PRESS COUNCIL OF

Compendium of Adjudications (April 1, 2007-March 31, 2008)

New Delhi

Compendium of Adjudications

Contents

Preface Index of the Adjudications of the Council for -- 1 the Period April 1, 2007 – March 31, 2008

Adjudications of the Council -- 11

PREFACE

The concept of a body established to promote self regulation in the media and simultaneously safeguard its interests is key to its freedom with responsibility in a democratic nation. The Press Council of India’s most potent instrument of furthering this cause are its adjudications on the complaints brought before it. All adjudications of the Council rendered in 2007-08, including those in which principles of far-reaching importance to guide the conduct of the press and the authorities were laid down during the period under review, have been comprehensively covered in this Compendium which I hope and trust the readers will find useful and informative as the earlier ones.

(G.N. Ray) Chairman Press Council of India

Index of Adjudications of the Council for the Period April 1, 2007 - March 31, 2008

S.No. Parties Date of Decision

Harassment of Newsmen 1. Complaint of Editor, Nakkheeran, Tamil Bi-weekly, July 27, Chennai regarding attack on their reporter, Shri D. 2007 Prakash by ADMK persons. 2. Complaint of Shri Komal Singh Senger, Editor, ’’ Dainik Shoshan Mukt, Hathras, U.P. against police authorities of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Suo-motu action against ACP, regarding ’’ manhandling and assault of Shri Kamal Singh, Photo Journalist, Press Trust of India. 4. Suo-motu action w.r.t. arrest of the based ’’ Principal Correspondent of Indian Express reportedly following his news report on a complaint lodged against IGP, Sumedh Saini before the State Human Rights Commission. 5. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Tiwari Ujala, Journalist, Delhi ’’ against police authorities, Delhi 6. Complaint of Shri Abnish Kumar, Correspondent, ’’ Swatantra Bharat, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh against Smt. Rajvinder Kaur, ANM and Shri Devender Kumar Tiwari, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 7. Suo-motu action w.r.t. assault on press October 4-5, photographers by the colleagues of Shri Santosh 2007 Kumar Singh convicted in a rape and murder case of Ms. Priyadarshini Mattoo 8. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Correspondent, ” Ranchi Express, Bokaro against police authorities. 9. Complaint of Shri Vinod Malik, Editor, Vishwa Parikrama ” Times, Meerut, U.P. against Chairman, Subharati Medical Dental College, Meerut, U.P.

1 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

10. Complaint of Shri Trilok Prasad Sharma, Owner/ October 4-5, Editor/Publisher, Weekly Bhakt Hanuman, 2007 Bulandshahar, U.P. against Shri Manoj, Village Pipala, Bulandshahar and police authorities of Bulandshahar. 11. Complaint of Shri Ram Kishore Panwar, Publisher/Editor, ” Uncle Four Twenty, Betul, M.P. against police authorities of M.P. 12. Complaint of Shri Vinod Malik, Editor Vishva Parikrama ” Times, Meerut (U.P.) against U.P. Power Corporation, Meerut (U.P.). 13. Complaint of Shri Madan Mohan Pandey, Correspondent, ” Aaj, Azamgarh (U.P.) against police authority, Azamgarh.

Facilities to the Press 14. Complaint of Ms. Kausar Jahan, Editor, Today’s Voice, July 27, Lucknow, U.P. against Information and Public Relations 2007 Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. 15. Complaint of Shri Sameer Bhatnagar, Correspondent, ” Shah Times, Mirzapur, U.P. against Deputy Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Mirzapur, U.P. 16. Complaint of Shri Dilip Gupt, Journalist, Dainik Din-Raat, Auraiya against District Magistrate, Etawah/Auraiya. 17. Complaint of Shri Anjan Upadhyaya, Publisher/Editor, ” Hamro Prajashakti, Nepali News Daily, Sikkim against State Government of Sikkim. 18. Complaint of Dr. Praveen Gupta, Chief Editor, Public ” News, New Delhi against Additional District Information Officer, Jamui, Bihar. 19. Complaint of Shri Narayandas Morya, Chief Editor, ” Samanta, Piparia, M.P. against DAVP. 20. Complaint of Shri K.D. Chandola, National President, ” Association of Small Newspapers of India, Kanpur against Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.

2 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

21. Complaint of Shri M.V. Arya, State President, July 27, Association of Small Newspapers of India and Chief 2007 Editor, Rajput Maryada, Kanpur, U.P. against I&PRD, Government of U.P. 22. Complaint of Shri Moni Kamal Datta, Publisher/Printer/ ’’ Editor, Mukta Kripan, Birbhum, West Bengal against District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum, West Bengal. 23. Complaint of Shri Moni Kamal Datta, Publisher/Printer/ ’’ Editor, Krishi Kalyan, Birbhum, West Bengal against District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum, West Bengal. 24. Complaint of Shri Gyan Chandra Varshnay, Owner/ ’’ Publisher, Udyog Vyapar Times, Aligarh against Additional District Information Officer, Information & Public Relations Department, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. 25. Complaint of the Editor, Vatanpremi, Amravati October 4-5, (Maharashtra) against the Director, Information & 2007 Public Relations Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. 26. Complaint of Shri Prabir Kumar Sarkar, Chief Editor, ’’ Coalfield Times, Kolkata against Director, Information & Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal. 27. Complaint of Shri Raghavendra Singh, Editor of ’’ ‘‘Sunehara Sansar’’, Indira Nagar (UP) against D.A.V.P. and R.N.I. Curtailment of Press Freedom 28. Suo motu action w.r.t. to incident held on October 13, July 27, 2005 at Kolkata wherein hawkers affiliated to CITU 2007 blockaded The Statesman House and obstructed the supply of copies of The Statesman and Dainik Statesman (Bengali). 29. Suo-motu action w.r.t. arrest of the journalists of the ’’ state reportedly on the direction of the Education Minister of M.P. to the DIG, Sagar Range.

3 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

Principles and Publication 30. Complaint of the Government of Tripura, Home July 27, Department, Agartala against Syandan Patrika, 2007 Bengali Daily, Agartala. 31. Complaint of Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao, Secretary ’’ General, Karnataka State Federation of Consumers’ Organization against Star of Mysore 32. Complaint of Hazi Saiyyad Atik Miyan Chisti, Dargah ’’ Sharif, Ajmer, Rajasthan against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 33. Complaint of Superintendent of Police and Collector, ’’ Bhind, Madhya Pradesh against Dainik Nav Bharat, Gwalior. 34. Complaint of the President, Jamat-e-Islami Hind, ’’ Guwahati against the editor, Dainik Pratidin, Guwahati. 35. Complaint of Shri Prasana Kumar, Proprietor AGP ’’ Photobank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi against Incredible India, Durga Dass Publications, New Delhi. 36. Complaint reference from the Ministry of Home ’’ Affairs/Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi against Press Trust of India, The Tribune, Chandigarh and Rashtriya Sahara, Noida. 37. Complaint of Dr. Jagwinder Singh, Medical Officer, October 4-5, PCMC-I, , Punjab against the editor, Daily 2007 Ajit, Ludhiana, Punjab. 38. Complaint of Shri Ramesh Lalwani, Ex Advisor, D.O.T., ’’ New Delhi against The Hindustan Times, New Delhi. 39. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Bhatia, Director, I&PRD, ’’ Lucknow against The Hindustan Times, Lucknow. 40. Complaint of Shri Girish Prasad Gupta, Begu Sarai, ’’ Bihar against Dainik Jagran and Dainik Aaj, Patna. 41. Complaint of Prof. K.L.Bhatia, Prant Sangh Chalak, ’’ Rashtriya Swaym Sewak Sangh, Jammu, against Dainik Jagran, Noida (U.P.)

4 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

42 Complaint of Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu October 4-5, against State Times, Jammu. 2007 43 Complaint of Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary, Sankalp ’’ Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut against Punjab Kesari, Delhi. Press and Defamation 44. Complaint of Shri P.N. Thakkar, Ahmedabad against July 27, Sandesh, Ahmedabad. 2007 45. Complaint of Shri Arun Agarwal, M/s Vikas Trading ’’ Company, Meerut against Amar Ujala, Meerut. 46. Complaint of Owner, Vikas Trading Company, Meerut ’’ against Dainik Jagran, Meerut. 47. Shri Vikar Ahmad, Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, ’’ Bijnore, Uttar Pradesh against Chingari, Sandhya Dainik, Bijnore. 48. Complaint of Shri Santanu Das, Director, Information, ’’ Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of Tripura, Agartala against the editor, Syandan Patrika, Agartala. 49. Complaint of Mrs. Madhurima Barua, Guwahati, Assam ’’ against Ajir Asom, Guwahati, Assam. 50. Complaint of Smt. Shiela Dikshit, Chief Minister of NCT ’’ of Delhi against Amar Ujala, Meerut. 51. Complaint of Smt. Shiela Dikshit, Chief Minister of NCT ’’ of Delhi against The Times of India, New Delhi. 52. Complaint of Shri Abhishek Singh, IAS, District Magistrate, ’’ Hardoi, U.P. against Dainik Amar Ujala, Kanpur. 53. Complaint of Shri B.K. Narayan, General Manager, Giltec ’’ International (P) Ltd., Mangalore against Samyuktha Prabha, Mangalore. 54. Complaint of Shri P.B. Sathyan, State General Secretary, ’’ BJP Kissan Morcha, Aluva (Kerala) against Flash, Malayalam Mid Day daily, Thiruvananthapuram

5 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

55. Complaint of Shri Lal Singh, Editor, Hathras Samachar, July 27, Hathras, U.P. against Gramya Netra Weekly, Hathras, 2007 Uttar Pradesh. 56. Complaint of Shri S.S. Sadananda, A.C.D., P.O.Sringari, ’’ District Karnataka against Namma Loka, Kannada Weekly. 57. Complaint of Shri Jugal Kishore Gupta, Chhatarpur ’’ against the editor, Dainik Vindhya Shakti, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. 58. Complaints of Smt. Bharti Aggarwal, President, Gram ’’ Bharati Mahila Mandal, District Betul, M.P. against the editor, Vigyapan Ki Duniya and Vidarbha Chandika, Nagpur. 59. Complaint of Collector & District Magistrate, Sehore, ’’ Madhya Pradesh, against Dainik Nai Duniya, Bhopal. 60. Complaint of Dr. J. G. Negi, the then Director General, ’’ M.P. Council of Science & Technology, Bhopal against The Hindustan Times, Bhopal. 61. Complaint of the Chief Manager, J. K. Industries Limited, ’’ Banmore, Madhya Pradesh against Dainik Chambal Vani, Gwalior. 62 Complaint of the Honorary Secretary, The Shillong Club ’’ Limited, Shillong against the editor, The Telegraph, Guwahati. 63. Complaint of Shri Ripun Bora, Hon’ble Minister of ’’ Panchayat, Rural Development & Elementary Education, Government of Assam, Guwahati against the editor, Dainik Agradoot, Guwahati. 64. Complaint of Shri Ranjit Gogoi, Liaison Officer, Chief ’’ Minister's Public Relations Cell, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati against the editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Assam. 65. Complaint of Dr. Bhagwan Lahkar, Adviser to Chief ’’ Minister (I&PR), Assam, Guwahati against the editor, Aji, Assamese daily, Guwahati.

6 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

66. Complaint of Shri Gajraj Singh Yadav, Mahendragarh, July 27, Haryana against the editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi. 2007 67. Complaint of Shri R.P. Balwan, IFS, Conservator of ’’ Forests, Gurgaon, Haryana against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Hissar, Haryana. 68. Complaint of Shri Ravindra Dwivedi, National President, ’’ All India Anti Corruption Committee, Thane, Maharashtra against the editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi. 69. Complaint of Chief (Corporate Communications), Life ’’ Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai against the editor, Mid-Day, Mumbai. 70. Complaint of Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Hardwar, ’’ Uttarakhand against The Sunday Post, Noida. 71. Complaint of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Meerut, U.P. ’’ against Dainik Jagran, Meerut. 72. Complaint of Shri Shailander Pratap Singh, S.P., ’’ Pratapgarh, U.P. against Amar Ujala, Allahabad. 73. Complaint of Shri J.D. Ahirwar, Marketing Inspector, ’’ Kanpur Dehat, U.P. against Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow. 74. Complaint of Shri Uma Shankar Singh, Headmaster, ’’ Lal Bahadur Shastri Junior High School, Gorakhpur against Jansatta Express, Lucknow. 75. Complaint of Shri Ramjilal Srivastava, Journalist, Jhansi ’’ against Dainik Jagran, Jhansi. 76. Complaint of Mohd. Fasih Uddin, Advocate, Moradabad ’’ against Amar Ujala, Moradabad. 77. Complaint of Shri G.L. Chaurasia, Advocate, Agra against ’’ Amar Ujala, Agra 78. Complaint of Shri Kailash, SDE Legal, BSNL, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh against Data Sandesh, Agra. 79 Complaint of The Executive Officer, Shri Sai Baba Sansthan ’’ Trust (Shirdi), Maharashtra against the editor, Lok Bol, Maharashtra.

7 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

80. Complaint of Shri D.S. Murthy, IAS, Former October 4-5, Commissioner of Marketing, Government of Andhra 2007 Pradesh, Hyderabad against Eenadu. 81. Complaint of Shri Raghav Chandra, Managing Director, ’’ M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Bhopal against Nav Bharat and Central Chronicle. 82. Complaint of Shri Geetartha Darshan Barua, Astha ’’ Editorial Board, Jorhat against the editor, Dainik Janambhumi, Jorhat, Assam. 83 Complaint of Shri Rajinder Singh, IPS, Inspector ’’ General of Police, Ferozpur Zone, , Punjab against Amar Ujala, and The Hindustan Times, Chandigarh. 84. Complaint of Dr. Bal Singh, Lecturer, DAV College, ’’ Pehowa, Kurukshetra against the editor, Punjab Kesari, Karnal. 85. Complaint of Dr. S.P. Gupta, Director, Ashirvad Hospital ’’ & Research Centre, Varanasi against Senior India, New Delhi 86. Complaint of Shri Sunil G. Godbole, Mumbai against ’’ The Times of India, Mumbai. 87. Complaint of Mrs. Renuka Patgri, Principal (Retd), ’’ Bajali College, Assam against Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati, Assam. 88. Complaint of Shri Premadhar Handique, Guwahati ’’ against Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati. 89 Complaint of Miss Ruli Sharma, Nagoan, Assam against ’’ Janasadharan, Guwahati 90. Complaint of Ms. Rajni Malani, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati ’’ against Purvanchal Prahari, Guwahati. 91. Complaint of S.D.E. (Legal) B.S.N.L., against ‘‘Aligarh ’’ Nagari’’, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.

8 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

92. Complaint of Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Maurani Pura, October 4-5, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, against Saptahik Parakh, Jhansi 2007 Cantt. (U.P.). 93. Complaint of Shri Jagdish Kumar, Chief (PRO), ’’ Bilaspur, Chhattishgarh against Dainik Prajashakti, Bilaspur, Chhattishgarh. 94. Complaint of Shri Ajit Gulanikar, Consultant, Colaba, ’’ Mumbai against Mid-Day, Mumbai. 95. Complaint of Shri Mahant Devendra Dass, Jhanda ’’ Mohalla, Dehradun, Uttarakhand against Uttaranchal Saya, Uttarakhand. 96. Complaint of Shri Amar Kumar Mondal, Jt. Secretary, ’’ Shramik Union, Hindustan Cables Ltd., Rupnarainpur Unit, Burdwan, West Bengal against Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, Burdwan, West Bengal. 97. Complaint of Shri Ashok Chauhan, DSP, Haryana ’’ Police, District Karnal against Punjab Kesari. 98. Complaint of Smt. Nisha Trivedi, Unnao against ’’ Dainik Hindustan, Lucknow, Dainik Jagran, Kanpur and The Aj, Kanpur, U.P. 99. Complaint of Shri Vishnu Kumar Gupta, Chandausi, ’’ U.P. against Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala, Moradabad. 100. Complaint of Shri Lalchand Pandey, Sub-Registrar-I, ’’ Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against Hamara Yuva, Muzaffarnagar. 101. Complaint of Mohd. Yusuf Qureshi, General Secretary, ’’ Rashtriya Janata Dal, (U.P.), Meerut against Dainik Jagran, Meerut. 102. Complaint of Smt. Kamla Rani, Block President, Bhojpur, ’’ Modinagar against Dainik Jagran, Noida, U.P. 103. Complaint of Sister Shalini, H.C., Headmistress, ’’ St. Teresa’s Girls High School, Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

9 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

104. Complaint of Sister Shalini, H.C., Headmistress, St. October 4-5, Teresa’s Girls High School, Bettiah, West Champaran, 2007 Bihar against the editor, Hindustan, Hindi Daily, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 105. Complaint of Shri V.H. Dalmia, Vishva Hindu Parishad, ’’ New Delhi against the editor, The Times of India, New Delhi. 106. Complaint of Smt. Hemambika R. Priya, Official ’’ Spokesperson, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi against The Pioneer, New Delhi. 107. Complaint of Shri Govind Bihari Nigam, Vice Chairman, ’’ Kalicharan Nigam Institute of Technology, Banda against Punjab Kesari, Delhi. 108. Complaint of Shri D.P. Singh, National Spokesman/Vice ’’ President, Janhit Jagran, Meerut against Amar Ujala, Meerut. Press and Morality 109. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate/ July 27, President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad, U.P. 2007 against Rashtriya Sahara, Noida. 110. Complaint of Shri B.K. Sinha, Income Tax Officer, ’’ Hazaribagh, Jharkhand against the editors, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi and Vichar Saransh, New Delhi. 111. Complaints of Mr. Ashok Basappa Udyavar & October 4-5 others and Mrs. Sheetal Vivek Mehta, Vasai & 2007 others, Thane, Maharashtra against Maharashtra Buland Times, Thane, Maharashtra. 112. Suo-motu action against Debonair, Mumbai. ’’ Communal, Casteist and Anti Religious Writings 113. Complaint of Shri Naresh Thakkar, Director, Chittaur July 27, Darshan, (TV News Channel), Chittaurgarh, Rajasthan 2007 against the editor, Samachar Jagat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 114. Complaint of Dr. K.V. Sangameswaran, Consultant ’’ Radiologist, Pune against the editor, The Times of India, Pune. 10 Adjudications of the Council

Harassment of Newsmen

1) Shri Nakkheeran Gopal Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Tamil Nadu Nakkheeran Chennai Chennai 2. The Superintendent of Police Thiruvallore (Tamil Nadu)

3. Shri Sathish Kumar, (Brother of Shri Vijayakumar MLA) Thanakulam Village Periya Palayam Post Thiruvallore, Tamil Nadu Complaint This telegraphic complaint dated 21.4.2005 has been filed by the Editor, Nakkheeran, Tamil Bi Weekly, Chennai against Shri Sathish Kumar, brother of a local politician alleging physical assault and abuse when their reporter Shri D. Prakash visited him for a photograph as a candidate for the bye-elections. According to the complainant on 20.4.2005 their reporter was attacked and manhandled by Shri Sathish Kumar, some ADMK persons and other relatives of Shri Vijay Kumar, Gummidipoondi candidate and present MLA while he was gathering information of election work due to publication of previous critical reports. The complainant vide further letter dated 21.6.2005 submitted that the reporter was admitted in the Hospital and a complaint C.S.R.No.103/05 about the incident was lodged in the Police Station but the police did not take any action on it but on the contrary a proxy complaint against their reporter was taken by the police from the respondent Mr. Sathish Kumar. Comments of the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallore and Shri Sathish Kumar, brother of concerned MLA were invited in the matter on 15.7.2005. Comments of the Respondent-Shri Sathish Kumar The respondent Shri K.S. Sathish Kumar in his reply dated 6.8.2005 raised preliminary objection regarding Press Council’s jurisdiction to entertain complaint against the general public and sought dismissal of the complaint in limine. On merits, the respondent while denying the allegations of assault on the complainant submitted that a suit had been filed against him bearing C.S. No.312/03 in the

11 Hon’ble High Court, Madras praying for damages for the irreparable loss and damage caused to the name, fame, reputation, honour and health and the said suit is pending in the Hon’ble High Court. The respondent further stated that the complainant is in the habit of publishing articles contrary to truth only to gain mileage and for the publicity to improve the sale of his newspaper. He submitted that since the suit has been filed claiming damages, the complainant adopted dubious methods by filing complaints with false allegations only to coerce them to withdraw the suit. The respondent alleged that the complainant by misusing the press privileges levelled false and frivolous allegations to avenge his personal grudge. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 16.8.2005 for information. Comments of the Respondent Government The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in his comments dated 2.11.05 while giving details of the incident submitted that the statement of the complainant that the police did not take any action on his complaint is false. He submitted that the Head Constable, Mr. Govindaraj, who was then holding charge of the Police Station received the complaint at about 18:00 hrs. on 20.4.2005, gave CSR receipt and sent him to the Government Hospital for treatment through memorandum. The counter petitioner, Shri Sathish Kumar appeared at the Police Station at about 18:30 hrs. on the same day and preferred a petition alleging that the complainant was fully drunk and persisted for his demand of Rs. 2,000/- saying that in the event of non-fulfilment of his demand the magazine could boost as well as degrade the candidate prospects. Alleging that the reporter went on abusing, Shri Sathish Kumar requested action against him. His petition was received and receipt CSR No.104/05 was issued. The respondent further stated that the enquiry reveals that the complainant entered into the house of the candidate, Shri Vijay Kumar on 20.4.2005 and demanded the photograph of the candidate for publication. It was also true that he had demanded a few thousand rupees for writing good about candidate’s favour. The candidate was not available then. The counter petitioner and two of his friends were only there and they refused to oblige the complainant. There ensued a wordy quarrel sort of fist cuffs. Head Constable who was on picketing duty at the house of the candidate had been a witness to the occurrence and had denied the allegation of assault. The Head Constable narrated that the complainant entered into the house and returned immediately. At the entrance complainant and Shri Sathish Kumar had a quarrel and shouted at each other and the Head Constable had intervened and pacified the complainant to go away. The respondent further stated that the complainant in order to preempt any complaint from the other side preferred his complaint with the police with a totally exaggerated allegation. He concluded that the complainant is not interested in pursuing his case. After being discharged from

12 the hospital he did not appear before the police authorities for inquiry inspite of repeated summons. A copy of the respondent’s Govt. of Tamil Nadu’s comments was forwarded to the complainant on 30/11/2005 for information. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 28.2.2006 the complainant categorically denied the statement of the respondent that filing of civil suit by his father was the basis for a motive for there are numerous litigations pending between him and various parties by virtue of his profession. The complainant has particularly objected to the reply furnished by the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu regarding his intention not to pursue the complaint which indicated police inaction. The complainant submitted that he is capable of proving manhandling of his reporter with witnesses. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent Government on 14.3.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.03.2007 at New Delhi. S/Shri E. Edwing and L. Shiva Kumar, Advocates appeared for the complainant. Shri J. Rajendran, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant submitted that the grievance of the complainant was against the police authorities for not registering the FIR. The respondent reiterated submissions made earlier. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties and perusing the documents first considered the preliminary objection raised by the respondent Shri Sathish Kumar and observed that the Press Council has the mandate under the statute to protect the press from threats to its freedom from all quarters. This jurisdiction has been accepted by the courts and the ruling of Delhi High Court in K.K. Birla Vs. Press Council (1975) is particularly relevant to the issue. It reads “Whenever there is infringement or impingement on the freedom of the Press and independence of the newspaper, irrespective of the source of the threat, the jurisdiction of the Press Council is attracted. If there is a violation of right to the liberty of the Press by the State, State functionary, public authority, companies. Individuals or any person real or fictional, it will give jurisdiction to the Press Council to pronounce on the impropriety to the action complained

13 of. The Press Council has the responsibility of fostering the independence of the Press protecting it from external pressure, irrespective of the source or origin of the pressure.” The Inquiry Committee thus rejected the preliminary objection and proceeded to consider the matter on merit. It noted that the complainant was seeking remedy by way of action on the FIR, which according to him was an act of inaction on the part of the police authorities. The police authorities on the other hand have submitted that the complainant did not appear before them to press his case despite several opportunities. The Committee, in the circumstances, observed that the complainant, if so advised may pursue the matter there or approach the Court of Law for redressal of his grievance. The Inquiry Committee decided to drop further proceedings and recommended to the Council accordingly Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

2) Shri Komal Singh Senger Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of U.P. Dainik Shoshan Mukta Lucknow Hathras, U.P. 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

3. The Superintendent of Police Hathras Uttar Pradesh Complaint This is a complaint filed on 12.12.2003 by Shri Komal Singh Senger, Editor, “Dainik Shoshan Mukta” and correspondent of “Sach Kya Hai”, Hathras (U.P.) alleging that the policemen bashed him up on 28.10.2003 with sticks and belts being annoyed with publication of the critical report on 3.5.2003 in “Dainik Sach Kya Hai” regarding extortion by traffic police. The complainant has submitted that he was taken to Hathras Police Station and released on the condition that he will not write anything against the police. The complainant submitted that his wrist watch and cash amounting to Rs. 265/- were also snatched during manhandling by Shri Gurudutt Sharma, Head Constable and other policemen, when he suffered a fracture. In the police station he was forced to sign on a paper wherein it was written that he was demanding Rs.1,500/- and causing hindrance in official work.

14 The complainant apprehended that he might be entangled in a false criminal case. The complainant stated that he had written to the higher authorities viz. Superintendent of Police, but to no avail. The complainant thus requested the Council to intervene in the matter. Comments In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 1.4.2004, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aligarh filed his comments dated 22.4.2004 and submitted that an inquiry was conducted by the then Circle Officer, Hathras and the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be established. However, extortion by the traffic police was confirmed and action against the accused police officer had been initiated and they were transferred as a disciplinary action by the Deputy IGP, Agra Circle. A copy of comments was forwarded to the complainant on 4.6.2004 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 27.4.2005. Shri Komal Singh Senger, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent authorities. The S.P., Mahamayanagar vide his fax dated April 27, 2005 however informed that the Circle Officer deputed for the hearing had suddenly fallen ill and the government may be given time to present its case. The complainant submitted that he used to publish news against the misdeeds of the police and being annoyed with this, he was beaten up by the police. A false case was registered against him. In the inquiry conducted by the police, his statement was not recorded. He further stated that he was being pressurised not to appear before the Committee, and therefore he had come via Mathura. He also apprehended danger to his life and requested that personal security be provided to him. The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the complainant. It noted that the inquiry into the complaint was conducted by the Circle Officer. The Committee was not satisfied by the inquiry conducted by a junior officer and felt that a fresh inquiry into the matter should be conducted by an agency other than the police. It further directed that the District Magistrate, Hathras may cause the inquiry to be completed within six months and outcome of the inquiry be intimated to the Council. In the meantime the District Magistrate, Hathras would take appropriate steps to ensure that the complainant did not face any threat or hindrance in discharge of his duties as a journalist.

15 The Committee decided to keep the matter pending and await the inquiry report from the Government. Accordingly, the State Government of U.P. was apprised vide Council’s letter dated 30.06.2005 of the directions of the Inquiry Committee and called upon to file Action Taken Report in the matter. The District Magistrate, Mahamayanager, Hathras was intimated the details of the case vide Council’s letter dated 2.6.2006, in response to his letter dated 18.4.2006. The District Magistrate, Mahamayanagar in an endorsement letter dated 16.6.2006 addressed to the Deputy Collector, Mahamayanagar, asked him to (a) initiate action in the matter and after getting reports from the police department (b) to file inquiry report. The Under Secretary, Government of U.P., Confidential Department vide letter dated 5.6.2006 requested the Council to provide a copy of the complaint. The same was forwarded vide Council’s letter dated 10.08.2006 with a request to file inquiry report but no reply was received from the respondent State Government. IInd Adjournment The matter next came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Komal Singh Senger appeared in person, while Shri Mahendra Kumar, Dy. S.P., Hathras appeared for the respondent police authorities. The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated his charge of threat and beating by the police authorities and stated that his hand was fractured in the incident. The matter was enquired into by the police, but the investigating officer did not take his version. He added that final report had been filed in the matter. The respondent submitted that the concerned policemen was transferred to Mainpuri. The respondent filed a letter dated 30.11.2006 of S.P., Hathras, stating therein that the matter was enquired into by the C.O., Hathras, and the allegation of misbehaviour and bashing up the complainant against Shri Gurudutt Sharma, HCP, could not be proved. However, the C.O., Hathras, in his report mentioned about illegal extortion by Shri Gurudutt Sharma from vehicles. The respondent submitted that the F.R. No. 64 dated 4.8.2004 was filed since charges were not proved. The Inquiry Committee noted that the District Magistrate, Hathras, had been asked to send inquiry report in the matter which was not yet filed. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter and to call for inquiry report from the District Magistrate, Hathras, so that complete facts could be gathered in view of the complainant’s stand that his hand had been fractured due to police highhandedness.

16 No reply was filed despite issuance of letter dated 26.03.2007 to the District Magistrate, Mahamayanagar, Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, as per directions of the Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant did not appear as the notice of hearing had been received back undelivered with postal remarks ‘left’. Shri Lallan Rai, Dy. S.P., C.O., Sikandrarau, Hathras appeared for the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Lallan Rai, Dy. S.P., appearing for respondent submitted that the allegations in the complaint could not be proved and therefore the Final Report was filed in the court which was accepted by the court. The respondent submitted that in view of this, there was no case for inquiry. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted the arguments advanced by the respondent and observed that the courts had accepted the Final Report as the charges could not be proved. The complainant had also moved away from his address on record. Therefore, it decided against taking on matter any further. It, however, directed that the authorities must ensure the security and safety of the journalists and to see that the journalists are not harassed in discharge of their journalistic functions. The Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with above observations and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

3) Suo motu action regarding assault /manhandling of Shri Kamal Singh, Photographer, PTI by ACP, Delhi Police at IGI airport on 14/12/2006. The Council, having perused the various clippings from the national dailies issues dated 15.12.2006 which reported that a PTI journalist was roughed up on 14.12.2006 while covering a demonstration at the IGI airport by its employees, took suo motu cognizance of the matter under Section 13(2) of the Press Council Act, 1978 read with Regulation 13 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. According to the news reports the ACP, Shri B.B. Chaudhary assaulted the victim cameraman and snatched his camera and smashed it on the ground

17 damaging it beyond repair. Commissioner of Police and Joint Commissioner rushed to spot and entrusted inquiry to the Special Commissioner. The concerned ACP was transferred and the departmental inquiry ordered against him. A detailed report in the matter was called from the Commissioner of Police on 15.12.2006 and simultaneously the Managing Editor, PTI and the victim photographer Shri Kamal Singh were also requested to file a detail report and file a declaration regarding non pendency of the matter in a court of law. Ms. Padma Alva, Chief Administrative Officer, PTI while furnishing a copy each of the declaration and complaint dated 14.12.2006 lodged at Palam Airport by the victim cameraman Shri Kamal Singh intimated that The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) had called for a nation-wide strike on 14.12.2006 protesting the privatisation of airports. On the same day they sent the victim photo journalist Shri Kamal Singh for news coverage at IGI airport. During their coverage of the airport workers, who were raising slogans, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr. B B Choudhary along with other police officials arrived at the spot, snatched Mr. Singh’s camera and lens and smashed them on the road due to which both the article broke into several pieces and were damaged beyond repair. Mr. Singh also informed that Shri Choudhary said to him that he would arrest him and also threatened him with dire consequences. Mr. Singh further informed that another photo-journalist, Ms. Rekha Srivastava of Business Standard was also with him and was a witness to the entire story incident. Ms. Padma Alva submitted that the attack on Shri Kamal Singh came without any provocation and was totally unwarranted. Further, the camera and lens which he carried to the assignment was his personal equipment. The question is who will compensate him for the loss of such equipment which he had bought with his own hard earned money and Mr. Singh had not insured his equipment and the loss he will suffer on account of this is irreparable. She has further submitted that the footage which was telecast by several networks showed the police officer’s menacing and brutal behaviour. She has further submitted that the police refused to file the FIR on the compliant of Shri Kamal Singh submitted to it. Shri Singh has also submitted a report on the incident bearing the signature of several journalists and camerapersons attached to television channels. She concluded by saying that the unprovoked and entirely unwarranted attack on their employee and the misbehaviour of the concerned Police Official and the irreparable damage to victim photo-journalist’s expensive camera equipment was an assault on the freedom of the press. A copy of the PTI’s letter was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police on 16.1.2007. Comments Dr. Aditya Arya, Joint Commissioner of Police (Operations), Delhi in his

18 report dated 2.1.2007 stated that an enquiry has been conducted and the sequence of events gathered so far in the matter is as under: 1. The Left Wing of Central Wing of Central Trade Union led by AITUC had given a call for countrywide strike on 14.12.2006 to protest against the anti-labour policies of the UPA Government and as per the orders of the Hob’ble High Court of Delhi dated 2.2.2006, the unions and their members had been restrained from holding any dharna/demonstration within 500 meters of the main gate of the Airport as such dharnas and demonstrations cause hindrance to the operational activities and inconvenience to the passengers. Accordingly adequate law and order arrangements were made by the local police wherein outside force from CRPF was also deployed. 2. Around 7.30 a.m. the employees of the AAI around 100 in number gathered at the VIP gate of the domestic terminal and started shouting slogans. They were escorted amicably to the Radio Taxi/Employees parking area, away from the operational area to ensure that inconvenience was not caused to the air passengers. Around 8.30 a.m. the demonstrators expressed their strong intentions to move towards Airbus terminal and runway area. However, due to active and tactful intervention of the local police headed by the then ACP, Shri B. B. Choudhary, the demonstrators (250 approximately by that time) were persuaded to hold their demonstration peacefully in the parking area chosen as it was away from the passengers departure/arrival area and proximate to media center from where the media persons could cover the demonstration safely. 3. Around 9.30 a.m. certain media persons started mingling with the protesting crowd and spreading news that Kolkata airport had been Blocked completely and all flights to and fro had been cancelled. They were also heard instigating and provoking the demonstrators to go towards the runway, passenger halls and protest more violently and block the road. Due to this instigation by the media persons, the demonstrators became restive. The ACP requested the media persons to come out from among the demonstrating employees and go to media center nearby where they could interview the union leaders and cover the demonstration safely but they did not listen to his request and started instigating the crowd openly resulting in the peaceful demonstrators moving aggressively and obstructively. The statement of the ACP has also been obtained where he has disclosed that he was on duty, supervising the law and order arrangements made in connection with the strike by the AAI Employees Union. He was abused and aspersions were cast on his caste by some of the media persons present there. From the perusal of the statement of the union leaders, employees of GMR and personnel of CISF, CRPF and Delhi Police, it is clear that the ACP had requested the media persons not to provoke the protesters and go to the media center but they did not heed to his request. Thereafter the ACP tried to segregate

19 the media persons from the employees on dharna but the media persons resisted and tried to sensationalize the strike. Shri Kamal Singh, Photo-journalist of the PTI submitted an application to him at 12:55 hrs regarding the alleged misconduct of the ACP causing irreparable damage to his camera. Besides this, he had also submitted another application to the Police Station in a group. The two complaints are a variance. The visuals telecast do not show the entire sequence of happenings there and appear to have been edited selectively since the persuasive efforts of the ACP has not been shown. They have requested editors of seven news channels to make available the unedited video recordings. Out of which, five have responded. Edited version has been provided by three while two have stated (Aaj Tak & Star News) that they are providing unedited version one. The video footage of the IBN7, however, shows that during the interview Shri Kamal Singh admitted that “Mere ko bhi gussa aa gaya aur main bhi bol pada”. A copy of the Commissioner of Police’s report was forwarded on 19.3.2007 to the PTI, victim journalist Shri Kamal Singh and Ms. Rekha Shrivastava of Business Standard for their counter in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Kamal Singh, Press Photographer (PTI) appeared in person. Shri R.S. Ghumman, DCP, Legal Cell and Shri Rajan Bhagat, ACP/PRO appeared before the Inquiry Committee for the respondent, Delhi Police. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Kamal Singh submitted before the Inquiry Committee that he reached a compromise in the matter with the police authorities and the compromise was not done under any pressure. The representative of Delhi police submitted that the incident took place at Airport due to minor misunderstanding on covering a demonstration at the IGI airport by its employees. He further submitted that the authorities firmly stood in favour of freedom of the Press and assured that the safety of the journalists, during journalistic duty, would be ensured. The respondent also assured that the compensation to Shri Kamal Singh, Press Photographer, for the camera damaged during the incident would also be taken care of. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on records and submissions made before it by Shri Kamal Singh, Press Photographer and the representative

20 of the police authorities. The Inquiry Committee noted that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. Therefore, no further action was warranted in the Inquiry. The Inquiry Committee, thus, recommended to the Council to close the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. 4) Suo-motu inquiry initiated against the Government of Punjab regarding arrest of the Chandigarh based Principal Correspondent of “Indian Express”. The Press Council of India came across a news report published in the issue dated 29/8/05 of the Indian Express, New Delhi edition under the caption “Punjab cops whisk away Express reporter” reporting that the Chandigarh based Principal Correspondent of Indian Express has been arrested in the night of August 28, 2005 reportedly following his news report on a complaint lodged against Inspector General of Police Shri Sumedh Saini before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. It further took serious view of the reported arrest of the Correspondent of Indian Express, Shri Gautam Dheer as the same prima facie displayed blatant threat to the freedom of the Press and decided to initiate suo motu cognizance of the matter under Regulation 13 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations 1979. The news report read as follows: ‘‘A Report by The Indian Express this morning on a complaint against Inspector General of Police Sumedh Singh Saini to the State Human Rights Commission brought the might of the Punjab cops to the reporter’s door. Throwing all legal norms out of the window, a police team, reporting directly to IGP Saini, stormed into the residence of The Indian Express Principal Correspondent Gautam Dheer and took him away late tonight. Giving no reason for the arrest, denying him access to a lawyer, police refused to even confirm where they had taken him. It was only well after midnight that it was found Dheer was detained at the Kharar Police Station. Until 1.30 am- at time of going to press-no one from his family or the newspaper was allowed access. DGP, S.S. Virk claimed that Dheer had been arrested for “threatening a minor girl allegedly raped in Nayagaon village near here in 2003.”

21 What he didn’t mention was that this morning, the Chandigarh edition of The Indian Express had carried Dheer’s report about two Nayagaon residents complaining to the Punjab State Human Rights Commission alleging police harassment at the hands of IGP Saini who is heading investigations into the rape of the minor girl. Seeking protection from the Human Rights Commission, the complainants, Karanjit Kaur and Labh Singh of village Karoran (Ropar), alleged that even after the arrest of Kesar Singh – he’s Karanjit’s husband and one of the accused in the rape case – they were being harassed by the police who were threatening to implicate them in a case. The complainant alleged that the police had locked their house, shops and taken away their vehicle. On August 22, the Division Bench of the Commission asked the complainants to file a detailed affidavit, giving dates and instances of police raids and harassment. The case is to come up for hearing tomorrow before the full Commission. Earlier, while Dheer was working on this story, Saini had threatened him against going ahead with it. Sonia, Dheer’s wife, said that this morning he had pointed out the story to her and had said if “he went missing, she should contact his Resident Editor.” Sonia said they were stepping out of the house around 8.15 pm when two men in a Maruti pulled up at the gate. One of the men, turbaned, introduced himself as Raju, and said: “Don’t you recognize me? We met on the mall in Shimla.” (Dheer has been an Express correspondent in Shimla). Sonia says Gautam could not place him but asked him to come in. Just when they entered the house, Sonia says she heard a commotion and saw a gypsy-load of policemen pouring into the garden. “A turbaned policeman then caught hold of Gautam’s wrist and said that he was being arrested. Gautam’s Sister-in- law says the man who called himself SHO, Kharar, said “Je Punjab police naal panga leyoge to bhugatna padega (If you mess with the Punjab police you will have to suffer the consequences.)”

22 Sonia says when Gautam tried to ask him why he was being arrested; he said “he would soon find out.” When Dheer’s father, Lt Col S L Dheer (retd), tried to intervene, he was pushed aside. “They dragged him to the Gypsy…they treated him like a criminal,” says Sonia. Sonia says the two men in Maruti were also part of the team. “I told them, ‘You lied to get inside the house,’ but they walked away.” Soon after news spread in the city, journalists got together and staged a protest outside the residence of DGP Virk, who was groping for answers. “If a complaint was received, did the police call Gautam for questioning”, he was asked. The DGP did not reply but said this was for the investigating Officer Saini to reply. “Is there a link between the arrest and Dheer’s report on the complaint against Saini?” “I do not think so,” Virk said. Virk said he had already spoken to Saini who would “hopefully help them in case the journalists meet him.” The DGP repeatedly told everyone to go to Saini to “bail out” the journalist. “A few of you can go to the Sector 16 residence of the IO and sign for his bail”, Virk said. “But, mind you, the charges are non-bailable”, Virk said.” Initially vide Council’s letter dated 6/9/05 the Resident Editor of Indian Express, Chandigarh with a copy to the Editor, Indian Express, New Delhi edition were requested to provide complete details in the matter and file a declaration regarding non pendency of the matter in a court of law. In response, the Indian Express, Mumbai, vide its letter dated 15/9/05, informed that as reported in the news item no reasons were communicated to Shri Dheer or the newspaper for his detention nor was any warrant or court order shown to him or his family. Shri Dheer was not permitted access to a lawyer. The police were not in uniform and did not wear badges and some of the other police officials who came that night did not identify themselves. It was further informed that they are not aware whether any proceedings have been commenced against Shri Dheer and if yes, for what offence. The Indian Express further informed that Shri Dheer moved an application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. before the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh. No information of the alleged offence of Shri Dheer has been disclosed to him by the Punjab police.

23 The Chief Secretary and the Secretary (Home), Government of Punjab, Chandigarh were requested on 8.9.2005 to file a report on the facts of the case. A copy of Indian Express’s letter dated 15.9.2005 was also forwarded to the Govt. of Punjab on 27.10.2005 for their comments in the matter. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Punjab was also requested on 22.12.2005 to file a report on the facts of the case. The Joint Secretary (Home), Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 19.1.2006 furnished the detailed comments of the Director General of Police. In the said report it has been stated that the complainant filed a Criminal Misc. Case No.48687-M of 2003 on 15.10.2003 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the following directions were given on 31.5.2005 by the Hon’ble Court in the matter :- “The crime that is alleged to have been committed in the case is a crime against the society. It is not compoundable. Very serious allegations have been made and till now the accused have been able to frustrate all attempts to get at the truth. Balkar Singh, who, Court are told is member of the police force working in the Punjab Police, Headquarters, is being forced by elements, who have scant respect for process of law to beat a retreat from the stand taken by his daughter and his comrades in uniform have apparently forsaken him and his family in their hour of need, which to our mind is unfortunate. Faced with this situation, with a heavy heart, we are forced to intervene and deny the request of the petitioners to withdraw the present Criminal Miscellaneous and request the Director General of Police, Punjab to constitute a special investigation team headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police to go into the matter expeditiously so as to restore the faith of the common man in the system and capability of the investigating agency to bring to book the culprits, if guilty and take action against any person, who is using the process of law to gain unfair advantage till the cloud, which has gathered over the present episode is clear. “The Court would appreciate if Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, Inspector General of Police, Punjab is made to head the special investigation team to be composed of such persons as the officer may require to enable him to go into the matter and finalise the investigation. The officer would also take into consideration the necessity of providing, security to the complainant party so as to obviate any apprehension retributive reaction against the person and properties of the complainant at the hands of their tormentors in order to prevent them from seeking the redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. The Court would also appreciate if the Special Investigation Team would complete the investigation within three months, the period within which the Legislature expects the police to solve the gravest of crimes and bring the culprits to book. The Court would have given more time but

24 for the fact that a long period had elapsed, the Court will appreciate if the investigation is completed by the next date of hearing and report is submitted.” The respondent Government of Punjab further stated that in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, IPS, IGP, Economic Offences Wing was asked on 22.6.2005 to take over the investigation and during the investigation being conducted by SIT on 5.8.2005 Shri Balkar Singh, father of the victim submitted a written complaint on 5.8.2005 that Shri Gautam Dheer threatened his daughter if she made any statement against the accused persons, her photographs would be published in the newspapers that she is a characterless girl, therefore, she should make statement in favour of the accused persons. Further, on 21.8.2005 and 22.8.2005, Shri Balkar Singh and Ms. Gurdev Kaur respectively made a detailed statement against Mr. Gautam Dheer in the involvement of the case and giving threats on telephone not to expose the accused person. Shri Gurmail Singh S/o Shri Surta Singh of village Pathreri also made a statement on 26.8.2005 before the investigation team regarding the role and involvement of Mr. Gautam Dheer. Having this evidence against Mr. Gautam Dheer, he was arrested by Inspector Harbans Singh on 28.8.2005, a member of investigating team. His arrest was duly recorded in the daily diary of 28.8.2005 by Shri Harpreet Singh, DSP, . Being unwell, he was released on bail by the police. Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, IPS, IGP, EOW, showed his unwillingness on 29.9.2005 to continue with the investigation of the case. Accordingly, the task of supervision of investigation of the case was entrusted to Shri Suresh Arora, IPS, IGP, HQ, Punjab. The respondent further submitted that regarding the incident of 5.8.2005, telephonic record was collected. Shri Gautam Dheer was made to join the investigation and questioned thoroughly. He admitted to have conversed with Ms. Gurdev Kaur, complainant and her father on telephone to ascertain the authenticity of the affidavits sworn by her in favour of the accused person. Shri Dheer admitted that his purpose was to publish a story in the newspaper. However, he denied having threatened or used any unparliamentary language in his conversation with Ms. Gurdev Kaur, prosecutrix or her father. He also denied having demanded or accepted any money from the accused. However, Ms. Gurdev Kaur and her father stood by their earlier statements regarding the abusive and threatening language used by Shri Gautam Dheer on phone. It is further submitted that neither the complainant party nor Mr. Gautam Dheer could produce any independent evidence to support their version. The entire facts revealed during investigation with regard to the case of Mr. Dheer have been placed before the trial court by submitting a final report on 28.11.2005. Now the matter is before the trial court and is sub-judice. A copy of respondent-Government of Punjab’s letter dated 19.1.2006 was forwarded to the Indian Express, Mumbai and Chandigarh editions on 1.2.2006 for information.

25 Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Gautam Dheer, Principal Correspondent of Indian Express appeared in person. Shri M.S. Gill, Sr. Dy. Advocate General appeared for DGP, Punjab. Shri Gautam Dheer, submitted that charges had been framed in the matter but he was not charge sheeted. Shri Dheer submitted a copy of the final report dated 28.11.2006 by SHO Mohali u/s 173 (8) Cr. P.C. in case FIR No. 99 dated 7.3.2003 u/s 376, 365, 366A, 344, 213, 218, 506, 509, 120B IPC, 25 Arms Act 8, 9 P.C. Act, 3(10) (12) SC ST Act P.S. Mohali. He submitted that police had given clean chit to him. The complainant further submitted that the DGP, Punjab in his assessment report dated 22.9.2005 in Nayagaon Rape Case submitted to the Hon’ble High Court had observed that it is clear that Gautam Dheer is in no way connected with the offence of rape registered in 2003 or with any other offence during the intervening period. As per the report, his name is allegedly mentioned by another witnesses but any direct involvement for the first time is revealed on 5.8.2005 when Gautam Dheer made phone call to Gurdev Kaur and allegedly threatened her. That at the most, Gautam Dheer is guilty of threatening the witness on telephone. But threats even after of a gap of 23 days remained a threat only and no other overt action is attributed to him. Further that if the threat was so serious, he should have been picked up as soon as possible after he made the call and there was no need to wait till 28th. However, that the news item appeared on 28th morning and the same threat seems to have been taken more seriously as Gautam Dheer was arrested in the evening. That such hasty arrest was not justified and runs contrary to guidelines issued from time to time. The complainant further submitted that after his arrest, he was not apprised of the charges and the family members as well as friends were denied access to meet him. The CM had ordered an enquiry for denial of access to his family. The complainant further submitted that the day after his release, the SHO was suspended but after three months he was reinstated and given plum posting as SHO, Bhatinda. The complainant clarified that the departmental enquiry was limited in r/o denial of access to his family members in the police station. The enquiry was not caused in r/o his arrest and thus the complexity of the case was not inquired into. The respondent counsel submitted that the proceedings are pending and it was not sure whether the erring SHO had been re-instated. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties, directed the respondent Government to file the following documents: (a) Report of the DGP and the action taken report. (b) Status of the case before the Court

26 (c) Status of the departmental inquiry; It accordingly adjourned the matter. Response of the State Government As per directions of the Inquiry Committee the Inspector General of Police, Punjab submitted on 26.3.2007 a copy of the assessment report, prepared by DGP and copy of the order dated 2.3.2006 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A copy of the supplementary report submitted in the trail court u/s 173(8) of Cr. P.C. in the case of Shri Gautam Dheer and copy of the order of the trail court dated 16.9.2006 thereon. The Inspector General of Police further informed the Council that the Departmental proceedings against the Inspector Harbans Singh Riar, are still in progress. The assessment of DGP, Punjab in Nayagaon Rape Case (FIR 99 dated 7.3.2003 PS Mohali) is as follows: “1. This case was entrusted to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Shri S.S. Saini, IPS, Inspector General of Police, EOW, Punjab in deference to judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Misc.No.48687-M of 2003, Crl.Misc.No.8916 of 2004 dated 31.05.2005. The SIT succeeded in its work by arresting some key persons involved in the crime. But the arrest of Shri Gautam Dheer, Principal Correspondent Indian Express, Chandigarh on 28th August 2005 evening invited lot of criticism and controversy. As this issue has been raised before Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, I am submitting my assessment as desired. 2. A news item mentioning details of filing of a petition before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission in which some allegations were levelled against Shri S.S. Saini was published in Indian Express dated 28th August, 2005. It was filed by Shri Gautam Dheer who was arrested by the SIT the same evening and this action invited adverse reactions from the media and journalists resorted to agitation as well as protest marches. 3. I have gone through the reports sent by Shri S.S. Saini with his forwarding letter dated 20.09.2005. The press corps had levelled allegations of following personal agenda and vendetta against Shri S.S. Saini. It would be proper to analyse factors and manner in which this arrest was affected. 4. The original case was registered on 7.3.2003 and the charge of rape is very old. As per the reports sent by Shri Saini, accused Gautam Dheer is in no way involved with the offence of rape, nor has his name figured anywhere during the investigation since 2003. His name figures in the papers of investigation in August 2005 in the statements of Gurdev Kaur and Balkar Singh. He is blamed for threatening them by calling Gurdev Kaur on cell-phone on 5.8.2005. In the

27 same statements his name was also mentioned where Gurdhian Singh allegedly referred to his name that he had been contacted for help by other accused persons. 5. It is clear that Gautam Dheer is in no way connected with the offence of rape registered in 2003 or with any other offence during the intervening period. His name is allegedly mentioned by another witness by any direct involvement for the first time is revealed on 5.8.2005 when Gautam Dheer made phone call to Gurdev Kaur and allegedly threatened her. At the most, Gautam Dheer is guilty of threatening the witness on telephone. But that threat even after a gap of 23 days remained a threat only and no other overt action is attributed to him. If the threat was so serious, he should have been picked up as soon as possible after he made the call and there was no need to wait till 28th. However, the news item appeared on 28th morning and the same threat seems to have been taken more seriously as Gautam Dheer was arrested in the evening. Such hasty arrest was not justified and runs contrary to guidelines issued from time to time. It is necessary that the investigation should not only be objective but should also seem to be objective. The arrest of Gautam Dheer on same evening created a situation which invited unnecessary criticism and serious charges of personal vendetta against the SIT inspite of some good work done by it. 6. As offence of Shri Gautam Dheer is limited at the most of giving of threat or even of being financially involved, it is my considered opinion that his case should be delinked from the offence of rape and the subsequent investigation during the last two yeas. The enquiry into charges against Gautam Dheer can be entrusted to a senior police officer who can also go into the details of the manner in which his arrest was affected. 7. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, I suggest to delink the accusations against Shri Gautam Dheer from the main investigation of the rape case i.e. FIR No.99/03 u/s 376, 34 IPC and enquiry into these cases can be conducted by an officer of the rank of ADGP. In case an cognizable offence against Gautam Dheer is disclosed, an FIR can be registered separately and investigated. In case there is no evidence on any count, the charge can be dropped. The SIT can continue the investigation into the main case but it would be proper that its probe is supervised by ADGP/Crime who is also the supervisory officer of the Economic Offences Wing. Directions of Hon’ble High Court may please be conveyed through the Ld. Advocate General, Punjab for further follow- up action.” IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Gautam Dheer appeared in person while Shri M.S. Gill, Law Officer, O/o DGP, Punjab & Chandigarh appeared for respondent.

28 Shri Dheer submitted that SIT conducted a detailed enquiry and its final report did not find him guilty. Shri Gill appearing for the respondent submitted in response to the query of the Committee that SIT was set-up on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh to investigate with FIR No.99 dated 7.3.2003 and the head of SIT only could tell under what circumstances Shri Dheer was arrested and why his arrest had initially been delayed. The respondent further submitted that the Inspector Shri Harbans Singh facing charges of lodging Shri Dheer in police lock up and misbehaving with relatives of Shri Dheer and media persons, was exonerated of the charges in a departmental enquiry. However, this exoneration was under review and was likely to be decided in two months. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that Shri Dheer had not been arrested immediately after the charge of threat made against him. It was only after he carried the publication of a report on the issue in Indian Express that he was arrested on the complaint of threat made almost 20 days ago. It therefore directed the respondent to file: (a) Report on departmental enquiry against Inspector Harbans Singh exonerating the officer; and (b) Report of SIT on the point as to why the arrest was not made prior to cited news report. (c ) All relevant documents/details in support of the government case. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file both the reports within eight weeks. Report filed by The Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh In response to the Council’s letter dated 4.5.2007, the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh vide his reply dated 22.5.2007 filed report of SIT, headed by Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, IPS submitted to the Hon’ble High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana on 4.9.2005. Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, IPS has stated as follows: “I have not received any communication of any allegation against me or any member of the SIT from any official quarters. However, it has been alleged that the arrest of Shri Gautam Dheer was a reaction to a newspaper report written by him and published in the Indian Express on 28.05.2005 (i.e. the date when Shri Gautam Dheer was arrested). In this contest I would state the following: (a) After Shri Gautam Dheer had spoken to the victim Gudev Kaur and her father on the phone on 5.8.2005. The father reported the matter to me and submitted a complaint against him I marked the complaint to Shri P.P.S. Virk, SP for further necessary action. 29 Thereafter, Investigations and enquiries into the case as a whole (including the role of Shri Gautam Dheer) continued. (b) The news item to which the arrest of Shri Gautam Dheer, Principal Correspondent of Indian Express, Chandigarh is being attributed has not been written by Shri Dheer alone. It has been co authored by two journalists. Also a photographer has clicked a photograph, which appeared in the news item. No action has been taken against the two journalists other than Shri Dheer, because there was nothing against them in the investigations conducted. Therefore, that the arrest of Shri Dheer was a reaction or a knee-jerk reaction to the news item, is not true. The Hon’ble Court after going through the report and circumstances of the case was pleased to order on 2.3.2006 that reads as follows: “On 31/05/2005, this Court had ordered the setting up of Special Investigation Team, headed by Shri S. S. Saini, IPS, to investigate into FIR No. 99 dated 07/03/2003 under section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Mohali and this Court continued monitoring the investigation in terms of Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and an other, AIR 1998 S. C. 889. The Head of the Special Investigation Team had been asked to submit periodic reports. Two reports were submitted by the Head of the Special Investigation Team and thereafter on 30-09-2005, he chose to disassociate himself. On the same day the investigation was handed over to Shri Suresh Arora, IPS, who apprised the Court that the final report had been submitted before the trial Court on 15/ 10/2005 and a supplementary challan had been filed on 28/11/2005. We are told that the case is now pending before the Sessions Judge, Ropar”. “Since the stage of monitoring is over, the results of the investigation have already been submitted and the competent Court is seized of the matter, we do not deem it proper to keep this Criminal Misc. in abeyance any longer and are constrained to dispose of the same as having been rendered infructuous”. “While doing so, however, we would like to bring on record our appreciation for the work done by all the members of the Special Investigation Team headed by Shri Sumedh Saini, IPS, and Shri Suresh Arora, IPS”. The report of SIT was accepted by the Hon’ble court without any adverse observation and the case was disposed of. Later the Director General of Police, Punjab vide his order dated 31.5.2007 censured the Inspector Harbans Singh for his misconduct as the charges against him were fully proved. It was also stated in the order that the inquiry reports

30 were wrongly filed by SSP, Bathinda. All the points raised by Inspector Harbans Singh in his favour have no force and merit. However, keeping in view the circumstances and his career in service, taking lenient view, the punishment of censure as provided in the rules would be quite sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Gautam Dheer, Principal Correspondent, Indian Express appeared in person. Shri M.S. Gill, Law Officer, Government of Punjab appeared for the State Government. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Gautam Dheer, Principal Correspondent, Indian Express submitted that the censure awarded to Inspector Harbans Singh was in respect of not allowing his parents, family and friends in the police station. However, Shri Sumedh Singh Saini, IGP had taken a stand that he was justified in taking action to arrest Shri Gautam Dheer after 23 days. Although the DGP had passed adverse comments against Shri Sumedh Singh Saini for his action. Shri M.S. Gill, Law Officer, Government of Punjab submitted that there were two queries of Inquiry Committee on the last hearing (a) about the outcome of the proceedings against Shri Harbans Singh and (b) regarding the circumstances of the arrest of Shri Gautam Dheer. Shri Gill stated that they have filed a reply on both the points. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the matter noted that with the report of the Director General of Police, Punjab dated 31.05.2007, the case had reached a logical conclusion and in pursuance, departmental action should be taken against the respondents. It however observed that Shri Gautam Dheer, Principal Correspondent, Indian Express, had suffered deep mental trauma, and the punishment of censure awarded to the delinquent Inspector should have been supplemented with a word of expression of regret or apology in writing to the aggrieved correspondent. The Inquiry Committee advised the Government of Punjab to record such regret/apology in writing while intimating the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against the erring police officials to the correspondent Shri Gautam Dheer. The Inquiry Committee also expected from the Government of Punjab to preserve and promote Press freedom in the State and to ensure that such incidents of highhandedness against the media person at the hands of the police do not recur in the State. The inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to close the Inquiry with above observations.

31 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. 5) Shri Sanjay Tiwari Ujala Versus 1. Chief Secretary Freelance Journalist Govt. of NCT of Delhi Owner/Chief Executive Officer New Delhi ujalanews.com Editor, Northeast Times; and 2. The Secretary Hindustan People Home (Police) Department Delhi Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi

3. Commissioner of Police Delhi Police New Delhi

4. Shri K.S. Yadav Partner M/s. Sahni Gas Agency Delhi Complaint Shri Sanjay Tiwari Ujala, who claims to be a Freelancer, investigative journalist, Owner/CEO of a website ujalanews.com and editor of Northeast Times/ Hindustan People news magazine, Delhi has filed this complaint dated 20.7.2005 against East Delhi Police and M/s. Sahni Gas Agency, Delhi for alleged harassment, assaults and threats due to publication of critical news items. The complainant claimed that he exposed the blackmailing racket in the distribution of gas cylinders in East Delhi due to which he incurred wrath of the East Delhi Police and the concerned gas agency. The complainant alleged that he was assaulted by the personnel of the gas agency whose unethical/unlawful practices had been photographed and exposed by him. According to the complainant he approached the police authorities but they did not take any action. The complainant vide his another undated letter received in the Secretariat on 21.9.2005 alleged that the anti-social elements and mafia were patronized and encouraged by the Delhi Police and as a result their activities had increased day by day. He alleged that despite approaching the Delhi Police Commissioner, he failed to receive security. The complainant claimed that being an investigative

32 journalist, he investigated many rackets in NCT and started a movement against LPG black-marketing. He filed an FIR against them in many police stations located in ‘Sarita Vihar, R.K. Puram, Sarojini Nagar and many other areas. The complainant submitted that on 13.5.2005 he saw that LPG was being pilfered from domestic cylinders by some persons of M/s. Sahni Gas Agency at Anand Vihar Police Station. The complainant took pictures of the same and in the process was abused and manhandled by the supply men. They snatched his camera, mobile and Rs.7,000/-. Within ten minutes they called their colleagues. Owner of the Vijay Ratan Gas Agency was also called, against whom he had filed complaint in the Police Station for pilfering the gas. They all started beating the complainant and his father. During this process, the complainant’s father got injured badly. Since the complainant before taking the photographs had informed the police at 100 number, the police present there took his father to the nearby hospital and all others had been taken to the Police Station. There the complainant asked for medical check-up but it was ignored. Later, the complainant was taken to the ACP, Vivek Vihar. According to the complainant, there all the persons who manhandled him, were enjoying cold drinks. The ACP advised him to stop his sting operation against the gas agencies. When the complainant showed him photo of pilferage by the Sahni Gas on his other mobile, he snatched his mobile and deleted the same. The complainant alleged that police had been trying to protect the criminals and the persons involved in illegal practice. The complainant submitted that since an FIR relating to the incident of 13.5.2005 was not filed, he approached the Home Minister on 21.5.2005 and later after getting a letter of the Lt. Governor to the Joint Police Commissioner, an FIR under Section 285/336/323/511 & 379 of IPC was filed on 23.5.2005 but the persons identified by him were not included in the FIR. After three days a false case under Section 385/511/34 was registered against him. The complainant alleged that the police wanted him to settle for compromise to save the culprits as by his sting operation police as well as gas mafia had been affected. The complainant further submitted that the respondents by covering publication of a news item captioned ‘Blackmailer/Fake Journalist’ in “Navbharat” had tried not only to defame him but also threatened him to stop the sting operation. He requested the Council to intervene in the matter. Notices for Statements in Reply dated 8.12.2005 were issued to the Chief Secretary, the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police and Shri K.S. Yadav, Partner, M/s. Sahni Gas Agency, Delhi for their comments in the matter. Comments In response to Council’s Notice for Statement in Reply dated 8.12.2005,

33 one of the respondent Shri K.S. Yadav of M/s. Sahni Gas Agency, Delhi in his comments dated 10.1.2006 submitted that the complainant, Shri Sanjay Tiwari was a fake journalist and involved in unlawful activities. His sole aim was to extort money from gullible people in LPG trade under threat to implicate them in false cases of theft, cheating, etc. According to the respondent, Shri Sanjay Tiwari, a former LPG supply man and a self proclaimed journalist, was deployed as delivery man few years back. He was shunted out for embezzlement in cash and pilferage of gas. Being a supply man himself he was aware of some loose strings in LPG trade carried out by some of his colleagues and started blackmailing them and later started targeting innocent people by threatening to implicate them in false cases if they failed to pay him. According to the respondent, the complainant formed a high profile gang for extortion and blackmailing, which included his father and another 6-7 people. The gang used to hire a private taxi preferably ambassador, a video camera and load itself with LPG pilfering devices, weighing scale, etc. For their convenience they posed as journalists or police men or senior officers of Oil Companies in front of illiterate supply men. The gang moved around in the city and caught hold of unsuspecting LPG supply men who were never more than two in number. They then overpowered them and enacted an act of pilfering in LPG cylinders. The over powered supply men were forcibly made to stand in front of the act or be a party to it. Photographs were then taken by the video camera or mobile phone camera and used to black mail the supply men or the concerned LPG distributor. He alleged that Sanjay Tiwari had no other business but to forcibly implicate innocent LPG supply men in theft cases, if they fail to meet his illegal demands. The respondent submitted that while considering the case it is important to consider the following averment made by the LPG supply men and distributors:- a) What educational qualifications and background does Sanjay Tiwari possess to be a journalist? b) What is the circulation of his newspaper and how does he make his ends meet while incurring huge expenditure on the fleet of hired taxies, staff, etc. c) What interest does Sanjay Tiwari has to move around in far flung areas of the city and to specialize only in catching LPG supply men alone and if it is a movement how the same is being supported monetarily? According to the respondent, most of the gas agencies in Delhi have been given on compassionate grounds to Ex-Servicemen and war widows. Such class of businessmen and women do not have the capacity to fight back with such unscrupulous people. Shri Sanjay Tiwari had extorted lacs of rupees from gas agencies in Delhi through this modus operandi. The respondent informed that Shri

34 Sanjay Tiwari was caught red handed by some gas supply men at Karol Bagh and Gole Market area and handed over to local police stations. However, no action was taken against him. Aggrieved LPG supply men of Karol Bagh area then approached the local consumer activist viz. “UPBHOKTA MANCH” for help. The Manch took up the case of supply men and made a representation to the Hon’ble Home Minister of India, marking copies to the higher officials of Delhi Police but no action had been initiated. He further submitted that Shri Sanjay Tiwari caught hold of one supply man of M/s Sawhney Gas Service in Trans- Yamuna area and demanded money from him. The supply men rebuked him and asked him to get lost. Shri Sanjay Tiwari threatened them with dire consequences, if his demands were not met. Next day again he threatened the supply men. The supply men informed their agency owner about the same, who told them not to pay heed to such unscrupulous people and continue to do their work honestly. The very next day i.e. on 13.5.2005 the owner received a call in the afternoon by his supply men that they were beaten up and over powered by Shri Sanjay Tiwari and his 6-7 associates at Arjun Nagar. They picked up two empty cylinders and enacted the act of pilfering gas from them. Photo recording of the same was done through mobile camera. After the local public, which took a little time to understand what was happening, came to the rescue of the gas supply men, Shri Sanjay Tiwari and his men were taken to task by the public and then his associates ran away. The PCR was called in and by the time the owner reached on the spot. The PCR and local police had also arrived there. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Dealer and the supply men were then taken to the Police Station at Anand Vihar. It was pronounced that a case shall be registered against him. They were constrained to approach the DCP of the area, Smt. Garima Bhatnagar, who gave a patient hearing and immediately ordered the ACP, Shri Tiwari to have the entire matter thoroughly examined. The SHO of Anand Vihar Police Station went to the spot and made thorough enquiry into the matter. He also took statements of the local people. Subsequently the cylinders were also weighed. The respondent pointed out that the spot in question where it was alleged that gas agency supply men were pilfering gas was such a thickly populated area and a narrow road that no sane person could think of indulging in such kind of act. The local residents and inhabitants living and doing business in the area have all vouched for the supply men. A few of them have even given written statements to the police which clearly mentioned the malafide act of Shri Sanjay Tiwari. Moreover, all 28 cylinders in the delivery auto rickshaw were weighed by the police. There were three total empty cylinders delivery of which their customers was vouched for on record. The balance 25 cylinders were full in weight with seals intact. The respondent submitted that a complaint relating to allegation of extortion and snatching on the part of Shri Sanjay Tiwari was given to Anand Vihar Police Station on 13.5.2005 but no action had been taken. Though Shri Sanjay Tiwari was handed over by them to the police. The laxity on the part of police had

35 further encouraged Shri Sanjay Tiwari and his associates to continue with his unlawful activities and to extort money from gullible people in LPG trade under threat to implicate them in false cases of theft, cheating, etc. Filing documents in support of his avers, the respondent requested the Council to initiate action against such fraud journalist. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 30.1.2006 for information/counter comments, if any. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 2.3.2006 alleged that the comments filed by the respondent were false, baseless and far from truth. Denying the allegation that he had been earlier working as LPG supply man, the complainant submitted that he had caught more than 60 persons involved in unethical practices. The complainant requested to initiate action against the respondent for defaming and harassing him. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondents on 7.3.2006 for information. Comments of Joint Commissioner of Police, Vigilance The Joint Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Delhi in his comments dated 3.7.2006 while denying the allegation that the local police of Anand Vihar Police Station had not taken proper action regarding an incident of pilferage committed by M/s. Sahni Gas Agency on 13.5.2005, submitted that on the complaint of Shri Sanjay Tiwari, a detailed Vigilance inquiry was conducted. Inquiry revealed that Shri Sanjay Tiwari is presently running two fortnightly newspapers and is personally involved in tracking delivery persons of different gas agencies in Delhi. Till date over 40 cases of pilferage of gas by the delivery persons of different gas agencies, have been got registered by him and his staff in Delhi. Vigilance enquiry further revealed that a case, vide FIR No.288/05 under Sections 285/336/379/323/511/34 IPC, was registered at Anand Vihar Police Station on the complaint of Shri Sanjay Tiwari. This case was investigated under close supervision of the senior officers and was put in court on 24.11.2005 for trial. He further submitted that it was also revealed by enquiry that on 26.5.2005 another FIR No.299/05 under Sections 385/ 511/34 IPC, Anand Vihar Police Station was registered on the complaint of Shri K.S. Yadav, Proprietor, M/s Sahni Gas Agency. This case has been put in court. There are two other cases against Shri Sanjay Tiwari vide FIR No.524/05 dated 30.10.2005 under Section 385/34 IPC of Timar Pur Police Station which are pending for investigation. Another case vide FIR No.716/05 dated 12.11.2005 under Section 385/34 IPC of Ambedkar Nagar Police Station which was registered on the complaint of Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Ram, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi and the case is pending trial. According to the respondent, Shri Sanjay Tiwari was

36 giving a lot of publicity regarding the cases registered by him and his team through his two newspapers. There was no case of curtailment of freedom of expression and press, as alleged. The respondent submitted that since complaints of underweight gas cylinders are continuing, directions to all District DCPs have already been issued vide letter No.F.24(328)Vig./058974-82/HA/NDR/Vig. dated 29.3.2006 to initiate immediate legal action against unscrupulous activities of gas agency’s delivery men. Directions have also been issued to complete the investigation of the cases registered against gas agencies and delivery personnel expeditiously. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant, vide Council’s letter dated 11.7.2006, for information. In response the complainant vide his letter dated 20.8.2006 informed the Council that the respondent-Delhi Police gave false information to the Council. He further alleged that the respondent misled the Council. A copy of the communication dated 20.8.2006 of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent-Delhi Police on 28.9.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Sanjay Tiwari Ujala, appeared in person while Shri R.S. Ghumman, DCP appeared for the respondent police authorities of Delhi. When called upon to establish his identity as a journalist, the complainant submitted that he has been brining out ‘Hindustan People’ Magazine and North East Times for the last one and half year and also website edition of Ujala News. The complainant further submitted that he had written one controversial book and was also attached to the Akashvani. The complainant claimed that he was also photographer attached to Jain TV and Sadhana TV. The complainant also claimed that the circulation of Hindustan People fortnightly was 50000 copes and the newspaper was getting advertisements from the Hospitals & NGO’s. The complainant made these preliminary submissions to show that he was a bonafide journalist attached to media. The representative of the respondents submitted that the police authorities had been receiving a large number of complaints from the complainant against the gas agencies of the area and some of them were pending trial/investigation. The respondent further submitted that the police had also registered FIR against the complainant in Anand Vihar Police Station and Timarpur Police Station on the charge of blackmailing the gas agencies. At this juncture the complainant submitted that no FIR except one in Anand Vihar Police Station was filed against him. The complainant also denied

37 having worked with any gas agency. The complainant further submitted that he had approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court apprehending threat to his life after registration of cases of theft of LPG at various police stations. The Hon’ble High Court had disposed off the petition with directions to the DCP (East) to look into the threat perception and take necessary action. According to the complainant Shri K.S. Yadav, who had lodged complaint against him, was not partner of Sahni Gas Agency; he further stated that Shri K.S. Yadav was an anti social element. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties directed the complainant to file authorisation letter from TV Channels and clippings of his write ups published under his by-line to prove that he was a journalist and also an affidavit that he had not worked in any gas agency. The Inquiry Committee directed the representative of the respondent police authorities to find out the credentials of the owners of the Vijay Rattan Gas Agency and Sahni Gas Agency and send a report to the Council within a fortnight. The Inquiry Committee accordingly adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. As per direction of the Inquiry Committee, the complainant Shri Sanjay Tiwari Ujala vide his letter dated 26.10.2006 has submitted some newspapers clippings and some documents to prove his credentials as journalist. The complainant reiterated his complaint and requested the Council to take strict action against the respondents and requested the Council to pass an order directing the respondent Gas Agencies to compensate him 50 lakhs for being assaulted by the personnel of the gas agency whose unethical/unlawful practices had been photographed and exposed by him. He also filed an affidavit dated 13.03.2007 that he never worked in any gas agency. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Sanjay Tiwari Ujala, complainant appeared in person . S/Shri R.S. Ghumman, DCP, Delhi Police, Legal Cell, M.R. Gothwal, DCP, Vigilance, Mangesh Kashyap, ACP, Naveen Kumar, OSD, Home Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ms. Manisha Saxena, Additional Secretary (Home), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi appeared for the respondents. The complainant submitted that he had filed affidavit to the effect that he never worked in any gas agency at any post. He had also filed other documents as desired by the Committee. The complainant stated that only one FIR was filed against him.

