes can compete with global giants like News Corp and Time Warner, and will in the process loosen some of its tight control of these industries. An ambitious plan, set forth in guidelines by China’s State Council, envisions the creation of entertainment, news and culture companies with a market orientation and with less government backing, China, in short, would like to consolidate its industry into companies resembling Bloomberg, Time Warner and Viacom, analysts say. In its announcement last week, Beijing said that state-owned groups will be reorganized to allow outside financing so that they could “live on their own rather than being attached to government departments as parasites.” The companies will gain greater freedom to finance and produce wider range of entertainment and cultural content for distribution inside the country, and even for export. Among the first companies to benefit from the new government policy will be Shanghai Media Group, one of the country’s biggest state-run news and media conglomerates. In August, the government gave the company approval to reorganise its operations and to issue stock to the public. Foreign media companies looking for greater access to China’s vast market may be disappointed, analysts say of the new guidelines. “This is not an invitation for stakes by international media companies,” says Vivek Couto, Director of Media Partners Asia, a Hong Kong based research firm. “But this may be an invitation for private equity and foreign capital to do more. (The , dated October 7, 2009)

35 Nepal The based media watchdog Freedom Forum, in a report has alleged that incidents of deliberate assaults and threats to the Press in Nepal continued in 2009. Nepali journalists and media houses throughout the country came across 33 incidents of physical attack, 32 threats, 21 cases of misbehaviour, 11 of vandalism, three incidents of obstruction and eight cases of imprisonment largely from the state and non-state actors including sister organisations of some political parties and sectarian interest groups, the Forum’s report alleged. Freedom Forum points out that lawlessness, lack of professionalism and growing politicization in journalism remained the major triggers to increase self-censorship in Nepali media, resulting in the reduction of in-depth and investigative reporting and blamed the Maoists for most of the attacks. (The Statesman, New Delhi dated January 3, 2010) The UN rights body in Nepal has condemned threats given to journalists over news reporting on the recent murder of media entrepreneur, Jamim Shah, who allegedly had links with ISI and underworld don . Editor and publisher of a leading Nepalese daily, The Kathmandu Post, had received threat calls for reporting news about the murder of Shah. The UN office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal said, “The OHCHR is seriously concerned over the news about issuing threat to the media in Nepal for publishing news report on the murder of entrepreneur, Jamim Shah. “Unfortunately violence against the media is not rare in Nepal and has been witnessed especially against journalists working in the Terai”, OHCHR noted. (The Pioneer, New Delhi dated February 17, 2010) Media associations and organisations across Nepal and have expressed outrage against frequent attacks on the fraternity including murders of two prominent media barons in the past one month. Editors of 13 important Nepali and English newspapers condemned the attacks in a statement carried prominently in their publications on March 3, 2010 under the heading ‘Violence can’t deter the pen’. Blaming the government for its “insensitive passivity” towards the attacks, they pledged never to surrender press freedom “whatever the circumstances”. Most papers like Republica and The Himalayan Times also carried editorials on the state of affairs. On, March 8, 2010 Arun Singhani, proprietor of Janakpur Today, a Nepali newspaper and Radio Today, a FM radio station was shot dead in Janakpur by motorcycle-borne assailants. (The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated March 4, 2010) Malaysia Malaysia’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has urged the Government to scrap the existing Official Secrets Act (OSA) and replace with a Freedom

36 of Information Act as the mainstream media has suffered due to restrictions imposed by the Act. NUJ President, Norila Daud, in a World Press Freedom Day statement on May 4, 2009 said, the mainstream media suffered from a negative public perception as a result of being restricted by the OSA, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Internal Security Act. Daud said the Government needed to be more sensitive to the global information trend which called for a more open press and a policy of integrity, accountability and good governance, local media reports said. (The Statesman, New Delhi dated May 6, 2009) Srilanka UNESCO has conferred World Press Freedom Award 2009, on Mr. Lasantha Vikramtunge, a Srilankan journalist who was killed in beginning of this year. He has been selected by World Jury comprising of 14 journalists. This has been a second occasion in 12 years when a journalist is being awarded posthumously. (Jansatta, New Delhi dated April 8, 2009) Sri Lankan newspaper Sunday Leader, whose editor was assassinated in January, has been selected for the prestigious Guardian Journalism Award for its contribution to free expression and protection of liberty. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated April 23, 2009) In a verdict that shocked rights activists and media watchdogs, the Colombo High Court on August 31, 2009, sentenced veteran Sri Lankan journalist and columnist, J.S. Tissainayagam to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under the country’s stringent anti-terror law. The judgment confirmed the worst fears of activists across the globe that Sri Lanka would make an example of Tissaiyagam to intimidate other reporters and editors who chose to question the government‘s scorched-earth anti-terror campaign and practice independent journalism. US President, Barack Obama had recently cited Tissainayagam as an “emblematic example” of journalists who faced intimidation and arbitrary arrest. The verdict handed down by judge Deepali Wijesundara was mainly related to two articles, which the prosecution said tended to cause ill-will among ethnic communities, and a charge, based on custodial confession, that he had raised money to fund terrorist activities. Tissainayagam had earned the government’s wrath by remarking in the ‘Northeastern Monthly’ that “the inability to protect its citizens has caused Sri Lanka international embarrassment. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated September 1, 2009) A weekly Sinhala newspaper affiliated to the Marxists Party in Lanka was sealed by the police on January 31, 2010 and its editor taken in for questioning as pressure begins to grow once again on the media in the country in the

37 aftermath of the recently concluded presidential elections. Curbs on media had gradually eased after the defeat of the LTTE in May this year during which time reporting on military issues was highly controlled but since then the reins in the media were eased to some extent. But in the past week, things seem to be taking a turn for the worse once again. There are also reports of threats and intimidation of journalists who supported defeated opposition candidate Gen. Sarath Fonseka. Meanwhile, the Paris-based media rights group, Reporters Without Borders, has written to President Rajapaska to put a stop to arrests and intimidation of journalists working for privately-owned and foreign media. (The Tribune, Chandigarh dated February 1, 2010) Insisting that there was no move to curb media freedom in the country, Sri Lankan Government asked the Fourth Estate on February 17, 2010 not to behave in a manner that would be harmful to norms of democracy. The Sri Lankan media has been given “unprecedented” freedom by the Government and President Mahinda Rajapaksa has emphasized that he should be informed before any legal action is to be taken against journalists, said Lakshman Yapa Abeywardana, the non-Cabinet Minister of Media. He said the Government has not taken any undemocratic measures that would restrict the media freedom. The Minister’s comments came a day after the Chief Editor of the pro- opposition ‘Lanka’ newspaper, Chandana Sirimalwatte, was ordered to be released from police custody by a court; Sirimalwatte was detained recently by the CID in connection with a report that appeared in his newspaper. (The Pioneer, New Delhi dated February 18, 2010) Pakistan Two Pakistani journalists, Rab Nawaz Joya and Javed Knawal Chandor, have been held since 10 November in a police station in Okara district, in the northeastern province of Punjab. Although charged with theft and fraud, they were arrested for helping Pakistani and international news media to get background information about Ajmal Kasab, a participant in the November 2008 terrorist attacks in the Indian city of Mumbai. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Pakistani government denied that Kasab was of Pakistani origin. The Press freedom organisation added: “The absurd charges brought against them fall to conceal the real motive for their arrest. We call for them to be freed without delay and for all the charges to be dropped”. Joya, a correspondent for the -language newspaper Akhbar Al- Mashriq, and Chandor, a Dunya News TV reporter, are accused of trying to steal money and a mobile phone from a car parked outside the Depalpur Press

38 Club, of which Joya is President and Chandor is the Secretary General. They are also accused of embezzling public funds. Lahore-based journalists who spoke to them in the police station where they are being held in very poor conditions quoted them as saying they were being punished for “helping national and international media know more about Ajmal Kasab” and for helping reporters to get to Faridkot, the village near Depalpur where Kasab is from. (Indian Journalists Union Press Release dated November 13, 2009) News organisations from around the world, have asked the Pakistan government to ensure the safety of foreign journalists working in the country, after a leading daily claimed that an American reporter was working for the CIA and Israeli intelligence. In a joint letter to Information Minister, Qamar Zaman Kaira, editors and executives of the media organisations expressed strong concern over the alarm, caused by the daily’s report among foreign journalists. Among those who signed that letter, were editors and executives of CNN, BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, The Independent, ABC News, Al-Jazeera English, Time and Wall Street Journal. The Nation, a newspaper that has carried a series of unsubstantiated anti-US and anti-India reports over the past few weeks, claimed earlier this month in a front-page, that Wall Street Journal correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, was working for the CIA, Israeli intelligence and US military contractor Blackwater. Daniel Pearl, also a reporter of the Wall Street Journal, was subjected to similar criticism a few years ago, before he was kidnapped and killed by the militants. The letter further mentioned that these were difficult times for all journalists in Pakistan, and the reporters working for International News Organisations faced an array of threats, including violence and kidnapping, as they strived to provide accurate coverage. (The Tribune, Chandigarh dated November 23, 2009) Afghanistan Afghan journalists on August 19, 2009, rejected a demand by the Foreign Ministry not to broadcast information about attacks or violence on election day charging it violated their constitutional right to cover the news. Fearing that violence could dampen turnout, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement on August 18, 2009 saying that news organisations should avoid ‘broadcasting any incidence of violence’ between 6 am and 8 pm on election day ‘to ensure the wide participation of the Afghan people. Afghanistan’s active local media- the country has a host of newspapers , radio stations and television news outlets – condemned the statement as stifling freedom of the Press that was supposed to have returned after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001. (The Pioneer, New Delhi dated August 22, 2009)

39 CHAPTER – II Adjudications in Complaints Regarding Threats to Press Freedom

The Press Council of India is mandated by the statute to keep under review any development likely to impinge upon the freedom of the press. Such threat may emanate from any source, be it from elements within the society or political parties and their representatives or governmental authorities or militants or even from within the press itself taking the shape of editorial-management disputes. While 210 matters of this nature were pending from the previous year, 180 fresh cases were registered in the year under review. A total of 390 matters thus required consideration. Of these, 36 matters were disposed off through adjudications which also included one matter directly considered by the Council. 107 matters were dismissed or disposed off for lack of sufficient grounds for holding inquiry or where satisfactory amends had been made by the concerned authorities or matters fell outside the Council’s charter or became sub-judice or for non-pursuance on the part of the complainants. The remaining 247 matters were under process at the end of the period under review. Adjudications on complaints carrying allegations of attempt at curtailment of the freedom of the press, either by way of threats, physical or vocal, or denial of concessions and privileges, by the authorities have been analysed in this chapter while the detailed adjudications have been carried in the Council’s quarterly journals, namely, PCI Review in English and Press Parishad Samiksha in Hindi and Compendium of the Adjudications 2009-2010.

40 Categories of Complainants

C A 8.57% 2.86% A. English Press B. Indian Languages Press C. Journalist Associations/ News Agency D. Suo-motu

B 88.57%

Categories of Respondents

A. Police/Government Authorities B. Information Department D C. Institutions/Private Companies/ 5.71% Newspaper Management D. Private Persons B 20%

A 74.29%

41 Statewise Distribution of the Complainant Publications

25

20

15

10

5

0 No. of A B C D E F G Cases

42 Key to Abbreviation Total No. of Cases : 36

(Including one matter adjudicated directly by the Council)

A. Uttar Pradesh 23

B. Delhi 1

C. Madhya Pradesh 2

D. Bihar 3

E. Assam 1

F. Uttarakhand 3

G. Punjab 3

43 Harassment of Newsmen

Incidents of harassment of journalists have been on rise. Such incidents are on rise especially where there have been conflict between the authorities and militants. The press has to succumb to the pressure from both of them. Legitimate criticism of executive functioning and reporting of misdemeanours of militants outfit and anti-social elements is retaliated in the form of manhandling of journalists, their entanglement in false cases, raids at their press/home, abduction and in extreme cases, murder. In this way the press often has to face dire consequences in discharging their professional duties honestly. Gross violation of human rights of the journalists is escalating unabatedly. Authorities are duty bound to prevent or deter any kind of physical assault or harm to the journalists of their legitimate performance of professional duties. The Council adjudicated upon a total of 22 such matters in the year under review. Of these the charges were found to be substantiated in three matters while only six stood dismissed on merit. In four others the Council dropped inquiry when the respondents concerned made or assured adequate amends. Nine complaints were disposed off for non-pursuance or for the matters having become sub-judice or when no action by the Council was found to be warranted after hearing the parties. The chart that follows makes the position more clear.

44 Harassment of Newsmen Total No. of Cases : 22

A. Upheld 3 B. Rejected 6 C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 4 D. Dropped for non-pursuance/ 9 Withdrawal/ Sub-judice/ Lack of substance

10

8

6

4

2

0 No. of A B C D Cases

45 Facilities to the Press

Facilities like accreditation, government advertisement, etc. are the backbone of the newspapers. While accreditation helps in collection and dissemination of news, release of advertisements pertaining to policies and schemes for betterment of general public by the government inter-alia provide newspapers financial support. Its absence poses a major hindrance to the existence of the paper. The Council has observed that at times, the authorities responsible to provide these facilities to the newspaper, use it as a tool to make the newspaper toe their line. The worst sufferers are the regional newspapers of small and medium category. Complaints against biased withdrawal or denial of the above facilities abound, but not all are pursued till the stage of adjudication. Of the 13 adjudications that fall under this category only one was upheld while two were rejected on merit. Three were disposed off when direction by Council was not found warranted or the matter became sub-judice. In seven matters, the authorities concerned redressed the grievances of the complaining parties. The chart that follows makes the position more clear.

46 Facilities to the Press Total No. of Cases : 13

A. Upheld 1 B. Rejected 2 C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 7 D. Dropped for non-pursuance/ 3 Withdrawal/ Sub-judice/ Lack of substance

8

7 6 5

4

3 2

1 0 No. of A B C D Cases

47 CHAPTER – III Adjudications Rendered by the Council in Complaints Filed Against the Press

The Press Council of India has been established for the purpose not only of preserving the freedom of the press but also of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. For the latter purpose, the Council is required to build up code of conduct for newspapers, news agencies and journalists in accordance with high professional standards; ensure on the part of newspapers, news agencies and journalists, the maintenance of high standards of public taste and foster a due sense of both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; encourage the growth of a sense of responsibility and public service among all those engaged in the profession of journalism; promote a proper functional relationship among all classes of persons engaged in the production and publication of newspapers or in news agencies; etc. During the course of the year under review, the Council received 770 new complaints against the Press for the alleged violation of journalistic norms. Besides, there were 694 matters pending from the previous year. Thus, the Council was to consider in all 1464 complaints against the press during the year under review. Of these, 538 matters were disposed off through adjudications or through disposal at the preliminary stage, either for the reason of settling these to the satisfaction of the parties or for lack of substance or on account of non- pursuance, withdrawal etc. This also includes three matters directly considered by the Council. Thus, 926 matters were pending in this category at the close of the financial year under review. The detailed text of the adjudications can be seen in the Council’s quarterly in house journals published in English as well as in Hindi namely, PCI Review and Press Parishad Samiksha respectively and Compendium of Adjudications 2009-2010.

48 Categories of Complainants

E 0.62% A. Government Authorities/ D A Government Officers 5.6% 26% B. Private Persons C 24.88% C. Institutions/Private Companies/Newspaper Associations D. Public Persons E. Suo-motu

B 42.9%

Categories of Respondents

A A. English Press 22.98% B. Indian Languages Press

B 77.02%

49 Statewise Distribution of the Respondent Publications

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 No.ABCDEFGHI JKLMNOPQRST of Cases

50 Key to Abbreviation Total No. of Cases: 164

(Including three matters adjudicated directly by the Council)

A. Uttar Pradesh 32 B. Delhi 24 C. Karnataka 17 D. Gujarat 5 E. Punjab 7 F. Maharashtra 15 G. Kerala 5 H. Rajasthan 10 I. Jharkhand 4 J. Orissa 3 K. Bihar 7 L. Uttarakhand 3 M. Andhra Pradesh 6 N. Madhya Pradesh 4 O. Haryana 5 P. Chandigarh 1 Q. Tamil Nadu 7 R. Assam 1 S. West Bengal 7 T. 1

51 Principles and Publication

The Council had laid down clear norms of journalism to guide the press in the healthy discharge of its duties and attitude towards the readers. When newspapers publish inaccurate reports, write-ups etc. harmful to the reputation of an individual or public official or when the reporting is based on incorrect sources or published with mal-intention, the person aggrieved sends rebuttal or clarifies facts through rejoinder giving his version of the story. The newspapers reluctant to publish the same with due promptitude and prominence, prompts the aggrieved party/person to knock the door of the Council. Through its adjudications, the Council helps the press to maintain the respect and dignity which the fourth estate deserves. The Council received during this year several cases against news- papers, where the complainants were primarily aggrieved over the non- publication of their respective rejoinders/replies/contradictions by the respondent newspapers. 39 adjudications delivered this year fell under this category. Of these, 15 cases were upheld with appropriate directions while in 10 matters charges could not be substantiated. Nine complaints were disposed off by the Council when the respondents offered to make amends. The remaining five complaints were dropped for non-pursuance, withdrawal or the matter having become sub-judice. The graphical chart that follows makes the position more clear.

52 Principles and Publication Total No. of Cases : 39

A. Upheld 15 B. Rejected 10 C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 9 D. Dropped for non-pursuance/ 5 Withdrawal/Sub-judice/Lack of substance

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 No. of A B C D Cases

53 Press and Defamation

Journalists in a zeal to expose corruption in society or of public servant, public figures and others through the medium of newspapers, often overstep the limit of fair ‘comment and run foul of the Law of Defamation. Indeed in more than 65% of complaints received by the Council against journalists/newspapers, it is alleged that the impugned publication is false and defamatory. It is therefore necessary for the reporters, editors, printers and publishers of newspapers to have at least, elementary knowledge of those aspects of law which are special interest of media such as law of defamation. The Council has observed that the press at times uses the medium to gratify private spite or personal greed and avarice by defaming persons/ institutions through the columns of the newspapers. This tendency is comparatively higher in the smaller or the fly-by night newspapers. Defamatory writings against individuals/institutions are published as a reprisal measure due to personal enmity; for blackmailing for money; or some other favours sought from the persons/institutions concerned. The Council adjudicated 108 complaints this year pertaining to alleged defamatory publications. Of these, the press was found guilty of violation of journalistic ethics in 14 cases, while charges were rejected in 28. In 28 matters, the Council was able to bring about reconciliation between parties, while 38 complaints were disposed off for failure to pursue charges or on account of matters having become sub-judice or where no action by the Council was found to be warranted after hearing the parties. The following graphics explains the position.

54 Press and Defamation Total No. of Cases: 108

A. Upheld 14 B. Rejected 28 C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 28 D. Dropped for non-pursuance/ 38 Withdrawal/sub-judice/Lack of substance

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 No. of A B C D Cases

55 Press and Morality

Use of obscene language in a news story or article and publication of photographs of women in denigrating manner are against the normal Indian values. An editor is thus expected to act in a responsible manner and with requisite rationale ensure careful scrutiny of such publications. Certain sections of the media claiming to march with the times often tend to forget that such material are against cultural ethos of the general public. They need to judge the suitability of material considering the target readership and the values of the society at large. Matter that serves no public interest of the readers and tends only to arouse prurient interest in young mind thereby misleading them needs to be watched over. The Indian Penal Code incorporates in Sections 292 and 292A offences relating to public decency and morals. There are several other similar provisions which provide for penal action. However, self regulation scores over punitive actions. The Council adjudicated seven matters which raised question of obscenity in the publications. The charge of offence against public taste and morality against the newspapers were upheld in five matters, while two matters were disposed off with observations. The following graphical chart makes the position more clear.

56 Press and Morality Total No. of Cases : 7

A. Upheld 5 B. Rejected __ C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 2 D. Dropped for non-pursuance/ __ Withdrawal/ Sub-judice/ Lack of substance

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 No. of A B C D Cases

57 Communal, Casteist, Anti National And Anti Religious Writings

Recognising that the press which enjoys the utmost freedom of expression has a great and vital role to play in educating and moulding public opinion on correct lines in regard to the need for friendly and harmonious relations between various communities and religious groups forming the fabric of Indian political life and in mirroring the conscience of the best minds of the country to achieve national solidarity. The Press Council of India considers that this object would be defeated, communal peace and harmony disturbed and national unity disrupted if the Press doesn’t strictly adhere to proper norms and standard in reporting on or commenting on matters which bear on communal relations. During the period under review, the Council adjudicated seven complaints under this category. Of these, two matters were upheld while two matters were disposed off by the Council. Besides, one complaint was closed for being sub-judice, whereas in remaining two cases, one was disposed off with observations and in another the matter was allowed to rest when the respondent gave assurance. The following chart makes the position more clear.

58 Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Anti Religious Writings Total No. of Cases : 7

A. Upheld 2 B. Rejected 2 C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 2 D. Dropped for non-pursuance/ 1 Withdrawal/Sub-judice/ Lack of substance

2

1

0 No. of A B C D Cases

59 CHAPTER – IV Report on Media Coverage of Batla House Encounter Adopted by the Press Council of India on 9.6.2009

Introduction

The Council in its meeting held on 13-14 October, 2008 took cognizance of a report on the encounter; ‘Delhi Blast; A Look At The Encounter Coverage’ prepared by the DUJ alleging that the unethical press coverage of Batla / Jamia reporting on September 19, 2008 attempted to divide communities. It requested the Press Council of India to consider the matter and call for restraint by the press. Similar request was also received from National Commission for Minorities to examine the media reports on the encounter. Shri Y.C. Halan, Member, Press Council was requested by the Council to examine the matter independently.

The report prepared and submitted by him was adopted by the Council on 9.6.2009. The text of which is reproduced as follow:-

The National Commission for Minorities in its Report had referred to a statement made before it that ‘the Muslim community has over the years lost faith in the law and order machinery, the judicial system, the political parties and the media,’ the National Commission for Minorities did not independently comment on it nor was any evidence attached to contradict the statement nor was the views of the other accused parties on record thus the Council did not find it necessary to consider examining the comments made for the reasons that:-

1. The Report is more critical of the Indian polity and civil society and not media in particular.

2. No one in the Report has accused the media for false or malafide reporting.

3. It is one-sided version of the entire incident.

60 DUJ Report on Coverage of Post-Batla House Encounter

The report on the media coverage of Post-Batla House Encounter analysis was based on reporting in four English, six Hindi and one Urdu newspaper though a few other magazines and newspapers had been quoted. The news channels which were sampled for analysis had not been identified. However, certain channels had been named to prove the point. The purpose of the report was to examine the ‘professional conduct of their co-professionals’.

Points to be kept in mind when conducting a post-mortem on any news reporting

The Indian media is huge. The number of newspapers and periodicals is about 65,000. The number of news channels is around 150. The Indian media should not be analysed on the basis of news reporting in just 11 newspapers. Also these 11 newspapers cannot be called media.

The encounter took place on September 19, 2008. The DUJ team visited the place on September 27. There was a gap of eight days during which people do change their versions.

The news was not analysed when reported. It was based on the facts and information collected by the reporter through talking to and conversation with people at the place of incident and those connected with the incident. The information was checked and it depended on deadlines.

Newspapers would not wait for proper investigations and missing links while reporting important incidents because no newspaper can and should miss reporting vital incidents. Responsible newspapers did take care while handling sensitive reports particularly those related with religious, communal and national security affairs. However, some lapses were possible as would be in any activity that was rushed against the time. Newspapers that are run by political parties or are under their heavy influence need to be excluded.

The Report

The report analysed two aspects of reporting. One, accuracy in reporting that was related with facts and information; and two, provocative and sensational headlines and writings. It was mentioned in the very beginning that the reporting was done in ‘the casual manner in which serious issues have been handled right from the day of the serial bomb blasts in Delhi’. It also stated that the ‘accuracy seems to have been sacrificed in the rush to be first with the news and provide the more sensational coverage’.