38 Shri R.S. Ghumman, DCP, Delhi Police, Legal Cell appeared for the Delhi Police submitted that three FIRs are registered against the complainant in police stations at (1) Ambedkar Nagar (2) Anand Vihar and (3) Timar Pur. The respondent further submitted that there was no threat to the life of the complainant. The respondent stated that as per the assessment report of the ACP, the complainant’s modus operandi was extorting money from the gas agency delivery men. The Inquiry Committee in order to ascertain the veracity of the statement that three FIRs were filed against the complainant, adjourned the matter, with direction to the respondent police authorities to file the copies of the said FIRs. As directed by the Inquiry Committee Shri R.S. Ghumman, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Legal Cell, Police Headquarter, Delhi filed a report regarding three FIRs registered against Shri Sanjay Tiwari as follows :- S.No. FIR No./Date/u/s Particulars 1. FIR No.299 dated 13.5.2005 Name of Mr. Sanjay Tiwari u/s 385/511/34 IPC, PS S/o Shri Om Prakash is mentioned Anand Vihar in the Col.2 of Charge-sheet 2. FIR No.716 dated 12.11.2005 Accused persons Dugesh u/s 384/34 IPC, PS Ambedkar s/o Lalji Tiwari and Ajay Pratap Nagar, s/o Durga Pal have the same residential address as of Mr. Sanjay Tiwari. 3. FIR No.524 dated 30.10.2005 One of the accused persons Ajay u/s 385/34 IPC, PS Timar Pur Pratap Singh has also the same residential address as that of Sanjay Tiwari. The respondent submitted that perusal of FIRs showed that Shri Sanjay Tiwari and his associates had been involved in these FIRs. A copy of the letter dated 29.3.2007 filed by the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 9.5.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.07 at New Delhi. Shri Sanjay Tiwari Ujala, complainant appeared in person while Shri S.R. Meena, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance and Shri Vinod Kumar, OSD (Home) appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the police was annoyed with him since he had filed more than hundred FIRs regarding pilferage of LPG Gas and the income

39 of the police had stopped. The complainant submitted that the incident of 13.5.2005 about the attack on him was not registered by the police. He further pointed out that only one case was registered against him at Anand Vihar Police Station and the two cases at Timarpur and Ambedkar Nagar Police Station were not related to him. The complainant submitted that he had approached the High Court and the High Court had directed the police authorities to provide security. But the police did not provide him security. The complainant requested that he may be granted compensation and security may be provided. The respondent submitted that cross complaints were registered against the complainant and his opponent. The FIRs registered at Timarpur and Ambedkar Nagar police station were having the same address where the complainant was residing. However, the name of the complainant was not mentioned in those FIRs. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the oral arguments put forth before it, the Inquiry Committee observed that the complainant was not named in two FIRs, and only the FIR at Anand Vihar Police Station specifically named the complainant. The Inquiry Committee was of the opinion that the security aspect was considered by the High Court and the complainant could approach the High Court bringing to its notice the non compliance of its orders. Further since the complainant claiming to be exposing gas pilferage in public interest, FIRs filed by the complainant and the cross FIRs filed by this opponent could be investigated. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to direct the respondent Home Department, Government of NCT, Delhi, to get the matter investigated by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police and take appropriate action thereon under report to the Council in a period of four weeks from the service of the adjudication. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. 6) Shri Abnish Kumar Mishra Versus 1. Smt. Rajvinder Kaur Correspondent 2. Sh Divender Kumar Tiwari Swatantra Bharat Shajahanpur, U.P. Shajahanpur, Uttar Pradesh 3. Sh. A.V. Antone Dev Kumar Superintendent of Police Shajahanpur, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 12.8.2005 has been filed by Shri Abnish Kumar

40 Mishra, Correspondent, Swatantra Bharat, Shajahanpur against Smt. Rajvinder Kaur, working in a Primary Health Centre in District Shahjahanpur and her husband Shri Divender Kumar Tiwari alleging harassment due to publication of critical news reports, the captions of which are as follows: 1. “Patrakar Se Nagdi Va Mobile Loota” Swatantra Bharat dated.21.8.05 2. “Badmashon Ne Patrakar Se Mobile – Nagdi Looti” Amar Ujala dated 21.8.2005 3. “Khul Gayi Ek Aur Tantrik Ke Dukan” Swatantra Bharat dated 6.5.2005 4. “Tantrik Ke Darwaze Par Latka Tala” Swatantra Bharat dated 9.5.05 5. “Khule Aam Chal Rahe Hein ‘Bhrun Hatya’ Kendra” Swatantra Bharat dated 21.5.2005 6. “DIG Saheb! Khudar Mein Bhi Hain Tantrik” Swatantra Bharat dated 14.4.2005 7. “Congress Mahilayon Ne PHC Gheri” Swatantra Bharat dated 10.8.2005 According to the complainant due to the publication of the critical news items, the respondent Smt. Rajvinder Kaur and her husband Shri Divender Kumar Tiwari pursuing the profession of tantrik and illegal abortion threatened to eliminate him. The complainant has further stated that around 9:00 p.m. on 9.8.2005 while returning home some goons threatened him at gunpoint to stop publication of news items against the respondent and also threatened to implicate him in frivolous cases. The complainant apprehended danger to his life and property due to the nefarious activities of the aforesaid couple and a police report was lodged in the matter on 19.8.2005. The complainant vide letter dated 24.10.2005 has informed that the police neither took any action on his complaint nor registered his report (FIR) and added that he wrote a letter dated 23.8.2005 to the Superintendent of Police, Shajahanpur and the Deputy Inspector of Police, Bareily with a request to take action in the matter but to no avail. Notices for Statement in Reply dated 30.11.2005, was issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as the couple in question. Comments of the Respondents 1. Mrs. Rajvinder Kaur, the respondent in her comments dated 12.12.2005 has denied that allegations levelled by the complainant as false, baseless and untrue and submitted that the complainant has been trying to extort money from her and her husband in the garb of journalism; and when failed to blackmail them,

41 he started publication of false and defamatory news items against her. She has added that they filed a police report in the matter. She had addressed a notice to the editor of the respondent Swatantra Bharat on 20.6.2005, which finally stopped the respondent from publication of a series of objectionable reports, stated the respondent. 2. Shri Divender Kumar Tiwari, the second respondent in his comments dated 12.12.2005 also alleged blackmailing and attempt to extortion against the complainant and stated that having failed in his nefarious tactics, he resorted to publication of false and defamatory news items against them and their family. A copy each of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 22.12.2005 for information. 3. Superintendent of Police, Shajahanpur in his comments dated 16.12.2005 has furnished a copy of the enquiry report dated 14.12.2005, conducted by the Regional Officer (Kshetra Adhikari), Puvvayan, District Shajahanpur, Shri Prahlad Yadav. He has submitted that the complainant used to visit the house of the respondent, Smt. Rajvinder Kaur frequently till he had some misunderstanding with the niece of the respondent, namely Neetu. When the complainant was not allowed to visit the house of the respondent, as he used to, he got annoyed and started publishing false and defamatory news item to avenge. He also stated that the enquiry established no threatening by the respondent as alleged by the complainant. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant for information on 29.12.2005. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 28.9.2006 the complainant submitted that the inquiry report sent by the respondent authority was misleading and meant to save the respondents. He has further stated that the respondent Smt. Rajvinder Kaur, a Sikh married woman and her husband, Shri Divender Kumar Tiwari from a Hindu community, in spite of being already married, how they got married, was a matter of great concern and the Council should take action on this point. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 27.10.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Abnish Kumar, complainant appeared in person. S/Shri R.A. Sharma, Sub-Inspector, Shahjahanpur, D.K. Tiwari and Smt. Rajvinder Kaur appeared as the respondents.

42 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that he had published general news items. He thereafter received threats and sent his complaint to the S.S.P. and the D.I.G. The complainant further submitted that one of the opponents had filed a case against him and he was arrested and later obtained bail from the court. Presently he was on bail.

Smt. Rajvinder Kaur, (Respondent No.3) submitted that the complainant and his accomplice came to her home on 14.06.2005 with video camera and threatened that D.M. had given him orders for video-graphy. The respondent further submitted that the complainant demanded Rs. 10,000/-, failing which, he said she would not be able to continue in service, if the news was published against her. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had been stalking her niece and publishing the name of her niece in one or another news item.

The Sub-Inspector appearing for (Respondent No.1) filed report dated 3.6.2007 stating therein that the matter had been inquired by the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur which revealed that a case had been filed against the complainant in the police station Khuttar, District Shahjahanpur under Sections 323/504/506 of IPC and the matter is under trial in the court. It was also stated in the report that the allegations made against the local police could not be substantiated.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and oral submissions put forth before it by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had been unable to file any evidence to substantiate his charges of harassment and was now seeking into the personal conduct of the primary respondent Smt. Rajvinder Kaur and her husband which had no nexus with the functioning of the press. Further as per the police report, the case filed against the complainant on counter charges is sub-judice and therefore the Council is unable to proceed in the matter. The Inquiry Committee decided to drop the proceeding being sub-judice and recommended to the Council accordingly.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

43 7) Suo-motu action regarding assault on Press photographers by the colleagues of Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in a rape/murder case of Ms. Priyadarshini Mattoo. On coming across news reports/photographs published in the various national newspapers on 18.10.2006 which revealed that the friends of Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in a rape and murder case of Ms. Priyadarshini Mattoo, roughed up scribes/camerapersons on 17.10.2006 outside the Delhi High Court premises, the Council took suo motu congnisance of the matter under Section 13 (2) of the Press Council Act, 1978 read with Regulation 13 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. According to the news reports/photographs when the CBI team present in the court room took Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh into custody, his advocate friends, who were with him during the hearing, tried to prevent photographers and camerapersons from taking Santosh’s pictures. The report further stated that the advocates, who were not very happy with the verdict, turned violent and started physically assaulting the scribes. A photographer was badly beaten up while another lost his cell phone in a melee. The angry lawyers started chasing the scribes. A written complaint of the incident was also given to the police as per the reports. Initially complete details of the matter were called for from the Editor of four newspapers namely The Hindustan Times, The Times of India, Navbharat Times and Dainik Jagran on 25.10.2006 and also a Press Release was issued on 20.10.2006 expressing concern over the reports of assault on the journalists/ photographers. Keeping in view the gravity of the matter which, prima facie, appeared to be a threat to the free functioning of the Press, a report on the facts of the case was also called on 20.12.2006 from the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Police. They were also called upon to ensure that the journalists are able to discharge their duties without fear or hindrance and to apprise the Council of the steps taken by them. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, New Delhi filed his report dated 28.2.2007 and stated that the information regarding a commotion in the court was received at Tilak Marg, Police Station from PCR on which staff from Tilak Marg Police Station rushed to the spot, where three media photographers viz. Manpreet Ranam of A.F.P., Pankaj Nangai of DNA and Mustafa Quereshi of A.P. gave a written complaint. There was no injury to anyone and the photographers did not get themselves medically examined even though they were offered the opportunity. From the contents of the complaint, offences under sections 352/504 IPC were attracted which are non congnisable

44 in nature and hence the complaint was filed. The aggrieved party could file a complaint in the competent court against the erring person to redress their grievances. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee meeting held on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Ms. Prerna Mehta, advocate appeared for The Hindustan Times and submitted that The Hindustan Times shall file all the photographs and report in its possession relevant to the matter. The Inquiry Committee in view of submissions made by the counsel, decided to adjourn the matter with direction that all the parties involved be called for the next hearing. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. S/Shri Rajoo Srivastava, OSD (Home Police-II) Delhi and Shri Anand Mohan, DCP, Delhi Police, appeared on behalf of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Shri Gaurav Aggarwal and Ms. Prerna Mehta appeared on behalf of The Hindustan Times to assist the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Anand Mohan, DCP, Delhi Police submitted that the incident in question was reported on the PCR and the police reached the spot. The police took statement of the three journalists who had given the complaint but they simultaneously stated that since nobody, hurt them, they did not opt for MLC. The legal opinion in the matter was also sought and it was stated to be a non cognizance offence. The reporters had subsequently given in writing that they did not wish to pursue the complaint. The Delhi Police representative filed the documents in support of their statement before the Inquiry Committee. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the statement put forth by the representative of police authorities, the Inquiry Committee noted that as no one was seriously injured, the concerned reporters had opted not to pursue the matter. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the suo-motu action. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

45 8) Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra 1. The Chief Secretary Correspondent Versus Government of Jharkhand Ranchi Express Ranchi, Jharkhand Hindi Daily Bokaro, Jharkhand 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Ranchi, Jharkhand

3. Superintendent of Police Bokaro, Jharkhand

4. Shri Parshuram Paswan Sub-Inspector Bokaro Thermal Police Station Bokaro, Jharkhand Complaint Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Correspondent, Hindi Dainik, Ranchi Express, Bokaro in a complaint dated 6.6.2005 alleged threats by the Sub-Inspector, Shri Parshuram Paswan of Bokaro Thermal Police Station following publication of a critical news report in his newspaper on 15.5.2005 captioned “Daroga Ke Grah Nirman Se Aatankit Hain Bokaro Thermal Ke Kai Log,” which no where mentions his name. The complainant visited the Bokaro Thermal Police Station for dissemination of news on 5.6.2005 at 8.15 p.m. where he was threatened and abused by the respondent and was directed to refrain from publishing critical reports against the police. He apprehended fear that he may be implicated in false cases. The complainant submitted that he brought the matter to the notice of the higher police authorities as well as the State Home Minister but no action has been taken in the matter. He alleged that the act of the respondent Sub Inspector amounts to curtailment of freedom of press. No Comments Comments of the Government of Jharkhand were invited in the matter on 21.10.2005. The respondent did not file comments. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a fax dated 21.12.2006 stated that the S.I., Shri Parshuram Paswan has been transferred to Bermo Police Station, Bokaro district in the first week of April 2006 but the S.I. threatened him with dire consequence in case of even his rare appearance in Bermo Police Station area. The complainant requested that matter may be decided on merit.

46 The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent Government had not filed comments nor deputed any representative to make submissions before the Committee. As the matter related to the freedom of the press, it thought it fit to adjourn the matter in order to afford an opportunity to the Government of Jharkhand to file its comments/report in the matter. The Secretariat of the Council was directed by the Inquiry Committee to call for the report from the State Government in the case. Accordingly the respondent Government of Jharkhand was requested vide Council’s letter dated 12.3.2007 to file their comments/report in the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2007. There was no appearance before it from either side. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity of hearing to the parties, decided to adjourn the matter. IIIrd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.207 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side. Shri Parshuram Paswan, Sub-Inspector appeared as the prime respondent. The respondent submitted that in the departmental inquiry the allegations levelled by the complainant against him were not substantiated. He further submitted that the complainant himself was a corrupt person. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was not present and none of the four respondents had filed written statement in the matter to enable the complainant to press his case. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent present and other authorities to file their reply in writing within three weeks from the date of hearing. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to adjourn the matter. Since no reply had been received, the respondent authorities were reminded vide Council’s letter dated 3.8.2007 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. While S/ Shri Ranjit Kumar Prasad, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bermo (Tenyghat) Bokaro and Parshuram Paswan, S.I. appeared on behalf of the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Parshuram Paswan, Sub-Inspector, Bokaro filed his written submissions

47 in the matter. Denying the allegation the respondent submitted that the complainant had filed this complaint against him in 2005, when he was posted at Bokaro Thermal Police Station, District Bokaro. After receiving this complaint, the then Superintendent of Police investigated the matter through Sh. Ravinder Kumar, the then Police Inspector (Barmoanchal). In the Inquiry report it was stated that the allegations made by the complainant were not substantiated. The respondent alleged that the complainant, Shri Sanjay Mishra had filed this complaint to maintain pressure on him. In fact he was involved more in other activities rather than journalism. He had been removed from the post of correspondent of the Dainik Hindustan after registering of a case no 33/06 dated 19.4.2006 against him under Sections 494/366A/387 of Indian Penal Code. Recommendations of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the respondents noted that the inquiry conducted by the Police Department was one sided and findings had been made without given any opportunity to the complainant to adduce his evidence. It therefore directed the respondent police authorities to make fresh inquiry in the matter and also record the statements of the complainant as well as of the independent persons. The Inquiry Committee further directed the respondent to file the inquiry report to the Council within a fortnight and recommended to the Council that after disposal of the complaint, compliance with the above directions by the respondent authorities be maintained and ensured. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

9) Shri Vinod Malik Versus 1. Chairman Editor Subharati Medical Vishwa Parikarma Times Dental College, Meerut Meerut Uttar Pradesh 2. Director General Medical Education & Training, Lucknow

3. Chief Secretary Govt. of U.P. Complaint This complaint, dated 23.11.2005 has been filed by Shri Vinod Malik, Editor,

48 Vishwa Parikarma Times, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the Chairman, Subharati Medical Dental College Meerut and the Director, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow alleging threats to him for publication of a critical news report captioned “Supreme Court Ke Aadeshon Ki Dhajjian-Niji Chikitsa College Note Chhapne Ki Machinain” in its monthly magazine issue November, 2005. The complainant has alleged that annoyed with the publication of the critical news report, the respondents not only abused but threatened to kill him in full public view on 16.11.2005 and thereafter he was continuously getting threatening calls from the respondents. Terming the action of the respondent as an attack on the freedom of the press, the complainant added that due to this, he was unable to perform his journalistic duties. The complainant said, he agreed to publish contradiction provided it is given by the respondent but he was asked to publish suo motu. He has stated that the critical news report was published in public interest. Notice for Statements in reply were issued to the respondents on 3.4.2006. Comments 1. Chairman, Subharati Medical Dental College, Meerut in his written statement dated 1.5.2006, has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant saying that the facts presented in the complaint were far from truth. The respondent has stated that he had never read the critical news report in question, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice by the Council, carrying a copy of the same. Thus the allegation of annoyance with the news report was totally false. Denying that he ever met the complainant or knew him personally the question of threatening him publically was out of question. The respondent stated that the complainant had not mentioned where and when the respondents met him. Had he read the critical news item, he would have sent its contradiction, or sued the complainant for defamation. Being a specialist doctor by profession, he never indulged in such activities since he could always take recourse to remedial legal measures. 2. Director General, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow in her comments, dated 19.5.2006 has stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and baseless and also denied that the complainant took her interview or verified the facts from her. The respondent has added that had the Subharati Medical Dental College committed any irregularities, appropriate action would have been taken as per the government’s rules and regulations. A copy each of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 6.6.2006 for information.

49 Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Vinod Malik, Editor, Vishwa Parikrama Times, appeared in person. S/Shri Ashok Agarwal and Salar M. Khan, Advocates appeared for the respondent, Subharati Medical Dental College. The complainant submitted that he had reported facts about the respondent college. However, he started receiving threats after publication of impugned news report. He had offered to publish the version of the college, if they had evidence. But the respondent sent goons to kill him. The complainant out of fear stopped publication from Meerut. He added that presently he was bringing out his magazine from the village. He had given his complaint to the police which was taken by the police but the FIR was not registered. The complainant further submitted that he had all the necessary details and the documents and also the statements of the people in respect of threats extended to him. The Committee pointed out that these documents ought to have been produced by him to substantiate his case. The counsel for the respondent college submitted that his client had never met the complainant and had never seen the publication. The complainant had made accusation against him, which was not maintainable. The counsel submitted that the complainant had written an article about fee charged by the college. The counsel explained that at the relevant time there were two different fee structures, i.e. (i) State Quota (ii) Management Quota. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court order on capitation fee, the college had liberty to have their own fee structure. The college had pleaded before the Fee Structure Committee to give approval to the same structure but the Committee rejected the application of the college. The counsel further submitted that the college approached the Hon’ble High Court that rejected the decision of Fee Structure Committee. The college therefore again approached the Fee Structure Committee, which accepted fee structure of the college for the financial year 2003-2004. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant’s case was that he was receiving threats due to publication of critical report. The Inquiry Committee, however, noted that complainant had not filed the relevant documents such as copy of FIR, or any complaint addressed to the police authorities or proof of sending the complaint to the police. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, directed the complainant to file all relevant documents, in support of his complaint of threats after publication of the report, within two weeks from the date of hearing. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Further a reminder dated 3.8.2007 was issued to the complainant to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee.

50 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant vide his fax dated 30.8.2007 informed the Council that he was unable to attend the hearing due to sudden illness. S/Shri Ashok Agarwal and Salar M.Khan, Advocates appeared for the respondent Subharati Medical Dental College and Dr. K.C. Ravinder, Professor and OSD represented Director General Medical Education and Training, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they had given detailed submissions on the last hearing and also filed written submissions in the matter. The respondent denied any kind of threat to the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The request of adjournment seeked by the complainant on medical ground was not accepted by the Committee as no medical certificate was sent with the letter. On merits, the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was asked on the last hearing to file the relevant documents as a proof in support of his allegation that he was threatened due to critical reports. Despite reminder the complainant neither gave any detail nor evidence of threats. The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances opined that the complaint was not supported by any documentary evidence. The Inquiry Committee thus opined that the complainant had failed to establish his charges despite sufficient opportunity and recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

10) Shri Trilok Prasad Sharma Versus 1. Shri Manoj Printer, Publisher and Owner 2. Shri Satinder Sharma Bhakt Hanuman 3. Police Authority Bulandshahar Aurangabad Uttar Pradesh Bulandshahar, UP Complaint This complaint dated 23.11.2005 has been filed by Shri Trilok Prasad Sharma, Printer, Publisher and Owner, Bhakt Hanuman, a Hindi weekly, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Manoj and Shri Satinder Sharma of Village Pipalpa, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh alleging threats and harassment due to the publication of critical news item captioned “Byaj Ki Mar Sahate-Sahate Hazaaron

51 Tabah, Garibon Dwara Atmahatya, Panditon Dwara Lacharon Ki Betiyon Se Balatkar” “Rashtriya Jan Sagam Dwara Kari Karwahi Ki Maang” in its issue dated 22.8.2005. The complainant has alleged that due to the publication of the critical news item, concerning village Pipala, under police station Aurangabad, District Bulundshahar, a resident of the village misbehaved with the editor of the weekly newspaper Shri Pradeep Mishra, asked for contradiction to be published and threatened to get him abducted and killed. He also alleged that a report was lodged with the Senior Superintendent of Police but no action was taken in the matter. He has further stated that he sent a telegram to Chief Minister, U.P. on 8.9.2005 but no action was taken in the matter. On 25.11.2005, Manoj, Satinder, two policemen and three goons came to his office and asked him to reveal the address of Pradeep Mishra, journalist and on refusal they ransacked/damaged his office and threatened him that the dead body of Mr. Pradeep Mishra would be sent to him on 30.11.2005. Since then the whereabouts of Shri Pradeep Mishra were not known. The complainant requested the Council to take strict action against the respondents. Notices for statements in reply were issued to the respondents including the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 12.1.2006. Comments of Shri Manoj Kumar 1. Shri Satender Kumar Sharma, on behalf of his son, Shri Manoj Kumar, in his comments dated 27.1.2006 has submitted that the facts narrated by the complainant were false and concocted. He has narrated the history of dispute over landed property they have with the complainant’s family who took Rs. 2,00,000/- from them for purchase of a piece of land in the month of February 2004 but neither did he executed the sale deed nor returned the money, but instead, tried to implicate them in false cases. He has denied that they have threatened the complainant or his (adopted) son, the editor, Shri Pradeep Mishra. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 7.2.2006 for information. In response to the letter dated 12.1.2006 to the respondent, the complainant vide fax letters dated 8.2.2006 and 28.2.2006 has informed that they were under extreme threats from the police and he was being forced to sign a statement to which he did not subscribe. He has stated that the police made him sign on a hand written statement on 6.2.2006 and when he asked for a copy of the same, they refused to give him and further alleged that the Dy. S.P., Shri Piyus Srivastav and other officials threatened him to close down his newspaper. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh including the local police authority on 14.2.2006 for their comments and

52 a D.O letter dated 3.4.2006 was addressed to the Additional DGP to ensure the safe and smooth publication of the complainant’s newspaper. Comments of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar The District Magistrate, Bulandshahar vide letter dated 20.4.2006 has furnished the inquiry report dated 16.4.2006, conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar which revealed that the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be established/proved. A copy of the comment was forwarded to the complainant on 26.4.2006 for information. Comments of Superintendent of Police The Superintendent of Police, Bulundshahar in his comments dated 24.4.2006 has submitted that the complainant has been publishing critical news items against the State Government and the Police authorities in his two newspapers “Bhakt Hanuman” and “Maanvata Ki Vijay” using indecent and unparliamentary languages. He has furnished some of the clippings of the objectionable news items the captions of which are as follows: 1. “Mukhya Mantri Mulayam Singh Yadav Jawab Dein Ki Thanein Ke Roop Mein Katti khane Va Randikhane Kyoun” Bhakt Hanuman dated 1.10.2003, 2. “Mahila Police Karamcharion Ke Roop Mein Khaki Vardidhari Charitrahinon Dwara Bharat Mata Ki Nirdos Betiyon Par Bhari Julm, Anek Kanyayon Behal” Bhakt Hanuman dated 20.2.2006, 3. “Police Dwara Hatya Karke Pheke Gaye Shav Hi Lawaris Ya Agyat Shav Kahate Hein” Bhakt Hanuman dated 27.3.2006, 4. “Alseshan Patrakaron Urf Peticoton Ki Goondagardi Se Sara Jila Parishan” Bhakt Hanuman dated 27.3.2006, 5. “Police Apki Dushman Hai, Isse Nafrat Kijiye – Rashtriya Jan Sabha”-”Gunda Chhole, Police Bluse, Peticote Bane Patrkar, En Sabse Zadha Ha Neta Makkar, Eska Janta Par Ho Rakha Atachar” Bhakt Hanuman dated 27.3.2006, 6. “Hathyari Sarkar Ka Cancerakshan Mein Thane Banein Kattekhant, Randonkhane” Manvata Ki Vijay dated 4.2.2005; and 7. “Police Aapki Dusman Hai, Isse Nafrat Kijiye-Rashtrya Jan Sabha” Manvata Ki Vijay dated 4.7.2003. The respondent police officer has alleged that the publication of news item using such undignified language is an offence under Sections 501 and 502 of the IPC, and requested the Council for strict action against the complainant.

53 A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 5.5.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant vide fax dated 29.5.2006 has alleged that due to refusal for the statement, the editor of Bhakt Hanuman, Shri Pradeep Mishra, (the person earlier said to be missing) stated not only the local police has been harassing him but even the traffic police in Noida has been pressuring him to toe their line and due to such immense pressure, he is finding it difficult to take food properly. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the respondent on 6.6.2006 for information. Comments of the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. The Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his comments dated 3.8.2006 submitted that an inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar and the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be substantiated. A copy of the inquiry report dated 10.3.2006 was sent to the Council. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar in the Inquiry Report stated that the inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar and found that both parties were involved in some property dispute and the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be established. Thus no further action was required in the matter. A copy of the Comments was forwarded to the complainant on 8.9.2006 for information/counter, if any. The complainant, vide fax dated 28.1.2007 has alleged that the comments of the Special Secretary were misleading and meant to save the respondent. A copy of the counter was forwarded to the respondent on 9.2.2007 for information. Comments of S.S.P., Bulandshahar Smt. N. Padmaja, Sr. Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 15.3.2007 stated that the matter was again inquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and furnished a copy of the inquiry report dated 13.3.2007 to the Council, the contents of which were the same as the earlier reports. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Kamlesh Dixit, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh appeared for the respondent.

54 The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had sought adjournment due to illness. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity to parties decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, while Shri Ashutosh Gautam, Dy. S.P., Bulandshahar, U.P., appeared for the respondent police authorities. The complainant had telephonically requested for a pass over. This was acceded to and the matter was taken up at 2 p.m., but even then the complainant did not appear. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Gautam appearing for the respondent police authorities submitted that there was a dispute between the two parties on account of non-implementation of property transition in between the complainant and opponent families. The police tried to obtain the statement of Shri Pradeep Mishra but he never came to the police station for giving his statement. A notice was also sent to him for giving his statement which was duly received by him but even then he did not come to record his statement . Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the complaint has been primarily filed against a citizen and the police for inaction on his complaint and had no concern with journalism. From the records, it is clear that the police authorities have taken action as per law and in fact the complainants have not extended cooperation to the police. There is also no attempt by the complainant to explain the return of Shri Pradeep Mishra whose disappearance had been attributed to the village inhabitants. The complainant despite pass over of the matter did not appear till the rising of the Committee. The Committee, therefore, held that the complainant had failed to establish a case of coercion or interference with press freedom and recommended to the Council to close the case with a general recommendation to the police authorities to take prompt action/inquiry into complaints of mediapersons following threats to discharge of their journalistic duties. It further observed before parting with the case that while the government is expected to follow due process of law, the press is also expected to observe restraint on its conduct and writings. The reports attached by the police authorities with the Inquiry report are couched in highly objectionable, uparliamentary and abusive language. The Committee expressed its displeasure over the manner of writings which brought infamy to the noble profession of journalism. With these observations, it recommended to the Council to close the case.

55 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

11) Shri Ram Kishore Panwar Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Uncle Four Twenty, Hindi Weekly Bhopal Hamse Kuchh Nahin Chhupaya Ja Sakta, Hindi Fortnightly 2. The Secretary Betul-M.P. Home (Police) Department Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal

3. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarter Bhopal

4. Deputy Inspector General of Police Police Headquarter Bhopal Complaint Shri Ram Kishore Panwar, Publisher/Editor, “Uncle Four Twenty”, Hindi Weekly, and “Hamse Kuchh Nahin Chhupaya Ja Sakta”, Hindi Fortnightly and Bureau Chief, Punjab Kesari, Betul, M.P. in his complaint dated 26.9.2005 has charged the local police with inaction following attack on him by anti-social elements due to publication of critical reports. Giving details the complainant has submitted that on 6.9.2005 BJP, MLA Sajjan Singh’s followers, representatives and anti-social elements attacked him at his residence and severely injured him. With the help of his neighbours he went to Pathakheda police station to file an FIR, but no proper FIR was registered by the local police. As per the complainant the police not only struck out some sections in the FIR but also delayed action in the matter. On the contrary some fabricated cases under Dalit Act had been filed against him. The complainant alleged that the Pathakheda police had openly protected the accused by not taking action against them. According to the complainant in spite of making written complaints to the senior police officials no action had been initiated against the erring officials and no arrest were made. The complainant alleged that by taking no action the police had been torturing him mentally as well

56 as physically and as a result putting hurdles in his journalistic work. He requested the Council to provide him justice. No Comments Comments of the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, I.G. Police and D.I.G. Police, Bhopal were invited vide notice for statement in reply dated 10.11.2005. No reply was received. Notice for statement in reply issued to the I.G., Police and DIG, Police, Bhopal were received back undelivered with the postal remarks “Incomplete Address” while A/D card with respect to the notice issued to the Chief Secretary is on the record. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.2.2007 at Udaipur. The complainant Shri Ram Kishore Panwar appeared in person while Shri Dharmendra Singh Bhadauria, Additional Superintendent of Police, Betul was present on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The complainant submitted that he was in the profession of journalism for the past 25 years. The police framed about 15 cases against him. He was framed under various sections of IPC in four cases within six months. In one of the cases he was fined Rs.1300/- and awarded one year imprisonment. The complainant submitted that he was harassed because of critical reports about police authorities by him in Punjab Kesari. The complainant alleged that he was not at any point of time apprised the contents of the FIR by Sonia Patedar, submitted that he was not known to Sonia Patedar. The complainant further submitted that the police did not register the FIR whenever he approached the police with his grievance. Shri Dharmendra Singh Bhadavria, Additional Superintendent of Police, Betul appearing for the authorities filed a list of cases involving Shri Panwar and submitted that the contents of the FIR are always read out and then signed by the complainant. The respondent stated that he was not able to argue the case for want of copy of the complaint. The Inquiry Committee noted that respondent could not have brought the case papers with him for the hearing, had he not known about the complaint. Further the notice issued to DIG and IGP had been received back with postal remark “Address incomplete, returned”. The Inquiry Committee was not convinced with the bona fide of the postal remarks keeping in mind the authority to whom the notices were addressed but handed over a copy of the complaint to the representative of the respondents. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent authorities to file written reply within three weeks and decided that the lack of response be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary of the State. The Inquiry Committee further directed the respondent to ensure that the complainant was not

57 harassed in his bona fide functions. The matter was accordingly adjourned for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. Reply filed by the Respondent Police Authorities The Superintendent of Police, District Betul, M.P. in his comments dated 5.3.2007 received in the Secretariat on 9.4.2007 has submitted a list of cases lodged by some people against the complainant. He has submitted that the complainant was fined Rs.1300/- and awarded one year imprisonment and some other cases are pending in the court of law. He alleged that the complainant demanded money from public for not publishing the baseless news with photographs. The respondent submitted a copy of a judgement dated 14.2.2007 given by the court against the complainant. Further letter from the Complainant The complainant in a letter dated 19.3.2007 reiterated the complaint and submitted that he had been implicated in two more cases under Section 384-IPC and one additional matter and that the police was influencing the witnesses. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person while Shri D.S. Bhadauria, Additional Superintendent of Police, Betul represented the police authorities. The complainant submitted that on his return from Udaipur after the first hearing of this case, the police registered one more case against him. The total pendency of case registered against him was sixteen. The police was continuously harassing him. The complainant further submitted that he had taken loan from the bank for purchase of a computer but due to ill health and hypertension he could not repay the loan to the bank. He had informed the bank also that after recovering from his illness he would repay the loan. The complainant alleged that the recovery case ought to have been made against him but he was framed under Section 420 IPC for not repaying the loan. The complainant submitted that there were 40 journalists in Betul. Only four were accredited and police had registered cases against three of them. The complainant stated that he was not an accredited journalist but the SDM, Betul in his notice dated 22.9.2006 ordered cancellation of his accreditation. Shri D.S. Bhadauria, Additional Superintendent of Police appearing for the police authorities submitted that the police had no knowledge about the notice issued by the SDM, Betul as such powers vested with the office of the SDM and not the police authorities. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties, felt the need to collect facts on the charge against the SDM. In order to ascertain the facts and

58 circumstances which prompted the SDM to pass such order, it directed (in exercise of the powers under Section 15(1) of the Press Council Act 1978) that the Collector, Betul should file report in the matter. It directed that the summons for filing of detailed report on facts also be issued to Superintendent of Police, Betul and District Magistrate and to depute a responsible officer to appear before the Committee with records of case on the next date of hearing. The matter was, thus, adjourned. Accordingly summons have been issued to the Collector, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Betul on 25.5.2007 to adduce detailed report along with all relevant documents the facts and circumstances under which the SDM passed such order and to depute a responsible officer to appear before the Inquiry Committee of the Council with records of case to make submissions and file other relevant details/documents deemed necessary in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Ram Kishore Panwar appeared in person. S/Shri D.S. Bhadauria, Additional Superintendent of Police and Deepak Pandey, Nayab Tehsildar, Betul, Madhya Pradesh, represented the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent police authorities were continuously harassing him. Despite Committee’s specific direction to the authorities in February 2007 meeting, cases had been registered against him as soon as he returned from the hearing. The police had registered all the case under Section 384 IPC and recently he was framed under Section 420 IPC for not repaying the loan taken from the bank for purchase of computers for his newspaper office, even though this matter was actionable under other laws. The respondent submitted that the FIR in the case of attack on the complainant was lodged by the police, which was his main complaint to the Council. Summons to Police Authorities At the outset, the Inquiry Committee recorded its unhappiness over the action of the State authorities in deputing low ranked officers before the Committee who were unable to meet the queries of the Committee. It observed that to reach to any conclusion all the FIRs filed against the complainant needed to be scrutinised properly. It, therefore, directed the representative of the Government to file attested copies of the FIRs with their present status. It also felt that in the circumstances, it was necessary to examine the officers of the State. The Inquiry Committee,

59 therefore, decided to issue summons to (i) the Secretary, Home (police) Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, (ii) Shri A.K. Pawar, Director General of Police, , Bhopal, (iii) Shri Arun Bhatt, Collector/District Magistrate, Betul, Madhya Pradesh, and (iv) Shri Vijay Suryavanshi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh to personally remain present on the next date of hearing along with all relevant documents including original copies of all the FIRs lodged against the complainant between August 2005 till July 20, 2007. Accordingly summons were issued to the concerned officials as directed by the Inquiry Committee, on 2.8.2007 to appear personally and adduce detailed evidence and report along with all relevant documents and original copies of all the FIRs so far lodged against the complainant between August 2005 till July 20, 2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.8.2007. Shri Ram Kishore Panwar, the complainant appeared in person. Dr. Masood Akhtar, Additional Collector, Betul and Shri D.S. Bhadouria, Additional Superintendent of Police, Betul, Madhya Pradesh appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his complaint and submitted that the police have registered cases against him and one of them was of cheating, in the name of purchase of computers for the office use. The complainant submitted that due to hypertension for the last five years he could not repay the loan to the bank. The complainant further stated that the police was continuously harassing him and interfering in the journalistic duties. The representative of the respondent police authorities filed the list of FIRs registered against the complainant. The respondent submitted that there was no ill-will against the complainant and police was not harassing him and never interfered in his journalistic duties. The representative of the police authorities further submitted that the State Bank of India had registered a complaint against the complainant under Section 420 IPC, due to non payment of loan, which he had taken for purchase of computers. The representative of the Collector, Betul submitted that M.P. Working Journalist Union had given a written representation to the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh regarding blackmailing and corruption charges against the complainant and demanded action against him. He further submitted that the complainant was misusing the name of the press and blackmailing people in the area in the name of press. The Press Council had recently passed stricture against the complainant for defaming a woman organisation. There was no malice against the complainant and he was not harassed.

60 Both the representatives appearing for the respondents assured that personal security of the complainant would be ensured. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed its displeasure over the non-appearance of the officers, who were summoned to appear before the Committee. The Inquiry Committee however, examined the records of the case and oral arguments put forth before it by the parties. It noted that the respondent authorities in their reply had categorically denied any animus against the complainant and that the complainant could carry on his profession freely. The Inquiry Committee also noted that the police authorities contended that they did not propose to prosecute the complainant. It also observed that promptitude police authorities in initiating action against the complainant whenever a FIR is registered against him. The Inquiry Committee felt that both the sides appeared to be acting with some covert motive. It directed the police authorities to ensure that the complainant is not hindered in performance of his journalistic duties. The Inquiry Committee further directed the police authorities that case should be registered against the complainant only after proper scrutiny. However, in view of the assurance given by the respondents that personal security of the complainant would be ensured, the Inquiry Committee decided that no further action was warranted in the matter. It recommended to the Council to allow the matter to rest accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

12) Shri Vinod Malik Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Vishwa Parikarma Times Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Meerut Uttar Pradesh 2. The Managing Director U.P. Power Corporation West Zone, Meerut, U.P.

3. The General Manager U.P. Power Corporation West Zone, Meerut, U.P. Complaint Shri Vinod Malik, Editor, Vishwa Parikrama Times, Hindi Monthly published from Meerut, Uttar Pradesh has filed this complaint dated 28.11.2005 against the

61 General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Meerut for harassing and threatening him due to publication of critical news items. According to the complainant due to the publication of the impugned news item in September 2005 issue captioned ‘‘bZekunkjh dh ltk nl yk[k dh fjdojh’’ and in November 2005 issue captioned ‘‘ikoj dkiksZjs'ku us mM+kbZ lqçhe dksVZ ds vkns'kksa dh /kfTt;k¡ LFkkukUrj.k uhfr esa djksM+ksa dh dekbZ if'pekapy dEiuh ds LVkWQ vkQhlj us LFkkukUrj.k ds fy, [kksyh nqdku’’, officers of the U.P. Power Corporation, Meerut have been threatening him of dire consequences through anti-social elements and asking to publish contradiction of his own. The complainant submitted that the news items had been published in terms of the healthy journalism. He alleged that action of the respondent tantamounts to curtailment of freedom of press. He requested the Counil to takc action against the respondent. No Statement in Reply Comments of the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Managing Director and General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Meerut were invited vide Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 27.3.2006. No reply was received. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri R.K. Kashyap, Chief Engineer and Mrs. Suman Lata, A.L.O. Meerut Zone appeared for the respondent U.P. Power Corporation, Meerut. The representative of the respondent filed written submissions in the matter. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to serve a copy of the written submissions on the complainant to enable him to file counter, thereto. It, thus decided to adjourn the matter. Complainant’s Letter Dated 24.7.2007 The complainant vide his letter dated 24.7.2007 (received in the Secretariat of the Council on 3.8.2007) intimated his inability to appear before the Inquiry Committee due to lack of security and financial crunch. The complainant alleged that some employees of the respondent department had threatened to kill him and the General Manager, Meerut Zone and Supreintending Engineers, of the Power Corporation were encouraging their illegal activities. The complainant submitted that the Managing Director, West Zone Power Corporation had not initiated any action against the erring officials. Respondent’s Written Submissions Dated 31.7.2007 Shri Srikant Prasad, Chief Engineer, West Zone Power Corporation, Meerut

62 Region, Meerut in his written submissions dated 31.7.2007 submitted that the complaint of threats filed by the complainant had been inquired into by the Executive Engineer, Shri Pradeep Kumar. In his inquiry report the Executive Engineer has submitted that on 9.2.2007 in the absence of the Chief Engineer, the complainant, Shri Vinod Malik went to Commerce Section of the Department and started looking at the documents kept on the table. When Shri Lokesh Chand Gupta and Shri Nidhish Kumar Rastogi, employees asked him not to do so, he did not listen and the matter led to the heated arguments and abusive language. The respondent submitted that the complainant was responsible for the whole episode as he was indulging in yellow journalism. The respondent requested the Council to take action against the complainant for publishing false/defamatory reports. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 14.8.2007 for his counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant vide fax dated 30.8.2007 requested for adjournment on the ground that he had suddenly fallen ill. Shri R.K. Kashyap, Chief Engineer and Mrs. Suman Lata, Assistant Law Officer, Meerut appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent’s representative submitted that an inquiry into the complaint was conducted and the findings had been sent to the Council vide letter dated 31.7.2007. The respondent also submitted that the complainant was bringing out the magazine to defame the department and distributing it free of cost. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that a copy of the written statement dated 31.7.2007 denying the allegations of the complainant was sent to the complainant for his counter but he did not rebut the averments made in the written statement. Even otherwise the complainant did not substantiate by any evidence the allegation of threat by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee therefore opined that the complaint was devoid of merit and it recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

63 13) Shri Madan Mohan Pandey Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Correspondent, Aj Government of Uttar Pradesh Kanaila, Azamgarh Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

3. Superintendent of Police Azamgarh Uttar Pradesh

4. Station House Officer Police Station Jahanaganj Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 19.10.2005 has been filed by Shri Madan Mohan Pandey, Correspondent, Aj, Azamgarh, Uttar Padesh against Shri Azad Singh Kesari, SHO, Jahanaganj, Azamgarh alleging harassment and threats to him and his family members due to publication of critical news item captioned “fNViqV fgalk ds chp gqvk igys pj.k dk ernku” in the issue dated 16.10.2005 of Dainik Aj, Varanasi. The complainant alleged that annoyed with the aforesaid publication, the respondent SHO came to his residence on 16.10.2005 at 10.00 p.m. in civil dress with two pistols in his hands and threatened him. When the complainant revealed that he was the reporter of Dainik Aj, then he not only misbehaved with him and abused him and his family members but threatened them with the consequences. The SHO alleged that he was the person who had captured the polling booth and thrown water in the ballot box. He also threatened that if he did not reveal the truth about booth capturing then he would be implicated in false cases. The complainant alleged that on the same day at 12.30 midnight, the SHO evicted him and his family from his own house and he was forced to take shelter in the house of neighbour. The complainant further alleged that the SHO came again on the next morning at 6.00 a.m. and asked him about the names of the accused persons which would result in his implication in false cases. The complainant submitted that he was constantly under fear of being killed. The complainant submitted that due to this instance he could not exercise his franchise. According to the complainant the highhandedness misbehaviour of the SHO amounts to suppression of the freedom of press. The complainant has requested to take necessary action against the SHO.

64 Statement in Reply In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 3.1.2007, the Under Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 14.2.2006 has submitted that an inquiry in the matter had been conducted by the Police Superintendent, Azamgarh. According to the report dated 4.2.2006 the alleged incident could not be proved and the allegations made by the complainant were found to be false. The respondent alleged that being prejudiced, the complainant had deliberately filed this complaint levelling allegations, which were far from facts, misleading and reflected his personal bias and selfishness. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 23.2.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Madan Mohan Pandey, Correspondent, Aj appeared in person. S/Shri Shivaji Shukla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh and Ramesh Pandey, (SI) S.O., Jehanaganj, District Azmagarh appeared for the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the police annoyed with the impugned publication on 16.10.2005 confined him and his family members to a neighbour’s house so that he (the complainant) could not perform his journalistic duties. The complainant and his family members were deprived of food and water as the said house was locked by the police from outside. The complainant further submitted that the SHO had threatened them with dire consequences. The matter was investigated after it was raised in the Assembly. The complainant however stated that he faced no problem at present. His grievance was w.r.t. the said incident of curtailing his freedom by way of reprisal measure and violating the human rights insofar as his family was concerned. The respondent representative submitted that the complainant was shifted since his house was within 200 meter of polling booth. There was a planning of booth capturing and the miscreants ran away when SHO reached the planning spot. The complainant had left the house of his own and shifted to his uncle’s house. The complainant contested the statement and averred that others within the same distance were not shifted. Summons to Police Officials The Inquiry Committee opined that statement of concerned police officers posted on duty at the relevant period of time was necessary in the matter. The Inquiry Committee decided to summon the concerned police officers i.e. Shri Azad Singh Kesari, the then SHO, Jehanaganj and at present Sub-Inspector, District

65 Bhadoi, Shri Jia Lal Yadav, C.O, District Basti and Shri S.K. Bhagat, Superintendent of Police, through O/o Director General of Police to record their oral and written statements. It dispensed with the presence of the complainant at next hearing. Accordingly summons were issued to the concerned officials as directed by the Inquiry Committee, on 2.8.2007 to adduce detailed report in the matter along with all supportive documents in person. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.8.2007. Shri Madan Mohan Pandey, Correspondent, Aj, Azamgarh, the complainant appeared in persons, Shri Shivaji Shukla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh appeared on behalf of the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his complaint and objected that despite issuance of summons to the concerned police officials they had not bothered to appear before the Inquiry Committee. The complainant stated that he was not facing any problem at present. His grievance was w.r.t. the said incident of curtailing his freedom by way of reprisal measure and violating the human rights insofar as his family was concerned. The representative of the respondent police authorities assured the Committee that they will ensure security of the complainant and take care that he is not harassed in performing his journalistic duties. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed strong displeasure over the attitude of the respondent police authorities for not honouring the summons, issued by the Press Council of India to appear before it. However, in view of the proceedings before it, decided not to press the matter further exercising its authority under section 15 (1) of the Act. The Committee observed that the complainant had stated that he did not face any problem at present in performing his journalistic duties. It took on record assurance hold out by the representative of the respondent police authorities that they will ensure security of the complainant. It, observed that the authorities must, honour the assurance given to the Committee and to see that the journalists are not harassed in discharge of their journalistic duties. The Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with above observations and recommended to the Council accordingly. Further Development Shri Azad Singh Kesari, S.I. (Civil Police), Police Station Rajpura, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Uttar Pradesh came after the hearing was over and filed

66 his written statement in the matter. He submitted that on 15.10.2005 during Panchayat elections at Jahanabad, District Azamgarh, some of the miscreants not only captured the polling booth but also put water in the ballot box. The Presiding Officer registered the case. As a result repolling was held in the village Canella under strict vigilance to avoid any untoward incident. Shri Madan Mohan Pandey being supporter of the candidate in fray and a journalist tried to be present at the polling centre but he was told not to be involved in any manner. Shri Pandey got annoyed as both the candidates whom he supported, lost the elections and filed the complaint. The respondent requested to provide him an opportunity to reply the allegations levelled by the complainant. Decision of the Council The Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee and further written submissions of the Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Rajpura and decided to allow the matter to rest in view of the report of the Inquiry Committee. Facilities to the Press

14) Ms. Kausar Jahan Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of U.P. Today’s Voice Lucknow Lucknow, U.P. 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

3. The Deputy Director (Press) Information & Public Relations Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

Complaint This complaint dated 17.12.2004 has been filed by Ms. Kausar Jahan, Editor, ‘Today’s Voice’, Lucknow-based Hindi weekly against Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Deputy Director (Press), posted at the office of Chief Minister of U.P. alleging harassment. According to the complainant she was insulted by the respondent in ‘Meet the Press’ held at the office of the Chief Minister of U.P. on 16.8.2004.

67 The complainant submitted that the respondent prevented her from entering into the ‘Press Meet’ and not only abused but also threatened and challenged her in the presence of other journalists. She alleged that the respondent Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma misused his position by not issuing her invitation card for the press meet of the Chief Minister thus curtailing her freedom of press. The complainant further alleged that she was harassed deliberately by the respondent as she belongs to a minority community. The complainant submitted that she issued two legal notices dated 20.8.2004 and 14.9.2004 to the respondent for denying her the right to access to news though for and accreditated journalist there was no restriction to enter in the media centre where the U.P. Chief Minister was holding a conference. The respondent in his reply to the legal notice dated 29.9.2004 had claimed that in the press meet only those journalists were present who got the written invitation or invited through SMS. Rest were not allowed. He further stated that though the complainant is an accreditated journalist and can enter in the media centre but not the press meets organized there where entry was by invitation. He denied the allegation that he was prejudiced against the complainant on account of her minority status. The complainant alleged that the action of the respondent amounts to threat to freedom of the press. She requested the Council to intervene in the matter. Comments of the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Director and Deputy Director (Press), Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow were invited in the matter on 17.5.2005. Comments In his comments dated 2.6.2005, Shri Ashok Sharma the Deputy Director (Press), Government of U.P., Lucknow submitted that the allegations of the complainant were false and baseless. He submitted that the complainant is not a State level accredited journalist and her newspaper “Today’s Voice” circulation is very poor besides enjoying no popularity. The respondent submitted that as per rules in the press meet only representatives of Dainik, Weekly and electronic channels accreditated at state level from the Directorate were invited whereas the complainant was an accreditated journalist not from the State but from the District level. After the journalists present objected to her presence in the front row meant for senior journalists, she was requested only to shift to the back rows and not asked to leave. Had he insulted her, the journalists would have said so to the CM in the press meet that followed. He denied having any malafide intention towards the complainant. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 10.6.2005 for information. Counter Comments In her counter comments dated 2.7.2005, the complainant while denying

68 the contention of the respondent submitted that the respondent had tried to mislead the Press Council and reiterated that the respondent misused his position by not allowing her in the press meet. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on March 24, 2006. The complainant Ms. Kausar Jahan and the respondent Shri Ashok K. Sharma, Additional Director (Press ), Government of U.P were present in person. The complainant in her oral submissions reiterated the averments made in the complaint. She asserted that she was an accredited journalist and when she went to attend the press conference of the Chief Minister, the respondent pulled her by the hand out of the hall and directed her to leave. Her lawyer who issued notice to Shri Sharma was also threatened. Thereafter, when she went to CMO for some information, Shri Ashok Sharma told her that she was Muslim girl and it was better to sit at home. Sharma was continuing to insult her one way or the other. Shri Sharma submitted that on 16.8.2004, the press conference of the Chief Minister was scheduled in a hall with a seating capacity of 130. Due to paucity of space only state level accredited journalists were invited. About 230 such journalists and camerapersons had come and it was difficult to seat them all. He had already made an announcement requesting the journalists who were not having proper invitation to wait outside the Hall. The complainant who is district level accredited journalist came to the press conference without invitation and sat in the first seat in the front row, which was a reserved seat. He requested her to sit in the back row. He denied the allegation of having insulted her or having pulled her by hand. He averred that several journalists and camerapersons were present at the conference. All senior officers were present there. Had he pulled the lady by hand or insulted her, it would have surely been reported or photographed. He also denied having ever followed or chased her. The complainant thereafter levelled some personal allegations against Shri Sharma that were unrelated to the incident under inquiry. Shri Sharma also sought to level counter charges. The Inquiry Committee asked the parties to refrain from trading charges. The complainant then sought permission to file documents in support of her charges of previous animosity and irregularities of Shri Sharma, which she said, were material to the case. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity to the respondent to file his counter thereto, decided to adjourn the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings with direction to the Secretariat to send copies of the documents filed by the complainant to the respondent Additional Director, Shri Ashok Sharma for his comments.

69 The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the respondents vide Council’s letter dated 1.8.2006. IInd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. The complainant had, however, vide her letter dated 18.8.2006 requested for adjournment due to self illness duly supported by a medical certificate. In the absence of the respondent, the Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the complainant adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. IIIrd Adjournment When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi, respondent Dr. A.K. Sharma, appeared in person before the Inquiry Committee. The complainant in a letter dated 9.10.2006 requested for adjournment on the ground that she was not able to move out of Lucknow during the Ramzaan period. The respondent Dr. A.K. Sharma in his oral submissions reiterated that there was no question of misbehaving with the complainant at a gathering of a large number of media persons. The complainant submitted a list of 284 media persons of State level, called to attend such meets. He had acted as per rules. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings in view of the religious restrictions cited by complainant. It however observed that in all fairness, the complainant should have informed the respondent of her request to save his journey from Lucknow to Delhi. Further Communication from the Complainant Ms. Kausar Jahan, the complainant vide her letter dated 22.10.2006 alleged that the respondent Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma had been misleading the Council to save himself. Reiterating her original grievance, the complainant submitted that the respondent was a very clever and smart person who misused his post and position. The complainant alleged that the respondent had threatened her to stop her journalism. The complainant requested the Council to provide her justice by protecting the interest of the journalists. A copy of the complainant’s letter dated 22.10.2006 was forwarded to the respondent, Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Deputy Director (Press), Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Council’s letter dated 11.01.2007 for his information/counter comments, if any. In response he faxed a letter dated 29.01.2007 reiterating his earlier submissions and denied allegations made by the complainant.

70 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. Ms. Kausar Jahan, the complainant appeared in person. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Additional Director (Press), appeared in person. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that she is an accredited journalist since 1996 and having valid pass of Annexe Building. The complainant reiterated the allegation of insult by the respondent during press meet of the Chief Minister on 16.08.2004. The complainant further alleged that the respondent was continuously harassing her by sending bad SMSs on her mobile. The complainant stated that she had not lodged any FIR in respect of alleged SMSs. The complainant requested for action against the respondent. Dr. A.K. Sharma submitted that there are 250 State level journalists and 1400 District Level journalists accredited by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. In the Press meet of Chief Minister, keeping security consideration and space constraints in mind only the State level journalists were invited. The complainant was a District Level accreditated journalist yet she was only requested by the respondent to take seat on the back row as front seats were reserved seats. The respondent submitted that it was impossible that one could publicly insult a women journalist in a huge gathering of media persons and not a single channel report it. The respondent submitted that the allegations are totally false and second allegation now raised before the Inquiry Committee that sending objectionable SMSs to her which is also false should be taken on record so that he could contest these allegations to undo the harm to his reputation. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the documents on record and heard the parties. It noted that the complaint under consideration is only in respect of the incident of 16.8.2004. The fresh allegations of alleged SMS are not the subject matter of enquiry before the Council. It therefore, decided no to take cognizance of these fresh allegations. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint of alleged harassment of the complainant by the respondent in insulting and abusing the complainant as belonging to minority community during press meet of the Chief Minister on 16.08.2004. The Inquiry Committee noted that it was an admitted fact that the complainant, being a District Level accredited Journalist had not been invited to the said press meet following criteria laid down in this regard. Therefore she could not stake a claim to remain present in the hall. While the Committee agrees with the need for decorum in shifting through the invitees and non invitees, it feels that the complainant has failed to file any evidence to substantiate her oral

71 charges. On the other hand the respondent officer’s contention that if any such incident had taken place in the presence of media persons, it would have been widely reported or even taken up with the Chief Minister who later took the press conference, carries much force. The Committee thus feels that the complainant has been unable to substantiate her complaint and recommends to the Council to reject the same.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

15) Shri Sameer Bhatnagar Versus 1. Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of Uttar Pradesh Shah Times Lucknow Mirzapur, U.P. 2. Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

3. Deputy Director District Information & Public Relations Department Mirzapur, U.P.

Complaint

Shri Sameer Bhatnagar, Correspondent, Shah Times, Mirzapur (U.P.) filed this complaint dated 17.12.2005 against the Deputy Director, District information and Public Relations Department, Mirzapur for not returning his Press Accreditation paperwork being prejudiced towards him.

The complainant submitted that he filed the Press Accreditation form duly filled along with all relevant documents in the office at District Information and Public Relations Department, Mirzapur on 11.11.2005 to avail the Press Accreditation. The concerned official wrote a letter on that very day to the Superintendent of Police to have his police report and the same was received on 13.11.2005. The meeting of the Press Accreditation Committee was held on 14.11.2005 but his case was not presented before the Committee. The complainant after getting the information asked the respondent to intimate the reason for not

72 presenting his case before the Committee and he was informed that due to some inaccuracies his case could not be presented. The complainant asked him to return the form and papers but the same was not returned. The complainant alleged that the respondent had deliberately not presented his case being prejudiced towards him since he published a news item relating to demonstration against him by the journalists on 16.08.2005. The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter. Comments of the Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. and the Deputy Director, District Information Department, Mirzapur were invited, vide Notice for Statement in Reply dated 30.3.2005. Comments The Deputy Director, I&PRD, Mirzapur in his comments dated 3.5.2005 while denying the allegations of the complainant submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Mirzajpur had not recommended the grant of press accreditation to the complainant as many cases under Sections 323/504/506 IPC were registered against him and the matters were under trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. Forwarding his comments addressed to the Commissioner, Vindhyanchal Mandal, Mirzapur, the respondent submitted that after joining his duties on the present post on 21.06.2005 he issued a letter dated 8.7.2005 to all the journalists of the district to daily furnish a copy of their respective newspaper within 24 hours of its publication in the office of the District Information Department to establish the regularity of the publication. According to the respondent, this step was initiated as regular publication of the newspaper is an essential pre-requisite for granting accreditation but after issuance of the letter, some journalists got annoyed and to put their pressure wanted to stage demonstration and ‘dharnas’. The respondent further informed that the complainant, Shri Sameer Bhatnagar was not an accreditated journalist. According to the respondent it is necessary to furnish six essential documents/proformas but the complainant had furnished only two and therefore his case could not be presented before the Accreditation Committee. Later Shri Bhatnagar visited his office alleging that his case had deliberately not been presented and took all the documents presented by him. The respondent submitted that the allegations of the complainant were false/baseless, misleading and far from truth. The respondent submitted that the list of journalists, who staged dharna provided by the complainant, appeared to be false as the journalists whose names were included in the list had not demonstrated against him. He clarified that before joining the Information Department in 1979, he had worked as a journalist for 10-

73 15 years and could not even think of criticizing journalists or to saying anything against them. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant, vide Council’s letter dated 16.05.2006, for information.

The Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. also forwarded a copy of comments of the Deputy Director, Information, Mirzapur vide his letter dated 19.5.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Sameer Bhatnagar, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Syed Asrar Hussain, Deputy Director, Vindhyanchal Division, Mirzapur appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that his grievance was that the respondent Dy. Director, Information, Mirzapur had not returned the original documents annexed by him along with the Press Accreditation form. The complainant alleged that the respondent tore the file of his accreditation and did not place it before the Press Accreditation Committee since the respondent was annoyed on account of demonstration held by the journalists on 16.8.2005 against the respondent for his remark comparing the journalists with rickshaw pullers. The complainant requested that the original documents in the possession of the respondent may be returned to him. The respondent submitted that he had placed the case of the complainant for accreditation before the Press Accreditation Committee which did not approve his accreditation. The respondent thereafter returned the file containing all documents to one of the companion-editor of the complainant. The complainant challenged this statement on the observation of the Committee regarding procedural lapse in handing over the original documents to someone other than the concerned person. The respondent assured the Inquiry Committee that he will collect the file from that person and return it to the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties took note of the assurance given by the respondent that the documents shall be recovered and returned to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dispose of the complaint in terms of assurance tendered by the respondent with the directions to the respondent officer to send receipt signed by the complainant as a proof of having received

74 the original papers. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Further Development

Complainant’s Letters

The complainant, Shri Sameer Bhatnagar, correspondent, Shah Times, Mirzapur vide his letter dated 13.5.2007 informed that no papers/documents have been returned to him despite the assurance given by the respondent before the Inquiry Committee of the Council on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant refuting the claim made by the respondent that all documents had been returned to one of his companion editor, requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent. Vide his furhter letter dated 30.5.2007 he submitted that the respondent has given a contradictory statement during the district level enquiry. The complainant requested to provide him proceedings of the Inquiry Committee dated 29.3.2007.

Respondent’s Reply Dated 28.6.2007

The respondent, Deputy Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Mirzapur in his reply dated 28.6.2007 has submitted that he had already returned the documents to the complainant. Refuting the statement of the complainant that he had not returned the original documents, the respondent has submitted that the allegations are false, baseless and far from facts. He has claimed that the documents were returned to the complainant on 17.11.2005 for which he declined to give a receipt.

The respondent has submitted that he had again placed the case of the complainant for accreditation before the Press Accreditation Committee which did not approve his accreditation as recommendatins of the local unit were not in his favour.

Decision of the Council

The Council considered the report of its Inquiry Committee together with the documents received since then and noted that the respondent had been unable to satisfy the Inquiry Committee of its stand of having returned the documents and the Inquiry Committee had directed the respondent to take furthers steps to return his original from the whoever had reportedly received them earlier and make them available to the complainant. The Council found no reason to deviate from the directions of the Inquiry Committee and endorsing them, directed that Secretary, Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh may issue necessary orders to his subordinates for compliance with its directions above.

75 16) Shri Dilip Kumar Gupt Versus 1. Chief Secretary Accreditated Journalist Government of Uttar Pradesh Auraiya, U.P. Lucknow

2. District Magistrate Janpad Etawah, U.P.

3. District Magistrate Janpad Auraiya, U.P.

4. Assistant Director Information Janpad Etawah, U.P.

5. Assistant Director Information Janpad Auraiya, U.P. Complaint Shri Dilip Kumar Gupt, Guruhigh Mohal, Auraiya (U.P.) based journalist of Dainik Din-Raat, has filed this complaint dated 10.6.2005 against District Magistrate, Auraiya/Etawah alleging non-renewal of his accreditation card without due intimation to the editor or any notice served upon him. According to the complainant on contacting the respondent, he was informed that on 12th February 2004 a criminal case was registered against him though it had no relevance with the renewal of the card. The complainant submitted that he informed the District Magistrate and the Assistant Director, Information that the aforesaid political case was filed against him due to prejudice and no charge sheet has been filed by the police in the court. The complainant further submitted that he carried news items regarding public outcry against the dissolution of Auraiya District, which earned the wrath of the respondents. The complainant stated that due to non-renewal of his accreditation card, he has been facing lot of difficulties in dissemination of news. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments of the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, District Magistrate, Auraiya and Etawah and the Assistant Director, Information, Auraiya and Etawah were invited on 27.9.2005. Comments of the District Magistrate, Auraiya The District Magistrate, Auraiya/Etawah in his comments dated 15.10.2005 submitted that after dissolution of Auraiya district, accreditation of all the accreditated journalists was not renewed, as it is essential for them to have their residence at the Headquarter. Later after having restored the original status to the district pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, accreditation cards of four journalists of Auraiya have been renewed. However, the complainant’s accreditation

76 could not be renewed as the then Assistant Director, Information filed a case under Sections 147/148/149/341/353/332/323/307/435 and 436 IPC and 7 Cr. Law Amendment Act and Section 3 & 4 of the Public Property Damage Control Act against him for being involved in the political activities, causing damage to public property besides adverse Local Information Unit report dated 20.2.2004 requiring cancellation of the accreditation. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 25.10.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 19.11.2005 submitted that neither the police had filed any challan in the court nor any final report has been filed so far. However, almost two years have passed in registering the FIR. The complainant further submitted that there was no justification of the allegations levelled by the respondent that a case is pending against him due to which his accreditation card cannot be renewed. He averred that so long the court, do not pronounce him guilty, his demand for renewal of accreditation card remains justifiable. Referring the LIU report, the complainant submitted that the said report is false because when he was granted accreditation his character was found good and circulation of the newspaper sufficient by the Local Information Unit. The complainant filed a proof from the court regarding not filing the challan and not submitting the final report. He requested the Council to direct the District Magistrate to renew his press accreditation. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondents on 23.11.2005 for information. Comments of the Assistant Director, Information The Assistant Director, Information, Etawah/Auraiya in his comments dated 13.1.2006 submitted that till the investigation in the criminal case filed against the complainant on 12.2.2004 is complete, no adequate steps for renewal of Press Accreditation Card can be ensured. Further, the LIU report is against the complainant and the case is pending in the CJM court. However, no charge sheet has been filed by the Sub-Inspector, Shri Ram Lakhan. The respondent stated that the statement of the complainant that the criminal case has been registered against him with a view to harm his reputation is false and baseless, as the concerned Inspector holds no malice against him. He further submitted that the complainant’s doubt on the LIU report is not also correct as in the year of 2000 when the complainant was granted accreditation, the circulation of the newspaper may be as per requirement whereas this incident related to the year 2004 and the circulation of the newspaper was perhaps less than the required circulation.

77 A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 3.4.2006. Simultaneously the respondent Assistant Director, Information, Auraiya/ Etawah was requested to intimate the Council the particular clause in their Accreditation Policy which debars issuance of the accreditation card to the complainant on the basis of pendency of criminal case/adverse Local Information Unit report (LIU). The respondent Assistant Director, Information, Auraiya/Etawah, vide his letter dated 11.4.2006 informed the Council that the then Assistant Director, Information had not mentioned any special reason denying renewal of the accreditation card of the complainant and most probably it was not renewed keeping in view the letter of Sr. Superintendent of Police and the adverse LIU report. The respondent further informed that the then Assistant Director Information- Shri Kandhai Lal Choudhary is presently posted at Bareilly and further information may be called for from him. He also endorsed a copy of his letter dated 11.4.2006 to Shri Choudhary with a request to provide the requisite information to the Press Council of India. However, vide Council’s letter dated 20.04.2006, the then Assistant Director, Information, Bareilly, Shri Choudhary was requested to intimate the Council the particular clause of the Accreditation Policy which debars issuance of accreditation card to the complainant on the basis of pendency of criminal case/ adverse LIU report. Rejoinder of the Complainant The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.4.2006 while denying the allegations of the respondent Assistant Director of Information submitted that the concerned Inspector, Kotwali, Shri Ram Lakhan Yadav registered a false FIR against him with a view to damage his reputation. He further submitted that 26 months have passed since registering the case against him but the police has not filed final report. He requested the Council to take effective action against the respondent for renewal of his accreditation card. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to Assistant Director, Information, Bareilly on 28.4.2006 with the request to file his consolidated comments in the matter and a copy of the same was also forwarded to the Assistant Director, Information, Etawah/Auraiya for information. Reply of District Magistrate, Auraiya The respondent District Magistrate, Auraiya vide his further communication dated 22.4.2006, informed that in this matter inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Auraiya through Area Officer and Prosecution Incharge Officer. The Area Officer in his report dated 18.2.2006 submitted that on arrival of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of U.P. at Auraiya on 12.2.2004 a case No.30/04 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 353, 332, 307, 432 IPC and 7 Criminal Law

78 Amendment Act and 3 & 4 of the Public Property Damage Control Act against the complainant including ten others, for being involved in the political activities, was registered in Kotwali Police Station, Auraiya. Further, the investigation of the said case was being conducted presently by Sub-Inspector Shri Ram Naresh Sonekar of Ajitmal Police Station. The Prosecution Incharge Officer in his report dated 30.03.2006 also submitted that according to the report dated 28.3.2006 of SHO, Auraiya the case No.35/04 registered against the complainant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 353, 332, 307, 432, 435, 436, IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 & 4 of Public Property Damage Control Act is being investigated by him. Sur-Rejoinder The complainant vide his further communication dated 4.5.2006, informed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Auraiya had submitted their report dated 23.1.2006 and 6.2.2006 respectively to the Additional District Magistrate Shri Sheetla Prasad. Simultaneously Prosecution Incharge Officer also submitted his report to the Additional District Magistrate who furnished the report of Superintendent of Police and Prosecution Incharge Officer to the Council on 22.4.2006. The Additional District Magistrate, Auraiya retained the report of SDM, Auraiya due to some reason. The complainant furnished a copy of SDM report dated 23.1.2006 which says that the complainant was heard and he submitted his written submission dated 6.1.2006 saying that due to malice on 12.2.2004 a case was registered against him by the police with the connivance of President of Zila Bachao Sangharash Samiti and his family members whereas he (complainant) has no connection with the incident of 12th February 2004 and only on this count his accreditation card has not been renewed by the respondent, which is illegal. Further, it is stated by the complainant that however almost two years have passed in registering the FIR but no action has yet been taken by the police. Thus, there was no justification of the allegations levelled by the respondent that a case is pending against him, therefore his accreditation card cannot be renewed. He reiterated that until the court proves him guilty, his demand for renewal of accreditation card remains valid. A copy of the further comments of respondent DM, Auraiya was forwarded to the complainant on 9.6.2006 for information. Comments of the Assistant Director Information, Bareilly In his comments dated 17.6.2006 the Assistant Director, Information, Bareilly reiterated what was submitted earlier by authorities that in January 2004 the Government dissolved Auraiya district and restored its original status as Tehsil. However, it was clarified that before 13th January 2004 he was not in-charge of Auraiya district and the work of this district was look after by the concerned Additional District Information Officer. However, the relevant papers/forms etc.

79 regarding accreditation was distributed by the Deputy Director Information, Kanpur. The respondent further submitted that all the papers/documents of district Auraiya were with the Additional District Information Officer, Shri Raghuraj Singh. According to the respondent, after the dissolving of Auraiya District in 2004, during Zila Bachao Andolan, an FIR was registered against the complainant in February 2004 and on the basis of LIU report, the SSP wrote a letter with report to cancel the accreditation of the complainant. The respondent submitted that accreditation of all the accreditated journalists including the complainant was not renewed in the year of 2004. However, after having restored the original status of the district accreditation cards of the other journalists have been renewed on the basis of recommendations of their editors but complainant’s accreditation card could not be renewed, as they had not received the letter of the editor recommending to renewal of the complainants accreditation card. Furnishing a copy of the order dated 22.1.2004 the respondent stated that since they had not received the letter of the editor recommending the complainant’s name for the renewal of his accreditation card/his accreditation stood automatically cancelled. The respondent concluded by saying that he asked the complainant to apply along with editor’s recommendation regarding renewal of accreditation card so that he could place it before the Press Accreditation Committee for consideration which the complainant had agreed and after that in mid June he was transferred to Bareilly. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 29.6.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Dilip Gupt, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Bhupendra Singh Yadav, Assistant Director, Information, Etawah/Auraiya appeared for the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that no case had been filed against him in his life time except the FIR in question which was registered against 11 persons who were demonstrating on the arrival of the Chief Minister in the district and his name was added as 12th accused. The complainant stated that he had nothing to do with the demonstration. The complainant submitted that the accreditation card was not renewed due to the said FIR. The complainant further submitted that final report in r/o the said FIR was filed by the Investigating Officer. The respondent submitted that the accreditation card was not renewed as the criminal case was registered against the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the final report had not been accepted by the Court. As per accreditation rules, the LIU report was one of the conditions which required verification of character antecedents.

80 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that mere filing of FIR can not be the basis of the denial of accreditation to a journalist. In the present case, the Inquiry Committee noted that the accreditation was not given despite proposed final report on the FIR. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, directed the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to grant accreditation to the complainant within six weeks and to intimate the Council. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the case accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

17) Shri Anjan Upadhyaya Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Publisher/Editor Government of Sikkim Hamro Prajashakti Gangtok, Sikkim Nepali News daily Gangtok, East Sikkim 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of Sikkim Gangtok, Sikkim Complaint This complaint dated 24.5.2005 has been filed by Shri Anjan Upadhyaya, Publisher/Editor, Hamro Prajashakti, Nekpali News daily, Gangtok (Sikkim) against the Government of Sikkim alleging denial of advertisements and issuance of threats through party goons to terrorise the newspaper into submission. According to the complainant State Information & Public Relations Department stopped the release of Government advertisements to his newspaper through oral orders even though the Department has sent them release order to publish advertisements. The complainant submitted that on 19th morning, the I&PRD had given them verbal order that their advertisement release vide order No.RO.84/IPR/05-06 stood cancelled. The complainant alleged that Chief Minister of State and the President of Sikkim Democratic Front Party was mobilizing his goons to cease his widely circulated newspaper. Besides the goons of the C.M. also issue threats to them and he had already lodged an FIR with . The complainant submitted that if such undemocratic and oppressive activities were allowed to continue, their survival may become difficult in the State.

81 Comments of Sikkim Democratic Front

The General Secretary, Sikkim Democratic Front in his suo-motu reply to the complainant dated 24.5.2005 while denying the allegations, submitted that the Chief Minister of Sikkim Mr. P.K. Chamling had always championed the cause of freedom of press and had also given honour and respect to the press media personnel. To strengthen his view point the respondent had submitted that the Government has recently distributed computers and digital cameras to the journalists for recognizing the freedom of press and its development in their State. Furthermore, the Government sponsored study tours of journalists to various States and a Press Club had also been set up in the State. Yearly grant was also being provided to the journalists by the State Government. Hence, the allegation levelled by the complainant regarding suppression of freedom of the press was false and baseless and neither their party not their President had anything to do with such allegation as levelled by the complainant.

Comments of the respondent-Government of Sikkim were invited on 15.7.2005.

Comments

In response, the respondent Director, I&PRD, Gangtok in his comments dated 30.7.2005 submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant were inaccurate, baseless and completely distorted. According to him, though it is not mandatory on their part to release advertisements to all the newspapers yet all qualified local papers including the complainant’s newspaper were being issued advertisements without any discrimination on the identified occasions. He submitted that recently on 13.7.2005 they issued a full-page advertisement to complainant’s newspaper on the occasion of the Birth Anniversary of Poet Bhann Bhakta Acharya. As such the allegation of the complainant that his newspaper was being discriminated for advertisement was totally false and misleading. The allegation of suppression of freedom of press in the State was quite amusing as the real freedom of press was restored only after the present ruling Government assumed power in Sikkim.

A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 19.8.2005 for his counter comments.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 16.9.2005 submitted that the act of revoking/withdrawing advertisement was wholly arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and had resulted in infringement of the right of freedom of press/ speech and expression. The State Government has been using inequitable and

82 discriminatory distribution of its largesse as a strategy to imperil the existence of “Hamro Prajashakti” and suppressing and curtailing its freedom of speech and expression. He submitted that this was an unfair policy of the State which needs to be stopped.

A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent-Government of Sikkim on 23.9.2005 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee noted that Shri M.G. Kiran, IAS, Secretary to the Government of Sikkim, Information & Public Relations Department, Gangtok in a letter dated 19.3.2007 intimated that the matter has been compromised. The respondent filed a compromise letter dated 19.3.2007 jointly signed by the complainant and the respondent on the following terms:

1. Whereas Shri Anjan Upadhyaya, Publisher/Editor, Hamro Prajashakti, National Highway, Tadong had filed above mentioned complaint to the Press Council of India, New Delhi which is lying for disposal.

2. Information and Public Relaltions Department, Government of Sikkim had formulated an Advertisement Policy which was notified vide Gazette Notification No.24/IPR/06-07 dated 10.10.2006.

3. In view of the new advertisement policy, being the guideline both the parties namely : Shri Anjan Upadhyaya, Publisher/Editor, Hamro Prajashakti and Secretary, Information and Public Relations have amicably compromised and the matter may therefore be treated as settled.

The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the contents of the compromise letter signed by the parties, decided to close the complaint. It recommended to the Council accordingly.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

83 18) Dr. Praveen Gupta Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Government of Bihar Public News Patna Pitampura, New Delhi 2. Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Additional District Information Officer Jamui, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 29.8.2005 has been filed by Dr. Praveen Gupta, Editor-in-Chief, Public News, Pitampura, Delhi against the Addl. District Information & Public Relations Officer, Jamui (Bihar) along with his Jamui based correspondent Shri Amit Kumar alleging denial of information and misbehaviour to the later. According to the complainant Shri Amit Kumar has been appointed as a Chief Correspondent of his newspaper Public News at Jamui but the ADPRO, Jamui not only consistently deprived him of departmental information, press conferences, press passes but also branded him a fake journalist. The complainant submitted that on 4.2.2005 Shri Amit Kumar had written to Election Officer-cum- District Magistrate, Jamui asking for renewal of press card for entry to Bihar Legislative Assembly Election 2005 but the ADPRO expressed dissatisfaction with regard to his affiliation to ‘Public News’ and his request for temporary pass for election was not acceded to. The complainant further stated that he was offered to apply in his capacity as “Prabhat Khabar” scribe and when Shri Kumar applied afresh duly recommended by Bureau Chief of Prabhat Khabar for press card, the respondent did not issue him the press card and on the contrary misbehaved with him. The complainant also submitted that one Shri Swatantra Kumar Suman, correspondent, Prabhat Khabar, Jamui has also been denied the press card during Bihar Legislative Assembly Election 2005. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments Comments of the respondent Government of Bihar were invited in the matter on 30.03.2006. In response, Shri Krishan Kumar Sinha, Additional District Information & Public Relations Officer-in-Charge, Jamui in his comments dated 17.4.2006 submitted that the correspondent Shri Amiit Kumar of Public News did not give any application to District Information Officer, Jamui with regard to work at Jamui as correspondent of Public News. Generally any correspondent, who

84 intends to collect Government information, has to give an application to the District Information Officer regarding his recognition as correspondent of the newspaper and after acceptance of this application it has to be kept in the office as written record. The respondent submitted that if Mr. Amit Kumar is a correspondent of any newspaper/magazine he has not been and cannot be restrained to write any news/views. Regarding misbehaviour with the correspondent Shri Amit Kumar, the respondent stated that it is an imagination on the part of the complainant. The respondent alleged that Shri Amit Kumar himself is a disrespected person who described the Public Relations Officer in writing as corrupt and irresponsible and this act of the complainant’s scribe is impolite and unconstitutional. He further alleged that Shri Kumar demanded assistance from him to approach the SDM to allot him a government shop under Public Distribution Scheme. The respondent further alleged that Shri Kumar also demanded advertisement for Prabhat Khabar, Devdhar edition whereas this newspaper is not included in the approved list for advertisements. The respondent while furnishing a photocopy of the news clipping of the Prabhat Khabar issue dated 15.2.2005 stated that Shri Amit Kumar has indulged in yellow-journalism. He concluded by saying that the allegations levelled by Shri Amit Kumar were an attempt to blackmailing. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 27.4.2006 for his information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. However, the complainant Dr. Praveen Gupta and Shri Amit Kumar requested to decide on the basis of documents. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and noted that as per the government, the complainant Amit Kumar had not informed the government, at any stage, of his affiliation with Public News. Since his name was not recorded in such capacity, the card for election coverage could not be issued to him. The complainant has not cared to refute this basic contention. The Committee noted that requests for election coverage by journalists is processed under the rules laid down by the Election Commission of India which have to be necessarily followed. Since the complainant had failed to do so, the authorities could not be faulted for declining him the card. It thus decided not to take cognizance of the complaint and recommended to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

85 19) Shri Narayandas Morya Versus The Director General Chief Editor Directorate of Advertising & Samanata, Hindi Weekly Visual Publicity Piparia, M.P. New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 31.3.2003 has been filed by Shri Narayandas Morya, Chief Editor, Samanata, Hindi Weekly, Piparia (M.P.) against Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity (DAVP) for cancellation of the rate contract for the year 2002-2003. According to the complainant, his newspaper is being published for the last 37 years and included in the approved list for issuance of advertisements since 1975 by the DAVP. The complainant submitted that the rate contract was being renewed every year but the DAVP vide their letter dated 11.10.2002 declined to renew the rate contract for the year 2002-2003 on the ground that copies of newspaper from November 2001 to April 2002 had not been filed and that an article was published twice. The complainant submitted that there was no indication about the months in the proforma issued by the DAVP therefore he filed issues of his weekly from January 2002 to June 2002. He submitted that later on in response to DAVP’s letter dated 11.10.2002 he filed the desired issues with clarification on 6.11.2002. Regarding publication of an article related to “Stri Purush”, the complainant submitted that it was a popular column of his newspaper carrying problems relating to family issues and their solution. An article published under this column was re- published as per demand of the readers. The complainant alleged that he had many times criticised the Central Government policies, which might be one of the reason to deprive him from getting rate contract. He submitted that due to non- issuance of rate contract by the respondent he had also been deprived of advertisements from the State Government. The complainant further alleged that the action of the respondent was deliberate and an attack on the freedom of press. Comments Comments of the respondent DAVP were invited in the matter on 18.7.2003. In response, Shri S.V. Menon, Joint Director, DAVP in his comments dated 18.8.2003 submitted that the rate contract of the weekly newspaper “Samanata” for the year 2001-2002 was granted w.e.f. July 2001 to 30th September 2002. The rate contract for the year 2002-2003 was not granted to the weekly because as per the norms laid down in the revised Advertising Policy and Guidelines effective from 1.5.2002, following deficiencies were noticed: - i) Old issues submitted instead of latest six months issues; ii) Repetitive material published in the weekly.

86 The respondent submitted that the complainant was informed on 11.10.2002 about the deficiencies and he was also advised that he may apply afresh after removing the said deficiencies for the grant of rate contract for the year 2002- 2003. He submitted that however the complainant filed on 6.11.2002, issues of his weekly newspaper from November 2001 to April 2002 but due to publication of repetitive material rate contract could not be granted to the weekly for the year 2002-2003. The respondent submitted that as per Advertisement Policy, the matter relating to rate contract is considered only once in a year due to which they did not consider the rates contract of the weekly. He further stated that no advertisements were released to those newspapers which had not been granted rate contract. Further they neither consider editorial of any newspaper nor any newspaper’s political affiliation while granting rate contract to a newspaper. He submitted that the complainant submitted all the documents on 31.5.2003 for renewal of rate contract for the year 2003-2004 and after scrutiny, it will be placed before the Panel Advisory Committee in its future meeting for consideration and will be informed about the decision of the Committee. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 8.12.2003. Further letter from the Complainant Vide his further letter dated 20.9.2003 addressed to the Media Executive, DAVP and copy endorsed to the Press Council, the complainant again requested the respondent to renew the rate contract for the year 2002-2003 which they cancelled due to minor mistake. A copy of the complainant’s letter dated 20.9.2003 was forwarded to the respondent-DAVP on 20.11.2003 with the request to intimate the Council about the present status of the complainant’s case regarding renewal of rate contract for the year 2002-2003. No reply was received from the DAVP. Ist Adjournment The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2005. There was no appearance before it from complainant’s side. Shri Pankaj Nigam represented the DAVP. To afford an opportunity to the complainant to defend his case, the Committee adjourned the matter with the direction to the office to send notice of hearing by Registered Post. IInd Adjournment When the matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2005, the complainant was present in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, DAVP. After hearing the complainant, the Committee adjourned the matter till next day with the directions to the Secretariat to contact

87 DAVP to ensure its representation before the Committee. Accordingly Shri Pankaj Nigam appeared before the Committee on 27.7.2005. The complainant had contended that on the demand of the readers, only one article was repeated. He had been publishing the weekly for last 31 years. All the issues had been supplied to the DAVP and he had an acknowledgement of the same. The representative of the DAVP stated that the complainant had changed the periodicity of the magazine from weekly to fortnightly and as per rules the eligibility for DAVP rate contract has to be considered afresh. Only when published regularly for one year would it become eligible. Secondly, there was repetition of articles. In a short span of six months there was repetition of four articles. It was clearly mentioned on the empanelment form that repetition of articles was not permitted. The Committee observed that the complainant had been publishing the weekly for last about 31 years and was on the duly approved list of DAVP for release of advertisements. On scrutiny of the newspaper’s copies produced by DAVP, the Committee was not convinced that the articles republished on the request of the readers on public interest issues could be treated as repetition of the material. Further, it was not satisfied with the stand of the representative of the DAVP that with the change of periodicity the case for empanelment was to be treated afresh. The Committee, therefore, to ascertain the veracity of the statement directed the DAVP, through its representative to furnish the copy of the orders taking the stand that a newspaper’s case for rate contract should be treated as a fresh case after change of the periodicity, within a week from the date of hearing i.e. 27.7.2005. The matter was adjourned. A letter-reminder dated 23.9.2005 was issued to the Director General, DAVP with the request to look into the matter personally and to furnish the details but no response. IIIrd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 6.10.2005 at New Delhi. Shri Pankaj Nigam appeared before it on behalf of the respondent DAVP while there was no appearance for the complainant. The representative of DAVP stated that the complainant had not submitted the requisite documents till date. Only after receiving the documents the eligibility for rate contract could be determined. The Inquiry Committee pointed out to the respondent the non-compliance with its directions and directed that simultaneously DAVP may write to the complainant detailing the documents required for rate contract and to consider the

88 complainant’s case in accordance with the rules prevalent in the matter and intimate the compliance to the Council. The Committee decided to keep the matter pending. A reminder to the DAVP was issued on 12.12.2005 to furnish the necessary details but no response. IVth Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.1.2006. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side. Shri Pankaj Nigam, AME, appeared on behalf of the respondent DAVP. Shri Pankaj Nigam, AME, informed the Inquiry Committee that the DAVP had written to the complainant detailing the documents required for rate contract but he has not yet responded. Shri Nigam was not able to satisfy the Inquiry Committee with regard to the rules for a paper being treated as new publication and having to file fresh application when paper changed its periodicity for fortnightly to weekly and that thus the complainant did not qualify the criteria of having one year of uninterrupted publication at the time of applying. The respondent averred that this was as per the rules/policies of the RNI. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter directed that a copy of the policy of the RNI, which provides that once the periodicity is changed the concerned paper has to be taken as a new entity, should be provided to the Inquiry Committee within fifteen days. The respondent was reminded vide letters dated 21.3.2006 and 24.7.2006 to provide a copy of the relevant policy of RNI but no response. Vth Adjournment The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that DAVP was directed through its representative at the time of hearing on 5.1.2006 to send the details of the policy/rules of DAVP/RNI, whereby, upon change of periodicity, a newspaper’s application for empanelment is required to be processed as an application of a new publication. Despite reminder dated 21.3.2006 and 24.7.2006 the respondent DAVP did not care to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee, thus, decided to invoke its powers under Section 15(1) of the Press Council Act to summon the documents and the information, the DAVP should furnish the relevant information within a fortnight of the service of the summons and ensure the presence before the Inquiry Committee of the officer conversant with full facts of the policy decisions and vested with the authority to take decision in the matter.

89 The complainant, Chief Editor, Samanata, Piparia, however in a letter dated 17.8.2006, received after the meeting of Inquiry Committee, informed about his inability to appear before the Inquiry Committee on 21.08.2006 and requested for decision on the basis of his earlier submissions. The respondent, Media Executive, DAVP, vide letter dated 14.8.2006, received after the meeting, informed that as per clause 18(b) of the Advertisement Policy issued by the Government of India, the use of a newspaper is suspended immediately in case of change of periodicity. The publisher will have to apply afresh after completing all prescribed norms as per the policy. Regarding a copy of policy of RNI, which provides that once the periodicity is changed the concerned paper has to be taken as new entity, the respondent informed that these be obtained from RNI. VIth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant was not represented before it, while Shri Pankaj Nigam, Assistant Media Executive, appeared for the respondent DAVP. Shri Pankaj Nigam submitted that as per advertisement policy of DAVP, a newspaper stands suspended from empanelment if found to have discontinued its publication or changed its periodicity and on such other grounds given in clause 18 of the DAVP advertisement policy. The representative of the respondent submitted that they are bound by the policy. As regards RNI policy of treating the newspaper as new entity on changing the periodicity, the respondent representative submitted that efforts to gain access to the RNI policy failed as the RNI did not respond to their request for a copy of RNI policy. The Inquiry Committee observed that the DAVP’s policy for treating the periodical of the same registration number with changed periodicity, as new entity was required to be justified as even with change of periodicity, the registration number of the paper remained the same. However, since the DAVP claimed to be base its decision on the rules of the RNI to clarify the position. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to adjourn the matter to solicit the requisite information from the RNI, duly supported by relevant rules on policy decisions. As per the directions of the Inquiry Committee, a letter dated 22.01.2007 was issued to the Registrar, RNI requesting to clarify the position duly supported by relevant rules on policy decision. The RNI in its reply informed that in view of Rule 5 (2)(d) of PRB Act 1867, a newspaper is treated as continuing even if the periodicity is changed. VIIth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance form either side.

90 The Inquiry Committee noted that the RNI in its letter No.610/10/06-07/ NP&CS dated 12.2.2007 had informed that as per the Press and Registration of Books Act,1867 in sub-section 2D of Section 5 :- “Whenever the title of any newspaper or its language or the periodicity of its publication is changed, the declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued.” RNI had submitted that under the above provision of the PRB Act, a newspaper/periodical is treated as continuing even if the periodicity is changed. The PRB Act allows a publisher to change the title, language, periodicity, ownership, place of printing/publishing if a declaration is filed before the District Magistrate. The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances opined that the presence of DAVP was necessary to reply on the charges. The Inquiry Committee directed that copy of this letter be served on the DAVP which shall be informed to remain present at the next hearing with its stand on the issue. Accordingly a letter dated 10.05.2007 was issued to the DAVP to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee and ensure presence with full facts of the matter. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The notice for hearing issued to the complainant was received back in the Secretariat with the postal remarks “The person has expired returned to sender”. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted the demise of the complainant. However, since the matter now considered was a policy decision, it proceeded to consider the matter on merits. The Inquiry Committee noted that the RNI vide its letter dated 12.02.2007 clarified that as per PRB Act, 1867 a newspaper/periodical is treated as continuing even if the periodicity is changed. The Inquiry Committee noted that the RNI has brought to its notice Sub-Section 2(d) of Section 5 of PRB Act that provides only for filing of a fresh Declaration “Whenever the title of any newspaper or its language or the periodicity of its publication is changed, the declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued.” Therefore by implication, the newspaper continues as a distinct identity by the same name even if the periodicity is changed. The Inquiry Committee observed that publication of newspaper in India is governed by the provisions of the PRB Act, 1867 and any rules or policies carrying provisions contrary thereto are ultra virus and cannot

91 survive. The DAVP contention that clause 18(b) of the Advertisement Policy in force carries a condition to this affect is therefore violation of law and has been laid down without due regard to the position of laws. In the circumstances, the Inquiry Committee felt that the decision of the DAVP not to empanel the paper on the ground of not having completed one year of publication after change of periodicity was incorrect and requires corrective action. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and if since the demise of the complainant, a fresh Declaration is filed and the newspaper continues publication, to empanel it as a continuous entity. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

20) Shri Keshav Dutt Chandola Versus 1. The Chief Secretary National President Govt. of Uttaranchal/ Association of Small Newspapers Uttrakhand of India Dehradun Kanpur, U.P. 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Govt. of Uttaranchal/ Uttrakhand Dehradun Complaint Shri Keshav Dutt Chandola, National President, Association of Small Newspapers of India, Kanpur vide his letter dated 14.3.2005, has drawn the attention of the Council towards alleged irregular reconstitution of the Press Advertisement Accreditation Committee by the Government of Uttaranchal for the purpose of issuance of advertisements. As per the complainant, the State Government while reconstituting the Committee had violated the well-established norms in this regard and as many journalist associations had protested against such irregular action. The State Government had asked the recognized Journalists Associations to submit names of the persons to be included in the Press Advertisement Accreditation Committee, whose two-year term ended in October 2004. Subsequently, the Information Minister of the Uttaranchal ignored the recommendations of the Associations and constituted the Committee which was opposed by the journalists and the matter was twice adjourned by the Nainital High Court. After intervention of the Hon’ble High Court, the State Government

92 had again asked the recognised Associations to furnish name of the journalists to be included in the panel but the Committees had not been constituted. The complainant alleged that the State Government of Uttaranchal had created misunderstanding amongst the journalists. The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter so that the State Government constitutes the Committee fairly for the purpose of release of government advertisements. Notices for Statement in Reply dated 3.5.2005 were issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttaranchal and Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttaranchal. Statement in Reply Executive Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttaranchal in his reply dated 20.5.2005 submitted that the Government of newly constituted Uttaranchal has been providing all the basic and necessary facilities to the representatives of the press on the basis of priority. The respondent stated that immediately after constitution of the State, the State Government took initiative to constitute the Press/Advertisement Accreditation Rules and under the rules advertisements were being issued to all the newspapers without being prejudiced. While the Government was in the process of constituting the Press and Advertisement Committee Shri Jagdish Bahuguna, Representative of the Association of Small Newspapers of India filed a case before the court of law on the issue of constitution of Committee. With the result meetings of the above said Committees could not be called. Later the High Court while dismissing the case filed by the Association of Small Newspapers decided the case in favour of the State Government. By that time tenure of the constituted Committees lapsed and constitution of the new Committees under the prescribed norms was under process. However, name of some associations were received at the later stage and request of some minor correction in the proposed norms delayed the process of the reconstitution. The matter is still under consideration of the State Government, added the respondent. Denying the allegation levelled by the complainant that the Minister for Information had deliberately not approved the constitution of the Committee, or the Uttaranchal Government had ever threatened the journalists for publication of critical news items, the respondent clarified that no other association or journalist had filed such complaint. On the contrary the State Government continuously tried to provide all necessary facilities to the journalist to enable them to perform their journalistic duties freely and fearlessly, added the respondent. The respondent further pointed out that the complainant, Shri Chandola was the editor of Nagraj Darpan, Hindi weekly and publishing it from Kanpur/

93 Dehradun and advertisements were being issued continuously to Dehradun edition of his newspaper. Last year he got advertisements amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs from the Department and the payment had also been made to him. Shri Chandola had published some advertisement of six pages amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs in his Kanpur edition without prior permission and later he pressurised the State Government to make payment for the same. Since as per rules payment for publication of advertisements without prior permission could not be possible, the complainant being prejudiced filed this false and baseless complaint to maintain pressure. Clarifying the position, the respondent assured that the State Government was working for the benefit of the journalists and determined to obey the directions issued by the Press Council of India. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant, vide Council’s letter dated 15.6.2005 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.6.2005 while denying the comments of the respondent-State Government of Uttaranchal sought clarification about the constitution and working of the Advertisement Accreditation Committee. The complainant submitted that clarification on following points be sought from the State Government:- 1. Press and Advertisement Committees are constituted for two years. The term of the last Committee ended on 31.10.2004. What was the reason that the Committees did not meet for the last two years? 2. The details of such organisations who were contacted to provide names of the persons to be co-opted in these Committees. 3. Whether Committees were established as per the names proposed by the organisations or any other procedure had been adopted to constitute the Committees? According to the complainant clarification on the above stated points would help in ascertaining the procedure of the constitution of the Committees. He also referred to directions of Second Press Commission as well as Press Council on the constitution of such Committees. The complainant submitted that newly constituted State, Uttranchal should have adopted the rules being framed by the Government of U.P. but instead of doing so it adopted its own procedure, against which journalists demonstrated at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.

94 With regard to the reply of the respondent that procedure for reconstitution of the Committees had been started in November 2004 and the names of the co- opted members were sought from the organisations, the complainant stated that the following three points may be clarified by the respondent with adequate documentary evidence to substantiate its reply:- 1. When did the Executive Director send the information to the Information Secretary? 2. When did the Information Secretary send the proposal to the Minister for Information? 3. When did the Information Minister returned the proposal with remarks or directions, if any? According to the complainant dates with regard to above stated points would justify his complaint. With reference to the statement made by the respondent that the Government had never threatened the journalists, the complainant filed a news clipping published in the issue dated 8.3.2005 of Amar Ujala captioned “{ÉjÉBÉEÉ®Éå xÉä àÉÉèxÉ VÉÖãÉÚºÉ ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ VÉiÉɪÉÉ - ºÉÉÊSÉ´É +ÉÉè® +É{É® ºÉÉÊSÉ´É xÉä ºÉÉÊSÉ´ÉÉãÉªÉ |ɶÉɺÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ SÉÚBÉE º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ®iÉä cÖA JÉän VÉiÉɪÉÉ”. According to the complainant in a fact the journalists had been many a times bashed up in the Secretariat. After publication of true investigative reports, threats to discontinue issuance of advertisements to their respective newspapers and dismissal from the service were very common. Journalists were being continuously harassed, threatened, stated the complainant. The complainant denied the allegation that he had deliberately filed this complaint to pressurise the State Government for making payment of the Advertisement published by him in other edition of his newspaper. The complainant alleged that the respondent had raised this issue to mislead the Council. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent, vide Council’s letter dated 30.6.2005, for their further comments. Further Comments of the Respondent The Executive Director, I&PRD, Government of Uttaranchal, vide letter dated 3.8.2005, filed further comments in the matter. While denying the allegations of the complainant, the respondent submitted that deciding the case filed by the Association of Small Newspapers of India before the High Court in favour of the State Government, it was not fair on the part of the complainant to mention the same repeatedly. Denying the allegation of harassment of the journalists by the State Government, the respondent submitted that non-presenting of any evidence/

95 documents to support such allegations prove that the complainant was prejudiced towards the State Government. The respondent restated that the State Government was determined to maintain freedom of the press and provide every facility to the press. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the complainant, vide Council’s letter dated 12.8.2005 for information. Further Reply from the Complainant The complainant vide his letter dated 17.8.2005 submitted that instead of filing reply of his queries, the respondent had repeated the comments already filed by them. He requested the Council to take action against the respondent State Government to stop its arbitrary attitude towards functioning of the Accreditation Committees. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. The complainant was present in person. Shri Bir Singh Rawat, Joint Director, Information & Public Relations Department represented the respondent Government of Uttranchal. The Inquiry Committee at the outset observed that the proper constitution and functioning of the advertisement and accreditation Committees are of vital importance for the functioning of the press and play a significant role in ensuring its freedom. The Inquiry Committee considered the letter dated 19.12.2005 received from the complainant and after deliberating on the matter, felt that it was essential to hear the stand of the government from a senior official from the State Government fully conversant with the facts of the case. It, therefore, directed that the Secretary, Information, Uttranchal should personally appear before the Inquiry Committee at its next hearing. Notice dated 28.2.2006 was issued to Secretary, Information, Government of Uttranchal for personally appearing before the Inquiry Committee. A copy of the letter dated 19.12.2005 was forwarded to the respondent Government of Uttranchal vide office letter dated 28.2.2006 for information. IInd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee held at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. Shri K.D. Chandola, the complainant was present before the Committee in person while the Secretary (Information), Government of Uttranchal requested for adjournment vide his letter dated 20.03.2006 on the ground that the Budget Session of the State Government was beginning from March 22, 2006 and the presence of the Secretary and Joint Secretary level officers was necessary in the Assembly.

96 IIIrd Adjournment Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again taken up for hearing on 22.8.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri K.D. Chandola was present in person while Shri Bhaskaranand, Additional Secretary, Information, Government of Uttranchal appeared on behalf of the respondent State Government of Uttranchal. In response to the Committee’s query as to the reason for non-appearance by the Secretary to the Department, despite specific directions, the respondent submitted that he had been directed by the Secretary to appear to present the Government’s side and would convey the feelings of the Committee to him. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that upon the demerger of Uttranchal from of Uttar Pradesh, respondent State Government of Uttranchal had not constituted Press Accreditation Committee. Subsequently when the process was set in motion for its constitution, the Government set aside the recommendations received by it and constituted a Committee comprising of persons of its own choice. The State Government created rift between journalists, Newspapers and Press Organisations by arbitrary issue of accreditation by an official Committee. The matter was taken to court and in 2004 fresh recommendations were processed by the Government and the file was pending with the concerned Minister for the last two years. In the meantime, the State Government was giving permanent Accreditation whereas temporary Accreditation should have been given subject to approval by the Accreditation Committee. The complainant stated that the State Government should be made accountable and the matter may be decided on merits before elections in the Uttranchal State due in December, 2006. The respondent Shri Bhaskaranand, Additional Secretary/Director, Information submitted that the State Government had made serious attempt to form the Press Accreditation Committee but there was no unanimity among the newspapers and other groups. The respondent further submitted that a writ on the subject filed before the Uttranchal High Court had been dismissed. However, the State Government decided to form an official Committee headed by Director, Information as temporary Accreditation were being granted with approval of the Hon’ble Minister of Information and Hon’ble Chief Minister. The Committee questioned him over the need for striving for unanimity when the Committee has to be constituted as per rules. In response to the query regarding number of associations recognized for nominating members on the Committee, he replied that nominations had been sought from newspapers spread all over the state. Asserting that only temporary accreditation was being granted by the Directorate, he offered that the Committee would be constituted over the next two months. Insofar as the Advertisement Committee is concerned, he submitted that though Advertisement

97 Committee was yet to be constituted, advertisements were being issued as per rules. Directions of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the facts placed before it, the Inquiry Committee was not fully convinced on the bonafides of the government. It noted that any arbitrariness in rules or procedure is in violation of principles of law and justice. The Inquiry Committee observed that the State Government should have formed Press Accreditation Committee without going into the question of unanimity. The recommendations were also to be invited not from the newspapers groups but from recongnized press organizations. The Inquiry Committee also noted that rule 3 of Press Accreditation Committee Rules 2001 framed by the Government of Uttranchal carried an arbitrary provision giving sweeping powers to the State Government to dissolve the Press Accreditation Committee at any time. The Inquiry Committee directed the representative of the respondent State Government to satisfy the Committee within a week with (a) names of press organisations whom the State Government had recognized and notified; (b) why their nominations had not been accepted; (c) organisations/newspapers the state government interacted with for bringing unanimity in recommendations and (d) rational for the provisions of Rule 3 of the rules giving sweeping powers of dissolution of Press Accreditation Committee. Taking on record the offer of the representative of the State Government, the Inquiry Committee granted six weeks time to the State Government to constitute Press Accreditation Committee on the pattern of Central Press Accreditation Committee. Committee on Advertisements be constituted, similarly to convince the Committee of the bonafides of the government. In the meantime, the Press persons having accreditation shall remain entitled to it upto December, 2006. The matter was accordingly adjourned to allow the State Government time to comply with the above. Vide Council’s letter dated 19.9.2006, the State Government was reminded to comply with the directions and to submit Action Taken Report. IVth Adjournment Appearance before the Inquriy Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri K.D. Chandola, appeared in person while Shri B.P. Ghildiyal, Information Officer appeared for the State Government of Uttranchal. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the State Government of Uttranchal had

98 not taken any action on the directions issued at the last hearing of the case. The State Government had also not issued any letter to the Press Organisations to send the names of the members for constitution of the Press Accreditation Committee. The complainant requested that the matter may be expedited and decided on merit. Shri B.P. Ghildiyal, Information Officer appearing for the respondent Government of Uttranchal submitted that the lawyer engaged by the Government was busy in the marriage of his daughter due to which he was not able to attend the hearing. He added that he was not authorized to make submissions before the Committee. The respondent requested for grant of adjournment. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the attitude of the respondent Government of Uttranchal for not deputing a responsible officer who could make submissions on merits before the Committee and also for engaging at the last moment a lawyer who having accepted the brief did not appear before the Committee but filed an application for adjournment due to personal reason. The Inquiry Committee directed the representative of State Government of Uttranchal to file Action Taken Report on the earlier directions of the Committee and also to ensure personal appearance of the Secretary, Information, Government of Uttranchal, at the next hearing. The Inquiry Committee further decided that the Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India may write to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary to the State Government of Uttranchal inviting their attention to the matter. The Inquiry Committee accordingly decided to adjourn the case. Action was taken as per above. Reply from the Government of Uttrakhand In response the Executive Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttrakhand, Dehradun vide letter dated 22.01.2007 has informed that in compliance with the directions of the Council letters have already been issued to the heads of the Journalists Associations, which have been notified by the Press Council and working in the State. The Executive Director while forwarding copies of the letters, has submitted that after getting the names, the process of constituting the Press and Advertisement Committees will be started. The respondent further informed that the State Government has not recognised any Association of journalists and only the Associations recognised by the Council have been taken into account and these are:- 1. National Union of Journalists 2. Indian Federation of Working Journalists 3. All India Small & Medium Newspapers Federation 4. Association of Small Newspapers of India.

99 The respondent further submitted that the Department is also considering the Model Press Accreditation Rules prepared by the Press Council of India in December’2006 and accordingly will make amendments in the State Press Accreditation Rules. A copy of the reply received from the State Government of Uttrakhand were forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 22.2.2007 for information. Vth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri K.D. Chandola, complainant appeared in person. Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The complainant submitted that the respondent Directorate had called two nominations from the ASNI whereas the NUJ/IFWJ were asked to send five names each. The complainant submitted that after their protest the respondent Directorate in their reminder to ASNI corrected its mistake by increasing the number of names from two to five. The complainant further submitted that the respondent Directorate acted only when the Chief Minister intervened in the matter. The complainant also pointed out that the respondent failed to depute a responsible officer despite directions by the Inquiry Committee on earlier occasions. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the organizations notified by the Press Council of India have been addressed to call for nomination to form the Committee. The formalities for framing them are now in process. The Directorate had sent notice to the organizations and the complainant’s organization namely ASNI had sent five names. The response of remaining three organizations was awaited. In the meantime two more organizations had staked their claim for recognistion and the government was in process of verification of their claim. The complainant challenged this verification on the ground that the new claimant organizations were no ever registered. The State Counsel then assured to constitute the Committee within a month and process the new claim for next term. The new Committee will be constituted by April end. The Inquiry Committee noted the arguments made by the parties and noted that the process had been set in motion for formation of the Committee. It directed the Counsel to the State Government to file report on formation of the Press Accreditation Committee whereafter the matter could be disposed of. Accordingly, the respondent was addressed to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Reply Dated 22.5.07 of the Government of Uttrakhand The Executive Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Uttrakhand, Dehradun in his reply dated 22.5.07 submitted that as per directions

100 of the Inquiry Committee of the Council nominations to form the Press and Advertisement Accreditation Committees have been called for from the following four Journalists Associations of Uttrakhand notified by the Press Council of India:- 1. National Union of Journalists Uttrakhand. 2. Uttranchal Working Journalist Union. 3. Association of Small Newspaper of India. 4. All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation. Accordingly the following numbers of representatives as specified by unions have been sent to the Department to be included in the Press Advertisement/ Accreditation Committees.

Name of Number of their Number of their the Unions representatives proposed representatives by the Unions for Press proposed by the Accreditation Committee Unions for Advertisement Accreditation Committee 1. National Union 5 5 of Journalists, Uttrakhand 2. Uttranchal 5 5 Working journalist Union 3. Association of 5 5 Small Newspapers of India 4. All India Small 2 2 and Medium Newspapers

The respondent submitted that after receiving the names, the concerned department has initiated action. In the meantime Uttrakhand Working Journalist Union (affiliated to Indian Federation of Working Journalist) and Indian Language Newspapers Association have also sent names of their representatives to be included in the proposed Committees. The respondent further informed that after elections of the executive of the organization, working in the State under Indian Federation Working Journalists, on

101 27.3.07 at Orrisa, the new unit of the organization is renamed as Uttrakhand Working Journalist Union. The Executive of the Union has also staked its claim for formation of the Committees. Constitution of the Uttrakhand Working Journalist Union has been done by the journalist disassociated from the Uttranchal Working Journalists, which was earlier working under Indian Federation of Working Journalists. Both the organizations working under Indian Federation of Working Journalists have claimed for their representation in the Committees, which has created an ambiguous situation. Further action in the matter can be initiated only after the clear picture emerges to avoid any avoidable dispute in the matter. Indian Language Newspapers Association has also requested to include its representatives in the Committees. According to the list sent by them their organization is notified by the Press Council of India. Information is being collected about its registration. No information has been provided about registration of its unit working in the state. The respondent clarified that the delay in formation of the Committees is not at the level of the department but is due to the dispute among the two Associations. Further Reply Dated 29.5.07 of the Government of Uttrakhand Joint Director, I & PRD, Uttrakhand in a further letter dated 29.5.07 has informed that constitution of the Press and Advertisement Accreditation committees is under process. The Names had been called from the Associations notified by the Press Council. Many Associations working in the State have staked their claims. These are associated to be the State units of the Organization notified by the Press Council of India. The respondent has requested the Council to give directions on the following points for the purpose of transprancy in the formation of the Committees: - 1. If any Organization, notified by the Press Council of India, associated itself with the State level Organisation and named it as its state unit, then whether the members could be nominated in the Committees? 2. Whether their registration in the State level is essential? 3. After how long from the date of registration of an Organization, its proposal can be considered? 4. Can publisher/editor of the newspapers be nominated in the Committees? Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.07 at New Delhi. Shri K. D. Chandola, complainant appeared in person. Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate appeared for the respondent Government of Uttrakhand.

102 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that the regime of the Government of Uttrakhand had changed but the problems of formation of Accreditation Committees remained unchanged because of vested interest of the bureaucrats who were bent upon obliging the sycophant. The complainant submitted that two newly born Organizations, namely, Indian Language Newspapers Association and Uttranchal Working Journalist Union have also stacked claims in the process of formation of new Accreditation Committees. The complainant submitted that one of these two Organizations was not registered and another one was defunct. The complainant also submitted that members of these two organisations are not working journalist and they are publishers of daily newspapers. The complainant requested for suitable directions to the state Government of Uttrakhand.

Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent Government of Uttrakhand submitted that public notice was not given for inviting the claims. However, two Organizations namely Indian Language Newspapers Association and Uttranchal Working Journalist Union filed their claims, which caused delay in the process of the formation of the Accreditation Committees. The respondent submitted that it was probably either both or one of the organisation might be included. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant are misconceived. The Counsel submitted that in case any favour was intended the same could have been done while forming the new Committees out of the present claims.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee heard the submissions made by the parties and noted that the onus for delay in formation of the Accreditation Committees lies on the Government. The Inquiry Committee observed that the Government of Uttrakhand had not framed any criteria in respect of recognition of organisations staking claims. The Inquiry Committee further observed that a Public Notice is required inviting claims and objections and specifying the criteria such as the specified period of existence of the organisation, its registration, its membership and Audited Accounts of a particular period. The Inquiry Committee directed the Government of Uttrakhand to frame rules or make necessary amendments with regard to criteria, for staking claims for representing on the Press Accreditation Committee and Advertisement Accreditation Committee. The Inquiry Committee further directed to the Government of Uttrakhand to form Accreditation Committees within two weeks and keep one membership vacant so as to fill the same subsequently in case the newly inducted organizations staking claim satisfy the criteria. It recommended to the Council accordingly.

103 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

21) Shri M.V. Arya Versus 1. The Chief Secretary State President Government of Uttar Pradesh Association of Small Lucknow Newspapers of India, and Chief Editor 2. The Director Rajput Maryada, Hindi weekly Information & Public Kanpur, U.P. Relations Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Complaint Shri M.V. Arya, State President, Association of Small Newspapers of India, Kanpur (U.P.) and Chief Editor, Rajput Maryada, Hindi Weekly, Kanpur (U.P.), vide his complaint dated 19.2.2005, has brought to the notice of the Council, the discrimination by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in the matter of constitution of the State Accreditation Committee and violating the recommendation of the Second Press Commission suggesting equal representation to all the Associations. The complainant charged the Government of U.P. with partiality in deciding the ratio of representatives of the various organisations in the State Press Accreditation Committee leading to the dis-advantages for the small newspapers. According to the complainant the Second Press Commission had recommended 50% representation of working journalists but the State Government had exceeded the limit by allowing 88% representation which led to resentment amongst small newspapers. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the State Government, vide his letters dated 25.11.2004 and 8.12.2004, written to the Chief Secretary objecting to the constitution of Committee on 11.11.2004 but no reply was received. The complainant also pointed out non-constitution of Advertisement Committee in the State for the last decade leading to arbitrary action by the Directorate of Information and implementation of Advertisement Accreditation Committee’s Regulation 2001. He requested to cancel the amendment affected after 2001 which was against the interest of the small newspapers. The complainant alleged that the action of the State Government had directly or indirectly affected the small newspapers and discriminated in granting advertisements. The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter.

104 Reply filed belatedly Notice for statement in reply dated 3.5.2005 were issued to the Chief Secretary and Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. The respondent filed reply belatedly. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. The complainant was not present. Shri Hamia Ali Khan, Director, UP State Information Centre, New Delhi, represented the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant had vide his undated letter received on 26.12.2005 objected that the respondent government had not filed its comments in the matter. He further stated that he is an 87 years old man and is unable to appear before the Inquiry Committee due to cold climate. He requested the Council for an adjournment. The Inquiry Committee while acceding to the request of the complainant, adjourned the matter with the directions that a reminder be issued to the respondent for filing their comments in the matter. Comments Joint Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh in her comments dated 03.01.2006 stated that only limited, active and important organisations are represented in the Press Accreditation Committee. The Government of U.P. decides the organisations to be given representation in the Press Accreditation Committee. Shri Ramesh Chandra Thagela, Deputy Director, I&PRD vide his undated letter received on 6.1.2006 stated that there was a provision to recognize newspapers for advertisements as per advertisement rules 1991. However, in 2001 the rules were discontinued. Subsequently new rules were prepared whereby only papers registered with the RNI and published regularly were entitled for advertisements. The respondent stated that since there was no provision for granting recognition in 2001 rules there was no need to constitute the Committee. In the year 2003 new advertisement rules were framed. In these rules also there was no provision for granting recognition for advertisements. The respondent stated that rules had nothing which go against any section of the press. The copy of the comments were forwarded to the complainant for information/counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant vide his undated letter received on 22.2.2006 submitted that one of the defunct journalist association was inducted in the Advertisement

105 Accreditation Committee which was not of even of district level. The complainant submitted that the Government of UP never followed the guidelines issued by the Second Press Commission and Press Council of India. The complainant stated that his organisation being of national level should get four seats. The complainant submitted that Advertisement Accreditation Committee should be constituted so that there could be no arbitrariness and discrimination in distribution of advertisements. According to the complainant, the reply of the Government was misleading. IInd Adjournment The matter was again called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma appeared on behalf of the complainant organization, while Shri Raja Ram, Under Secretary (Information) represented the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative filed his written submissions and added in his oral arguments that in some cases the DAVP had not sent the rate contract, but the State Information Department was insisting for the same for granting rate contract for advertisements. The Government has added names of two members from Media Centre in the Accreditation Committee to represent the Government. The Media Centre was not a government organization and enjoyed no locus to be on the Committee. The practice of DAVP to take recommendations from all recognized media organizations should be followed, but the State Government make nomination of their own without taking suggestions from the media organizations. Shri Raja Ram appearing for respondent authorities submitted that the government did not discriminate while granting recognation to newspapers. The Advertisment Accreditation Committee was reconstituted in 2004 after the term of the last Committee was over. He added that in the new Committee two members from Media Centre were taken in place of Additional Director, Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh. In the new rules, DAVP policy has been taken as basis for granting recognation. In cases where DAVP did not fix the rate and for those who were not approved by DAVP, the State Government fixed the rates without any discrimination. On perusal of the record and after considering oral submissions made before it, the Inquiry Committee observed that though policy decision in the matter of release of advertisement and fixing rate for the advertisements was the prerogative of the government, yet it has to be applied uniformly in all cases. The policy must be backed up by reasons and objectives so that no discrimination was created among its beneficiaries. It observed that anything antithesis to reason is

106 arbitrary. The Committee, in order to know in detail the methodology of constitution of Advertisement Accreditation Committee, directed the State Government, through its representative, to send to the Council the rationale and basis of formation of advertisement policy and its application. A copy of the same be sent to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee accordingly adjourned the matter. The directions of the Committee were conveyed to the respondent to file requisite information to the Council vide Council letter dated 20.6.2006. The Deputy Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Lucknow (U.P.) vide his reply dated 13/1/06 informed the Council that no Advertisement Committee was formed by the Department and therefore the question of framing of procedure and criteria did not arise. The respondent further submitted that in the year 2003 new advertisement rules were formed and they have accordingly followed them. A copy of the respondent’s letter was forwarded to the complainant vide office letter dated 1.8.2006 for information. IIIrd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. Shri V. Chander Agnihotri was present on behalf of the complainant, while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant filed written submissions before the Committee. It was submitted therein that the Second Press Commission had recommended that the organization having similar standing should be given equal representation in the Press Accreditation Committee (PAC) but the State Government constituted the PAC in violation of the recommendations. It was further submitted that IFWJ, NUJ, AINEC, and the Association of Small Newspapers of India stand on the same footing having been recognized as national level organization, but four members of IFWJ & NUJ got representation on the Committee, whereas the AINEC got two representations and their association was given only one member representation. With this type of PAC, the representatives of the small newspapers are denied accreditation. The government was adopting discriminatory policy in constituting the 16-member Press Accreditation Committee (PAC). It was submitted that the PAC had refused to grant accreditation to the representative of the newspapers who did not have rate contract of DAVP. When the levy was being charged by the Press Council on the basis of circulation figure given by RNI, the government should not take rate contract of DAVP as basis for granting accreditation. It was further submitted that after 1991 Advertisement Committee was not formed. In the year 2003, the government had amended the grant of advertisement rules due to which the small newspapers

107 were facing great difficulty. Earlier, 4 page newspaper was entitled for government advertisements, but now the number of pages had been increased to 8. It was submitted that PAC should be formed giving equal representation to Associations as per rules. In his oral arguments, he reiterated the written submissions. He added that Principal Secretary (Information) was the competent officer to explain the exact position. As the State Government of Uttar Pradesh was not represented before the Inquiry Committee and the complainant in his oral and written submissions raised issues that required State Government’s response, the Committee decided to adjourn the matter with the directions to the respondent authorities to file its reply to these averments within a period of four weeks, and to depute at the next hearing, a senior and responsible officer invested with the authority to take policy decisions. In absentia, the matter would be decided ex-parte. Accordingly a copy of the written submissions filed by the complainant forwarded to the Principal Secretary (Information), Department of Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. vide Council’s letter dated 19.9.2006. IVth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. S/Shri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, Advocate, Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Shiv Chandra Agnihotri appeared on behalf of the complainant while Shri Raja Ram, Under Secretary and Ms. Abhilasha Kulshreshtha, Joint Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow represented the respondent State Government. The representative of the complainant submitted that many newspapers suffered due to the policy of the respondent Government regarding taking the annual returns submitted to RNI/DAVP as the basis for grant of accreditation. The respondent government was not accepting the CA certification of circulation. The complainant further submitted that the State Government had given temporary accreditation for six months. According to the complainant, the representation on the Press Accreditation Committee should have been made as per guidelines proposed by the Second Press Commission. The complainant submitted that the State Government of U.P. was accepting 6-pages newspaper for accreditation, whereas the DAVP had a policy to accept 4-pages newspaper, and asking for DAVP rate card though this had no bearing on the accreditation. The respondent submitted that the Government had formed Press Accreditation Committee in 1998, 2001, 2004, giving due representation to the journalists in the Press Accreditation Committee (PAC). The PAC will now be

108 constituted in 2007 and the recommendations of the Press Commission would be taken into consideration. The respondent further submitted that the government cause enquiry into the credentials of the organizations representing on the PAC. If any specific complaint is received by the government, enquiry will be done and the defaulter organization can be derecognized. As regards complainant’s charge that Patrakar Bandhu was not formed since 2002, the respondent submitted that it was formed in the year 2001. The respondent further submitted that there was no question of political pressure on the government in decision making process, and information filed before DAVP was called only to verify the circulation, which in turn determined the number of accreditation. The respondent filed a written reply dated 13.10.2006 stating above facts. The Inquiry Committee, in order to afford an opportunity to the complainant to file rejoinder to the reply dated 13.10.2006 filed by the respondent, decided to adjourn the matter. The Inquiry Committee simultaneously directed the State Government to take remedial steps and file the action taken report in the matter. Accordingly a copy of the written statement dated 13.10.2006 filed by the representative of the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 11.01.2007 for his information/counter- comments, if any. The respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh was also reminded vide Council’s letter dated 11.01.2007 to file Action Taken Report in the matter. Further Communication from the Complainant The complainant vide his letter dated 12.1.2007 a copy of which was directly endorsed to the respondent submitted that the written reply filed by the respondent before the Inquiry Committee of the Council on 17.10.2006 was far from truth and misleading. According to the complainant the Advertisement Accreditation Committee has not been reconstituted since 1991 and thereby resulting in arbitrary action by the respondent State Government. The complainant requested the Council to call upon the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Information of the Government of U.P. to appear before the Inquiry Committee to present the factual position in the matter so that the small newspapers may get justice. Parawise objections raised by the complainant are as follows: 1. Representation of the Small and Medium newspapers in the Press Accreditation Committee is very low as compare to the working journalist organisations. Thus editors of the Small and Medium newspapers failed to avail justice in the Accreditation Committee. At present U.P. Working Journalist has been represented in the Press Accreditation Committee without renewal of its registration. In the same way Committee of the accredited journalists working at Headquarter has also been represented without being registered. Moreover this organisation is related only to the journalists working in the Legislative Assembly. It is neither a State nor a

109 National Level Organisation. On the other hand Association of Small newspapers of India, (complainant’s organisation) which is a national level organisation with a mandatory minimum representation of four members is being represented by only one member. 2. Neither Advertising Accreditation Committee has been constituted since 1991 nor DAVP Panel Advisory Committee has been constituted while modifying the Advertisement Rules like the Central Government. Moreover, new rules/regulations which have been framed not in keeping with the existing policies and procedure and in a hush hush manner. Besides as per rules prior to 2001, inquiry from LIU was essential while including the newspapers. Therefore, constitution of the Advertisement Accreditation Committee is essential to streamline the decisions taken under the Advertisement Accreditation procedure adopted after 2001. 3. Not a single meeting has been convened after constitution of the Patrakar Bandhu in 2001. Therefore, it is essential to constitute Patrakar Bandhu and convene its meeting to specify its tenure. 4. No responsible officer appeared before the Committee of the Council on 17.10.2006 therefore, Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary for Information may be called to appear before the next meeting of the Inquiry Committee of the Council. Vth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, State Secretary, Association of Small and Medium Newspapers appeared for the complainant along with Shri Shivchandra Agnihotri. Shri Ram Avtar Prasad, Joint Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh represented the respondent authorities along with Shri Raja Ram, Under Secretary, Information Department, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat, Lucknow. The representative of the complainant reiterated his stand and further submitted that though the Patrakar Bandhu has been constituted but till date no meeting has taken place. The complainant further submitted that the Accreditation Committee for Advertisement was not in existence in the State since 1991 and the government was empanelling newspapers as per its Advertisement Rules which had been revised without due consultation with the press representatives. Many newspapers which were recognized by DAVP were not being issued advertisements. The respondent submitted that the Patrakar Bandhu had been set up and the release of advertisements were governed by Advertisement Rules, 2001, thus there was no need for a Committee and implementation of rules was being done

110 by the Directorate. The tenure of Press Accreditation Committee was to expire in October 2007 and the formation of the new Committee shall thereafter be done taking into consideration the recommendation contained in the IInd Press Commission Report. He also said that any modification in Advertisement Policy could also be considered at that time. Matter Adjourned The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties expressed its unhappiness over the attitude of the respondent in not filing the ‘action taken report’ as directed by the Inquiry Committee at the time of last hearing. The Inquiry Committee also observed that as in the Centre and other States the empanelment of newspaper for advertisement based on a laid down and notified policy should be carried out through a broadly constituted Committee and both by the Directorate itself. It further noted that not only was transparency necessary in working of the government, the rules themselves could not be arbitrary. It therefore, directed the respondent authorities to take remedial measures and file ‘action taken report’ within 3 weeks from the date of hearing. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Reply filed by the State Government In response to the complainant’s letter dated 12.1.2007 the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh in his para wise reply dated 24.4.2007 submitted that constitution of the Advertisement Accreditation Committee and as well as the Patrakar Bandhu are policy matters and since code of conduct is implemented in the policy decision matters due to Assembly elections, no action could be initiated at present. Regarding renewal of the registration of U.P. Working Journalists and registration of the Press Accreditation Committee at the headquarter, the respondent submitted that inquiry is being conducted in the matter relating to registration of these organisation and appropriate decision would be taken after completion of the inquiry. With reference to appropriate representation of the organisations in the Press Accreditation Committee, the respondent submitted that due to code of conduct instituted by the Election Commission policy decision could not be initiated. The respondent submitted that constitution of the Advertisement Accreditation Committee also falls under policy decision matters and it could be considered only after completion of the ensuing Assembly elections. The respondent further submitted that it is incorrect to state that no responsible officer appeared before the meeting of the Inquiry Committee of the Council. As any official deputed by the concerned authorities for the purpose is the due nominee of the State Government and is equally responsible to represent the senior officials.

111 A letter dated 14.5.2007 was issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.07 at New Delhi. Shri K. D. Chandola and Shri S. C. Agnihotri appeared for the complainant. Shri Parmod Chandra Gupta, Joint Secretary & Additional Director, Information, Uttar PRadesh along with Smt. Abhilasha Kulshrestha, Joint Director appeared for the respondent Governmenet of Uttar Pradesh. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated the complaint and stated that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh was discriminating in the matter of constitution of the State Accreditation Committee and violating the recommendations of the Second Press Commission that suggested equal representation to all the Associations. The complainant charged the Government of Uttar Pradesh of partiality in deciding the ratio of representatives of the various organizations in the State Press Accreditation Committee leading to the dis-advantages for the small newspapers. According to the complainant the Second Press Commission had recommended 50% representation of working journalists but the State Government had exceeded the limit by allowing 88% representation, which led to resentment amongst small newspapers. The respondent submitted that the elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh have been completed and the new government has taken over the charge. The respondent submitted that fair representation of the organizations on the Accreditation Committee on the basis of Model Accreditation rules shall be done within four to six weeks and the Press Council will be apprised of the Action Taken Report. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted the assurance given by the representative of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh that the model accreditation rules shall be adopted by the Government and formation of the Committees shall be done within four to six weeks. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to dispose of the complaint with directions to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to file Action Taken Report in the matter immediately after formation of the Committees namely Press Accreditation Committee and Advertisement Accreditation Committee in accordance with the model rules. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

112 22) Shri Moni Kamal Datta Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Publisher/Printer/Editor Government of West Bengal Mukta Kripan Kolkata Birbhum, West Bengal 2. The Director Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata

3. The District Information & Cultural Officer Birbhum, West Bengal Complaint Shri Moni Kamal Datta, Publisher/Printer/Editor, Mukta Kripan, Birbhum, West Bengal has filed this complaint dated 12.9.2005 against the District Information & Cultural Officer for stopping advertisements to his newspaper without assigning any reason. The complainant submitted that his newspaper was in the media list of the State Government for the purpose of getting advts. till financial year 2004-05. He applied in the prescribed proforma along with all relevant documents for the financial year 2005-06 for getting advertisements in response to Memorandum dated 15.2.2005 but the respondent had not approved his newspaper. According to the complainant his newspaper is fully qualified for getting advertisements as per Advertisement Policy of the Government of West Bengal but failed to receive any advt. despite issuance of many letters. The complainant, vide his letter dated 31.10.2005, while fulfilling the basic requirements of Inquiry Regulations, submitted that his free and fair publication of impartial news concerning local administration and critical review of the policies of the State Government might have caused displeasure to the District Administration and the ruling party CPI(M). He filed English translation of the critical articles as follows:- S.No. Captions Dated 1 Behold a forged doctorate (Ph.d). 23.7.2004 2 S.S.D.A. is evading Tax payment of “Gitanjali. 9.8.2004 3 “Ism-ethics Conscious” Left Front Govt. finds 12.9.2004 Asylum in liquor shop for increasing revenue. 4 Is the appointment of P.A. of the Zilla Savadhipati 9.10.2004 (Birbhum Zilla Parishad) is legal? 5 The declining Marxism and it’s self disregard. 25.3.2005

113 The complainant alleged that the respondent by the repressive measures wanted to cause financial hardship to “Mukta Kripan” by not releasing advertisement to his newspaper and tried to please the ruling party for promoting their personal interest. He submitted that the Advt. Advisory Committee at the district level was functioning in the name of ‘Siksha Sanskriti, Tathya O Krira Sthayee Samity’ an organ of Birbhum Zilla Parishad. This Committee was headed by a Karmadhakshya, a member of CPI (M) Party and working under the Chairmanship of Sabhadhipati, Birbhum Zilla Parisad who was also CPI(M) Party cadre/functionary. The complainant alleged that the respondent had tried to oblige these members by forcing his newspaper to publish news and critical reviews only favourable to the District Ruling Administration. The complainant further submitted that the DICO informed that his prayer will be considered by the ‘Siksha, Sanskriti, Tathya O Krira Sthayee Samity’ on receipt of the enquiry report regarding the publication, no time limit had been mentioned as to when the matter will be settled and intentionally it had been kept hanging indefinitely. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of West Bengal, and the District Information & Cultural Officer, Suri Birbhum (West Bengal) on 8.12.2005 for their comments in the matter. Comments Shri S.K. Das, Director of Information & Ex-Officio Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal in his comments dated 9.1.2006 submitted that an advertisement was published by the District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum during 2004-05 inviting applications from the newspapers/journals published from the district for enlistment for Government advertisements during the year 2005-06. In reply thereto 21 old and enlisted newspapers/journals and 4 new newspapers/ journals submitted their applications for enlistment. All these applications were placed in the meeting of the Education, Cultural, Information and Sports Sthayee Samity of Birbhum Zilla Parishad on 27.4.2005. As per resolution of the Sthayee Samity, 19 out of 20 existing enlisted newspapers/journalists and 1 out of 4 new applicants i.e. total number of 20 newspapers/journalists were enlisted for publication of Government advertisements. Two existing journals viz. (i) Krishi Kalyan; and (ii) Mukta Kripan were not enlisted for the year 2005-06 as there was allegation against these two journals regarding giving false circulation figures. It was decided in the meeting that the District Magistrate and Collector of Birbhum would enquire into the matter and submit a report for taking further decision in this regard. Since no enquiry report had been received from the District Magistrate, Birbhum, the matter remained pending. He further submitted that the District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum releases advertisements to the newspapers/journals published from the district as per the list of newspapers/journals approved by the

114 Zilla Parishad, Birbhum as in all other districts in West Bengal. Further action will be taken as per decision of the Sthayee Samity of the Zilla Parishad. A copy of comments was forwarded to the complainant on 17.1.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.2.2006 submitted that the allegation brought against his newspaper concerning circulation figures only vindicated his complaint. The complainant alleged that the District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum had deliberately misled the Sthayee Samity of the Zilla Parishad regarding actual status of “Mukta Kripan” to gain personal service career fortune. He submitted that the respondent should be charged with the criminal offence for misguiding the Sthayee Samity of Zilla Parishad as he had complied with all the formalities stipulated by the Government of West Bengal inclusive of the proof of circulation figures. The complainant further stated that no attempt had been made by the DICO, Birbhum to seek inquiry report from the District Magistrate, Birbhum with the intention to keep the matter hanging indefinitely to make “Mukta Kripan” financially cripple or finally abolished. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 23.2.2006 for information. The complainant in his letter dated 20.10.2006 intimated that he had published several articles against District ruling authority. With the result, District authority played adverse role and adopted a resolution for non-releasing advertisement to his fortnightly w.e.f. the financial year 2005-06 causing financial hardship. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 6.11.2006. After the notices for hearing of the case were issued, the complainant faxed his prayer for withdrawal of the case following the settlement of his grievance. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. Shri Moni Kamal Datta, complainant appeared in person along with Shri Prabhat Kumar Chakrobarty and Shri Sadanand Das. There was no appearance from the respondent State Government. At the outset in view of the presence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee showed the complainant his own fax informing about withdrawal of the complaint and asked whether it was signed by him. He was not able to give any satisfactory reply. He stated that signatures on the letter appeared to be his signatures. But, he added he had not written any letter bore his signatures but he wished to contest the case, as the matter had not been settled. Therefore, to afford an opportunity to the parties to represent their case, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings.