61 It further stressed that there were ‘impact biases’ and many reports were ‘highly dramatized’. It also warned co-professionals of the danger of demonizing an entire community by questioning their loyalties to the country and putting their lives at risk. It pointed out that ‘the press has forsaken the use of certain prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’. TV reports did not follow the ‘precaution of blurring their (residents) faces or concealing their identities’. The report mentioned that stories appearing in different newspapers were different. It specially mentions Veer Arjun for describing the operation ‘that was at variance with the versions of other papers’. The report besides analyzing the reports and writings in selected media also raised many questions like the soft treatment given to the police and ‘goof ups and alleged incompetence in cases of murder and other crimes in the city’. It questioned why media did not ask certain questions. It concluded that Jamia Nagar episode ‘was a sad reminder of the diminishing credibility of the media. Instead of playing the role of the ‘watch dog’ of the society, the media seemed to be getting increasingly lazier and dependent on police handouts.’ In the end, it lamented, that the ‘growing reach and influence of the media, both print and electronic, has unfortunately not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in its sense of responsibility and accountability to society. Analysis for Council’s Consideration (1) The report was a commendable effort on the part of DUJ to analyse the reporting of a sensitive issue. Such analysis should be an ongoing process so that media remains responsible and useful to the polity and society. (2) It was not proved that deliberate efforts were made to ‘demonizing an entire community by questioning their loyalties to the country. (3) That the reporters while filing reports and sub editors when editing the story did not care to use certain prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’ was found relevant. TV reports also did not follow the journalistic practice of blurring the faces of people or concealing their identities of those whose lives may be endangered because of exposure. (4) The Council could not form any opinion on the basis of this report whether the media failed to report the Batla Encounter in a responsible way. The matter is still being investigated and the reality is yet to come out. Any opinion could not be formed on the basis of the comments made by residents after one week of the encounter.

62 (5) To be fair to reporters who filed the reports they should be given a chance to narrate how they gathered information and why they wrote what the DUJ considered irresponsible and sensational. It was important because a reporter writes on the information that he gathers at the point of writing the report. He talks to persons available there and prepare notes so that he can authenticate his story later. Later on many more persons appear to give more details that may contradict the story. Who then is to be believed? (6) Who is to be believed? Those who spoke to the reporter immediately after the incident or those who gave their version a few days later. On serious and significant issues, the persons who talk later may be tutored? (7) The allegation that the media gives soft treatment to the police was a sweeping one and might not be fully truthful and applicable on the entire media. Large section of media had honestly done its duty and was responsible. In fact, police levies the same charge on the media that it was heavily biased against them. (8) It also was not justified to say that the credibility of the media was diminishing. Many responsible institutions have accepted that media was really playing the role of the ‘watch dog’ of society. It was neither desirable nor justified to call the whole Indian media as lazy and insensitive to serious issues. It might also not be correct that the media lacks in the sense of responsibility and accountability to society. The Indian media is considered throughout the world as one of the most responsible and credible institution of the society. (10) Different stories appearing in different newspapers could not be the same. Every reporter talks to different persons and writes on the basis of that information. Suggesting that stories should not differ is a point that needs wider discussion. Conclusion The Council in its meeting held on June 9, 2009 accepted and adopted the observation and the recommendation made in the report submitted by Shri Y.C. Halan in totality.

63 CHAPTER – V Report on the Complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur, Khiri (U.P) based Staff Reporter/ Correspondent of Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily Against Smt. N. Padmaja, the then S.P. Lakhimpur, Khiri, (U.P.) - Fact Finding Committee Report Adopted by the Press Council of India on 22.2.2010

Introduction

The Press Council of India in its meeting held on 8.2.2008 decided to set up a Fact Finding Committee (FFC) to ascertain facts in respect of the complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur, Khiri (U.P) based Staff Reporter/ Correspondent of Amar Ujala, Hindi daily against Smt. N. Padmaja, the then Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, Khiri. The FFC was to act in furtherance of the facts recorded by the FFC set up by the Council through its Inquiry Committee in the previous tenure to inquire into the matter. The Committee has accordingly ascertained the facts of the case and submits a consolidated report to the Council along with its findings and the proposals for the steps in furtherance.

Facts of the Case

Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur, Khiri (U.P.) based Staff Reporter/ Correspondent of Amar Ujala, Hindi daily had filed a complaint dated 3.2.2005 against Smt. N. Padamaja, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, Khiri (U.P.) for alleged attempts to threaten and harass him and thereafter having him kidnapped with the intention to have him killed in a fake encounter. Such action of the Superintendent of Police has been prompted by the complainant’s news reports not found palatable by the respondent, alleged the complainant. He added that he exposed the misdeeds of the men in Khaki and their connivance with mafias and anti-social elements. He exposed the corruption in the local administration and the Superintendent of Police. The complainant submitted that

64 when the Superintendent of Police failed to get a favourable coverage as he neither toed her line nor took notice of her warnings, one of the junior police officials told him that preparations were afoot to book him in some false criminal cases. The complainant gave memorandum detailing the entire situation to the DGP and the Principal Home Secretary in Lucknow on February 3, 2005 but no action was taken and he finally got arrested on 9.2.2005 night. According to the complainant, he was taken to a remote area on the outskirts of the district where the police had set the stage for an encounter. As the railway crossing was close, he took advantage of the situation and shouted out for help. He told the people present that he was a journalist and was being taken to be killed in an encounter. The police then changed its plans, brought him back, booked him under cases related to the Wildlife Act and put him in jail. He said that the skin and horns of rhino were shown as recovered from him and he was booked under the Wildlife Act. The complainant further alleged that the Lakhimpur Khiri police was trying to kill him but as he had already faxed letters to the Chief Minister, Home Secretary, Government of U.P. and other officials concerned informing them of his apprehensions, this scuttled the police move to eliminate him. The complainant submitted that the instant case had also hit the headlines of many newspapers and when the senior staff of the newspaper met the Hon’ble Chief Minister of U.P., Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav and apprised him of atrocities of the respondent Superintendent of Police, the investigation was transferred to the CB-CID. The Chief Minister instructed the CB-CID to ensure his release. According to the complainant, he has some recorded tapes of the conversation with police officials in which they confessed that action initiated against him was due to pressure of Smt. N. Padamaja. The complainant further submitted that the Inspector in the conversation had revealed that the crocodile skin, lion’s claws and rhino’s horns had actually been confiscated in a raid almost a month ago and it was at the Superintendent of Police’s insistence that they were shown to have been recovered from his residence. The matter was also raised as an adjournment motion in the U.P. Legislative Council and the Chairman of the U.P. Council directed the State Government to transfer Smt. N. Padamaja, Superintendent of Police of Lakhimpur district without further delay. The complainant requested the Council to initiate action in the matter against the erring officer for hatching a conspiracy either to kill him or book him in some crime for highlighting the misdeeds of the police chief, so that he could perform his journalistic duties freely and fearlessly.

The respondent, Smt. N, Padamaja, Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Khiri in her statement in reply dated 13.4.2005, while denying the allegations, submitted that in fact the complainant had filed this complaint deliberately to save his skin and to put pressure. According to her, the complainant’s allegation

65 that she had attempted to kill him in a false encounter with a view to pressurise him to stop exposure of critical news item relating to activities of the police and increasing incidents of crime, were totally false as she had not gone through any such news coverage. The respondent submitted that the incidents narrated by the complainant were related to persons of “Bhartiya Communist Party” (MALEY), who were responsible for worsening the law and order situation in the district. Since the complainant has close relations with the party he was not in favour of taking any action against the culprits and thus to maintain pressure, filed the false and baseless complaint. The respondent clarified that she had neither directed her subordinates to initiate action against any journalist nor had filed any report against the complainant before the State Government. She stated that she had never met complainant as he was looking after the political front and the police have no concern with him. Regarding attempt to kill the journalist in an encounter and the arrest of the complainant on 9.2.2005, the respondent submitted that the SHO, Police Station Mishrana, Lakhimpur district was on duty when the news of smuggling of skin and horn of rhino was received. The police force arrested a person who was trying to escape and he identified himself as a journalist named Samiuddin, resident of district Pilibhit. Police confiscated crocodile skin, lion’s claws and rhino’s horns from him amounting to Rs. 10 lacs and sandalwood worth Rs. 50,000/-. An FIR was filed under Wildlife Act. She also filed a copy of the same. According to her the matter was being investigated by CB-CID which is an Independent Unit. Denying the allegation of any involvement in the arrest of the complainant, the respondent clarified that infact the arrest was made in a routine manner. The respondent submitted that Dainik Swatantra Bharat and Dainik Hindustan had also published news items against the complainant for his involvement in “Maovadi” activities in Nepal. The respondent submitted that in fact the complainant was involved in criminal and illegal activities and when police came to know about his activities, he filed the instant false complaint to cover his activities and to maintain pressure.

Consideration by the Inquiry Committee- F.F.C. Constituted

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 30.6.2005, 17.11.2005, 4.5.2006 and 13.7.2006. While the hearing was underway, the Government of Uttar Pradesh was asked to provide security to the complainant to ensure his safety. Necessary action was taken by the Government. Finally the Inquiry Committee at its meeting held on 4.12.2006 observed that this matter prima facie disclosed serious threats to the freedom of the press. The respondent was trying to place reliance on the report, which it was unable to produce before the Committee. Earlier, a query was put to the

66 State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Council’s letter dated 12.10.2006 to send the status report of the inquiry conducted by the CB-CID, but the State Government of U.P. failed to submit the status report of the CB-CID inquiry or depute any representative to submit the government’s side of version. The Inquiry Committee observed that on the last hearing, the representative of the SSP had made a submission that the NHRC and U.P. Commission for Minorities had also enquired into the matter and found the charges baseless. The Inquiry Committee noted that while the response of NHRC to the Council’s communication dated 12.10.2006 for status report was awaited, the Secretary, U.P. Commission for Minorities in a letter dated 20.11.2006 intimated that the complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu had been forwarded to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow. The IGP (Human Rights), Lucknow, had intimated on 10.10.2005 that CB-CID inquiry was pending. The complainant had produced before the Committee a status report of the matter before the NHRC which indicated that the Commission was also awaiting the CB-CID report. There could thus be no question of its finding the charges to be baseless. Therefore, as the Inquiry Committee took note of the statement made by the representative of the SSP, Bulandshahar, that the CB-CID had given clean chit to Smt. Padmja, it also took note of the facts that there was not much progress in the matters pending before NHRC and U.P. Commission for Minorities. In view of the seriousness of the matter, the Inquiry Committee decided to set up a Fact Finding Committee under Section 8(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978, to conduct on the spot inquiry and gather facts, exercising all powers vested in the Council and its Committees under Section 15 of the Act. The Fact Finding Committee consisting of the following members was to submit its report to the Inquiry Committee for further consideration of the matter. 1. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma Convenor 2. Shri K.S. Sachidananda Murthy Member 3. Shri Keshav Dutt Chandola Member 4. Shri Geetartha Pathak Member 5. Shri Rajeeva Kumar Arora Member The Committee decided to visit Lucknow and Lakhimpur, Khiri to meet the concerned parties and take evidence. The Information & Public Relations Department of Uttar Pradesh was called upon to coordinate in the matter. Hearings before the Fact Finding Committee The Fact-Finding Committee met at Yojna Bhawan, Lucknow on 6.1.2007.

67 Appearance before the Committee

Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Complainant

Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, Advocate for the complainant.

Reporters/Journalists

1. Shri Alauddin Shastri, Pilibhit

2. Shri Vinay Roy,

3. Shri Pradyuman Tiwari, Chief Reporter, Amar Ujala, Lucknow

4. Shri Akhilesh Bajpai, Senior Reporter, Amar Ujala, Lucknow

5. Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh, Freelance Journalist

6. Shri Raj Bahadur Singh, The Pioneer

7. Shri Anil Yadav, The Pioneer

Appearance on behalf of the Respondent Authorities

1. Shri Pravin Ranjan Singh, Deputy S.P. CO, Mohammdi, Khiri

2. Shri Nitin Gokarn, Secretary/Director of Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh

3. Shri R.M. Srivastav, Secretary, Home Department, U.P. (Representative of the Chief Secretary), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow

Depositions before the Fact Finding Committee

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the complainant informed the Committee that the security provided was removed without information in the month of December 2006. The Superintendent of Police, Khiri had written to Neelu on December,2006 to deposit Rs. 1,20,090/- for providing a gunner for six months on 100% payment basis.

The father of the complainant, Shri Alauddin Shastri submitted that MALEY was a political party and he was an active member of the party. It was not a crime to be a member of any political party. His son was a journalist. He was sure that his son would be killed. His security had been removed suddenly so that before the Fact Finding Committee reached Lucknow he was killed. Smt.

68 Padmaja was a lady of criminal nature. Her husband who was a District Magistrate was posted at NOIDA. She had strong political links and was a powerful lady.

The Committee asked him to file his submissions on an affidavit.

On being asked by the Committee of the perceived reason behind Smt. Padmaja’s intention to kill Neelu, the complainant replied that he had been publishing regular news reports about mafia and its connections with the police. No rebuttal to any news item had been given. A false FIR was registered at the instance of Smt. Padmaja by one Lekh Ram Bharti who was a correspondent of Swatantra Bharat at that time and now he was working in a sugar mill.

He added that Padmja had threatened many journalists.

The Fact Finding Committee asked the complainant whether the editor of Amar Ujala had taken up the issue with any journalists association, whether the management of the Amar Ujala had also taken up the matter. The complainant expressed his ignorance about this matter and replied that he was not aware whether the editor or management had taken up the issue with any journalists association.

Learned counsel for the complainant intervened and stated that he had been deputed by Amar Ujala to appear before the Committee. He stated that since the Press Council of India had taken up the issue, Amar Ujala has not raised its voice before any association.

Shri Vinay Roy, Zee News stated that only the complainant could tell the ground reality as when the incident took place they were based at Lucknow. Neelu informed them at Lucknow of his problem. However, he added that the Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha directed the Government to immediately transfer Mrs. Padmaja, which was not done. This showed that the Government was not serious in the Neelu’s matter.

Shri Parvin Ranjan Singh, C.O. Lakhimpur Khiri expressed ignorance about the outcome of the case. He submitted that he was not aware whether the CB- CID report was complete or not. About the findings of the CB-CID, he submitted that they might not have found evidence against the complainant or the SP. He handed over a letter of the Home Department and submitted that he had nothing to add to what had been stated in the letter. About removal of security, the CO submitted that the security had been removed on the orders of the administration.

69 Shri Pradyuman Tiwari, Chief Reporter, Amar Ujala, Lucknow submitted that when Neelu expressed fear that he could be implicated in false case by the then SP, they met the then Home Secretary on 3rd February 2005 and apprised him about the facts and handed over a memorandum to him. On 5th February they met the Director General of Police. But those officers did not take any action and as a result Shri Samiuddin Neelu was arrested on 9th February. He added that he and Shri Virender Saxena, Bureau Chief, Amar Ujala met the Chief Minister. Only after intervention of the Chief Minister on 19.2.2005, was Neelu released on bail.

Shri Akhilesh Bajpai, Senior Reporter, Amar Ujala, Lucknow submitted that after he came to know about the incident he met Smt. Padmaja who told him that she would teach Neelu a lesson. They had also met the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary and told them that Neelu was going to be entangled in some false case but no action was taken by them. He further submitted that at that time he was reporting in the Assembly. The Speaker of the Assembly asked the Government to transfer Smt. Padmaja otherwise there could not be an independent and fair inquiry or Neelu might be killed. He added that the management of Amar Ujala was fully supporting Neelu.

Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh, Freelance Journalist and Chairman Press Accreditation Committee stated that at that point of time when Neelu was arrested he was with Jansatta. Neelu was reporting against the illegal cutting of trees in the area. Being annoyed with these writings the then SP got Neelu arrested. As Neelu apprehended that he would be harassed, they met the then Home Secretary, Alok Sinha and expressed fear that Neelu would be implicated in any case and the same thing happened. He was sent to jail after arrest. All this happened under a conspiracy.

Shri Raj Bahadur Singh, The Pioneer, stated that this was a serious matter. Neelu was arrested and sent to jail for 10 days. He has been depicted as a man of criminal nature. His social reputation has been harmed. Some police officers framed Neelu in false cases. He added that Neelu may be granted some compensation for the harassment he suffered.

Shri Anil Yadav of Pioneer submitted that in this matter some political parties took initiative. Not only Amar Ujala reporters but journalists of other newspapers were being subjected to harassment. He added that the local goons and mafia try to corrupt the journalists and on failure to do so and those who did not toe to their dictates, such journalists were being subjected to harassment. In February 2005 Neelu met him. After he told his problem they had met the

70 then Home Secretary but he did not take any action. Neelu’s image had been harmed in the society. Now the CB-CID in its inquiry has cleared him. Therefore, the erring officers should be sent to jail for 2-3 days to give justice to Neelu.

Shri Avinash Mishra, Rashtra Bodh, Lucknow told the Committee that when Neelu was threatened they met the Chief Secretary and apprised him about the position. But no action was taken by him. He requested the Committee to take action against such dictator like officers so that in future no one dares to act in an arbitrary manner.

The Fact Finding Committee asked Shri Nitin Gokarn, Secretary/Director I&PRD whether he was representing Chief Secretary also. He replied in affirmative. The Committee then apprised him that a letter dated 1.12.2006 addressed to the Director General, CB-CID with a copy endorsed to the Press Council of India along with others received from the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. it was stated that CID had conducted an inquiry in the matter and the allegations leveled against the complainant and the respondent were not substantiated. It was further stated that adequate evidences could not be found against them. Filing a copy of the report it was submitted in the letter that the government after consideration has accepted the inquiry report and further action be initiated accordingly in the matter.

The Committee observed that the security was provided to the complainant on the directions of the Press Council of India. The Vidhan Sabha, National Human Rights Commission, and the U.P. Minority Commission had also, seeing the gravity of the matter had directed for provision of security to the complainant. Despite that the administration had withdrawn security and the complainant had been asked to deposit Rs. 1,20,090 as payment towards provision of a gunner for further six months. The Home Secretary was asked to explain the reason. The Home Secretary submitted that the gunners and shadows were being provided on the orders of the administration on the basis of LIU report. Home Ministry was the final authority to decide about the provision of security. He assured the Committee that Neelu, the complainant would be provided security free of cost within a day or two. He also assured the Committee that CB-CID Report will be placed before the Committee on the following day i.e. 7.1.2007.

The Committee requested the C.O. Khiri to serve notice of hearing to S/Shri Sanjiv Pahwa, Bureau Chief, Dainik Jagran, Lucknow, Rajiv Dixit, Bureau Chief, Jansatta, Lakhimpur, Lekh Ram Bharti, Ex-District Correspondent, Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow, Dharmesh Shukla, Reporter, Dainik Hindustan,

71 Lucknow, Shyamji Agnihotri, Bureau Chief, Sahara Samay and Rakesh Mishra, Dainik Jagran, Lakhimpur.

The Committee again had its sitting at Lucknow on 7.1.2007

Appearance before the Committee

Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Complainant

Appearance on behalf of the Journalists

1. Shri Javed Zaidi, Journalist, Safat Urdu Dainik, Lucknow

2. Shri Jitesh Shukla, Express Media Service

3. Shri Pradyuman Tiwari, Chief Reporter, Amar Ujala Service’

4. Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh, Freelance Journalist

5. Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Crime Reporter, Amar Ujala, Bareilly

6. Shri Anand Sinha, Amar Ujala, Lucknow

7. Ms. Shahira Naim, Tribune, Chandigarh

8. Shri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, Rashtriya Adhayksha, Akhil Bhartiya Samachar Patra Association

Deposition before the Committee

Shri Javed Zaidi, Journalist, Safat, Urdu Dainik Lucknow submitted that they had complained to the then Home Secretary, Shri Alok Sinha about the harassment of Neelu but he did not take any action. The officers who had harassed Neelu should also be penalised.

Shri Jitesh Shukla of Express Media Service reiterated the submissions made by Shri Zaidi.

Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh submitted that demonstration against political parties was a regular feature. As a journalist, Neelu has to cover such demonstrations. Unfortunately, Neelu’s father was an active member of MALEY. However, they were concerned only with the harassment of Neelu and the way he was subjected to by the Police. The then SP got annoyed with the coverage and to take revenge she got false cases registered against Neelu.

72 A CD was played by Shri Sanjay Tripathi, which was conversation between him and a police officer. It was revealed in the conversation from where the articles recovered from Neelu were procured. Shri Sanjay told the Committee that Padmaja remained annoyed with him and Neelu due to publication of critical news reports in Amar Ujala against the police. In respect of some news reports Padmaja had told him that Neelu was making mischief. She wanted that news should be published according to her wish but they were not doing so. That was the reason why Neelu and he were booked in false cases. He added that it was wrong to say that Padmaja did not know Neelu. Many times she discussed with him about the news reports published by Neelu. He told the Committee that very recently notice of Auction of his house had been pasted at the door of his house.

Ms. Shahira Naim, District Correspondent, Tribune, Chandigarh submitted that she was given a list of names of journalists who were being victimised by the police. Neelu’s name was also there in that list. She had not met Neelu when she talked to Shri Ashok Sinha, the then Home Secretary and told him that one journalist of Khiri had been picked up by the police, Shri Sinha expressed his ignorance about the arrest. The matter was discussed in Vidhan Sabha. Despite directions of the Chairman of the Vidhan Sabha, Padmaja was not transferred which fact showed her deep political connections. She further submitted that she was called to attend a meet of district level journalists at Khiri. She went there. She was surprised to see the presence of a number of police officials there. The presence of police showed the pressure of police on journalists. She added that she tried to contact Padmaja but could not do so.

On 7.1.2007 the Home Secretary, Shri R.M. Srivastava sent report of the CB-CID dated 29.8.2006 to the Fact-Finding Committee. The concluding portion of the report reads as under:

“From the whole investigation proceedings of crime branch till date, confirmed and sufficient evidence is not available against Samiuddin alias Neelu, S/o Alauddin Shastri, Journalist, Amar Ujala, Lakhimpur. It is found that allegations levelled against Smt. N. Padmaja, the then Superintendent of Police, Khiri could not be proved. In connection with the conduct of the concerned Police Officer/ employees (attached with the arrest), thorough inquiry is being conducted”.

Investigation is, yet in process, though attempt is being made to complete it at the earliest”.

The father of the complainant, Shri Alauddin Shastri also filed his submissions on an affidavit.