115 IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2007. There was no appearance before it from either side. The complainant vide his fax dated 28.3.2007 requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee noted that respondent No.2 the Director, Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata dated 15.2.2007, relying on the letters dated 2.1.2007 of the complainant, had requested to drop the proceedings being withdrawn. The Inquiry Committee directed that the respondent may be apprised of the position that the matter had not been withdrawn and Inquiry Committee shall decide the matter. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Accordingly the respondent State Government of West Bengal was apprised of the position. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.07 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side. Shri Apurba Kumar Chatterjee, Deputy Director of Information & Chief of News Bureau, Information & Cultural Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal along with Shri Gautam Ganguli, Distt. Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum appeared for the respondent. The complainant in a letter dated 31/5/07 informed the Council that his grievance has been satisfied by the present Disstt. Information and Cultural Officer, so he is not interested to proceed the matter further. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent submitted that the Government of West Bengal is firmly committed to the freedom of press and expression. The respondent further submitted that in the instant case advertisements were temporarily withdrawn from the complainant’s newspapers due to discrepancy between the actual copies published and number of copies declared. The steps were taken on the basis of an investigation report filed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum. The District Magistrate had conducted enquiry into the matter on the basis of the request by the Sabhadhipati of the Zilla Parishad, a recommending authority for granting of advertisement to the District level newspapers. The respondent submitted that after complainant’s expression of regret about the number of copies declared, the decision to suspend publication of advertisement in the complainant’s newspapers was withdrawn on 2.1.07, and advertisements were restored vide letter dated 9.1.07. The complainant’s newspaper, Mukta Kripan was publishing their advertisements from January 2007, and a lump-sum amount in this regard had been paid to the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record of the case and submissions

116 made before it by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter-dated 31.5.07 has intimated that his grievance had been redressed and he was satisfied with the steps taken by the respondent Government. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to close the matter as settled. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

23) Shri Moni Kamal Datta Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Publisher/Printer/Editor Government of West Bengal Krishi Kalyan Kolkata Birbhum, West Bengal 2. The Director Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata

3. The District Information & Cultural Officer Birbhum, West Bengal Complaint Shri Moni Kamal Datta, Publisher/Printer/Editor, Krishi Kalyan, Birbhum (West Bengal) has filed this complaint dated 15.9.2005 against the District Information & Cultural Officer for non-inclusion of his fortnightly in the approved media list for the year 2005-06 for the purpose of issuance of advertisements without assigning any reason. The complainant submitted that his fortnightly, which is being published for the last 18 years, was in the approved list for getting advertisements with the District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum under the Director of Government of West Bengal upto the financial year 2004-05. He applied in the prescribed proforma along with the relevant documents in March 2005 in response to their Memo dated 15.2.2005 but received no reply. According to the complainant, he is fully qualified for getting the advertisements as per the Advertisement Policy of the West Bengal but the respondent had not replied despite issuance of reminders. The complainant alleged that the District Information & Cultural Officer had not released advertisements to ‘Krishi Kalyan’ though the advertisements were being released to some unregistered and unapproved newspapers by violating advertisement norms. The prime motive inferred by the complainant is that he is also the publisher

117 of “Mukta Kripan” where reporting enraged the respondent and in order to take revenge they punished “Krishi Kalyan” which is an exclusion farm journal devoted to the promotion of agriculture and allied activities. The complainant alleged that the respondents by the action of repressive measures wanted to cause financial hardship to Krishi Kalyan by not releasing advertisement to this newspaper and in a fact had tried to please the ruling party for promoting their personal interest. He further stated that the Press Advertisement Advisory Committee at the district level is functioning in the name of “Siksha Sanskriti, Tathya O Krira Sthayee Samity” an organization of Birbhum Zilla Parisad. This Committee is headed by a Karamdhakshya, a Member of CPI (M) Party. This Committee is under the Chairmanship of Sabhadhipati, Birbhum Zilla Parisad who is also CPI (M) Party cadre/functionary. The respondent Shri Soura Kumar Basu had tried to oblige these members by forcing his newspaper to publish news and critical reviews only favorable to the District Ruling Administration. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of West Bengal, and the District Information & Cultural Officer, Suri Birbhum (West Bengal) on 8.12.2005 for their comments in the matter. Comments Shri S.K. Das, Director of Information & Ex-Officio Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal in his comments dated 17.1.2006 submitted that an advertisement was published by the District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum during 2004-05 inviting applications from the newspapers/journals published from the district for enlistment for Government advertisements during the year 2005-06. In reply thereto 21 old and enlisted newspapers/journals and 4 new newspapers/ journals submitted their applications for enlistment. All these applications were placed in the meeting of the Education, Cultural, Information and Sports Sthayee Samity of Birbhum Zilla Parishad on 27.4.2005. As per resolution of the Sthayee Samity, 19 out of 20 existing enlisted newspapers/journals and 1 out of 4 new applicants i.e. total number of 20 newspapers/journals were enlisted for publication of Government advertisements. Two existing journals viz. (i) Krishi Kalyan; and (ii) Mukta Kripan were not enlisted for the year 2005-06 as there was allegation against these two journals regarding giving false circulation figures. It was decided in the meeting that the District Magistrate and Collector of Birbhum would enquire into the matter and submit a report for taking further decision in this regard. Since this enquiry report had not yet been received from the District Magistrate, Birbhum, the matter remained pending. He further submitted that the District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum releases advertisements to the newspapers/journals published from the district as per the list of newspapers/journals approved by the Zilla Parishad, Birbhum as in all other districts in West Bengal. Further action will be taken as per decision of the Sthayee Samity of the Zilla Parishad.

118 A copy of comments was forwarded to the complainant on 30.1.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.2.2006 submitted that the prime motive behind stopping the advertisements to “Krishi Kalyan” was forbidding free/fair publication of impartial news. Being an associate of “Mukta Kripan”, which published free fair impartial news and critical reviews caused displeasure to the ruling party of the State Government, the respondent caused financial hardship to “Krishi Kalyan” by not releasing advertisements, added the complainant. He alleged that the respondent District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum by submitting false allegation concerning circulation figures had misled the Sthayee Samity of Birbhum Zilla Parishad to please the members of the ruling party for his personal gain. The matter was kept hanging in the name of inquiry for an indefinite period. The complainant submitted that since he complied with all the formalities stipulated by the State Government while submitting the application for enlistment including the proof of circulation figures, the District Information & Cultural Officer, Birbhum should be charged with criminal offence for wilfully misleading Sthayee Samity for imposing discriminatory and coercive measures against “Krishi Kalyan”, which is devoted exclusively to the promotion of agriculture and allied farm activities and its survival depends on Government advertisements. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent, vide Council’s letter dated 23.2.2006, for information. The complainant in his letter dated 20.10.2006 intimated that he had published several articles against District ruling authority. With the result, District authority played adverse role and adopted a resolution for non-releasing advertisement to his fortnightly w.e.f. the financial year 2005-06 causing financial hardship. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 6.11.2006. After the notices for hearing of the case were issued, the complainant faxed his prayer for withdrawal of the case following the settlement of his grievance. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. Shri Moni Kamal Datta, complainant appeared in person along with Shri Prabhat Kumar Chakrobarty and Shri Sadanand Das. There was no appearance from the respondent State Government. At the outset in view of the presence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee showed the complainant his own fax informing about withdrawal of the complaint and asked whether it was signed by him. He was not able to give any satisfactory reply. He stated that signatures on the letter appeared to be his

119 signatures. But, he added he had not written any letter bore his signatures but he wished to contest the case, as the matter had not been settled. Therefore, to afford an opportunity to the parties to represent their case, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2007. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant vide his fax dated 28.3.2007 requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee noted that respondent No.2 the Director, Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata dated 15.2.2007 relying on the letters dated 2.1.2007 of the complainant had requested to drop the proceedings being withdrawn. The Inquiry Committee directed that the respondent may be apprised of the position and decided to adjourn the matter. Accordingly the respondent State Government of West Bengal was apprised of the position. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.07 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side. Shri Apurba Kumar Chatterjee, Deputy Director of Information & Chief of News Bureau, Information & Cultural Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal along with Shri Gautam Ganguli, Distt. Information & Cultural officer, Birbhum appeared for the respondent. The complainant in a letter dated 31/5/07 informed the Council that his grievance has been satisfied by the present District Information and Cultural Officer, so he is not interested to proceed the matter further. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent submitted that the Government of West Bengal is firmly committed to the freedom of press and expression. The respondent further submitted that in the instant case advertisements were temporarily withdrawn from the complainant’s newspapers due to discrepancy between the actual copies published and number of copies declared. The steps were taken on the basis of an investigation report filed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum. The District Magistrate had conducted enquiry into the matter on the basis of the request by the Sabhadhipati of the Zilla Parishad, a recommending authority for granting of advertisement to the District level newspapers. The respondent submitted that after complainant’s expression of regret about the number of copies declared, the decision to suspend publication of advirtisement in the complainant’s newspapers was withdrawn on 2.1.07, and advertisements were restored vide letter dated 9.1.07, the complainant’s newspaper, Krishi Kalyan was publishing their advertisements from January 2007, and a lump-sum amount in this regard had been paid to the complainant.

120 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record of the case and submissions made before it by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter-dated 31.5.07 has intimated that his grievance had been redressed and he was satisfied with the steps taken by the respondent Government. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to close the matter as settled. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

24) Shri Gyan Chand Varshnay Versus 1. Chief Secretary Owner & Publisher Government of U.P. Udhyog Vyapar Times Lucknow Aligarh, U.P. 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

3. Additional District Information Officer Aligarh, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 14.4.2006 in continuation of a fax message dated 11.4.2006 has been filed by Shri Gyan Chand Varshnay, Owner and Publisher, “Udhyog Vyapar Times” (Weekly), Aligarh, (U.P.) against Shri Yatish Chander Gupta, Additional District Information Officer, Aligarh alleging discrimination in the matter of issuance of curfew passes during imposition of curfew on April 6, 2006 disrupting routine public activities. The fax had been sent by his correspondent, Shri Hari Om Sharma for denial of passes. According to the complainant, they have been issued three curfew passes on 8.4.06, which were not sufficient for editorial and publishing/printing personnel against the required demand of 14 curfew passes. However, other newspapers were issued curfew passes for their employees including newsmen and workers. Such discrimination has led to delayed publication of their weekly and by compromising not only quality but reducing the number of pages to eight only as

121 against 16 pages. The local administration has left the issuance of distribution of curfew passes at the discretion of Asstt. District Information Officer who discriminated between dailies and weeklies. He has alleged that the respondent has intentionally refused to issue curfew passes to their employees, which affected the credibility of the newspaper and deprived the readers of their right to information. Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the concerned authorities on 10.8.2006. Comments In response to notice dated 10.8.06 Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, District Information Officer, Agra in his reply dated 12.9.06 has submitted that since the complainant admitted having received three curfew press passes issued to them, the complaint was baseless. Keeping in view the law and order situation, curfew passes were being issued directly by the district administration and the Information Department or any other officer has no role to play. The respondent also charged the complainant of misusing letter head of his publication for addressing a fake complaint against him. A copy of the comments has been forwarded to the complainant publisher on 14.11.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Yatish Chandra Gupta, Additional District Information Officer, Agra appeared on behalf of the respondent. The complainant publisher Shri Gyan Chandra Varshney in a letter dated 1.6.2007 submitted that one Shri Hari Om Sharma had fraudulently taken his signature and misused his name in his own interest. Shri Hari Om Sharma was no more the employee of Udhyog Vyapar Times. The Government had issued them the necessary passes for coverage and they had no complaint against the Government. Shri Hari Om Sharma requested for adjournment. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Yatish Chandra Gupta has submitted that Shri Gyan Chandra Varshney of Udhyog Vyapar Times had denied having filed any such complaint and the same appeared to be the handiwork of Shri Hari Om Sharma. The respondent requested to reject the complaint. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing and perusing the documents noted

122 that the complainant paper was satisfied with the steps taken by the government and had denied having filed such complaint. In view of this, the Inquiry Committee decided to close the matter. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

25) The Editor Versus Director Vatanpremi Information & Public Amravati Relations Department Maharashtra Government of Maharashtra Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 30.7.2005 has been filed by the Editor, Vatanpremi, a weekly newspaper from Amravati, Maharashtra against the Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Maharashtra alleging non-inclusion of his weekly newspaper in the approved list for government advertisements. The complainant has alleged that due to prevalent corruption in the department of the Information and Public Relations, his weekly newspaper had deliberately been not empanelled for advertisement by declaring it as “irregular”. According to the complainant, his newspaper was being regularly published since the year 1980 availing the government’s advertisements till the year 2002. He has furnished a copy of the order dated 29.6.2005 of the Deputy Registrar, Office of the Books and Publications, Government of Maharashtra showing his weekly to be regular. According to the complainant, the decision of the meeting convened on 16.2.2005 citing it as 29.6.2005 was dispatched on 29.8.2005. The complainant has charged the respondent of adopting policy of casteism, nepotism and unsocial behaviour. Notices for Statements in Reply was issued to the respondent State Government of Maharashtra on 17.2.2006. Comments The respondent-Director General of Information and Public Relations, Government of Maharashtra in his comments dated 13.3.2006 has submitted that the application of the complainant for empanelment of his weekly Vatanpremi was placed before a Committee that comprised of the representatives of the Examiner of Books & Publications and the District Information Officer. The Committee in its meeting held on February 15 and 16, 2005 rejected the complainant’s application

123 on the grounds of its irregular publication on the basis of norms laid down in the policy and the complainant was informed about the decision with the reason of the rejection. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 17.4.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant sent a letter dated 10.7.2007 along with documents and request the Council to decide the matter on merits. S/Shri L.B. Jadav, Sr. Assistant Director, Directorate General of Information & Public Relations, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Manoj Sanap, Assistant Director, Directorate General of Information and Public Relations, Government of Maharashtra, appeared for the State Government of Maharashtra. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri L.B. Jadav, Sr. Assistant Director, Directorate General of Information & Public Relations, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Shri Manoj Sanap, Assistant Director, Directorate General of Information & Public Relations Government of Maharashtra, submitted that the complainant’s newspaper was irregular and therefore the Standing Committee for Empanelment of the newspapers did not grant empanelment to the complainant newspaper, Vatanpremi. The inspection was done by the representative of Examiner of Books & Publications and District Information Officer of the district. The respondent further submitted that the Empanelment Committee comprised of Director, Deputy Director, Secretary and other officials of the Government. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records and upon hearing the respondent, observed that the respondent Empanelment Committee consisted of Government officials only, which was not in conformity with the Model Accreditation Rules for constitution of the Press Accreditation Committee as suggested by the Press Council of India. For transparent and fair functioning of the Committee, it should, as in the Centre and other States, compose of representative of press. Further issuance of government advertisement was not a largesse of personal bounty of any one and its utilization had to be ensured in a judicious manner within the frame work of a clearly laid down policies. The Inquiry Committee further noted that in the instant case, the notice or opportunity of hearing was not given to the complainant as already empanelled paper, by the Empanelment Committee, which was against the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Committee observed that the respondent instead of raiding the press premises ought to have sought explanation from the complainant by issuing proper notice, giving him a chance to put forth his case.

124 Making these observations known to the state representative, it decided that the respondent authorities be provided a copy of the Model Rules framed by the Press Council of India and the Government of Maharashtra may redraw its advertisement and consider the case for empanelment of the complainant newspaper, Vatanpremi, afresh. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these directions. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

26) Shri Prabir Kumar Sarkar Versus (i) The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Government of West Bengal Coalfield Times Kolkata Kolkata, West Bengal (ii)The Director Information & Cultural Affairs Government of West Bengal Kolkata Complaint Shri Prabir Kumar Sarkar, Chief Editor, Coalfield Times, Kolkata (West Bengal) has filed this complaint dated 13.8.2005 against the Director, Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal alleging discrimination in the matter of issuance of advertisements to his newspaper for the last 26 years. The complainant has submitted that his request for empanelment of his newspaper in the media list had been turned down without assigning any reason. Vide his further letter dated 29.8.2005 the complainant argued that his complaint primarily lies for refusal to give official reply to his request for empanelment. The complainant, who, applies in the prescribed application form issued by the office of the respondent submitted that his application had been rejected without assigning any reason. According to the complainant, his newspaper has been included in the empanelment of the DAVP for the purpose of release of advertisements and getting advertisements from the DAVP and other Central Undertakings. The complainant sought clarification on the following points:- 1. Criteria for selecting weekly newspaper for releasing Government advertisements by the State Information and Cultural Department.

125 2. List of weekly newspapers selected by the department for releasing Government advertisement so far. 3. Advertisement revenue allocations for small medium newspapers against allocations for major newspapers during 2003-04 and 2004-05.

4. Reasons for turning down Coalfield Times application seeking state Government advertisement this year. The complainant further informed that he drew attention of the Principal Secretary of the State and the Chief Minister of the State but failed to get any reply. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary and the Director, Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata on 7.10.2005 for their comments in the matter. Comments

The respondent-Director of Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal in his comments dated 16.11.2005 submitted that according to the centralised policy, advertisements of 55 departments of State Government are being issued to the daily newspapers and periodicals from Headquarters and 18 districts. The objective of issuing Government advertisements is to ensure maximum publicity of a particular matter and appropriate mediums are always taken into consideration during media planning. With a view to upholding the social cause, Government advertisements are also issued to small and medium newspapers for wide coverage of all sections of the people of West Bengal. Despite bonafide willingness of the State Government, sometimes, it was not feasible to accommodate all newspapers due to its limited financial resources and increasing cost of publicity through print, electronic and other media, added the respondent. Regarding enlistment of the Coalfield Times in the media list, the respondent submitted that the matter would be taken up for consideration along with other applicants again in the next financial year. He stated that the intention of the State Government be viewed in the right perspective to eliminate any misgiving or misconception. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 18.11.2005, for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar. Shri Prabir Kumar Sarkar, Chief Editor, Coal Field Times appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Government of West Bengal.

126 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the meeting of the empanelment Committee was held in August last year but his newspaper was not empanelled. The complainant stated that he tried to seek information from the Directorate but there was no response from the respondents. On being asked by the Committee as to whether he tried to seek information under Right to Information Act, he replied in negative. The Inquiry Committee advised the complainant to seek information from the Government of West Bengal under Right to Information Act and inform the Council of the reply by the Government. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter till the communication of the complainant was received giving information obtained from the State Government about the position of his case. Accordingly a letter dated 9.4.2007 was issued to the complainant with a reminder dated 14.8.2007 to intimate the status of the matter. No reply was received. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant’s prime grievance was the government’s failure to reply to his application. He was advised to seek the desired information under Right to Information Act from the Government of West Bengal under intimation to the Council. The complainant however, did not intimate the Council the position despite reminder. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

27) The Editor Versus (i) The Registrar of Sunehara Sansar Newspapers for India Ferozabad New Delhi Uttar Pradesh (ii) The Director Directorate of Advertisement And Visual Publicity New Delhi Complaint Shri Raghvender Singh, Editor, Sunehara Sansar, Ferozabad, Uttar Pradesh

127 has filed this complaint against the Registrar of Newspapers for India, New Delhi and Directorate of Advertisement and Visual Publicity, New Delhi for not issuing him registration certificate/number for his publication. The complainant has pointed out prevalent corruption in the respondent’s offices and submitted that the title certificate issued by the RNI was valid up to 26.3.2005. The complainant alleged that despite issuing reminders, permanent certificate has not been issued. He has submitted that in the absence of the permanent certificate he was not able to avail concessional postal facilities. The complainant attributed bureaucratic delay for his sufferings. Statement in Reply-DAVP Notice for statement in reply were issued to the respondent RNI and DAVP vide letter dated 10.4.2006. The DAVP vide letter dated 16.5.2006 has submitted that the letter from the complainant was self-explanatory wherein it has been explained that RNI has not yet sent him the RNI Registration Certificate. The Certificate was mandatory document for any publication seeking empanelment along with relevant documents as per application form/policy. The case of Sunehra Sansar can be considered as per norms on merit only after the receipt of media particulars and specimen copies. Statement in Reply-RNI The RNI vide its letter dated 22.5.2006 has submitted that registration of the said publication could not be formalised, as the documents furnished by the publisher were incomplete. The publisher was informed about the same through a discrepancy letter on 4.7.2005 to which the publisher did not respond. The respondent further submitted that the incomplete documents furnished by the publisher had been returned to the complainant on 18.1.2006 with a request to furnish complete documents. Reply in this regard from the publisher is still awaited. A copy each of the comments received from the respondents RNI and DAVP has been forwarded to the complainant on 6.5.2007 for information/counter comments. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Mayur Gupta, Press Reporter, appeared for the complainant, Sunehara Sansar while Shri Umesh Kumar and Shri Ashok Kumar represented the respondent RNI. The representative of the complainant submitted that the RNI was approached on many occasions but the Registration number was not given to the newspaper.

128 The representative of the RNI submitted that the complainant had not fulfilled the requirements of documents called by the RNI, such as copies of (i) Title Verification, (ii) Certified copy of Declaration, (iii) Affidavit of ‘No Foreign tie-up’, (iv) Ist issue of publication and (v) Latest issue. The representative of respondent, RNI however assured the Committee that the complainant’s newspaper would be given Certificate of Registration within 15 days of the receipt of requisite documents from the complainant. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to file the copy of the declaration, first issue of the newspaper and an affidavit stating therein that the newspaper had no foreign tie-up within 15 days and the RNI to allot Registration number and give Certificate of Registration to the Complainant within 15 days of the receipt of documents from the complainant. The representative of the RNI was directed to inform the Council about the action taken by it. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to adjourn the matter to await action taken report in the matter. The Registrar, Registrar of Newspapers for India was reminded vide Council’s letter dated 14.8.2007 to comply with the directions of Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Ashok Kumar appeared for the Registrar of Newspapers for India, New Delhi. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of Registrar of Newspapers for India submitted that the complainant had not filed the required documents as directed by the Inquiry Committee on the last hearing. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant on the last hearing was directed to file the requisite documents within 15 days with the RNI, but the complainant had not chosen to file the same. He has also not appeared to press his case. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to close action on the complaint with the observation that the RNI may process the documents as per law as and when received by it. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

129 Curtailment of Press Freedom

28) Suo-motu cognizance of the incident held on 13.10.05 at Kolkata wherein hawkers affiliated to CITU blockaded the Statesman House and obstructed the supply of copies of The Statesman and Dainik Statesman (Bengali) The attention of the Council had been drawn on 15.10.2005 towards the incident of October 13, 2005 at Kolkata wherein hawkers affiliated to CITU (Centre for Indian Trade Unions) blockaded the Statesman House and obstructed the supply of copies of the “Statesman” and “Dainik Statesman” (Bengali). It was stated that such act of CITU prevented distribution of the two newspapers and the readers were deprived of their copies. Based on the news items captioned “CITU blockade at Statesman House – Newspaper supplies forcibly stopped” which appeared in The Statesman dated October 14, 2005, the Council took suo- motu cognizance of this incident. Comments A report on the facts of the case was called for from the respondent Govt. of West Bengal on 24.10.2005. Simultaneously, The Statesman was requested to provide complete details of the matter and to file a declaration in terms of Reg.3(2) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulation, 1979. In response, the Editor and Managing Director, The Statesman Ltd., Kolkata vide his letter dated 5.12.05 furnished a detailed report on the incident and also filed their declaration. A copy of the report received from The Statesman was sent to Government of West Bengal on 19.12.2005 requesting them to file their consolidated report in the matter. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal vide his letter dated 9.6.06 informed that the matter is under investigation and a report will be sent after completion of investigation. Comments of CITU A report was called for from the CITU on 23.1.06. In response the General Secretary, CITU, Kolkata in comments dated 6.4.06 submitted that on inquiry it was found that the commission agents are not the workmen/employees within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such they cannot be forced to deliver papers to the readers. He further submitted that the allegation of threat to the free functioning of the press is exaggerative as they are very much in favour of freedom of press. He also stated that the willing hawkers were not restrained from delivery of papers.

130 A copy of the comments of the respondent, CITU was forwarded to The Statesman, Kolkata for information on 13/4/2006. Counter Comments The Editor and Managing Director, The Statesman Ltd., in his counter comments dated 26.7.06 submitted that the statement of the respondent CITU that hawkers are being forced to deliver papers is totally incorrect as there have never been from their side any suggestion of coercion or inducement to hawkers to lift their Copies. The Statesman further submitted that any attempt to stop or restrict the circulation of a newspaper is a direct assault on the freedom of the Press. Further the activists of CITU have already started a campaign in Kolkata to ensure that The Statesman and Dainik Statesman are not distributed on Ekadasi day this year, which falls on October 3, 2006. The Statesman requested the Council to consider deputing a team of observers to Kolkata on that day to note first hand if there is (a) any coercion of hawkers by The Statesman; (b) any disruption of distribution activities by Citu or its affiliates, (c) any denial of a newspaper’s right to freedom of speech and expression and (d) any interruption of a reader’s right to be informed. It concluded by saying that such a team will be in a position to assess the facts first-hand and ensure that a newspaper’s right to publish is not curtailed in the manner as it was last year. A copy of the letter dated 26.7.06 received from the Statesman was forwarded to the Government of West Bengal on 29.8.06 with the request to file a final report on the facts of the case and issue directions to the appropriate department for such action as may deem expedient. The report of the State Government is still awaited. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance before it from either side. Shri Kali Ghose, General Secretary, CITU, Kolkata in a letter dated 2.1.2007 requested for adjournment due to pre-occupation in 12th All India Conference of CITU. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of CITU decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2007. Shri Ravindra Kumar, Editor & Managing Director appeared for The Statesman Ltd. While Shri Shivaji Ghosh, Additional Commissioner of Police, Kolkata appeared for the Government of West Bengal. Shri W.R. Varada Rajan, Secretary, appeared for CITU.

131 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Ravinder Kumar appearing for the Statesman stated that the CITU took aggressive measures to prevent the distribution of the paper on the Ekadashi Day. The Statesman is published on Ekadashi Day for the last 100 years. The statesman, respecting the sentiments of Hawkers did not force them to distribute newspaper on that day. Only the hawkers willing to distribute were being given the copies of the newspaper. In northern Kolkata where CITU presence is strong the paper is not circulated but in Southern Kolkata where their influence is less, their paper is picked up for distribution. The CITU attempted to prevent this. Apprehending blockade they had informed the police two days in advance. But the police did not realize the gravity of the situation and posted only two policemen to handle the sizeable presence of CITU workers. Similar call for blockade was made by the CITU on Ekadashi Day in 2006 and the Indian Newspapers Society took up the matter with the Chief Minister on their behalf. Then the police made huge ‘bandobast’. Shri Shivaji Ghosh appearing for the Police authorities submitted that the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata vide letter dated 5.7.2006 had given the Enquiry Report. It was stated in the Enquiry Report that in connection with the affairs in The Statesman house dated 13.10.2005 attention was drawn to reports published in the said newspaper on 14.10.2005 and 15.10.2005 castigating the police solely for facilitating the CITU activists in preventing circulation of newspaper, that the police refused to intervene and allowed CITU activist to picket Statesman house. The police had no order from the court directing police to prevent CITU activists from picketing The Statesman house. The duty officer on round concentrated mainly on the Statesman house regarding obstruction. As per the report, 19 vehicles went through and only one vehicle was stopped thus vehicle did not approach the exit gate of the Statesman and security at gate also did not register the number of vehicle alleged to have obstructed by the CITU activists. Shri Shivaji Ghosh further stated that the force was deployed on the recent occasion also. Shri W.R. Varada Rajan appearing for CITU submitted that the hawkers also had the right to observe the Puja Celebrations and the Ekadashi celebration and the CITU never did block the sale of the newspaper. The CITU representative further assured the Inquiry Committee that the CITU has not obstruct the sale of newspaper nor stand in the way of press freedom. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the matter noted that the Durga Puja is an important big celebration in West Bengal and the position of the hawkers, who are part of Puja Celebration, can be well realized. However the newspaper

132 management has claimed that the paper is given out only to those hawkers who opt for it willingly. The representative of the CITU has also assured against any obstacle in free sale of the newspaper. While expressing its confidence that the Government will in future take adequate steps to ensure the unhindered distribution of newspaper copies, the Committee took it on record the assurance of the representative of CITU and decided to recommend to the Council to close the case with this assurance on record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. 29) Sou Motu Action against the Government of Madhya Pradesh with regard to confinement of a group of journalists. The Press Council came across a report in a Hindi daily newspaper, Jansatta in its issue-dated 3.9.2005 captioned ‘Exposure of corruption against a lady doctor cost a group of journalists dearly.’ It is reported in the news item that in the city of Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, a lady doctor, related to the State Education Minister caused confinement of a group of journalists in a hospital room who had gone there to take her views on the charges of high handedness with the patients and irregularities prevailing in the hospital. The journalists were, on the directions of the said Minister, reported to have been arrested by the DIG, Sagar Range. Since the incident disclosed a prima facie attempt to curtail the freedom of the press, the Council took suo motu cognizance of the matter and called for detailed reports in the matter from the State Government of Madhya Pradesh on 15.9.05. Reminder to the concerned authorities evoked no response. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee on 27.2.2007 at Udaipur. There was no personal appearance on behalf of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Shri B.B.S. Thakur, DIG, Sagar Range, Sagar in a fax dated 21.2.2007 requested for adjournment of the matter and also filed a written reply. The DIG, Sagar in his reply dated 25.2.2007 stated that on 31.8.2005 Shri Israr Khan, Correspondent of Sahara Samay T.V. Channel and his Assistant Videographer reached Government Women Hospital (Dafrin) and entered the labour room despite being stopped by the Nurse. When they made enquiries where was Dr. Shashi Thakur, the nurse told them that she was in operation room at that time. Thereafter Videography of the labour room was done by them. When Dr. Shashi Thakur came out of the operation room, media persons enquired into the matter. Dr. Shashi Thakur, then told them (Media persons) that they should not have entered into the women hospital in such a way.

133 Due to unauthorized entry and Videography by the above mentioned media persons, doctors/employees and family members of the patients admitted there (Government women Hospital) gathered in front of the hospital to register their protest. On being informed of the incident, the City Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, along with the Superintendent of Police reached on the spot and pacified the protesters. On 31.8.2005, approx at 2.00 O’clock correspondents Israr Khan, Kapil Tiwari, Tanveer Ahmed, Prashant Singh, Khilan Singh Lodhi, Abdul Latif, Ravinder Udeniya reached the office of the City Judicial Magistrate and started demonstration. In apprehension of disturbance in the Court premises, Shri Pramod Shukla, City Judicial Magistrate, Sagar took all of them into custody and informed SHO, Gopalganj in this regard. On the directions of the City Judicial Magistrate, the Police of Gopalganj vide a case No.257/05 instituted criminal proceedings under Section 107/116 (3) and challan was filed before the City Judicial Magistrate, Sagar. However, all of them were released by the City Judicial Magistrate on their personal bonds. As per public rumour, the then Hon’ble Minister was allegedly a relative of Dr. Shashi Thakur. Due to this, media persons apprehended that the then Hon’ble Minister, at the instance of Dr. Shashi Thakur, directed the City Magistrate to arrest and take action against them. While, the fact was that the Media persons held a demonstration in front of the office of the City Judicial Magistrate, Sagar. As the result the City Judicial Magistrate, Sagar took action against them at his own level. The police neither initiated any action at its own level nor the DIG, Sagar range, Sagar played any role in the case. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter as per respondents request to enable the Government of M.P. to depute its representative at the next hearing for oral presentation. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Padam Vilochan Shukla, SDO (Police), Khurai, District Sagar appeared for the police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of police authorities reiterated the written contention and submitted that some journalists had entered the hospital against whom the City Magistrate took action. Annoyed over this, journalists gheraod the CJM, Sagar and the CJM initiated prohibitory proceedings against them. The charge sheet in the said matter has been filed in the court. The respondent further submitted that the prohibitory proceedings were initiated by CJM under the powers vested in him and the police had no role to play.

134 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the proceedings in the matter had become subject matter of proceedings before the law court. It, thus, recommended to the Council to drop the proceedings in the matter being sub-judice. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. Principles and Publication

30) Government of Tripura Versus The Editor Home Department Syandan Patrika, Bengali Daily Agartala Agartala Complaint Government of Tripura, Home Department, Agartala has filed this complaint dated 5.2.2005 through Shri R.P. Dutta, Under Secretary, Home against “Syandan Patrika” for publishing misleading and sensational news item captioned “Skeleton in Tripura Chief Minister’s residence – fax to Home Minister demanding CBI Probe” in its issue dated 7.1.2005. The complainant has submitted that on 4th January 2005 some skeletal remains were recovered from a septic tank attached to the old building in the premises of the official residence of the Chief Minister, Tripura. The State Government took a decision to entrust the inquiry to CBI. A press release was issued giving details of the case and communicating the decision regarding CBI inquiry. The complainant has submitted that on the very next day a formal request was sent to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India. The complainant has submitted that the local and national newspapers carried the news report on the incident but the Syandan Patrika published misleading news to sensationalise the incident. The complainant has submitted that it was mentioned in the impugned news item dated 7.1.2005 that message from the State Government regarding CBI inquiry has been received by the Home Ministry. In another news item dated 18.1.2005 the respondent reported that neither Home Ministry nor the CBI has received any request from the State Government for CBI inquiry. The complainant has submitted that the State Government issued a press release clarifying the factual position, but the respondent again published a news item quoting an officer of the DOPT that no such request from the State Government has been received. The complainant has alleged that respondent has been deliberately trying to spread misinformation

135 to create doubts in the minds of the people about actions of the State Government. The complainant has submitted that the newspaper thereby has offended the standards of the journalistic ethics. The complainant has requested the Press Council to look into the matter and to take appropriate action against the respondent for committing professional misconduct. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Syandan Patrika on 18.5.2005. The editor, Syandan Patrika in his written statement dated 30.5.2005 has submitted that they have not violated the standard of journalistic ethics and public taste nor committed any professional misconduct as alleged by the complainant. The respondent has submitted that some human skeletal remains were found in a septic tank of Chief Minister’s official residence at Agartala on 4th January 2005 and news was published accordingly. The respondent has submitted that on 18th January 2005 a news item was published on the basis of the interview with the CBI official, New Delhi. Another news item on the same subject was published on 21st January 2005 on the basis of the interview with Shri Surinder Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Department of Public Grievances, Ministry of Home, Government of India, New Delhi. The respondent has submitted that all the news items were published on the basis of material facts. The respondent has requested the Council to drop the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2005 for information. Counter Comments Shri S.Chakraborty, Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura in his counter comments dated 7.10.2005 has submitted that the reply of the respondent is silent on the allegation that the newspaper has been deliberately trying to spread misinformation to create doubts in the mind of the people about the action of the State Government. It was quite evident from the fact that the newspaper published misleading news one after another without caring to check up the facts as given out in the official press releases issued by the Government. Even after official confirmation from the Department of Personnel & Training about receipt of the letter of State Government and the fact of referring the matter to CBI, which was shared with newspaper and media through official press release, the newspaper published a misleading news in its issue dated 21.1.2005 with the sole motive of creating misinformation and misleading the public. The complainant has submitted that the news items published in the respondent newspaper quoted officials of CBI and Department of Personnel & Training other than mentioning the name of Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, whereas the names of

136 CBI officials and Home Ministry officials have not been given which casts doubt on the claim of interview. The complainant has submitted that those officials need to be examined to find out whether Shri Manas Banerjee, the reporter, of the respondent newspaper had actually interacted with them. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 6.1.2006 for information. Sur Rejoinder from Respondent The respondent has filed his sur rejoinder to the complainant’s counter comments and denied that the newspaper deliberately tried to spread misinformation to create doubts in the mind of the people about action of the State Government. The respondent submitted that not a single misleading news item was published on the said issue. He has alleged that the State Government claim that the government took a decision to entrust the matter to be investigated by the CBI was misleading, as no Cabinet Memo was prepared, where a Cabinet resolution is required as per the administrative norms. The respondent raised the following points in support of their contention: 1. Why the CPI(M)(Ruling Party) Statement dated 10.1.2005 was different on many material points from the unsigned State Government Press Release? 2. Why the contents of both the aforesaid Bengali and English versions differ regarding G.D. Entries dated 4.1.2005 and judicial records on many materials and vital points? 3. In the advertisement dated 26.6.2005 given by the Superintendent of Police, CID, Tripura in two local dailies why it was mentioned that the girl was missing for the last few days by giving facial image of the skull? Why it was not mentioned in the said advertisement that it was the facial image of the victim girl prepared by the forensic laboratory? Why this type of intentional distortion and suppression of fact? And since the skeletal remains of victim girl were recovered from the septic tank of occupied official residence of Chief Minister and the residential premises being declared as a protected area-why not Chief Minister be interrogated? The respondent also alleged that the complainant suppressed the fact that a case was pending in this matter before the Chief Judicial, Magistrate, West Tripura, Tripura u/s 15(I) dated 4.1.2005 for CID investigation. Matter Adjourned The matter first came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side and as the service of notice was not complete, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourned the matter.

137 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Manabendra Chakraborty, Under Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Tripura appeared for the complainant. Shri Sanjay Sachdev appeared for the respondent Syandan Patrika. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper Syandan Patrika was deliberately spreading misinformation to create doubts in the minds of the people of the State. The complainant submitted that the ‘skeletal remains’ were recovered from the septic tack attached to old building in the premises of the official residence of Chief Minister of Tripura and the government of Tripura had decided to refer the matter to CBI for investigation. The newspaper in its report quoted many anonymous sources giving negative reports. The complainant stated that the fact remains that the Government of India did not find it necessary to cause CBI enquiry and CB-CID inquiry was instead taken up. The respondent submitted that the news report was datelined ‘New Delhi’ and given by the Delhi Bureau. The newspaper had cross-checked information from the officials of DOPT which had denied having received any reference from the Government of Tripura for CBI enquiry. The respondent submitted that the Government of Tripura had issued two line Press Release and therefore the newspaper thought it fit to apprise the people of Tripura of the further development when the CBI enquiry was not in progress. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the document and heard the submissions made by the parties. It noted that while it was a fact that skeletal remains had been found from the premises that accommodated Chief Minister’s residence and other infrastructure buildings, the paper appeared to have blown the matter out of proportion and published one sided news on a sensitive issue. The Press Release issued by the state government had also not been given its due prominence. The Committee felt that while the state government also should have been more forthcoming on the issue, it was incumbent on the part of the newspaper to carry the version of the Government and exercise due caution and care in balancing the reports. The Inquiry Committee finds that the respondent Syandan Patrika did not display due caution in carrying the impugned reports for which it deserved to be cautioned to ensure proper compliance with ethical and responsible journalism practice in future. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

138 31) Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao Versus The Editor Secretary General Star of Mysore Karnataka State Federation Mysore, Karnataka of Consumer’s Organisation Mysore, Karnataka Complaint This complaint dated 1.5.2005 has been filed by Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao, Secretary General, Karnataka State Federation of Consumer’s Organisation, Mysore against the Editor, “Star of Mysore”, an Evening English daily of Mysore for non- publication of the rejoinder following publication of a photograph with caption “Road show marks World Consumer Day” in its issue dated March 15, 2005. It was stated underneath the impugned photograph that Rotary Central Mysore in association with Mysore District Consumer Forum conducted this programme and names of six Rotarians were also mentioned. According to the complainant, they arranged a “Yatra” on 15.3.2005 from Mysore to Melkote under the name “Grahaka Hitha Rakshana Yathra” and it was sponsored by Ultra Tech Centre. The tour was undertaken in a motor van fitted with public address system and equipped with exhibition materials to exhibit identification of common food, adulteration, spurious goods, cheating in weights and measurements, etc. Further, their organisation sought the assistance of Rotaract Club at Palahalli for arranging a meeting at Palahalli through which the Yathra was to pass on and handed over few invitations to the Rotarians to be distributed to Rotaract members so that they help the organisation in arranging the Roadside meetings at Palahalli. The Rotarians grabbed the opportunity promising that they would also accompany their members from Mysore to Melkote with their centenary celebration van. Believing their intentions to be sincere, they agreed to their participation, added the complainant. But these Rotarians who profess to follow the “Four Way Test” of Rotary had themselves smothered the truth and murdered the Four Way Test of Rotary International as none of them accompanied the Yatra as promised. At the time of inauguration only three Rotarians were there. But, all others descended from the spot near Shanthi Sagar Complex, maliciously took the photograph and vanished from the scene breaking their promise of helping them at Palahalli. He further submitted that these Elite members of Rotary Club of Mysore Central did not show the elementary courtesy to invite their President, Dr. C.M. Muniram to join them even though he was very much there as can be seen in the photograph. The complainant objected to the publication of the photograph and sent a rejoinder to the respondent editor on 25.3.2005 for its publication but it was not published despite reminder on 2.4.2005. The complainant submitted that the non- publication of the rejoinder affected them as the Rotarian who never participated

139 at the programme, got the photograph published wherein they had stated that the Road Show was arranged in association with Mysore District Consumer Forum. In fact, the Mysore District Consumer Forum is a quasi-judiciary authority set up under Consumer Protection Act and publication of the photograph would make the readers of Star of Mysore to get an impression that these Rotarians have some connection with the Mysore District Consumer Forum and that they can influence it but it amounts to lowering the dignity of the District Forum. However, such mis- information could have been corrected by the publication of his rejoinder. The complainant further submitted that he had earlier lodged two complaints with the Press Council against the Editor, “Star of Mysore” and the Press Council censured the Editor in one of these complaints. He alleged that respondent-editor has developed a venomous attitude towards him and avails every opportunity to blackout the complainant’s views and news. The complainant requested the Council to direct the Editor to publish his rejoinder.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, “Star of Mysore”, Mysore on 15.6.2005.

Written Statement

In his written statement dated 24.6.2005, the respondent editor while denying the allegations submitted that the dispute was purely between Dr. Rao and Rotary Club of Mysore Central and the complainant unnecessarily dragged “Star of Mysore” into this controversy. He further submitted that they were in no way concerned as to what transpired between the complainant and Rotary Club as they had never informed about the agreement between them. Thus they were not expected to take any precaution in publishing the photograph of Rotary Club Yatra. The respondent further stated that they did not publish the rejoinder of the complainant, as he did not provide enough evidence to claim that the mobile unit belonged to his organisation. It is the duty of every newspaper to publish any material based on its authenticity. He submitted that there is every reason to believe that the mobile unit belonged to Rotary Club of Mysore Central as it bears a huge logo and Rotarians standing nearby. The respondent further stated that the complainant in his complaint clearly mentioned that he lodged a complaint with the Police Commissioner against Rotary Club. Under such a situation, the publication of complainant’s rejoinder would tantamount to interference into the investigation. It may also jeopardise the police investigation, which may make them liable for legal action. Further, the complainant did not inform about the outcome of the investigation. He stated that the complaint is untenable and frivolous and as such complainant’s prayer cannot be considered.

A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2005.

140 Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 14.7.2005, the complainant submitted that the respondent has tried to wriggle out of the situation by stating that he did not provide enough evidence to claim that the mobile unit belonged to his organisation. Whereas the impugned photograph contained the mobile unit carrying huge logo of the Rotary Club and Rotarians standing nearby was an authentic evidence of pre-unit belonging to Rotary Club. The complainant further stated that the names of Six Rotarians were published whereas there are only five members. Where is the sixth Rotarian? Regarding the statement of the respondent that publication of complainant’s rejoinder would tantamount to interference with police investigation, the complainant submitted that this is only a cooked up reply made up for the sake of the complaint. He alleged that the respondent is very often publishing news items with photograph and interview with victim of burglary, house breaks, vehicular accidents dowry deaths and innumerable instances which are under police investigations. When such publication did not jeopardise the police investigation, publication of a rejoinder regarding caption of the photograph would in no way affected the police investigation. He alleged that non-publication of his rejoinder is against journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that the written statement of the respondent deserves to be rejected. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 22.7.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 18.3.2007 informed his inability to attend the hearing and requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of documents. The complainant also requested that the respondent may be directed to publish his rejoinder as his complaint was in respect of non-publication of rejoinder. The respondent editor also expressed his inability to appear before the Committee and requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of written statement filed earlier. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material on record opined that the prime grievance of the complainant was non-publication of his rejoinder. It also noted that as admitted by the respondent he had no personal stake in the matter and therefore he should in all fairness publish the stands of both the sides and let the reader judge the issue. It thus opined that the ends of justice would be met if the rejoinder of the complainant was carried by the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to direct the Editor, Star of Mysore to publish the rejoinder of the complainant already available with him within a fortnight

141 of the receipt of the Council’s adjudication. The editor was further directed to send the issue carrying the rejoinder, to the complainant as well as the Press Council of India for information and record. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

32) Hazi Saiyyad Atik Miyan Chishti Versus Dainik Bhaskar Ajmer, Rajasthan Ajmer, Rajasthan Complaint This complaint dated 5.12.2005 has been filed by Hazi Saiyyad Atik Miyan Chishti, Ajmer, Rajasthan against Dainik Bhaskar, Ajmer, Rajasthan alleging publication of false news items captioned ‘Active Mafia deporting Bangladeshis to Pakistan’ and ‘Bangladeshis visit Pakistan through Ajmer also” (English translation) in its issue dated 9.11.2005 and 14.11.2005. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 23.2.2006 but the same received back undelivered with remark ‘the dispatcher at Bhaskar office declined to receive; thus returned’ from the postal authority on the envelope. The notice was then served on 8.3.2006 through the District Magistrate. A reminder dated 26.5.2006 was also issued to the respondent but no response was received. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.2.2007 at Udaipur. Shri Kirti Rana, Executive Editor, appeared for Dainik Bhaskar and filed a letter dated 27.2.2007 of Manager (Admn.), Dainik Bhaskar, Ajmer, enclosing therewith a letter dated 25.2.2007 of the complainant intimating that the matter has been settled and the complainant did not want any action. The Inquiry Committee, in order to ascertain directly from the complainant the veracity of the letter dated 25.2.2007 filed by the representative of the respondent, adjourned the matter. A letter dated 9.4.2007 was issued to the complainant to confirm the contents of the letter dated 25.2.2007 whether the matter has been settled. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had not responded to Council’s letter dated 9.4.2007 for confirming the contents of his letter of 25.2.2007.

142 The Inquiry Committee thus surmised that the complainant was not inclined to pursue the complaint which had been settled. The Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

33) The Superintendent of Police & Versus Nav Bharat The Collector Gwalior Bhind, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 21.1.2005 has been jointly filed by the Superintendent of Police and the Collector, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh against Nav Bharat, a Hindi daily newspaper from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh for publication of an allegedly false and misleading news item captioned ‘ Major violence in election, more than 100 injured’ (English translation) in its issue dated 20.1.2005. According to the complainants, the impugned publication had a tendency to encourage anti-social elements and to settle selfish motive. As per the District Hospital record, 35 cases of injured people were registered and three were referred to Gwalior, submitted the complainants. They brought the facts to the notice of the respondent by endorsing a copy of their complaint-dated 21.1.2005 but the respondent paid no attention. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 18.5.2005 but received back from the postal department, which failed to deliver the same after three attempts on 26.5.2005, 27.5.2005 and 2.6.2005. The show cause notice was then sent to the District Magistrate, Bhopal for service through the process serving agency. In response, the District Magistrate, Bhopal vide letter dated 23.12.2005 furnished the new address of the respondent. Again the show cause notice was served to the respondent on 24.1.2006 at his new address. Despite the receipt of the notice, proof by the receipt of the A/D card, and issuance of a time bound reminder-dated 6.7.2006, no response was received from the respondent. Matters Adjourned The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.02.2007 at Udaipur. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava was present on behalf of Nav Bharat, Gwalior,

143 while the complainant remained unrepresented. The representative of the respondent filed an undated letter of the resident editor, Dainik Nav Bharat, Gwalior, submitted therein that the editor and the correspondent of Dainik Nav Bharat who published the impugned report have left the newspaper’s employment and, therefore, the respondent was not able to take their comments in the aforesaid issue. The Inquiry Committee was not convinced with the defence taken by the respondent editor, as it felt that a newspaper establishment enjoys a continuous entity and change of personnel would not absolve it of its responsibility, and directed it to file its written statement in the matter. As the complainant was also not present, the Committee decided to adjourn the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. A letter dated 9.4.2007 was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Nav Bharat to file the written statement as per directions of the Inquiry Committee. Response awaited. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainants had neither requested for adjournment nor they represented before the Committee to pursue their complaint. The complainants remained absent on last occasion also. In the circumstances the Committee felt that they were not interested to pursue the case. Therefore, even while the Committee reiterated its earlier observations regarding the responsibility of a newspaper for the contents notwithstanding change in personnel, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non- prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

34) The President Versus Dainik Pratidin Jamaat-E-Islami Hind Guwahati, Assam Guwahati, Assam Complaint This undated complaint, received on 21.11.2005 has been filed by Mr. M. Rahmatulla Sharif, President, Jamaat-E-Islami Hind, Northeast Zone, Guwahati,

144 Assam against ‘Dainik Pratidin’, Guwahati for publication of allegedly false and baseless news item captioned ‘Armed organisation may create Jehadi also’, ‘Arrangement for important meeting of Jamaat-E-Islami Hind in Capital City’ (English translation) in its issue dated 8.9.2005. It has been alleged in the impugned news item that a small section of people were trying to expand the activities of the organisation. From the reliable sources it has come to the notice that a section of people are trying to organise an important meeting in the city under Jamaat–E–Islami Hind. It is also alleged that Jamaat-E-Islami Hind, which had linked with Al-Quida, created SIMI and the same was banned in Uttar Pradesh. It was further alleged that three persons, who were known to have engaged in the activities of Islamic extremist organisations were pressed to tour all the districts of the State inviting select few people for the said meeting. The complainant has submitted that a clarification against the impugned news item was issued to the respondent and sent by fax on the same day i.e. 8.9.2005, followed by hand delivery on 10.9.2005 and by Courier Service on 15.9.2005 and again by Regd. Post on 2.10.2005. But neither the clarification was published nor any reply was received from the respondent. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 3.3.2006 and despite a time bound reminder-dated 26.5.2006, the respondent did not file his written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Mohammad Tahir appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Dainik Pratidin. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in the oral submission reiterated the complaint and submitted that the newspaper by publishing the impugned report dated 8.9.2005 had created lot of misunderstanding in the minds of the people. He added that the clarification sent to the newspaper was also not been published. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent neither filed the written statement nor was he represented before it. The Inquiry Committee took a serious view of the callous attitude of the respondent in not respondent to the Council’s show cause notice and for non appearance

145 before it. On merits, the Committee observed that the respondent newspaper Dainik Pratidin published the news without due verification that could cause create misunderstanding about the complainant organisation among the public. It compounded the offence by not publishing the rejoinder of the complainant. It, thus, breached the norms of journalistic conduct with regard to pre-publication verification and right to reply. Therefore while upholding the complaint, the Committee felt that to meet the ends of justice the respondent should publish the clarification of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to direct the Editor, Dainik Pratidin to publish the rejoinder of the complainant within two weeks from the receipt of the Council’s adjudication and forward the clippings to the Council as well as the complainant for record. The Inquiry Committee further opined that this is a fit case of administering strict warning to the Editor, Dainik Pratidin for publishing the impugned report and violating the above noted norms of journalistic conduct. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council accordingly.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

35) Mr. Prasana Kumar Versus Incredible India AGP Photo Bank Durga Das Publications New Delhi New Delhi

Complaint

Mr. Prasana Kumar, AGP Photo Bank, New Delhi has filed this undated complaint, received in the Council on 30.3.2006 against Durga Das Publications, the publisher of Incredible India, for alleged cheating and breach of trust.

According to the complainant-proprietor of M/s. AGP Photo Bank, he has been in the business of providing pictorial material to various publications for one time use only wherein publications used the picture for one time in particular issue only as agreed upon the returned the material along with payments as per agreed amount and terms and conditions. Consequently he has supplied 72 transparencies of photographs to the respondent-Durga Das Publications, out of which 31 transparencies had been used in a monthly magazine called INCREDIBLE INDIA, published and produced for the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. The complainant has alleged that none of his picture gave credit to the respective photographers while in few pictures they have given the credit to the complainant’s photo-agency only. He further alleged that the respondent refused to return the

146 original pictures back to him, which are the property of the complainant, as per Copy Rights Act and added that the respondent also refused to make payment for the published pictures. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 21.7.2006. Written Statement The respondent, Executive Editor of Incredible India, Ms. Lotica Thakur has filed her written statement dated 11.08.2006 and submitted that all the accusations labelled by the complainant-Mr. Prasana Kumar, are false and baseless. The respondent has submitted that credit line was discussed prior to publication and the complainant asked them to given credit to his photo agency. While there is no tangent proof establishing this, but logically speaking, there is no reason why a publication would give credit to a photo agency but not to the photographer though it does not make any difference to them. She has stated that the images had been returned wherever transparencies were received and alleged that the copy of letter that the complainant enclosed with the complaint before the Press Council to establish his request for return of material from the respondent, are fictitious and were never sent to them. On the matter of payment, the respondent stated that the images that the complainant claimed to be under his copyright belong to a Delhi based photographer, Mr. Anuj Singh. She has added that Mr. Singh approached them after the publication of the images-in-question to inform that the images provided by the complainant- Mr. Prasana Kumar have been shot by Mr. Anuj Singh and have been used without requisite permission or monetary arrangement. Hence there has been no breach of trust stated the respondent and added that it is unfortunate that the Ministry of Tourism and the Press Council of India have been involved in the complainant’s attempt to manipulate the respondent- Durga Das Publications into paying him by garnering support from various authorities. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 24.8.2006 has submitted that the contention of the respondent’s written statement that he had asked the respondent to give credit to his photo agency is baseless as in challan it is clearly mentioned and ticked that credit line must read photographer/AGP Photo Bank. He further stated that the images have not still been returned to him by the respondent. With regards to the photographer Mr. Anuj Singh, the complainant has submitted that Mr. Singh was working on the assignment exclusively for AGP Photo Bank and the images are the sole property of AGP Photo Bank, for which,

147 as per agreement, the payments were made to the photographer in cash and by cheque as well. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 4.9.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Prasana Kumar, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he operated a photo agency and had sent 72 transparencies of photographs to the Durga Das Publications. The rates were fixed for each transparency, but the magazine neither paid any amount, has returned the transparencies, nor gave the credit line to his AGP Photo Bank while publishing some of the photographs in the magazine. The complainant added that he had approached the court of law and the matter was pending in court. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the complainant noted that the complainant had already moved the court of law and the matter had become sub- judice. It thus recommended to the Council to drop the proceedings in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

36) Dr. G S Rajagopal Versus 1) PTI Special Secretary to the 2) The Tribune Government of India 3) Rashtriya Sahara Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi Complaint Dr. G S Rajagopal, Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi has filed this complaint dated 19/5/2006 through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting against the PTI, The Tribune and Rashtriya Sahara with regard to an allegedly incorrect/false report provided by the PTI and carried by The Tribune and Rashtriya Sahara in its issues dated18/5/2006. In the impugned reports it was stated that the convoy of the Chief Minister of Manipur was attacked by Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) in Thou bal district, Manipur on May

148 17, 2006. According to the complainant Special Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, on verification from the State Government, it had been learnt that the convoy of Chief Minister was never attacked. The State Government had issued a Press Release on May 17, 2006 denying any attack on the convoy of the Chief Minister by the PLA, which was conveyed to media by Director (PR) in the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 18, 2006. The complainant submitted that no newspaper issued any clarification. PTI also had not thought it fit to clarify the situation or contacting the State Government before issuing the news item. The complainant requested to take necessary action in the matter. Show cause notices to all the three respondents were issued on 8.6.2006. Written Statement of The Tribune The Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh in his written statement dated June 16, 2006 has submitted that the report in question was supplied by PTI and was published in good faith. The respondent has further stated that there is no system to verifying the reports sent by news agencies like the PTI, particularly when they emanate from far-off places. He has submitted that had they received any clarification from the Government of Manipur, the same would have been published. Written Statement of PTI Shri M Shakeel Ahmed, Editor, PTI in his written statement dated 19/7/ 2006 submitted that the cause of the complaint is their report from Imphal on May 17, 2007. Their initial report based on information given by official sources stated that the CM of Manipur had escaped unhurt when armed militants ambushed his convoy in the interior Thoubal district. They did an updater on the story, which said that the CM had escaped unhurt after militants ambushed security men guarding the route of his convoy and the same was again on the information from official sources as mentioned in the report. The respondent submitted that till the filing of the report no one in authority in Manipur had formally given any details of the incident to the media. Later the Inspector-General of Police, incharge of law and order met the reporters on that day and confirmed that militants had opened fire on security personnel guarding the route of the CM 20 minutes after he had passed leading to a gunfight in which an ultra was killed and a security man was injured and the PTI carried the details of the incident as given by the IG as its final report on the incident. The respondent submitted that they had carried the official version of the State Government in their final version on the incident. According to the respondent, the Press Release is signed by a Superintendent of Police, an officer much junior to an Inspector General of Police, which makes no sense. The respondent submitted that on the basis of the facts explained by him the complaint lacks merit and substance. He has further submitted that the issue on which the complaint has been made pertains to something that happened in

149 Manipur, which has a popularly elected Government. If anyone had a grievance about how the incident was report, it should be the Government of Manipur. The respondent also raised question about the locus of the Ministry of I&B and requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Written Statement of Rashtriya Sahara Shri V K Singh, Rashtriya Sahara in his written statement dated 6/3/2007 submitted that the news was provided by Press Trust of India for publication. The respondent submitted that the news in question was published in almost all prominent newspapers. He has further submitted that no press release was received by them from the State Government. The respondent requested the Council to set aside the complaint. Copies of these written statement of the respondents were forwarded to the complainant Dr G S Rajagopal, Special Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant authorities. S/Shri V.S.Chandrashekhar, Executive Editor, Press Trust of India, Abhijit Chatterji, News Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh and Shri V.K.Singh, Deputy Manager of Rashtriya Sahara appeared before the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri V.S.Chandrashekhar appearing for PTI submitted that the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting or even from the Ministry of Home Affairs had no locus to file the present complaint when the Government of Manipur did not object to the news. On merits, the PTI representative submitted that the PTI had reported on the basis of official briefing by I.G.P., Manipur. The PTI updated the story by correcting its earlier events as the story unfolded. The representative of PTI reiterated earlier submissions and stressed that there was another statement of S.P., but the PTI relied on the version of Inspector General of Police since the PTI was not expected to verify from the rank below that of an officer reported upon who was senior in position. The representatives of The Tribune and Rashtriya Sahara submitted before the Inquiry Committee that the reports sent by PTI were picked up and published in normal course, keeping in mind the credibility of PTI, there was no reason for prior verification or doubting its authenticity. The respondent of both the newspapers submitted that they missed the late night update due to inadvertence and if the government wanted a correction, the newspapers could do so.

150 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments put forth before it. It noted that the focus was required on two primary issues: one, the locus of the complainant and second, the correctness of the news of such vital importance having a bearing on national security and threats from the ultras. On the first issue, it noted the stand of the respondents that the Govt. of Manipur as the affected party had not come forth to lodge the complaint, and observing that there was enough force in the arguments, decided to leave it at this. On merits, the Committee observed that after releasing the impugned news report, the PTI also updated the earlier news as the matter was clarified. Thus, the Inquiry Committee opined that PTI as a wire agency could not be held guilty of misinformation as its story was based on facts available at the relevant point of time. As regards the other two respondents, namely, The Tribune and Rashtriya Sahara, the Inquiry Committee noted that they completely relied on the credibility of the PTI to carry its report, but missed the updated release of PTI. The Committee felt that the facts related in the news were of such importance that the newspapers should have been on guard for any updates on the issue even if they come in late. To this extent, they did not exercise the necessary vigilance but no deliberate falsehood could be attributed to them on this count. Sufficient would be a word of caution from this peer body to be more vigilant in future and ensure that a system is in place to keep track of updates of important news reports whether given out by their own reporters or news agencies. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the case with the above. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. 37) Dr. Jagwinder Singh Versus The Editor Medical Officer, PCMS-I Daily Ajit I/c Mini PHC, Talwandi Kalan Jallandhar Ludhiana, Punjab Punjab Complaint This complaint dated 16.4.2005 has been filed by Dr. Jagwinder Singh, Medical Officer, Government Civil Hospital, Ludhiana against Daily Ajit, Jallandhar for publication of an allegedly wrong reporting captioned “Doctor neglected the MLA” in its issue dated 12.4.2005. In the news item it has been reported that Shri Malkiat Singh Dhaka, an MLA and Ex-Minister was shocked to see that the Medical Officer of the Government Civil Hospital reached late at the Polio Camp, which was to be

151 inaugurated by the said MLA. On questioning by the MLA the Doctor replied that he is a government servant and not a servant of MLA. The newspaper also reported that it has to be seen as to how Health and Family Welfare Minister will deal with the Doctor for insult of the MLA. It has also been reported that they tried to contact the Doctor over the telephone but contact could not be made. The complainant has submitted that Pulse Polio Campaign was inaugurated on 10.4.2005 by the President, Municipal Committee, Mullanpur, Dhaka (Ludhiana). The event was widely reported in media due to which local MLA Shri Malkiat Singh Dhaka got unhappy with him because the President of Municipal Committee belongs to a political rival group. The complainant has submitted that when he was doing door to door Pulse Polio Campaign on the next day i.e. 11.4.2005, he received the phone call that Shri Malkiat Singh Dhaka local MLA wanted to visit the Hospital for re-inauguration, he reached the hospital and kept waiting. Then he received another phone call that the MLA directly reached a local Polio Booth at bus stand, the complainant reached there as soon as he could. The MLA was furious because he believed that the complainant deliberately got late. He used rough language that he will get the complainant transferred and asked the complainant to “get out” (get lost). The complainant said that the MLA should not speak in that manner, as the complainant is a government servant not his (MLA’s) personal servant. At that point of time the supporters of MLA (12-15 in number) threatened him “Assean Tainu Set Karangey” (we will fix you). The complainant has submitted that the Press Correspondent of Daily Ajit deliberately did not take his version and attributed statement in the impugned news report that was never uttered by him. The complainant has submitted that the editor did not respond to his letter. Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Daily Ajit on 26.12.2005. The Managing Editor, Daily Ajit, in his written statement dated 12.1.2006 has submitted that perusal of the complaint and the alleged incident as narrated by the complainant and as detailed by the Press Reporter of Daily Ajit would reveal that it is an admitted fact that the incident reported did happen. The respondent has submitted that there was a verbal dual between the complainant and the MLA. The respondent has submitted that the only complaint of the complainant is that his part of the incident was not reported by the correspondent of Daily Ajit, even the complainant does not deny the incident. The respondent has submitted that the earlier letter did not reach and the moment the fact came to the knowledge of the management, the concerned press correspondent has been cautioned to make the report of both sides in future reporting. The respondent has submitted that the Daily Ajit has full regard to the dignity of the complainant.

152 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.2.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. As the service was also not complete, the Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity of hearing to the parties, decided to adjourn the matter. No Appearance The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the parties did not enter appearance despite service of the notice on the last occasion also. It further noted that the respondent editor in his written statement stated that as soon as the Management came to know the facts, the concerned reporter was cautioned to be careful in future. A copy of the written statement was sent to the complainant who did not file any reply. Therefore, in the absence of the complainant, no further action was warranted in the matter. It recommended to the Council to close the case accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. 38) Shri Ramesh Lalwani Versus The Editor New Delhi The Hindustan Times New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 7.3.2006 has been filed by Shri Ramesh Lalwani, Delhi against “The Hindustan Times” for publication of the photograph taken by him of the Safdarjung Tomb with the caption “Restoration hope for tomb” in its issue dated 11.12.2005. The complainant has alleged that the impugned photograph of Safdarjung tomb with the article constitutes copyright infringement as his original has been down loaded from Internet and used without his permission. He has further alleged that this act of the respondent constitutes violation of journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication on 26.12.2005 but the respondent did not give any reply. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

153 Written Statement Show cause notice to the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times was issued on 5.12.2006 but no written statement has been filed by him despite having received the show cause notice on 9.12.2006 as confirmed by the postal authorities. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Ramesh Lalwani appeared in person while Shri Gaurav Agarwal and Ms. Prerna Mehta, advocates appeared for The Hindustan Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his complaint that The Hindustan Times had down loaded his photograph of Safdurjung Tomb held by him in copyright and put it in 11 December 2005 issue of The Hindustan Times without his permission. It was also carried in the web edition of the paper where The Hindustan Times itself claimed credit for it. The complainant requested for compensation of Rs. 5,000 and re-publishing the photograph of Safdurjung Tomb with due credit to him. The respondent contended that the complainant cannot seek compensation through the forum of the Press Council. The record of the photograph and the source of publication was not traceable because it was an old issue and the concerned reporter was no longer in their employment. The respondent stated that the newspaper can acknowledge the photograph in favour of the complainant and give due credit. However, he did not have any instructions in respect of compensation. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the respondent The Hindustan Times had not been able to substantiate that the impugned photograph was work of their staff photographer. Prima facie the Committee was satisfied that the complainant hold the rights to the photograph and it was expected that as per universally accepted norm, the photograph would have been carried with due credit to and consent of the photographer. There was however no reason to doubt the bonafide of the newspaper while the concerned reporter had left their employment. It, therefore, directed the respondent The Hindustan Times to duly acknowledge and added the photo to the complainant and pay such compensation as may be settled between the parties. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

154 39) The Director Versus The Hindustan Times Information & Public English Daily Relations Department Lucknow Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Complaint The Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has filed this complaint dated 29.9.2005 against the “Hindustan Times”, Lucknow for publication of allegedly false and objectionable news item captioned “12 teachers hurt in lathi charge” in its issue dated 27.7.2005 alleging lathi charge on teachers demanding salary and regularisation of services when policemen swung into action and beat up teachers. It was carried alongwith photograph depicting teachers grappling with cops in front of Vidhan Bhawan. According to the complainant the aforesaid news item was totally false and misleading and there was no lathi charge against the teachers. It was stated that the Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh took cognizance of the report and issued a Press Release giving clarification of the incident on 27.7.2005 but the respondent did not publish the same. A letter dated 29.7.2005 was also written to the Resident Editor, The Hindustan Times by Shri Alok Sinha, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh requesting her to publish clarification that there was no lathi charge on the teachers, and that in fact one teacher named Shri Anil Kumar who was fasting, fell on the ground while teachers were marching in front of Vidhan Sabha. He was taken to hospital and after treatment discharged. The medical report stated that the cause of illness was dehydration. The clarification pointed out that there was no lathi charge and even the photograph accompanying the report did not establish this. The clarification was not published by respondent editor. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times on 1.6.2006. The Senior Resident Editor, The Hindustan Times, Lucknow in his written statement dated 19.4.2007 apologized for the delay in response and submitted that whatever was published in the impugned news item was based on reliable information collected by the concerned reporter/correspondent and statements given by the injured. The report was thus in public interest and published after careful consideration. The respondent editor further submitted that other newspapers like Indian Express has also published a similar news item under the caption ‘And here’, “Subject experts” get caned by cops and was true and in public interest. The said incident took place before the general public in open on 26.7.05.

155 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.5.2007 for their information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Girish Chandra appeared for the complainant. Shri Gaurav Agarwal and Ms. Prerna Mehta, advocates appeared for the respondent, The Hindustan Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative reiterated the complaint and prayed that the press release given by the Department by way of clarification should have been published by The Hindustan Times. The learned counsel for the respondent agreed to publish the version of the Government, if given afresh, as per norms of right of reply. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee in view of the offer of the learned counsel for the respondent to publish the version of the government directed the complainant government to send afresh its version to the respondent newspaper and the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times to publish the same within 15 days of its receipt. The respondent was further directed to send clippings of the clarification so published to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with above directions. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

40) Shri Girish Kumar Gupta Versus 1. The Editor Begusarai, Bihar Dainik Jagran Patna, Bihar

2. The Editor Dainik Aaj Patna, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 13.2.2006 has been filed by Shri Girish Kumar Gupta, Begusarai, Bihar against ‘Dainik Jagran’, and “Dainik Aaj”, Patna alleging non- publication of his press releases, issued with regard to court order on his service dispute and regarding his complaint made to National Human Rights Commission.

156 The complainant had filed a case of promotion/pay scale against the Government of Bihar before Hon’ble High Court of Bihar, Patna, which vide its decision directed the Dairy Development Corporation, Bihar to issue all pensionary benefits to the complainant. Pursuant to the Court decision as well as National Human Rights Commission’s directions to the Superintendent of Police, Katihar on the complainant’s complaint, the complainant sent press releases for publication with supporting documents i.e. the court order, decrees and Commission’s order but neither the respondents published it nor returned the material. The complainant alleged that the respondent consigned the material to the dustbin. The complainant had also informed that various newspapers had published the said news item in their respective issues. Comments Comments of the respondents were invited on 22.5.2006. The respondent “Dainik Aaj” in his comments dated 8.6.2006 while denying having received any press release/documents cited discretionary power of an editor to choose the material for publication. The respondent submitted that on receiving the press release, it had been published in their newspaper issue dated 1.6.2006. The respondent “Dainik Jagran” in his comments dated 14.7.2006 submitted that it is the discretion and policy decision of the newspaper to publish or not to publish any material/news. The respondent, Dainik Jagran denied the allegation of tearing the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. However, they admitted that the complainant’s press release was not carried, as the newspaper was not bound to publish it. The respondent alleged that the complaint is pre-judiced. Counter Comments The copies of the comments were forwarded to the complainant on 7.7.2006 and 3.8.2006 respectively for his counter comments. The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.7.2006 to the comments of “Dainik Aaj” submitted that neither he was satisfied with publication of his clarification nor the same was sufficient. The complainant alleged that the respondent suppressed the news and published his clarification only after when the Press Council has taken cognisance on his complaint with a view to defend themselves. The complainant further alleged that the statement of the Dainik Aaj that they did not receive his press release is false. The complainant in his counter comments dated 17.8.2006 on the comments of “Dainik Jagran” denied the respondent’s statement that he was pre-judiced. He further submitted that the respondent expressing his regret, is sufficient to admit his guilty. He submitted that the respondent in his comments alleged false allegation against him.

157 The complainant has expressed his dissatisfaction over both the actions and expressed desire to proceed with the matter. Written Statement Show cause notices were issued on 8.12.2006 to both the respondent editors Dainik Aaj and Dainik Jagran. The respondent editor, Dainik Aaj in his written statement dated 23.12.2006 has submitted that it took the matter seriously and published the clarification of the complainant in their issue dated 1.6.2006. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 10.1.2007. The respondent editor, Dainik Jagran in his written statement dated 3.1.2007 has submitted that they had already expressed his regrets for not being able to publish the complainant’s press release. The respondent further submitted that the complainant might meet him personally if he was dissatisfied. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.1.2007. Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 12.2.2007 has shown his dissatisfaction on the written statement of both the respondent editors and sought action against them. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Rajeev Ranjan, representative appeared for the complainant while Shri B.K. Mishra, Legal advisor from Dainik Jagran and Shri Sanjay Rai, Sr. Correspondent, Aaj, Hindi Daily from Dainik Aaj appeared from the respondent newspapers. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that his complaint was in respect of non- publication of press release by both the respondent newspapers sent by him. The complainant requested for action against the respondent for not carrying his press release. The representative of respondent newspapers reiterated the submission made in their counter as well as the written statement. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the parties

158 noted that the complainant did not enjoy any vested right for publication of his press release and that it was the prerogative of the editor of a newspaper to select the material to be published in the columns of a newspaper. The Council has already framed guidelines i.e. norm no.25(i) that “A newspaper is not bound to return unsolicited material sent for consideration of publication. However, when the same is accompanied by stamped envelope, the paper should make all efforts to return it”. Yet the steps taken by the respondents on receipt of notice from the Council were sufficient. It, therefore, decided to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

41) Prof. K.L. Bhatia Versus The Editor Prant Sangh Chalak Dainik Jagran Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh Jammu Jammu & Kashmir Jammu & Kashmir Complaint This complaint dated 10.3.2006 has been filed by Prof. K.L. Bhatia, Prant Sangh Chalak, Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Jammu and Kashmir against Dainik Jagran, Jammu alleging publication of false, concocted and baseless news item captioned “JAMMU SHOULD GET REGIONAL COUNCIL: SANGH” in its issue dated 29.9.2005. It was reported in the impugned news item that the RSS will not fully support the demand for making Jammu a separate state and Sar Sangh Chalak of RSS, Shri K.S. Sudershan has supported the suggestion of providing Regional Council to Jammu and status to Kashmir. The complainant has alleged that the news item was published to spread misinformation in the public at large opposed to the well known and consistent stand of the RSS on division of Jammu and Kashmir State into Jammu State, Kashmir State and Ladakh region to constitute an Union Territory. According to the complainant, the RSS Chief Shri K.S. Sudershan visited Jammu in the month of September 2005 and the complainant accompanied him every meeting, in his capacity as the Regional Convenor of the Sangh. He has stated that in the meetings held by Shri K.S. Sudershan, no discussion took place with regard to the stand of separate Jammu State in any form nor anybody amongst participants expressed doubts about the ill consequences in case Jammu State was formed. The complainant has submitted that the stand of the

159 RSS was neither proposed to be diluted or abandoned by Shri K.S. Sudershan nor was anything said by him which tantamounts to support regional council for Jammu province as has been imputed in the news item. He has alleged that the impugned news item was false, baseless and concocted. He has also alleged that the respondent editor has committed professional misconduct by publishing the aforesaid irresponsible and incorrect news item in the newspaper. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent to the impugned news item on 30.9.2005 and on receiving no response, issued a legal notice dated 5.11.2005. In response of legal notice respondent has stated vide his letter dated 25.11.2005 that the letter dated 30.9.2005 was not received by his office and as such he is not in a position to give proper reply. He has also stated that in the notice dated 5.11.2005 the complainant has not mentioned the portion of news item which allegedly was incorrect according to him. He has requested them to send a copy of the said letter so as to enable him to give proper reply to him. The complainant has forwarded all the documents and details of the matter as demanded on 18.12.2005. He claimed before the Council that although the respondent time and again made positive gestures he failed to redress neither their grievances nor they received any reply from the respondent. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 2.6.2006. Inspite of the issuance of a time bound reminder dated 19.1.2007, no written statement was filed by the respondent in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri R. Gogha and Ms. Kiran Arora appeared for the complainant and Shri B.K. Mishra, Legal Advisor, Dainik Jagran appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Dainik Jagran reported in its Jammu edition dated 29.9.2005 a stand totally opposite to that of the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh. The complainant submitted that the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh was in favour of separate statehood for Jammu and Union Territory status for Ladakh. But the respondent Dainik Jagran attributed to it a view diametrically opposite saying that the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh will not support making Jammu a separate State. The complainant requested that the newspaper might be asked to publish the version of Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh. The respondent submitted that letter addressed to editor by the complainant was duly replied by Dainik Jagran on 25th November 2005 and an offer was made

160 in the reply that version may be sent so that an effective reply could be given. The respondent submitted that the newspaper is ready to publish the version, if given by the complainant in a proper form. The complainant made a counter submission and stated that the resolution of Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh given to the paper was their version. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee in view of the offer made out by the representative of the respondent to publish the clarification of the complainant, recommend to the Council to direct the complainant to send a specific version to the respondent newspaper with a further direction to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Jammu to publish the same prominently in Jammu edition of the newspaper. The respondent may send the clipping of the clarification so published to the complainant as well as the Council for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

42) Senior Superintendent of Police Versus The Editor Jammu State Times Jammu & Kashmir Jammu Complaint The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu has filed this complaint dated 15th January 2005 against State Times, Jammu for publication of allegedly false and baseless news item captioned “Two Kashmiri girls, boy arrested from Diamond Hotel” in its issue dated 18th December 2004. It was reported in the news item that two Kashmiri girls and a boy suspected of having close links with LeT outfit were arrested from Hotel Diamond in a raid conducted by the sleuths of Special Operation Group (SoG). Sources informed that the accused had checked in the hotel stating that they had come from Srinagar and would be leaving for Chandigarh in the morning. Police teams barged into the hotel after specific inputs and arrested the trio. Police recovered rupees ten thousand from the possession of the boy working reportedly in a departmental store in Srinagar. The complainant has submitted that the news item is totally false and baseless. The complainant has submitted that he issued a letter dated 23.12.2004 to the respondent editor, State Times to rebut the news item and to clarify the news to the general public but received no response.

161 No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, State Times but the respondent has not filed his written statement in the matter. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. Shri Narender Singh, Marketing Manager, appeared for the respondent newspaper while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The representative of the respondent newspaper filed a letter from the editor stating that on receipt of notice of hearing, they had approached the SSP, Jammu, who had denied having lodged any complaint with the Council. In his oral submissions, he submitted that the written statement could not be filed because they did not have the copy of the complaint. He requested that a copy of the complaint may be supplied to him. On perusal of the record, the Committee noted that the statement of the representative of the respondent was contrary to what the record showed. The respondent had duly received a copy of the complaint. However, it felt necessary to verify the statement of the SSP as reported by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent’s representative was provided a copy of the complaint with the direction to file written statement at the earliest. The matter was adjourned for ascertaining facts from the SSP, Jammu. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to both the parties vide Council’s letter dated 24.7.2006. But there was no response. Further Adjournments The matter was listed and adjourned on 22.8.2006, 17.10.2006, 28.3.2007 and 4.6.2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Kirtiman Singh, Advocate, appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of The State Times, Jammu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant asserted that SSP, Jammu, had filed this complaint before the Council, it was wrong on the part of the respondent to say that the complainant had denied having filed any complaint before the Council. The complainant’s counsel reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the report had an effect of creating false notion among the public

162 and adversely affected the national security by provoking the militant groups. He prayed that the Council may take stringent action against The State Times for his totally false report. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed its strong displeasure over the lack of defence on merits from the respondent by not filing the written statement and making wrong statement before the Committee that the SSP had denied making the complaint. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant Police Department had refuted and denied the incident reported in the 18.12.2004 issue of the State Times of Jammu regarding so-called arrest of LeT associated Kashmiri boys and girls. The absence of written statement showed that paper had no defence to offer. If the newspaper had received any such report from any quarter, it was incumbent on it to have properly verified the same from authentic sources and only then to have proceeded with the publication, particularly in view of the impact the news could have had in a state widely infested by militant and anti national groups. By failing to do so, the State Times abjured its responsibility and even duty towards the country’s security and independence. Therefore, the Committee held that this gross abdication of responsibility deserved strongest censure of the Council and stoppage of government advertisements to the paper for a specified period. It recommended that the adjudication may be sent to the State Government for specific release to media. The adjudication may also be forwarded to the DAVP with reference to clause 18 of the Central Advertisement Policy and to the RNI, Directorate of Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and District Magistrate, Jammu, for such action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

43) Smt. Atul Sharma Versus The Editor Secretary Punjab Kesari, Hindi daily Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Samiti Delhi Meerut, U.P.

This adjudication is a review adjudication of the Press Council in the complaint of Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary, Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Versus The Editor, Punjab Kesari, Hindi Daily, Delhi.

163 Case Summary This complaint dated 1.3.2004 had been filed by Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary, Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Kendra, Meerut against Punjab Kesari, Hindi Daily, Delhi edition for publication of objectionable news items captioned “Shiksha ke Padadhikariyon Mein Ghamasan”, and “Shasan Se Millne Wali Panch Lakh Ki Rakam Par Rok Ke Sanket” in its issues dated 12.2.2004 and 13.2.2004 respectively. In response to the Show-cause notice dated 16.6.2004, the Counsel for the respondent in his written statement dated 30.6.2004 submitted that the complainant was misleading the Council and her allegations had been based on wrong facts. The news item dated 12.2.2004 was published after verifying the facts and on the basis of a Press Note issued by Shri O.P. Singh, President, Shiksha Prasar Samiti. The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006 and 4.12.2006. The Inquiry Committee held that respondent newspaper had published the impugned news report in breach of the norms in respect of pre-publication verification and travelled beyond the contents in making reckless allegation in the headline of misappropriation when no amount was released by the government. The rejoinder sent by the complainant and also provided by the Council with the show cause notice had not been published. The offer made at this stage for publication of contradiction was not significant as the basic tenet of journalism require prompt action to redress the grievance of the affected person. The Inquiry Committee therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to censure the editor, Punjab Kesari, Hindi Daily, Delhi for publishing the impugned news report without proper verification and subsequently denying right of reply to the complainant. Subsequently a fax- affidavit withdrawing the complaint was received on 26.3.2007 at 14.10 pm (4 days earlier to the Council Meeting on 30.3.2007). The fax came from Delhi Ph No 27198701 i.e. the office of Punjab Kesari. The affidavit dated 26.3.2007 in original was also received in the Secretariat of the Council on 28.3.07. In the affidavit the complainant, Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary, Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Samiti expressed a desire to withdraw the complaint. The Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and its recommendations. However, in view of request of the complainant, Council decided to allow the matter to be withdrawn. Thus the matter was disposed of by the Council on 30.3.2007. The decision was communicated to the parties vide Council’s letter dated 27.4.2007. Further Development Responding to decision of the Council, the complainant in her letter dated 10.5.2007 stated that she had not withdrawn the complaint and the said affidavit

164 appeared to have been sent by the Respondent, Shri Brijesh Gupta, Incharge of Punjab Kesari at Meerut, which is false. The letter was supported by an affidavit dated 9.5.2007 with reference to the statement made in the adjudication of the Council dated 30.3.2007 that she had filed an affidavit dated 26.3.2007 with the request to drop the proceedings on the ground of complaint being withdrawn. The complainant has requested the Council to review its adjudication dated 30th March, 2007 on the following grounds: (a) The complainant has denied having filed any affidavit dated 26.3.2007 requesting to drop the proceedings being withdrawn. (b) The complainant has alleged that the respondent, Punjab Kesari had deliberately and fraudulently filed affidavit dated 26.3.2007 on her behalf to mislead the Council. (c) The complainant has requested the Council to get inquired the affidavit dated 26.3.2007 filed by the respondent, Punjab Kesari claiming that she had requested to drop the proceedings being withdrawn. (d) The complainant while filing a fresh affidavit dated 9.5.2007 has requested the Council to take action against the respondent, Punjab Kesari. Hon’ble Chairman, on consideration of the matter on record opined that the allegation of allegedly fraudent affidavit which caused the Council to close the complaint as withdrawn is a very serious charge and the decision needs to be reviewed. A copy of the complainant’s letter dated 10.5.2007 was forwarded to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari on 6.7.2007 to file reply by 20.7.2007 particularly in the light of his forwarding a fax affidavit dated 26.3.2007 on behalf of the complainant allegedly withdrawing the complaint. Respondent’s Reply Dated July 9, 2007 The respondent Director, Punjab Kesari vide his letter dated 9.7.2007 informed that the copy of the affidavit sent to the Council by fax on 26.3.2007 was the one as was received by them from Shri Brijesh Gupta, their reporter at Meerut, which according to him has been received by him from Smt. Atul Sharma. He had also confirmed that the original had duly been sent to the Council by her. The respondent submitted that they had only forwarded the copy received by them. According to the respondent the affidavit as has been filed by Smt. Atul Sharma is and should be genuine and to deny the same is only her afterthought with a view to complicate the matter. It is a serious matter and needs to be investigated by the Press Council of India.

165 Complainant’s Fax Dated 19.7.2007 A fax dated 19.7.2007 was received on the letter head of the complainant informing that Shri Brijesh Gupta, local correspondent of the Punjab Kesari is solely responsible for publication of the defamatory impugned news item and had also filed false affidavit under her signature to get rid of the instant complaint. It was further mentioned in the fax that the complainant has no grievance against the Punjab Kesari as Shri Brijesh Gupta is solely responsible for the whole episode. The complainant also requested to close the case against the Punjab Kesari. Fax from complainant was unsolicited. Similar fax came few days in advance when the Council Meeting was scheduled to consider the Inquiry Committee recommendations. The Council in its meeting held on 27.7.2007 at New Delhi noted that after the matter was disposed of by the Council on 30.3.2007 on the basis of an affidavit through the respondent newspaper dated 26.3.2007 intimating therein that the complainant wished to withdraw the complaint, the complainant in her letter dated 10.5.2007 informed that she had not withdrawn the complaint and the said affidavit was fake. The Council in order to ascertain the veracity of the affidavit decided to reopen the case and refer the same to the Inquiry Committee which had heard this case earlier. Accordingly the matter was reopened and the parties were informed vide office letter dated 16.8.2007 about it. The complainant was directed to appear personally before the Inquiry Committee and make submissions on issue of filing the affidavit. In the meantime another letter-dated 1.8.2007 was received from the complainant informing that the affidavit dated 7.3.2007 had been filed by her only and she has no complaint against the Punjab Kesari or Shri Brijesh Gupta. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary, Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri A.K. Jain and Ashok Sharma appeared for Punjab Kesari. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the affidavit dated 26.3.2007 and letter dated 1.8.2007 were totally fictitious and her signatures over them were fake. The complainant filed a certificate to this effect before the Inquiry Committee during the hearing on the direction of the Inquiry Committee. She further submitted that her case was that the Punjab Kesari had published false news and she had requested for publication of a small clarification but the respondent did not publish the same.

166 The counsel for the respondent submitted that they had removed the said reporter and published about it in 30.3.2007 issue. The complainant added that the reporter, Brijesh Gupta was still working in the Punjab Kesari. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted from the clipping produced by the respondent that the reporter, Shri Brijesh Gupta, who had caused publication of impugned news item, was not sacked but another reporter Shri Shekhar Sharma was removed. It strongly condemned the Punjab Kesari for misleading the Council. The Inquiry Committee also took on record the letter dated 31.8.2007 signed by the complainant Smt. Atul Sharma in the presence of the Inquiry Committee stating therein that the affidavit dated 26.3.2007 and letter dated 1.8.2007 were fake and forged documents which were filed by the respondent to get the matter closed. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that it was the responsibility of the newspaper to have verified the authenticity of the affidavit dated 26.3.2007 sent by their reporter and take action against the reporter. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to reiterate its recommendation to censure the editor, Punjab Kesari, Hindi Daily, Delhi and inform the DAVP, RNI and State I&PRD of it. It further recommended that a complaint against Punjab Kesari, Hindi Daily, Delhi be filed before Delhi Police for inquiry and action on its forgery before this quasi-judicial authority. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

Press and Defamation

44) Shri Prafulbhai N. Thakkar Versus The Editor Ahmedabad Sandesh Gujarat Ahmedabad Complaint Shri Prafulbhai N. Thakkar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat has filed this complaint dated 26.1.2002 against Sandesh, a Gujarati daily for publication of four allegedly incorrect, false, scandalous and defamatory news items in its issues dated 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th January 2002. It was alleged in the impugned news items that by encashing the Government’s name Praful Thakkar (complainant) extorted lacs of rupees from

167 students. Praful Thakkar and Company showed dreams of bright future to the students in the name of computer education and collected lacs of rupees. Praful Thakkar pleased the Government officers and made a cover around himself and his company. Highlights of the impugned news items are as follows: After getting the blessings of certain Government officers, Praful Thakkar and his company took a lot of benefit of the Government’s name and collected huge fees from the parents and students in the name of computer education and used to show only Rs. 11/- in the books of accounts and collected lacs of rupees. Praful Thakkar had formed a team for the expansion of his business and had started his branches at many places in the city in which he got full support of his friend Nandkishor Shah. Nandkishor Shah possesses a great oratory and so the work of Praful Thakkar had become very easy. On the basis of charming oratory of Nandkishor for the purpose of development of computer education, Praful Thakkar started taking loans from Co- operative Banks and installed his kingdom. Since the Government came to know that its name was being misused, Special Auditors started visiting the institutions of Praful Thakkar. By giving valuable gifts to these Government officers, Praful Thakkar increased his influence and kept on cheating the students. New Gujarat Jagrut Vali Mandal had represented to the Home Department about cheating being made with the students by misusing the Government’s name by Praful Thakkar and his associates. Pursuant to this, Home Department by a letter had directed the City Commissioner of Police, to make a detailed inquiry about the fraud of Praful and his company and to take punitive action within 10 days. With the assistance of certain corrupt officers and one I.A.S. officer in the office of the then Chief Minister, Praful Thakkar and company hushed up the matter. As a result, inspite of repeated representations to the city police administration by the Vali Mandal against Praful Thakkar and his company, the police administration was constrained to sit as a mute spectator. Praful Thakkar, Nandkishor Shah and their company by misusing the Government’s name started extorting/collecting money from the students in the name of Federation, as per the Rules of the Co-operation Department. When there is no provision in its by-laws, the Federation has no authority to directly collect such a huge amount and impart this type of education in computer to the students. On representation that Praful Thakkar, Nandkishor Shah and their company were cheating the students by misusing the Government’s

168 name, the Home Department directed the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad to make a detailed inquiry in this regard. Pursuant to the representations made to the authorities by various institutions, the Co- operation Department had given an advertisement in the newspapers that “Students should not take admissions in Gujarat State Consumer Co-op Computer Federation”. That means, of late the Co-operation Department accepted that this was not a co-operative or Government institution. Due to this advertisement of the Co-operation Department, other students were prevented from being misguided, but there was anger and dissatisfaction amongst the students who were been earlier cheated by Praful Thakkar and company because of this belated advertisement of the Co-operation Department. The complainant has denied the allegations made in the impugned news items and stated that the averments made therein were totally baseless, illegal false, frivolous, scandalous and defamatory and were published with malafide intention to tarnish his image and reputation in the eyes of public at large. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news items were published with some ulterior motive and to defame him and his business activity. The complainant submitted that he is neither tenant, owner, partner, nor was in any capacity connected with the alleged computer centre. He has no connection with government or that with computer centre or Gujarat State Co-op. Consumer Federation Ltd. He has not collected any amount for and on behalf of either of Government or Computer Education Centre and credited Rs. 11/- in his account books as alleged in the impugned publication. The complainant denied having given any such advertisement to attract the students to join the said institute. The complainant stated that he had no connection as alleged with N.K. Institution and had not used the name of Nandkishore Shah for that purpose. This was totally false and he was nowhere connected with such activities. He had not taken any loan from the Co-op. Bank in the name of such institution. The complainant further alleged that because of respondent’s personal motive or dispute with Nandkishor Shah he (respondent) used his name with him for settling the dispute by pressurizing him. The complainant submitted that the respondent had published the impugned news item without proper inquiry, which was nothing but a misuse and breach of the press freedom. The complainant has submitted that he issued notice to the editor but received no reply. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the Editor, Sandesh, Ahmedabad on 8.4.2002. The Managing Editor, Sandesh in his written statement dated 14.6.2002 has submitted that the complainant had taken over the premises of Gujarat State Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited (GSCCFL) from one Shri Nandkishore

169 Shah and was conducting the Education Centre from that premises. However, the name of the company was changed as “Bityolk Software (P) Ltd.” in which the complainant was a Director. The said company was conducting computer classes and education centre at a different place and in different premises in the city of Ahmedabad and had also entered into an agreement to conduct the activities of computer education from premises of GSCCFL located at Navdeep Building and thus the complainant’s contention that he was not connected with the institution was not true. The respondent furnished a copy of the advertisement-dated 20.3.1999 released by the complainant over his signatures on the letter head of GSCCFL. Similar advertisements were also published on 23.6.1999 and 29.6.1999, which showed complainant’s involvement with the organisation. The respondent has submitted that the news was in public interest and there was no intention to bring disrepute to the reputation of the complainant. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2002 for his counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 10.8.2002 has submitted that the reply filed by the respondent is misleading. The complainant submitted that the respondent has not fully replied his complaint but merely denied the contents of the complaint by stating those are not true, are baseless, illegal, improper and unjust. The documentary evidence produced by the respondent on which the news items are based are not at all connected or relevant when the news items were published. The date of the first documents is 21.3.1999 and the news items published by the respondent are 1.1.2002 to 5.1.2002, three years old documents which has been produced in support of his claim without showing proper reasons thereto. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 1.10.2002 for information. Sur-Rejoinder of Respondent The respondent vide letter dated 26.12.2002 has informed that at the initial stage, before filing complaint before the Press Council of India, the complainant served a legal notice dated 7.1.2002 to the respondent which was defamatory and based on false and frivolous averments. He further submitted that the respondent management of Sandesh filed a criminal complaint and civil suit against the complainant before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class of Ahmedabad (Retd.) and Court of Hon’ble Civil Judge (SD), Ahmedabad respectively. Therefore, as per the Press Council Inquiry Regulations, the Council might stay further proceedings in the matter, the respondent said.

170 The respondent was, vide letter dated 3.2.2003, informed that the subject matter pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class of Ahmedabad is different from the present complaint and was requested to file a reply on merits. The complainant vide letter dated 3.3.2003 has submitted that the cases filed in the court were not remotely related to the complaint filed by him before the Council. The respondent vide letter dated 10.3.2003 again reiterated that the complaint before the Press Council and the criminal case pending before the Court are inter- related and thus the matter was sub-judice. The respondent yet again vide letter dated 5.7.2003 reiterated that the subject matter was sub-judice and requested that the Council be pleased to stay the matter. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 23.9.2003. Shri Nandlal Thakkar, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri A.R. Falay, Assistant Manager represented the respondent newspaper, Sandesh. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the respondent is continuously publishing defamatory articles against the complainant. A fax message warning the respondent to refrain from publishing was sent but to no avail. On being asked by a member of the Inquiry Committee, as to whether the complainant is present, so that some clarification, if necessary should be sought from him, the counsel took it as an affront and sought to withdraw from the hearing. After his request for being heard by a Committee excluding that member was declined, the counsel withdrew filing written application. The Committee considered the application of the lawyer and overruled his objection. The Committee, therefore, adjourned the matter to be listed before the same Inquiry Committee in one of its future meetings. IInd Adjournment The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Delhi on 18.11.2003. Shri Roop Mathur appeared for the respondent while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant Shri Praful Thakkar sent a letter requesting for adjournment of the complaint on the ground that his Advocate was ill. The representative of the respondent also requested for adjournment. Since both the complainant and the respondent had requested for adjournment, the Inquiry Committee acceding to their request adjourned the matter to be listed before the same Committee in one of its future meetings.

171 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Delhi on 16.3.2004. Neither the complainant nor the respondent was represented before it. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that the instant matter had been adjourned twice on the request of the complainant, first time at Pune on 23.9.2003 and second time on 18.11.2003 at Delhi. The complainant was again absent before the Inquiry Committee. It appeared to the Committee that the complainant was not serious about pursuing the matter. The Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, in its meeting held on 6th May 2004, on consideration of the records of the case and the report of the Inquiry Committee, accepted the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decided accordingly. The decision dated 6th May 2004 was communicated to the complainant as well as the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 7.5.2004. Review Petition On receipt of the decision of the Council dated 6th May 2004, the complainant has filed a review petition dated 5.6.2004 requesting the Council to review the decision of the Press Council of India dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution. According to the complainant, he was not aware that the matter was being taken up for hearing on 16.3.2004. He has submitted that on facts and circumstances of the complaint, the matter was required to be decided in accordance with law after hearing the parties and be decided on merits. In his further application dated 30.6.2004 the complainant’s counsel contended that the Council had sufficient material to decide the case on merits even if the complainant was not present but the complaint was dismissed for non- prosecution. He further pleaded that his review application be placed before the Council for consideration. Accordingly the review petition was placed before the Council for consideration on 28.3.2005. The Council noted that Shri P.N. Thakkar, the complainant, has requested the Council to review its decision dated 6.5.2004 dismissing the complaint for non- prosecution. According to him, he was not aware that the matter was being heard on 16.3.2004, as he did not receive the notice of hearing. The A/D Card signed by one Shri Madan Lal with telephone No.6302573 is on record by way of proof

172 of service. He has further stated that instead of dismissing the matter for non- prosecution, the Council should have considered the material available on record and decided the matter in accordance with law, on merits. The Council discussed the review petition in detail and opined that as the matter has been dismissed for non-prosecution, and according to the complainant, he did not receive the notice of hearing the review petition may be allowed. In order to afford another opportunity to the complainant, the Council decided to remit the matter to the Inquiry Committees. Matter Relisted - Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.10.2005. Shri Syed Ejaz Ahmed, Assistant Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent newspaper. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant had been received back with the postal remarks “Not Known”. On perusal of the record the Committee noted that the instant matter had been dismissed by the Council for non-prosecution. On the review petition of the complainant which was filed by him on the plea that he did not receive notice of hearing, the Council remitted back the matter to Inquiry Committee. In order to make one more attempt to serve the notice of hearing on the complainant, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for being listed before it in one of its future meeting. The Secretariat of the Council was directed to make efforts to trace the present address of the complainant. As per directions of the Inquiry Committee the office has send notice for the hearing by three modes i.e. Regd. A.D./Speed Post/Courier on all the three addresses of the complainant available on the record. IInd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.1.2006. Shri Nand Lal Thakkar, Advocate, represented the complainant. Shri Syed Ejaj Ahmad represented the respondent. The respondent’s representative submitted that he was based at Delhi and represented the marketing side of the paper. He had been asked only to watch the proceedings. Shri Nand Lal Thakkar submitted that defamatory articles were published with malicious intentions by the respondent. The articles were serialized for 4-5 days against an individual for no fault of his. He stated that there is no evidence with the respondent that the complainant was in any way connected with the matter. He submitted that their telephonic advice for restraint went unheeded and the notice sent by them to the respondent was not responded to. Shri Thakkar denied any connection with the computer centre and all the allegations levelled in

173 the news item or even that the complainant knew any Nand Kishore. Denying that the matter was sub judice, he submitted that the cases before the courts have been dismissed. Shri Nand Lal Thakkar stated that motive behind the publication could have been that the complainant, who was also his son and who is running a construction company, did not release advertisements to the respondent paper. When his attention was drawn to the written statement of the paper, establishing the complainant’s connection with the computer firm, Shri Nand Lal Thakkar denied that in 1999 his son issued any advertisement on the letter head of GSCCFL. On being shown the signed document, he stated that he could not say that the signatures were not of his son. The Inquiry Committee heard the submissions made by Shri Nand Lal Thakkar and adjourned the matter with the directions that the complainant should clarify his connection with the GSCCFL with reference to the letter dated 20.3.1999 signed by him and addressed to M/s Sandesh Ltd. as a release order for an advertisement. He may also file such documents as deemed necessary in support of his contention with copies to the opposite party. The Committee also placed on record its displeasure at respondent Sandesh deputing a person only to watch over the proceedings instead of making submissions on merits of the matter. The proceedings of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the complainant vide office letter dated 31.3.2006 The complainant in his reply dated 24.4.2006 has informed the Council that he had already filed his reply as a rejoinder on 10.8.2002. The complainant has submitted that the lease agreement of the Gujarat State Co-operation Fed. Ltd. Education Centre was executed with Nand Kishore B. Shah as a sole proprietor of the institute. The complainant further submitted that he was nowhere connected with the institution. The complainant had joined the institution to learn the computer he does not recall the purpose of letter signed by him. IIIrd Adjournment When the matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006, there was no appearance from either side. The complainant, however, vide his letter dated 19.8.2006 informed that as he had received notice of hearing only on 27.7.2006 after coming back from abroad and due to present scenario of the prevailing floods and rains, it would not be possible for him or his advocate to appear before the Committee. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity to the complainant to contest his case adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings.

174 IVth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Prakash Jani, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Sandesh. The complainant in a letter dated 12.10.2006 requested for adjournment to another date since his counsel was not available due to Diwali vacations. Shri Prakash Jani, counsel appeared for the respondent submitted that complaints are old matters and he had come all the way from the Ahmedabad to attend the hearing. According to the counsel, the office of the complainant was a kilometre away from the respondent’s office and this intimation of adjournment ought to have been given to the newspaper simultaneously. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter expressed its displeasure over the attitude of the complainant for engaging a lawyer who was not available to contest the case, and requesting for adjournment without endorsing its copy to the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee felt that the act the cost of the complainant and his counsel was not in keeping with professional ethics and the cost of adjournment be considered at the time of next hearing. The matter was thereafter adjourned to one of its future hearings. The respondent editor, Sandesh, Ahmedabad filed the reply to show cause notice and affidavit-in-reply dated 30.12.2006 through his advocate. The respondent has stated that the complainant sent a notice on 7.1.2002 wherein the complainant, instead of presenting his point of view in a proper way, made defamatory and insiunatory remarks against the editor. The respondent editor had also filed Civil Suit No.39 of 2002 in the court of Civil Judge, Ahmedabad against the complainant for recovering an amount of Rs.19,36,514.43 which is pending for adjudication. A copy of the reply has been sent to the complainant directly by the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.3.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. Shri Syed Ejaz Ahmad appeared for the respondent Sandesh. The respondent filed copies of their letter dated 13.3.2007 and 24.3.2007 to the complainant enquiring whether he would remain present on 28.3.2007 in the aforesaid matter at New Delhi, or seek adjournment because complainant was not present on the last hearing. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records and noted that the complainant was not represented on last few occasion also. It appeared to the Committee that the complainant was not ready to provide the information/clarifications sought by the Inquiry Committee in the past hearings despite several opportunities. It also

175 noted that the case had been reopened in May 2004 on the specific request of the complainant after its dismissal due to complainant’s failure to properly pursue it. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to drop the proceedings in the matter. Decision of the Council Subsequently a letter dated 22.03.2007 was received from the complainant in the Secretariat on 29.3.2007 seeking adjournment. The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and while declining the belated adjournment request decided to drop the proceedings in the matter.

45) Shri Arun Agarwal Versus The Editor Owner, Vikas Trading Co. Amar Ujala Meerut Meerut Complaint This complaint dated 15.4.2006 was filed by Shri Arun Aggarwal, Owner, Vikas Trading Co., Meerut against Amar Ujala for publishing allegedly false and defamatory news items in its issues dated 8.4.2006 and 10.4.2006 captioned “+ÉÉ®Éä{ÉÉÒ ~äBÉEänÉ® BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉxÉä àÉå ãÉMÉä cé àÉä®~ ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉºÉ |ÉÉÉÊvÉBÉE®hÉ BÉEä +É{ÉEºÉ®” and “+É{ÉxÉä cÉÒ +É{ÉEºÉ®Éå BÉEÉÒ {ÉÉäãÉ JÉÉäãÉxÉä àÉå VÉÖ]ÉÒ ªÉÚÉÊxɪÉxÉ” respectively. In the impugned news item dated 8.4.06 it has been reported that Employees Union of Meerut Development Authority levelled allegation against their officers that they are defending the contractor (complainant) who allegedly supplied the stolen items of electrical goods and PCC Pole. It has been further stated that wrong information was provided to the Divisional Commissioner who investigated this case. Similar allegations also levelled in the impugned news item published by the respondent in his newspaper issue dated 10.4.06. According to the complainant the Electrical work of Shardapuri Residential Scheme, Meerut, Phase-2, Pocket-D was started by their firm under a contract with the Meerut Development Authority. The complainant submitted that the Pole used by their firm were purchased from M/s Shree Prestress Concrete Products (P) Ltd. The complainant further submitted that the material used by their firm was not stolen item, as alleged in the impugned publication. He submitted that the Kankhar Khera Police Station and Managing Director, Western Electric Supply Nigam Ltd., inquired into the matter and his firm was found innocent. The complainant alleged that the respondent published the impugned news items without pre-publication verification due to which reputation of their firm lowered down in the eyes of the public. He further alleged that the respondent published the

176 impugned news items on the basis of false facts. The complainant submitted that a letter dated 10.4.2006 was sent to the Editor, Amar Ujala requesting him to publish his clarification but neither the clarification was published nor any reply was given by the respondent. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Written Statement Show-cause notice to the respondent Editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut was issued on 5.7.06. In response, the respondent Amar Ujala in its written statement dated 17.7.06 submitted that they admitted publication of only one news item captioned “+É{ÉxÉä cÉÒ +É{ÉEºÉ®Éå BÉEÉÒ {ÉÉäãÉ JÉÉäãÉxÉä àÉå VÉÖ]ÉÒ ªÉÚÉÊxɪÉxÉ” in their newspaper issue dated 10.4.06. They did not publish news item dated 8.4.06 captioned “+ÉÉ®Éä{ÉÉÒ ~äBÉEänÉ® BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉxÉä àÉå ãÉMÉä cé àÉä®~ ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉºÉ |ÉÉÉÊvÉBÉE®hÉ BÉEä +É{ÉEºÉ®” The said news item was infact published in Dainik Jagran. The complainant with the ulterior motive and to give colour in his case wrongly referred the news of Dainik Jagran in his complaint. The respondent further stated that the news item was basically against M.D.A. and its Officers and not the complainant. It was neither objectionable nor they offended against the standards of the journalistic ethics or public taste. He contended that the news item in question was objective and fair reporting without any malice in discharge of public duty and based upon facts on record. The respondent stated that during execution of the electrical work by the complainant serious allegations were made against him and his company by the Commissioner and the Government of U.P. by way of written complaints. When the Secretary MDA gave a clean chit to Vikas Trading Company, the employees’ union organized protest, based on which the impugned report was proposed. There was thus sufficient material to publish the news item in public interest. He denied the allegation of the complainant that their reporter published the news item in question after taking bribe. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 18.9.06 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Manager Legal appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala. The Inquiry Committee noted that the notice of hearing to the complainant had been received back undelivered. In order to afford one more opportunity of hearing, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter.

177 In response to the notice of hearing, the complainant vide his letter dated 18.10.2006 (received in the Secretariat on 23.10.2006) expressed his inability to appear before the Inquiry Committee and requested to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Arun Agarwal, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi appeared for Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he is in the business for the last 40 years. The allegations of use of stolen poles were enquired into by the police and administration and his firm was found innocent. The complainant further stated that the said allegation was levelled by Shri Pankaj Tiwari, Junior Engineer, MDA, Meerut who had been suspended for making fictitious payment of Rs. 13 crores. The complainant alleged that the reporter (Shri Sheshmani Shukla) of Amar Ujala, had published the impugned news item as he got Suvidha Shulk (bribe) from the said Junior Engineer. The complainant submitted that his firm was buying material from the firm which was supplying material to UPPCC/Private firms. Due to systematic campaign by the respondents, his payment of Rs.18 lacs was withheld and wherever the matter of payment arose, the newspaper carried news report against him to pressurise the Authority not to make payment. The complainant approached the High Court where he got relief that the High court passed order for payment within three months. The respondent objected to the complainant’s allegations against the reporter about taking bribe. The respondent also submitted that the complainant’s firm was blacklisted and the complainant opened a new firm by changed name. The respondent further submitted that the enquiry report by MDA was manipulated. The complainant was never given clean chit. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and heard the submissions made by the parties. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the charges against the complainant, the Inquiry Committee noted that the Amar Ujala published the impugned news item dated 10.04.2006 encaptioned: “+É{ÉxÉä cÉÒ +É{ÉEºÉ®Éå BÉEÉÒ {ÉÉäãÉ JÉÉäãÉxÉä àÉå VÉÖ]ÉÒ ªÉÚÉÊxɪÉxÉ” on the basis of the statement of the MDA Employees Union. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the newspaper ought to have contacted the complainant prior to the publication of the impugned report, as the reputation of the complainant was at stake. It is well settled principle that the newspaper should check, with due care and caution, a report’s factual accuracy from authentic sources and contact the concerned person

178 to elicit his version, comment or reaction and publish the same alongside the news report. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent Amar Ujala failed in its responsibility of pre-verification and also denied right of reply to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint against the respondent Amar Ujala and direct the paper to follow ethical principles in future. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

46) Shri Arun Agarwal Versus The Editor Owner Dainik Jagran M/s. Vikas Trading Co.Ltd. Meerut Meerut, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 16.8.2005 has been filed by Shri Arun Agarwal, Owner, M/s. Vikas Trading Company Limited, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against Dainik Jagran, Meerut alleging publication of objectionable news item captioned “ Kaise-Kaise Nirman, Na Koi Rok Aur Na Hi Koi Farman” in its issue dated 15.8.2005. He also referred to five previous objectionable publications to further his case. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the Meerut Development Authority (MDA) deliberately suppressed action against the complainant’s firm despite a large number of complaints filed against it and in the notice of the Authority. The respondent newspaper had published the issue raised by Md. Jahid Ansari, a board member of the Meerut Development Authority and Congress Legislator, that the complainant’s firm, namely M/s. Vikas Trading Company was a fake firm and earlier functioned as Mayor Electrical, blacklisted by the Power Corporation. It is further alleged that the complainant’s firm, which is a distributor of electrical goods, was using fake licence and the Authority was using its services for electrification of a housing project named Shraddha Puri Yojna Phase – II, Pocket – D. The complainant submitted that the impugned news items were published on the basis of a false complaint made by Md. Ansari and other dignitaries to harass the firm and to damage the firm’s credibility. He has added that his firm; M/s. Vikas Trading Company Limited is placed in category ‘A’ and the State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued Licence No.MT/297 to it and the said work of electrification was done under a contract awarded by the Meerut Development Authority.

179 A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 18.11.2005. Written Statement In the written statement dated 3.12.2005 the respondent-editor submitted having published a clarification in the newspaper issue dated 24.9.2005 in column of page No.6, the intimation of which was given to the complainant over his mobile number. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.1.2006 for information and counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant filed his counter comments dated 1.2.2006 and submitted that he is not satisfied with the publication of the rejoinder by the respondent on 24.9.2005 captioned “ÉÊ´ÉtÉÖiÉÉÒBÉE®hÉ BÉEä BÉEɪÉÇ àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉÉàÉOÉÉÒ SÉÉä®ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ xÉcÉÓ-~äBÉEänÉ®” as it was insignificant to vis-à-vis the detailed published in March, April and May, 2005. According to the complainant, S/Shri Dinesh Dinker and Abhishek Sharma, correspondents of the newspaper had taken heavy amount to publish false and baseless news item. In connivance with the Assistant Executive Shri Pankaj Tiwari they indulged in blackmailing the traders. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 14.2.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Shrikant Asthana, News editor represented the respondent Dainik Jagran. The representative of the Dainik Jagran filed an affidavit dated 17.10.2006 on behalf of the paper stating therein that the complainant had not placed on record any proof to show that the news item was false. The respondent submitted that the impugned news item was based on the complaint of one of the Members of MDA to the District Magistrate, Meerut about the activities prevailing in the Authority. The name of the complainant was mentioned in his capacity as a member of the Authority. The respondent further submitted that five previous publications were time barred and cited by the complainant in his complaint to the Council to put pressure on the newspaper. The respondent submitted that the version of the complainant had already been published by the newspaper immediately. The Inquiry Committee on perusing the affidavit directed the representative of the respondent to serve its copy to the complainant at his present address to enable him to counter the averments in the affidavit. The Inquiry Committee then decided to adjourn the matter.

180 A copy of the affidavit dated 17.10.2006 filed by the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 11.1.2007 for his counter comments.

The complainant in his reply dated 16.01.2007 disagreed with the statement made in the affidavit filed by the respondent editor. The complainant alleged that respondent was making false allegations against him which in itself showed conspiracy against him. The complainant while returning the affidavit requested Council to dismiss the same and provide him an opportunity to avoid an exparte decision in the matter. The complainant requested that the newspaper may be asked not to torture any respected person physically, mentally or financially by publishing false news items in future.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Arun Agarwal, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Shrikant Asthana, News Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut appeared for Dainik Jagran.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that he is in the business for the last 40 years. The complainant submitted that the allegations levelled by the respondent newspaper were far from truth. The complainant further submitted that the correspondent of the respondent newspaper published false and defamatory news item against famous and reputed persons by taking Suvidha Sulk (bribe). The complainant added that due to publication of false and baseless news item he suffered a lot of mental agony.

The respondent submitted that the complainant’s allegations against the reporter taking bribe was serious. The respondent submitted that the complainant’s allegations against the newspaper was not correct. The respondent further submitted that they published the version of the complainant but he was not satisfied.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the submissions made before it by the parties. It noted that the Dainik Jagran published the impugned news item dated 15.8.2005 encaptioned “Kaise-Kaise Nirman, Na Koi Rok Aur Na Koi Farman” on the basis of the issue raised by a Congress Legislature and Members of the Board of MDA. However, the Inquiry Committee opined that the newspaper ought to have contacted the complainant to take his version as the reputation of the complainant was at stake. Nevertheless, the Committee observed that the respondent Dainik Jagran had taken corrective measures by publishing the

181 version of the complainant immediately and thus acted as per the ethics of journalism. The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances felt that it will be sufficient to caution the respondent newspaper, Dainik Jagran to act as per norms of journalistic propriety in future while publishing reports concerning the reputation of a person. The Inquiry Committee with the above observations decided to dispose of the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

47) Shri Vikar Ahmed Versus The Editor Chairman Chingari Nagar Palika Parisad, Bijnor Afzalganj, Bijnor Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 28.3.2005 has been filed by Shri Vikar Ahmed, Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Afzalganj, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh against ‘Chingari’ a Hindi newspaper for publication of allegedly false news item captioned “¤ÉÉfà cÉÒ JÉäiÉ BÉEÉä JÉÉ ®cÉÒ cè - xÉMÉ® {ÉÉÉÊãÉBÉEÉ BÉEä ÉÊciÉÉå BÉEÉä SÉÚxÉÉ ãÉMÉÉ ®cä cé SÉäªÉ®àÉäxÉ ´É <Ç.+ÉÉä.” (Fence is eating into the farm Chairman and E.O. are causing loss to the Municipal Council – English translation) in its issue dated 27.3.2005. It was stated in the impugned news item that the tender notices were published in those newspapers which were having negligible circulation and the projects were given to a contractor, who was near and dear to the complainant- Chairman. It was further alleged in the impugned news item that none of the contractors were present to participate in the auction and had the tenders been advertised in popular newspapers, there would have been competition amongst contractors and the Municipal Corporation would have directly benefited from it. The complainant submitted that they sent a rejoinder on 5.5.2005 to the respondent intimating that the news was false since the parking contract for the year 2004-2005 was auctioned at Rs.50,01,000/- and in the next financial year, three contractors participated in the auction. Thus the allegation that none participated in the auction was false and baseless. Again, on 23rd March, the auction was conducted in which four contractors participated and the contract was awarded with 10% increase in comparison to the previous year. He alleged that the respondent did not respond to his letter. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 18.11.2005.

182 Written Statement The respondent editor, ‘Chingari’ in his written statement dated 26.11.2005 submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant were false, baseless and far from the truth. He submitted that the complainant had written to him for making inquiry against the concerned reporter and he accordingly made inquiry in the matter and found that the news item was true and thus there was no question of action against the reporter. He added that they were ready to publish the rejoinder had the complainant wished to give any, but instead, the complainant threatened them to take revenge for publication of the impugned news item. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 17.1.2006. Matter Adjourned The matter first came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present while Shri Khalil Ahmed, representative for the respondent produced a letter dated 17.10.2006 of the editor, Chingari requesting for adjournment, due to ill health. As the complainant was also not represented, the Inquiry Committee in order to afford another opportunity of hearing to the parties decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.03.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with the postal remarks “No one of this name was resident at the given address”. On earlier occasion also the notice of hearing was received back. The Inquiry Committee observed that it was the duty of the complainant to have informed his changed address to the Council. In the absence of any intimation from the complainant, the Committee assumed that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the complaint. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the case for want of prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

183 48) Shri Santanu Das Versus The Editor Director Syandan Patrika Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism Bengali daily Government of Tripura Agartala Agartala Complaint This complaint dated 2.12.2004 has been filed by Shri Santanu Das, Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of Tripura, Agartala against “Syandan Patrika”, a Bengali daily alleging publication of false, fabricated and misleading news item under the caption “On return from Delhi, Governor treats opposition leader with tea at Rajbhawan” in its issue dated 20.11.2004. The impugned news item reads as follow:- “As suddenly the Bihari leader Lalu Prasad Yadav began to enquire about the health of Tripura Governor, D.N. Sahay, the Governor, leaving all work here, rushed to Delhi. However, detailed report about his meetings in Delhi could not be obtained. Neither the ‘Laat Saab’ has talked about his initiative for the State’s development. Still it has been known that he, during his stay in Delhi, had renewed his personal acquaintance with some of the top leaders of Congress and CPM. He had also tried to conquer the faith of Union Home Minister, Shivraj Patil. As per the political sources, he had also had a telephonic talk with the close aide of Lalu Prasad Yadav, the State Minister for Human Resource Development, Kanti Singh. One of the relatives of D.N. Sahay is also said to have a good rapport with Kanti Singh. Rumours of termination of tenure of D.N. Sahay in his office has, for quite sometime, been doing the rounds of Rajbhavan and the subordinate staffs are regaling at these rumours. The subordinates are saying that the mood of the governor is low these days. He is said to be in state of delusion. The Governor has had a good relationship with the ruling party leaders of the State since the NDA rule. Known to be a close of George Fernandes, it was sure that as long as the NDA would be at the helm nobody would be able to any harm to him. Even after that he did not take any risk. He tried to keep a cordial relationship with the Chief Minister, Manik Sarkar. He had always kept his door open for the people of the ruling party. Though the change of party on the throne of Delhi put him in a sort of embarrassed position he did not lose his wit. Being in the good books of Chief Minister, a politburo member he had no immediate threat of fall but suddenly as Lalu Prasad Yadav began to enquire

184 about him he felt some discomfiture. He rushed to Delhi and on his return from Delhi he has tried to be close with the Congress leaders of the state. For 7-8 days he tried to contact the PCC President. Through different quarters he tried to know over telephone when the PCC President would return. As the PCC President was not in the state he invited opposite leader Ratanlal Nath for a tea meeting. The opposition gave him a visit to the Rajbhavan today. For about 30 minutes the Governor held talks on different subjects with the opposition leader. The opposition leader is also not willing to divulge much. He said their meeting centered on developmental issues. However, the rumour doing the rounds of political circle is that the Governor, in order to remain enthroned, is trying to manage faith of both the parties i.e. Congress and CPM. And the result is his invitation to the Congress leaders. And the ultimate word is to keep the post of ‘Laat Saab’ intact. On the other hand, the Rajbhavan has issued a contradiction of the news about the Governor’s Delhi visit published in this newspaper after 12 days. In the contradiction it was claimed that the visit of the Governor from Novermber 6-11 was approved by the President about 3 weeks back. His Delhi visit was prepared to revive the issues of development of the state with the central ministers and workers and have a personal health check-up. On the matter of relation with Lalu Prasad Yadav the statement said, the Governor has had a close relationship with the Union Minister for the last several decades. Similarly his relation with the State Chief Minister is also positive, sincere and cordial. In times of need the Governor has been giving valuable advises to the Chief Minister. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news item was false, fabricated and misleading to the readers as well as to the people in general of the State about the activities of H.E. Governor of State. The complainant alleged that the respondent-newspaper by publishing concocted, grossly fabricated, mischievous, false story had tried to malign the image of the highest constitutional authority, as the Governor of the State. The manner of presentation of news involving H.E. Governor is most indecent and motivated and it is injurious to the reputation of the highest constitutional authority of the State. The complainant further alleged that by publishing the said baseless, untrue and indecorous news item the respondent has not acted honestly and with ulterior intention twisted the news thereby unnecessarily creating confusion in the mind of the people of Tripura regarding the highest constitutional office of the State. The complainant also

185 alleged that the respondent violated the journalistic principles and ethics by publishing the inaccurate, baseless, misleading, fabricated and distorted news item and did not bother to publish the contradictions dated 22.11.2004 issued by the Governor Secretariat as well as from their Department. Show-cause notice to the editor, Syandan Patrika, Agartala was issued on 9.2.2005. Written Statement The respondent editor, Syandan Patrika in his written statement dated 7.3.2005 submitted that they have not violated the journalistic principles and ethics as alleged by the complainant. The respondent further submitted that they have not published any inaccurate, baseless, misleading, fabricated and distorted news item as alleged. He also denied that they have committed any professional misconduct by not publishing the contradiction issued by the Governor’s Secretariat since the contradiction contained un-parliamentary words and attempted to condemn the newspaper. The respondent however, submitted that they had requested the complainant by a letter dated 23.11.2004 with regard to his contradiction to let them know as to what he meant by ‘dirty journalism’ but till now they have not received any reply/clarification from the complainant. The respondent alleged that the complainant deliberately suppressed the fact of their above stated letter dated 23.11.2004. The respondent concluded by saying that they would have published the contradiction if the complainant had not abused him using un-parliamentary words and even if a satisfactory reply was received. The cause for non-publication of the contradiction was attributable to the complainant himself. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 9.5.2005 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. The respondent vide letter dated 21.12.2006 requested for adjournment of the case. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity of hearing to the parties decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2007. Shri Rituraj Biswas, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Sanjay Sachdev represented the respondent editor, Syandan Patrika. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the news report dated 2.4.2004 was baseless

186 and had no relevance to factual position. The complainant submitted that H.E. Governor visited Delhi but the meeting with the Ministers was not a political meeting. The respondent through the impugned news report gave an impression that H.E. was creating confusion after coming back from the visit. The complainant further submitted that the rejoinder in English and Bangla was sent to the editor who refused to publish the same on the ground that it contained an unparliamentary word in Bangla. The complainant submitted that the impugned report aimed to malign the Governor, a Constitutional head of the State. The counsel for the complainant requested that the respondent may be directed to publish the clarification. The respondent submitted that the write up was a satire and that the newspaper never refused to publish the contradiction. The respondent stated that they had asked the complainant to explain the remark “dirty journalism” used in the complainant’s contradiction but the complainant did not reply. Recommendations of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the material on record and considered the submissions made before it by the parties. It at the very outset, took serious note of the vague written statement filed by the respondent editor, Syandan Patrika pleading and soliciting response to a query on remark “dirty journalism” from the complainant. The Inquiry Committee did not find usage of any unparliamentary word in the contradiction sent by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the news report dated 20.11.2004 encaptioned “On return from Delhi, Governor treats opposition leader with tea at Raj Bhawan” that it was full of insinuations and innuendoes against the Governor, a Constitutional Head of the State, without any basis, which was not fair journalism. While the newspaper refused to carry the rejoinder objecting to the use of word ‘dirty journalism’ it itself used language take ‘Laat Sahib’ to refer to the Governor. It felt that a newspaper must remember that the freedom of the press comes with responsibility and that freedom must be exercised with due care and caution and even while a newspaper has the liberty or even duty to report political developments, that reporting may not be with angularity. The Inquiry Committee expressed its strong displeasure over manner of publication of the impugned news report. While expressing strong displeasure, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to admonish the respondent-editor, Syandan Patrika, Bengali Daily, Agartala for the impugned publication. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

187 49) Ms. Madhurima Barua Versus The Editor Guwahati, Assam Ajir Asom Assam Complaint This complaint dated 13.6.2003 has been filed by Ms. Madhurima Barua, Guwahati, Assam against Ajir Asom, Assames daily published from Guwahati for publication of an allegedly defamatory news item captioned “Roguery in GMDA, corruption reaches stupendous point, Bhanu’s mysterious sympathy to a woman who built a house unathorisedly” in its issue dated 25.5.2003. It is alleged in the impugned news item that Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) had issued permission to Ms. Madurima Barua, an ex-employee of GMDA and at present an employee of P.W. Department of Government of Assam, to construct an Assam type house. She has started the construction encroaching illegally a major portion of the land by covering by the adjoining plot. The owner of the plot lodged a complaint against the unauthorized encroachment by Ms. Barua. On the basis of the complaint and on receipt of the report of the Circle Officer of North Guwahati Revenue Circle, GMDA enquired departmentally and issued a “stop construction” notice to Ms. Barua. But the lady did not move from her stand, as she was supported by Shri Bhanu himself, the Vice-President of GMDA. It was further alleged that Ms. Barua had disobeyed the instruction of the authority several times but the GMDA has not taken any step to demolish the unauthorized construction. Denying the allegations the complainant has submitted that the respondent had defamed her intentionally and publicly. The complainant has submitted that she had written a letter dated 13.6.2003 to the newspaper but received no reply. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Ajir Asom on 6.4.2004. The Executive Editor, Ajir Asom in his written statement dated 23rd July 2004 has submitted that the complainant has not denied the unauthorized construction by her by encroaching the land belonging to some other person. The respondent has submitted that it is a matter of record that the complainant had constructed illegally by encroaching upon the land of some other person with the help of the permission given by GMDA. The respondent has submitted that when the matter was brought to the notice of GMDA, the GMDA officials did not take prompt action and later on, several notices for stopping construction were issued but the complainant did not comply with the said notices and went ahead with the said

188 construction. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has clearly defied the orders of GMDA. The respondent has submitted that due to the very conduct of GMDA officials of not taking prompt action against the illegal construction done by Ms. Madhurima Barua, a general impression has been created among the local people that the said Ms Madhurima Barua has influenced the high officials of GMDA by corrupt means. The respondent has submitted that the publication in question is based upon true facts and it is not a false publication. The respondent has submitted that the said publication has not been intended to defame the complainant in the eyes of the public. The respondent has submitted that the publication of the news item in question is not against the standard of journalistic ethics or public taste and that the editor or any journalist of the newspaper has committed no professional misconduct. The respondent has further submitted that the news item is based upon true facts and there was no denial on the part of the complainant about the publication of the news of the unauthorized construction made by her. There is therefore no sufficient ground for holding an enquiry under the Regulations and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The respondent has submitted that the complainant was unable to show that publication is based upon false report or same is not based upon correct fact, she merely denies that she did not have any relation whatsoever with Shri Dalim Gogai, the Town Planner, and Shri M.G.K. Bhanu, the then Commissioner & Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Assam. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 10.9.2004. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in her letter dated 4.1.2007 sought adjournment due to non-availability of train reservation. The respondent editor in his letter dated 8.1.2007 intimated that he has nothing to add to his written statement. Matter Adjourned The Inquiry Committee observed that the serious allegations of encroachment on the government land by the complainant had been levelled in the impugned news item. Therefore, acceding to the request of the complainant, the Inquiry committee, in order to afford her one more opportunity, adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Harinarayan Pathak appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Ajir Asom.

189 The representative of the complainant filed a written note of arguments dated 22.3.2007 stating therein that the complainant started construction of a house with the permission of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) at North Guwahati in 2002. Some antisocial elements with the help of people residing there tried to malign their image through irrelevant news. The complainant further stated that due to publication of the news she and her family suffered tremendous mental agony and she lost her father-in-law. She further stated that after lodging the complaint with Press Council of India one Sri Krishna Murti Barua on behalf of the respondent newspaper contacted them and tried to settle the matter but they refused. The complainant claimed compensation of about Rs. 40 lakhs. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on perusal of documents noted the submissions of the complainant that construction was being done in accordance with the permission given by the competent authority and no favour was shown by the Commissioner, as alleged in the news item dated 25.05.2003 in Ajir Asom. The complainant’s further grievance was that the question of showing favour to her did not arise as she had never met the Commissioner or known to her. The Inquiry Committee noted the reply of the respondent Ajir Asom that the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) had issued permission to the complainant against Dag No.783, Patta No.279 of Mouza Sila Senduri Ghopa under North Guwahati Revenue Circle. But with the assistance of the said order of permission from GMDA, Ms. Baruah started construction by illegally encroaching a major portion of land bearing Dag No. 781. The real owner of the said land covered by Dag No. 781 and 780 of Patta No.279 had lodged a complaint against unauthorized construction of Ms. Baruah. On the basis of the said complaint the Circle Officer of North Guwahati Revenue Circle submitted a report and further GMDA also enquired the matter departmentally and issued a ‘stop construction notice’ to Ms. Baruah. That even after Ms. Baruah did not stop construction of work. On 15th of May 2002, the GMDA issued another departmental notice for the second time. In reply to the said notice, Ms. Baruah’s letter was rejected and for the last time on 22nd October 2002 vide letter No.BP/737/141/ 99/47 dated 22nd October 2002 another notice was served upon Ms. Baruah to demolish the house under construction within a month. In the said notice, it was also made clear that the authority shall take needful action if there is violation of the said notice. It was contended since Ms. Baruah was close with the high- ranking officials of GMDA, said Ms. Baruah was in a position to disobey the instructions of the authority several times. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents opined that the newspaper had reported the matter in the issue dated 25.05.2003 based upon the

190 order issued by the Authority from time to time and was in possession of some material which formed the basis of publication of the impugned report. The Inquiry Committee therefore felt not to take cognizance of the complaint and thus decided to recommend to the Council to close the complaint being devoid of merits. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

50) Smt. Sheila Dikshit Versus The Editor Chief Minister Amar Ujala, Meerut Govt. of NCT of Delhi Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint, dated 27.09.2006 has been filed by Smt. Sheila Dikshit, Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi, through her advocate against Amar Ujala, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh alleging publication of false, fabricated, misleading and defamatory news item under the caption {ÉEBÉEbÉ MɪÉÉ ¶ÉÉÒãÉÉ BÉEÉ ZÉÚ~, ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ xÉÉ®ÉVÉ (Shieila’s ‘lie’ detected, Sonia annoyed) English translation in its issue dated 6.9.2006. The impugned news item reports that ‘a ‘lie’ of Delhi Chief Minister Smt. Sheila Dikshit, who is trying to defend herself on the ongoing sealing issue, has been detected. She had given an impression that her meeting with Congress President was related to the sealing issue whereas the meeting in question was convened to decide an award of Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. In fact, there had been no discussion on sealing issue with Smt. Sonia in the meeting and even after that Smt. Sonia is very annoyed with Smt. Sheila because of her wrong statement. The party ‘high command’ is quite annoyed because of the fact that the CM has tried to politicize the issue and the party is much concerned over this matter. According to sources close to 10 Janpath, nothing on sealing was discussed in the meeting. Then what made the Chief Minister make such statement after the meeting. Smt. Shiela Dikshit on Monday, after meeting with Smt. Sonia Gandhi had given statement that she discussed the issue of sealing with the ‘High Command’.” According to the complainant, the respondent newspaper published false, scurrilous and malicious news item and the headline and news story is prohibited under the laws and regulations of the country. She has alleged that the headline is extremely humiliating, demeaning and perverse and published with the intention to draw the attention of ordinary people and the readers. The complainant has stated that neither the government issued a press release nor any briefing was done by the government, nor by the Chief Minister’s office and added that the

191 impugned news article is not only distasteful but also maliciously written to malign and defame her reputation as a Chief Minister. The complainant further alleged that the respondent newspaper cannot take shelter under the umbrella of ‘sources’ for such scandalous stories, as they are non-existence as the purported ‘sources’ and also charged the respondent with not doing pre-publication verification, which is a mandatory requirement for publication of a news story. The complainant issued notice to the respondent on 9.9.2006, calling upon the respondent to publish her denial and to tender an unconditional apology. The respondent Editor, Amar Ujala, in his reply notice dated 12.9.2006 has denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that a corrigendum under the caption ‘Sheila’s meeting with Sonia was not on sealing issue’ was published on 9.9.2006 with due prominence in his newspaper. This corrigendum reads: “Delhi Government has clarified that there was no discussion held on sealing issue during Delhi CM’s meeting with Congress President. Director Information & Publicity, Delhi Government has stated that no briefing was made by the CM and her office on this meeting. It is interesting to note that on next day all newspapers carried news item stating CM’s meeting with Congress President on sealing issue. Congress leadership perhaps felt that news was made available to media by persons close to the CM. The CM office, Directorate of Information & Publicity and even CM herself had not issued denial about news carried by the newspaper”. Thereafter, the complainant issued another notice-dated 15.9.2006 to the respondent for publication of unconditional apology that elicited no reply from the respondent. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 6.10.2006. Written Statement The respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut in his written statement dated 20.10.2006 stated that as soon as they received the notice from the complainant, they published the clarification of the news item promptly and a copy of such publication was sent to the complainant. He has submitted that on receipt of notice from the Press Council, they cross checked and found that the news item in question has not only appeared in “Amar Ujala’ but in many newspapers including the national daily the Times of India in bold wordings and certainly there went a feeler in the media that there was some substance in the news. The respondent further stated that the complainant is a well known political figure, holding such a prestigious office and as such agitation, slogans and news both in print and electronic media area matter of routine for her and be taken by her in her stride as other politicians especially when it has been subsequently published that she never raised demolition issue with the Congress President. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.10.2006 for information.

192 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. Shri D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s counsel submitted that the respondent Amar Ujala published a per-se defamatory and inaccurate news against the complainant with heading {ÉEBÉEbÃÉ MɪÉÉ ¶ÉÉÒãÉÉ BÉEÉ ZÉÚ~, ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ xÉÉ®ÉVÉ that was extremely humiliating, demeaning and perverse. The respondent published the false report contrary to the journalistic norms of accuracy, verification and right of reply. The respondent Amar Ujala was asked by the complainant to tender apology on front page as the purported corrigendum dated 9.9.2006 encaptioned “Sheila’s meeting with Sonia was not on sealing issue” published in the internal page of the newspaper as opposed to the blatantly false news published on front page of the newspaper was improper in that two line corrigendum was mixed with newspapers own reasons for carrying the news. The counsel further submitted that the respondent by publishing the corrigendum had made the things worse and made mockery of the issue. The counsel took serious exception to three lines: The CM office, Directorate of Information & Publicity and even CM herself had not issued denial about news carried by the newspaper appearing in Amar Ujala, which was made on imagination and drew upon surmises of the respondent newspaper. The counsel requested that serious view of the false reporting should be taken. The representative of the Amar Ujala submitted that the news report in question was published on the basis of statement given by the CM who had visited the Congress Party High Command to discuss the sealing issue. The news was covered by a reliable reporter and the news was substantially correct. The said statement of the CM was reported on TV Channels also. The respondent further stated that the CM had changed the statement and this was also reported in the newspaper in next edition. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the parties. It noted that the impugned report was based on information gathered by the reporter from ‘sources’. While publication of similar news by others can be no proof of its accuracy, every newspaper has individual responsibility to establish the accuracy of its report. It is correct that political persons are expected to be somewhat thick skinned to public criticism of their statements, actions and conducts, but the Press has to have some reasonable basis for its report. In the instant case no proof of such reasonable basis has been forthcoming. It is also essential for the Press to ensure that it maintains the dignity

193 of office of the public person while giving the report. The wording in heading to the report ‘Pakda Gaya Jhoot’ was not in very good taste. It is appreciated by the Committee that the ‘sealing issue’ in Delhi was very sensitive issue and the public eagerly awaited the statements of its leaders to guage the future directions on the issue. For this reason, it was all the more important that reports be carefully verified at pre-publication stage and if any refutation of a responsible person became available, subsequently this be given equal prominence for public benefit and kept distinct from its own comment. While no motive could be attributed to the respondent, it did fail on the above counts. For the above reasons, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint, warn Amar Ujala for its failure to abide by the normal journalistic practice of pre-verification and right of reply. It further recommended that the newspaper be directed under Section 14 (3) of the Press Council Act, 1978 to publish the gist of this adjudication in the columns of the newspaper prominently on the front page within two weeks of the service of the adjudication of the Council. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

51) Smt. Sheila Dikshit Versus The Editor Chief Minister The Times of India Govt. of NCT of Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 18.9.2006 has been filed by Smt. Sheila Dikshit, Chief Minister, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi against the Times of India for publication of allegedly false, fabricated, misleading and defamatory news items under the caption “PM rap on slow pace- Manmohan Sends a Strong Message Across To Delhi Govt.” and “Sonia raps Sheila on knuckles– Cong Chief Furious At Being Dragged Into Demolition Row” in its issues dated 29.8.2006 and 6.9.2006 respectively. It has been alleged in the first news item that the slow pace of preparations for the Commonwealth Games 2010 has provoked the Prime Minister, Shri Manmohan Singh to deliver a strong message to Chief Minister, Smt. Sheila Dikshit. The Prime Minister was reported to have expressed concern over the pace of preparations for the Commonwealth Games during his meeting with Smt. Dikshit at Veer Bhumi on August 20. In the second news item it has been alleged that Smt. Sonia Gandhi conveyed her strong displeasure to the Delhi Chief Minister,

194 Smt. Sheila Dikshit on the issue of demolitions in Delhi. It was further reported that annoyed, Smt. Sonia may follow up by sending a letter to the Chief Minister, and she is also reported to have lost her ground with the leadership because of what sources called ‘attitude problem.’ According to the complainant, the impugned news items are not only distasteful but maliciously written to malign and defame her. It was added that government had not issued any Press Release nor any briefing was done by the government or by the Chief Minister’s office and in the absence of the same, the publication of the said news items are certainly against the well journalistic norms. The complainant further submitted that there was no pre-publication verification from the complainant, which is mandatory for any reporter before sending the story for publication. The complainant has stated that they had given a notice to the respondent on 9.9.2006 and received its reply-dated 12.9.2006 from the respondent, which shows that they have no remorse and resorted to dilatory tactic to avoid giving a response, showing their defiance. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, The Times of India, New Delhi on 26.9.2006. Written Statement The respondent, through his Counsel filed his undated written statement, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 8.12.2006, and denied that the impugned news articles are defamatory or anything defamatory is published against the complainant as alleged and added that the news article in question are written after due care and diligence with reliable sources. The respondent has submitted that the instant petition filed before the Press Council is an abuse and misuse of the powers of the Council and is filed with an oblique motive of curtailing the powers of the freedom of press by resorting to procedural harassment. In keeping with the democratic traditions of India, the actions of public figure are in the media glare at all times and are often analysed and commented upon, and also it is a part of democratic tradition that public figure take this critical analysis of their actions in their stride, stated the respondent. He denied that the news articles are an attempt to demean or defame the complainant but claimed that these are published to set in motion a thought process, which may lead to discussion and a subsequent change in action and publication of the same in the newspaper from any angle does not amount to defamation. The respondent further submitted that the articles were based on a reliable source, which the complainant through the Directorate of Information & Publicity, GNCTD made demand through the letter dated 6.9.2006 to know the names of the sources on which the story was based. He has added that the legal notice was

195 written in a threatening tone with a threat of dire consequences in case the respondents did not accede to the demands of the government. The respondent has denied that the impugned publication was against the journalistic norms and stated that a free press is one of the essential pillars of the democracy and the duty of the newspaper to inform its readers, is an ingredient of press of freedom. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 13.12.2006 for information/counter-comment, if any. Complainant’s Counter Comments In response to written statement dated 8.12.2006, the counsel for the complainant has filed parawise reply dated 9.3.2007, reiterating the complaint and denying all the allegations made by the respondents. The counsel also pointed out that in this case, the respondent Editor himself did not sign the written statement. The counsel for the complainant further submitted that it is mandatory to follow the rules of pre-publication verification, accuracy of the news item and not to sensationalize news. It is mandatory under the norms of journalistic conduct that the respondent should eschew inaccurate and baseless publications. In the said case respondents have miserably failed to follow the Regulations and have defied the law with impunity. The article published by the respondent was malicious, blatantly incorrect, scurrilous and totally irresponsible act of journalism, the complainant averred. The counsel further submitted that respondents have stated that the petitioner is a highly respected public figure which it self shows that the respondents do not have any license to publish defamatory news and malign the petitioner. The heading of the news items, published on 6.9.2006 and the language used in the said newspaper heading itself shows that the said respondents have violated the basic norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant’s counsel further submitted that respondents have misused the liberty of the freedom of the Press. The counsel for the complainant stated that the respondents have crossed all decent paths and have chosen offensive and incorrect paths. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.03.2007 at New Delhi. Shri D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, The Times of India. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri D.N. Goburdhun appearing for the complainant submitted that The Times of India had given absolutely imaginary news reports. The language used in the impugned reports was in bad taste. The respondent newspaper by publishing the impugned reports attempted to sensationalise the issue and it was a campaign

196 in orchestrisd manner. The news reported the PM expressing concern over the pace of Commonwealth Games during his meeting with CM at Veer Bhumi where leaders had come to pay homage to Rajiv Gandhi and was totally imaginary. The counsel stated that the respondent newspaper Times of India had not followed ethics of quoting sources. The said news reports were far rumoured from fair reporting and were published without pre-publication verification. While they accepted that public figures have to be tolerant of public criticism, such criticism has to be based on accuracy, otherwise it amounts to misuse of freedom of the press. The paper in the instant case had adopted the language of a prosecutor instead of a reporter and tried to malign the dignity of the post based on hearsay or imagination.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the counsel. It noted that the impugned report was based on information gathered by the reporter from ‘sources’. It is correct that political persons are expected to be more tolerant of public criticism of the statements, actions and conduct, but the press has to have some reasonable basis of its report. In the instant case, no proof of such reasonable basis has been forthcoming. It is also essential for the press to ensure that it maintains the dignity of office of the public person while giving its report. It is appreciated by the Committee that the demolition issue in Delhi was very sensitive issue and the public eagerly awaited the statements of its leaders to gauge the future direction of the issue. For this reason, it is all the more important that reports be carefully verified at pre-publication stage from the concerned person, and if any refutation of a responsible person becomes available subsequently this should be given equal prominence for public benefit. While no motive can be attributed to the respondent, it did fail on the above counts.