73 Fact Finding Committee also had its sitting at Lakhimpur, Khiri on 8.1.2007 Appearance before the Committee Shri Saimiuddin Neelu, Complainant Journalists/Reporters 1. Shri Prashant Pandey, ETV 2. Shri M.K. Misra, Rashtriya Sahara 3. Mohd Shakeel, India TV 4. Shri Abhishek Verma, 5. Shri A.K. Diwedi, Aaj 6. Shri Rajiv Dixit, Jansatta Express 7. Shri Kuldeep Pahwa, UNI 8. Shri Subodh Sukhla, Rashtriya Swaroop 9. Shri Shakeel Ahmed, Aaryubi 10. Shri Krishan Sharma, Dainik Rashtriya Swaroop 11. Shri Vipin Shukla, Samachar Times 12. Shri Surinder Kumar Mishra, Dudhwa Sandesh 13. Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, UNI 14. Shri Satyadev Srivastava, Shanti Vichar Dhara 15. Shri Munnalal Sharma, S-1 TV News Channel Reporter 16. Shri Rajjan Lal Trivedi, Sahkari Sangathan, Hindi Weekly 17. Shri Shiv Kumar Gaur, Dainik Jagran 18. Shri Ramesh Pandey, Jansatta Express 19. Shri Manmohan, Dainik Rashtriya Sahara, Lucknow 20. Shri Ganesh Upadhyaya, Dainik Hindustan 21. Shri Kamal Mishra, Dainik Aaj

74 22. Shri Dharmesh Shukla, Hindustan

23. Shri Shyamji Agnihotri, Sahara Samay 24. Shri Rakesh Misra, Dainik Jagran

25. Shri Sanjiv Pahwa, Dainik Jagran 26. Shri Lekhram Bharti, Ex-Bureau Chief, Swatantra Bharat 27. Shri Ashok Nigam, District Correspondent, Hindustan

28. Dr. Sujath Ali Khan, The Pioneer 29. Shri Sadhuram Nath, Editor Hindi Dainik Apoor Times 30. Shri Sudhakar Nath Misra, Editor, Samay Samantar

31. Shri Jai Kishore Verma, Editor, Hindi Weekly Meri Jubaan 32. Shri Rajender Prakash Srivastav, Editor, Tarai Ka Suraj, Hindi Weekly 33. Shri Manoj Kumar Misra, Editor, Tarai Express ,Hindi Weekly

34. Shri Shariq Khan, Times of India 35. Shri Rishavh Tyagi, Staff Reporter, Sahara Samay 36. Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Amar Ujala, Bareilly

37. Shri Sushil Gupta, Amar Ujala, Bareilly 38. Shri Ajay Gupta, Amar Ujala, Philibhit 39. Shri Dinesh Gupta, Amar Ujala, Lakhimpur

40. Shri Mohd Yasheen, Channel 41. Shri Pawan Vishvkarma, S-1 TV Channel, Cameraman 42. Shri Sayed Suaib Mukhtar, Correspondent, United Bharat

43. Shri Sanjay Gupta, Editor, Tarai Aatank, Hindi Weekly 44. Shri Rahees Ahmed Warsi, Editor, Choutha Vikalap 45. Shri Krishan Kumar Singh Kasera, Sankath Uvach, Weekly

46. Shri Vikas Shukla, Editor, Sajat Times Weekly

75 Respondent Police Officials 1. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, SI, YCOP Mehwaganj, Police Station Kotwali, Lakhimpur, District Khiri 2. Shri Harender Kumar Tyagi, SI, I/COP Police Station, Rajapur Kotwali, Lakhimpur 3. Head Constable Shri Satnam Singh, Police Line, Lakhimpur 4. Constable 894, Shri Shakeel Ahmed, Chowki Rajapur, Police Station Kotwali, Lakhimpur Khiri 5. Shri Parveen Ranjan Singh, Deputy Superintendent, C.O. Mohammadi, Khiri Others 1. Shri Sewak Singh Aajmani, General Secretary District Sikh Sabha 2. Shri Kulwant Singh Gutna, Member, District Sikh Sabha 3. Shri Sewa Singh Gutna, Member, District Sikh Sabha Depositions before the Committee The Committee asked the journalists present in the hall to adduce their evidence one by one about the arrest of Neelu and the whole incident. No one uttered a single word in the beginning. One Shri Sadhu Ram Shukla of Afro Asia suggested that first of all the Committee should talk to the District Magistrate because in the matters concerning journalists there was a committee whose chairman was District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police and 3 other journalists as members. In regard to Neelu, the District Magistrate must have called a meeting and proceedings must have been recorded. The Fact- Finding Committee should see those proceedings first. The Committee would find the root of the matter in those proceedings. Shri Sharma told him that the Fact Finding Committee desired to know the views of the journalists about the incident regarding Neelu and his harassment by the police. When none came forward to adduce evidence before the Committee, the Committee requested all present in the hall to go out so that the evidence could be recorded one by one. The six journalists, namely, S/Shri Sanjiv Pahawa, Bureau Chief, Dainik Jagran, Lucknow, Rajiv Dixit, Bureau Chief, Jansatta, Lakhimpur, Lekh Ram Bharti, Ex-District Correspondent, Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow, Dharmesh Shukla,

76 Reporter, Dainik Hindustan, Lucknow, Shyamji Agnihotri. Bureau Chief, Sahara Samay and Rakesh Mishra, Dainik Jagran, Lakhimpur were called by the Committee for giving evidence. One of the journalists present submitted that they were attached to U.P. Journalists Union. Some members asked Neelu about the incident and whether he needed their support but he replied that he was competent enough to fight and he did not need the help of any union. He should have given representation to any association but he did not do so.

Shri Rajiv Dixit, Jansatta stated that on 9.1.2003 Shri C.B. Chaurasia a correspondent of Amar Ujala was brutally murdered. After the murder all the journalists associations and social organisations started agitation. One Bahujan Samaj Party MLA got the journalist killed. A bandh was called and then it was decided that till the administration takes action no press note of BSP would be published. But it was really a matter of regret that Neelu was the first to have published that party’s Press notes, not only once but also time and again. There were rumours that Neelu had taken money.

The Committee showed a letter dated NIL which was addressed to the Chairman, Press Council of India (in support of Smt. Padmaja) to the above noted six journalists and enquired whether the signatures on the letter were theirs. All the six persons confirmed and verified having signed the letter.

The Committee took their signatures on another sheet to verify the affirmation.

On being asked by the Committee as to whether the said letter was given to favour the then Superintendent of Police (S.P), they all replied that they were not concerned with the S.P. and they did not meet her frequently. But, they added that if wrong persons enter into Media a difficult situation would arise. Neelu was not so innocent. However, they added that there was no apparent reason as to why the S.P. would try to kill Neelu. Their intention in giving the letter was that if Neelu was guilty he must be punished. They added that they had no intention to support Ms. Padmaja. The letter was given only with the intention that there should be an independent inquiry and if Neelu was guilty action should be taken against him. Unnecessary the whole media should not get a bad name.

The Fact Finding Committee apprised the six journalist present in the hall that the CB-CID report says that the allegations against Neelu could not be proved and asked them whether they had seen or tried to see the articles which have been mentioned in the case as having recovered from Neelu at the time of his arrest because in the letter they had mentioned that strict action should

77 be taken against such type of journalists who indulged in smuggling, they all replied they have not seen the articles but they had written “if found guilty” as they could not say whether Neelu was guilty or not.

The Committee asked Shri Lekh Ram about his connection with the then Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, Khiri.

He replied that he had no relations with the said S.P. He used to meet Smt. Padmaja in connection with news reports as other journalists do. He told the Committee that he was so fed up with the work of a journalist that he left the job and joined a sugar mill. When C.B. Chaurasia of Amar Ujala was murdered, all the newspapers published the news about the murder extensively and together decided not to publish news emanating from the concerned party. At that time Shri Rama Nand was the SP. Swatantra Bharat also reported the murder. However, when Amar Ujala started publishing press notes, they closed the matter. One day when he went to Shri Rama Nand to get some news, the S.P., inter-alia, stated that he had given Rs. One lakh to Neelu. Sanjay Tripathi again came to take money but he was asked to leave. Shri Lekh Ram submitted that he published this news without naming Rama Nand because he did not want his name to be published. Had he published the name of the newspaper or the journalist in question, he would have been murdered. He asserted that Neelu had published false news regarding him because he was a Dalit and he had thus filed a case.

The rest interaction was with the police officers, namely Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, SI, YCOP Mehwaganj, Police Station Kotwali, Lakhimpur, District Khiri, Shri Harenderr Kumar Tyagi, SI, I/COP Police Station, Rajapur Kotwali, Lakhimpur, Head Constable Shri Satnam Singh, Police Line, Lakhimpur, Constable 894, Shri Shakeel Ahmed, Chowki Rajapur, Police Station Kotwali, Lakhimpur Khiri, Shri Parveen Ranjan Singh, Deputy Superintendent, C.O. Mohammadi, Khiri.

The Committee apprised them about the CB-CID report, which declared that the charges against Shri Neelu as well as Smt. Padmaja had not been substantiated and stated that action be taken against the officers who had arrested Neelu. The Committee enquired whether the arrest was under the directions of Padmaja.

All the police officers asserted that the arrest was made on the information provided by an informer. Neelu was arrested with the banned articles material, which were kept in the Malkhana. They added that judicial proceedings in the matter were not complete. They were not aware as to what investigations the

78 CB-CID had done. They shall produce before the Court the investigations and proceedings recorded by them. Whatever they had recovered from Neelu that was written in the record. They denied that Smt. Padmaja had any connection with the arrest of Neelu, who they claimed, was of dubious character and escaped on earlier occasions. They submitted that they had arrested a criminal and not a journalist. All of them filed affidavits in support of their contentions. The Committee then called opened its proceedings.

Shri Rahees Ahmed Warsi, Choutha Wikalp told the Committee that journalists had agitated against the registration of case against Neelu at Gola Chowk and the press had also extensively reported it. The District Magistrate called them and asked to stop the agitation. When the agitation was not stopped, District Magistrate forced their signatures on a blank paper and cases were registered against all of them. Chargesheet was filed against six journalists. The cases are before Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. He added that one day C.O. called Neelu and asked him to stop publication of critical news reports against the police. He was threatened of dire consequence. The incident shown in the charge sheet was at Sadar Chowk, a crowdy place where at all times the people remain gathered yet there is not a single eye witness who confirmed having seen the incident as mentioned in the charge sheet. S/Shri Kamta Singh, Khuswahar correspondent, Amar Ujala, Vikas Shukal, Editor, Swajag Times, Rahees Ahmed Warsi, Editor, Chautha Wikalp, Anivash Chander Verma, correspondent, Amar Ujala, Anang Verma, Editor, Kumari Chetna and Anil Verma, Editor, local Vikas Kendar Reporters, all from Gola gave written representation to the Committee. It reads as “Applicants are journalists from sub-District Gola who all protested against the police harassment meted out to Neelu, and demanded legal action against erring Superintendent of Police, N. Padamaja who implicated Neelu, journalist falsely. The CB-CID in its investigation also found that the case filed against Neelu was fabricated. As a result a fabricated case No. 87/2005 was registered in police station, Gola against them and without any witness or evidence chargesheet was filed in the Court. The then Superintendent of Police Smt. N. Padmaja was guilty in registering a false case against Neelu. A conspiracy is being hatched against them by registering a false case No. 85/05. Bablu Shukla s/o Om Parkash Shukla in an affidavit submitted that he has not witnessed any incident at Gola Chowk on 14.2.2005 at 3.00 p.m. some unknown police personnel came to him and asked him to sign a pre-prepared affidavit. Bablu Shukla further stated in the affidavit that he does not know any journalist and could not identify any journalist. In the charge sheet there was no witness from the public. They demanded, through the

79 Committee, that the government should withdraw the false case from CJM Court filed against them under case No. 87/2005.”

Dr. Sujath Ali Khan, Pioneer stated that the episode seemed to be a politically motivated as the father of Neelu was a communist leader and Neelu was extensively covering the party agitation in the newspapers. The S.P. had said that she had warned Neelu against it.

Shri Ramesh Pandey, Jansatta submitted that SP was not happy with crime reporting and the blackmailing tendency of some journalists.

Shri Prashant Pandey of ETV opined that low salaries of the journalists was a prime reason for wrong activities of some journalists and the authorities on the other hand tried to pressurize Neelu was also sought to be pressurizing against adverse reporting.

Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Amar Ujala also stressed the political angle and attempt to suppress crime reporting as the reason behind the action against Neelu that Neelu was a political reporter at the time when S.P. came in Khiri, later he was also assigned the crime beat. She had been earlier in vigilance and Traffic Department. This was her first posting in a district. Rama Nand was SP at that time and a sandal tree was cut from his bungalow. A dacoity also took place. A bag was recovered. Half was shown as recovered and remaining was not accounted for. Both these news were published. She took these news reports seriously. When follow up news was published, one officer, R.P. Shukla and others provoked S.P. Other journalists got frightened and they started to come closer to the S.P. She was ultimately transferred.

Fact Finding Committee held its next hearing at New Delhi on 13.2.2007.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

Shri Samiuddin Neelu, complainant

Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, advocate for the complainant

Smt. N. Padmaja, the then Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur

Shri A.K. Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, Bulandshar-Respondent

Proceedings before the Fact Finding Committee

Smt. Padmaja submitted that the instant complaint had been got enquired into from various agencies. No allegation against her had been proved. She

80 added that she had never met the reporter and she had nothing to add to whatever she submitted earlier.

The Committee inquired from her whether the complainant was in jail during her tenure in Lakhimpur Khiri and whether the information about the arrest of the complainant was given to the Director, Information and Public Relations Department as the arrested person was a journalist.

She replied that in routine many cases were being registered. She stated that as far as she remembered she got the arrest stayed in the next day. She expressed ignorance about the procedure of informing the Director, I&PRD. The Convener pointed out that the complainant who was a journalist and not a criminal, should not have been handcuffed. She submitted that she was not apprised about the handcuffing of the complainant. The Committee asked the respondent whether the report of the CB-CID was interim or final.

She replied that as the Administration has accepted the report, as far as she knew it was administratively final. The report would be final only when this was disposed off by the Court. CB-CID was an independent body. She was unable to comment as to what CB-CID had found in their inquiry.

She also conveyed to the Committee her unhappiness that whenever she was called by the Press Council of India, this news was published prominently by Amar Ujala.

Shri A.K. Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that the Police was not concerned with the findings of the CB-CID. It would send its report directly to the Court. The Court would then call the complainant and the respondent to find out whether they were satisfied or not with the findings of the CB-CID. He added unless CB-CID closes the case it could not be final. If some lacuna was found in any matter by the CB-CID, they give findings against the police.

The Fact Finding Committee asked Smt. Padmaja about the charge that the complainant was picked up for encounter. She replied that encounter could never be pre-planned. It was not true that the complainant was taken for encounter. She added that she and the District Magistrate signed a letter recommending for a CB-CID inquiry into the matter.

The Committee further inquired as to charge of her interference whenever shadow was given to complainant. Smt. Padmaja replied that she could not interfere in the matter as the shadow was being provided on the recommendation of the District Authorities.

81 She filed her written submissions, the gist of which is as under: During her posting as Superintendent of Police at Lakhimpur Khiri, a criminal case was filed against Shri Samiuddin, Staff Reporter, Amar Ujala, number 439/05 under Section 51 of the Wild Life Act, 1950 and case number 440/05 under Section 4/10 of PGT Act on 16.2.2005 for which he had filed baseless complaint before the Council against her. It was submitted that the CB-CID in its report observed that “The allegations against Smt. N. Padmaja, the then Superintendent of Police, Khiri were not found true”. It has been accepted by the Administration after consideration. She stated that in the investigations conducted by different agencies nothing adverse against her was found. She requested that keeping in view the above facts the complaint may be dismissed. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was given security but no letter was given to him stating the period for which the security was provided. The Fact Finding Committee directed the complainant to file an affidavit giving his submissions in the matter. Accordingly the complainant, after the meeting of the Fact Finding Committee filed an affidavit submitting: 1. That the police and administration are playing fouls against the deponent and his life is in danger. 2. That the personal security of deponent was ensured by the order of this Hon’ble Council. But the police and administration in collusion joined hands and withdrawing security off and on. 3. That the Opposite Party N. Padmaja is having effective position in administration especially in Home Department. She got success in procuring the letter of clean chit from the administration especially when the investigation is pending. When the proceedings of investigation are pending, no inference may be drawn until the finality of investigation. The Inspector CB-CID has recorded the entire evidence against the deponent and could not found any prima-facie case against the deponent till date. The SOG team was under direct control of SSP, Ms. Padmaja. She was titled to take revenge due to continuous publication against the working of police directly or indirectly under control of Ms. N. Padmaja. 4. That it is a matter of record during the proceedings at Lucknow on 6.1.2007, Home Secretary had assured to grant security/gunner to deponent

82 within two days. The security was granted only on 27.1.2007 without any reference of order of this Council. On 27.1.2007, Mr. Avdhesh visited deponent and informed him that he has been deputed for deponent’s security by the order of R.I. Lakhimpur. The deponent met with R.I. Lakhimpur and enquired about the deputation of Mr. Avdhesh R.I. Lakhimpur confirmed the same orally and refuted to give any thing in writing. The deponent was surprised, when the same security was substituted by another person Mr. Jagat Singh without giving any intimation. This all was done at the behest of Smt. Padmja, who is entangled to kill the deponent just to close chapter once for all.

5. That the deponent is apprehending that he would be killed by any person in the police uniform. In the present circumstances, the administration should provide security with specific identity of gunner along with covering letter to deponent with C.C. to Press Council of India and National Human Right Commission till the subsistence of service of Ms. N. Padmaja. If the security is substituted in any condition, prior information is required to be given to deponent and concerned authorities.

The matter was then adjourned with directions to call for the comments of Director General, CB-CID, Director General of Police and Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, as the CB-CID in its report observed that “From the whole investigation proceedings of crime branch till date, confirmed and sufficient evidence is not available against Samiuddin alias Neelu, S/o of Alauddin Shastri, Journalist, Amar Ujala, Lakhimpur. It is found that allegations levelled against Smt. N. Padmaja, the then Superintendent of Police, Khiri could not be proved. In connection with the conduct of the concerned police officer/ employees thorough inquiry is being conducted.

The letters were issued to all concerned for filing their comments on 15.2.2007.

Complainant’s letter dated 19.4.2007

The complainant in a letter dated 19.4.2007 informed the Fact Finding Committee that after directions from the NHRC and Press Council of India his security had been extended till 27.4.2007. He requested the Fact Finding Committee to issue necessary directions to the State Government and the local Administration to extend the same. The complainant further informed that final report had already been filed by the CB-CID but no action has been initiated against the erring police officials.

83 The Convenor of the Fact Finding Committee apprised the members of the Inquiry Committee in its meeting held at New Delhi on 26.4.2007 about the development in the matter. In the absence of response from the authorities the Fact Finding Committee/ Inquiry Committee decided to issue summons to D.G., CB-CID and I.G., Police Government of Uttar Pradesh for the next meeting. The Inquiry Committee further decided that the Government of Uttar Pradesh may be directed to provide security to the complainant till the matter is finally disposed off by the Council. Respondent’s reply dated 21.5.2007 In response to the Council’s letter dated 12.4.2007 Shri R.M. Srivastav, Secretary Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 21.5.2007 filed a copy of the CB-CID report and clarified as follows: 1. Final report has been filed by the CB-CID. 2. Final report in respect of the cases registered against Shri Samiuddin Neelu has been forwarded to CJM, Lakhimpur, Khiri. 3. CB-CID has already issued a letter dated 17.3.2007 to the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Khiri to initiate departmental action against the police personnel related to the arrest of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, journalist. 4. A gunner had been provided to Shri Neelu for three months and later the police security was extended till 15.5.2007. Reply received from the respondent CB-CID, Government of Uttar Pradesh. In response to the Council’s letter’s dated 15.2.2007 and 12.4.2007 the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID vide his letter dated 9.6.2007 informed as follows: 1. The report has been finalised by the CB-CID. 2. In the absence of evidence the final report relating to the cases registered against Shri Neelu (i) case number 439/2005 under Section 51 of Wild Life Conservation Act and (ii) case number 440/2005 under Section 4/10 PGT Act have been filed in the CJM Court, Lakhimpur, Khiri on 7.4.2007 which are pending before the court. 3. A departmental action has been recommended vide CB-CID letter No. 109-110/05 dated 17.3.2007 against the police personnel, Sub-Inspector Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Head Constable, Harender Kumar Tyagi, Head

84 Constable Satnam Singh and Constables Bhagirath Sharma, Adhesh Sharma, Devender Pal Singh, Shakeel Ahmed, Jagdish Prasad Tiwari and Constable Driver, Lakhan Singh who were involved in the arrest of Shri Samiuddin Neelu and the same is pending before the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, Khiri.

4. CB-CID is not responsible to provide security to Shri Samiuddin Neelu or to any other person. Thus the department can not file comments on the issue.

Meeting of the Fact Finding Committee of the Council held on 15.6.2007 at New Delhi

Appearance

Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Staff Reporter, Amar Ujala - Complainant

Appearance on behalf of the Respondent Authorities

Shri Suresh Chandra Mishra, Special Secretary (Home), U.P. Secretariat

Shri Pramod Kumar, S.P. CB-CID

Shri Deepak Ratan, SSP, Ghaziabad

Shri Harpal Singh, Inspector, CB-CID, Lakhimpur, Khiri

The complainant reiterated his grievance and requested for extension of his security.

The Fact Finding Committee asked the respondent authorities to provide security to the complainant and review the same after every three months. The respondent authorities assured the Fact Finding Committee that the matter of providing the security to the complainant would be considered by the concerned Committee in its next meeting and the report would be sent to the Fact Finding Committee by the 5th July 2007.

Complainant’s letter dated 12.7.2007

The complainant vide his letter dated 12.7.2007 informed that security provided to him had already been withdrawn and no action initiated so far against the erring police officials. He requested the Council to direct the Central Government to provide him security to enable him to perform his journalistic duties freely and fearlessly.

85 In the absence of any intimation from the authorities in pursuance of their assurance on 5 July, 2007 summons dated 6.8.2007 were issued to Dr. J. N. Chamber, Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and Shri Singh, Director General of Police, Lucknow to appear before the FFC on August 30th 2007 at New Delhi.

Reply dated 17.8.2007 of Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh

The Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow vide his fax dated 17.8.2007 informed that the action has already been initiated against the erring police officials who have been found guilty in the report filed by CB - CID.

Forwarding a copy of report of the Superintendent of Police, Khiri in this regard, the respondent submitted that one of the erring police officials, Constable Bhagirath Sharma has expired on 14.6.2007 thus no positive order could be issued against him. Regarding other erring officials orders have been issued to stop their annual increment for one year.

The respondent has further submitted that information is being sought to provide security to the complainant, Shri Samiuddin Neelu.

Reply dated 22.8.2007 of Inspector General of Police, (Personnel) Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow

The Inspector of Police, (Personnel) Uttar Pradesh Lucknow vide his fax dated 22.8.2007 forwarded a letter dated 19.8.2007 of the Superintendent of Police, Khiri submitting that as per orders dated 12.7.2007 of the State Government, a gunner can be provided to the complainant, Shri Samiuddin Neelu for his security for six months on 100% payment basis. Shri Samiddin Neelu had already been informed on 18.7.2007 about the orders but as he had not deposited the amount, the gunner could not be provided to him.

Appearance on behalf of the respondent authorities on 30.8.2007

1. Shri Chandra Prakash, DIG, Lucknow Range appeared on behalf of the DGP, Uttar Pradesh.

2. Shri Sarvesh Chandra Mishra, Special Secretary, Home appeared on behalf of the Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh.

The Complainant, Shri Samiuddin Neelu was present before Fact Finding Committee.

86 Hearing before the Fact Finding Committee

At the outset the Fact Finding Committee expressed its deep displeasure over the absence of the DGP and the Home Secretary despite summons. They had neither given any cogent reason for not appearing before the Committee nor requested for adjournment.

The Fact Finding Committee was not thus inclined to hear the subordinates particularly as on the last occasion Shri Sarvesh Chandra Mishra, Special Secretary, Home had assured the Committee that the decision of the Government shall be conveyed to the Council on or before 5.7.2007 which he failed to do so.

New Council

New Committee Meeting Proceedings

The Press Council of India in its meeting held on October 4-5, 2007 at noted that the Fact Finding Committee constituted by the Inquiry Committee- II of the IXth Press Council to conduct on the spot inquiry had to gather facts relevant to the complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur, Khiri, U.P., based staff reporter/Correspondent of Amar Ujala, Hindi daily against Smt. N. Padmaja, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, Khiri, for alleged harassment and kidnapping in February 2005 with intention to have him killed in a fake encounter as a reprisal measure for publishing news reports found unpalatable by the respondent. The Fact Finding Committee held its hearings on 6th. 7th January 2007, at Lucknow, on 8th January 2007, at Lakhimpur, Khiri and on 13th February 2007, and 15th June 2007 and 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. Further inquiries in the matter were still pending. It therefore, decided that the functioning of the Fact Finding Committee may continue in the next term with necessary changes in the membership to take the matter to a logical conclusion.