For the above reasons, the Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to uphold the complaint, warn The Times of India for its failure to abide by the normal Journalistic practices of pre-verification and right of reply. It further recommends that the newspaper be directed under Section 14(3) of the Press Council Act, 1978, to publish the gist of this adjudication in the columns of the newspaper prominently on the front page within two weeks of the service of the adjudication of the Council.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

197 52) Shri Abhishek Singh, IAS Versus The Editor District Magistrate Dainik Amar Ujala Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 11.11.2005 has been filed by Shri Abhishek Singh, IAS, District Magistrate, Hardoi against Dainik Amar Ujala, Kanpur for publication of an allegedly misleading, false, malicious news item in its issue dated 11.11.2005 captioned “Ziladhikari Ka Aadesh, Chai Ke Packet lein Tabhi Milegi Gas”. The complainant has submitted that the headline of the news item is misleading as no such order was passed by him. The complainant has submitted that he talked to the correspondent of Amar Ujala over phone and factual position had been explained to him that no such order had been passed by him and if any consumer has any complaint against any Gas Agency, he is free to lodge complaint against the Gas Agency before him or before Consumer Protection Forum. The complainant has submitted that the respondent by publishing the misleading, false and malicious news item has defamed the office of the District Magistrate. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 1.3.2006. The editor, Amar Ujala, Kanpur in his written statement dated 11.3.2006 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has contended that the publication of the news item is neither objectionable nor the newspaper or editor has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or committed any professional misconduct. The respondent has submitted that the impugned news item was objective and fair reporting made in good faith in discharge of public duty devoid of any malice and based upon facts. The impugned report stated that the developments were witnessed by their reporter. He contended that it was fair reporting and the version of the complainant was published along with news item in box with the caption “Aise Kisi Bhi Aadesh Se Inkar Kiya D.M. Ne” and thereafter a detailed follow up of the same news was also published on 12.11.2005 with the caption “Gas Agency Par City Magistrate Ne Chhapa Dala”. The respondent has submitted that the impugned news item dated 11.11.2005 was true reporting of the incident but it appears that the complainant was misguided and aggrieved by the caption of the news item. After thorough reading of the news item including the caption it was clear that the caption is explanation of the entire news item i.e. the caption represents the version of general public not the personal view of the newspaper. The respondent has submitted that the news item was published to expose the misdeeds of the proprietor of Gas Agency who was forcing illegal condition on consumers in distribution of Gas. The respondent has submitted that the news item published on 12.11.2005 captioned “Gas Agency Par

198 City Magistrate Ne Chhapa Dala” published in Amar Ujala established the faithfulness, intelligence and competency of the complainant before the public; hence the inference of the complainant based upon only on caption was neither proper nor appropriate. The respondent has submitted that if the complainant is feeling aggrieved by his wrong reading, they expresses their regret. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 21.3.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.03.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appeared for the respondent. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi admitted that the heading of the news item had been incorrectly worded. However, the newspaper had made the position clear in its next day’s edition. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the respondent. It was of the view that the newspaper should have observed greater caution in giving the headline to the news report. It, however, decided to dispose of the complaint with directions to respondent to ensure more careful editorial control in future. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

53) Shri B.K. Narayan Versus The Editor General Manager Samyuktha Prabha GILTEC International Pvt. Ltd. Mangalore, Karnataka Mangalore, Karnataka Complaint This complaint dated 20th July 2005 has been filed by Shri B.K. Narayan, General Manager, GILTEC International Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore against Samyukatha Prabha, Kannada Weekly, Mangalore alleging publication of defamatory and malicious front page report under the caption has stated by the complainant as “Around the Shagil Shailesh’s naughty behaviours….?” with the Company’s

199 photograph in its maiden issue dated 26.05.2005. The impugned news item highlighted the misdeeds of Mr. Shailesh, Managing Director of GILTEC International Pvt. Ltd. describing him as a ‘cheater’. The impugned news item further stated that Mr. Shailesh became a millionaire after suffering from poverty due to his cheating. It has been alleged that as Shailesh for serving his purpose began to hire cheaters and naughty people and some persons calling themselves to be Swamijis, the problems erupted. He began harassing the honest and sincere employees and unnecessarily suspecting against some workers and put them to harassment. When the workers deprived of the facilities, formed a trade union, their voice were gagged with the help of the brokers and the police. When the workers placed their lawful demands, he declared lockout in the GILTEC and made the workers to fall on the street. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the respondent carried a defamatory and malicious article which is against all ethics of journalism and public taste. The complainant submitted that the entire news report is false, highly malicious and defamatory and liable to be proceeded under Criminal and Civil Court of Law. According to the complainant, the statements made by the respondent are totally false and intended to injure the high reputation of the factory as well as its Managing Director with an ulterior motive to lower down his image in the eyes of the general public. The complainant submitted that they issued a notice dated 4.6.2005 requesting him to tender an open unconditional apology prominently on the first page and to pay a compensation of Rs. one lac but received no reply. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Samyukta Prabha, Mangalore on 27.9.2005. Written Statement In response, the respondent-Editor, Samyuktha Prabha, Mangalore in his written statement dated 15.10.2005 stated that the news item in question was published in good faith for protection of the interest of the labourers. According to the editor, the news item was verified after careful perusal of the documents and due enquiry with the persons aggrieved and the officers of labour department and others. While denying the allegations the respondent also filed issue dated 1.6.2005 of another newspaper “Sathya News”, which almost carried the same contents. He also stated that prior to publication of the news item in question several articles had been published in different newspapers concerning Mr. Shailesh and his firm. The respondent while denying malafide, further stated that they did not cross limit and have not violated any ethics of journalism as alleged by the complainant. A copy of the written statement of the respondent editor was forwarded to the complainant on 25.10.2005 for his counter comments.

200 Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 9.11.2005, the complainant submitted that the written statement of the respondent was false and evasive. Moreover, the impugned publication has been made to malign Mr. Shailesh Kumar as well as the Company namely M/s Giltec International (P) Ltd. The complainant submitted that before publication of the impugned news item no enquiry was conducted by the respondent. The complaint lodged by the General Secretary of the Motor and General Mazdoor Sangh before the Deputy Labour Commissioner did not confer any right on the respondent to publish the impugned article which was per se defamatory. The complaint made by the Sangh was a matter before the authority for consideration and the truthfulness of the same was yet to be established by the respondent. The complainant submitted that the complaint made by the Sangh was later rejected by the Deputy Labour Commissioner as un-sustainable. He further stated that the Motor and General Mazdoor Sangh with an ulterior motive did try to poison the minds of some of the employees but failed to achieve it. The complainant stated that merely by producing the articles published in other newspapers the respondent cannot shed his responsibility for the defamatory publication. Further, subject of the impugned publication is not of public importance for the readers to know. He alleged that the respondent had failed to discharge his professional duty. According to him, the impugned publication caused severe damage to the image of Mr. Shailesh Kumar and their company which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Their company also lost valuable orders and the suppliers too started doubting about the credentials of the company and stopped the supply resulting in untold losses and hardship to the company. He concluded by saying that the subject matter of the complaint made by the Sangh and the article published by the respondent are entirely different and it does not help the respondent to justify the impugned publication. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent in accordance with law. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 22.11.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.03.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant in a letter dated 14.03.2007 filed his written arguments reiterating the submissions made earlier in his complaint and requested the Council to exempt him from personal appearance before the Inquiry Committee. Shri Mohammed Raffi, Editor/Publisher appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Mohammed Raffi also reiterated that the newspaper had published the impugned report on the basis of statement of trade union leaders. Similar report

201 had appeared in the Hai Bangalore. The respondent offered to tender apology if the publication had hurt the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records and observed that the respondent newspaper had published the one-sided report that tended to severely damage the reputation of the complainant and the company. It has to be appreciated that in any stand-off between the management and the workers, the trading of charges are not uncommon. When before the competent authority such as Labour Commissioner, these are assessed to draw out a prolonged conclusion, but when presented before the respondent without the version of the other party, they tend to prejudice the public to form a unilateral opinion. The respondent erred on this count and further compounded it by failing to take any concrete steps, post publication, more so when the Labour Commissioner had rejected the charges. The fact of publication of similar report in another report does not bestow the status of accuracy to the charges. The personal apology tendered before the Committee is insufficient in the circumstances and the Committee recommended to the Council to warn the respondent publication and publish the gist of the adjudication in the newspaper with prominence within a fortnight of the service of the adjudication under report to the Council. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

54) Shri P.B. Sathyan Versus The Editor State General Secretary Flash, Kerala Kaumudi Group BJP Kissan Morcha Malayalam Mid-Day Daily P.O.S. Vazhakkulam Thiruvananthapuram Aluva, Kerala Complaint Shri P.B. Sathyan, State General Secretary, BJP Kissan Morcha, Aluva (Kerala) has filed this complaint dated 12.12.2005 against “Flash”, Malayalam Mid-Day Daily of Thiruvananthapuram published by Kerala Kaumudi Group for carrying allegedly false, misleading and unethical story on the day of Lok Sabha bye-election held on 18.11.2005 reporting that the BJP has withdrawn from the election, thereby affecting its election prospects. The impugned news item captioned “BJP withdrew-In many places there are no polling agents” reads as follows:- “The BJP which showed complacency in the matter of propaganda, repeated the same attitude on the eve of the polling.

202 The BJP had no polling booths in many places. BJP workers were also not seen. The situation looks like as if the BJP and the RSS have withdrawn enmasse. At the same time polling agents of the UDF and the LDF were seen a plenty. In both the camps workers were seen working enthusiastically. Even at the strong hold of the BJP at Palkkulangara, the party had no booth. The booths of the LDF and the UDF at the NSS High School at Palkkulangara were very much active.” The complainant alleged that the impugned news item gave a graphic picture that BJP candidate, Shri C.K. Padmanabhan withdrew from the contest to the Lok Sabha bye-election. The complainant submitted the denial of the BJP candidate but averred that it was not sufficient and that rebuttal should come from the respondent. He stated that normally the Mid-Day hits the stand only around 1 p.m. in the afternoon. However, on the D-Day, the respondent made it possible to make available the copies of the “Flash” even in the morning around 9 a.m. Truck loads of the printed matter were made available in the polling booths so as to make the voters and the ordinary workers of the BJP to believe that the BJP candidate had withdrawn. People in the polling booths in queue and those who were moving to the polling booths were made to believe the story published by the “Flash” which came up urgently and abruptly to the detriment of the BJP candidate. The complainant alleged that the main aim of the respondent was to help the candidate of the Left party by spreading a canard that the BJP candidate has withdrawn in support of the ruling coalition. According to the complainant, anybody who is accustomed to political scenario in Kerala can easily see through the game. The complainant alleged that the respondent had published the impugned news item with the sole aim to defame the BJP, and to damage image of the party. The complainant stated that in almost all the 15 booths, booth agents of the BJP candidate were deputed but the correspondent of the respondent newspaper who inspected the booths ignored their presence. He alleged that the impugned news item was defamatory, unethical and false, and by publishing the same the respondent had not only violated the journalistic ethics but also cheated the people of Kerala. The complainant submitted that their protest letter, which was sent on the same day, evoked no response from the respondent. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, “Flash”, Thiruvananthapuram on 29.5.2006. Written Statement The respondent editor, Flash in his written statement dated 22.6.2006, while denying the allegations submitted that the news item in question was not published with a view to help any of the political party. It was only a report with respect

203 to the facts relating to the election. The subsequent events relating to BJP after the election proved that the news was correct. In fact the BJP itself admitted that the followers of the party did not actively participate in the election. They had also taken action against some of their leaders. The respondent stated that the factual report had been brought to the notice of the election candidate of BJP and his statement with respect to the same had also been published. The respondent further stated that nobody other than the complainant had complained that the ‘Flash’ had committed any act violating election rules. Even the Election Commissioner has also not initiated any action against them in connection with the news item. Thus the allegation levelled by the complainant could not sustain in the eyes of law. Further, if the complainant had got any such complaints, the proper forum for the same is the Election Commission and not the Press Council. The respondent further submitted that the complaint is not sustainable on merits. He requested to consider the factual and legal positions and dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 28/6/2006 for his information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, ‘Flash’. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the heading to the impugned report differed from the contents of the news. The Heading “BJP withdrew” was published in bold big font while in the contents the report stated though wrongly that its agents could not be seen, giving the impression as if the BJP had withdrawn from elections. The complainant’s counsel contended that the afternoon newspaper was brought out at 10.00 a.m. with bold heading: ‘‘BJP withdrew” and distributed near polling booth. The counsel further submitted that the polling was upto 5.00 p.m. and the said news misled the public. The complainant had issued a legal notice to editor, Flash to take remedial measures by informing the public about the true state of affairs that the BJP candidate had not withdrawn from the Lok Sabha poll. But that the damage was already been done and the respondent did not publish the true facts at that relevant point of time. The counsel stated that there would be no use of publishing the retraction as this stage as the damage had already been done. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the records and hearing the learned counsel for the complainant was of the view that the impugned publication whether politically motivated or not, wrongly conveyed to the public on the day of the

204 election itself, through its caption the withdrawal of the candidate and thus carried the possibility of damage to his prospects. Also worthy of notice is the statement of the complainant that the newspaper, an afternoon publication was on that day released in the morning and distributed in the area of polling booths. Though not strictly on all fours but of relevance here is the Norm 2(ii) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct which reads as follows: “Publication of news such as those pertaining to cancellation of examinations or withdrawal of candidates from election should be avoided without proper verification and cross checking.” The Inquiry Committee opined that the respondent newspaper had erred in by circulating the impugned report and did not represent fair journalism. For the above ethical dereliction, it recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and severely reprimand the respondent editor, Flash published from Thiruvananthapuram. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

55) Shri Lal Singh Versus The Editor Editor, Hathras Samachar, H/W Gramya Netra Hathras, Uttar Pradesh Hindi Weekly Hathras, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 27.1.2005 has been filed by Shri Lal Singh, Editor, Hathras Samachar, Hathras against Gramya Netra, Hindi Weekly, Hathras alleging publication of an objectionable news item captioned ‘Tulsi Ja Sansar Mein Bhanti Bhanti Ke Log Kuchh To (unparliamentary word) Hai Kuchh Bahuti (unparliamentary word)’ in its issue dated 11th-17th January 2005. According to the complainant, a news article captioned ‘Gramya Netra Ke Sampadak Apni Mansikta Badlein’ was published in his newspaper ‘Hathras Samachar’ in its issue dated 26.12.2004-4.1.2005 authored by Shri Chandrapal & Others and he has no personal responsibility for the contents of the news article written by his fellow journalist because it was also published in another newspaper. In retaliation of the news article published in his newspaper, the respondent editor, Gramya Netra published the impugned news. The complainant further submitted that the respondent published the write up in vulgar and unparliamentary language against the healthy standards of journalism which were deliberately published with malafide intention. The complainant submitted that printline of the newspaper is also doubtful and an

205 inquiry may be got conducted as the respondent mentioned in the printline of his newspaper as ‘Dainik’ whereas his newspaper is ‘weekly’. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned write up but received no reply from him. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Gramya Netra, Weekly, Hathras on 19.12.2005 for filing written statement in the matter. In response, the respondent editor, Gramya Netra in his written statement dated 25.7.2006 (wrongly mentioned as 2005) while denying the allegations submitted that the complaint is false and baseless and the complainant intends to defame him in the eyes of public. The respondent stated that he never published any obscene or vulgar news item in his ‘Gramya Netra Weekly’. According to the respondent, the complainant was prejudiced towards him and wanted to defame him. A copy of the written statement was sent to the complainant on 21.8.2006 for his information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Lal Singh, Editor, Hathras Samachar appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent editor, Gramya Netra. Notice of hearing sent to the respondent editor, Gramya Netra was received back with postal remarks ‘premises locked.’ Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent editor had published vulgar write up in his newspaper, ‘Gramya Netra’ which was against the standards of journalism. This was in retaliation to a news article published in the complainant’s newspaper ‘Hathras Samachar’. A meeting was called to settle the issue and resolve the differences but the respondent editor did not come forward to attend the meeting. The complainant requested that the registration of the newspaper Gramya Netra should be cancelled. They also informed the Committee that the respondent was residing at the same address as on record i.e. Quilagate, Hathras and could be avoiding notice. Ist Adjournment The Inquiry Committee noted that the notice to the respondent editor was received back with postal remarks ‘premises locked’ but as per the complainant he still resides at this address. As the language of the write-ups published by the respondent was prima facie objectionable, the Committee felt that the presence

206 of the respondent editor was necessary in the case. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to adjourn the matter and to get the notice of next hearing served on the respondent editor, Gramya Netra, Hathras through the Superintendent of Police, Hathras. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Lal Singh appeared in person. The editor, Gramya Netra in a letter dated 23.4.2007 requested that the written statement filed by him may be considered as he was not able to attend the hearing due to ill-health. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his complaint and submitted that the respondent editor, Gramya Netra was a stigma on the profession of journalism. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and noted that the respondent editor, Gramya Netra in its issue dated 11-17 June, 2005 had written a most offending piece couched in abusive and unprintable language. It observed that the publication in question was an example of worst standards of journalism and misuse of the freedom of the press to settle personal scores and the respondent editor had thrown all norms of fair journalism to winds. The Inquiry Committee strongly while disapproving the conduct of the editor in using unparliamentary language in the impugned publication decided to recommend to the Council to censure the respondent editor, Gramya Netra for flouting the ethics of journalism and misusing the press freedom. It further recommended to it to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication to the RNI, DAVP, State I&PRD and the District Magistrate, Hathras for such action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

56) Shri S.S. Sadananda Versus The Editor A.C.D.P.O., Sharada Nagar Namma Loka Sringeri Kannada Weekly Chikamagalur, Karnataka Chikamagalur Complaint This complaint dated 2.2.2005 has been filed by Shri S.S. Sadananda, A.C.D.P.O., Sharada Nagar, Sringeri, Chikamagalur (Karnataka) against “Namma

207 Loka”, Kannada Weekly alleging publication of false and baseless news item in its issue dated 25.10.2004. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant’s aristocratic way of life bears witness to his misdeeds, debauchery, gambling other unethical and illegal activities. It was rather difficult for him to manage car, bike etc. with the salary he gets. Further the impugned news item states that 8 to 10 years have elapsed after a Halaukora (fiendish) Sadananda (complainant) has come to Sringeri and the word ‘transfer’ does not apply to him because there was no one to question him staying rooted here on the basis of caste. It was also alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant tortured the lady workers of Anganawadi. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news item damaged his official personality as well as his family integrity. The complainant submitted that the respondent by publishing the impugned news item tarnished his image in the public as he had not yielded his request for extortion of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant alleged that the language used in the article was vulgar, and likely to put the entire journalism to shame. The complainant objected on mentioning the caste and word i.e. Halaukora (fiendish). According to the complainant, the impugned news item affects him in discharge of his duty smoothly. The complainant submitted that he did not own car but has landed property to manage the vehicles etc. The complainant further submitted that the post of ACDPO had been created by the Government for smooth running of the office administration and this is a regular post. The complainant alleged that in the name of the journalism, the respondent editor involved himself in extortion of money by publishing the false news item. He submitted that the reading of the impugned news item reveal the standard of language used by the respondent. The complainant submitted that he did not receive any reply from the respondent in response to his two legal notices dated 1.12.2004 and 2.11.2004. The complainant also forwarded copies of the petition filed against the respondent in the Hon’ble High Court by the J.M.F.C. Sringeri in support of his contention that the respondent is habitual of publishing such false news items. The Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India condoned the nominal delay of one and a half months in filing the complaint vide his order dated 12.7.2005 keeping in view the explanation given by the complainant. Written Statement In his written statement dated 1.8.2005, the respondent editor, Namma Loka, Sringeri submitted that the word ‘Halaukora’ as objected to by the complainant is used in common parlance for the persons who act in irresponsible manner. There was no intention to defame the complainant but his conduct during his visit to Anganvadi was the same as mentioned in the article in question. The respondent

208 stated that there are number of complaints against the misdeeds of the complainant from the lady Anganvadi workers. He further stated that name of the caste was mentioned in the article not with an intention to cast aspersions but only to disclose how the castism in the local politics is prevailing on the local bureaucrats. The respondent further submitted that the allegation of the complainant that he demanded money from him and also threatened him, is totally false and baseless. He stated that they published the article in question to bring out the misdeeds and rude behaviour of the complainant to the knowledge of general public and elected representatives. Thus, the article was published for the public good with a good intention. The respondent concluded by saying that the complaint was motivated and filed with an intention to stop the publication of the paper which is committed to bring true facts to the knowledge of the general public. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 17.8.2005 for his information. Proceedings Dropped The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The respondent editor, Namma Loka requested for another date of hearing as he was not able to make arrangements at Delhi. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had not entered appearance to assist the Inquiry Committee in arriving at a conclusion despite service of notice. In the absence of such assistance, the Inquiry Committee was of the view that the matter may not be processed. It therefore decided to drop the proceedings and recommended to the Council to close the case. Matter Re-listed After the meeting was over a letter was received from the complainant requesting for action in the matter. The complainant submitted that the allegations made by the respondent editor were false and far from facts and the impugned article was intended to defame him in public. The complainant stated that the respondent editor closed down his publication from Sringeri and shifted its publication to the district headquarter i.e. Chickmagalur. In the circumstances, Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India decided that the matter may be re-listed before the Inquiry Committee for consideration. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.04.2007 at New Delhi. There was again no appearance from either side. The Editor, Namma Loka in a letter dated 23.4.2007 requested for another date. While the service of notice on complainant was not complete.

209 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee decided to proceed on the basis of the documents on record. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent newspaper in its issue dated 25.10.2004 carried a news report criticizing the functioning of the complainant in his official capacity. He was also charged with misbehaving with the lady workers in Anganvadi. The Committee noted while the press has full right or even duty to critically appraise the action of the public servants, such appraisal has to have legs to stand upon. Even while the Committee did not approve of the manner in which the impugned news report had been written and couched in indecent language it observed that the respondent did not substantiate the allegations in the news report with any documentary evidence. The Inquiry Committee therefore, recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint with expression of displeasure the violation of ethical principles of journalism by ‘Namma Loka’ Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

57) Shri Jugal Kishore Gupta Versus The Editor Chhattarpur Dainik Vindhya Shakti Madhya Pradesh Chhattarpur, M.P. Complaint Shri Jugal Kishore Gupta, Chhattarpur has filed a complaint dated 18.01.2006 against Editor, “Dainik Vindhya Shakti”, Hindi daily, Chhattarpur alleging breach of the standards of journalistic ethics and professional misconduct by the respondent in publishing the news item captioned “Tax Chor Jugal Gupta Ki Dhokadhadi Ka Shikar Varshon Se Bhatak Raha Garib Kisan” (Poor peasant victim of the fraud of Tax evader Jugal Kishore Gupta running letter skeltes for the last several years) in its issue dated 30.11.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the conduct of the complainant, Shri Jugal Kishore Gupta has become talk of town for evading of several taxes and the authority has been receiving complaints against him for committing fraud with his customers. Hundreds of peasants have already become the victims of fraud of the complainant and are in great problem for the last nine years and they now lodged complaints against him and also decided to go to the court. According to the news report, one Shri Ravindra Kumar Trivedi, a resident of Village Supa, District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh in his complaint lodged with the Police, alleged that in the year 1995, he purchased a water pump, Monoblock with 5-horse power of Kirlosker company at an amount of Rs.7,600/- from the complainant’s company namely J.K. Industries & Sales.

210 The said pump went out of order in the warranty period and the customer immediately approached the complainant, who was directed by the Company to replace the pump of the customer. It was alleged that despite the direction of the company, the complainant neither replaced the new pump to the consumer nor returned the old one while he had received new pump in lieu of the defective one from the company. According to the complainant, the allegations levelled by the respondent are totally false, profoundly and outrageously mischievous. He has submitted that on 28.12.2005, Shri Ravinder Kumar Trivedi bought a monoblock pump from his firm and after using it for some time, returned it to the complainant’s firm with some complaint. The complainant’s firm sent it back to the manufacturing company and after due adjustment and repair by the manufacturer, the pump was returned to the consumer. The complainant stated that the entire reporting in the newspaper was false and a conspiracy/scandalisation of the issue by the respondent to run the series of story “Dastan-e-Jugal Gupta” at the cost of his reputation which was in gross violation of the code of conduct of journalism. The respondent in the edition dated 29.10.2005 had published a news under the heading “Napa Ne Manga Jugal Seth Se Sampatti Ka Hisab” under the sub heading ‘Dastan-e-Natwarlal’ and reported that the complainant was a tax evader and running around to escape the service of the notice pertaining to the tax evasion. The complainant submitted that the allegation regarding the tax evasion was totally false, incorrect, incomplete and misleading. The properties mentioned in the newspaper were properly assessed as on date and tax was paid without default. The Complainant alleged that the narration and language pertaining to the complainant and his family as used by the respondent was far from reality and foul in nature just to sensationalize the public opinion and to lower the dignity of the reputation of the complainant and his family including the female members without any credibility check of the information and reporting, tantamount to degrading the standards of fair and decent journalism. The complainant further stated that a news item dated 13.08.2005 published in the respondent’s newspaper under the caption “Atikraman Ke Jhameley Main Fasa Jugal Seth” reported that the complainant was responsible for the encroachment over government land and had illegally constructed his house. The complainant alleged that the allegation was totally false, incorrect and misleading. The complainant submitted that the colony in which his house is situated and constructed is on private land and constructed as per the sanctioned map and measurement of the concerned authority of Chhattarpur. A news item dated 10.05.2005 was also published in the newspaper Vindhya Shakti under the caption “Croron Ka Karobar Per Tax….Ufff” which was totally false, incorrect and misleading. The name of complainant’s son Shri Razul Gupta

211 was mentioned, reference of the family members written and they were portrayed through the cartoon which was grossly defamatory and in violation of the conduct and ethics of journalism. A news item published in the edition dated 26.04.2005 captioned “Croron Ki Haveli Aur Tax Jhopri Ka” was published in respondent daily blaming the complainant for the house tax evasion which was also false, incorrect and misleading. According to the complainant the house was in the process of construction as per the sanctioned plan by the authorities and as it was not completely constructed and not in use as a dwelling house, hence provisional/ nominal tax was assessed. Show-cause notice dated 31.3.2006 was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Vindhya Shakti, Chhatarpur. Written Statement Shri Sushil Dubey, respondent-editor, Vindhya Shakti, Chhattarpur in his written statement dated 20.04.2006 has submitted that he had never published any wrong, false, defamatory, outrageously or mischievous information against the complainant. All the news items were published based on of proofs. He has submitted that the complainant Shri Jugal Kishore Gupta had filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC in the court of JMFC, Chhattarpur and continuously targeting his newspaper with malafide intentions with help of immense money. The respondent submitted that his newspaper’s intention was not to hurt or defame the complainant. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 20.04.2006 for information. Rejoinder of the Complainant The complainant Shri Jugal Kishore Gupta in his rejoinder-dated 16.7.2006 has submitted that the contents of written statement of the respondent newspaper were false and misleading. The respondent had published wrong information with the sole objective of defaming the complainant and to take advantage of his position as a publisher of a newspaper. A copy of the rejoinder was forwarded to the respondent editor, Dainik Vindhya Shakti on 7.8.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.02.2007 at Udaipur. The complainant in a letter dated 6.2.2007 and respondent in his fax letter dated 9.2.2007 requested the Council to list the matter at Delhi. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the parties and decided to adjourn the matter.

212 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. Dr. Harsh Pathak, advocate along with the complainant Shri Jugal Kishore appeared before the Committee. Shri Krishna Gopal Dubey represented the respondent Vindhya Shakti. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant submitted that the preliminary objection of the respondent with regard to maintainability of the complaint that the matter was pending in the court of law, was wrong. The counsel submitted that the matter pending before the court of law was in respect of a news of 2002 published by the respondent, which was still pending. The present complaint before the Council was in respect of the news published in 2005 by the respondent newspaper. The complainant’s counsel on merits submitted that the news items dated 26.4.2005, 10.02.2005, 13.8.2005, 29.10.2005, were referred to in the complaint as previous publications to the main impugned news item dated 30.11.2005 under the respective captions “Caroron ki haveli aur tax Jhopri ka: Kaun hai Jugal Gupta”, “Caroron ka karobar par tax….uff’, “Atikraman ke jhamele mein fansa Jugal Seth”, “Napa ne manga Jugal Seth se sampatti ka hisaab” and “Tax chor Jugal Gupta ke dhokadhadi ka shikar varshon se bhatak raha garib kisan”. The complainant’s counsel stated that these news items were highly objectionable and defamatory of the complainant. The counsel submitted that there was not a single case against the complainant as reported in “Dastan-e-Jugal Gupta”. As regards the impugned news item about harassment of poor farmer by the complainant, the counsel submitted that the said farmer was not a poor farmer as reported but owned a huge farmland, who had bought several pumps from the complainant. The complaint of the said farmer about deficiency in pump relating to the year 1995 was reported in 2005 issue of the respondent Vindhya Shakti to malign the name and fame of the complainant’s firm. The counsel further submitted that the farmer Ravinder Kumar had bought several pumps from the complainant firm and the deficiency in one of them was reported and processed. The counsel referred to letter of M/ s Kirloskar Brothers Limited in which it was stated that Ravinder Kumar had not selected suitable pump as per the requirement of his site. The counsel submitted that the language such as “natwarlal”, “gambler”, “tax evader” etc. used in the impugned news items were defamatory per-se of the complainant and such language was not in keeping the high standards of journalistic ethics. To a query of the Committee, the complainant counsel submitted that the tax was paid from time to time by the complainant and therefore the notice from the authorities that tax was not paid for 2-3 years, was totally wrong inasmuch as not paying the tax or paying less tax were different issues. The counsel submitted that no tax was liveable on the complainant. The counsel stated that the

213 complainant had been defending the tax notices from the authorities, which were issued on motivated complaint at the behest of the respondent editor but the respondent editor simultaneously used his newspaper as a tool to start a vilification campaign to malign the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the complainant in the society. The counsel also cited that the respondent editor had published on 10.05.2005 the caricature of the wife and the son of the complainant with comments attributed to the complainant advising his wife to teach duffer son as to how tax is evaded because his son will have to handle the huge property. The Counsel requested the Committee to peruse the language of the newspaper Vindhya Shakti in its various publication against the complainant and his family and decide. Shri Krishna Gopal Dubey appearing for Vindhya Shakti submitted that the impugned news was published on the basis of the complaint of Shri Ravinder Kumar, a farmer. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had a policy of publishing current as well as old news. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had sufficient basis of publishing the news report in question. The respondent relied on the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, Chhattarpur which showed that the complainant was evading tax and not paying the tax despite the fact that he was a famous person in the area and having palatial house. The newspaper reports were in public interest, concluded the respondent’s representative. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the impugned publications in the respondent newspaper Vindhya Shakti had been focused on the complainant as being a person of repute in the area but evading tax purportedly based on the notices from Municipal Corporation, Chhattarpur issued to the complainant. However, as per the complainant, these notices had been issued pursuant to the complaints lodged by the respondent himself and his reports were motivated by personal reasons and to spite against the case filed by the complainant w.r.t the report of year 2002. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the presentation of the series of news was not bonafide. The respondent newspaper in its impugned publication used derogatory and defamatory words against the complainant and he further compounded the offence by publishing the caricature of the complainant’s family with sarcastic comments regarding tax evasion. The Inquiry Committee disapproved the conduct of the editor, Vindhya Shakti in publishing the defamatory and derogatory news reports against the complainant, which were in bad taste and against the principles of the journalistic conduct and ethics. The Inquiry Committee in view of the above decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the Editor, Vindhya Shakti for its series of reports using derogatory and defamatory language and to direct the editor, Vindhya Shakti to publish the adjudication of the Council within a fortnight of its receipt in the daily newspaper. It may forward the issue of the newspaper carrying the same

214 to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record with a period of three weeks of the service of the adjudication. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

58) Smt. Bharati Agarwal Versus 1. The Editor President Vidarbha Chandika Gram Bharati Mahila Mandal Nagpur Pathakhera, Distt. Betul, M.P. 2. The Editor Vigyapan Ki Duniya Nagpur Complaints These complaints dated 27.4.2004 and 17.5.2004 have been filed by Smt. Bharati Agarwal, President, Gram Bharati Mahila Mandal, Pathakhera, Betul, Madhya Pradesh against two Hindi weeklies namely; “Vigyapan Ki Duniya” and “Vidarbha Chandika” for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items captioned ‘Crores of Rupees earned by means of prostitution’(English translation) in their issues dated 18th April and 14th June 2004 respectively. According to the complainant, it is alleged in the impugned news items that Smt. Vinita Kushwaha, an ex-secretary of the complainant’s organization earned huge amount of money by means of prostitution. It is also alleged that the complainant’s organization got a grant to the tune of Rupees One Crores from the State government and UNICEF through this lady by quenching the thirst of the government officials and ministers. It is further stated in the impugned news items that due to financial dispute between the complainant and Smt. Vinita Kushwaha, the two parted ways and Smt. Vinita then formed another organization namely Social Care Nayjagriti Mahila Mandal. Smt. Vinita is alleged to have deserted her husband and two grown up sons and now living with one Arvind Srivastav. According to the complainant, the impugned news item is completely concocted and misleading which has been published with the sole intention to lower the image of their institution to benefit another social organization. The complainant has submitted that Smt. Vinita worked in their institution as secretary with effect from 29.7.1998 to 16.9.2002 and the Central and State governments have awarded her first prize for the work she had done for the institution. The complainant alleged that the impugned publication published three and a half years after the retirement of Smt. Vinita Kushwaha, is related to Smt. Vinita Kushwaha’s

215 personal life and the reference to their institution in such report has defamed their institution. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents Vigyapan Ki Duniya and Vidarbha Chandika on 5.7.2004 and 16.9.2004 respectively. Written Statements The Chief Editor of Vigyapan Ki Duniya in his written statement dated 16.7.2004 has submitted that the news item in question was not published to defame any individual but to inform the public as well as the authorities about the facts of the matter as corruption spread throughout the country. The respondent has submitted that the allegation of the complainant that the impugned news item was false and baseless is not correct. Regarding the allegation of the complainant that the news item was published in order to defame the complainant’s institution, the respondent has submitted that news item was not regarding the complainant’s institution but focused on the corrupt activities of Smt. Vinita Kushwaha, who has not objected to the veracity of the news item so far. The respondent added that had the complainant objection to the news item in question, which is not against her; they were ready to publish her version. The second respondent-Managing Editor, Vidarbha Chandika in his written statement dated 2.11.2004 has submitted that the news item in question was published only after conducting proper verification of the facts and the same was not aimed at defaming any individual. The respondent has submitted that the news item was published on the basis of the information provided by the husband of Smt. Vinita Kushwaha & others and furnished documentary evidence in support of their stand. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 20.8.2004, to the written statement of the respondent Vigyapan Ki Duniya, reiterated her earlier submission and added that the contention of the respondent that the news item was against Smt. Vinita Kushwaha and not against the complainant, was not correct, as the news item mentioned both their names. She also added that the personal life of Smt. Vinita was published in such a manner that the news item could defame the complainant’s institution. The complainant also filed counter comments dated 14.10.2004 to the written statement of the respondent Vidarbha Chandika and submitted that the statement of the respondent that the news item was against Smt. Vinita Kushwaha and not the complainant, was not correct as the news item tended to defame the complainant’s institution. She also stated that copies of the reports of the husband of Smt. Vinita Kushwaha, provided by the respondent, as documentary evidence had nothing to do with the complainant and her institution.

216 Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.02.2007 at Udaipur. The complainant Smt. Bharati Agarwal, President, Gram Bharati Mahila Mandal, Betul, (M.P.) appeared in person while the respondents, Vigyapan Ki Duniya and Vidharba Chandika vide their letters dated 17.2.2007 and 18.02.2007 requested for adjournment. They requested that the matter may be taken up at Delhi. The complainant submitted that she wished to argue the case in the presence of both the respondents and did not object to the adjournment. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to adjourn the matters to be listed at New Delhi. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant Mrs. Bharati Agarwal appeared in person while Shri R.L. Raikwar represented the respondent Vidarbha Chandika. There was no appearance on behalf of Vigyapan Ki Duniya. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that she and her institute are based in Madhya Pradesh but the respondent newspaper, namely Vigyapan Ki Duniya and Vidarbha Chandika published from Maharashtra, carried highly defamatory news items couched in objectionable language in the issues dated April 18-24, 2004 and June 14-20, 2004 under the captions “Deh Paroskar caroron ka anudan hadpa.” She submitted that the newspapers reporting about Vinita Kushwaha defamed the complainant’s organisation Gram Bharati Mahila Mandal. She pointed out to the Committee that the allegation such as “crores of rupees earned by means of prostitution” made in the impugned report about their organisation were extremely objectionable. The complainant requested for severe punishment to the respondent newspaper, their editors and correspondents. Shri R.L. Raikwar appearing for the respondent Vidarbha Chandika submitted that the proofs of the allegations in the impugned publications were not readily available since the editor had suddenly fallen sick and the newspaper had changed its premises. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset deprecated the Editors of the respondent newspapers “Vigyapan Ki Duniya” and “Vidarbha Chandika” in not deputing a responsible representative to assist the Committee in discharge of its duties. The Inquiry Committee decided to proceed on the basis of material on record and the submissions made before it by the complainant. It noted that the respondent newspapers had published the reports on the basis of information

217 provided by Ms. Kushwaha’s aggrieved husband and served as a tool in their personal disputes. The impugned news report charged the complainant’s organisation, which was engaged in social activities, having received grants amounting to crores from the government by “quenching the thirst of government officers and Ministers”. No attempt had been made to obtain the version of any of the concerned at pre or post publication stage on a report that was per se defamatory and tended to harm the reputation of the concerned. The caption given to the news reports were sensational. The Inquiry Committee opined that the respondents have violated the norms of journalistic conduct regarding pre-verification, accuracy and fairness and defamatory writings. For violation of above norms of journalistic conduct, the Inquiry Committee strongly disapproved the conduct of the editors and reporters of respondent newspapers, namely, Vigyapan Ki Duniya and Vidarbha Chandika, Nagpur and recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure both the newspapers, its editors and the reporters who filed the impugned story. It further recommended that the copies of the Council’s adjudication be forwarded to DAVP, RNI, I&PRD, Governments of Maharashtra/Madhya Pradesh and District Magistrates, Nagpur, Betul, for such action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

59) The Collector Versus The Editor Sehore Dainik Nai Duniya Madhya Pradesh Bhopal Madhya Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 20.4.2005 has been filed by the District Collector, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh against a Hindi daily newspaper named Dainik Nai Duniya, alleging publication of a false news item captioned ‘Stage lighted up with illegal electricity connection’ (English translation) in its issue dated 20.4.2005, critical of the district administration for its policy and illegal electricity connection. It has been alleged in the impugned news item that citizens and traders were aggrieved with the 9-10 hours load shedding, while the district administration was misusing the electricity. During Siwan festival, the electricity was drawn directly from the pole to decorate the dias and night resembled a sunlit day causing loss to the electricity department and consumers. It was further alleged that had this been done by the poor, electricity department would have taken strict action but the department was a silent spectator to the action of the Administration. The

218 respondent also published three photographs (i) Electricity Pole, (ii) the decorated dias/stage, and (iii) Another electricity pole. The complainant has denied the allegations and submitted that the news item was incorrect as the electricity connection was taken with prior permission, duly granted by the electricity board. He has added that the temporary electric voltage meters were installed and an advance payment of Rs.10,000/- was also deposited. The impugned report further speaks about the deteriorating conditions of the river Siwan and the callous and indifferent attitude of the administration resulting in conversion of aforesaid river into a dirty drain. The complainant has alleged that the news item in question was false, baseless and published to tarnish the image of the district administration and to cause hindrance in the work. The complainant brought all these facts to the notice dated 20.4.05 of the editor but the respondent did not respond. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 17.9.2005. Written Statement The respondent in its written statement dated 26.11.2005 submitted that inquiry from the concerned correspondent revealed that he verified the facts and found that the electricity was directly connected from the pole without installation of meter. He has added that the news item in question was published with photographs of the illegal wiring connected the pole. The respondent further stated that they received complaint from the complainant-Collector with a copy of the connection receipt dated 19.4.2005 which, perhaps, was taken after the news item was sent for publication and added that in spite of all these, they have warned the concerned correspondent to be careful in future. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 17.1.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry committee on 27.02.2007 at Udaipur. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent, Dainik Nai Duniya vide letter dated 17.02.2007 informed the Council that the news item was based on the facts and in public interest and there was no intention to defame or lower the image of the complainant. The respondent had assured that caution be taken in its future reports.

219 The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties, decided to adjourn the matter. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor in his written statement had stated that report was factual and in public interest. It was also submitted that though the news was verified yet the concerned correspondent had been warned to be careful in future. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant. The Committee observed that the complainant neither filed any counter nor was he represented before the Committee on two occasions despite receipt of the notice of hearing. The Inquiry Committee, thus, surmised that the complainant was not interested to pursue his case. It therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non- prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

60) Dr. J.G.Negi Versus The Editor Director General Hindustan Times MP Council of Sc. & Technology Bhopal Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Complaint This complaint, dated 16.9.2005 has been filed by Dr. J.G. Negi, Director General, MP Council of Science and Technology, Bhopal against The Hindustan Times, Bhopal for publication of an objectionable news item captioned “MAPCOST D-G flies high on unapproved aerial seeding plan” in its issue dated 10.8.2005. It is alleged in the impugned news item that keeping all rules at bay and without any sanctioned budget, the Director General, MP Council of Science and Technology, Dr. J. G. Negi has gone ahead quite a bit with his plan of conducting aerial seeding of Jatropha Cuscas (Ratanjot) in the ravines of Chambal region. It is further alleged that neither the approval of the Executive Council of the MAPCOST for this plan, had been sought nor was there any approved budget for the purpose. The Council gone ahead and procured as much as 20 tonne of Jatropha seed from Jaipur and a sum of about Rs.2.7 lakhs has already been

220 spent on the procurement of the seeds and also the complainant is alleged to have used the sum unauthorisedly. According to the complainant, MAPCOST is an autonomous institution and the Director General is of the rank of Vice Chancellor of a University having full power for doing scientific experiment for the project area sanctioned. He has alleged that the impugned news item is false and incorrect aiming at harming the reputation of the Director General, the institute and the State Government by making false and malicious statement. The complainant had issued a rejoinder-dated 25.8.2005 but the same had not been published. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on18.11.2005. Written Statement The respondent, Resident Editor, Hindustan Times, Bhopal in his written statement dated 3.12.2005 has submitted that the impugned report was based on certain facts brought to their notice by their sources in the government. He has stated that on receiving the rejoinder from the complainant, they contacted their source of story and published the rejoinder alongwith the reporter’s reply on 20.9.2005. The respondent further submitted that since they have published the contention of the complainant by giving adequate space, no grievance should remain in the matter. He has added that since the matter was of great public interest, they thought of bringing it to the notice of their readers and stated that they had no intention to cause any damage to the complainant’s reputation. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 9.1.2006 for counter comments, if any but till date no counter has been filed. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry committee on 27.02.2007 at Udaipur. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the Hindustan Times in a fax dated 26.02.2007 requested for adjournment of the case. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties, decided to adjourn the case. Shri J.G. Negi vide his e-mail dated 26.02.2007 has submitted that Ms. Sarkar maligned him by raising an unfounded issue of sexual harassment and scandalous writing on aerial seeding in Chambal to get Bio-fuel from the waste lands in the national interest. He further stated that Dr. Abha Swarup and her friends in Hindustan Times got him removed from the post. He submitted that

221 the article published by the respondent was a part of a campaign and a part of their conspiracy. The write-ups also personally attacked on his appointment and salary. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.04.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advocate appeared for The Hindustan Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for The Hindustan Times submitted that the newspaper in all fairness had published prominently the rejoinder in 20.09.2005 issue. She denied any malafide. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and noted that the respondent Hindustan Times has published the rejoinder of the complainant in its issue dated 20.09.2005. It observed that it should have been fair if the clarification was published earlier. However, as the rejoinder was published, the Inquiry Committee opined that no further action was necessary in the matter. Insofar complainant’s subsequent removal was concerned the Committee find no reason to go into these administrative actions and decisions. The Inquiry Committee parted with the matter with a note of advise to the press for being prompt in publishing the corrigendum so as to avoid any kind of delay in appraising the readers of the other side of the story. It recommended to the Council to allow the case to rest at this. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

61) The Chief Manager (Admn.) Versus The Editor J.K. Industries Ltd. (J.K. Tyre) Chambal Vani, Hindi daily Banmore, M.P. Gwalior, M.P. Complaint This complaint dated 31.3.2004 has been filed by the Chief Manager (Admn.), J.K. Industries Ltd. (J.K. Tyre), Banmore (M.P.) against “Chambal Vani”, Hindi Daily, Gwalior alleging publication of a series of false, baseless and defamatory news items. The English translation of the caption and date of the impugned news items read as follows:-

222 S.No. Caption Date

1“àÉéxÉäVÉàÉå] BÉEÉÒ iÉÉxÉɶÉÉcÉÒ ºÉä cÖ+ÉÉ VÉä.BÉEä ]ɪɮ {ÉEèBÉD]ÅÉÒ BÉEÉä 1.3.2004 17 BÉE®Éäbà BÉEÉ PÉÉ]É” Loss of Rs.17 crore to J.K. Tyre Factory due to the autocracy of management. 2“VÉä.BÉEä. ]ɪɮ {ÉEèBÉD]ÅÉÒ àÉå BÉEàÉÇSÉÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå ´É àÉVÉnÚ®Éå BÉEÉ VɤɮnºiÉ 2.3.2004 ¶ÉÉä-ÉhÉ ÉÊ{ÉE® £ÉÉÒ |ɶÉɺÉxÉ àÉÉèxÉ” Severe exploitation of employees and workers in J.K. Tyre factory but administration silent. 3“VÉä.BÉEä. ]ɪɮ àÉå |ɤÉxvÉBÉE àÉBÉDBÉEb BÉEÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE-|ÉÉäbBÉD¶ÉxÉ {ãÉÉÆ] 3.3.2004 BÉEä ºÉÉÒ.¤ÉÉÒ. VÉÉä¶ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä xÉÉèBÉE®ÉÒ ºÉä ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉÉ” Menace of Manager, Makkar in JK Tyre. Production Plant’s C.B. Joshi expelled from service- Contractors exploiting labourers with connivance of management. 4“àÉBÉDBÉEb xÉä VÉä.BÉEä. BÉEÉÒ |ÉÉÊiÉ-~É BÉEÉä nÉÆ´É {É® ãÉMÉɪÉÉ” 4.3.2004 J.K.’s prestige at stake due to Makkar. 5“VÉä.BÉEä. OÉÖ{É xÉä àÉBÉDBÉEb BÉEÉä ÉÊnããÉÉÒ iÉãÉ¤É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ” 5.3.2004 J.K. Group summoned Makkar at Delhi. 6“ÉÊ´ÉvÉɪÉBÉE âóºiÉàÉ É˺Éc àÉÖ®ZÉɪÉä SÉÉÆnÉÒ BÉEä ÉʺÉBÉDBÉEÉå BÉEÉÒ 6.3.2004 JÉxÉBÉE ºÉä” MLA Rustam Singh melted by silver coins jingle. 7“àÉBÉDBÉEb BÉEÉä VÉä.BÉEä. ]ɪɮ ºÉä c]ÉxÉä BÉEä ºÉÆBÉEäiÉ” 7.3.2004 Indication of removal of Makkar from JK Tyre 8“àÉBÉDBÉEb BÉEÉä +É¤É ¤ÉSÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA £ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉ ªÉÉn +ÉÉxÉä ãÉMÉä” 10.3.2004 Makkar began worshipping God to escape. 9“àÉèxÉäVÉàÉå] +ÉÉè® ªÉÚÉÊxɪÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊàÉÉÊãÉ£ÉMÉiÉ ºÉä BÉEàÉÇSÉÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå BÉEÉä c® 11.3.2004 àÉÉc 25 ãÉÉJÉ BÉEÉ xÉÖBÉEºÉÉxÉ” Connivance between the Management and Union- Workers employees led to loss of 25 lacs per month. 10 “®Éì-àÉ]äÉÊ®ªÉãÉ JÉ®ÉÒn àÉå BÉE®ÉåbÃÉå BÉEÉ cä®-{ÉEä®” 12.3.2004 Misappropriation of crores of rupees in the purchase of raw material.

223 S.No. Caption Date 11 “VÉä.BÉEä. àÉå +ÉÉμÉEÉä¶É {ÉÚE]É, àÉèxÉäVÉ® BÉEÉÒ cÖ<Ç ÉÊ{É]É<Ç” 13.3.2004 Resentment in J.K. employees’ erupted-Manager beaten up. 12 “VÉä.BÉEä. ]ɪɮ àÉå ¶ÉÉä-ÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ cn cÉä MÉ<Ç” 14.3.2004 Extreme exploitations in JK Tyre. 13 “àÉBÉDBÉEb xÉä ¶ÉÉä-ÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ xÉÉÒÉÊiÉ +É¤É ¤ÉnãÉÉÒ” 15.3.2004 Policy of exploitation changed by Makkar. 14 “+ÉÉμÉEÉä¶É BÉEÉ ºÉèãÉÉ¤É {ÉEèãÉÉ, àÉBÉDBÉEb BÉEÉÒ cÖ<Ç ~ÖBÉEÉ<Ç” 16.3.2004 Resentment spread in JK Tyre, Makkar beaten up 15 “VÉä.BÉEä. àÉå PÉÉä]ÉãÉä BÉEÉ £ÉÚiÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ® ®ciÉÉ cè BÉDªÉÉ” 17.3.2004 Is JK prone to scams ? 16 “BÉEÉèxÉ cè ´ÉÉä VÉÉä 40 cVÉÉ® àÉå VÉä.BÉEä. àÉå xÉÉèBÉE®ÉÒ näiÉÉ cè?” 18.3.2004 Who employs for job against Rs.40,000/- in JK Industries? 17 “ ªÉÚÉÊxɪÉxÉ xÉä lÉàÉɪÉÉÒ SÉcäiÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉnãÉÉÒ ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ ÉÊãɺ]” 19.3.2004 Union handed over transfer list of favourite employees. 18 “5 ãÉÉJÉ BÉEä ¤ÉnãÉä AOÉÉÒàÉå] ]ãÉ´ÉÉ ®cÉ cè BÉEÉèxÉ” 20.3.2004 Agreement of Rs.5 lacs being deferred by whom? 19 “àÉèxÉäVÉ® MÉÉ亴ÉÉàÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ vÉÖÆ+ÉÉvÉÉ® ÉÊ{É]É<Ç” 21.3.2004 Manager Goswami brutally beaten up. 20 “VÉä.BÉEä. BÉEä BÉEàÉÉÇSÉÉ®ÉÒ ={É-|ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ ºÉä {ÉEÉÊ®ªÉÉn BÉE®åMÉä” 22.3.2004 Workers of JK Tyre will appeal Dy. P.M. Advani. 21 “àÉBÉDBÉEb PÉÉä]ÉãÉÉ näJÉ ®cä cé ªÉÉ SÉà¤ÉãÉ BÉEÉÒ vÉ®iÉÉÒ {É® SÉà¤ÉãÉ 23.3.2004 BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉ vÉÉäJÉä BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ¶ÉÉä-ÉhÉ” Makkar watching scandal or exploiting the people of Chambal by deceiving them. 22 “àÉBÉDBÉEb xÉä ~äBÉEä ºÉä {ÉcãÉä cÉÒ ãÉÉJÉÉå BÉEÉ ~äBÉEÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ” 24.3.2004 Makkar awarded contract of lacs prior to tender. 23 “+ÉÉè® àÉBÉDBÉEb ÉÊ{ÉE® ºÉä ÉÊnããÉÉÒ ®´ÉÉxÉÉ” 25.3.2004 And Makkar returns to Delhi. 24 “àÉBÉDBÉEb àÉèxÉäVÉàÉå] àÉä ºÉä BÉE<ǪÉÉå BÉEÉÒ UÖ]Â]ÉÒ” 27.3.2004 Many removed from Makkar management.

224 S.No. Caption Date 25 “àÉBÉDBÉEb àÉèxÉäVÉàÉå] BÉEä ¤ÉÉn ªÉÚÉÊxɪÉxÉ {É® ´ÉBÉEÇ®Éå BÉEÉ vÉÉ´ÉÉ” 28.3.2004 Attack on union by workers after Makkar management. 26 “JÉÉè{ÉEVÉnÉ àÉBÉDBÉEb xÉä {ÉEèBÉD]ÅÉÒ àÉå +ÉÉ{ÉÉiÉBÉEÉãÉ ãÉMÉɪÉÉ” 29.3.2004 Feared Makkar declared emergency in factory. 27 “àÉBÉDBÉEb BÉEÉä c]ÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ Jɤɮ +ÉÉMÉ BÉEÉÒ iÉ®c {ÉEèãÉÉÒ” 31.3.2004 News of Makkar’s removal spread like fire.

The impugned publications levelled allegation of corruption against the management and its officers/officials and scandals of crores of rupees in JK Tyre Company. The management of the company had been charged of dictatorship and partisan/biased policy. It was also alleged that the management is exploiting the interests of casual workers at a large scale.

According to the complainant, the respondent initiated publishing the false and baseless news items pursuant to an incident when he was refused release of advertisements of the company. The complainant submitted that the respondent editor had demanded the advertisements from his company and on refusal he continuously published such false news items with the motive to threaten the company. He had further submitted that the respondent did not possess any evidence or reliable and dependable sources of information/news thereby creating panic and making wrong representation to the society through his newspaper. He also alleged that the respondent was working with prejudice and with malafide intention to harass them, which includes defaming them with the hidden and ulterior motives and with a criminal intent and the intention of blackmailing. According to him, the respondent was involved in criminal intimidation by publishing and demonstrating anonymous sources of information and trying to disturb the peace and harmony prevailing between the workers and management. He has further alleged that the respondent with malafide intention made illicit and wrongful publication with the intentions of extorting money. The complainant also alleged that the respondent has been creating an atmosphere of hatred which otherwise did not exist. The complainant further alleged that the respondent deliberately published company’s advertisements in its issues dated 19.3.2004 and 20.3.2004 without prior permission of the company.

The complainant submitted that a letter dated 20.3.2004 was sent to the respondent requesting him to stop such voluntary cost free publication of advertisements about their products and/or services as well as information of general public interests.

225 The complainant further submitted that they also sent legal notices dated March 31, April 13 & 23, May 8, 10, 15, 18 & 21, 2004 to the respondent requesting him to substantiate the allegation levelled in the impugned news items. The respondent in his reply-dated 12.4.2004 submitted that the counsel for the complainant had taken side of his client and had not perused the impugned publication. The respondent asked the counsel for the complainant to peruse the impugned publication in its entirety and intimate them the objectionable facts. The complainant submitted that the reply of respondent clearly shows that he has not confronted the objection as raised by his advocate. Written Statement Show cause notice to the respondent editor “Chambal Vani” was issued on 9.8.2004. In response, the Chief Editor, “Chambal Vani”, Gwalior in his written statement dated 30/8/2004 denied the allegation of the complainant that they had demanded any advertisement from the complainant. He contended that the said allegation of the complainant was totally false and concocted. The respondent further stated that they published the series of news items in question in public interest without any fear/favour. The respondent submitted that they have no ill- will against the complainant and the allegation regarding lowering his image in the public was false. The respondent alleged that the complainant misled the Council by levelling false allegations against him. He submitted that the complainant’s company had been continuously releasing the advertisements to his newspaper for the last many years. The respondent also furnished the proof of payment made to him by the company with regard to publication of advertisements. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 24/1/2005 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.02.2007 at Udaipur. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties, decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.04.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Suman Singh Sikarvar, Editor, Chambal Vani appeared in person. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent editor submitted that the newspaper had reported the movement raised by the employees union of the complainant’s company. No one

226 supported the employees and the news reports were published to extend them support. They were on strike for three days that caused loss in crores to the J.K. Industry Limited. He further submitted that all he reports were carried in public interest for the cause of the employees. The complainant had issued legal notice only but no contradiction was issued by the complainant. The respondent also stated that the officer reported in the news report, namely, Shri Makkar had since been transferred and the present posting of Shri Makkar was not known to the newspaper. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the respondent. It noted that the respondent had published series of news reports against the management of the complainant company which were couched in undignified language. Yet the respondent did not care to take the version of the complainant at pre or post publication stage, and even the letter sent by management after the publication was not dealt with on merits. The respondent, the Committee, observed had violated norms of journalistic conduct regarding accuracy and fairness in as much as charges of corruption had been levelled against the management of the company without any documentary evidence. For all the reasons aforesaid the Committee recommended to the Council to reprimand the respondent editor for publishing the impugned news reports and then failing to present before the readers the version of the management. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

62) The Honorary Secretary Versus The Editor, The Shilong Club Limited The Telegraph Shillong, Meghlaya North East (ABP) Pvt. Ltd. Guwahati, Assam Complaint This complaint dated 3.9.2004 has been filed by the Honorary Secretary, The Shillong Club Limited, Shillong against The Telegraph (North-East) for publication of an allegedly false and misleading impugned article by Ms. Patricia Mukhim under the caption “You have come a long way” with the photograph of the Shillong Club in its issue dated 14.10.2003. The following errors have been pointed out in the article: 1. That, the articles of memorandum do not permit ladies as full- fledged members and as such cannot be members of the managing

227 committee and cannot even attend the annual General Body meetings. There is no age limit for any member to serve on the managing committee and all such members are duly elected. 2. That it is grossly unfair in targeting businessmen as a community as if they do not come from respectable families and it is also not correct to say that they control the affairs of the club. 3. That the writer has shown her ignorance stating that high ranking officials of the Union Government or of the defence services are automatically members of the club by virtue of the posts they hold which is not so. They can only become members through specially constituted high-powered committee or through their messes and the club has many such members. 4. As regards the library, corrective measures are being taken to improve the facilities and not to allow any further meeting in the library including the Rotary club. Further more, it may be mentioned that no instances have come to the notice that attendants are drinking while on duty or misbehave in any way. 5. The writer is also misinformed about any particular businessman controlling the affairs of the club. The complainant has submitted that the impugned article contained many factual errors, which has maligned the reputation of the club. The complainant has submitted a letter dated 15.12.2003 followed by a reminder dated 3.2.2004 sent to the Editor, The Telegraph (North-East), Guwahati and another letter dated 12.3.2004 was also sent to Kolkata edition but evoked no response from either side. The complainant has requested the Council to intervene in the matter. Written Statement Hon’ble Chairman while condoning the delay in filing of complaint ordered for issuance of show-cause notice under Regulation 5(1) of Inquiry Regulation. The show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Telegraph (North- East), Guwahati on 28.4.2005. The Secretary & Head (Legal), Ananda Bazar Patrika filed written statement dated 11th July 2005 on behalf of the Editor, The Telegraph submitting that the impugned news item did not cast any aspersions on the business community. The respondent has submitted that the mood of several club members with whom the author of the article interacted were reflected in the article. The respondent has submitted that the business community has not been targetted in the article. The respondent has submitted that no individual member has been targeted and the complaint before the Council is not based on any cognet ground. The respondent has submitted that there was no malice in publishing the article.

228 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.8.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 26.04.2007. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Rajarshi Dutta, Executive Legal of Respondent Telegraph and Ms. Patricia Mukhim, the author of the article appeared before the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee On being asked by the Inquiry Committee as to why the rejoinder of the complainant was not published, Shri Rajarshi Dutta replied that the newspaper had a policy on what matter the rejoinder should be published and in which case not to be published. In this case the response of the complainant was not published as the newspaper stood by its story. Ms. Patricia Mukhim, the author of the article submitted that the article was written after interacting with the Members of the Shillong Club. The members of the club were frustrated with the functioning of the club inasmuch as the books and accounts of the club were not properly maintained and the club was indulging in proxy voting. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the respondents. It noted that while the article may have been written after interview with some members of the club, the management enjoyed a right to apprise the readers their stand in the matter. It was therefore not satisfied with the defence taken by the respondent that as the newspaper stood by the story, the rejoinder was not published. It held that the respondent, in keeping with the universally accepted norms of right of reply, ought to have published the complainant’s rejoinder. The respondent was, however, free to append footnote to it about their stand. The Inquiry Committee referred the norm of journalistic conduct regarding right of reply which reads as follows: “The newspaper should promptly and with due prominence, publish either in full or with due editing, free of cost, at the instance of the person affected or feeling aggrieved/or concerned by the impugned publication/ reply/clarification or rejoinder sent to the editor in the form of a letter or note. If the editor doubts the truth or factual accuracy of the contradiction/ reply/clarification or rejoinder, he shall be at liberty to add separately at the end, a brief editorial comment doubting its veracity, but only when this doubts is reasonably founded on unimpeachable documentary or other evidential material in his/her possession. This is a concession which has to be availed to sparingly with due discretion and caution in appropriate case.

229 “However, where the reply/contradiction or rejoinder is being published in compliance with the direction of the Press Council. It is permissible to append a brief editorial note to that effect. “Freedom of the Press involves the readers’ right to know all sides of an issue of public interest. An editor, therefore, shall not refuse to publish the reply or rejoinder merely on the ground that in his opinion the story published in the newspaper was true. That is an issue to be left to the judgment of the readers. It also does not behave an editor to show contempt towards a reader”. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to direct the editor, The Telegraph to publish the rejoinder of the complainant and furnish its cutting to the Council as well as the complainant for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

63) Shri Ripun Bora Versus The Editor Minister of Panchayat, Dainik Agradoot Rural Development & Elementary Dispur Education, Govt. of Assam Guwahati Guwahati Assam Complaint Shri Ripun Bora, Minister of Panchayat, Rural Development and Elementary Education, Government of Assam filed a complaint dated 17.12.2004 against Dainik Agradoot, Dispur, Guwahati for publication of a series of allegedly malicious, baseless and defamatory news items in the issues dated 18.8.2004, 22.8.2004, 11.9.2004, 12.9.2004, 14.9.2004, 19.9.2004, 30.9.2004 and 13.10.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 30.3.2005. Written Statement The respondent Shri K.S. Deka, Editor, Dainik Agradoot filed his written statement dated 1.6.2005 and submitted that the news items in connection with the corruption charges and misuse of power published against Shri Ripun Bora, Hon’ble Minister in Charge of Rural Development was entirely correct. The respondent stated that not only their newspaper Dainik Agradoot, but other newspapers also published news against the complainant exposing how he misused funds meant for the rural masses.