The re-constituted Xth Council in its First meeting held on 8.2.2008 at New Delhi constituted the Fact Finding Committee to act in furtherance of the proceedings of the Committee constituted in the last term of the Council with the following members:

1. Shri U.C. Sharma, Convenor

2. Shri K. Sreenivas Reddy, Member

3. Shri Milan Kumar Dey, Member

4. Shri B.M. Solanki, M.P., Member

87 5. Ms. Suman Gupta, Member

6. Shri S.N. Sinha, Member (Co-opt)

7. Shri V.K. Chopra, Member (Co-opt)

At the Fact Finding Committee meeting held on 2.5.2008 at Lucknow the representatives of the Government of Uttar Pradesh assured the Committee that:

1. An advisory letter would be issued to all concerned police and administrative officials to look into the matters expeditiously involving harassment/arrest of a journalists/newspapers and would inform the Press Council of India about the arrest/assault of a journalist with in 24 hours.;

2. The police officials who were found guilty by the CB-CID in the instant matter and ordered transfer from Lakhimnpur Khiri and were still there would be transferred;

3. The Home Secretary assured to provide security within the limited sources available to Shri Samiuddin Neelu, the complainant, free of cost if the complainant sends his request. (The Committee directed the complainant to move an application to the Home Secretary for providing free security to him).

The Fact Finding Committee in its meeting held on 15.5.2008 at New Delhi observed that despite the assurances given by the state authorities before it at its last meeting no reply has been received. It directed to call for Action taken report from the Secretary, Home and Director General of Police with reference to the assurances given by them in the matter.

Vide Council letter dated 08.08.2008 the Government of Uttar Pradesh was requested to file the Action Taken Report in the matter to enable the Committee to finalise the report.

The Fact Finding Committee in its meeting held on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi observed that as per its directions the letter dated 8.8.2008 had been issued to the Secretary, (Home) and Director General of Police to file the Action Taken Report in the matter. The Committee also observed that the complainant has written letters to the State Authorities to provide him security free of cost but no action has been initiated by them. The Committee expressed its displeasure towards the attitude of the State Authorities and directed to issue them reminder to comply with the directions of the Fact Finding Committee.

88 The respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh was reminded vide letter dated 8.9.2008 to file Action Taken Report in the matter. In the absence of any reply a final reminder dated 6.10.2008 was issued to the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to submit the desired action taken report within two weeks failing which it will be assumed that the State Government is not serious to comply with the assurances given by them before the FFC and the Committee will submit its final report. The Secretary, Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Government of Uttar Pradesh in their reply dated October 27, 2008 and October 21, 2008 submitted that all the Senior Police Superintendents as well as District Magistrates have been directed vide letter dated 7.9.2008 to initiate immediate action in the matters of the journalists. All the Police officials concerned with the complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu have been transferred from the District of Khiri. Sub-Inspector Shri Harender Tyagi, Head Constable, Shri Satnam Singh and Constable, Sakeel Ahmed had been transferred but in view of the pending writ petition no. 1734(SS) 2005 filed in the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench they are still posted in the Khiri district. Stay vacation application and affidavit have already been filed on 26.4.2008 in the Court to reject the writ petition, which is under consideration. Regarding providing security to Shri Samiuddin Neelu they have submitted that an application was received from the complainant and the District Committee considered the same. The Inquiry report of the District Committee was considered by a high level committee constituted by the State Government and it was found that there was no justification to provide security to Shri Samiuddin Neelu. An order dated 19.08.2008 has been issued by the State Government in this regard. Observations and recommendations of the Fact Finding Committee The Committee after considering the documents on record and the oral submissions put forth before it by the complainant and other journalists and by the respondent police authorities observed that the issue of the arrest of the complainant, Neelu was widely reported in the newspapers. The issue was also raised in the assembly and the Chief Minister had instructed the CB-CID to ensure the release of the complainant. N.H.R.C. and Minority Commission had also taken cognizance of the matter. The Committee observed from the statement of CB-CID that they had recommended departmental action against ten police officials one of them of S.I. level and other nine constables but this version of the CB-CID is only in papers and no action has been taken by the CB-CID. Thus the allegations of the complainant, that he was harassed and arrested by the police for his critical reports, were not without substance. The Committee

89 felt that the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of observations made above were sufficient to draw the conclusion that Shri Neelu, the complainant, was arrested and put behind the bars due to extraneous consideration. The Committee opined that the junior level police officials could not dare to take such a drastic step of arresting a journalist and booking him under Wild Life Conservation Act without the directions and wishes of their senior officer. The Committee, thus, concluded that Smt. Padamaja, the then S.S.P., Lakhimpur, Khiri, was prompted by critical reports to have Neelu arrested. The action of the S.S.P., reprisal to the adverse reports filed by the complainant against the working of the local police, was an indirect attempt to curtail the freedom of the press. The Committee, therefore, recommends that: 1. As the complainant apprehends threat to his life, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh should ensure safety of the life and property of Shri Neelu. The Government should for the next five years review every six months the threat perceptions of the complainant under intimation to the Press Council of India. If some mishappening occurs with this journalist during this time the State Government shall be responsible for the same. 2. Smt. Padmaja, the then SSP, Lakhimpur, Khiri should not be given such a posting where she could interfere with press freedom through direct or indirect means. The Fact Finding Committee feels that not only the concerned officers but even the then State Government did not take timely step to stop the harassment of the journalist. They also failed to protect the freedom of the Press when the officers acted in a dictatorial manner. The finding of the Press Council of India may be recorded in the service record of all officers. 3. As accepted by the U.P. Government as a matter of principle if a journalist is arrested for some reasons, he/she should not be handcuffed in keeping with Supreme Court directions and the Press Council of India should be intimated about the arrest of journalist within 24 hours of such arrest. 4. The State Government may ensure compliance with instructions to the police authorities when charges that tantamount to suppressing the freedom of the press are established. 5. The action taken in the matter be intimated to the Council. 6. The Committee recommends that the decision of the Council should be placed in both the Houses of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. It further recommends that the Central Government should also place it before the Lok Sabha as well as Rajya Sabha for information. q

90 CHAPTER – VI Report on Charges of Police Brutality on Journalists of Print and Electronic Media in the Osmania University, Hyderabad- Assessment Committee Report Adopted by the Press Council of India on 31.3.2010

Facts

On a memorandum dated 19/2/2010 submitted by the Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists alleging that the police brutally beat up media (electronic & print) persons on 14th & 15th February, 2010 in the Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad while they were covering the student agitation, the Council in its meeting held on 22/2/2010 took note that the incident prima facie appeared to constitute attack on the freedom of the Press and its functioning and decided to set up an Assessment Committee to collect and assess the facts on the spot through interaction with the media and authorities. It also wrote to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 24/2/2010 to ensure that the journalists are able to discharge their duties without any fear or hindrance.

The Committee submitted its report to the Council on 31.3.2010 which accepted and adopted the findings of the Committee.

The Council noted and accepted that the Committee after hearing all the sides came to the conclusion that the incidents of February 14 and February 15 were cases of unprovoked and deliberate attack by the police on the journalists, who had gathered at the Osmania University campus to cover the ongoing agitation by the students. The recommendation of the Council based on the report are :-

“The State Government take disciplinary actions against the responsible police officers namely P. S. R. Anjaneyulu (IPS), Joint Commissioner, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Laddha (IPS) DCP, Mr. K. Ramachandra (IPS) ACP and Mr. B. Anjaiah, SHO and also identify the other police personnel responsible for

91 beating journalists and damaging their equipments and vehicles. It is further recommended that these four officials may not be given postings, where they may interfere with the freedom of the Press directly or indirectly. These remarks may also be recorded in their service records.

The Police prioritised and take immediate action on the complaints filed by the journalists.

The media should refrain from repeat telecast of old footage, which may foment tension. It is also advised to give adequate coverage of all sides concerned, in such sensitive situations, to avoid frictions.

The State Government of Andhra Pradesh should bear all the medical expenses of the injured journalists.

The State Government of Andhra Pradesh should compensate for the damage to the equipments and vehicles of the complainant journalists.

The Government should take cognizance of the fact that media is duty bound to cover an event and that any attempt to prevent such acts would be seen as move to curb their freedom and direct the officers to the State accordingly.

To prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future, the police would be well advised to appoint a senior official, as a nodal officer to interact with the media and keep the media abreast of the developing situation.

To prevent recurrence of incidents like that of February 14th and 15th, 2010, the police and media should together work out a mechanism to identify the mediapersons covering agitations etc. by issuing identity cards, prominent display of ‘Press insignia’ etc.

Action taken in pursuance of these matters be intimated to the Press Council of India.

The report may be placed in the State Assembly.

The Central Government may also place it before the two Houses of the Parliament for information.

Introduction

The Council in its meeting held on 22.2.2010 took note of memorandum dated 19.2.2010 of Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists regarding

92 attack on mediapersons by the police in Osmania University, Hyderabad on 14th and 15th February, 2010 while they were covering the students agitation. The Union has submitted that 28 journalists were injured, 13 cameras were broken, 19 vehicles were destroyed and two vehicles were burnt in the process. The Council also noted that a police officer was reported to have recorded his statement before High Court of Andhra Pradesh that they had burnt two vehicles.

The Council felt that the allegedly deliberate attempt of the police at intimidating the media needed thorough inquiry and decided to set up a three members Assessment Committee comprising of S/Shri S.N.Sinha, Kalyan Barooah, K.S.Reddy and K.Ramachandra Murty, Editor-in-chief, HM TV (co- opt member) to collect and assess the facts and conduct on the spot inquiry through interact with the media (Print & Electronic) and authorities

The Committee interacted and received written representations from media and authorities. The details of the appearances before the Assessment Committee and press clippings at Annexure ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’. The report of the Assessment Committee follows.

The Committee met on March 7 to March 9, 2010 at Press Academy Hall, Hyderabad. On March 7, 2010 the Committee heard the journalists and their organisations from print and electronic media, including the victims, who were assaulted by the police. The Committee also on the same day made an on the spot visit of Osmania University campus, where the incidents took place on February 14 and 15, 2010. The Committee further interacted with the students and professors of Osmania University to get details of the incidents. (Annexure-A)

On March 8, 2010, the Committee heard the views of the Principal Secretary Home of Andhra Pradesh Government including the Police Commissioner and other senior officers, including those who were part of the police team that was present on those two days at Osmania University. (Annexure-B)

Later on the same day, the Committee called on Home Minister, (Mrs.) P. Sabita Indra Reddy and Information and Public Relations Minister, Dr (Mrs.) J.S. Geetha Reddy at the State Secretariat.

On March 9, 2010 the Committee sat and discussed the submissions made by the journalists/association, students, the government and police officials and documents before them to assess the situation.

93 Statement of Reporters and Officials, who appeared before the Assessment Committee on 7th and 8th March 2010 at Hyderabad Shri T. Nagaraju, Reporter, Zee 24 Gantalu “On 14th February, 2010 evening I went to Osmania University to cover the students’ agitation on Telangana issue. Upon reaching the main gate of the University, the police force posted there, prevented and stopped the entry of mediapersons and asked us to use the other gate to gain entry into the University. By the time, the mediapersons reached the other gate, the agitation was over and the students were briefing the pressmen. In order to cover the scene, the mediapersons tried to go near the students and suddenly, the security personnel started lathi-charge on the media contingent and started beating them indiscriminately. When some media people identified themselves, they too were beaten up and their equipments damaged.” “The police were not willing to listen to any reasons. The entire team comprising Shri Keshav, Cameraman and Vignesh, Camera Assistant sustained multiple injuries. The injured journalists were immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. The policemen could have controlled the situation, if they wanted but on the contrary, they gave vent to their ire and started beating up the media men.” “Later, when they went to file the FIR the police officials refused to lodge the complaint, on the ground that the matter is being inquired by the CID. The case diary could be collected by them, after two-three days, if they so desired”. “It was quite clear that the action of the police was intentional and further during the incident of lathi-charge on mediapersons, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Shri P.S.R. Anjaneyalu, DCP, Shri Mahesh Kumar Laddha, ACPs, Shri Ramachandra, Shri Kamalhasan Reddy, SHO of Osmania University Police Station, Shri Anjaiah were present and were directing the operation.” S/Shri K.Amarnath, Secretary, Indian Journalists Union, D. Somasundar, President, AP Union of Working Journalists and Y. Narender Reddy, General Secretary, AP Union of Working Journalists Shri K. Amarnath, Secretary, Indian Journalists Union – “I appreciate the fact that Press Council of India has appointed a Committee to probe the incident of attack on journalists at Osmania University.” Appearing before the Committee, the Secretary of IJU, Shri K. Amarnath, APUWJ President, Shri D. Somasundar, General Secretary, Shri Y. Narender Reddy and Press Academy Chairman, Shri Devalupalli Amar told the Committee

94 that when the students were pelting stones, the police used a journalist identified as, Shri Narasinga Yadav, as human shield, even as, he was beaten up by the police. They poured petrol on his vehicle and burnt it. Shri Amarnath told the Committee that the then Commissioner of Hyderabad police, Shri B. Prasada Rao ordered the cutting of the cables of OB Vans of the TV channels to prevent them from broadcasting the events on Campus live. Shri Amarnath said on 15th morning, when the Chief Minister and the Home Minister were apologising to the media for the assault on journalists on 14th night, the police under the direction of PSR Anjaneyulu, Joint Commissioner of Police, the journalists were again beaten up on February 15 and their vehicles vandalised and equipments damaged, in the campus. The journalists injured in the police brutality on 14th February including Shri Narasinga Yadav, Ramakrishna, Yoganand, Chandrasekhar, K. Srivnivas, Raghupathi, Rama Varma, Ganesh, Kiran Kumar and others appeared before the Committee and explained their ordeal. In the police lathi-charge, 28 journalists were injured, 12 cameras and 19 vehicles of the mediapersons were damaged, he said. Deposing before the Committee, the IJU Secretary Shri Amarnath said the police targeted the journalists to prevent them from reporting on the situation in the Osmania University Campus. He alleged that it was direct attack on the freedom of the press and the peoples’ right to know. When journalists filed 21 cases, the police registered only seven FIRs, he said. As a counter to the journalists’ cases, a police constable filed a false complaint against the journalists, he alleged. Shri Amarnath said, when the APUWJ called for the boycott of the Assembly proceedings on Budget day on 20th February, the government announced that action would be taken against the police officials responsible for the attack on journalists, pay compensation for the damaged vehicles and equipments of the journalists, reimburse the medical expenses of the injured journalist and withdraw the cases filed against the journalists. But so far, the government failed to act on its promises, he told the Committee. Shri Narsinga Rao, Reporter, ABN While returning after covering the incidents in Osmania University, the police stopped him near Arts College. Upon showing his identity card, the policemen abused, pushed and assaulted him up and burnt his motorcycle by pouring petrol. He was used by the police, as a shield to protect themselves from stones pelted on them by the agitators.

95 Petition has been filed by Shri Narsinga Rao regarding the brutal attack on journalists covering the Osmania University agitation. Since the matter is sub-judice, no cognisance was taken by the Committee. Shri P.V. Srinivas Rao, General Secretary, AP Electronic Media Journalists Association

“This attack on journalists by the police is not spontaneous and hence not part of police duty. They are not forced to do this. This is a pre-determined, pre-meditated attack on journalists with an intention to control the Osmania University movement by diverting the attention to the attack on media and also to brush away the media from the Osmania University.” “The politicians have no control over the police officers. And the officers, who were in-charge, had no control over their men. They were let loose on the media. We have observed that the politicians and even the DCP were continuously apologising for the attacks on the media, the officers, who were in-charge of the University campus were continuing with their operations.” “The restrictions on the media to enter into the Osmania University campus continues and the entry of O.B. vans to cover the agitations in Osmania University is still being prevented.”

“This is despite the promises by the politicians and officers that they would allow the media to go into the Osmania University.” “On 15th February we were arguing with senior police officers in presence of some of my colleagues of the Andhra Pradesh Working Journalists and electronic media, when one constable snatched the camera from one of our journalists and then he has tried to throw it away. “We had to fight with the constable before the officers-in-charge there to get our camera” “This shows that even the officers, who were in-charge of the duty there, had no control over the forces. And again I have to say that the attacks were not spontaneous. They were continuously attacking the media for two days and on 14th February, they had beaten some journalists even as representatives of the journalists were meeting the senior police officials, Home Minister, DGP, Commissioner, as well as the Chief Minister.”

“All of them have admitted that there was some fault on part of the policemen, who were operating in Osmania University and some of them have apologised. Some of the Ministers have assured that this will not happen again

96 in future. Inspite of these assurances and apologies on 15th February, they had again attacked the media and you have just heard how they did that. They have identified the media first by their logos, their identity cards, and then they selectively targeted the journalists, who have been actively reporting to their respective channels.”

“Please note that this is not just an attack on the media and the routine process of the police discharging their duties. This is a dedicated pre-determined attack on media with a particular purpose. The Home Minister accepted the demand of the APEMJA and agreed to pay compensation for the damaged vehicles, equipments and cell phones. The State Government also promised to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the journalists for undergoing treatment at Private Hospitals, but nothing has been done, so far.”

Shri A. Ramakrishna, Reporter, MAHA TV

“On 14th February I received information from my office that one of my colleagues was beaten up in the University by the police and I rushed to the University.”

He stated that media vehicles were stopped outside the Osmania University and he went walking inside the University Campus. As he was entering the Osmania University, he saw that some of the journalist, who were beaten up were being taken out of the Campus. The injured journalists were taken to a hospital.

He mentioned that as he went up to the media point, located inside the Campus, he witnessed some lathi-charges. It was already dark and the lights were put off, when suddenly a group of policemen descended on him and started to mercilessly beat him up. They snatched away his channel’s logo from him. His leg was bleeding, due to the police lathicharge, he lay there, when he saw police preventing 108 ambulances into the University. After about two hours, he was admitted into Gandhi hospital and after some first aid, he went back to his native place and was treated there.

No case was filed. No FIR filed since he was not in Hyderabad and had gone to his native place.

Shri K. Sreenivas, Reporter, MAHA TV

There was a rally on 14th February in the University by the students. The students were marching towards the Arts College in support of the Telengana movement, when there was a heated argument between the students and the

97 police (6:50 p.m. or 7:00 p.m.). The students had decided to stage a dharna and were marching towards the police station. This Reporter was walking along with the ACP, who was in charge there and suddenly the ACP instructed his CI to order lathi-charge on the students. Suddenly, some of the policemen started abusing the reporter. The journalist was covering the agitation for the past three months for his channel and is a known face. Some 20 to 30 policemen surrounded him and were brutally beaten up. He was seen pleading with them. He even touched their feet, but to no avail. He had shown his ID card and his channel’s logos identifying himself as a journalist, though the beating continued. They were hurling abuses at him that he was responsible for these incidents in Osmania University. “You should be killed first. At least one media journalist should be killed first, so that the agitation will calm down,” the policed allegedly abused. They were officers around him, who were known to him but they did not bother to stop the lathi-charge and come to his rescue. Later, the same officers approached him and requested him not to make an issue of the incident. Others, who were taking photos of the incident, too were beaten up by the police. He alleged that nobody came to his rescue at that point, so he picked up his phone and called 108 for help. However, even 108 ambulances were denied entry into the Osmania University by the police. One Mr. Nagaraja from Zee TV finally came to his rescue, that too after he dared the policemen to kill him. After the policemen dispersed, he was taken to hospital. Shri A. Harish, Reporter, HMTV He was also covering the same incident, when the officer in-charge ACP- Shri Ramachandran ordered lathi-charge. The first person to come under the attack was a “Sakshi” journalist. It was while covering the attack that they too were also beaten up by the police. By then all the journalists moved to the media point and a journalist who was briefing the incident to his channel suddenly came under attack of a policeman, who had heard him informing his channel. He showed his ID card, as well as his camera, identifying himself as a journalist but it had no affect on the police. First they destroyed his camera and then started beating him up, even he has tried to escape from the clutch of the policemen but was chased. They ran to their waiting vehicles, kept at the middle point but by the time

98 police had already arrived and destroyed all the vehicles including two wheelers parked there. After about an hour, the ambulances came into the Osmania University and three of the injured journalists were taken to the hospital. The complaint of the police was that the media was showing only the police lathi-charge, but were not showing the hurling of stones by the students. Shri Raghupathi, Reporter, ETV On 14th February, he was there from the beginning, when the rally started from Arts College to NCC gate. At NCC gate arguments broke out between police and students. In front of Arts College, an incident of stone pelting took place after arguments between few students and CRPF constables. Lathi- charge started completely. ACP and CIA were also at the scene. Shri Goutham Kumar, IPS, Principal Home Secretary, Hyderabad In Andhra Pradesh, it is GAD which looks after law and order issues. GAD is general Administration Department. “In our Department, officially we would not have dealt with these incidents. It is only subsequently that on the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Principal Secretary Home would monitor the deployment of forces that I have been involved.” “So as far as the incidents of the 14th and 15th February are concerned, now there are two writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh one of them has been filed by a journalist, I think of Andhra Jyoti (Jayachandra) the other one is also by Swapna basically about the incidents on the students. After we received the letter from the Press Council we thought we don’t know about the Press Council Act exactly what it was so we thought we should take some opinion about it. Our Law Officer had said that as per 14(3) or whatever anything which a judicial forum is already taking into consideration the Press Council particular section says the Press Council at that time should not hold an inquiry into the matter. “So we had requested the Commissioner of Police that irrespective of the technicalities, basically the Assessment Committee is a Committee constituted by the Press Council and our job is irrespective of the technicalities, whatever information we have in this regard, it is our responsibility and duty to provide them to the Committee to come at the right conclusions.” “So what we had requested was the Commissioner of Police irrespective of this advise of the Law Officer, we will go and furnish whatever information we have already placed on record relating to the incidents on both these days

99 (14th & 15th). These have already been filed in the High Court and the States Human Rights Commission has already constituted an independent Inquiry Committee on that. Apart from this after these incidents the DGP has also asked the Additional DGP, CID, Shri Shiv Narayan to inquire into the whole gamut of these incidents and to submit a report about what exactly happened and how it happened. That of course we have not yet received so far. The department has not received. I think it may take another 15-20 days. That’s my personal feeling because I have not spoken to the DGP, CID.”

“Mr. Khan will be able to give you the information regarding the complaints filed with regard to incidents. But even I do not know whether, he also knows what those 21 complaints are because I know seven complaints are registered. I can find out why the other 14 were not registered. I am not sure whether he has that idea but any way he will try to throw some light on it.

In case Mr. Khan is aware of those 21 then there is no problem, he will straightaway be able to give the clarification. In case he does not have that information you can give those 21 incidents, which have been reported to you. The information, as to why it was not been registered that should not be a problem at all.

“As far as police, as a department is concerned, not only in Andhra Pradesh, nowhere can it function effectively without public support. The public support as a positive image of the public about the police is like oxygen for us. If they do not have that image about us, our functioning becomes very restricted and to that extent, we cannot be an effective organization and today the press and the media have a very important role in shaping this.”

So the government or the departments would hate any situation, where the Press feels the department wants to victimize the press or harass the press. Absolutely we do not want any such ideas. Unfortunately yes, there will be incidents. It is to deal with these incidents that these committees have been constituted at various levels. The Committee is chaired by the Hon’ble Home Minister, is a high level committee. The Committee should not treat these incidents as a police and media or a police versus media type of a thing, at all. The government has already made it clear that if there were any mistake on the part of anybody, suitable action would be taken.

“So my request to the Press Council and all of you Assessment Committee members is that if there is any I mean any particular incident, where yes, a police officer or some other officers have overstepped that should be seen in that light. I mean we should try to isolate those things so that we take suitable

100 action against those concerned there and we should not make it a press versus the police type of thing because it is not the intention of the police. If it is the intention of the police, it is suicidal step for us because without the support of the press and without the public support the police are nothing. Mr. A.K. Khan, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad vide his letter dated 08.03.2010 has stated that “after the arrest of Sri. K. Chandrashekhar Rao, President, Telangana Rastra Samithi (TRS) in Karimnagar district on 29.11.2009, students’ organizations of Osmania University who formed themselves into Telangana Students Joint Action Committee (TSJAC) intensified their agitation for separate state of Telangana. Since then thousands of students at various occasions have been indulging in violent activities like, stone pelting, damaging public and private properties including police and Press vehicles besides injuring scores of policemen both inside and outside the Osmania University Campus. Despite the provocative acts by the students, Police force deployed to maintain the law and order, exhibited remarkable restraint even in the face of serious injuries to several police personnel. “As things stood thus, as part of their agitation demanding separate Telangana and protesting against Government of India, on 14.2.2010 at about 5.00 P.M. a group of student (400) took out a procession from Arts College to Andhra Mahila Sabha to burn the effigy of Central Government. When the police tried to persuade them not to go out of Campus as prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.PC was in force. After lot of persuasion they burnt the effigy by raising slogans against the police and left the place. “They again gathered at Arts College in huge numbers after making a vain bid to go out of campus at ladies hostel. On seeing the police, students divided into groups and proceeded towards Manikeshwarnagar and towards Tarnaka. Keeping the previous experiences in view, the police advised them not to assemble and rush towards Tarnaka, they got enraged and pelted stones heavily on police under the cover of darkness and trees. Left with no other option, police after sufficient warnings, fired tear gas cells as a result of which agitators scattered for a while but regrouped and intensified the stone pelting. Police having no option left used mild force to defend themselves and disperse the crowd. While retreating they set on fire four tents of police and damaged some vehicles and other equipment. In this melee, some policemen, students and journalists received minor injuries who are immediately shifted to hospital in the available vehicles/ambulances.