230 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.4.2005. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 20.4.2007 intimated that the matter has been amicably settled and he did not wish to pursue the complaint. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted the contents of the letter dated 20.04.2007 of the complainant and recommended to the Council to close the complaint as settled. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

64) Shri Ranjit Gogoi Versus The Editor Liaison Officer Asomiya Pratidin CM’s Public Relations Cell Guwahati Government of Assam Dispur, Guwahati Complaint This complaint dated 25.11.2005 has been filed by Shri Ranjit Gogoi, Liaison Officer, Chief Minister’s Public Relations Cell, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati against Assamese daily “Asomiya Pratidin’ for publication of allegedly objectionable news item captioned ‘Chandigarh convention: Chief Minister Gogoi is taken aback with stinging query/expel controversial Ministers by November: Sonia’s directive’ (English translation) in its issue dated 9.10.2005. The impugned news item stated that the Chief Minister, Mr. Tarun Gogoi had to face hindrances repeatedly in replying to various questions posed by top leaders, including Smt. Sonia Gandhi, on the matters of corruption, party dissidence etc. The impugned news item alleged that the Chief Minister of Assam, Mr. Tarun Gogoi was rebuked, criticized by the UPA Chairman, Smt. Sonia Gandhi at the Chandigarh Conference of Congress Chief Ministers. It was also alleged that Smt. Gandhi expressed her dissatisfaction over Mr. Gogoi and made him answerable to various questions. According to the complainant the impugned publication is completely baseless, false and figment of imagination. He has submitted that a contradiction,

231 in the form of press release captioned ‘Chief Minister’s denial’, denying the impugned news item was issued to the respondent on the same day i.e. 9.10.2005 which was very insignificantly published by the respondent together with a news report under the caption “Rs.50 lakh assistance to Jammu Kashmir Victims” in its issue dated 10.10.2005. This act of the respondent grossly damaged the reputation of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Government of Assam. The complainant also pointed out that the respondent by publishing the impugned news item violated the code of ethics of the Press. He has submitted that the respondent perhaps published the denial in an insignificant manner with malafide intention to hide their practices of propagating yellow journalism. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 1.3.2006 but no written statement was filed by him despite a time bound reminder dated 10.5.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 26.4.2007. S/Shri Krishna Sarma, Advocate, Ranjit Gogoi, Dinesh Deka and Deba Kumar Bora appeared for the complainant. Shri Asish Gupta, Bureau Chief, New Delhi appeared for the respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant submitted that the impugned report dated 9.10.2005 appearing in Asomiya Pratidin had two aspects, one on political and another concerning the State. The first part of the news report was about political and the last paras were about the State and the functioning of the Chief Minister. The counsel submitted that the respondent newspaper relied on the sources and thus the reporter ought to have quoted the sources. The counsel explaining about the locus of Chief Minister’s Secretariat in filing the present complaint stated that the news pertained to Shri Gogoi’s functioning as the Chief Minister and the government and thus the locus lies with the representative of Assam. The counsel submitted the first part of the news report was a statement and not a report obtained from the sources. The quotations should have been taken from reliable sources. At the outset the representative of the respondent expressed regrets for not filing the written statement. He submitted that the Bureau Chief from Delhi had sent the report and it was political news. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent newspaper Asomiya Pratidin had published the impugned report on political developments at a political meet based

232 on information gathered from its sources and its right to do so could not be challenged. However, when it faulted was the publication of the rejoinder that he mixed up with another news report on an unrelated subject of another State and was this likely to escape the notice of the readers. It therefore recommended to the Council to uphold this part of the complaint and direct the Editor, Asomiya Pratidin to publish the rejoinder of the complainant conspicuously giving proper caption to it and send cuttings thereof to the Council as well as the complainant for record within two weeks from the service of the adjudication of the Council. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

65) Dr. Bhagawan Lahkar Versus The Editor Adviser to Chief Minister (I&PR) Aji, Assamese daily Government of Assam Guwahati Dispur, Guwahati, Assam Assam Complaint This complaint dated 28.7.2004 has been filed by Dr. Bhagawan Lahkar, Adviser to Chief Minister (I&PR), Assam, Dispur, Guwahati against ‘Aji’ Assamese daily alleging publication of a false, malicious and defamatory news item captioned “Upheaval in Dispur over Arunachal incident: Gogai’s espionage against Borkataky, Devananda, Ardhendu, Bhubaneswar” in its issue dated 9.7.2004. The impugned news item carried an allegation that the Chief Minister, Shri Tarun Gogoi engaged spies against the senior Ministers-Sarat Norkataky, Devananda Konwar, Ardhendu Day and Bhubaneswar Kalaita who were dropped from the downsized Assam Ministry. It was alleged that the Chief Minister did so as he feared revolt against him by the said dropped Ministers. The complainant submitted that a contradiction was issued against the news item on the same day i.e July 9, 2004 by Shri Ripun Bora, Spokesman, Government of Assam refuting the veracity of the news item and terming the allegation to be false and baseless but the newspaper, ‘Aji’ did not publish the contradiction. According to the complainant, this is a glaring instance of one-sided and unfair practice of criticizing the Government with false, concocted charges without even giving the Government the scope to let people know the truth. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, ‘Aji’, Guwahati on 7.12.2004 but no response was received.

233 No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that notice for hearing sent to complainant was received back with the postal remarks “Addressee expired- Return to sender”. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in this case was a public servant holding a responsible position and despite being addressed in such capacity at the address of the government department, the department had chosen not to accept the Notice. The matter has also not been pursued by the government after its filing. The Committee therefore recommended to the Council to close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

66) Shri Gajraj Singh Versus The Editor District Mahendragarh Punjab Kesari Haryana New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 20.6.2005 has been filed by Shri Gajraj Singh of District Mahendragarh, Haryana against Punjab Kesari, New Delhi for publishing an allegedly baseless news item captioned “Tension in village due to deepened personal dispute” (Eng. Trans.) in its issue dated 14.6.2005. It was reported in the news item that the complainant had blocked the main road leading to entry to Modee village by getting concrete construction done over it. This caused tension in the village and the villagers lodged complaint with Block Development Officer, who visited the village. On measurement, the land of the complainant was found to be distinct from the main road and the complainant accepted it. The complainant has submitted that it was totally baseless that he accepted the measurement taken by the officials. He never signed measurement document. The complainant in his letter to the editor dated 16.6.2005 stated that the road on his agriculture land was illegally drawn and that the measurement taken by Tehsil officials was wrong. The complainant has submitted that the editor did not respond to his letter.

234 No written statement was filed in response to the show cause notice issued to the respondent editor on 18.11.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007. The complainant Shri Gajraj Singh Yadav appeared in person. Shri Harish Chopra and Shri Parvinder Sharda, Chief Sub-Editor appeared on behalf of the respondent Punjab Kesari. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he wished to withdraw the complaint as the concerned reporter who had given the news-item dated 14.6.2005 had since been expired in an accident and he did not want action regarding a dead person or the Editor. The complainant also filed a letter dated 18.4.2007 along with an affidavit withdrawing his complaint. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the complainant, decided to close the complaint being withdrawn. It recommended to the Council to close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

67) Shri R.P. Balwan, IFS Versus The Editor Conservator of Forest Dainik Jagran Gurgaon, Haryana Hissar, Haryana Complaint This complaint dated 23.9.2005 has been filed by Shri R.P. Balwan, IFS, Conservator of Forest, Gurgaon against Dainik Jagran, a Hindi daily newspaper from Hissar, Haryana alleging publication of a totally false and concocted news item captioned “Petrol Pump Ki NOC Ka Suvidha Shulk 50 Hazar” in its issue dated 21.9.2005. In the impugned news item it has been alleged that the complainant Shri R.P. Balwan, Conservator of Forest takes Rs. 50,000/- to clear each file for further processing. Shri Manoj Kumar of Nagpur has alleged that the complainant accepted Rs. 50,000/- with regard to two files of Cameri Road and Gangwa. The complainant submitted that the allegation leveled in the impugned news item was concocted and false whereas the reality was that with the formation of

235 new government in the State of Haryana, some people, having political affiliation to previous ruling political party wanted to violate law with the same impunity. He has stated that they enforced the Forest Law, and asked all officers to adhere to the rules and regulations. He has alleged that people with immoral behaviour, in order to save their skin have convinced the press and hatched a conspiracy to malign honest officers so that the forest officials stop enforcing the law, and the concerned correspondent in connivance with vested people published the news item in question. Further he tried to verify the facts from Shri Manoj Kumar, but no such person was available in the village mentioned in the newspaper. The complainant further submitted that by the side of the news story, the respondent has published something as his version in a box-column in a totally wrong and distorted manner so that it looks as if the allegations have been established. He had written to the respondent on 23.9.2005 but received no response. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 17.3.2006. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 2.6.2006, made the following submissions: 1. That the complaint is liable to be rejected for being vague, frivolous and without any cause of action and devoid of real grievance of the complainant. Neither the respondent newspaper “Dainik Jagran” nor its staff has violated any norms or rules or law, and as such all the allegations made against them are false, baseless and without any substance. The respondent denied that the impugned news item was published to malign the complainant under any conspiracy. 2. That the complaint is liable to be rejected as the complainant has not stated the correct facts but has concealed the material facts from therein. It is not clear as to how and in what manner the respondent has violated any of the journalistic ethics. 3. That the news in question was published in public interest on the basis of a written complaint received in the Hissar office of the newspaper. The concerned reporter had thereafter visited the office of the complainant personally and was provided the mobile No. of the complainant as he was not available in his office. The concerned reporter then called the complainant on his mobile and obtained his version in respect of the aforesaid complaint. It has been stated that the detailed version of the complainant was incorporated in the news given in the box item, which belies the allegations of the complainant. 4. That the complainant is liable to be rejected as it was filed with the ulterior motive to put pressure upon the respondent to shut their voice as the

236 complainant through various modes put pressure on the respondent nor to publish the news in question. It is stated that the respondent neither knew the complainant nor the said Shri Manoj Kumar to whom the complainant has referred. There was absolutely no enmity of the respondent or that of any person. Thus there is absolutely no question of maligning the complainant at all or indulging in yellow journalism. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 19.6.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 23.8.2006 termed the written statement as frivolous, false and without any substance made to support their false story and reiterated that the concerned correspondents have violated established journalistic ethics and norms, and hatched conspiracy and were hand in glove with corrupt persons to meet their self interest. His reputation as an honest officer has been damaged for vested/self interest. Clarifying further, the complainant submitted that he was the chief guest in departmental workshop at Rewari on 19.9.2005, when the correspondent called on his mobile phone, and asked him to come to his Hissar office the following day for verification of the facts. The correspondent never bothered to verify the facts, under pressure of self interest and in undue haste, published the false story. The complainant added that the respondent never published his full version. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.04.2007 at New Delhi. Shri R.P. Balwan, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the respondent Dainik Jagran. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the impugned news item dated 21.9.2005 was published under the influence of corrupt officers and the politicians as most of the petrol pumps belong to the politicians. Narrating the facts, the complainant submitted that there was infighting in the department and the press had become a party to it. There was a corrupt officer in the department whose cheques he had refused to sign. That officer started pressurizing him through the politicians. When they did not succeed he was transferred to Hissar. The complainant stated that he was having dual charge at Gurgaon as well as at Hissar. One reporter contacted him over the mobile when he was out of town and asked him to come to the office and verify the facts. The complainant further stated that the impugned publication was nothing but aimed at bulldozing an honest officer. The impugned publication was a glaring example of blackmailing and yellow journalism. He added that there was not even a single departmental enquiry against him. The

237 proprietor of the lone petrol pump in the area had on affidavit stressed that there existed no person by the name of Manoj Kumar and denied the factum of bribe. The complainant further requested that action may be taken against the erring reporter as by publishing the distorted version the respondent editor had again tried to malign him. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material on record and the oral submissions of the complainant opined that the respondent newspaper Dainik Jagran had published the impugned news report dated 21.9.2005 against the complainant without proper pre-verification and taking the version on such serious charges over the telephone did not do justice to the matter. Later, when the complainant issued a rejoinder dated 23.9.2005 to the newspaper, his version was not published. The Inquiry Committee thus held the respondent guilty of violating norms of journalistic ethics regarding pre-publication verification and right of reply, and decided to recommend to the Council to reprimand the respondent reporter and the newspaper Dainik Jagran for violation of above norms of journalistic ethics and direct the editor, Dainik Jagran to publish the rejoinder of the complainant within two weeks from the receipt of Council’s adjudication and send the cuttings thereof to the Council as well as the complainant for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

68) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi Versus The Editor National President Punjab Kesari All India Anti Corruption New Delhi Committee Thane, Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 30.7.2005 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, All India Anti Corruption Committee, Thane, Maharashtra against Punjab Kesari, New Delhi for publication of an allegedly defamatory news item captioned “Ravinder Prasad Dwivedi @ Netaji arrested on corruption charge” in its issue dated 7.6.2005. In the impugned news item datelined Mumbai it was reported that the Meera Road Police arrested Shri Ravinder Dwivedi while taking bribe of Rs.10,000/-. He was earlier arrested for demanding Hafta from St. Mary School. It was also reported that he was beaten up many times for his trade union activities. 238 The complainant submitted that the correspondent of the respondent newspaper got the false and baseless news item published to avenge him. He submitted that a letter dated 13.7.2005 was issued to the respondent requesting to publish his rejoinder. Alleging that the respondents neither published the rejoinder nor gave any reply, thereby denying him his right of reply, the complainant requested for action against the respondent newspaper. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari on 18.11.2005. Written statement was not filed in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 27.4.2007. Shri Ramashankar Sah appeared for the complainant while Shri Harsh Chopra appeared for the respondent, Punjab Kesari. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant submitted that the news was incorrect, as the complainant was never arrested. The journalist concerned reported the news due to personal animosity. The complaint before the police does not carry the charge of corruption. The representative of the Punjab Kesari submitted that the contradiction of the complainant had been published in 24.4.2007 issue of Punjab Kesari under the caption ‘Ravinder Dwivedi not arrested”. The representative of the respondent read out the contradiction published in Punjab Kesari and stated that the newspaper would take care in its future reports and there could be no delay in issuing corrigendum, if anyone makes a complaint. The representative of the complainant stated that he was satisfied with the published contradiction. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents and hearing the parties, noted that respondent Punjab Kesari had now published the contradiction and the complainant had expressed satisfaction over it. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to drop the proceedings and allowed the matter to be closed. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

239 69) The Chief Versus The Editor Corporate Communications Mid-Day Life Insurance Corporation of India Mumbai Mumbai Complaint

This complaint dated 4.10.2005 has been filed by the Chief, Corporate Communication, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai against MID Day, Mumbai for publication of allegedly wrong and defamatory news items captioned: 1. “LIC Shame: No home loan for blind couple” dated 3.10.2005 and 2. “Mumbai speaks up for blind couple” dated 4.10.2005.

According to the complainant, the news items published by Mid Day attributed to the LIC the denial of housing loan to the couple whereas this matter pertained the LIC Housing Finance Company. The report was wrong and defamatory since there is no home loan division of LIC. The LIC Housing Finance Limited is a separate public limited company though promoted by LIC. The complainant immediately issued a rejoinder to the respondent, clarifying that LIC is not in the business of giving housing loan to the public and that the case is related to LICHFL (Life Insurance Corporation of India Housing Finance Limited), which is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act. Instead of publishing their clarification, the respondent published the second news report, which stated that many people expressed their disappointment with the LIC.

The complainant has alleged that the two erroneous reports have caused immense damage to their reputation, though they are not at all involved in the issue. He has added that no reporter from the respondent contacted any of their officials for any sort of information on the subject. The respondent published the letter of the complainant insignificantly on 5.10.2005 in the opinion column under the heading ‘LICHFL is not LIC’, with which the complainant was not satisfied since it was not published on the front page with the same prominence as the impugned news items. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 12.12.2005. Written Statement

The respondent-Executive Editor, Mid Day in his written statement dated 5.1.2006 denied having committed any breach of ethics or irregularity of any of the provisions of the Press Council Act submitting that the impugned news item depicted the factual situation and was based upon the information gathered by the reporter. Their reporter had carried out his investigation, ascertained the facts,

240 after gleaning the documents and only thereafter was the articles published, stated the respondent. The respondent further stated that their reporter had spoken to Deputy General Manager of LIC Housing Finance, to clarify the issue but he feigned ignorance. They also stated that they were aware that LIC and LIC Housing Finance are two different companies and this fact is amplified at the commence of the article in question by stating that “The Home Loan Division of LIC” and added that they have published the complainant’s reply on 5.10.2005.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.1.2006.

Counter Comments

The Complainant in his counter comments dated 11.2.2006 submitted that the respondent has still not understood the basis of their complaint. He has maintained that the LIC Housing Finance Limited is not the Home Loans Divisions of LIC and added that the LIC and LIC Housing Finance Limited are different and therefore the LIC cannot be lamed in the issue of the alleged refusal of the LIC Housing Finance Limited, to give a loan to a blind couple.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 27.2.2006 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Anil Gupta, Regional Manager, appeared for the complainant LIC, while Ms. Madhavi Divan, Advocate, represented the respondent, Mid Day.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

Shri Anil Gupta appearing for LIC submitted that the respondent Mid Day in its issue dated 3.10.2005 carried a misleading and defamatory news item in bold caption “LIC Shame: No home loan for blind couple”, thus affecting its goodwill and name. The purport of the publication was that home loan to a blind couple was denied by the LIC Housing Finance Limited. According to the complainant’s representative there is no home loan division of LIC as reported in the impugned news report. The LIC Housing Finance Limited was an independent entity. Even while it was promoted by LIC, it took independent decisions. He alleged that the Mid Day even before publication of the rejoinder sent on 3rd itself, published another report under the caption “Mumbai speaks up for blind couple” in 4.10.2005 issue. The contradiction was thereafter published insignificantly in 5.10.2005 issue in the “Opinion Column”. The complainant’s representative submitted that the

241 impugned publications tended to assassinate the good name and fame of the LIC and tarnish its image earned over the years. Ms. Madhavi Divan, counsel for the Mid Day submitted that the report was a true story of public interest and importance. The counsel submitted that as a promoter, LIC has allowed its name and logo to be used by LIC Housing Finance Limited, thus using its goodwill. It was a major shareholder in LIC Housing Finance Limited and, therefore, could not shirk the responsibility for its actions/ decisions. The counsel submitted that LIC is not even an ordinary shareholder of LIC Housing Finance Limited but that it controls as much as 40.497% of the shareholding of the company. The counsel further submitted that the traditional concept of the corporate veil is being rendered increasingly fragile. Where companies are closely associated through shareholding, name, goodwill, or management and the like, the courts have often lifted the corporate veil and regarded them as part of the same corporate conglomerate. The counsel cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Horizons vs. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 478. She added that the first report was carried after due verification from Shri Gopalkrishna Joshi of LIC Hosing Finance Ltd. The counsel submitted that pursuant to the public campaign initiated by the respondent newspaper, eventually the blind couple was given the loan and thus the respondent had served a genuine cause. Regarding the rejoinder, the respondent submitted that the letter came to their attention on 4.10.2005 and was published on 5.10.2005 at the place deemed fit. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the submissions made before it by the parties. The committee accepted the ‘public interest’ plea of the respondent, but felt that it ought to have been more careful in its reference to the LIC. While they could be afforded benefit of doubt insofar as the fist publication is concerned, the LIC had registered its protest with them by the time the second report was published; this should have rightly been clarified in the issue of 4th October. When they chose to carry the clarification on 5th October, this was relegated to the ‘opinion column’. Thus, an image, which could have been easily corrected to protect the credentials of the complainant, a separate entity in law, was denied this opportunity. The Committee felt that while the malafide could not be attributed to the Mid Day for this wrong, the carelessness warranted a warning for future. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

242 70) Divya Yog Mandir Trust (Regd.) Versus The Editor Haridwar The Sunday Post Uttaranchal NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 20.07.2005 has been filed by Divya Yog Mandir Trust (Regd.), Haridwar, Uttaranchal against The Sunday Post, a Hindi weekly, NOIDA (Uttar Pradesh) for publication of objectionable and defamatory news items under the following headings: S.No. Caption Date 1. Swami Ramdev’s Ashram affected with ailment 12.6.2005 2. Swami Ramdev’s Yoga Ashram affected with 12.6.2005 ailment-(Part-I) Ashram’s New Yoga “Prapanchayam” (conspiracy) 3. We have fool proof evidence of conspiracy for killing 12.6.2005 Swami Ramdev: Acharya Balkrishna 4. Story of downfall 19.6.2005 5. The colleague decorated the death bed of illfame 19.6.2005 6. Trouble buzzing on Swami 10.7.2005 7. Swami in trouble 10.7.2005

The respondent newspaper had alleged that animal parts and human skull were being used for the purpose of making medicines in Ashram’s Pharmacy. In the publication dated 19.6.2005 it had been alleged that the acts committed by the people working on behalf of Swami Ramdev, qualify for action under Section 376 read with Section 120-B of IPC. In the news item dated 19.6.2005 certain alleged workers of Ashram’s Pharmacy have been shown with animal parts. The Ashram was not complying with labour laws. The termination of certain employees was in contravention of law. A statement is attributed to Acharya Balkrishna that he was possessing fake RMP degree from Bihar. The complainant Trust has submitted that all the medicines are made in accordance with the process and procedure sanctioned by the Government. The complainant Trust has contended that the newspaper ought to have initiated action against the persons photographed with animal parts, instead of publishing spicy news to boost their sale. Further the newspaper did not check up the facts as to whether the so called employees of the Ashram had any appointment or termination letters or whether any labour dispute was pending. The complainant Trust alleged that the respondent reported in favour of so called workers by way of media trial.

243 The complainant Trust submitted that Acharya Balkrishan had given no such statement or interview to any reporter of The Sunday Post, thus the statement published were false. Further the allegation against Acharya Balkrishan regarding fake RMP degree was also wrong. The complainant Trust issued a legal notice to the respondent editor on 20.7.2005 asking him to tender unconditional apology to Swami Ramdev as well as the Trust desist from future publication against the Trust. However, the respondent gave a vague and evasive reply on 29.7.2005. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Sunday Post on 14.9.2005. The respondent in his written statement dated 12.10.2005 submitted that the news items were published in public interest and were based on oral as well as written statements given by the labourers working in the Pharmacy. The respondent has submitted that a similar story was also published by Outlook magazine in its issue dated 13.6.2005. The respondent has submitted that some disputes had arisen between Shri Ramdev, his Trust and the labourers and the labourers flared the strike. The respondent has submitted that in an interview Shri Acharya Balkrishana accepted the use of particles of antlers shredded from deers horns in the medicines of Divya Pharmacy. The respondent has submitted that the wild life expert, Smt. Maneka Gandhi has claimed that deer never shreds antlers but it can be obtained after killing the deer. The respondent has submitted that labourers of Divya Pharmacy had informed that the particles of human skull are used in preparing “Kulyabhasm” to cure epilepsy. The labourers have also informed that the testicles of wild animals are being used to prepare the medicines for enhancing sexual vigour. The respondent has submitted that no such medicines were being distributed free of cost. The respondent submitted that Smt. Maneka Gandhi had informed the Lok Sabha about illegal work of Shri Ramdev against wild animals. The respondent submitted that the news items were true and based on facts and were not published to defame any body. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.11.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. Shri Sharad Bansal, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Mahender Pratap Singh represented the respondent newspaper. The representative of the respondent submitted that as the editor was out of station he could not get documentary evidence to contest the case. He requested for adjournment.

244 Matter Adjourned On the request of the representative of the respondent newspaper, which was not opposed by the counsel for the complainant, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to be listed before it in one of its future meetings with the directions to the respondent that no further adjournment shall be granted on any ground. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to both the parties vide office letter dated 24.7.2006. IInd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. Shri V.P. Sharma was present on behalf of the complainant, while Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate, represented the respondent newspaper. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the entire complaint was bad in law. The complaint should have been filed by the person feeling aggrieved or defamed in the news report. Ashram or Trust cannot sue for defamation. Further, the complainant had given wrong declaration that the matter was not sub- judice. He requested that he may be granted time for filing the written arguments. While adjourning the matter, the Inquiry Committee allowed the counsel for the respondent to file, within two weeks from the date of hearing, the preliminary objections/arguments with regard to maintainability of the complaint, a copy of which to be sent to the complainant for counter, if any. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to both the parties vide Council’s letter dated 13.9.2006. Respondent’s Written Submissions While raising preliminary objection that the present complaint is not legally maintainable as it has admittedly been filed by a Trust registered as Divya Yog Mandir Trust through its Secretary General Acharya Balkrishna Ji, the respondent editor through his advocate submitted that the complaint is infructuous in the eyes of the law. The respondent submitted that the grievance as alleged in the present complaint specifically and repeatedly only harps on the alleged defamation of Shri Swami Ramdev. It is settled law that the legal remedy is only available to a person who is defamed and no one else can bring a claim of defamation on somebody else’s behalf. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be rejected for having been instituted by third party/stranger/incompetent person, Sri Balakrishana who has no locus to file the present complaint. Moreover, Sri Balakrishna Ji despite being a foreign national/Nepalese citizen has obtained fraudulently an Indian passport and obtained licenses of firearms in India and as such he is involved in illegal

245 activities in India and he is not entitled to any relief from any Court /forum, if any, the respondent added. According to the respondent the verification given by Shri Balakrishna is false to his own knowledge and the same has been done by him intentionally, deliberately and maliciously. The said verification is false on the face of the complaint itself in the light of para No. 5 (e) which clearly states that the proceedings in matter alleged in the complaint is sub-judice for adjudication before a competent court of law. The mandatory provision of regulation No.(3)(2) as contemplated under the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 has been violated in the complaint as it contains false verification by Sri Balakrishna. The respondent submitted that as it is settled law that a society registered or unregistered is not capable to sue or be sued in its own name, the present complaint is, therefore, void in law in the absence of the bonafide complainant. The respondent requested to reject/dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice, as the same is not legally maintainable. The respondent also filed an application for calling documents as follows: 1. Trust deed or details/particulars of the said Trust 2. The author/settel or of the Trust, trustees from the Trust 3. Proof about the appointment of Sh. Balakrishna as Secretary General of the alleged Trust or any resolution passed by the Board of Trustees. 4. All documents pertaining to the creation of the alleged Trust, the appointment of Shri Balakrishna as Secretary General and resolution if any in his favour. 5. The passport as well as birth certificate of Sri Balakrishna. 6. The books, accounts, ledgers, vouchers, bills/cash memos receipts pertaining to sale of all the medicines from 1.1.2005 till date along with the copies of audited income statements and balance sheet, income tax returns pertaining to the trust; accounts for the same period. The respondent also forwarded a copy of his written submission to the complainant and filed proof of service. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Ravi Prakash, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate represented the respondent, The Sunday Post. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he had placed an application of maintainability of the complaint and before arguing on merits of the case the question of maintainability may be decided. He asserted that the complaint has been filed by the Secretary of the Trust who did not enjoy any

246 locus in the matter. Either Trustees should have joined the complaint or they ought to have passed a resolution authorising the Secretary of the Trust to file the complaint. No such resolution was on record. The second objection was that the complainant has given false statement in the verification filed before the Council that the matter was not sub-judice. The magazine had bonafide put forth the grievance of the ex-employee of the Trust in the publication. This fact was a subject matter of a case pending trial in the court. The publication can not be taken in two parts. The root cause of the problem was sacking of the employees. He added that at the time of publication they were not aware that the matter was sub-judice. Moreover, the counsel argued that they were not publishing anything against the Trust on daily basis. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that a copy of the objections of the respondent should have been served on the complainant through the counsel on record to enable them to reply to them. The respondent had alleged that the workers were forced to carry the skull of animals and animal parts. The publication contained many derogatory and defamatory remarks against the Trust. It was published that some workers were retrenched. This is one part of the article and other part contained false allegations which were not the sub-judice. On consideration of record and the oral arguments advanced before it on behalf of the parties, the Inquiry Committee opined that the publication can not be split in such a manner that one part be treated as sub-judice and the other form the subject matter of enquiry before the Council. The Inquiry Committee therefore directed the complainant through its counsel to file a reply regarding locus standi of the complainant and also to clarify the issue involved in the matter pending trial in the court to enable the Committee to take a view as to whether the matter before the Council was sub-judice or not. The complainant was also directed to serve a copy of the reply to the respondent. The matter was accordingly adjourned for being listed before the Inquiry Committee at one of its future meetings. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to both the parties vide office letter dated 22.1.2007. But no response. IVth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.3.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Pavitra Mohan Sharma, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate appeared for respondent, Sunday Post. The counsel appearing for the complainant prayed for adjournment on the ground that he had been engaged by the complainant only this morning as the previous lawyer had left the case. The Inquiry Committee observed that the complainant should have informed the Council as well as the respondent of the proposed move for adjournment to

247 avoid inconvenience to the other side. The Inquiry Committee while acceding to the request of the counsel for the complainant directed the complainant to file reply particularly on the issue on maintainability within 4 weeks and send a copy to the respondent for counter, if any. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side. Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Sunday Post. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant on the last occasion had changed its counsel and had not filed the written reply on the plaints on locus standi of the complainant and also the issue involved in the matter pending trial in the court. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and noted the lack of pursuance on the part of the complainant, its failure to reply to the preliminary objection of the respondent despite repeated opportunities and felt that the complainant was not inclined to reply to the preliminary objections with reference to locus standi and whether the subject matter of the complaint was sub-judice. In view of this, the Inquiry Committee decided to close the matter. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

71) Shri Anil Kumar Sharma Versus The Editor Nazir, Office of the Chief Dainik Jagran Development Officer/District Meerut, U.P. Development Officer Meerut, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 21.7.2004 has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Nazir, Office of the Chief Development Officer/District Development Officer, Meerut, U.P. against Dainik Jagran, Meerut for allegedly publishing a defamatory news item captioned “Sham Dhalte Hee Ayaashi Ka Aadda Ban Jata Hai Collectorate” (Collectorate becomes den of lust immediately on sunset) in its issue

248 dated 19.5.2004. The news report charged running of a call-girl racket from the Collectorate premises. According to the complainant on the basis of a complaint letter against him addressed to the District Magistrate, Meerut, Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Secretary, Home, Government of India etc. the news item was published by the respondent, focusing on his character and making some defamatory, derogatory, false, baseless and objectionable allegations against him. The complainant has submitted that after the publication of the impugned news item, the City Magistrate, Meerut conducted inquiry and a report was made available to District Magistrate, Meerut on 19.5.2004. The complainant has alleged that the respondent had tried to spoil his image by publishing the impugned news item. The forged complaint itself was prepared by the respondent and posted to some higher officials of the State Government and Central Government. The complainant sent a notice through his advocate to the respondent on 29.5.2004 but received no response. The complainant has requested to take action against the respondent editor. Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 17.1.2005. The Resident Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut in his written statement dated 31.1.2005 while denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that neither the news item was published about the character of the complainant nor any attempt was made to spoil or defame the complainant. The respondent has submitted that while not publishing the name of the complainant in the news item all the precaution had been taken before publishing the news item. The respondent editor has submitted that the news item in question was published on account of the existence of an application, addressed to Shri Amit Mohan Prasad, Zila Adhikari, Meerut the copy of which was addressed to 7 persons including Ayukt Meerut Mandal, Meerut and the information was based on this copy sent to Ayukt, Meerut Mandal, Meerut. Moreover the source of information was also mentioned in the news item. According to the respondent the allegations made by the complainant are not admitted to be correct. The respondent submitted that he is not aware of any enquiry report to D.M. by the City Magistrate, Meerut. He is only aware that on 17.5.2004 Shri Amit Mohan Prasad, Zila Adhikari, Meerut ordered the Uppar Zila Adhikari Nagar, Meerut and Nagar Magistrate, Meerut to submit the confidential report about the contents of the said letter dated 5.5.2004. The Collector, Meerut has not disclosed the contents of alleged confidential enquiry conducted by the Uppar Zila Adhikari, Meerut and Nagar Magistrate, Meerut so he is not aware of such report. The respondent stated that the news was also not published about the character of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, R/o 419/2, Jagriti Vihar, P.S. Medical

249 College, Meerut and it was not at all focused in the news item. No defamatory, derogatory, false and baseless and objectionable allegations were made against Shri Anil Kumar Sharma. Denying all the allegations the respondent submitted that the newspaper had not tried to spoil and defame the personal image/character of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma by publishing the news item. The respondent has furnished a copy of the complaint-letter addressed to the higher officials of the State Government and even it was mentioned in the news item that “Iske Lekhak Ne Swam Ko Girish Kumar Topchiwada, Thana Kotwali Bataya Hai, Yeh Naam Asli Hai Ya Farzi, Yah Bhi Janch Ka Bindu Hai” (The writer of this letter has described himself as Girish Kumar Topchiwada, P.S. This name is real or fake is also a matter of inquiry). A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 29.3.2005. Report of the Chief Development Officer, Meerut In response to the Council’s letter dated 19.01.2005 addressed to the District Magistrate, Meerut requesting him to file his comments in the matter based on the Inquiry Report, the Chief Development Officer, Meerut vide letter dated 17.4.2006 filed following documents for information and necessary action- 1) Copy of the notice dated 19.5.2004 issued by the City Magistrate, Meerut to Shri Girish Kumar (the author of the letter on the basis of which the impugned news item allegedly published) calling him to appear before the court at 11:00 a.m. on 21.5.2004 to give his evidence on the alleged complaint; and 2) A copy of the Inquiry Report dated 21.5.2004 of the City Magistrate, Meerut submitted to the District Magistrate informing him that an inquiry revealed that no person of such name and address exists. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Shrikant Asthana, News Editor appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that in response to the Council’s notice of hearing, the complainant in a letter dated 6.10.2006 had, under the RTI, asked for certified copies of the entire proceedings before the Council in his case including the reports, comments, counter, clarification etc. The complainant also desired to know the time limit in disposal of complaints by the Press Council of India. The complainant, while requesting for adjournment, requested the Council to ensure security at the time of next hearing.

250 The respondent’s representative submitted before the Committee that no new development had taken place after filing of their written statement in the matter. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had not published anything which was against ethics of journalism. The Inquiry Committee decided that material, requested by the complainant, may be provided under the rules for supply of certified copies. In order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the complainant, it decided to adjourn the case. In so far the issue of security was concerned, the Committee noted that there was no material before it to establish any threat to the complainant from the respondent. Accordingly, the complainant was informed about the adjournment of the case vide Council’s letter dated 11.01.2007. A copy of the written statement dated 31.01.2005 filed by the respondent editor was also again forwarded to him and the postal order of Rs.10/- was returned therewith. Counter Comments of the Complainant In reply the complainant vide his letter dated 31.01.2007 addressed to the Principal Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi with a copy endorsed to Press Council of India, restated that the information provided to him was incomplete, misleading and untrue. The complainant again desired to provide him the following information under Right to Information Act. 1. Certified copies of the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee held on 18.10.2006. 2. A copy of the Inquiry Report given by the City Magistrate to the District Magistrate, Meerut on the complaint made by the complainant. 3. A copy of comments given by the District Magistrate on the Inquiry Report. Point wise reply was furnished to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 7.3.2007. A copy each of the Inquiry Report/Comments received from the City Magistrate was also forwarded to him. In his counter comments while reiterating his complaint, the complainant submitted that the news item published was untrue and baseless and it was an attempt to show him as bad character. The respondent focused defamatory, derogatory, false, baseless and objectionable allegations against him. The complainant further submitted that the forged complaint letter was prepared by the Dainik Jagran and posted to some higher officers of the State Government. The respondent had done it to increase the circulation of his paper, and for sheer commercial gain they published it prominently without verifying the contents and its reporter did not bother to verify the contents of the so called complaint or to take the detail or specific version of complainant. Thus the respondent defamed and tarnished his

251 reputation and character causing irreparable loss to him. The complainant further submitted that after the publication of this forged news items an inquiry was conducted by City Magistrate, Meerut, on the basis of which it was found that no person of the name Mr. Girish Kumar was living at the place mentioned as 52 Topchiwada, Meerut. The complainant requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant in a fax letter dated 28.03.2007 requested for adjournment due to official work. Shri Shrikant Asthana, News Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee, in order to afford one more opportunity to the complainant to put forth his case, decided to adjourn the matter. Complainant’s letter dated 24.3.2007 The complainant vide his letter dated 24.3.2007 received after the meeting of the Inquiry Committee on 28.3.2007, again raised baseless objections as follows w.r.t. the letter dated 11.1.2007 of the office of the Press Council of India: 1. Whether the officer under whose signature the letter dated 11.1.2007 had been issued, is a Public Information Officer? If so, the information sent to the Commission or the Government of India be provided to him. 2. If not, under which capacity the letter was issued? 3. It is mentioned in the letter that the matter was considered by the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 but the proceedings have not been provided to him. 4. W.r.t. the observation of the Inquiry Committee that there was no material before it to establish any threat to the complainant from the respondent, the complainant, while referring the procedure of formation of the Committees, asked to provide him a copy of the constitution of the Inquiry Committee by the Council. 5. Giving reference of the Press Council (Inquiry Procedure) Regulation, 1979, the complainant submitted that the Inquiry Committee is not empowered to decide on the issue of his security. The complainant has enquired whether the Inquiry Committee is empowered to take final decision on any issue and whether it has filed its views to the Council and the Council has taken final decision on the issue of his security.

252 6. The complainant stated that he had been informed that no other information/documents were available, which was not true. Therefore who is responsible to hide the facts and what action has been taken?

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.07 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Instead a fax letter dated 4.6.07 was received from complainant intimating that he was busy with official work so another date of hearing may be given. Shri Srikant Ashthana, Regional News Editor appeared for the respondent, Dainik Jagran.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The respondent’s representative submitted that the complainant was not present on any of the past hearings. The respondent reiterated the averments made in the written statement.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee perused the records of the case including the complainant’s letter dated 24.03.2007 and noted that the complainant remained absent for three consecutive hearings and sought adjournment on one ground or other. The Inquiry Committee also noted that the complainant instead of seriously pursuing his complaint in this quasi-judicial forum repeatedly sought information under Right to Information Act about the proceedings in his case, sought security for attending the hearing and raised irrelevant objections. The Inquiry Committee noted that while the complainant had not substantiated his apprehension of threats, such matter should have been rightly taken up with the law and order authorities. The Inquiry Committee also did not appreciate the manner in which he levelled insinuations against the action taken by this forum or its officers. It further noted that the respondent had at the time of the publication of the impugned report, sufficient reasons to publish the report in the light of the complaint endorsed to Ayukt, Meerut Mandal on the subject and the Inquiry ordered by the District Magistrate, Meerut. Further, it had also itself indicated the need for establishing the authenticity of the sender. For all the above reasons, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

253 72) The Superintendent of Police Versus The Editor Pratapgarh Amar ujala Uttar Pradesh Allahabad, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 6.12.2004 has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh Uttar Pradesh against Amar Ujala, a Hindi daily, Allahabad for publication of the following news items: 1. “Circus Dekhne Gai Balika Se Dushkarm” dated 25.11.2004. 2. “Aik Aur Kishori Se Gang Rape” dated 28.11.2004; and 3. “Gang Rape Kee Shikar Kishori Bayan Se Mukri” dated 29.11.2004. According to the complainant the impugned news items were false, misleading and defamatory and the reporter, in order to settle personal scores and to defame the police as well as the so-called victims, published the same. The complainant alleged that the reporter of Amar Ujala is habitual of publishing such type of defamatory and misleading news items and the impugned news items were not only defamatory to women but also threats to the parents and young girls. The complainant stated that the parents of the girls had informed that the news items were false as the reason for their hospitalisation were contrary to alleged gang- rape. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 3.6.2005. Written Statement The respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Allahabad in his written statement dated 17.6.2005 submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant are false. The news items were based on facts and were not intended to defame or threaten anyone. The publication was keeping in view the guidelines enunciated by the Council and the Supreme Court. The respondent further submitted that no FIR had been lodged by the complainant police official, who was supposed to register such cases of heinous crime. Further no medical examination of the victim was undertaken, as required. The respondent submitted that the news items had been published in public interest and in order to raise voice against atrocities on women in the society. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.7.2005 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present before it while Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Manager Legal entered appearance for the respondent, Amar Ujala, Allahabad when the matter was called out.

254 Shri Sunil Kr. Awasthi speaking for the respondent informed that the notice of hearing was not received by the newspaper and that he was appearing to defend the paper in another case. The Inquiry Committee apprised the counsel that the notice of hearing had been received back with postal remarks: “Refused” and expressed its displeasure over it. The counsel took photocopy of the envelops containing postal remarks and assured the Committee that he will cause an inquiry against delinquent staff in the newspaper office. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity of hearing to the parties decided to adjourn the matter. IInd Adjournment When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi it noted that the complainant had requested for adjournment due to pre-occupation. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi appearing for the respondent, Amar Ujala, submitted that the complainant did not enjoy locus standi in the matter. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the complainant decided to adjourn the matter to enable the complainant to reply to the contention and also to file his response to the stand taken by the paper in its written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.07 at New Delhi. Shri Vishnu Chand Gautam, SHO appeared on behalf of Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appeared for respondent, Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that the police department enjoys locus-standi in the matter since it affects the public faith in the police department in handling law and order situation. The respondent had published the news items about rape of a girl, which was false. The complainant’s representative submitted that the police had enquired from the family members of the girl and they denied occurance of any such incident. The complainant’s representative submitted that the FIR is lodged only in r/o cognizable offence and the medical examination is done with the consent of the person. In case the victim is minor, the consent of the parents is necessary. The respondent submitted that the victim girl was hospitalised and also referred to another Government hospital. The information of the incident was also given to the police but no dependable inquiry was made by the police. The respondent further submitted that the TV channels had telecast the statement of the victim girl. The respondent submitted that they carried all sides of version in

255 one of their news reports dated 29.11.2004 and asserted that the police did not register report. To this, the complainant responded by adding that they did not receive any report and on the basis of media reports when they inquired, the parent denied any such incident. The representative refuted this by stating that the parent reneged from their statement under police pressure. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee opined that in matters of heinous offence like rape, the media should keep in mind the social and mental issues, for the sake of victim. The Inquiry Committee noted that in the instant case, the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala had reported all sides of the issue including the version of the police authorities, and as it had some basis for the report, it could not be faulted in reporting the matter in public interest. The Inquiry Committee therefore was not inclined to proceed with the inquiry. It decided to close the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

73) Shri J.D. Ahirwar Versus The Editor Marketing Inspector Swatantra Bharat Rajpur, Kanpur Dehat, U.P. Lucknow Complaint This complaint dated 22.10.2004 has been filed by Shri J.D. Ahirwar, Marketing Inspector, Rajpur (Kanpur) against “Swatantra Bharat” a Hindi daily of Lucknow for publishing allegedly, baseless news item in its October 19, 2004 issue under the caption “MÉ®ÉÒ¤ÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊxÉ´ÉÉãÉä BÉEÉÒ vɽããÉä ºÉä cÉä ®cÉÒ BÉEÉãÉÉ ¤ÉÉVÉÉ®ÉÒ” “Open black-marketing of grains for poor”. It is also alleged in the impugned news item that whereas the godown is at Rajpur and the complainant resides at Pukhriya, the owner of the Rice Mill gives him lift in his Maruti car in the morning and evening. The complainant submitted that there is no question of black-marketing of food grains because the supply of food grains is given to the quota holder after signatures in supply register. According to him the respondent published the impugned news item with the intention to defame him in the eyes of the public. The complainant also alleged that the news item has been published without mentioning the name of the person (s) alleging black-marketing. The complainant submitted that he is residing at Rajpur in one room rented accommodation. He denied having spoken to any Minister, as alleged in the

256 publication. The complainant further alleged that the correspondent of the newspaper had demanded for Rs.1000/- per month from him but he did not oblige the respondent and therefore, the impugned report. The complainant submitted that the respondent neither published his clarification sent on 22.10.04 nor gave any reply. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Swatantra Bharat, Hindi daily, Lucknow, U.P. on 3.6.2005 but no written statement was filed. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 12.10.2006 intimated his inability to appear before the Inquiry Committee and requested to decide the case on the basis of material on record. The Inquiry Committee noted that the service of neither the show cause notice nor the hearing on the respondent was complete. It therefore, decided to adjourn the matter. However, later POD of notice of hearing to the respondent editor was received, which established that service of the hearing on the respondent was complete. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. After the Committee decided to adjourn the matter, the complainant vide his letter dated 24.3.2007, received on 29.3.2007, informed about his inability to appear before the Committee. He requested to decide the matter on the basis of material already provided by him. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Notice for hearing sent to the complainant was received back with the postal remarks ‘shifted’. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the material before it was insufficient to decide the case. In the face of absence of parties, it recommended to the Council to close the case.

257 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

74) Shri Umashankar Singh Versus The Editor Headmaster Jansatta Express Lalbahadur Shastri Junior High School Lucknow Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint This undated complaint received on 29.12.2005 has been filed by Shri Umashankar Singh, Headmaster, Lalbahadur Shashtri Junior High School, Gorakhpur (U.P.) against “Jansatta Express”, a Hindi Daily, Lucknow (U.P.) alleging publication of objectionable news items captioned “Aur Paise Ke Liye Jalsajon Ko Bhi Peechhe Chhor Gaye Pradhanacharya” and “Chhatrvritti Ke Mamle Mein Bachhe Aur Abhibhawak Sadak Par Utarenge” in its issue dated 27.12.2005 and 30.12.2005 respectively. According to the complainant, during his visit to the office of the Basic Education Officer at Gorakhpur for official work on 22.12.2005, he received a telephone call at his mobile phone from some one claiming to be Shri S.K.Singh, journalist, working with Jansatta, and demanding a sum of Rs.20,000/- for not exposing a scholarship scam but the complainant refused to succumb to the blackmailing tactics and reported the matter to the administration and police officials. According to the complainant, the so-called scholarship issue was seven-years old and the erstwhile officials entrusted with the inquiry gave clean chit with regard to such allegations. Later on, the respondent published impugned news items dated 27th and 30th December, 2005 against him with the intention to defame him. The complainant vide his formal complaint dated 18.1.2006 submitted that he gave brief rejoinder to the allegation concerning scholarship scam and argued that there was no possibility of any scam as the school was neither getting nor distributing any scholarship. A series of allegations for the past deeds of the complainant in such a scam were mentioned in the impugned news item, but the complainant has merely stated that newspaper ought not to have raked up seven-years old issues. His brief version on the matter has not been published by the respondent. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 17.3.2006. Written Statement The respondent editor, Jansatta Express, Lucknow in his written statement dated 3.4.2006 has submitted that the involvement of the complainant

258 Shri Umashankar Singh, Headmaster, in the scholarship scam was conducted by the former Chief Development Officer and the report made available to the press was published not only by them but some other newspapers also. The respondent submitted that the allegations against the complainant, published in the impugned news item were based on facts and without any oblique intention and added that the complainant has not been rebutting the allegations. The respondent denied having received any rejoinder or a copy of the complaint, stated to be furnished to them except the documents received from the Press Council along with the show cause notice, stated the respondent and further clarified that the telephonic conversation the complainant had with the reporter had nothing to do with the impugned publication and the respondent was not accountable for such conversation. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.5.2006 for information. Complainant’s Counter Comments Dated 18.5.2007 In response to the notice for hearing dated 3.5.2007, the complainant vide his letter dated 18.5.2007 while denying the allegations made by the respondent requested the Council to decide the matter on the basis of the record/documents filed by him. Reiterating his complaint, the complainant submitted that the alleged scholarship issue had already been inquired into and the concerned officials had given clean chit with regard to the allegation. Racking up seven years old issue doesn’t serve any public interest. The complainant alleged that the impugned publication was deliberate to malign him. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and opined that the impugned report cited the current events that the paper in its wisdom considered worthy of publication while there was nothing on record to establish the charge of blackmailing. The complainant did enjoy the right to place his version before the public. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to direct the respondent to do so and dispose of the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

259 75) Shri Ramjilal Srivastava Versus The Editor Mauranipur Dainik Jagran Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh Jhansi Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 2.3.2006 and 24.3.2006 has been filed by Shri Ramjilal Srivastava, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh owner of a provisional store against Dainik Jagran, Jhansi for publication of a series of allegedly objectionable, false and fabricated news items with a motive to blackmail him. The impugned news items read as follows: 1. “Making Hay in the Name of Farmers Training” dated 8.2.2006, 2. “Making Hay in the Name of Farmers Training” dated 9.2.2006; and 3. “Farmers Flare up: This food cannot cost Rs.140/-”dated 10.2.06. In the first two news items, it has been reported that the Government Land Conservation Training Centre had organized a training camp for the farmers of the Districts of Mahoba, Banda and Chitrakoot and selected fifty farmers from each district were invited for training but only 25 farmers from each district attended the training. A sum of Rs.140/- per day per farmer was shown spent on breakfast and food. It was also reported that the participation of farmers was less whereas the expenditure was shown on higher side, causing loss of lakhs of rupees to the administration. In the third news item, it has been reported that when it came to the knowledge of the farmers that the breakfast and food served to them was @ Rs.140/- per person per day, they flared up, claiming that the food served could not cost Rs.140/-. The complainant is a caterer and has the contract of food supply to the trainees. He has further alleged that the impugned news item had been published to lower his prestige because the concerned reporter who was inimical because of property dispute with him, had demanded Rs.5000/- which he refused to pay. On his refusal, the respondent published the impugned news items against him with the intention to defame him and his business. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 18.6.2006 submitted that the news items in question were published on the basis of a complaint filed by one of the trainee, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Patel, District President, Bhartiya Kisan Union, who attended the training programme. The respondent further stated that they have received a notice dated 14.3.2006 from the counsel for the complainant

260 and in reply dated 18.3.2006, the complainant was asked to provide the clarification for publication but instead of the clarification, he approached the Council. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.7.2006 to intimate whether he had provided his clarification to the respondent for publication and, if so, a copy of the same be furnished to the Council. But no response was received. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Ramji Lal Srivastava, complainant appeared in person. Shri Surender Singh, News Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi appeared for the respondent, Dainik Jagran. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his original complaint and submitted that the respondent newspaper under the captions “Making Hay in the Name of Farmers Training” dated 8.2.2006 and 9.2.2006 and “Farmers Flare up: This food cannot cost Rs.140/-” dated 10.02.2006 had published the news, which was false. The complainant stated that the reporter of the respondent news paper was inimical towards him because of personal dispute and had targeted him by alleging poor catering arrangements. The complainant submitted that he has already filed written documents of farmers, who were satisfied with the catering during Government Land Conservation Training camp. The complainant further submitted that he is journalist by profession and the catering business is looked after by his brother. The respondent submitted that the Dainik Jagran had written to the complainant on 18.3.2006 that he may send his contradiction but the complainant did not send any contradiction. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the case and arguments by the parties noted that the news report was in public interest. The Inquiry Committee further noted that while the aggrieved had the right of reply, he had offered no written contradiction. Since the right person to contradict the news was the brother of the complainant, who was responsible for catering, the quality of which was disputed in the impugned news report. The Inquiry Committee therefore, decided to close the complaint for lack of substance. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

261 76) Shri Mohd. Fasih Uddin Versus The Editor Advocate Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily Moradabad Moradabad Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 11.8.2006 has been filed by Shri Mohd. Fasih Uddin, Advocate, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh against Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh alleging publication of false and defamatory news item captioned “Misbehaviour with President of the Bar (Association) in public, advocate suspended, preparation for removal from the Bar, Notice issued” in its issue dated 13.6.2006. It has been alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant, during the General Body meeting of the Bar Association of Moradabad, misbehaved with its President, Shri Prem Singh and the Vice President pronounced the decision that the membership of the complainant was suspended till further orders and show cause notice would be served to him to terminate his membership. According to the complainant, the imputations published by the respondent were highly objectionable and per se defamatory. A meeting of a few biased members, much less than the required quorum, and without specific agenda and without proper notice was not a meeting of the General Body of the Association. The complainant further stated that Shri Prem Singh and others who were badly antagonized against him and his son could not convene a General Meeting of the Bar Association, for two days prior to notice with specific agenda and a quorum of only one-fourth of the total members. Hence they held a fake meeting and advertised it to be a general meeting, added the complainant. It was the duty of the respondent to verify the facts before publishing the impugned news item from reliable sources other than Shri Prem Singh, the President and members of the Executive which was headed by him as in the case of Shri Prem Singh was shown to be the complainant and the aggrieved person. The complainant alleged that respondent published malafide, false and defamatory news item against the established norms of journalistic conduct and public taste. The complainant served a notice dated 13.7.2006 to the respondent giving real facts and later on sent a letter dated 7.8.2006 giving his version in Hindi with a request to publish the same but the respondent in his reply stated that the news item in question was entirely based on the Press note dated 12.6.2006 issued by the Bar Association. The complainant requested for necessary action in the matter. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Moradabad on 4.10.2006. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 19.10.2006 has stated that

262 the news item was purely based on Press Note dated 12.6.2006 sent on letter head of the Bar Association and Library, Moradabad addressed to them. The respondent further submitted that the impugned news item about the complainant was the outcome of objective reporting with a view to discharge the duty of the press towards its readers and general public and adhering to the guidelines of the Press Council. The respondent alleged that the complainant deliberately did not mention offer made by the newspaper to publish the corrigendum in the event of the complainant furnishing the Bar Association’s resolution that the General House convened by it was lacking the required parameters of Bar’s by Laws/Constitution and the complainant version should be lawful, truthful, logistic and having written proof. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.10.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Mohd. Fasih Uddin, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he is Member and Vice-President of Bar Association, Moradabad. In the meeting of Bar Association, the President and his allies badly humiliated him. The complainant criticised their participation but they convened an illegal meeting making defamatory charges such as “alleged rude behaviour” and “ex- communicating” the complainant. The complainant submitted that the respondent Amar Ujala had published the news item under the caption “Misbehaviour with President of the Bar (Association) in public- Advocate suspended-Preparation for removal from the Bar Notice issued” in the issue dated 13.6.2006 at the instance of the President of The Bar Association. Amar Ujala relied on the Press Release of the aggrieved person who was none other than the President of the Bar Association. The complainant submitted that it was false to allege that complainant humiliated Shri Prem Singh. The complainant submitted that he had sent legal notice as well as contradiction to Amar Ujala but the respondent newspaper did not feel it fit to carry his version in the newspaper. The complainant further submitted that one fourth quorum is required for conducting the meeting. The complainant alleged that the minutes were forged as no agenda was drawn up for his expulsion. It was mandatory to notify the agenda items before the meeting. The complainant submitted that he has already given a complaint to the Bar Council of India against the persons who had given defamatory statement in the Press.

263 The respondent submitted that the news item was published bonafide on the basis of statement released to publish on the letter head of the body. The respondent submitted that the notice was issued and the membership was cancelled. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was alleging illegality in the meeting of the said body and thus the newspaper was not able to carry the statement of an individual when the decision, right or wrong was taken by a body.

On being referred to the norms of right of reply, the representative of the respondent newspaper, offered to publish the mutually agreed clarification of the complainant.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties pointed out that the complainant had two focus points in his complaint namely about illegality of the meeting and non publication of his rejoinder. The representative of the respondent had agreed to publish mutually agreed clarification of the complainant to which the complainant also consented. Thus, the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent newspaper to publish the following agreed version of the complainant in the columns of Amar Ujala “With reference to the news item dated 13.6.2006 published under the caption “Misbehaviour with President of Bar Association”, Shri Mohd Fasih Uddin has stated that he and his son did not misbehave with the President of Bar Association, Shri Prem Singh. He has also stated that he had left the meeting being annoyed with the incident that took place in the Bar Council Meeting. No meeting of Bar Association in this behalf was convened. The so called Meeting was called by some Advocates without resolution, notice and the forum was called to defame me and that was published in the newspaper. This is being published on the directions of the Press Council of India.” It further directed that the clarification should be published with the same prominence as the news item was published.

The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint in terms of the settlement arrived at by the parties.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

Foot Note: Amar Ujala published the complainant’s version in the issue dated 8.6.2007.

264 77) Shri G.L. Chaurasiya Versus The Editor Advocate Amar Ujala Agra Agra Complaint This undated complaint received in the Sectt. of the Council on 21.10.2005 has been filed by Shri G.L. Chaurasiya, Advocate, Agra against Hindi daily Amar Ujala, Agra for publication of an allegedly false and misleading news item captioned “Bar Council: Agra Main Punarmatdan Ka Aswasan” (Bar Council Re-poll in Agra, Assured: English translation) in its issue dated 30.08.2005. In the impugned news item it has been stated that Shri Justice Achal Bihari Srivastava, who was Returning Officer for the Elections of Bar Council in Agra had assure the re- elections due to change of bungling in the voting. The impugned news item read as follows: “Justice Achal Bihari Srivastava has assured re-poll at Agra after making an inquiry regarding irregularities and mishandling of Ballet papers bags in election at Agra for members of Bar Council of U.P. on complaints of candidates. Candidate for membership of Bar Council of U.P. and Secretary Collectorate Bar Association, Shri Brajendra Singh Rawat told that after tearing of the seal of Ballet Bag and mishandling of ballet papers a complaint was made to returning officer Justice Achal Bihari Srivastava. Important points of the complaint were explained in detail to him. After this he assured repoll after inquiry in detail regarding complaint. In a meeting of Collectorate Bar Association, members were astonished on declared votes of District Agra. No advocate is satisfied on the result of polling. Speakers jointly expressed their anger on the dishonesty and collusiveness of the staff and Secretary of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. Meeting was addressed by Brajendra Singh Rawat, Arun Solanki, O.P. Tiwari, Chiraguddin Qureshi, Vivek Sharma, Ramjilal Verma, Ishaq Lahoria, Rohtash Sharma, Hari Mohan Dixit, Ramakant Sharma, Vijay Yadav, Har Mohan Gautam and others and was presided by Anand Prakash Sharma, Senior Advocate”. The complainant pointed out that the respondent also published such false news items earlier in his newspaper issues dated 1st, 2nd 6th and 10th September, 2005. According to him the impugned news items were published by the respondent without verifying the fact and due to publication of these news items he suffered mental agony. He has submitted that there was no truth in the impugned publication. The complainant has alleged that the respondent published the impugned news items with a view to tarnish the image of the voters of Agra. The complainant

265 submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication on 13.9.2005 but received no reply from him. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Agra on 3.3.2006. In response, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Agra in his written statement dated 30.5.2006 submitted that the allegations leveled in the complaint against them were totally false and baseless. The respondent further stated that the notice dated 13.9.2005 served on them as mentioned in the complaint was not received in their office and had they received the notice, necessary action would have been taken on it. He submitted that they published the news in public interest after due verification without any malice. The respondent concluded by saying that Shri Brajendra Rawat, Advocate had made complaints to the competent authority on the basis of which they published the news item in question. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 28.6.2006 for information. Counter Comments of the Complainant In his counter comments dated 14.7.2006, the complainant while denying the allegation submitted that the statement of the respondent was false and baseless. He alleged that the respondent published the impugned news without verification and the statement of the respondent that they did not receive the notice dated 13.9.2005 is totally false. He furnished the documentary proof of their having received the notice. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. A letter dated 5.6.2007 was received from the complainant stating therein that as he was not able to appear before the Inquiry Committee, the matter may be decided on merits, so that false news is not published in future. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appeared for Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Awasthi submitted that the news item in question was published in respect of malpractice in the Bar Council elections as alleged by Shri Brajendra Rawat. He had made a complaint regarding malpractice in the election, which was later rejected. The respondent further submitted that the contradiction sent by the complainant had nothing concrete to be published. The respondent, however, offered to publish the contradiction.

266 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the submissions made by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee took serious note of the statement attributed to the High Court Judge on the statement of an affected person and making sweeping statement saying repolling was assure. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the respondent newspaper should have contacted Shri Justice A.B. Srivastava before publishing the impugned statement. Instead, it published unverified new in irresponsible manner. It, therefore, directed the respondent Amar Ujala to publish contradiction sent by the complainant within two weeks, and to caution its reporter for filing such unverified reports. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. Foot Note: Amar Ujala published the contradiction in the issue dated 8.6.2007

78) Shri Kailash Sharma Versus The Editor S.D.E (Legal) Data Sandesh BSNL, Mathura, U.P. Agra, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 25.11.2004 has been filed by Shri Kailash Sharma, Sub-Divisional Engineer (Legal), B.S.N.L., Mathura (U.P.) against Data Sandesh, a Hindi daily, Agra (U.P.) alleging publication of false, misleading and malicious news item captioned “nÉä-É{ÉÚhÉÇ ºÉä´ÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ A´ÉÆ cä®É-{ÉEä®ÉÒ BÉEÉ +ÉbÂÂbÉ ¤ÉxÉ BÉE® ®c MɪÉÉ <Ç-10 ´ÉÉÒ.ABÉDºÉSÉåVÉ” (Misappropriation and Forge Services Centre of E-10 B Exchanges of Mathura - English translation provided by the complainant) in its issue dated 22.10.2004. It was stated in the impugned news item that the BSNL office has become a den of misappropriation and officers were flouting rules, bungling in the purchase of office equipments and misusing powers. According to the complainant, when the respondent failed in his attempts to blackmail the officers the complainant officer was targeted through news reports. The complainant also alleged that the impugned news was published without verifying the facts. The title given to the impugned news had caused huge financial loss to the complainant. He drew the attention of the respondent to the impugned report asking him to publish an unconditional apology expressing regret, but it evoked no response.

267 A show cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Data Sandesh, Agra on 3.8.2005.

Written Statement

The respondent, in his written statement dated 7.9.2005, has asserted that the impugned report was true. He has stated that on publication of various similar news items against the complainant BSNL and the SDO, Shri R.K. Churamani had filed case No. 1063/2004 under Sections 384/500/501 IPC before the 10th Additional District Judge, Mathura which was listed for hearing on 16.9.2005. He also stated that after filing of their complaint before the Council on 25.11.2004, the complainant lodged a Civil Suit No.846/2004 on 2.12.2004 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Mathura against him and the hearing was fixed for 15.9.2005.

The respondent further submitted that whenever they have published news report against the complainant BSNL, they used to threaten them that in the event of complaints from the public, before publishing in the newspaper, officer of BSNL be contacted failing which they would stop giving advertisement to them and ultimately they stopped releasing advertisements.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.10.2005 with a request to intimate the Council whether the matter is pending in the court of law as mentioned by the respondent.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide his counter comments dated 9.5.2006 has submitted that filing of the case by R.K. Churamani, SDO before the 10th Additional District Judge, Mathura was dismissed by the court and the Civil Suit before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) is a damage money recovery suit and has nothing to do with the present proceedings before the Press Council.

The complainant further asserted that the respondent had admitted his plight and reason of publication of impugned news item i.e. stoppage of advertisements which resulted in malafide campaign against them.

A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to the respondent on 19.6.2006 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5/6/2007 at New Delhi. Shri Kailash Sharma, SDO, BSNL, Radhapuram alongwith S/Shri K.K. Arora, B. Dubey, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Atul Kumar represented the respondent, Data Sandesh.

268 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant (BSNL) submitted that the news item caption “BSNL KI KHUL GAI POL” in the issue dated 22.10.2004 was published in Data Sandesh making general remarks about the BSNL to show that all employees of BSNL were corrupt. He contended that the news was published without proper verification. The counsel further submitted that although a defamation case had been filed against the respondent newspaper for publishing the news-item in question, the impugned news item could be split into two parts, viz., personal allegation and the defamation of the employees of the BSNL in General. This complaint had been filed by the BSNL and not the SDO. The SDO had filed defamation suit in his personal capacity. Therefore, the counsel pleaded, the matter was not sub- judice. The respondent’s representative submitted that the newspaper had reported about the corruption that started ever since Shri Bajpai joined as a General Manager, Mathura. There was no question of defaming the entire set-up of BSNL. The news was in public interest and he suffered discontinuance of advertisement support from the BSNL after publication of the impugned news item. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the arguments put forth by the counsel for the complainant. The Committee was not convinced with the contention of the learned counsel that the BSNL was contesting before the Council the general remarks in the news items that all the officers and employees of BSNL were corrupt and the allegations against SDO who had filed defamation suit in the court were two separate issues. It held that the news report could not be split into two parts. The matter was thus before the court and was sub-judice. It recommended to the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

79) The Executive Officer Versus The Editor Shri Saibaba Sansthan Lok Bol Shirdi, Maharashtra Ahmednagar Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 13.8.2005 has been filed by the Executive Officer,

269 Shri Saibaba Sansthan, Shirdi, Maharashtra against Lok Bol, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra for publication of an allegedly defamatory news item captioned “A Snatch of Nasik’s Crab! Saibhakta Frightened!!” “False propaganda of bomb blast! Bhavadyas (filthy language in Marathi) Brain Decayed” (English rendering) in its issue dated 6.7.2005 According to the complainant, the respondent in the impugned news item substituted the name of the complainant Executive Officer, from Shri Bhavseheb to Bvhavadya (filthy language in Marathi) and that of the Trustee from Shri K.S. Pande to Keshpande. The complainant was also described as a frog, who swims in the ponds of five star hotels at Shirdi. He was also referred to as brain decayed required to be given electric shock on the buttocks. He has objected to the respondents’ appeal to the public to inform him how they felt about the complainant, Executive Officer of Shri Saibaba Sansthan also posing query to identify him who has properties of three petrol pumps two flats in Shirdi and PRO machinery etc. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was defamatory and published with malafide intention to blackmail him. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 30.11.2005. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 15.12.2005 has submitted that they have published a news item on propaganda of a false bomb blast in Shirdi on 6.7.2005 in public interest, so as to caution the public against false propaganda and added that in the impugned news item, neither a name was mentioned nor any one was defamed. He has submitted that on receiving notice from the complainant, they met him personally and settled the matter and there were no objections from the complainant. He however, submitted that being from a small village, and not literate he has no knowledge about the Press Act and had any one felt aggrieved over the news item published in his paper, he expressed his regrets for the same. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 6.1.2006 for counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.4.2006 has submitted that the explanation given by the respondent in his written statement shows his malafide. Though he admitted the publication of the impugned news item, he has not come forward with clean hand to accept his heinous doings, stated the complainant and added that the respondent is habitual of publishing false and defamatory news against Shri Saibaba Sansthan and its Executive Officer. He has submitted that there is no substance in the statement made by the respondent and denied the matter having being settled.

270 Submissions of Respondent The respondent vide letter dated 3.6.2006, submitted that being a resident of a small village, he was not aware about the existence of the Press Council Act and requested that had the impugned news item defamed any one, he may be pardoned and the matter be closed. Further Communication from Complainant The complainant vide letter dated 15.7.2006 has submitted that the respondent was expected to publish his unconditional apology in public and before the Press Council but instead he is repeating the same statement with certain intention. Appearance and Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri R S Jape, Legal Adviser appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Lok Bol. The counsel for the complainant filed written arguments before the Inquiry Committee stating therein that the respondent newspaper has published defamatory news in his paper on 6.7.2005 with malafide intention. He further submitted that the respondent has substituted the synonymous name ‘Bhavadya’ which is the reference of the complainant Bhausaheb who is the Executive Officer of Sri Saibaba Sansthan. He further submitted that by publishing such material conveyed wrong and false message in the society and devotees of Sai Baba. He requested to cancel the license of editor, Lok Bol. The counsel submitted orally that the matter had not been settled as stated by the respondent in his reply. The counsel further submitted that the publication of the rejoinder would not undo the harm done by the respondent. He requested that the respondent might be directed to publish regrets in his newspaper. The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the record and arguments made by the complainant’s counsel, felt that the respondent editor had impugned news item dated 6.7.2005 under the caption rhyming in Marathi that translates as “A snatch of Nasik’s Crab; Saibhakta Frightened; False propaganda of bomb blast; Bhavadyas” in violation of the norms of verification, accuracy and dignified language. The respondent’s claim of having settled the matter had been rejected by the complainant. In the circumstances the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to direct the respondent editor of Lok Bol to publish rejoinder with regrets for publication of the impugned news item and send its copy to the Council as well as the complainant for record. The Inquiry Committee further recommended that the matter be kept pending till compliance report is filed by the editor, Lok Bol.

271 80) Sh. D.S. Murty, IAS Versus The Editor Former Commissioner & Director of Eenadu Marketing and Commissioner of Inquiries Hyderabad Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint Shri D.S. Murty, IAS, the then Commissioner and Director of Marketing and former Commissioner of Inquiries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad preferred this complaint dated 5.7.2005 against “Eenadu”, Telugu daily of Hyderabad for publication of allegedly false and motivated series of news items. The date and translated caption of the impugned publications reads as follows:-

S.No Caption Date 1. A palanquin for scam swamy. 3.6.2005 2. Low Rate-All followed the same route. -Sale of lands 6.6.2005 during 4 more IAS Officers time -New turn in Dvera Yamjal Lands sale. 3. Business of Collections – Farewell ‘seva’ to D.S. 9.6.2005 Murty by Deputy Director. 4. Shifting of post is enough. 10.6.2005 5. Upgradation of Posts- Promotions system in 14.6.2005 Marketing Department. 6. Scoring Murty – Separate style in transfer – Counseling 27.6.2005 in doldrums. 7. Contempt Murty’s another pastime- Employees 28.6.2005 associations frustrated- Government orders not cared. The complainant submitted that in the news item dated 3.6.2005 captioned “Scamula swamiki andalam” a direct attack was made against him forestalling his elevation as Member, APAT for which he had been selected as number one in the panel of a Committee headed by Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh with Chief Secretary, Chairman, APPSC and Chairman, APAT as the Members. According to the complainant, the selection was communicated to Government of India which conveyed its approval for his being appointed as member, APAT. He submitted that on his selection as member of APAT he resigned from IAS while accepting the new assignment. He had already expressed his willingness to accept the new position and in order to stall the same and bring pressure on the Hon’ble Chief

272 Minister, these press reports were generated and with the help of the same paper cuttings, the opponents managed to file a PIL before the Hon’ble High Court. Though there is no public interest involved in respect of the petitioners who were in no way connected with the APAT except that they have personal enemies in personal property matter. It is a well-known fact that no PIL can be filed on personal vengeance. The complainant submitted that these false reports were foisted and created only to file a PIL petition against him besides damaging his reputation and stalling his appointment to the APAT. He submitted that the respondent indulged in publishing a series of adverse news items/reports on front page of “Eenadu” continuously from 3rd June onwards till the PIL was filed on 9.6.2005. The respondent continued to publish even after filing of PIL but they were not successful in getting the PIL admitted or any stay orders from the Hon’ble High Court on his appointment. This was nothing but character assassination and blackmailing, added the complainant. The complainant alleged that the news item dated 3.6.2005 contained false, reckless, cooked up and distorted information about certain matters relating to an incident that happened while he was the Commissioner of Endowments. Further, personal allegations were made against him. He further alleged that the publication was contrary to the norms of journalism as the respondent neither consulted him before publication nor published the rejoinder issued by him. The impugned news item dated 6.6.2005 pertains to sale of land belonging to Endowments Department at Devarayamzala Village, Ranga Reddy District. It was reported in the news item that four Commissioner including the complainant and his predecessors and successors sold certain extents of land. It was further stated that the complainant himself, as the Endowments Commissioner, sold 13.13 acres. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that he was not a party to this issue and had not sold any land during his tenure. The complainant submitted that he verified the alleged 13.13 acres of land reported to have been sold during his tenure as Endowments Commissioner and learnt that the land at Devarayamzala Village at Survey No.639, 667, 668, 669 totalling 13.13 acres were regularised long after he left the Endowment Department. The orders of its sale were issued on 12.12.2003 whereas he left the Department on 10.11.2003. The incident took place one month after he left the Department. Thus the intention of the respondent was only to malign him and to harm his reputation through the column of the newspaper. The complainant submitted that his name was dragged into controversy unfortunately though he should have been projected as the only officer who had not sold the Endowments land during his tenure as Commissioner Endowments. He further submitted that his name had been included deliberately by the respondent

273 with a view to tarnish his image in the public eyes. He alleged that it was a systematic attack on his personnel reputation by some vested interests. The complainant also alleged that the respondent had a malafide in publishing all this material against him. The complainant submitted that he issued rejoinders dated 3.6.2005, 4.6.2005, 6.6.2005 and 7.6.2005 to the respondent editor but none of his rejoinders were published deliberately by the respondent and who was bent upon maligning him through his adverse and incorrect publications. The complainant further submitted that the respondent without verifying the facts published the false reports and ignored the rejoinders, which is violation of the journalistic conduct. He requested the Council to intervene in the matter and initiate action against the respondent editor. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Eenadu, Hyderabad on 27.9.2005 but there has been no response from the respondent for more than one year. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for consideration by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri GVS Jagannadha Rao, advocate appeared for the respondent newspaper the ‘Eenadu’. The complainant vide his fax dated 20.9.2006 requested for adjournment of the case. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the complainant and decided to adjourn the case. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri GVS Jagannadha Rao, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent, Eenadu. The complainant, however, in his letter dated 30.11.2006 submitted that all the impugned publications were motivated and published with the intention to defame him and prevent him from being elevated to higher post. In his parawise reply, the complainant stated that the respondent editor neither published his rejoinder nor cared to give reply. The complainant stated that in all the impugned news items, the respondent personally attributed all irregularities to him by naming D.S. Murty, IAS, and never perused against others who were really involved in it to some extent. The complainant alleged that the respondent editor had, through the impugned reports, deprived him of the chance of being appointed to the post of Member, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT).