101 “On receipt of this information, senior police officials rushed to the spot to monitor the situation. Meanwhile, agitators regrouped and resumed pelting of stones on police under the shield of girl students. As use of force was not so effective to deter the aggressive students, police fired rubber bullets and tear gas shells to bring the situation under control. With this agitators ran towards Arts College and some ran towards B-Hostel. In the melee some girl students who acted as human shield fell on the ground and received injuries. The entire situation was finally brought under control between 9 and 11 PM.

“Again on 15.2.2010, students pelted stones on police near B- Hostel and Arts College and damaged barbed wire fencing meant for blockade and indulged in heavy stone pelting. At this juncture, the police made announcements though bell-hailers asking agitators to move away but the stone pelting by students went unbated etc. The police in self-defence fired tear gas shells. The students of B-Hostel standing on terrace and from 1st floor windows were in elevated position and in the stone pelting that followed, some police personnel received injuries. Apart from stone pelting by the agitators, the media personnel attacked Ankama Rao, PC. 8134, who was covering the incidents at B-Hostel.

“Around 12.30 PM, a group of about 70 media personnel entered the campus to protest against alleged manhandling and assault on media by the police personnel. At the same time, a group of lawyers also came to pacify the agitators. Meanwhile the State Human Rights Commission along with its members once again visited the University Campus and were attempting to convince the agitators not to resort to violence. And around 3.00 P.M., the media personnel and the lawyers came to represent their grievances like media personnel getting injured while they were covering the incidents to the police officers camping at the Osmania University Police Station.

“From on 29.11.2009 till date, there were numerous instances of similar mobilization of agitators in which the police, civilians who are passers-by, press photographers and vehicles were attacked, and then entering the main road, rushing to Tarnaka, Habsiguda and Manikeshwar Nagar, damaging public and private property and also caused injuries to the passers-by.

“Following this the DGP, AP has ordered an inquiry into the incidents on 14.02.2010 and 15.02.2010 in the premises of the Osmania University Campus to be conducted by Sri Sivanarayana, Addl. DGP, CID and the report of which is awaited. The witnesses’ statements are being recorded and the proceedings

102 are underway. The Committee appointed by the State Human Rights Commission is also looking into the matter independently and the report is awaited. All steps necessary to be taken for preservation of law and order shall be taken and allegations of use of excessive force are being inquired into and action shall be taken on the basis of the reports awaited in this regard. It is however, necessary to submit here that the police machinery have been restrained ever since the outbreak of protests and demonstrations with effect from 29.11.2009 and the situation being volatile, the police had to use mild force to ensure that any violent activity does not spill over so as to aggravate any situation impacting the general peace and law and order in the city. The violence and subsequent use of force did result in injuries to the agitators, journalists and the police personnel themselves and the sequence of events leading to such a situation is being enquired in the manner indicated supra, the report of which is awaited.

“As regards the incident relating to Sri Narsing Rao, journalist of ABN Andhra Jyothi channel, a complaint lodged at Osmania University police station, FIR was issued vide Cr. No. 67/2010 under Section 324 and 435 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The same was transferred to CCS for investigation, and as per the orders of the Commissioner of Police and re-registered as Cr. No. 33/2010 with the CCS Deptt. of the Hyderabad City Police. A few witnesses have been examined and the investigation is in progress.

“In the light of the above facts, the Press Council of India is once again requested to not to embark on an enquiry into the subject matter immediately and to await the conclusion of the hearing by the Hon’ble High Court in the very same issues sub-judice in W.P. No. 3444/2010 and W.P. No. 3669/2010".

In response of D.O. letter of Hon’ble Chairman Press Council of India, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh has written that he “holds the media in high esteem and have the best of relations with them.

“I have always asked the police to show maximum restraint particularly against students and media. The police entered the Osmania University campus only to avert violence and to maintain law and order. But when it was represented to me by the media that police have used force against them also on 14th and 15th of February 2010, I immediately asked the DGP and other senior officers to rush to the spot. I also asked the Home Minister Smt. Sabitha Indra Reddy to order a probe into the incident Additional DGP, Mr. Sivanarayana, IPS immediately started probe into this incident. The Government is determined to take stern action against those found guilty.

103 “I assure you that Mediapersons (both print and electronic) in Andhra Pradesh will have full freedom to discharge their duties without any fear and the State Government will ensure full protection to them.”

The Findings

The Committee after hearing all the sides, has come to the conclusion that the incidents of February 14 and February 15 were cases of unprovoked and deliberate attack by the police on the journalists, who had gathered at the Osmania University campus to cover the ongoing agitation by the students. There were ample evidences including video footage submitted by the journalists to suggest that the Police personnel on orders of the superior officials identified and targeted the mediapersons taking advantage of the surcharged atmosphere prevailing at the university campus.

Several journalists who were injured in the incidents of February 14 and February 15, deposed before the Committee, stated that they were assaulted by the police despite them having identified themselves as mediapersons, by showing identity cards, mike guns with logos. It was further reported to the Committee that in some cases, the assault intensified after the journalists identified themselves to the policemen.

Some of the journalists displayed before the Committee, their broken and damaged equipments and also submitted medical reports of the injuries they suffered at the hands of the policemen. The Committee has also noted with concern the allegations levelled by several of the journalists that the security force personnel did not allow the ambulances inside the campus to evacuate the injured, leaving them to fend for themselves.

It was also brought to the notice of the Committee that though the police bandobast was made to control the agitators, the lathi charge left less number of students injured, while over 28 journalists were injured, some seriously, leaving the Committee with no option but to conclude that media men were deliberately assaulted.

The Committee tried to ascertain from the injured journalists and the students, who were present on the fateful day, whether the police gave them enough warning before resorting to lathi charge. The Committee was told that no such warnings came and the assault was totally unprovoked and caught them unawares.

It was also brought to the notice of this Committee that attempts by the injured journalists to register FIR with the Osmania University Police Station

104 were not immediately complied with. On February 15, only two FIRs were filed by the police. Subsequently, five FIRs were filed, while 27 complaints were lodged with the police. The Committee has noted that the restrictions on the media covering the agitation at the university campus, described by the police officials themselves, as the epicentre of the movement, was systematically imposed over a period of time. Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists in the memorandum 5/1/ 2010 to Mr. R. Girish Kumar, IPS, Director-General of Police, Hyderabad said “we strongly protest against the stopping of electronic media vehicle from entering into the Osmania University Campus today by the police. In a high handed action, the police today stopped the vehicles of the electronic media including the Open Broadcasting Vans. They cut the wires of the OB Vans of several news channels. At that time, the Osmania University Campus was calm and quiet and no agitation was going on. “The action of the police amounts to pre-censorship of news, which is unconstitutional and undemocratic. When approached, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mr. Praveen Kumar told the representatives of the electronic media that he decided to ban the entry of electronic media vehicles to prevent broadcasting of news from the Osmania University campus live. His statement and actions goes to prove that the police have decided to impose pre-censorship on the media. “We understand the concerns of the law enforcing machinery in surcharged situations. But we cannot accept a situation where the police stifle the voice of the media under the guise of concerns of law and order. Any form of pre- censorship is illegal and unconstitutional. The DIG, who prevented the electronic media vehicles into Osmania University Campus, has by his actions violated the fundamental right of free expression. “We request you to kindly intervene and allow the vehicles of electronic media free passage without any restriction. We also request you to instruct the police officers not to impose any restriction on the media which smacks of pre- censorship of news”. The first act was to prevent the OB vans of the electronic channels into the campus. Later, the cable connections were snapped by the police. When the senior officials of the police and the Andhra Pradesh Government, who appeared before the Committee was asked about it, they mentioned that no such formal orders were issued. They also denied that the police acted deliberately against the journalists. The officials claimed that they had not prevented the ambulances from evacuating the injured.

105 But the Committee remains unconvinced of their assertions because the police could not have acted so brutally against the journalists, some of whom they themselves admitted were known to them. When it was brought to the notice of the police officials that even FIR were not being filed, they immediately agreed to review the 27 complaints lodged by the journalists and include their names in the FIRs.

On the report of the counter complaints lodged by a police constable on February 17, 2010, alleging that he was assaulted by media men, they apprised the Committee that no further action would be initiated on this matter, as the concerned ‘constable has expressed his desire not to press with his charges’

The police officials claimed that some 19 of their personnel including a senior official sustained injuries and tried to argue that the media ignored such incidences. But the Committee noted that adequate media coverage was also given to such incidences.

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the judgment dated 16-02-2010 said :-

“The Petitioner is a Journalist. Even if a part of what is stated by him in the affidavit is true, it is a sad reflection on the very functioning of the State Government, and in particular, the Police Department. The petitioner states that, after covering the incident, that occurred in the University Campus, he wanted to handover the CD to his channel, and when he was proceeding towards his motorcycle, he received a telephone call and that he was answering it. He was said to have been surrounded by about 20 Police Constables, and shortly thereafter, not only he was beaten, but also his motorcycle was burnt. The petitioner appeared, in person, with bandage on his head, and marks of beating on his back are clearly visible. According to him, the whole of incidents in the University Campus were orchestrated by one, Sri P. Seetharama Anjaneyulu, Joint Commissioner of Police”.

After listening to all the sides, the Committee gained the impression that some officers of the police acted with vengeance, perhaps on the assumption that given the surcharged atmosphere that prevailed at that point of time blacking out news coverage of the agitation would prevent further intensification of the movement.

Local news channel quoted Mr. P Sitharamanjaneyuly IPS and Joint Commissioner (Co-ordination and Security) Hyderabad Police, as having said on February 14, 2010 at the Osmania campus. “There is no possibility of allowing

106 the media (into the Osmania University campus)in the present situation. I will come and take you inside when I can allow. I will come and tell you openly. I once again apologise. I will come out once in every twenty minutes and brief you. I will let you know the status. Nobody is dying. Nothing is happening to anyone.”

The Committee’s opinion is also based on the submission made by the concerned DCP of the area, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Laddha IPS and Mr. A. Anjaiah, the Station House Officer of the local police station. Mr. Laddha completely denied any knowledge of the lathi charge on media on the February 14 and 15 despite being present on the spot.

He also claimed that he was unaware of so many media men being injured, in an area under his jurisdiction, even after the news was given extensive coverage. He said he did not make any effort to find out what happened on the fateful evening, an unbelievable presumption. He took the plea that some media men may have been injured in the melee. Beyond that he had no information. The media was again assaulted on the morning of February 15, even as journalists were meeting senior State Government officials to protest about the previous evening’s assault.

It would be pertinent to mention here that the Committee could not hear the views of Mr. P. Sitharamanjaneyuly IPS and Joint Commissioner (Co- ordination and Security) Hyderabad Police, who were identified by the complainant journalists, as being allegedly responsible for the attack on February 14 and February 15, 2010. It was reported to the Committee that he has gone on long leave, inspite of being served with a notice on February 24, 2010. Three other officers also did not appear before the Committee.

Recommendations:

The Committee recommends that the State Government take disciplinary actions against the responsible police officers namely P. S. R. Anjaneyulu (IPS) Joint Commissioner, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Laddha (IPS) DCP, Mr. K. Ramachandra (IPS) ACP and Mr. B. Anjaiah, SHO and also identify the other police personnel responsible for beating journalists and damaging their equipments and vehicles. It is further recommended that these four officials may not be given postings, where they may interfere with the freedom of the press directly or indirectly. These remarks of the Assessment Committee be recorded in their service records also.

107 The Committee also recommends that the Police take immediate action on the complaints filed by the journalists.

It is also recommended that the media should refrain from repeat telecast of old footage, which may create tension. The media is also advised to give adequate coverage of all sides concerned, in such situations, to avoid frictions.

The Committee also recommends that the State Government of Andhra Pradesh pay all medical expenses of the injured journalists.

It is also recommended that the State Government of Andhra Pradesh should compensate for the damages of the equipments and vehicles of the complainant journalists.

It is also recommended that the Government should take cognisance of the fact that media is duty bound to cover any event and any attempt to prevent such acts would be seen as move to curb their freedom.

The Committee is of the view that to prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future, the police would be well advised to appoint a senior official, as a nodal officer to interact with the media. The official may keep the media abreast of the developing situation.

It is also recommended that to prevent incidents like that of February 14 and 15, 2010 the police and media should sit together and work out a mechanism to identify the mediapersons covering any agitation by issuing identity cards, prominent display of ‘Press insignia’ etc.

The Committee recommends that the action taken in the matter be intimated to the Press Council of India. The Committee recommends that this report be placed in both the Houses of the State Legislature and that the Central Government also place it before the two Houses of the Parliament for information.

108 Annexure - A Appearance before the Assessment Committee at Hyderabad on 7th February 2010 1. Shri Nagaraju Journalist Zee 24 Gantalu Hyderabad 2. Representatives of APUWJ Shri D. Soma Sundar, President Shri K Amarnath, Secretary Shri Y Narender Reddy, General Secretary 3. Shri Narsinga Rao, Journalist ABN Andhra Jyothi (Case file before High Court of Andhra Pradesh) Hyderabad 4. Shri P.V. Srinivasa Rao, Gen. Secretary AP Electronic Media Journalists Association Hyderabad 5. Shri A. Ramakrishna, Journalist MAHA TV Hyderabad 6. Shri K. Sreenivas, Reporter MAHA TV Hyderabad 7. Shri A. Hareesh, Reporter HMTV Hyderabad 8. Shri Raghupathi, Reporter ETV Hyderabad 9. Shri P. Yoganand, Reporter ABN Andhra Jyothi Hyderabad 10. Shri Chandra Shekar, Reporter ABN Andhra Jyothi Hyderabad

109 11. Shri V. Ramu, photographer ETV Hyderabad 12 Shri P.V. Ramanakumar Bureau Chief MAHA TV Hyderabad 13. Shri D. Ganesh, Journalist Sakshi Hyderabad 14. Shri B. Kirankumar, Journalist Viswlaandhra Hyderabad 15. Shri Keshav, Cameraman Zee 24 Gantalu Hyderabad 16. Shri Ramakrishna, Photographer Sakshi Hyderabad

110 Annexure - B Appearance before the Assessment Committee at Hyderabad on 8th February 2010 1. Shri Goutham Kumar, IPS Principal Secretary Home Hyderabad 2. Shri A.K. Khan, IPS Commissioner of Police Hyderabad 3. Shri R. S. Praveen Kumar DIG Special Branch Hyderabad 4. Shri Mahesh Chandra Laddha IPS Dy. Commissioner of Police Hyderabad 5. Mr. B. Anjaiah Inspector of Police & station house Officer Osmania Campus Police Station Hyderabad

111 Annexure-C 1. English Summary of the report that appeared in Telugu Daily dated 8th March 2010. Police Brutality in Name of Telangana Dateline Hyderabad (Newstoday) The police targeted the mediapersons in the Osmania University Campus on February 14 and 15 and brutally attacked them, the journalists alleged. Appearing before the Press Council Committee consisting of Mr. S.N. Sinha, Mr. Kalyan Barooah, Mr. K. Sreenivas Reddy and K. Ramachandra Murthy here on Sunday in the Press Academy Auditorium they said in the police attack 12 cameras and 16 vehicles were damaged and 22 journalists were injured. Later the Committee members visited the Osmania University Campus where the journalists were beaten up by the police. Presenting its evidence before the Committee, the Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists (APUWJ) alleged that the police brutality attacked the media personal to scare them away from reporting the agitation of the students in the Campus. The police were under the notion that if the agitation was covered by the media, it would get peter out, the Union said. State Press Academy Chariman, D. Amar, IJU Secretary, K. Amarnath, APUWJ President, D Somasunder, General Secretary Y. Narender Reddy appeared before the Committee. Zee 24 hrs Channel reporter and cameraman, Nagaraju Gupta and Keshav, ETV Reporter, Raghupathi, Maha TV Reporter Rama Krishna, Yoganand, Chandrasekhar and Narsing Rao of ABN Andhra Jyothi Channel, Ram Varma of Eenadu daily, Kranti Kiran of TV9 appeared before the Committee and gave evidence on the police lathicharge on journalists. 2. English Summary of the report that appeared in Andhra Bhoomi Telugu Daily dated 8th March 2010.

A Wanton Attack Journalists tell the Press Council Team Dateline Hyderabad (Andhra Bhoomi Bureau) The Press Council Committee held an hearing on Sunday on the beating up journalists in Osmania University Campus on February 14 and 15 by the police. The Committee consisting of K. Sreenivas Reddy, S.N. Sinha, Kalyan Barooah and K. Ramachandra Murthy heard the evidence given by the journalists who were injured in the incidents and the representatives of Indian Journalists

112 Union, Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists. The Union representatives gave graphic account of the happenings on those two days in the Osmania University Campus. They said the police personnel identified the journalists and brutally beaten them up. The Police personnel abused the journalists and prevented their colleagues from taking the injured journalists to the hospitals. They did not allow the ambulances of the 108 from entering the campus. The Union representatives presented the clippings of the newspapers reports to the Committee. Speaking before the Committee, the Secretary of Indian journalists Union K. Amarnath said such a brutal attack on journalists never took place in any part of the country in the last fifty years. He said while the journalists gave complaints on 21 incidents, the police registered only seven FIRs so far. But they registered a counter case against journalists based on a complaint given by a constable against eight unnamed representatives of various news channels. He said the police damaged vehicles with press labels. The representatives of the AP Electronic Media Journalists Association also appeared before the Committee and narrated the police vandalism and brutality. The injured journalists Narasinga Rao and others video journalists also gave evidence before the Committee. The Committee will examine the police officials responsible for the incident on Monday. They are expected to meet the Home Minister and the Minister for Information and Public Relations. 3. English Summary of the report that appeared in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily dated 8th March 2010. Press Council Holds Inquiry into Police Brutality in OU Dateline Hyderabad (Online-City Bureau) Several journalists who were injured in the police lathicharge in the Osmania University Campus complained to the Press Council of India Committee that they were brutally beaten up by the police when they went there to cover the on going agitation on the Telangana agitation by the students on February 14th and 15th. They also presented photos and video clippings of the incident as evidence. The Press Council Committee consisting of S.N. Sinha, Kalyan Barooah, K. Sreenivas Reddy and K. Ramachandra Murthy. q

113 CHAPTER – VII Finances of the Council 2009-2010

The funds of the Council are primarily made up of (i) fee levied by the Council on newspapers/periodicals registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India and from the news-agencies and other miscellaneous receipts, like interest on bank account etc., and (ii) Grant-in-aid from the Central Government in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Budget Estimates of the Council for the financial year 2009-10, as accepted by the Central Government in 2008-09, was Rs.350.00 lakhs. Revising the estimates for 2009-10 in January, 2010 the Central Government accepted the budget of Rs.500.58 lakhs with revenue receipts estimated at Rs.44.58 lakhs and the grant-in-aid element of Rs.456.00 lakhs. This was against the Council’s Revised Estimates demand of Rs.566.24 lakhs. The Council added to its own revenue taking the final receipts to Rs.46.78 lakhs. Accordingly, while Council received grant-in-aid amounting to Rs.456.00 lakhs (Rs.4,55,60,707.00 as Grants-in-aid + Rs.39,293.00 unspent balance for previous year) during the financial year 2009-10 from the Central Government, it collected Rs.34.29 lakhs as fees levied upon newspapers/periodicals and news agencies. Apart from this Rs.12.49 lakhs accounted for other miscellaneous receipts, like interest on bank accounts, interest on F.D.Rs with the Bank, etc. during the year under report. As a result of efforts to realise as much revenue as possible from newspapers/ periodicals defaulting in payment of the fee levied on them under the mandate of the Act, during the year the Council recovered Rs.10.07 lakhs as outstanding levy of fee from the defaulters. This figure is included in the total figures of Rs.34.29 lakhs mentioned above. Apart from this arrears of Rs.0.63 lakhs were written off after establishing the closure of the concerned publications. Section 22 of the Press Council Act, 1978 provides that the accounts of Press Council of India shall be maintained and audited in such manner as May, in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, be prescribed. The Annual account of the Press Council of India for the financial year 2009- 10 which were maintained in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, were audited by the Audit party of the office of the Director General of Audit, Central Revenues, New Delhi and certified to be to their satisfaction. The Annual Accounts of the Council are annexed hereto.

114 Separate Audit Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on the Accounts of Press Council of India for the year ended 31st March 2010 We have audited the attached Balance Sheet of Press Council of India as at 31st March 2010 and the Income & Expenditure Account/Receipts & Payments Account for the year ended on 31.3.2010 under Section 19(2) of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers & Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 read with Section 22 of the Press Council Act, 1978. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Council’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. 2. This Separate Audit Report contains the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on the accounting treatment only with regard to classification, conformity with the best accounting practices, accounting standards and disclosure norms, etc. Audit observations on financial transactions with regard to compliance with the Law, Rules & Regulations (Propriety and Regularity) and efficiency-cum performance aspects, etc.. If any are reported through Inspection Reports/Comptroller and Auditor Generals’ Audit Reports separately. 3. We have conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in India. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material mis-statements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidences supporting the amounts and disclosure in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 4. Based on our audit, we report that: i. We have obtained all the information and explanations, which to the best of our knowledge and belief were necessary for the purpose of our audit; ii. The Balance Sheet and Income & Expenditure Account/Receipts & Payments Account dealt with by this report have been drawn up in the format prescribed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance under Section 22 of the Press Council Act, 1978; iii. In our opinion, proper books of accounts and other relevant records have been maintained by the Press Council of India under Section 22 of the Press Council Act, 1978 in so far as it appears from our examination of such books. iv. We report that:

114-A A. Balance Sheet A.1 Liabilities A.1.1 Provisions No provision had been made for Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other retirement benefits, which is not in accordance with the format of accounts approved by the Ministry of Finance. A.2 Assets A.2.1 Fixed Assets A.2.1.1 As per accounting policy regarding depreciation adopted by the Council, the depreciation on fixed assets was charged as per the Income Tax Rules at the rate of 10% for Furniture & Fixture and for other assets @ 15%. The accounting policy is not factually correct as the rate of depreciation followed by the Council were not as prescribed in the Income Tax Rule. A.2.2 Investment Investment of CPF balance made by the Council were not as per the pattern of investment prescribed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide notification No.F-5(53)/2002-ECB & PB dated 14-08-2008. B. Grants-in-aid The Council had received grants-in-aid of Rs. 455.61 lakh (Non Plan) and its own receipt of Rs. 114.24 lakh (levy of fee Rs. 62.02 lakh and interest earned Rs. 52.22 lakh) for the year 2009-10. Besides, the Council had unspent grants of Rs. 0.39 lakh from the previous year. Out of the total amount of Rs. 570.24 lakh, the Council utilized Rs. 513.72 lakh leaving a balance of Rs. 56.52 lakh as on 31st March 2010. C. Management letter:- Deficiencies which have not been included in the Audit Report have been brought to the notice of the Chairman, Press Council of India through a management letter issued separately for remedial/corrective action: v. Subject to our observations in the preceding paragraphs, we report that the Balance Sheet and Income & Expenditure Account/Receipts and Payments Account dealt with by this report are in agreement with the books of accounts. vi. In our opinion and to the best of our information and according to the explanations given to us, the said financial statements

114-B read together with the Accounting Policies and Notes on Accounts, and subject to the significant matters stated above and other matters mentioned in Annexure I to this Audit Report give a true and fair view in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in India. a. In so far as it relates to the Balance Sheet of the state of affairs of the Press Council of India as at 31st March, 2010 and b. In so far as it relates to Income and Expenditure Account of the surplus for the year ended on that date.

For and on behalf of the C&AG of India

Sd/- Director General of Audit (Central Expenditure) Place : New Delhi Date : 11/10/2010

114-C Annexure-I

1. Adequacy of Internal Audit System The internal audit is conducted by a Chartered Accountant who has audited upto 2009-10. No internal audit para was pending as on 31-03-2010.

2. System of physical verification of fixed assets The physical verification of fixed assets for the year 2009-10 was under progress.

3. System of physical verification of inventory The physical verification of books and publications for the year 2009-10 had not been conducted.

4. Regularity in payment of statutory dues No payments over six months in respect of statutory dues are outstanding as on 31-3-2010.

114-D BALANCE SHEET As on 31st March 2010

115 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010

Amount Rs. LIABILITIES Schedule Current Year Previous Year

CAPITAL FUND 1 56,085,357 50,322,940

C.P.F. FUND 2 63,509,463 57,813,649

CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS 3 3,076,836 2,407,268

TOTAL 122,671,656 110,543,857

ASSETS

FIXED ASSETS 4 4,445,234 5,085,728

INVESTMENTS-FROM EARMARKED FUNDS 5 60,202,575 54,380,617

CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS, ADVANCES ETC. 6 58,023,847 51,077,512

TOTAL 122,671,656 110,543,857

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES 13

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND NOTES 14 ON ACCOUNTS

Sd/- Sd/- (G.N. RAY) (VIBHA BHARGAVA) CHAIRMAN SECRETARY PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

116 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2010 Amount Rs. INCOME Schedule Current Year Previous Year

Income from Levy Fees & Others 7 6,201,618 6,372,611

Grants from GoI 8 40,850,484 27,568,756

Interest Earned 9 5,222,413 4,922,025

TOTAL(A) 52,274,515 38,863,392

EXPENDITURE

Establishment Expenses 10 38,578,420 30,814,859

Other Administrative Expenses 11 7,603,385 8,228,262

Finance Charges 12 661 7,479

Depreciation(Corresponding to Schedule 5) 661,412 759,647

TOTAL(B) 46,843,878 39,810,247

Balance being excess of Income over Expenditure (A-B) 5,430,637 (946,855) - Prior Period Adjustment Cr.(Dr.) 310,862 186,724 - Transfer to/from General Reserve –

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) CARRIED TO INCOME & EXPENDITURE A/C 5,741,499 (760,131)

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES 13 CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND NOTES TO ACCOUNTS 14

Sd/- Sd/- (G.N. RAY) (VIBHA BHARGAVA) CHAIRMAN SECRETARY PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

117 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA SCHEDULES FORMING PART OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010

SCHEDULE 1 - CAPITAL FUND Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year

A. Capital Fund: Balance as at the beginning of the year 7,785,611 7,618,384 Add: Funds Capitalised During the Year 20,918 173,585 Add: Excess Amount written off in Previous Years now written back – – 7,806,529 7,791,969

Less: Amount of Fixed Assets overstated in Previous Year – –

Less: Amount Written Off on condemned Assets – 7,806,529 6,358 7,785,611

B. Income & Expenditure Account: Balance as at the beginning of the year 42,537,329 43,297,460 Add/(Deduct): Balance of net income/ (expenditure) 5,741,499 (760,131) transferred from Income and Expenditure Account Add/(Deduct): Other adjustement (Please Specify) – 48,278,828 – 42,537,329

TOTAL 56,085,357 50,322,940

118 SCHEDULE 2 - C.P.F. FUNDS Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year a) Opening balance of the funds 57,813,649 46,414,706 b) Addition to the Funds: i. Councils’ Contr. To C.P.F. 1,641,728 2,842,003 ii CPF Advance Recovered 811,600 iii. Prior period adjustments 25,923 iv. Employees’ Contr. To C.P.F. 6,944,845 5,851,245 v. Interest on C.P.F.Funds from Govt. 4,507,202 13,931,298 3,818,357 12,511,605 TOTAL (a+b) 71,744,947 58,926,311 c) Utilisation/Expenditure towards objectives of funds C.P.F. Withdrawls 3,422,895 1,929,348 Final Payments to Outgoing Employees 4,434,911 – Reversal of excess credit of CPF in pr. Year – – PF Advances 351,000 (816,686) Recievable from Genral Fund A/c. 26,678 8,235,484 - 1,112,662

Net Balance of Fund as at the year end (a+b-c) 63,509,463 57,813,649

Amount Rs. SCHEDULE 3 - CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS Current Year Previous Year

A. Current Liabilities:

1 Advances Received - Advance Levy of Fee 239,051 84,338 - Levy Fee Suspense 85,151 324,202 57,351 141,689

2 Security Deposits 31,000 31,000

3 Unspent Grant 221,396 39,293

4 Other current Liabilities 1,223,976 1,333,064

5 Payable to heir of Ex employee 1,276,262 862,222

TOTAL (A) 3,076,836 2,407,268

B. PROVISIONS – –

TOTAL (A+B) 3,076,836 2,407,268

119 SCHEDULE 4 SCHEDULE FORMING PART OF PARTICULARS GROSS BLOCK Cost As on Addition During Sale/Trf. During Cost As on 1.4.2009 the Year the Year 31.3.2010 Air conditioners & Coolers 911,209.00 – – 911,209.00 Attendance Recording System 82,000.00 – – 82,000.00 Cars & Bicycle 745,737.00 – – 745,737.00 Computer/Peripharals 3,549,145.00 – – 3,549,145.00 Conference System 27,820.00 – – 27,820.00 EPABX System 258,800.00 – – 258,800.00 Furniture & Fixture 4,171,889.00 – – 4,171,889.00 Heat Convector & Heaters 35,764.00 – – 35,764.00 Library Books 697,374.00 20,918.00 – 718,292.00 Mobile Phones 11,300.00 – – 11,300.00 Refrigerator 52,535.00 – – 52,535.00 Solar Water Heating System 110,227.00 – – 110,227.00 Stabilisers 71,434.00 – – 71,434.00 Tape Recorders 6,618.00 – – 6,618.00 Television 78,190.00 – – 78,190.00 Typewriter & Duplicator 133,029.00 – – 133,029.00 Water Dispencer 28,800.00 – – 28,800.00 Total 10,971,871.00 20,918.00 – 10,992,789.00

120 SCHEDULE 4

BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010 DEPRECIATION NET BLOCK Upto For the Written Total W.D.V. W.D.V. 31.3.2009 year Back 31.3.2010 31.3.2009 524,853.00 57,953.00 – 582,806.00 328,403.00 386,356.00 27,198.00 8,220.00 – 35,418.00 46,582.00 54,802.00 488,416.00 38,598.00 – 527,014.00 218,723.00 257,321.00 2,056,561.00 223,888.00 – 2,280,449.00 1,268,696.00 1,492,584.00 26,328.00 224.00 – 26,552.00 1,268.00 1,492.00 139,184.00 17,942.00 – 157,126.00 101,674.00 119,616.00 2,080,178.00 209,171.00 – 2,289,349.00 1,882,540.00 2,091,711.00 15,926.00 2,976.00 – 18,902.00 16,862.00 19,838.00 251,020.00 70,090.70 – 321,110.70 397,181.30 446,354.00 3,136.00 1,225.00 – 4,361.00 6,939.00 8,164.00 22,822.00 4,457.00 – 27,279.00 25,256.00 29,713.00 36,561.00 11,050.00 – 47,611.00 62,616.00 73,666.00 36,448.00 5,248.00 – 41,696.00 29,738.00 34,986.00 3,290.00 499.00 – 3,789.00 2,829.00 3,328.00 45,819.00 4,856.00 - 50,675.00 27,515.00 32,371.00 118,850.00 2,127.00 - 120,977.00 12,052.00 14,179.00 9,553.00 2,887.00 - 12,440.00 16,360.00 19,247.00 5,886,143.00 661,411.70 - 6,547,554.70 4,445,234.30 5,085,728.00

121 SCHEDULE 5 - INVESTMENTS FROM EARMARKED FUNDS Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year

1. Fixed Deposits with Schedule Banks

- Against C.P.F. Fund 54,642,325 52,251,522

- FDR Interest Accrued thereon 5,560,250 60,202,575 2,129,095 54,380,617

TOTAL 60,202,575 54,380,617

SCHEDULE 6 - CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS, ADVANCES ETC. Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year A. CURRENT ASSETS: 1. Sundry Debtors: - On Account of Levy Fees Debts Outstanding for a period exceeding six months 37,557,311 35,166,176 Others 3,793,625 41,350,936 3,393,125 38,559,301 2. Cash balances in hand (including Postage in Hands and imprest) Imprest Account Balance 5,932 6,958 Postage Stamps in Hands 4,441 10,373 16 6,974 3. Bank Balances: - With Scheduled Banks: Saving Accounts – - State Bank of Hyderabad - General Account 190,309 1,253 - State Bank of Hyderabad - Levy Fee Account 479,634 31,066 - State Bank of Hyderabad - Revolving Account 20,714 291,087 - State Bank of Hyderabad - C.P.F. Account 8,917,565 9,608,222 5,744,425 6,067,831 Deposit Accounts - State Bank of Hyderabad - Revolving Account 2,347,331 – 2,187,479 – - State Bank of Hyderabad - Gopa Mitra 643,899 643,899 - State Bank of Hyderabad - Rajesh Kaur 160,408 - State Bank of Hyderabad - Sushila Devi 165,881 3,317,519 165,881 2,997,259

TOTAL (A) 54,287,050 47,631,365

122 SCHEDULE 6 - (continued) Amount Rs.

Current Year Previous Year

B. LOANS,ADVANCES AND OTHER ASSETS

1 Loans to Staff: - Fan Advance – 300 - Car Advance 184,282 320,418 - Festival Advance 51,000 47,400 - Housing Building Advance 54,039 69,685 - Scooter Advance 33,400 322,721 40,400 478,203

2 Advances and other amounts recoverable in cash or in kind or for value to be received: - On Capital Account – – - Prepayments - Advance for Books Periodicals 10,917 8,737 - Advance to Parties 2,043,518 2,215,859 - TA Advance 245,925 15,710 - Tax Deducted at Source 675,208 293,614 - Others - TA/DA Recoverable – 2,333 - C.P.F. Suspense – 2,975,568 6,673 2,542,926

3 Income Accrued a) On Deposits of Revolving Account 419,034 405,544 (includes income due unrealised-Rs……..

4 Deposits with Different Departments 19,474 19,474

TOTAL (B) 3,736,797 3,446,147

TOTAL (A +B) 58,023,847 51,077,512

123 SCHEDULE 7 - INCOME FROM LEVY FEES & OTHERS Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year

1 Levy fees received from Newspapers/ Periodicals/News Agencies 3,427,128 4,217,532 Add : Demand raised for previous year – 153,150 Add : Advance of Previous Years adjusted – 26,130 Add : Fees outstanding for current year 3,793,625 3,393,125 Less: Fees received for previous years 1,005,900 1,475,752 Less: Fees received in advance / suspense 115,753 6,099,100 120,260 6,193,925

2 Others(Specify) - Sale of Waste Papers 8,412 3,857 - Fee for Information under Right to Information Act 774 430 - Other 93,332 102,518 174,399 178,686

TOTAL 6,201,618 6,372,611

SCHEDULE 8 - GRANTS Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year

(Irrevocable Grants & Subsidies Received) - Central Government (Ministry of I & B) - Grant Received During the Year 45,560,707 31,573,371 - Add: Unspent Grant for the Previous Year 39,293 30,629 45,600,000 31,604,000 - Less: Grant Utilised for Interest on C.P.F. Funds 4,507,202 3,822,366 - Less: Grant Utilised for Fixed Assets 20,918 173,585 - Less: Unspent Grant for the Current Year 221,396 40,850,484 39,293 27,568,756

TOTAL 40,850,484 27,568,756

124 SCHEDULE 9 - INTEREST EARNED Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year

1 On Term Deposits:

a) With Scheduled Banks - CPF Account (trf to General Fund) Interest Received During the Year 1,018,420 5,151,207 Add: Tax Deducted at Source 371,334 – Less: Related to Previous Years 764,981 2,207,820 Less: Interest excess booked reversed in Pr. Year – – Add: Interest Accrued for the Year 4,226,494 4,851,267 1,591,269 4,534,656

- Revolving Fund Account Interest Received During the Year 159,852 30,965 Add: Tax Deducted at Source 10,260 – Add: Interest Accrued for the Year 192,325 251,564 Less: Related to Previous Years 144,275 218,162 19,182 263,347

- General Fund Account Interest Received During the Year 17,106 47,014 Add: Tax Deducted at Source Add: Interest Accrued for the Year Less: Related to Previous Years 17,106 47,014

2 On Savings Accounts: a) With Scheduled Banks - General Fund Account 11,449 29,002 - CPF Account (Trf. To General Fund) 72,846 31,322 - Levy Fees Account 17,240 5,242 - Revolving Fund (Loans & Advances) 12,141 113,676 5,536 71,102

3 On Loans: a) Employees/Staff - Scooter Advance 5,868 - Cycle Advance 38 - Housing Building Advance 482 – - Fan Advance 25 – - Motor Car Advance 21,695 22,202 – 5,906

TOTAL 5,222,413 4,922,025

125 SCHEDULE 10 - ESTABLISHEMENT EXPENSES Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year a) Salaries and Wages 27,106,720 21,822,582 b) Arrear of Salaries 448,795 4,329,310 c) Arrear of Salaries (60% as per Sixth Pay Commission) 5,080,120 – d) OTA 19,741 20,064 e) Tution Fees Reimbursement 262,194 178,182 f) Medical Reimbursement 513,553 377,174 g) Bonus 209,858 275,094

I) L.T.C. 501,980 584,093 j) Encashment of E.L. 1,043,898 92,973 k) Contribution to Provident Fund 1,641,728 2,842,003 l) Expenses on Employees' Retirement and Terminal Benefits 1,741,433 293,384 m) Traning to Staff 8,400 –

Total 38,578,420 30,814,859

126 SCHEDULE 11 - OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year

1 Electricity and Water 1,609,286 407,247 2 Office Expense 232,213 172,811 3 Insurance 11,305 9,401

4 Repairs and maintenance 1,180,108 699,202 5 Vehicles Repairs and Maintenance 258,883 248,479

6 Travelling and Conveyance Expenses 1,797,591 2,480,430 7 Rent, Rates and Taxes 242,508 348,397

8 Postage, Telephone and Communication 802,509 811,923 Charges 9 Printing and Stationary 1,024,799 850,899

10 Newspapers & Periodicals 96,221 86,786 11 Liveries to Class IV Staff 21,200 27,002

12 Hindi Protsahan Award 9,710 7,820 13 Subscription Expenses 5,677 19,489 14 Legal & Professional Charges 194,456 178,585

15 Entertainment 49,619 62,405 16 Exhibition & Seminar – 319,636

17 Frieght & Cartage – 300 18 Workshop Expenses – 33,632 19 Other Administration Expenses Payable – 1,125,161

20 Advertisement and Publicity – 18,962 21 Others(specify)- Sundries 4,450 620

22 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts/ 62,850 319,075 Advances 23 Tax Deducted – –

TOTAL 7,603,385 8,228,262

Note: Electricity & Water Expenses are incurred towards chairman’s residence.

127 SCHEDULE 12 - FINANCE CHARGES Amount Rs. Current Year Previous Year

a) On Fixed Loans

b) On Other Loans (including Bank Charges) 661 7,479

c) Other (specify)

TOTAL 661 7,479

128 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA SCHEDULE FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010

SCHEDULE 13 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES 1. Accounting Convention

The financial statements are prepared on the basis of historical cost convention unless otherwise stated. 2. Method of Accounting Council is following the accrual method of accounting unless otherwise stated. 3. Investments

a) Investments against C.P.F. Fund are classified as earmarked investments b) Investments against Revolving (Loans & Advances) account are treated as current assets. c) Investments are shown at the principal value as increased by the interest accrued thereon. 4. Fixed Assets a) Fixed assets are stated at cost of acquisition inclusive of duties and taxes thereon. Other direct expenses related to acquisition are not capitalized.

b) Capital Fund is maintained to denote the cost of fixed assets. 5. Depreciation The Council was not providing any depreciation on its assets right from its inception till 31.03.2006. Policy in this regard is being changed from the financial year ending 31.03.2007 to charge the depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules at the following rates i.e. Furniture & Fixture @ 10% and Other Assets at the general rate @ 15%. 6. Government Grant

a) Government Grants are accounted on cash basis. b) Grants utilized toward the addition of fixed assets are transferred to the Capital Fund. c) Grants utilized towards the interest on C.P.F. Fund are transferred to C.P.F. Account.

129 d) Unspent Grant for the year are transferred to Reserve & Surplus for further use in the next year. 7. Retirement Benefits a) Retirement benefit are accounted on cash basis. No provision for Gratuity payable, leave encashment etc. is made.

b) The Council is maintaining its own C.P.F. Fund.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.N. RAY) (VIBHA BHARGAVA) CHAIRMAN SECRETARY PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

130 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA SCHEDULE FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010

SCHEDULE 14 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES & NOTES OF THE ACCOUNTS

A. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Claim against the Council not acknowledged as debts Rs. NIL (Previous Year NIL)

B. NOTES OF THE ACCOUNTS

1. Current Assets, Loan & Advances a. Balance in the Sundry Debtors, Advances for Books & Periodical and Advance to Parties have not been confirmed from the respective parties/departments b. In the opinion of the management of the Council, the other current assets, loans & advances have a realisable value equal at least to the amount shown in the Balance Sheet, in the ordinary course of business.

2. Provision for Taxation In view of the income of the Council being exempt from tax, no provision for taxation has been made.

3. Corresponding figures for the previous year have been regrouped/ rearranged, wherever necessary.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.N. RAY) (VIBHA BHARGAVA) CHAIRMAN SECRETARY PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

131 PRESS COUNCIL RECEIPT AND PAYMENTS FOR

Receipts Current Year Previous Year

I. Opening Balance (a) Cash in hand (Imprest Account) 6,958 10,000 (b) Bank Balances – General Fund 1,253 2,708 – Levy of Fees Account 31,066 6,683 – Revolving Fund (Loan & Advance) 291,087 125,426 – C.P.F. Account 5,744,528 6,067,934 2,994,551 3,129,368 (c) Postage Stamps in Hand 16 11,238

II. Grants Received (a) From Government of India 45,560,707 31,573,371 (Ministry of I & B)

III. Interest Received a) On Bank deposits – Term Deposits 1,195,378 5,229,186 – Saving Accounts 113,676 1,309,054 71,102 5,300,288

(b) Loans, Advances etc. 22,202 5,906

IV. Other Income (specify) Levy fees received from Newspapers/ Periodicals/News Agencies 3,427,128 4,217,532 Others 102,518 178,686 Arrears of Sixth Pay Commission 475,260 Recovered

V. Receipts from Matured Investments Encashment of FDRs – Revolving Fund Account 842,482 267,040 – C.P.F. Account 10,430,352 15,991,612 Other 4,000,000 4,000,000 20,258,652 Towards Employee 649,313 15,922,147 –

VI. Any Other Receipts (a) Refund of Securities – Deposit with Department – 11,034 11,034 – Computer Maintenance – – –

132 OF INDIA THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2010

Payments Current Year Previous Year

I. Expenses (a) Establishment Expenses 38,073,772 30,740,916 (Corresponding to Schedule 20) (b) Administrative Expenses 7,523,196 6,268,863 (Correspondent to Schedule 21)

II. Payments made against funds Against Revolving Fund (Loans & Advances) – Disbursements of Loans – Festival Advance 93,300 81,000 – Scooter Advance 24,000 48,000 – Motar Car Advance – 155,000 – Table Fan Advance – 117,300 1,000 285,000

Against C.P.F. Fund – Advance/Withdrawal to Staff 3,773,895 1,763,055 – Final Payments to Outgoing 4,434,911 8,208,806 – 1,763,055 employees

III. Investments and deposits made (a) Out Earmarked/Endowment funds – Against Revolving Fund (Loans & Advances) 1,002,334 – – Against C.P.F. Fund 12,966,775 13,969,109 25,013,135 25,013,135 (b) Out of own funds (Investments-Others) 4,000,000 4,000,000 Towards Employee 809,721 4,809,721 521,930 4,521,930

IV. Expenditure on Fixed Assets & Capital work-in-progress (a) Purchase of Fixed Assets – Library Books 20,918 21,186 – Furniture & Others – 152,299 – Telephone Instruments – 20,918 – 173,485

133 Receipts Current Year Previous Year

(b) Recovery of Advances – Housing Building Advance 15,646 16,128 – Festival Advances 89,700 58,500 – Scooter Advances 31,000 8,000 – Motor Car Advance 136,136 56,836 – Cycle Advance - 1,050 141,214 – Table Fan Advance 300 272,782 – From Parties 22,229 700

(c) Recovery from Employee – TDS Payable – – – C.P.F. Contribution and refund loan 7,756,445 7,756,445 7,168,931 7,168,931

(d) Amount trf from General Fund to C.P.F. Fund on account of: – Council’s Contribution to PF 1,641,728 2,842,003 – Interest on Employees’ Contribution 3,074,614 2,628,606 – Interest on Council’s Contribution 1,432,588 1,189,751 6,660,360 – Others – 6,148,930 –

(e) Amount Excess trf to General Fund from C.P.F. Fund – On a/c of rec.of PCI Contr.to CPF – – – Others – – –

TOTAL 87,094,310 78,666,580

134 Payments Current Year Previous Year

(b) Expenditure on Capital

V. Refund of surplus money/loans (a) To the Government of India – – (b) Excess of Levy fee Refunded – – (c) Excess Recovery Loan Refunded – – – –

VI. Finance Charges (Interest) 661 7,479

VII. Other Payments (Specify) (a) Amount trf from General Fund to C.P.F. Fund on account of: – Interest on Employees’ Contribution 3,074,614 2,628,606 – Interest on Council’s Contribution 1,432,588 1,189,751 – Others – 4,507,202 – 3,818,357

(b) Advance – for Books & Periodicals 10,815 7,355 – for Capital Assets – – – for Others 234,215 245,030 (7,800) (445) (d) Salary Excess paid to Staff – (e) Excess trf from C.P.F. Fund to General Fund – –

VIII. Closing Balances (a) Cash in hand (Imprest Account) 5,932 6,958 (b) Bank Balances – General Fund 190,309 1,253 – Levy of Fees Account 479,634 31,066 – Revolving Fund (Loan & Advance) 20,714 291,087 – C.P.F. Account 8,917,565 9,608,222 5,744,425 6,067,831 (c) Postage Stamps in Hand 4,441 16

TOTAL 87,094,310 78,666,580

Sd/- Sd/- (G.N. RAY) (VIBHA BHARGAVA) CHAIRMAN SECRETARY PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

135 Annexure - A

Statement of Cases (April 1, 2009 - March 31, 2010)

S.No. Particulars Section-13 Section-14 Total

1. Cases pending as on 31.3.2009 210 694 904 2. Cases filed between 1.4.2009 to 180 770 950 31.3.2010 3. Cases adjudicated between 35 161 196 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 4. Cases directly reported to Council 1 3 4 5. Cases decided under the proviso 107 374 481 to Regulation 5(1) of Inquiry Regulation 1979 between April 1, 2009 to 31.3.2010 6. Cases under process as on 247 926 1173* 31.3.2010

*Includes two cases remitted back by the Council.

*In 27 cases hearing has been concluded and adjudication is pending and 46 cases are at advance stage of hearing

136 Annexure - B

The Gazette of India EXTRAORDINARY PART II – Section 3 – Sub-section (ii) PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 1645] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2009/ASVINA 17, 1931 MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 9th October, 2009

S.O. 2584 (E).— In pursuance of sub-section (5) of Section 5 read with sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (37 of 1978), the Central Government hereby notifies the names of Shri Ananth Kumar, Shri Vilas Muttemwar and Shri Sanjay Dina Patil, nominated as members to the Press Council of India, and for the said purpose makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, number S.O.39 (E), dated the 7th January, 2008, namely:— In the said notification, under the heading “Members of Parliament [nominated under clause (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 5]”, for serial number 24 to 26 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall be substituted, namely:—

‘‘24. Shri Ananth Kumar, Present Address : 26, Tuglak Crescent, New Delhi. Permanent Address : Nominated by the Speaker 84, ‘Shaswati’, of the House of the People Ranojirao Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004. 25. Shri Vilas Muttemwar, Present Address : 1, Pt. Motilal Nehru Marg, New Delhi.

137 Permanent Address : Ashoka Residency (Behind Das Jewellers) Plot No. 18, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur-440010. (Mah.) Nominated by the Speaker 26. Shri Sanjay Dina Patil, of the House of the People” Present Address : Maharashtra Sadan, New Delhi. Permanent Address : Sanjay Apartments, Dina Patil Estates, Station Road, (W), Mumbai-4000781.

[F.No. 4/8/2007-PRESS] STUTI KACKER, Addl. Secy.

Foot Note : The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, vide notification number S.O. 39(E), dated the 7th January, 2008 and last amended vide notification number S.O.2242(E) dated the 19th September, 2008

138 Annexure - C

The Gazette of India EXTRAORDINARY PART II – Section 3 – Sub-section (ii) PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 1838] NEW DELHI, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009/KARTIKA 14, 1931 MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 5th November, 2009

S.O.2849 (E).—In pursuance of sub-section (5) of Section 5 read with sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (37 of 1978), the Central Government hereby notifies the name of Shri Prakash Javadekar, member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, nominated as member to the Press Council of India, and for the said purpose makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, number S.O.39 (E), dated the 7th January, 2008, namely:— In the said notification, under the heading “Members of Parliament [nominated under clause (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 5],” for serial number 27 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall be substituted, namely :—

“27. Shri Prakash Javadekar, Present Address: 24, Mahadev Road, Nominated by the New Delhi-110001. Chairman of the Council of States”. Permanent Address : 11, Suvan Apartment, Mayur Colony, Kothrud, Pune-411038.

[F.No.4/8/2007-PRESS] V.B. PYARELAL, Jt. Secy.

139 Annexure - D

Graph of Adjudications 2009-2010

Against the Authorities 18%

82% Against the Press

*Against the Authorities **Against the Press

33% 31% 25.61% 25.61% 26.83% 21.95% 22% 14%

ABCD ABCD

Foot Note :- A: Upheld B: Rejected C: Assurance/Settled/Amends D: Dropped for not being perused/Withdrawal/Sub-judice/Lack of substance

* Including one matter directly placed before the Council ** Including three matters directly placed before the Council

140 Annexure - E

Subject Index of Adjudications in Complaints Regarding Threats to Press Freedom (2009-2010)

S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision Harassment of Newsmen 1. Reference from Dr. Arun Kumar June 9, Closed Sarma, M.P. (Lok Sabha) and 2009 Shri Saarbananda Sonowal, M.P. (Lok Sabha) regarding the arrest and torture of Shri Rabin Dhekia Phukan, Kakopathar based correspondent of , by the Assam Police 2. Complaint of Shri K.L. Vishwakarma, September 7, Rejected Chief Editor, Bundelkhand Chetna, 2009 Uttar Pradesh against Police Authorities of Uttar Pradesh 3. Complaint of Shri Viresh Kumar ’’ Upheld Shukla, Correspondent, Hindustan, Sitapur, U.P. against Police Authorities of Uttar Pradesh 4. Complaint of Shri Ramesh Tiwari, ’’ Upheld Special Correspondent, Samaj Ki Bhumika, Lucknow against Police Authorities of Uttar Pradesh 5. Complaint of Shri Gopal Upadhyaya, ’’ Sub-judice Correspondent, Dainik Jagran, Bihar against Police Authorities of Bihar 6. Complaint of Shri Naval Kishore ’’ Rejected Sharma, Editor, Janta Ki Kiran, Bihar against the Divisional Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer and Police Authorities of Bihar

M-Adjudications Merged

141 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

7. Complaint of Mohammed Ateek February 22, Settled Warsi, Correspondent, Suraj Kesari, 2010 Barabanki, U.P. against the Police Authorities, Barabanki, U.P.

8. Complaint of Shri Raees Ali Siddiqui, ’’ Sub-judice Editor, Bharat Nepal Times, Lucknow, U.P. against the Station House Officer, Police Station- Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow, U.P.

9. Complaint of Smt. Usha Dwivedi, ’’ Sub-judice Wife of Shri Rajender Dwivedi, Correspondent, AIR & UNI, Sonebhadra, U.P. against the Police Authorities, Sonebhadra, U.P.

10. Complaint of Thakur Tabbu, Editor, ’’ Dismissed Insaf Ki Batein, Behraich, U.P. against the General Manager, Shrawasti Kissan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and the Police Authorities, Behraich, U.P.

11. Complaint of Shri Riyazuddin, ’’ Sub-judice Correspondent, Dainik Hindustan, Banda, U.P. against the Police Authorities, Banda, U.P.

12. Complaint of Shri Jagjit Singh Dardi, ’’ Withdrawn Editor-in-Chief, Chardikala, Patiala, Punjab against Anti-Social Elements

13. Complaint of Shri Gurmail Singh March 31, Assurance Kumboj, Chief Editor, Insaniyat, 2010 Punjabi Weekly, Ludhiana against Shri Navdeep Singh Sidhu, Naib Tehsildar, Jagraon and Shri Balbir Singh, Clerk, West Ludhiana Tehsil, Punjab

142 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

14. Complaint of Shri Harjit Dua, March 31, Upheld Accredited Freelancer Journalist, 2010 Delhi against the Police Authorities, Delhi 15. Complaint of Shri Harpreet Singh ’’ Withdrawn Preet, Journalist, Vishva Varta, Kotakpura, Punjab against Shri Harjinder Singh Painter and the Police Authorities, Kotakpura, Punjab 16. Complaint of Shri Vaishya Ramkumar ’’ Dismissed Gupta, Chief Editor, Vaishya Lehar, for non- Lucknow against the Project Director, pursuance District Corporation Development Authorities, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 17. Complaint of Shri Sultan Shaheryar ’’ Sub-judice Khan, District Correspondent, The Pioneer, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Nerpendra Kumar, Chief General Manager, Northern Coalfields Ltd., Singrauli, Sidhi, M.P. 18. Complaint of Shri Mahavir Yadav, ’’ Directions Correspondent, Amar Ujala, District Balia, U.P. against the Local Police Authorities 19. Complaint of Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, ’’ Dismissed Editor, Dharamyudh aur Sansani, Indore, M.P. against the Anti Social Elements and the Local Police Authorities, Madhya Pradesh 20. Complaint of Shri Ram Khelavan ’’ Sub-judice Bhartiya, Chief Editor, Chaturanan, Sitapur, U.P. against the Police Authorites

143 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

21. Complaint of Shri Khurshid Alam, March 31, Assurance Correspondent, Bhaskar Darshan and 2010 Uttam Hindu and Shri Salek Chand Verma, Correspondent of Rashtriya Sahara, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against Anti Social Elements and the Local Police Authorities 22. Complaint of Choudhary Vedprakash ’’ Disposed Singh Chahar, Senior Sub Editor, Aaj, off , U.P. against Anti Social Elements and the Local Police Authorities Facilities to the Press 23. Complaint of Shri Upendra Pal Singh June 9, Closed with ‘Pawan’, Editor, Surya Ka Ujala, 2009 observations Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh against the District Information Office, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 24. Complaint of Prof. Mungaram Tripathi, ’’ Closed- Chief Editor, Bharashtachar Niyantran, Grievance Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) against the redressed DAVP, New Delhi 25. Complaint of Shri S.K. Navratan, September 7, Closed- Publisher, Dainik Rajpath, Uttar 2009 Grievance Pradesh against the Director General, redressed DAVP, New Delhi 26. Complaint of Shri S.S. Mehta, General ’’ Disposed Secretary, Bihar Non-daily Newspapers off with Union, Bihar against the Managing observations Director, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Council, Patna 27. Complaint of Shri Arvind Shukla, February 22, Upheld Correspondent, Sputnik, Lucknow, U.P. 2010 against the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, U.P.

144 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

28. Complaint of Shri Sanjeev Kumar February 22, Directions Saxena, Editor, Dharti Dhuan, 2010 Shahjahanpur, U.P. against the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, U.P. 29. Complaint of Shri Thakur Manoj Kumar ’’ Dismissed ‘Manojanand’, Swadesh Sukhad Sandesh, Haridwar, Uttarakhand against the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun 30. Complaint of Shri Surendra Agarwal, ’’ Withdrawn Chief Editor, Surya Jagran and Bureau Chief, Dainik Bhaskar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand against Shri Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank, the then Cabinet Minister, Dehradun M 31. Complaint of Shri Surendra Agarwal, ’’ Withdrawn Chief Editor, Surya Jagran and Bureau Chief, Dainik Bhaskar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand against the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun 32. Complaint of Shri Ashok Kumar ’’ Closed- ‘Navratan’, correspondent, Dainik Grievance Rajpath, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh against redressed the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow 33. Complaint of Shri Chandramani ’’ Closed Raghuvanshi, Publisher/Printer, Bijnor Times, Bijnor, U.P. against the DAVP, New Delhi

145 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

34. Complaint of Shri S.N. Lal, National March 31, Dismissed President, North India Journalist 2010 Welfare Association, Lucknow against the DAVP, New Delhi 35. Complaint of Shri Amarnath Seth, ’’ Withdrawn District Correspondent, and President of Uttar Pradesh Journalist Association, Mirzapur against the I&PRD, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh

146 Annexure - F

Subject Index of Adjudications in Complaints Against the Press (2009-2010)

S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision Principles and Publication 1. Complaint of Shri Biju@ Gana Poojari, June 9, Closed Kollam, Kerala against the Editor, 2009 Mathrubhumi, Kozhikode, Kerala 2. Complaint of Shri Manoj K. Kamra, ’’ Dismissed Bikaner, Rajasthan against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Bikaner, Rajasthan 3. Complaint of Swami Arup Bramhachari, ’’ Dismissed Patron, Yuva Manch, Bodhgaya, Bihar against the Editor, Hindustan, Patna, Bihar 4. Complaint of Syed Nafeesul Hasan, ’’ Dismissed Behraich, U.P. against the Editor, Hindustan, Hindi daily, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 5. Complaint of Dr. D.K. Bhandari, ’’ Censured Bhandari Hospital, Dehradun, Uttrakhand against the Editor, Rana Express, Ludhiana, Punjab 6. Complaint of Dr. D.K. Bhandari, ’’ Censured M Bhandari Hospital, Dehradun, Uttrakhand against the Editor, Lok Sewa, Ludhiana, Punjab 7 Complaint of Shri Sudhakar S. September 7, Dismissed Shanbhag, Secretary, Maharashtra 2009 Cricket Association, Pune against the Editor, , Pune, Maharashtra

M-Adjudications Merged

147 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

8. Complaint of Prof. Ashrafi Lal Sharma, September 7, Closed– Ex. Vice-Chancellor, School of 2009 Non- Instrumentation, Devi Ahilya Pursuance Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, M.P against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Indore, M.P. 9. Complaint of Shri Shishir Jha, ’’ Matter Commissioner of Income Tax & allowed to Official Spokesperson, Government rest of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, New Delhi against the Editor, New Indian Express, Chennai 10. Complaint of Ms. Shobha Aggarwal, ’’ Closed with New Delhi against the Editor, The directions Tribune, Chandigarh 11. Complaint of Shri Ashok K. Tejuja, ’’ Directions Mumbai against the Editor, The Indian Express, Mumbai 12. Complaint of Dr. Atul Kumar, ’’ Upheld New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Noida, U.P. 13. Complaint of Shri Ramkaran M. February 22, Directions Pasi, Senior Divisional Mechanical 2010 Engineer, Bareilly, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly, U.P.

14. Complaint of Shri V. Nagi Reddy, ’’ Warned IAS, Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad, M Andhra Pradesh against the Editor Andhra Bhoomi, Hyderabad, A.P.

148 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

15. Complaint of Shri V.Nagi Reddy, February 22, Warned IAS, Secretary to the government 2010 of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare M Department, Andhra Pradesh against the Editor , Hyderabad, A.P. 16. Complaint of the General Manager, ’’ Dismissed Ordnance Factory, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu against the Editor, Dhinathanthi, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 17. Complaint of Dr. Vinod K. Paul, ’’ Disposed off Professor and Head, Department with directions of Paediatrics, AIIMS, New Delhi and against the Editor, The Times of observations India, New Delhi 18 Complaint of Dr. Rajni Verma, ’’ Reprimanded/ Reader, Department of Law, Guru Warned Nanak Dev University, Regional Campus, Jalandhar against the Editor, Amar Ujala Jalandhar, Punjab 19. Complaint of Shri Chander Prakash ’’ Dismissed Arya, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pali, Rajasthan against the Editor, , Jaipur M 20. Complaint of Shri Chander Prakash ’’ Dismissed Arya, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pali, Rajasthan against the Editor Dainik Navjyoti, Ajmer, Rajasthan 21. Complaint of Shri Liaqat Ali, Delhi ’’ Warned against the Editor, Roznama Rashtriya Sahara, Noida, U.P.

149 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

22. Complaint of Shri Om Prakash February 22, Regret Kharakia, President, Shree Agrasen 2010 expressed- Co-operative Urban T&C Society No further Ltd., New Delhi against the Editor, action Meri Delhi, New Delhi 23. Complaint of Shri Surinder Pal and ’’ Censured other Advocates, Ludhiana, Punjab against the Editor, Rana Pratap, Ludhiana, Punjab M 24. Complaint of Shri Surinder Pal and ’’ Censured other Advocates, Ludhiana, Punjab against the Editor, Lok Sewa, Ludhiana, Punjab 25. Complaint of Hizb-ut-Tehrir, March 31, Disposed off International Political Organisation 2010 with (through Advocate) Delhi against observation the Editor, Junior Vikatan, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 26. Complaint of Shri Binod Kumar ’’ Censured Sinha, Dhanbad, Jharkhand against the Editor Saras Salil, New Delhi

27. Complaint of Dr. C. Venkatakrishnan, ’’ Reprimanded Salem, Tamil Nadu, Chennai against the Editor, Kumudam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu M 28. Complaint of Dr. C. Venkatakrishnan, ’’ No action Salem, Chennai, Tamil Nadu against the Editor, Dhinathanthi, Salem, Tamil Nadu 29. Complaint of Dr. C. Venkatakrishnan, ’’ No action Salem, Chennai against the Editor, Malai Malar, Chennai

150 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

30. Complaint of Dr. C. Venkatakrishnan, March 31, No action Salem, Chennai, Tamil Nadu against 2010 the Editor, , Chennai, M Tamil Nadu 31. Complaint of Shri C.R. ’’ Dismissed Aswathanarayana, Mysore, for non- Karnataka against the Editor, Star pursuance of Mysore, Karnataka 32. Suo motu action against the Editor, ’’ Censured Hamara Kaam, Kolkata 33. Complaint of Shri Rakesh Kumar ’’ Upheld Agnihotri, Jhansi, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi, U.P. 34. Complaint of Shri Yogendra Kumar, ’’ Cautioned an ex-MLA, and the Candidate for the Legislative Assembly Election Bisoli, Badayun, U.P. against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Bareilly, U.P. M 35. Complaint of Shri Yogendra Kumar, ’’ Cautioned an ex-MLA, and the Candidate for the Legislative Assembly Election Bisoli, Badayun, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly, U.P. 36. Complaint of Shri Rakesh Kumar ’’ No substance Vishwakarma, Delhi against the in complaint Editor, Frontline, Anna Salai, Chennai 37. Complaint of Shri R. Bhardwaj, ’’ Disposed off Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, with New Delhi against the Editor, The directions Telegraph, Kolkata, West Bengal M 38. Complaint of Shri R. Bhardwaj, ’’ Disposed off Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, with New Delhi against the Editor, The directions Indian Express, Mumbai, Maharashtra

151 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

39. Complaint of Shri R. Bhardwaj, March 31, Disposed off Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 2010 with New Delhi against the Editor, YahooM directions India News Beta, Mumbai, Maharashtra

Press and Defamation 40. Complaint of Shri Abhinava June 9, Settled Gurusidda Swamigalu, Bellary, 2009 Karnataka against the Editor, Police News, Kannada weekly, M Bangaluru, Karnataka 41. Complaint of Shri Abhinava ’’ Closed Gurusidda Swamigalu, Bellary, Karnataka against the Editor, Neralu, Bellary, Karnataka 42. Complaint of the Joint Director of ’’ Withdrawn Information, Commissionerate of Information, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat against the M Editor, , Ahmedabad, Gujarat 43. Complaint of the Joint Director of ’’ Withdrawn Information, Commissionerate of Information, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat against the Editor, Gujarat Samachar, Ahmedabad, Gujrat 44. Complaint of the Joint Director ’’ Withdrawn of Information, Commissionerate of Information, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat against the Editor, Gujarat Samachar, Ahmedabad, Gujrat

152 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

45. Complaint of Dr. Ajay Bhagoliwal, June 9, Matter GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, 2009 allowed to U.P. against the Editor, The Times rest for want of India, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh of documents 46. Complaint of Shri Harjit Inder Singh ’’ Dismissed Grewal, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Punjab, against the Editor, The Times of India, Chandigarh 47. Complaint of Dr. P.B. Amolik, ’’ Upheld Hon. Secretary, The Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Private Limited, Mumbai against the Editor, The Times of India, Mumbai 48. Complaint of Shri V.B. Kittali, ’’ Dismissed for Additional Superintendent of Police, non- Raichur, Karnataka against the Editor, pursuance , Bangaluru, Karnataka 49. Complaint of Ms. Bharati, Mayor, ’’ Reprimanded Mysore City, Mysore, Karnataka against the Editor, Lankesh Patrike, Bangaluru, Karnataka 50. Complaint of Smt. G. Bhagirathi ’’ Closed Nayak and others Hiriyur district, Chitradurga, Karnataka against the Editor, Hai Banglore, Bangaluru, Karnataka 51. Complaint of Shri M.V. Suryavanshi, ’’ Closed-Non Circle Inspector of Police, Raichur, Pursuance Karnataka against the Editor, Hai Banglore, Bangaluru, Karnataka 52. Complaint of Dr. Richard S. Gnanakan, ’’ Closed- Executive Director, ACTS Ministeries, Non Bangaluru, Karnataka against the Pursuance Editor, Hai Banglore, Bangaluru, Karnataka

153 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

53. Complaint of Shri V.S. Achuthanandan, June 9, Withdrawn Hon’ble Chief Minister, Kerala, 2009 Thiruvananthapuram against the Editor, daily, Kottayam, Kerala 54. Complaint of Dr. Gurulingu, Mysore, ’’ Closed-Non Karnataka against the Editor, Red Pursuance Arrow, Bangaluru, Karnataka 55. Complaint of Shri Jagadguru ’’ Closed- Rudramuni Devaru, Karnataka Amends against the Editor, Samyukta Made Karnataka, Karnataka 56. Complaint of Shaikh Shafi Ahmed, ’’ Dismissed Gulbarga, Karnataka against the Editor, Inquilab-e-Deccan, Karnataka 57. Complaint of Shri M. Subramanya ’’ Closed Vaidya, District Health Education Officer (Retd.), Karnataka against the Editor, Hai Marutha, Udupi, Karnataka 58. Complaint of Shri H.S. Shivashankar, ’’ Warned Member of Karnataka Legislative Council, Bangaluru against the Editor, Hai Banglore, Bangaluru, Karnataka 59. Complaint of Shri Sanjiv Nayan, ’’ Rejected Bureau Chief, Rajdhani Khabar, Ranchi, Jharkhand against the Editor, , Ranchi 60. Complaint of S/Shri Ashok Kumar ’’ Rejected Rath and Jayanta Kumar Das, Managing Partners, AKJK Enterprise, Puri, Orissa against the Editor, , Bhubaneswar

154 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

61. Complaint of Dr. K.K. Sharma, June 9, Settled Principal, Maharaj Singh College, 2009 Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 62. Complaint of Shri Upender Kumar ’’ Directions Pandey, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 63. Complaint of Dr. Yaduvir Singh, ’’ Reprimanded Associate Professor, Thapar University, Patiala, Punjab against the Editor, The Times of India, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 64. Complaint of Shri Jaleel Khan, ’’ Dismissed Publisher/Editor, Voice of Minorities, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh against the Editor, Eenadu, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 65. Complaint of Shri Goutam Buddha September 7, Settled Das, Sub-Editor-cum-Staff Reporter, 2009 The Samaj, Rourkela against the Editor, Utkal Mail, Bhubaneshwar 66. Complaint of Shri Arvind Mishra, ’’ No further Senior General Manager (C/A), action Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneshwar against the Editor, , Bhubaneshwar 67. Complaint of Dr. Yogesh Kumar ’’ Disposed off Pandey, Lecturer, Gurukul Kangri with Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar, directions Uttrakhand against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi

155 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

68. Complaint of Shri Sandeep Sobti, September 7, Sub-judice Managing Director, M/s Laggar 2009 Industries Ltd., Jalandhar, Punjab against The Editor, Outlook, New Delhi 69. Complaint of Shri A.K. Prasad, ’’ Reprimanded Joint General Manager, Admn. Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Bhandara, Maharashtra against the Editor, Nagar Ki Samasya, Nagpur, Maharashtra 70. Complaint of Syed Waseem Rizvi, ’’ Closed Lucknow, U.P. against the Editor, Sahafat, Lucknow, U.P. 71 Complaint of Syed Mohd. Ali Sabir, ’’ Disposed off Lucknow, U.P. against the Editor, with Rashtriya Sahara, Lucknow, U.P. observations 72. Complaint of Shri Kamal Prakash, ’’ Closed Divisional Engineer (BSNL), Jodhpur, Rajasthan against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan M 73. Complaint of Shri Kamal Prakash, ’’ Closed Divisional Engineer (BSNL), Jodhpur, Rajasthan against the Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 74. Complaint of Shri Kamal Prakash, ’’ Closed Divisional Engineer (BSNL), Jodhpur, Rajasthan against the Editor, Dainik Navjyoti, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 75. Complaint of Smt. Anu Gupta, ’’ Closed M/s Computer Job Work, Rajasthan M against the Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, Rajasthan

156 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

76. Complaint of Smt. Anu Gupta, September 7, Closed M/s Computer Job Work, Rajasthan 2009 against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, M Jaipur, Rajastham 77. Complaint of Shri Ramesh H. Shinde, ’’ Proceedings Maharashtra State Spokesperson, dropped Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, Thane, Mumbai against the Editor, Indian Express, Mumbai 78. Complaint of M/s Ruby Mills Ltd., ’’ Closed-Non Mumbai against the Editor, Mumbai Pursuance Mirror, Mumbai 79. Complaint of Shri Nityanand S. ’’ Closed Pandey, Mumbai against the Editor, Dainik Everywhere, Mumbai 80. Complaint of Smt. Meenakshi S. ’’ Closed Deshmukh, Mumbai against the Editor, Khabre Aaj Tak, Mumbai 81. Complaint of Shri Baburao S. ’’ Matter Deshmukh, Nanded, Maharashtra allowed to against the Editor, Pravakta, rest Maharashtra 82. Complaint of the Joint Director & ’’ Proceedings Superintendent, Medical College dropped Hospital, Jabalpur, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Madhya Pradesh 83. Complaint of Dr. Mufeez Rehman, ’’ Closed-Non Rehman Clinic, Mandsore, Madhya Pursuance Pradesh against the Editor, Malhar Martand Saptahik, Mandsore, Madhya Pradesh

157 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

84. Complaint of Shri Jagdish Chandra, September 7, Directions Divisional Forest Officer, 2009 O/o Divisional Forest, Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Chambal Vani, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 85. Complaint of Shri Satyanarayan ’’ Closed-Non Dudani, Ex-State Minister, Pursuance Government of Bihar against the Editor, Mind, Jharkhand 86. Complaint of Shri S. Gopakumaran ’’ Upheld Nair, Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi 87. Complaint of Dr. Ashwini Dalmiya, ’’ Rejected Hony. Secretary, Delhi Medical Association, Delhi against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi 88. Complaint of Shri P.C. Shrivastava, ’’ Rejected Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi against The Press Trust of India, New Delhi 89. Complaint of Shri P.C. Shrivastava, ’’ Rejected Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi against The United M News of India, New Delhi 90. Complaint of Shri P.C. Shrivastava, ’’ Rejected Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi 91. Complaint of Shri P.C. Shrivastava, ’’ Rejected Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi

158 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

92. Complaint of Shri P.C. Shrivastava, September 7, Rejected Advocate, Supreme Court of India, 2009 New Delhi against the Editor, M The Indian Express, New Delhi 93. Complaint of Shri R.P.S. Lochab, ’’ Matter Registrar, National Institute of allowed to Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana rest against the Editor, Bahujan Express, Kurukshetra, Haryana 94. Complaint of Shri Gurmukh Singh ’’ Directions Sidhu, Jalandhar, Punjab against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jalandhar, Punjab 95. Complaint of Ms. Manju Wadwalkar, ’’ Upheld Public Relations Officer, PGIMER, Chandigarh against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh 96. Complaint of Shri Godaram, Sarpanch, ’’ Dismissed Rauta, Rajasthan against the Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Pali, Rajasthan 97. Complaint of Shri B.R. Wakchoure, ’’ Closed-Non- Executive Officer, Shree Saibaba Pursuance Sansthan and others, Shirdi, Maharashtra against the Editor, Om Sainath Times, New Delhi 98. Complaint of Shri Navdeep Singh ’’ Directions Virk, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Punjab Kesari, Panipat, Haryana 99. Complaint of Shri Surinder Puri, ’’ Closed-Paper President, Public Grievance and no more in Welfare Society, Delhi against the existence Editor, Rashtra Hindusatta Times, Delhi

159 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

100. Complaint of Shri Prem Bahadur September 7, Directions Saxena, Delhi against the Editor, 2009 Dainik Jagran, Agra, Uttar Pradesh

101. Complaint of Shri Thakur Chandra ’’ Closed Bhushan Singh, Tata Nagar, Jharkhand against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand

102. Complaint of Shri Haji Taslim Ahmed, February 22, Settled MLA, Laldhang Region (Haridwar), 2010 Uttarakhand against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

103. Complaint of Shri Sultan Ahmed, ’’ Sub-judice Saharanpur, U.P. against the Editor, Jagrukta Ke Prateek, Saharanpur, U.P.

104. Complaint of Smt. Rupen Devi, ’’ Reprimanded Dealer, Fair Price Shop, Bijnor, U.P against the Editor, Vidhan Kesari, Bijnor, U.P.

105. Complaint of Shri Samir Ahmed ’’ Dismissed @ Minto, Nazibabad, U.P. against the Editor and Correspondent, Amar Ujala, Meerut, U.P.

106. Complaint of Shri Mohiuddin Ali Khan, ’’ Settled Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh against the Editor, Rozanama Rashtriya Sahara, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh M

107. Complaint of Shri Mohiuddin Ali Khan, ’’ Settled Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh against the Editor, Sakshi, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

160 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

108 Complaint of Ms. N. Gayathri Devi February 22, Cautioned N., Sub-Registrar, Periyapatna, 2010 Mysore, Karnataka against the Editor, Dari Deepa, Mysore, Karnataka 109. Complaint of Shri S. Bhalerao, IAS, ’’ Disposed off Principal Secretary to the with Government of Andhra Pradesh, directions Public Enterprises Department, Hyderabad against the Editor, , Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh 110. Complaint of Shri Rajeev Aggarwal, ’’ Upheld Faridabad, Haryana against the Editor, Vijay News, New Delhi 111. Complaint of Shri Sunil Kumar ’’ Sub-judice Dwivedi, Ex-President, Choudhary Mahadev Prasad College, Allahabad University, Allahabad, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Allahabad, U.P. 112. Complaint of the Regional Assistant ’’ Disposed off Manager, U.P. State Transport for non- Corporation, Bijnor, U.P. against the pursuance Editor, News Channel No. 1, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. 113. Complaint of Dr. R. P. Sharma, ’’ Disposed off Principal, Jawahar Navodaya with Vidyalaya, Sirsa, Haryana against the observations M Editor, Punjab Kesari, Punjab 114. Complaint of Dr. R. P. Sharma, ’’ Case not Principal, Jawahar Navodaya made out Vidyalaya, Sirsa, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Sach Kahoon, Haryana

161 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

115. Complaint of Shri Harsh Bhal, March 31, Sub-judice Additional Director General (M&C), 2010 Spokesman, Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI, New Delhi against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi 116. Complaint of Shri Mukesh Bhagat, ’’ Dismissed Jharkhand against the Editor, Lahar Chakra, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand 117. Complaint of Dr.(Mrs.) Rani ’’ Reprimanded Kandhaswami and her daughter, Ms. Vani Kandhaswami, Chennai against the Editor, Tamiz Murasu, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 118. Complaint of Shri Devappa ’’ Dismissed for Kamadoddi, District Koppa, non- Karnataka against the Editor Hai pursuance Bengalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka 119. Complaint of Shri G.B. Umesh, Sub ’’ Dismissed for Inspector of Police, Davangere, non- Karnataka against the Editor, Hai pursuance Bangalore, Karnataka 120. Complaint of Shri P.H. Abdul Gaffar ’’ Warned Maulvi, former Chairman, Kerala State Wakf Boad, Thiruvananthapuram against the Editor, Thekkan Vartha Daily, Kerala 121 Complaint of Shri P. Gopinath ’’ Sub-judice Panicker, Managing Partner, PNM Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram against the Editor, Mangalam Daily, Kerala

162 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

122. Complaint of Dr. Dropti Jatariya, March 31, Closed for Chief Medical Superintendent, 2010 non- GSVMMC Maternity Hospital, pursuance Kanpur against the Editor, The Times of India, Kanpur, U.P. 123. Complaint of Shri Anand Kumar ’’ Dismissed Tibrewal, Maharajganj, U.P. against being devoid the Editor, Jansatta Express,M of merit Lucknow, U.P. 124. Complaint of Shri Anand Kumar ’’ Dismissed Tibrewal, Maharajganj, U.P. against being devoid the Editor, Jansatta Express, of merit Lucknow, U.P. 125. Complaint of Shri S. R. Sharma, ’’ Disposed off General Manager, B.S.N.L., with Hazaribagh against Correspondents observations of Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Aaj and Ranchi Express, Ranchi, Jharkhand 126. Complaint of Dr. Yogender Kumar ’’ Dismissed Singh, Varanasi, U.P. against the Editor, Aaj, Varanasi, U.P. 127. Complaint of Shri Vijay Ladhania, ’’ Disposed off Kolkata against the Editor, Andhra with Jyothi, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra directions Pradesh 128. Complaint of Shri Vijay Ladhania, ’’ Disposed off Kolkata against the Editor, Eenadu, M with Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh directions 129. Complaint of Shri Vijay Ladhania, ’’ Disposed off Kolkata against the Editor, with Swatantra Varta, Vishakhapatnam, directions Andhra Pradesh

163 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

130. Complaint of Shri Vijay Ladhania, March 31, Disposed off Kolkata against the Editor, 2010 with Deccan Chronicle, Vishakhapatnam, directions Andhra Pradesh M 131. Complaint of Shri Vijay Ladhania, ’’ Disposed off Kolkata against the Editor, Rashtriya with Mahanagar, Kolkata, West Bengal directions 132. Complaint of Shri Vijay Ladhania, ’’ Disposed off Kolkata against the Editor, Rajasthan with Patrika, Kolkata, West Bengal directions 133. Complaint of Shri K. Prem Kumar, ’’ Closed Superintendent of Police (U/S), Mogappier (East), Chennai, Tamil Nadu against the Editor, Dinamalar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 134. Complaint of Dr. Vikas Chhabra, ’’ Rejected Secretary, Suratgarh Gurukul Sansthan, Suratgarh, Rajasthan against the Editor, Highline, Suratgarh, Rajasthan 135. Complaint of Shri Ravindra Kumar ’’ Assurance Singh, Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Jamui, Bihar against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Bhagalpur, Bihar 136. Complaint of Shri Sudhir Kumar, ’’ Closed with Principal, Jawahar Navodaya observations Vidyalaya, Sitamarhi, Bihar against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan, M Muzzaffarnagar, Bihar 137. Complaint of Shri Sudhir Kumar, ’’ Closed with Principal, Jawahar Navodaya observations Vidyalaya, Sitamarhi, Bihar against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

164 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

138. Complaint of Shri Ram Autar March 31, Disposed off Chaudhary, Aurangabad, Bihar 2010 with against the Editor, Hindustan, Patna, directions Bihar 139. Complaint of Shri Satyabir Singh, ’’ Withdrawn Head Constable, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against the Editor, Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. 140. Complaint of Shri Prashant Kumar ’’ Closed Gautam, Divisional Incharge, Bahujan Samaj Party, Saharanpur, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Meerut, U.P. 141. Complaint of Smt. Maina Rani, ’’ Dismissed Principal, New Modern Junior High School, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against the Editor, Naya Kya Hai, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. 142. Complaint of Shri Anil Kumar, ’’ Dismissed for MLA, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against non- the Editor, Purkaji Bulletin, pursuance Muzaffarnagar, U.P. 143. Complaint of Ms. Kiran, Panchayat ’’ Withdrawn Secretary, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Barin, Hamirpur, H.P. against the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Kangra, H.P. 144. Complaint of Shri K.N. Gupta, ’’ Directions Project Coordinator, Community Development Project Unit, (GOI), Government Women Polytechnic, Jhansi, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jhansi, U.P.

165 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

145. Complaint of Shri Srikant Prasad, March 31, Sub-judice Chief Engineer, Western Electricity 2010 Distribution Corporation Ltd., Meerut Region, Meerut, U.P. against the Editor Klitez Weekly, Meerut Cantt., U.P. 146. Complaint of Dr. R.N. Chauhan, ’’ Dismissed Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Harna Express Weekly, Delhi 147. Complaint of Shri Amithabh Dillon, ’’ Upheld IPS, the then SP, Panchkula, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

Press and Morality 148. Complaint of Ms. Pratibha Naithani, September 7, Reprimanded Mumbai against the Editor, Mumbai 2009 Mirror, Mumbai 149. Complaint of S/Shri Satinder Kadian ’’ Disposed off and Sandeep Kadian, Advocates, Panipat, Haryana against the Editor, Punjab Kesari 150. Complaint of Ms. Pratibha Naithani, ’’ Censured Mumbai against the Editor, , Mumbai M 151. Complaint of Ms. Pratibha Naithani, ’’ Censured Mumbai against the Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai 152. Complaint of Shri Dheeraj Jindal, ’’ Closed - New Delhi against the Editor, Apology Metro Now, New Delhi published

166 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

153. Complaint of Shri Rajesh Kumar February 22, Upheld Sharma, New Delhi against the 2010 Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi

154. Complaint of Shri Sanjeev Gupta, ’’ Disposed off Delhi against the Editor, Metro with Now, New Delhi observations

Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Anti Religious Writings

155. Complaints of Shri K.V. Haridas, June 9, Assurance State President, Mannam Yuvajanavedi, 2009 Kottayam, Kerala against the Editor, Vanitha, Kottayam, Kerala

156. Complaint of Shri B.V. Katti, ’’ Warned President, Akhila Bharata Veerashaiva Mahasabha, Belgaum, Karnataka against the Editor, New Indian Express, Belgaum, Karnataka

157. Complaint of Prof. Purushottam Singh September 7, Disposed off Verma, New Delhi against the Editor, 2009 with The Hindustan Times, New Delhi observations

158. Circulation of undesirable literature ’’ Matter to the army units-Reference from allowed to the Ministry of Home Affairs rest against the Editor, Abhay Bharat, New Delhi

159. Complaint of Shri Abdul Rab Abdul ’’ Sub-judice Rauf, President, Milli Social Multi Purpose Society (forum), Yavatmal, Maharashtra against the Editor, Lokmat, Nagpur, Maharashtra

167 S. Parties Date of Category No. Decision

160. Complaint of Shri Bisweswar March 31, Dismissed Hazarika, Guwahati, Assam against 2010 being devoid the Editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati, of merit Assam

161. Complaint of Shri A.V. Kale, Nagpur, ’’ Upheld Maharashtra against the Editor, The Times of India, Nagpur, Maharashtra

168 Annexure - G

Index of Principles Recorded in Adjudications in Complaints Against the Press

Principles and Publication

An editor enjoys vast discretion in selection of material he deems fit for publication in the columns of the newspaper and a person not enjoying any direct locus in matter may not insist for publication of his view point. (Shri Syed Nafeesul Hasan, Beharich, U.P. versus the Editor, Hindustan, Hindi daily, Lucknow, U.P. Complaint No. 7, PCI Review, July 2009) The press, has an undisputed right to express an opinion on important issues of public interest. Being an opinion piece, the press thus enjoys more laxity in comment even without sacrificing the correctness of facts. At the same time no government or elected representatives in a democracy can be sensitive to media’s critical appraisal of its working. For that is the duty the media is expected to discharge as a custodian of public interest.(Shri Shishir Jha, Commissioner of Income Tax & Official Spokesperson, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi versus the Editor, , Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Complaint No. 10, PCI Review, October 2009) The newspaper is not obliged to publish unsolicited article. However, it is advisable to return the article when accompanied by a stamped envelope. (Ms. Shobha Agrawal, New Delhi versus the Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh, Complaint No. 11, PCI Review, October 2009) If post publication information necessitate further clarification from the institute it is obligatory on the part of the newspaper to offer the same to them as the directly affected party, moreso when the readers responses dented the image of the premier institute. (Prof. V.K. Paul, Prof. Head, Deptt. of Paediatrics, AIIMS, New Delhi versus the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi, Complaint No. 28, PCI Review, April 2010) Matter of acceptance of advertisement falls within the discretion of the newspaper and while exercising this discretion the newspaper has to take into account many aspects such as legality or bonafide of the material given for publication in the form of advertisements etc. However, having accepted the advertisement with payment; either it should be published or the money refunded

169 immediately. (Shri Liaqat Ali, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi versus the Editor, Roznama Rashtriya Sahara, Noida, Complaint No. 31, PCI Review, April 2010) Publication of frontal nude full length photographs of a victimised naked girl on the cover-page of magazine is nothing but sensationalism. Such publications could in no way enjoy protection of constitutional guarantee under article 19(1). It attacked prestige of not just the lady in question but womanhood. The editor had divested himself of all the care and discretion expected of the holder of that chair by not only selecting the picture for publication but cover- paging it. (Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Dhanbad, Jharkhand versus the Editor, Saras Salil, New Delhi, Complaint No. 35, PCI Review, April 2010) Rewording the article and the failure to acknowledge the work of the writer is unethical. It is expected that the press should respect the rights of the writers. (Shri Rakesh Kumar Agnihotri, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh versus the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, Complaint No. 39, PCI Review, April 2010) Promoting a particular candidate while publishing the impugned material in a format in such a way that it appears as news report to the layman and the word ADVT printed at the lowest end rather appears to accompany a small boxed Appeal by the candidate which beyond doubt has a possibility of confusing the voters during elections when all campaigning has stopped. Such act is not only unethical by journalistic standards but also in violation of the election laws. (Shri Yogendra Kumar, Ex-MLA, Candidate for Assembly Elections, Badayun, Uttar Pradesh versus The Editor Amar Ujala, the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Complaint No. 40, PCI Review, April 2010) Photo journalism is today a powerful medium to reflect and chronicle the events with total accuracy for history and to dissuade the press from chronicling them would amount to shying away from a journalist’s bounden commitment to bring the truth before today and tomorrow. (Shri Rakesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Delhi versus The Editor, Frontline Chennai, Complaint No. 41, PCI Review, April 2010)

Press and Defamation A newspaper claiming to be amongst the leaders of the fourth estate and adopting international technologies is also expected to adopt the universally accepted and followed journalistic practices. (Dr. P.B. Amolik, Hon. Secretary, The Bombay Diocesan Trust Association (P) Ltd. Mumbai, versus the

170 Editor, The Times of India, Mumbai, Complaint No. 13, PCI Review, July 2009) Acts and conducts of a public person holding public office are open to critical evaluation by the press. At the same time however, it is incumbent on the Press to base its news as well as comments on verified information and also refrain from use of unduly bombed or satirical comments. (Ms. Bharti, Mayor, Mysore City, Karnataka versus the Editor, Lankesh Patrike, Bengaluru, Karnataka, Complaint No. 15, PCI Review, July 2009) Newspapers should be more sensitive to personal grief and loss of the family members and corroborate the police version from the concerned. (Syed Mohd. Ali Sabir, Lucknow, U.P. versus the Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Lucknow, U.P., Complaint No. 20, PCI Review, October 2009) The newspaper is duty bound to publish the version of the affected party, as the same forms an integral part of the report. It is not for a newspaper to run a one-sided campaign without caring for the version of the affected. (Ms. Manju Wadwalkar, Public Relations Officer, PGIMER, Chandigarh versus the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh, Complaint No. 37, PCI Review, October 2009) While being a mediaperson does not give a privilege to a journalist over the law of the land, telecommunication is an integral part of journalistic duties and the officers are also expected to be sensitive to their needs. (Shri S.R. Sharma, General Manager, BSNL, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand versus Correspondents of Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Aj and Ranchi Express, Complaint No. 63, PCI Review, April 2010) The allegation of dowry harassment are subject of scrutiny by Court of Law and the misuse or otherwise of Section 498 IPC should be reported upon by journals with more sensitivity and avoid publication of photographs of accused. The editor in such cases should also verify the stand of the concerned family. (Shri Vijay Ladhania, Kolkata, West Bengal versus the Editors, Andhra Jyothi, Vishakhapatnam, Eenadu, Vishakhapatnam, Swatantra Vaarta, Vishakhapatnam, Deccan Chronicle, Vishakhapatnam, Rashtriya Mahanagar, Kolkata, Rajasthan Patrika, Kolkata, Complaint No. 65, PCI Review, April 2010) Mixing the comments and presenting conjunctures and rumours should not be overstepped by the editor while personally attacking the person’s alleged behaviour in discharge of his/her duties and making wild allegations maligning him/her without having any documentary evidence in editor’s possession. (The

171 Sub-Registrar, Periyapatna, District Mysore, Karnataka versus the Editor, Dari Deepa, District Mysore, Karnataka, Complaint No. 48, PCI Review, April 2010)

Press and Morality

Publication of photographs of women in denigrating manner are against the normal Indian values and their release by an international news agency does not absolve the editor of individual newspaper from judging its suitability, considering the target readership and the values of the society in the given country. The paper should ensure careful scrutiny of such publication. (S/Shri Satender Kadiyan and Sandeep Kadiyan, Advocates, Panipat (Haryana) versus the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Hindi Daily, Jalandhar, Punjab, Complaint No. 45, PCI Review, October 2009)

Giving verbatim explicit details of sexual abuse of the victim as recorded in the FIR does great harm to the dignity of the victim and to the sensibilities of the readers. FIR is a document where recording of the details is an essential component of the criminal proceedings impending. But a newspaper is certainly not the place for it and a newspaper enjoying national stature is expected to bear this in mind. (Ms. Pratibha Naithani, Mumbai against the Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai, Complaint No. 46, PCI Review, October 2009)

A publication of importance accessed by the readers for its news value is expected to be more careful and sensitive towards them as the general public of each country does abide by some core societal values. (Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Delhi versus the Editor, the Times of India, New Delhi, Complaint No. 80, PCI Review, April 2010)

Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Anti Religious Writings

Sketching in cartoons, caricature and comic characters are usually permitted greater latitude by the very nature of these purposes i.e. evoking humour. It is however, conversely true that the creator of the cartoon observes due diligence bearing in mind the social means and ethos. (Shri K. V. Haridas, State President Mannam Yuvajanavedi, Kottayam, Kerala versus the Editor, Vanitha, Fortnightly, Kottayam, Kerala, Complaint No. 31, PCI Review, July 2009)

An author’s right to present his opinion could not be put to question. However, in doing so it is also essential for a journalist to ensure that his remarks do not tear the fragile fragment of social or religious belief.

172 (Shri Purshottam Singh Verma, Retd. Professor of Education, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi versus the Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Complaint No. 48, PCI Review, October 2009) The domain of ethics is much larger than law and ethicality of an action needs to be judged from a common man’s point of view. Therefore newspapers may not publish matter that could portray the religious characters in an adverse light or offending the religious susceptibilities of large sections of society who hold those characters in high esteem, invested with attributes of the virtuous and lofty. A newspaper editor is expected to be even more careful in his/her writings in absence of any superior authority that could review the comments. (Shri A.V. Kale, Nagpur, Maharashtra versus the Editor, The Times of India, Nagpur, Maharashtra, Complaint No. 83, PCI Review, April 2010)

173 Annexure - H

Subject Index of Orders Passed by the Press and Registration Appellate Board (2009-2010)

S. Name of Parties Date of Order No. Order Passed 1. Appeal of Printer, Publisher and 7.8.2009 Set aside Managing Editor, Hindi Daily, News the impugned Activist, Lucknow against order order dated 29.8.08 passed by the City Magistrate, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh regarding non authentication of declaration of the newspaper 2. Appeal of Owner, Printer and Publisher 7.8.2009 Set aside the People’s March, English Monthly, impugned Ernakulam, Kerala versus the District order Collectors’, Ernakulam, Kerala order dated 15.1.09 3. Appeal of Shri Narender Jain, Editor, 7.8.2009 Disposed off- Samaigati, Hindi Dainik, Indore, issued Madhya Pradesh versus the Collector directions and District Magistrates’, Indore, Madhya Pradesh order dated 31.8.2007 4. Appeal of Prof. Swatanter Kumar, 7.8.2009 Status quo be Secretary, Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi maintained- Sabha (Regd.) and Shri Vimal Wadhawan issued Arya, Printer and Publisher, Sarvadeshik directions Weekly, New Delhi versus The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), New Delhi order dated 15.1.2008 5. Appeal of Shri Prakash Arya, Secretary, 7.8.2009 Status quo be Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (Regd.), maintained New Delhi versus The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), New Delhi order dated 15.1.2008

174 S. Name of Parties Date of Order No. Order Passed 6. Appeal of Shri Bipingiri K. Goswami, 7.8.2009 The Board Editor, Goswami Prakash and Shri Baldevgiri directed M.Goswami, Secretary, Shri Mahagujarat respondent to Dashnam Goswami Mahamandal, accept fresh Gandhinagar, Gujarat versus order declaration dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 7. Appeal of Shri Sahebrao Budha Bagul 18.1.2010 The Board (Babar), Editor, Crime Warta, Dhule, directed the Maharashtra versus order dated 22.5.08 respondent for passed by the Additional District authentication Magistrate, Dhule, Maharashtra of the declaration 8. Appeal of Owner, Publisher and Editor, 18.1.2010 The Board Kanshi Kiran, Hindi Daily and Kanshi directed RNI Kiran, Hindi Weekly, Varanasi against the to proceed Additional District Magistrate (Protocol), to issue the Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh necessary declaration sought by the appellant 9. Appeal of Shri Prakash P. Kukreja, 18.1.2010 Dismissed- Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra against Sub- beyond the Divisional Magistrate, Ulhasnagar regarding scope of the non canceling of the declaration of provisions of Mahraan, Sindhi Weekly newspaper, Section 8B of Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra PRB Act-Not admissible 10. Appeal of Shri Bikash Swain, Owner/ 18.1.2010 Not to take Publisher, Suryaprava, Oriya daily, cognizance of Bhubaneswar, Orissa versus order the appeal dated 8.9.09 passed by the District Magistrate, Khurda, Orissa regarding cancellation of declaration of newspaper

175