274 The counsel for the Eenadu requested for time to afford the newspaper an opportunity to file the written statement in the light of the present letter. The Inquiry Committee, acceding to the request of the counsel for the respondent, adjourned the matter with directions to the respondent newspaper through its counsel to file written statement within a fortnight with a copy served directly on the complainant. The respondent editor was reminded vide Council’s letter dated 9.4.2007 to file the written statement. Written Statement The respondent editor, Eenadu, Hydrabad vide his letter dated 13.4.2007 filed written statement in the matter denying the allegations made in complaint. He submitted that all the allegations were false and vexatious and there were no merits in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the impugned publication was a fair comment on the eligibility of an officer who had been involved in disciplinary proceedings apart from some criminal cases. According to the respondent the journalist as well as his newspaper have strictly adhered to the journalistic norms and there has been no violation of norms or ethics by the journalist. He submitted that no rejoinder alleged to have been sent by the complainant had been received by them. The respondent has also filed the relevant documents and the same have also been forwarded to the complainant for information. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri GVS Jagannadh Rao, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Eenadu. The complainant vide his letter dated 16.4.2007 informed that he might not be able to appear before the Inquiry Committee. Reiterating his complaint, the complainant requested the Council to decide the matter. The counsel appearing for Eenadu filed a list of documents and dates relating to proceedings against Shri D.S. Murty, the complainant herein, which are as follows: S.No. Document Date Nature of Findings/ No. Document Comments 1. Comp No.95/2003/B2 5.8.03 Order of Upa- Upa-Lokayukta held Lokayukta that the Commissioner (M Shivaratna) is responsible for transferring the amount unauthorisedly to CGF

275 S.No. Document Date Nature of Findings/ No. Document Comments

2. G.O.Rt.No.1570 Inquiry Report of The Commissioner- Sri P. Ramakanth Endowments have Reddy (On violated the procedure Commissioner of dealing with CGF of Endowments- funds and he along Mr. D.S. Murty) with Additional Commissioner are accountable for the lapse and both of them showed scant respect to financial norms and exhibited sense of dereliction to duty.

3. W.P.No.193 of 2004 7.1.04 Order of the The Bench directed the Division Bench Chief Secretary to issue Justice notice and take Bikshapathi & appropriate action S. Anand Reddy) against Commissioner WP filed by Govt. in accordance with (Prl. Secretary) rules uninfluenced by any observations madethe said order and also directed the Chief Secretary to take necessary action against Mr. D.S. Murty

4. C.No.766/V 29.3.05 Vigilance Report- The Vigilance Report &E/D2/2005 Government of recommended calling Andhra Pradesh, for explanation of General Mr. D.S. Murty, Administration Commissioner and (Vigilance & Director of Marketing Enforcement) for not acting prudently Department leading to wasteful expenditure of Rs.33.77 lakhs of marketing funds and take appropriate action on merits of the explanation of D.S. Murty

276 S.No. Document Date Nature of Findings/ No. Document Comments

5. WP No.12182 20.8.05 Judgment of Judgment of Division of 2005 Division Bench Bench comprising of of AP High Court Justice Bilal Nazki in WP (ACJ) and Justice No.12182/2005 G.Chandraiah.

6. Memo No.154/Spl. 12.12.05 Memo from The Memo states that in A/2005-9 T.K. Dewan, view of the Chief Secretary circumstances and in to Government to pursuance of the order Mr. D.S. Murty dated 27.10.2005 in O A No.694 of 2005 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench have examined his request submitted vide reference filed by D.S. Murthy and found that it is not feasible for the State Government to forward his name to Government of India for appointment as Member of APAT, since there are certain allegations pending against him as on the date of retirement from service on 31.1.2005

7. Reply to Memo Reply to the Mr. D.S. Murty issued by Chief memo issued admitted that it was Secretary to Govt. by the Chief brought to the notice Secretary to of the Government Government of that certain Andhra Pradesh departmental case and also certain criminal cases are pending against him and the State Government therefore opined that it would be therefore not be appropriate to

277 S.No. Document Date Nature of Findings/ No. Document Comments

recommend his name for judicial post. Also admitted that several charges in several departments were pending against him

8. WP No.11574 11.6.06 WP filed by In the affidavit filed by of 2006 Mr. D.S. Murty Mr D.S. Murty, he against State admitted that several Government and allegations and Government of charges were framed India against him in various departments while he was in service.

The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to file reply to the written statement with supportive documents filed before the Committee by the respondent within two weeks. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Counter to Written Statement The complainant in a letter dated 19.4.2007 received after the hearing submitted that the written statement filed by the respondent editor was all about the dead issues created by his subordinates who were offended when he initiated action against them. These issues were all concocted, stage managed by a strong lobby backing the subordinate officers. They have manipulated a number of things against every Endowment Commissioner who did not toe their line by scandalizing through newspapers, particularly, Eenadu, Hyderabad. Regarding the claim of the respondent that impugned news items were published in the public interest, the complainant submitted that infact the editor, Eenadu was accused of cheating Central and State government through their financial institutions and chit funds company and by acquiring hundreds of acres of land violating the principles of Urban Land Ceiling Act while facing so many charges of fraud and cheating government and public cannot preach morals though his acts to others. The complainant submitted that he has an outstanding record throughout his 38 years of service. He reiterated that all the news items were developed with an evil intention to malign him and his personal reputation and prejudice the public mind against him and it was a deliberate attempt by the respondent in connivance with the Additional Commissioner to malign him. He requested to initiate action against the respondent editor.

278 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25- 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri D.S. Murthy, the complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2007 filed written submissions referring to earlier letters dated 13.4.2007, 15.4.2007 and 18.4.2007. The complainant requested the Council to take suitable action in his complaint. Shri G.V.S. Jagannadh Rao, Advocate appeared for Eenadu on 26.7.2007. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his written submissions dated 16.7.2007 submitted that the respondent editor, Eenadu played the foul game in connivance with his erring subordinates. Reiterating his allegations the complainant submitted that the respondent editor had misused the freedom of the press by publishing the sarcastic and scandalous titles and misled the public. Giving reference of his unblemished and outstanding record in more than 35 years of his Government Service, the complainant submitted that the High Powered Selection Committee had put him on the top for the post of member APAT but the adversaries had ganged up and cooked up cases against him and with connivance of the respondent newspaper published adverse news items repeatedly with different captions containing the same matter. All this indicated their evil intention to malign him. The Editor, through his newspaper had clearly damaged his reputation and interfered with his appointment to the post of Member, APAT. The complainant alleged that with malafide intentions the respondent made false and misleading allegations without verifying the complete facts. According to the complainant the adverse news item reported prominently indicating the inquiries by vigilance Department had put adverse effect on his personal reputation and by doing so the respondent editor has violated the journalistic norms and ethics. The complainant further alleged that the respondent editor had misled the Council by furnishing incomplete, irrelevant and improper papers to support his case of misusing the freedom of press. He requested the Council to pass suitable orders against the respondent editor, reporters and all those connected in the process suitably. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent newspaper submitted that the newspaper had in its possession the orders of the Court that form the basis for its reports. It was not a campaign but exposure as and when the situation had arisen. The respondent-counsel denied that the news reports were targeted and submitted that the complainant was facing departmental inquiries and charges were against him. The respondent–counsel added that the documents showed that as to why the complainant was not recommended for the judicial appointment. The respondent-counsel submitted that the newspaper relied on eight documents which showed as to why the complainant was not to be recommended for judicial post.

279 The complainant was in fisheries department where also he faced cases. The Eenadu had a clear message that judicial appointment should not have been made in these circumstances. The matter would have been different if the complainant had been promoted in his non-judicial post. The respondent counsel reiterated that the newspaper acted in bonafide manner in a matter of public interest. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the learned counsel for the respondent. It observed that as per the statement of the respondent the newspaper had reasonable basis and documents for its reports and stand as to in what circumstances the judicial posting ought not to be given to a person who was facing inquiries. The Committee felt that while the paper may have acted bonafide in public interest relying on the documents then available, it should have taken the version of the complainant simultaneously and having not done so afforded him his right of reply of post publication. The newspaper faulted in compliance with ethics on this count. It was however now too late to direct the newspaper for its publication. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to close the complaint with these observations and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

81) Shri Raghav Chandra, IAS Versus 1. The Editor Managing Director Nav Bharat M.P. State Industrial Bhopal Development Corporation Ltd. Bhopal 2. The Editor Central Chronicle Bhopal Complaint Shri Raghav Chandra, Managing Director, M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (MPSIDC), Bhopal has filed this complaint dated 23.6.2004 against Nav Bharat and Central Chronicle, Bhopal edition for publication of allegedly misleading series of news items amounting to personal attack on his reputation. The impugned news items stated below highlighted “Raghav Chandra under scanner for land scam worth crores of rupees.”

280 S.No. Caption Dated Name of Newspaper 1. Hearing of land scam 12.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal involving crores on 23rd 2. Scam involving crores 13.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal exposed by petition 3. Strong objections to the 14.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal deal even in the secret inquiry report 4. Seoni By Pass: Scam 15.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal involving crores 5. The tenure of Raghav 17.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal Chandra be inquired 6. Seoni By Pass useless, 18.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal will be newly constructed 7. Hearing of the Katni 24.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal Scam also today 8. More than four crores could 25.6.2004 Nav Bharat, Bhopal have been saved had the land been acquired 9. Raghav Chandra under 12.6.2004 Central Chronicle, Scanner Bhopal 10. MPHB land deal despite 14.6.2004 Central Chronicle, Secretary’s objection Bhopal 11. The road to corruption 15.6.2004 Central Chronicle, Bhopal 12. Raghav Chandra’s 23.6.2004 Central Chronicle, corruption exposed Bhopal 13. Hearing in MPHB land 24.6.2004 Central Chronicle, purchase scam adjourned Bhopal Denying the allegations the complainant has submitted that the Enbee Group which also runs the two respondent main stream newspapers have been declared involved in a financial scam by the M.P.S.I.D.C., a recovery of rupees 120 crores is pending against them. A sum of rupees seven crores by way of Performance Guarantee Defaults is pending against them because of road projects they undertook which had to be terminated for non-performance. The complainant

281 alleged that the Enbee Group felt offended because of these revelations and the recovery drive by the Managing Director, M.P.S.I.D.C. (Complainant) and launched a personal cirade against him. According to the complainant, all the press reports published by the respondent newspapers are one-sided, malafide and conceal the facts. The complainant submitted that all the publications were related to some incidents during the year 2002 when he was Commissioner of the M.P. Housing Board. These were not only misleading but painted a bad picture alleging to have deliberately taken wrong and corrupt decisions whereas infact those decisions were not taken by him but by the Board of Directors of the M.P. Housing Board. It was only for the Commissioner to execute those decision and directives. Even otherwise an inquiry into the matter had already been conducted in March 2003 by the Special Police Establishment under the Lokayukt which found that the allegations were baseless. According to the complainant the real impulsive reason behind the publication of the impugned matter was strict recovery drive initiated by him as Managing Director of the M.P.S.I.D.C. against the prominent industrialists of Madhya Pradesh, who were doled out financial assistance from the Corporation and were willfully and fraudulently not paying back the dues. The owners of the respondent newspapers Navbharat and Central Chronicle own the Enbee Group which borrowed Rs. 67.5 crores from the M.P.S.I.D.C. and were willful defaulters of M.P.S.I.D.C. All the publications were aimed to frighten and defame him with a malafide intention to create undue pressure upon him by maligning him and by lowering him in the eyes and esteem of public and the Government. The complainant alleged that to save their misdeeds the respondent newspapers misused their position and maligned him. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent newspapers to his objections through his advocate but despite issuing reminders, his rejoinders had not been published. He however, received a reply through the respondent’s advocate stating that the allegations made by him were not only misconceived but also based on imaginary, false claims. The respondent submitted that the complainant had cooked up a baseless colourful story just to make out a false ground against them. The respondent further alleged that the complainant had not only tried to blackmail them but threatened to suppress the freedom of the press. The complainant submitted that the respondent newspapers had violated norms of journalistic ethics by publishing allegedly defamatory and false news items with ulterior motive and malafide intention and denied right of reply by not publishing contradiction/apology. Written Statement Show cause notices dated 15.9.2005 were issued to the respondent editors Navbharat and the Central Chronicle but no reply had been received on the merits

282 of the case from either respondents, however, the Group General Manager Navbharat vide his letter dated 16.11.2005 submitted that the matter is sub-judice and the Council is debarred to hold any inquiry under the provisions of Section 14 (3) of the Press Council Act, 1978. A copy of the reply was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 26.12.2005 for his comments on whether the matter is sub-judice. In his reply dated 15.2.2006 the complainant asserted that no proceedings are pending before any court of law in the matter before the Council. The complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper Navbharat was trying to shield their malafide and deliberate defamatory actions by illegally using the court case pending before the Hon’ble Jabalpur High Court and District Court, Katni in relation to a transaction of land purchased by the M.P. Housing Board in the year 2002, in respect of which no inquiry is required to be undertaken by the Council. He submitted that the objection of respondent Navbharat was filed with the ulterior motive to misguide the Council and to save themselves, therefore, the objection is liable to be rejected at the very outset and they should be directed to gave a full and complete reply, defence and reasons behind the offensive publications. Accordingly a copy of the reply was forwarded to the respondent editor Navbaharat vide Council’s letter dated 21.3.2006. To this, there was no response despite issuance of reminder dated 22.1.2007. Ist Adjournment The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.2.2007 at Udaipur. Dr. G.P. Sharma, Executive Director, M.P.S.I.D.C, Bhopal appeared for the complainant. Shri Sunil Mehta, Administrative Manager, represented the respondent Nav Bharat, Bhopal. The complainant requested for adjournment, while the respondent submitted that the matter may not be pursued being sub-judice. The Committee noted that the complainant had already contested this stand of the respondent, to which no reply had been filed. The Committee, therefore, decided to adjourn the matter with directions to the respondent to file its reply in the matter. The respondent editor, Nav Bharat vide his letter dated 2.3.2007 requested for a copy of the letter dated 15.2.2006 of the complainant which was forwarded vide Council’s letter dated 10.4.2007. IInd Adjournment The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri D.S. Chaturvedi representative appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri Govind Oza, Advocate appeared for the respondents Nav Bharat and Central Chronicle, Bhopal. Shri D.S. Chaturvedi appearing for the complainant submitted that the respondent newspapers started vendetta against the complainant when the

283 complainant caused recovery of Rs.120 crores from the Enbee Group that runs these two newspapers. The representative of the respondent newspapers filed a joint written statement dated 25.4.2007 stating therein that the complaint was baseless and filed being prejudiced with the intentions to attack the freedom of the press. According to the respondent, Navbharat and Central Chronicle were esteemed newspapers and have never violated the norms of journalistic ethics. The respondent denied the allegations that the impugned news items had been published deliberately due to recovery of loan by MPSIDC. According to the respondent the recovery of loan from Enbee Plantation along with other 60-70 Industrialists was a routine process and Enbee Plantation was presenting its case which had no relevance with the impugned publications. In fact two public interest litigations relating to irregularities in the purchase of farm land by the MPSIDC have been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jabalpur and on the basis of facts raised in the litigation, the impugned news items had been published in public interest. The respondent claimed that publication of truth is not only right but also duty of the newspapers and under Section 499 of IPC such publications are neither defamatory nor objectionable. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits. A copy of the written statement was handed over to the complainant. The representative of the complainant sought time to file rejoinder to the written statement. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford the complainant an opportunity to file rejoinder to the reply dated 25.4.2007 of the respondents, adjourned the matter with directions to complainant to file rejoinder within two weeks from the date of hearing. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Raghav Chandra, IAS, Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh appeared in person along with Shri Naveen Sharma, Dr. G.P. Sharma and Ms. Swati B. Sharma, Advocates. S/Shri Govind Oza and Pankaj Pathak, Advocates appeared for the respondents, Nav Bharat and Central Chronicle, Bhopal. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral and written arguments, submitted that he is an IAS of 1982 Batch. On his assuming the charge of Managing Director of M.P.S.I.D.C., he unearthed the scam of Rs. 120 crores by Enbee Group that runs both the respondent newspapers namely (i) Nav Bharat and (ii) Central Chronicle. The complainant submitted that the MPSIDC had given the loan in the year 2001

284 on soft terms to repay it within six months to one year time but the said company did not repay the loan to the M.P.S.I.D.C. The complainant stated that the M.P.S.I.D.C. had no funds of its own and it had to borrow the amount from IDBI and co-operatives to whom the M.P.S.I.D.C was bound to return the amount. He prepared a ‘White Paper’ in the matter on which Law Department advised CBI inquiry. The respondent in order to build up a pressure on him, started vilification campaign so as to stop him from taking any action on the financial irregularity and protect their business interests; that the reporter identified him personally him by name; and that the newspaper also sent cuttings of news items to Chief Minister to increase the pressure on him. He added that the EOW investigated the financial irregularity and on the basis of its investigation, an FIR was lodged. The complainant clarified that the PIL in High Court had nothing to do with the impugned news reports as he was not a direct party in any of the matters raised in the High Court and also that the Lokayukta had found the allegations as baseless. The complainant requested the Council for stern action against the respondents for their “mud- slinging tirade against an upright officer, who did not succumb to the pressure tactics of the newspaper and kept on his effort in recovering the amount due from the Enbee Group of Companies that run both these papers”. The respondent submitted that the Enbee Group had nothing to do with publication of the news in Nav Bharat and Central Chronicle. The respondent submitted that the Lokayukta had conducted an inquiry against the complainant and the matters were pending in High Court. The newspapers reported as and when these matters came up for hearing before the High Court and it was done in public interest. In response to the inquiry of the Committee, the respondent accepted that the Directors of Enbee Group had a list with the publication before the Council. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records of the case and heard the submissions put forth before it by the parties. It noted that the respondents published a series of 13 news reports against the complainant. These reports had primarily come after the action for recovery of Rs. 120 crores by him, as Managing Director of MPSIDC, against Enbee Group of companies, enjoying a stake in the respondent newspapers namely, Nav Bharat and Central Chronicle, and when recovery notices were served on Enbee Group of companies, the respondent newspapers started publishing a series of impugned news items involving the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted the contention of the complainant that allegations of Land Scam, Seoni By-pass Scam and Katni Scam, levelled by the respondents were inquired by the Lokayukta in the year 2003, then headed by retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Shri Faizuddin, who found that the allegations were baseless. The Inquiry Committee was, therefore, not satisfied that the action

285 of the respondent in publication of the impugned report was not prompted by extraneous consideration. It noted that the averments made by the respondents to the effect that the news reports drew upon proceedings underway before the Hon’ble High Court, could also not be substantiated or corroborated by any documentary evidence or supported by orders/ proceedings of Hon’ble High Court that might have gone against the complainant.

The Inquiry Committee considered the matter in the light of these facts and deemed it fit to recall earlier documents on the impact of association of other business interests of a newspaper owner on the freedom and standards of the press. From amongst the plethora of documents while the 1st Press Commission had observed that “Interference with professional standards is most objectionable when it arises from financial and economic interests of the proprietor”, the second Press Commission had in even stringent terms recorded “When newspapers are controlled by other big business they become vehicles of expression of the ideology of their owners and the selection, presentation and display of news in such newspapers would be dictated by that ideology. The newspaper industry in their hands becomes involuntarily the cultural arm of other business and industries and takes a vested interest in maintaining the existing socio-economic system. The newspapers controlled by them may be selective in their presentation of news and views in return for benefits conferred in respect of their other business interests”. More recently a state governments’ action regarding business interests of a prominent media house had evoked mixed reaction on the interrelation between the two. The Chairman of the Press Council had in his reaction had observed that ‘media house must retain its impartiality in functioning as media house and such impartiality can not be permitted to be subservient to other business interests which the owner of the media house may have’. Therefore, it is clear that in a democratic polity there can be no power without responsibility and when such private interests conflict with public duty of such vast magnitude, segregation of the two is not only justified but essential. The respondents appeared to have lost sight of this responsibility.

In the circumstances the Committee was satisfied that the impugned publications had a strong base in the action taken by the complainant that impacted the non-journalistic ventures of the respondent and were thus motivated and biased and intended as a pressure tactic. For the foregoing reasons, the Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspapers, Nav Bharat and Central Chronicle, Bhopal for violation of the above said norms of journalistic conduct. It further recommended that the copy of the adjudication of the Council be sent to the Registrar of Newspapers for India, DAVP, Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, Director, I& PRD, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, and District Magistrate, Bhopal for such action as they deemed fit.

286 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

82) Shri Geetartha Darshan Barua Versus The Editor Astha Editorial Board Dainik Janambhumi Jorhat, Assam Jorhat, Assam Complaint Shri Geetartha Darshan Barua, on behalf of the Astha Editorial Board, Jorhat, Assam has filed this complaint, dated 12.6.2004 against Dainik Janambhumi Jorhat, Assam alleging publication of an unfair reporting raising questions on the credibility and character of Shri Bijoy Krishna Handique, M.P. in a news item captioned “Handique roars in empty Parliament” (English translation) in its issue dated 24.4.2004. According to the complainant, the impugned news item reported that Mr. Bijoy Krishna Handique, in order to influence tea garden voters, resorted to making a Compact Disc (CD) film based on his work where it is seen that he is shaking the parliament by raising issue after issue, although the background is totally empty, and no MPs were present there to listen to his speech. It was also alleged in the impugned news item that many people who have seen the video film observed that the background was empty and the scenes have been created by superimposition. The complainant has submitted that the news report in question pertains to a documentary film in Compact Disc, named, ‘Astha- the journey so far’ brought out by an Editorial Board of Astha, constituted by a few well-wishers of Mr.Bijoy Krishna Handique, an INC candidate for the 14th Lok Sabha for Jorhat Parliamentary constituency. The documentary was made principally to highlight the parliamentary activities of Mr. Handique in the 13th Lok Sabha with the objective to showcase the parliamentary activities along with some coverage of the Local Area Development Fund projects and some interviews, stated that complainant and added that the documentary was released on 16.4.2004 and almost all leading dailies of national and State level, including the respondent, came up with this news on 18.4.2004. The complainant further stated that however, the impugned news report, which appeared in the respondent’s newspaper on 24.4.2004 came as a shock since it went on to malign the very credibility of Mr. Handique, which was an affront to the dignity of this long time parliamentarian. They issued a clarification along with the CDs but no clarification was published. However, on 26th April

287 2004, two of its lines were incorporated in an unrelated report, stated the complainant and alleged that this apathetic response was beyond their comprehension. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 10.8.2004. No Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 10.8.2004 no written statement was filed. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Geetartha Darshan Barua the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. The Editor, Janambhumi in a letter dated 17.4.2007 requested for time to make submission. The complainant submitted that he works in ICICI bank and did not belong to any political party but was a supporter of the M.P. in question. He submitted that he was a member of Astha Editorial Board. The CD was prepared on the basis of Parliamentary Proceedings with due permission from the recording of the Parliament. The respondent in the impugned news report dated 24.4.2004 had alleged that the CD released by Astha was an altered CD of the parliamentary proceedings. The complainant alleged that the newspaper gave wrong report to mislead the public. On being asked by the Committee as to whether he intended to complete the submissions or he would prefer to conclude in the presence of the respondent editor, the complainant expressed his willingness to contest the case in the presence of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee, upon hearing the complainant, acceded to the request of the respondent editor and decided to adjourn the matter with direction to the respondent to file written statement in response to show cause with a copy directly served to the complainant. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 24.5.2007. The respondent editor vide letter dated 12.6.2007 requested for complaints documents. The same were provided on 25.6.2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant vide fax dated 24.7.2007 intimated inability to attend the hearing and requested for adjournment to enable him to plead his case. Shri Biswanath Agarwalla, Advocate, appeared for the respondent Dainik Janambhumi.

288 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent representative at the very outset offered to publish the version of the complainant within four weeks of the receipt of the same from the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee Taking note of the offer made by the respondent representative and the fact that the report covered a public person, the Inquiry Committee recommended to direct the complainant to send a factual version to the respondent newspaper and the Editor, Dainik Janambhumi to publish the version of the complainant within four weeks of its receipt with the same prominence as the original report. It further directed the respondent editor to forward the clippings of the clarification so published to the complainant as well as the Press Council of India for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

83) Shri Rajinder Singh, IPS Versus 1. The Editor I. G. P., Zone Amar Ujala Patiala, Punjab Jalandhar, Punjab

2. The Editor The Hindustan Times Chandigarh, Punjab Complaint These two complaints dated 12.4.2005 have been filed by Shri Rajinder Singh, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Patiala Zone, Patiala, Punjab against daily newspapers “Amar Ujala”, Jalandhar and “The Hindustan Times”, Chandigarh for alleged publication of objectionable news items under the caption: (i) “Mh-th-ih- us fn;k vkbZ-th- ds f[kykQ tk¡p dk vkns’k” (Director General of Police orders inquiry against the Inspector General) Amar Ujala dated 8.4.2005, (ii) “Probe on against Patiala Range Inspector General” The Hindustan Times dated 9.4.2005. In the impugned news items it was reported that Punjab D.G.P., Shri S. S. Virk announced that he had ordered a probe into alleged involvement of Patiala Range I.G., Rajinder Singh in land grab case. It was alleged in the impugned news items that the controversy erupted after a property dispute arose between the two parties and I.G. reportedly got registered a false FIR with an eye on the property

289 worth a few crores. It was further alleged that the FIR reportedly named two persons as accused, who had died long before the registration of the case. The complainant has submitted that publication of the impugned news items have attempted sensationalising unduly as if the police or the complainant has committed a blatant mistake whereas all of them were taking action in order to discharge their legal functions. The news items have categorically stated that a case has been registered against even the dead persons, whereas the FIR had mentioned about dead persons as they are identified as witnesses on the documents in question-”Agreement to Sale”, added the complainant. The complainant has submitted that the impugned publication alleged that the inquiry against the IGP has been initiated as he had an eye over the property, whereas he had acted absolutely within the ambit of law and the investigation has now proved that the accused have committed fraud. The complainant has submitted that both the respondents were telephonically contacted and the point was raised with them but they were not responsive to the issue. The complainant has submitted that after the publication of the impugned news items, he gave an elaborate press release for strengthening the information meant for public use, which was published by all the newspapers but not by the respondents. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors on 16.8.2005. Written Statement of Amar Ujala The editor, Amar Ujala, Jalandhar in his undated written statement (received in the Secretariat of the Council on 29.8.2005) while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that the impugned news item was a sheer outcome of objective reporting only based on sordid truth. The respondent has submitted that the publication of the news item was without a straw of malice done in utter discharge of pious duty of press towards its readers and general public only. The respondent has submitted that the news item was not defamatory and was not published to damage the reputation of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that in the impugned news item the version of both the sides was published. The newspaper has not made any comments of its own and the newspaper drew no conclusion. The respondent has submitted that only the fact was published that the DGP passed an order for inquiry. The respondent has submitted that the version of the complainant was published in the news item in the blockhead lines “Aarop Niradhar: I.G.” in which the version of the complainant prominently and clearly published which runs as “Chandigarh: Patiala Range Ke I.G. Rajinder Singh Ne Kaha Hai Ki Un Paar Lagai Gai Aarop Niradhar Hai Tatha Ludhiyana Police Ne Dhokadhari Ka Jo Mamla Darj Kia Gaya Hai Vo Bilkul Sahi Hai. NRI Harchand Singh Va Unki Patni Ki Shikaayat

290 Par Hi Yah Mamla Darj Kia Gaya Hai. Jahan Tak Do Mritko Ke Khilaf Mamla Darj Karne Ka Sawal Hai Uski Jaanch Karayee Ja Rahi Hai.” The respondent has submitted that the complainant deliberately concealed the fact of publication of his version, which shows malafide of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that nothing has been published by the newspapers, which is not on record, and it is the admitted fact that DGP Punjab has ordered a probe into the matter ordering A.D.G.P. (Law & Order) Shri J. P. Virdhi to conduct the inquiry and submit his report within 10 days. The respondent has submitted that it is crystal clear that it was nothing but a fair reporting done in good faith that too in discharge of public duty devoid of any malice and based upon certain facts that are matter of public interest. The respondent has submitted that the complainant on basis of the twisted facts and to bring pressure on the newspaper to publish the news as per his desire has filed the present complaint. The respondent has submitted that the press is supposed to guard the public interest by bringing forward misdeeds, failings and lapses on the part of public servants and other bodies including the Government. The purpose of the newspaper is to advance the public interest by publishing the facts. The respondent has submitted that the allegation of the complainant that the news item was published to malign the reputation of complainant and was based on unverified information is wrong. The respondent has requested to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 27.9.2005 for his information. Written Statement of The Hindustan Times Shri V. K. Charoria, Asst. Vice-President (Corporate Affairs, Taxation) & Company Secretary, HT Media Ltd. in written statement dated 8.11.2005 has submitted that the newspaper had by the impugned report merely published the announcement made by the Director General of Police of Punjab, Shri S.S. Virk to the effect that he had ordered a probe into the alleged involvement of the complainant in a land grab case. Along with the said announcement, the newspaper had mentioned very briefly the substance of the allegation against the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the latter portion of the news report, which had intended to put the announcement of the DGP in perspective, aggrieves the complainant. To elucidate, if the news report had ended with the announcement that the DGP had ordered an inquiry against the complainant in a land grab case, the report would have been incomplete as any reader of the newspaper would have liked to know, in brief, what the nature of the allegations were. The respondent has submitted that the latter portion of the news report was only intended to inform the readers of the newspaper as to what was the allegation against the complainant which had prompted the DGP to order a high level inquiry by an

291 ADGP. The respondent has submitted that the news report had merely written about the allegation against the complainant which was to be inquired into, without commenting upon the correctness, truth, veracity or otherwise of the said allegation and without imputing any wrongful act or omission on the complainant. The fact of the matter remains that there was some allegation and an inquiry had been ordered at the highest level. This was the purpose of the news report and nothing more. The respondent has submitted that it is not every day that a DGP orders an inquiry into allegations against such a senior officer of the rank of IGP. Hence, it was in the fitness of the things that the news report also indicates the substance of the allegations. The respondent has submitted that the report does not intend to hide the truth, mislead the readers, prejudice the complainant or harm his reputation as has been alleged by him in the complaint. The report does not comment on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and simply by extracting the summary of the allegations, which are not denied, it cannot be said that the complainant’s reputation is affected. The respondent has submitted that it was not required to publish the defense of the complainant as it was not levelling the allegations and neither was it inquiring into the allegations. The respondent has submitted that if the complainant was correct, then no news report can be published which merely contains the allegations, and the newspaper would have to publish an entire write up on the case, which is neither required nor desirable. The respondent has submitted that the complainant seems to be aggrieved by the fact that he had not been contacted before the news report was published. As per normal practice, only when something is reported by the newspaper after its own inquiry or by information gathered through its sources i.e. matters which are not in public knowledge yet, and the newspaper decides to publish a story making allegations against some one, that the comments of the person who is likely to be prejudiced by the intended publication, are sought for. In the present case, the newspaper had merely published a public announcement by the DGP along with the allegations that were to form a part of the inquiry. With the announcement, the matter was in public domain. The respondent has submitted that the newspaper had absolutely no role in levelling the allegations against the complainant; it was only bringing to the notice of its readers that allegations against reported effect had been and that an inquiry had been ordered. The matter acquires significance as the DGP had to order an inquiry against an IGP, which is not an every day incident, though the complainant has submitted to the contrary. The respondent has submitted that the reporting was not purposely intended to malign and defame/ injure the reputation of the complainant as alleged or at all. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has alleged that because it has been mentioned in the news report that the FIR names dead person, it defames the police as the public gets a feeling that wrongs are being committed. The fact of the matter remains that dead persons have indeed been named in the FIR and the DGP being the highest police officer may have been well aware of the legal position, but has

292 thought it fit and proper to set up high level inquiry based on these allegations. The respondent has submitted that by no stretch of imagination the newspaper reporting can be termed as unethical, damaging, etc. as alleged in the complaint. The respondent has submitted that the present complaint is nothing, but an attempt to browbeat the newspaper to not publish any negative aspect of the police in the State and perhaps indirectly against the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has made allegations that report sidetracks the investigation, helps the accused and demoralizes the investigating agencies. These are absolutely false. The respondent has submitted that they would have no objection if the result of the inquiry are intimated for due publication in the newspaper. The respondent has submitted that by merely reporting the allegations and not giving the defense, which the officer may have, the newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics. The respondent has requested to discharge the show cause notice and further proceedings against it be dropped. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 5.12.2005 for information. Matter Adjourned The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, the notice of hearing was received back undelivered with the postal remarks “transferred”. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Legal Manager and Ms. Prerna Mehta appearing for the Amar Ujala and The Hindustan Times respectively expressed their ignorance about the present posting of the complainant. The matter was adjourned as notice had not been served on the complainant. The complainant, Shri Rajinder Singh, IPS, vide his letter dated 1.5.2007 informed about his new posting and official address at Chandigarh. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Rajinder Singh, IGP appeared in person. S/ Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appeared for Amar Ujala. Shri Gaurav Agarwal and Ms. Prerna Mehta represented The Hindustan Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent newspapers Amar Ujala and The Hindustan Times published the news in sensational manner alleging that the DGP had announced probe against the complainant. The complainant submitted that the newspaper had not taken precaution in obtaining the factual position that the DGP, while marking the complaint to Additional Director General of Police/

293 Law & Order, observed that “please send to DIG/Ludhiana Range demi officially and ask him to get inquiry done under his personal supervision. Let me have report in 10 days”. The complainant submitted that the DIG is subordinate to IGP and the inquiry against IGP couldn’t possibly have been caused by an officer junior to IGP. The Inquiry was thus regarding the land grab and not against him. The complainant alleged that the newspapers reports were motivated to help the accused in their design of grabbing land. The complainant stated that the NRI, Shri Harchand Singh had denied sale of land and therefore the investigation was initiated by the complainant duly after verifying the signature of the owner, Shri Harchand Singh. The complainant further submitted that the accused forged the documents and thus the witnesses to the said document were mentioned in the FIR. It was legally incorrect to mention the dead person in the FIR, who were witness to the said document. The Court had even accepted the challan. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appearing for Amar Ujala submitted that the newspaper had published the version of the complainant in the same news item. The newspaper did not carry his version again since no effective rejoinder was given by the complainant. Shri Gaurav Agarwal appearing for The Hindustan Times submitted that the newspaper did not make any allegation against the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the written statement. The complainant in respect to the complaint against The Hindustan Times reiterated his submissions made earlier and further submitted that the impugned reports maligned him. The complainant denied any such announcement by DGP for inquiry against the complainant. The complainant further submitted that it was a matter of public interest. The manner of reporting such news where the police machinery is involved, the public grievance was at stake, as the public might loose confidence in police which was against public interest. The complainant alleged that The Hindustan Times did not publish his rejoinder in public interest. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondents Amar Ujala and The Hindustan Times while publishing the news reports (i) ‘‘Director General of police orders inquiry against the Inspector General’’ in Amar Ujala dated 8.4.2005 and (ii) ‘‘Probe on against Patiala Range Inspector General’’, in The Hindustan Times in the issue dated 9.4.2005, failed to establish as to what kind of announcement was made by the DGP for inquiry. The Inquiry Committee took note of the observations that while a junior could not cause inquiry against his seniors the focus of the inquiry was thus different. The Inquiry Committee further took note of the fact that the reference to the dead persons as witnesses mentioned in FIR in respect of forged document, was a technical requirement

294 under the law to which the court was supposed to take note of. The Inquiry Committee was thus of the view that the respondent newspapers published inaccurate news report with sensational head lines that could affect the investigation and cause the public to form an adverse opinion about the complainant. It was of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things that the respondent Amar Ujala and The Hindustan Times publish the rejoinder of the complainant with an expression of regret. The Inquiry Committee therefore directed editors of Amar Ujala and The Hindustan Times through their representatives to publish the rejoinder with regret within two weeks and send its copy to the complainant as well as to the Press Council of India for record. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

84) Dr. Bal Singh Versus The Editor Lecturer Punjab Kesari DAV College Ambala Kurukshetra Complaint This complaint, dated 17.3.2006 has been filed by Dr. Bal Singh, Lecturer, DAV College, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra against Karnal Kesari, a supplement of Punjab Kesari, Ambala for alleging publication of a series of defamatory news items captions of which read as follows:

S.No. Captions Dated 1 BÉE®ÉäbÃÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉàÉÉÒxÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå xÉä BÉE¤VÉÉ<Ç 28.9.2003 2 +ÉÉÉÊJÉ® BÉE®ÉäbÃÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉàÉÉÒxÉ {ÉÆSÉɪÉiÉ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ 18.10.2003 3 {ÉÉÒ.{ÉÉÒ.AºÉ.ºÉÉÒ. BÉEÉ SÉäªÉ®àÉäxÉ £ÉÉÒ VÉÉÄSÉ BÉEä PÉä®ä àÉå 20.10.2003 4 {ÉÆSÉɪÉiÉÉÒ VÉàÉÉÒxÉ {É® BÉE¤VÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉàÉãÉÉ MÉàÉÉǪÉÉ 31.3.2005 5 BÉE¤VÉÉvÉÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå àÉå ºÉ®BÉEÉ®ÉÒ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ 16.7.2005 6 {ÉÆVÉÉ¤É AºÉ.AºÉ. ¤ÉÉäbÇ BÉEä SÉäªÉ®àÉäxÉ xÉä BÉEnàÉ {ÉÉÒUä c]ÉA 17.12.2005 7 ÉʺÉ{ÉEÉÉÊ®¶É àÉå bÚ¤ÉÉÒ {ÉÆSÉɪÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉE®ÉäbÃÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉàÉÉÒxÉ 19.1.2006

295 S.No. Captions Dated 8 SÉÉ® ¤ÉÉ® cÖ+ÉÉ ®ÉVɺ´É ÉÊ®BÉEÉbÇ ºÉä ¤ÉãÉÉiBÉEÉ® 4.2.2006 9 ÉÊOÉ´ÉéÉʺÉVÉ àÉå MÉÚÆVÉäMÉÉ {ÉÆSÉɪÉiÉÉÒ £ÉÚJÉhb àÉÉàÉãÉÉ 12.2.2006 10 §ÉÉÊàÉiÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ +ÉÉ®Éä{É-®ÉVɺ´É ÉÊ®BÉEÉbÇ ]èà{ÉÉË®MÉ BÉE®xÉä 19.2.2006 BÉEÉ +ÉÉ®Éä{É 11 ºÉ®BÉEÉ®ÉÒ £ÉÚJÉÆb àÉå MÉbäÉbÃÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ÉʶÉBÉEɪÉiÉ lÉÉxÉä ºÉä MÉÉªÉ¤É 1.3.2006

According to the complainant, he and his three brothers are jointly engaged in farming on their land and they have been cultivating about 10 acres of land as share cropper (1/3 batai) belonging to Shri Chiranjiv Singh who is the lawful owner of this piece of land. He has submitted that Shri Hari Om Gandhi, Press Reporter of Hindi daily, Punjab Kesari, in collusion with one Jasbir Singh published baseless news items in the local supplement (Karnal Kesri) of Punjab Kesari on 28.9.2003, 18.10.2003 and 20.10.2003 naming him and his three brothers with filthy language, projecting them to be cultivating the Panchayat land. He personally met the concerned Press Reporter Shri Hari Om Gandhi and apprised the facts of the case, duly substantiated with relevant documents and requested him to publish the factual position and restrain from defaming him and his brothers on baseless grounds. It was alleged that the respondent went to the extent of instigating the Village Panchayat to file a suit for eviction under VCL Act, section – 7 before Assistant Collector, Karnal on 1.3.2004, which was dismissed on 20.12.2004 inter alia, stating that Shri Chiranjeev legally possessed the land and the complainant and his brothers were declared legal tenant. The complainant furnished a copy of the decision to the respondent reporter with a request to respect the facts and desist from defaming him and his brothers. However, the respondent once again published the same episode in the ‘Kurukshetra Kesari’ in its issue-dated 31.3.2005. The complainant further submitted that the respondent, in collusion with Shri Jasbir Singh, instigated the Gram Panchayat to file an appeal before the Collector, Karnal, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.5.2005 upholding the possession right to Shri Chiranjeev and the complainants-brothers as legal tenants and a copy of the order was made available to the respondent in June 2005. But the respondent, throwing all standards and ethics of profession to winds, published the same episode in ‘Karnal Kesari’ on 16.7.2005 again naming him and his brothers, defaming them to the extent possible in the society and added that the highhandedness and blackmailing tactics of Shri Gandhi stood amply proved from the fact that the reporter relentlessly carried on the tirade of press terrorism despite the fact that he was apprised from time to time. He further stated that the continuous malafide reporting by the respondent reporter strained their social relations in the village and fair image of the family in social circle and added that it tantamount to press

296 terrorism as the reporter continuously indulged in defaming him and his family with active connivance of Shri Vijay Chopra for the last three years with impunity. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 8.5.2006. Written Statement

The respondent in his written statement dated 19.5.2006 has submitted that the matter related to the three brothers of the complainant, who have filed a court case in the same matter against him (the respondent) and the respondent newspaper. Thus the Council cannot take congnizance of the matter being sub-judice. He has submitted that the farmland in question belonged to the Panchayat and for the last three decades, some people took possession of it without making any payment to the government. He has alleged that the complainant, in order to misguide the Council, furnished documents in support of his complaint and has alleged that due to the publication of the impugned news items, the complainant’s brothers threatened him and he filed a police case against them. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.6.2006 with a request to inform the Council whether the matter is sub-judice. Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 23.6.2006 has submitted that the content in the written statement filed by the respondent were misleading as he had already filed a declaration to the effect that no case is pending in any court of law. He has added that his brothers had filed cases against Shri Vijay Chopra, Publisher, Shri Hari Om Gandhi, Press Reporter and Shri Jasbir Singh in various courts in the year 2003 in connection with publication of news items dated 28.9.2003, 18.10.2003 and 20.10.2003. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 14.7.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Bal Singh, Lecturer, DAV College, Pehowa, Haryana appeared in person. The Editor, Punjab Kesari in a letter dated 21.4.2007 requested for a copy of the complaint on the plea that they were not aware of such complaint. He sought time for filing reply and requested for adjournment. The notice issued to Shri Hari Om Gandhi had been redirected at 602 Adrash Nagar, Karnal by the postal department but remained undelivered. The complainant submitted that the respondent Punjab Kesari was continuously publishing defamatory news report against him. He requested that the editor of Punjab Kesari may be directed to stop

297 publishing news against him. But, he added that as there was no appearance before the Committee on behalf of the respondents he would like to plead the matter in the presence of respondents. In the circumstances the Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the respondent editor, and granted conditional adjournment directing the editor, Punjab Kesari not to publish any news report about the complainant till the matter is decided by the Council. Accordingly a letter dated 28.5.2007 was issued to respondent editor, Punjab Kesari to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Written Reply Dated 11.5.2007 of the Respondent Editor, Punjab Kesari The respondent editor, Punjab Kesari in his written reply dated 11.5.2007 submitted that the news stories published in the issues of newspaper, were based on facts and a real controversy involved about panchayat land and these were published in public interest and no violation of journalistic ethics was involved. There was nothing wrong in the reporting of news stories including the fact that it was repeated in several issues. The respondent stated that the complainant had never brought his grouse to his knowledge. According to the respondent the complainant never considered the news item in question as objectionable as and when the same were published in the newspaper. The complainant and his brothers were litigating against Shri Hari Om Gandhi, Karnal, who was previously Press Reporter of Daily Punjab Kesari, Ambala and who reported these news items but he is no longer associated with Punjab Kesari and his reporting is not being carried in the Punjab Kesari. The litigation is pending in various law courts and as such matter and issue in the present case is sub-judice. He requested the Council not to adjudicate till the matter is decided by the law courts. The respondent denied that he had any role or motive in publication of news items in question. According to the respondent the repetition of the news stories in several issues of the papers may be an outcome of the animosity between the complainant and Shri Hari Om Gandhi, Karnal. He further stated that since the matter was never brought to his notice being based at Jalandhar, he could not take notice of repeated news stories. The respondent submitted that he is ready to publish the complainant’s version if he sends for publication now. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint for devoid of merits. A copy of the reply was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 29.5.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007

298 at New Delhi. The complainant Dr. Bal Singh appeared in person. Shri M.M. Mathur appeared for the respondent Punjab Kesari before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he had written on 8.6.2007 to the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Ambala Cantt. in response to their letter dated 1.5.2007, asking the editor to publish that the newspaper removed Shri Hari Om Gandhi for his reporting contrary to facts in respect of land dispute against the complainant and ensure that the newspaper shall not indulge in character assassination of the complainant in future without obtaining his written version. The complainant further submitted that despite the fact that the reporter Shri Hari Om Gandhi had been removed from Punjab Kesari, the said reporter Shri Hari Om Gandhi had started publishing news reports in another newspaper and was still defaming the complainant. The complainant alleged that Shri Hari Om Gandhi had been continuously harassing him for the last three years. The complainant further submitted that the contradiction published by the Punjab Kesari did not serve any purpose. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had taken punitive action and removed the said reporter Shri Hari Om Gandhi. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper would publish the clarification of the complainant if the same was sent to the newspaper. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the parties. It noted that the news items of 2003 and 2005 although sub- judice and/or time barred had been brought to the notice of the Council by the complainant to exhibit the systematic campaign by the reporter against the complainant. The Committee refrained itself from considering those reports. It however, opined that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the news items appearing in 2006 issues of the Punjab Kesari which were neither sub- judice nor time barred. The Inquiry Committee took note of the fact that the complainant’s grievance had been mitigated by that punitive action against the reporter Shri Hari Om Gandhi by the respondent newspaper Punjab Kesari of terminating his services. It also took note of the offer made by the representative of Punjab Kesari that the newspaper was ready to carry the fresh rejoinder of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee therefore directed the complainant to send a factual rejoinder to the newspaper, Punjab Kesari and the respondent editor to publish the same within two weeks from its receipt from the complainant. It also directed the respondent to send a copy of the issue of the newspaper carrying the clarification to the Press Council and the complainant for record. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these directions.

299 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

85) Dr. S.P. Gupta Versus The Editor Director Senior India Ashirvad Hospital and Research Centre New Delhi Birdopur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 22.5.2006 has been filed by Dr. S.P. Gupta, Director, Ashirvad Hospital and Research Centre, Birdopur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh against ‘Senior India’, a Hindi magazine alleging publication of false and baseless news report with photograph of Nursing Home under the caption “Doctor became Merchant of Death” (English translation) in its issue dated 15.10.2005. It was stated in the impugned news item that the merchants of death are making their fortune in the name of cure/treatment. It is further stated that touts of private doctors were seen grabbing patients and their family members at Railway Stations and Bus stops and those who were caught in their hoax were ruined. It was further stated that several doctors did not have degree in surgery, but forcibly performed operation on patients. It was alleged that the truth was revealed when a television correspondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar of Bihar brought his wife Shobha Kumari for treatment at Ashirvad Nursing Home in Varanasi. It was further alleged that Smt. Shobha was suffering from simple ailment but Dr. Usha Gupta and Dr. Shalabh Gupta had forcibly operated upon her abdomen and she died of severe pain due to the carelessness of the doctors and that even after the death, the cheating of the doctors continued and the dead body was delivered only after extracting a huge amount from the family of the deceased. Denying the allegations in the impugned report, the complainant alleged that the version was totally baseless and imaginary and had maligned their family and Nursing Home. Dr. Usha Gupta was an MBBS and successfully practicing gynaecologist for the last 34 years and Dr. Shlash Gupta was an M.S. (General surgery) FRCS London. Patient Shalabh had herself visited the nursing home for gynae treatment which she pursued intermittently and then under went successful operation. She was later shifted to another hospital on account of heart problem and was relieved from the hospital after a total payment of Rs. 10,000/- made at the time of being admitted. It was thus incorrect that the patient died in their nursing home in pain and yet the body was handed over only after hefty payment. The complainant has requested to the Council to take necessary action against the

300 respondent. A legal notice dated 15.2.2006 was served on the respondent but no response was received. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 4.10.2006. No Written Statement

After lapse of seven months the respondent- Personal Secretary to the Chief Editor, Senior India vide letter dated 26.4.2007, received in the office on 30.5.2007 submitted that the show cause notice sent to them was misplaced and requested for another copy which was provided to them on 8.6.2007 to enable them to file their written statement in the matter. However, so far, no written statement was filed by the respondent in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Mahfooz Alam appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Senior India. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The representative of the complainant submitted that the Ashirvad Hospital and Research Centre, was a reputed hospital in Varanasi, and its doctors were well qualified and were held in high esteem. The complainant’s representative submitted that the patient mentioned in the impugned report published in Senior India did not die in Ashirvad Hospital and Research Centre. The said patient was referred to another hospital for an unrelated disease, where she died. He further stated that the family members of the disease were not asked for payment, as alleged in the impugned report. He added that the impugned report had created misgivings in the minds of the public, which could be erased by publishing the rejoinder of the complainant hospital. The complainant requested that Senior India may be directed to publish the rejoinder. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee at the very outset strongly disapproved the conduct of the editor, Senior India, New Delhi in seeking copy of the complaint through personal clerical staff, not filing the written statement and for not being represented before the Committee to defend the matter. In the absence of any defence, the Committee held that the averments of the complainant remained unrebutted. On the merits, the Inquiry Committee noted that the impugned reports carried major inaccuracies and insinuations. The respondent magazine flouted the norms of journalistic ethics being not verifying the facts from the complainant nursing home at pre-publication stage and compounded the offence by not publishing the

301 clarification of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances decided to uphold the complaint and warn the editor, Senior India for violation of above noted journalistic ethics and norms. It further, directed the editor, Senior India to publish the contradiction of the complainant already available with him and to send the clippings to the complainant as well as the Council for records. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter with above observations and directions. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

86) Shri Sunil G. Godbole Versus The Editor Sahar Road, Andheri (East) The Times of India Mumbai Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 26.5.2005 has been filed by Shri Sunil G.Godbole, Mumbai against The Times of India, Mumbai alleging publication of mischievous news items captions of which are as follows: 1. “Sabarmati Express, Godhara. Yet another train accident” and “As 15 People Die In Collision, Modi And Lalu Play Politics” Dated 22.4.2005 2. “Human, mechanical failure blamed for train collision” and “Modi planned attack on me” Dated 22.4.2005 3. “Ice, not stones, was thrown at Lalu’s car” and “Jaitly questions special focus on BJP-run state” Dated 23.4.2005 Objecting to the news items in question, the complainant issued a letter dated 6.5.2005 to the respondent-Resident Editor, The Times of India, Mumbai but received no response. He objected to the caption which reads “as 15 people die in collision, Modi and Lalu play politics”, and alleged that it was beyond understanding how the respondent made a conclusive remark about Mr. Modi that he was playing politics since there was no statement of Mr. Modi printed in the news items. He further submitted that it was difficult to conclude that Modi was behind the attack on Mr. Lalu Yadav.

302 According to the complainant, the respondent had misguided the people, blatantly misused the freedom of the press and alleged that the impugned news items were biased against Mr. Modi, tarnishing his image and had created fear psychosis in the mind of some section of the community.

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India, Mumbai on 7.12.2005 to which there was no response.

No Appearance

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance before it from either side.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint and noted that The Times of India published news reports in 22/23 April 2005 issues making political comments on the leaders of various parties. The Inquiry Committee opined that these political comments did not personally affect the complainant and the political persons were expected to be open to comment and criticism concerning their public office and function, the complainant was not a right person to approach the Council for remarks made against political leaders. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

It recommended to the Council accordingly.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

87) Mrs. Renuka Patgiri Versus The Editor Pathsala, District Barpeta Asomiya Pratidin Assam Guwahati

Complaint

This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 16.8.2005 has been filed by Smt. Renuka Patgiri, W/o Dr. K.K. Patgiri, Principal (Retd.) Balaji College, Pathsala, Barpeta, Assam against Asomiya Pratidin for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “Misbehaviour with the reporter by the wife of the Principal, Balaji College, Pathsala”-English translation in its issue dated 17.6.2005.

303 It has been stated in the impugned news item that many institutions/ organizations and well known persons strongly condemned the misbehaviour of the wife of Dr. K.K. Patgiri, Principal of Balaji College of Pathsala, the nerve centre of higher education in lower Assam towards the journalists. It further mentioned that a five member CID team of Assam Government visited Balji College in its Golden Jubilee year for investigating alleged corruption and misrule. The local reporters of “Asomiya Pratidin” Moon Goswami and Dhrubajyoti Talukdar met the principal to get his views on the visit of the CID team. The principal declined to provide any information in this regard and his wife verbally abused both the reporters.

The impugned news item further stated that these organizations criticized the principal for his autocratic ways, and urged him to improve the standard of education instead of rejoicing on attaining higher grade from the NACC. They compared his rule of the college to that of Hitler and strongly condemned the misbehaviour towards the reporters and said that the visit of CID team was unfortunate and an incident without parallel in the history of Balaji College which was built on the labour and sacrifice of public of the area.

According to the complainant on the night of 16.6.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. two journalists (belonging to the same newspaper) came to their residence and inquired from the husband about the affairs of the college and demanded the photocopies of various documents. Her husband expressing his inability to provide them immediately, requested them to come the next day during office hours. Then the duo journalist’s put forward a proposal to her husband and asked him to make some kind of understanding with them otherwise they threatened to publish news against him. The complainant submitted that when she intervened and inquired the kind of understanding, the journalists got angry. They left their residence telling that it was none of her business and threatened them with dire consequences. In retaliation, they started mud slinging on the next day i.e. 17.6.2005 issue of the newspaper itself.

The complainant alleged that mentioning her name in the impugning news item, condemning for misbehaviour with journalists was in bad light and the same was nothing but a conspiracy by a group with vested interest to defame the complainant and her husband in the eyes of the public. She stressed that the respondent reporters have indulged in yellow journalism.

The complainant has also stated that on 17.6.2005 her husband personally handed over a written clarification in the office of the respondent Asomiya Pratidin but the same was not published. However, her clarification had been published by another newspaper, namely, Dainik Batori.

304 No Written Statement

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati on 11.8.2006 but no written statement was filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Rubal Patgiri, Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Dirbugarh University, Assam appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance from respondent’s side. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant’s representative reiterated the submissions made in the complaint and added that the rejoinder, though served on the respondent newspaper, was not published. According to him, the newspaper not only misquoted the complainant but also defamed the college where the complainant’s husband served as Principal. The complainant’s representative requested for action against the newspaper as the Council might think necessary. He requested that the respondent may be directed to publish apology. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee at the very outset noted that the respondent Asomiya Pratidin, did not come forward to defend the complaint and thus the statement made in the complaint remained unchallenged. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material on record. It noted that the impugned news report was alleged to be motivated by the vested interest of the Journalists as their demand for ‘understanding’ had not been accepted. This is a very serious charge of misuse of the position of a journalist which the editor of paper had failed to defend and must thus be accepted as admitted. The editor further compounded the offence by not publishing the clarification of the complainant. For this grave insult to the institution of journalism and the pious duty of journalists to report fairly and correctly, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and admonish the editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati. It further directed the editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati to publish the clarification of the complainant with an expression of apology. The adjudication may also be brought to the notice of the Government of Assam for its record. Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

305 88) Shri Premandhar Handique Versus The Editor Ex. General Manager Asomiya Pratidin Kabri Longpi Hydro Electric Project Guwahati Guwahati, Assam Assam Complaint This complaint dated 12.9.2005 has been filed by Shri Premandhar Handique, Ex. General Manager, Kabri Longpi Hydro Electric Project, Guwahati, Assam against Asomiya Pratidin, an Assamese daily newspaper from Guwahati for the alleged publication of false, baseless and defamatory news report captioned “The Corrupt G.M. got driven out from Karbi Longpi on public demand” in its issue dated 14.7.2005. A portion of the impugned news item objected to by the complainant is reproduced below: “The name of the person is Premadhar Handique. He has worked in the project for last 25 years…. but could not build up the project. The man used the project as his milking cow and as a result, instead of 34 crores, more than 400 crores were required to be spent….. make way for payment of 40 crores rupees to a black listed organization without any work being done.” The impugned news item alleged that the complainant had taken bribe from youths promising to provide services and also have ill treated girls sent by the local MLA for job. It was further alleged that aggrieved by the misdeeds, the complainant was driven out from Kabri Longpi by the authority on public demand. According to the complainant, the impugned news report was defamatory and has tarnished his image. He relinquished the job after retirement and there was no stigma in his long service career, submitted the complainant and added that the impugned publication lowered his image in his position in the eyes of his family, friends and the society as a whole. After publishing the impugned news item he is facing a big problem in arranging the marriage of his daughter, as the Assamese society is very sensitive in such matters. He had issued a detailed rejoinder and despite acknowledgement, the respondent did not publish the same. He has requested to the Council to impose the penalty of censure or any other punishment as provided by law. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 17.11.2005. No Written Statement Despite service and issuance of a time bound reminder on 5.7.2006, the respondent failed to file his written statement in the matter.

306 No Appearance

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of material on record. It noted that the respondent ‘Asomiya Pratidin’, did not come forward to defend itself against the allegations made in the complaint. The Inquiry Committee noted the contention that the respondent ‘Asomiya Pratidin’ published per se defamatory news report against the complainant on his superannuation and made unverified allegations to lower the image of the complainant. It further noted that the newspaper neither at pre – publication nor at post – publication stage made any attempt to obtain the version of the complainant. The respondent newspaper compounded the offence by not publishing the rejoinder of the complainant and even not at all responding to the complainant. In these circumstances, seriousness of the charges and the absence of any defence, the Inquiry Committee held the respondent newspaper ‘Asomiya Pratidin’, guilty of violating norms of journalistic conduct regarding pre-publication verification and right to reply. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure ‘Asomiya Pratidin’, Guwahati for violation of ethics and norms of journalism. It also decided, that the copies of the Council’s adjudication be forwarded to DAVP, RNI, I&PRD, Government of Assam and District Magistrate, Guwahati, for such action as they deem fit in the matter.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

89) Miss Ruli Sharma Versus The Editor Nagoan Janasadharan Assam Guwahati, Assam

Complaint

This complaint dated 8.8.2004 has been filed by Miss Ruli Sharma, Nagoan, Assam against Janasadharan, (wrongly mentioned as Jansadhavan) an Assamese daily newspaper, Guwahati alleging publication of false news item along with her two photographs in its issue dated 2.8.2004 captioned “BJP’s Rajen Gohain (Local MP) inspired by Sanghamitra episode” (English translation)

307 The English rendering of the impugned news item is reproduced below: “After Sri Prafulla Mahanta’s episode now Shri Rajen Gohain, MP, Nagoan Lok Sabha and father of five children is linked with a young woman who is an active member of BJP and also an ex- member of Nagoan Municipality Board. She also regularly writes in a weekly paper about women’s beauty matter. After Shri Gohain became close with (Miss Ruli Sharma) this woman’s family, quarrel started between Shri Gohain and his wife Shrimati Rita Gohain. Subsequently, Mrs Gohain left her husband’s house and went to Guwahati to live with her brother, on the excuse of health problem. During the last Lok Sabha election, Sri L.K.Advani, Dy. PM came to Nagaon for election and Miss Sharma was the only female among males to receive Shri Advani. When asked why Shrimati Gohain left for Guwahati, Shri Gohain replied these are not serious matter, because difference of opinion and misunderstanding happens in every family” The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item wherein her photograph with that of the local MP Shri Rajen Gohain was published with allegations that Shri Gohain who is married and having five children wanted to marry her, is absolutely false and baseless, motivated and published to assassinate her character, torturing her mentally and defaming publicly. Refuting the allegations, the complainant issued a clarification dated 3.8.2004 to the respondent at Guwahati requesting to publish the same on the 4th August 2004 issue of the newspaper, but it was not published despite her verbal request over the telephone to the local reporter of Nagoan town. She denied having approached Shri Rajen Gohain for any personal matter or favour and said that she treated him like her brother. She further alleged that similar news items were published on 4th and 5th of August 2004 defaming her indirectly without mentioning her name. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 31.3.2005 at ‘Janasadhavan’, Ajit Patrika Publications (P) Ltd., Six Mile, G.S. Road, Guwahati- 781022. No Written Statement In response to the reminder dated 8.2.2007, the respondent editor, Janasadharan, vide letter dated 28.3.2007 has submitted that name and address of the newspaper, Jansadhavan is not of their newspaper and as a result they did not receive the notice, hence no written statement could be filed. The complainant was requested on 1.5.2007 to confirm the identity of the respondent, and the complaint was sent to the respondent, Jansadharan on 29.6.2007 to file their written statement.

308 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Ravi Sankar Majumdar (husband of the complainant) appeared before the Inquiry Committee. Miss Rima Sharma, Special Correspondent, New Delhi appeared on behalf of the respondent ‘Janasadharan’. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Ravi Sankar Majumdar submitted that the respondent ‘Janasadharan’ published a totally false and baseless news report damaging complainants name and public standing. It appeared to be the handi work of party insider, who had given such a false report. The photograph accompanying the report had compounded the damage. Shri Majumdar requested for strict action against the newspaper for its false defamatory reporting affecting the character of the lady in question. Mrs. Rima Sharma appearing for ‘Janasadharan’ submitted that the news report was based on information sourced from within the party, but the paper could not produce any document. She however, personally agreed that such photograph should not have been allowed in the publication. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted that the respondent ‘Janasadharan’, while publishing the impugned news report carried the photograph of the complainant and damaged her reputation. The Inquiry Committee was not satisfied of any ‘public interest’ of the matter. It noted that the news report was intended to malign the complainant by entering into her personal life at the behest of some party insider. The report published once without naming the complainant was repeated as impugned report with her name and photograph, a clear act of irresponsible journalism. The Inquiry Committee was thus found the newspaper Jansadharan guilty of drawing surmises on hearsay, giving unfair comments to tarnish the image of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances decided to strongly disapproved the publication and censure the editor, ‘Janasadharan’, Guwahati. The Inquiry Committee recommended that the copies of the Council’s adjudication be forwarded to DAVP, RNI, I&PRD, Government of Assam and District Magistrate, Guwahati for such action as they deem fit in the matter. Further Development In response to Council’s notice for hearing dated 22.6.2007 the respondent, Editor, Dainik Jansadharan, Guwahati vide letter dated Nil received on 20.8.2007 has informed the Council that he was out of station, hence he was not in a position to make a detailed written statement in the complaint of Miss Ruli Sharma, Nagaon, Assam. The respondent requested that this reply may be considered as

309 a written statement in this case. He stated that statements made by Miss Ruli Sharma in her complaint are denied as those are not correct and are wrong interpretation derived by complainant. The respondent further submitted that no clarification was received by him or by the staff of the newspaper. The respondent further stated that Miss Ruli Sharma may be put to the stickiest proof thereof in connection with the false allegations made against the newspaper. The respondent further submitted that as a journalist he would like to state that he believe in truth and if something is for public good or touches any public question the same should be brought to light in good faith. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

90) Ms. Rajni Malani Versus The Editor Fancy Bazaar Purvanchal Prahari Guwahati, Assam Guwahati, Assam Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 8.7.2005 has been filed by Ms. Rajni Malani, Guwahati, Assam against Purvanchal Prahari, a Hindi daily Guwahati for publication of allegedly false, fabricated and defamatory news item captioned ‘Beta Chhina Aur Bahu Ki Neeyat Ne Beti Ka Ghar Ujara, in its issue dated 13.6.2005 alleging that the complainant, who filed a divorce petition in the court against her ailing husband had declared to marry her brother –in-law. According to the complainant, she got married to Shri Manoj Malani in the year 1995 and since then, she has been getting mal-treatment in her in-laws house and her husband was least worried for her, rather gave provocations to harass and torture her more and more and she was compelled to leave the house to save her life and has been residing with her parents at Guwahati along with two minor children since the year 2002. She has further stated that she has filed two cases before the Family Court at Guwahati – one for granting Divorce and the other for granting ‘Maintenance Allowance’ for her and her two minor children, both of which are pending for final disposal and added that meanwhile in accordance with the Court order on 11.6.2005, she had visited her in-law’s house at Jorhat and brought back from there her ‘Streedhan’ as per court order under section 406 of IPC. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was published the next day on 13.6.2005, charging her of having illicit relation with her brother-

310 in-law, which was baseless and far from truth. She has further submitted that impugned news item damaged her personal reputation to tarnish her image in the society. The complainant served a legal notice dated 16.6.2005 to the respondent editor, asking for publication of her version but received no response. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 7.12.2005. No Written Statement The respondent failed to file his written statement in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. She however requested the Committee to decide the matter on the basis of material on record. Shri Rajesh Bihagra, Regional Manager, North, appeared for respondent, ‘Purvanchal Prahari’, Guwahati. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent’s representative submitted that since the receipt of show- cause notice the newspaper had not published any further news report on the issue. He also submitted that the newspaper had no knowledge about the outcome of the case pending in the family Court, Guwahati. He offered to publish the contradiction of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted that the respondent ‘Purvanchal Prahari’, Guwahati had not filed written statement despite sufficient opportunity given to it. As per the statement of the representative of the respondent before the Committee the paper had not carried any further report on the issue but this does not absolve the paper of its failure to obtain the version of the complainant at pre-publication stage and then failing to provide his right of reply. The Committee was also not satisfied of the ‘public interest’ of the matter warranting invasion of privacy and personal life of the complainant, even tarnishing her character. It was of the view that the offer of publication of the contradiction at this belated stage was not sufficient unless coupled with an expression of regret. The Council had time and again stressed that the dignity, honour and privacy of the women should be protected and any adverse report likely to stigmatise the women should not find place in the newspaper unless it is verified by genuine ‘public interest’. The Inquiry Committee expressing its strong displeasure over publication of manifestly defamatory news report decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the ‘Purvanchal Prahari’ Hindi Daily

311 of Guwahati for gross violation of journalistic ethics and norms. It further recommended that the copies of the Council’s adjudication be forwarded to DAVP, RNI, I&PRD, Government of Assam and District Magistrate, Guwahati for such action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

91) Shri Kailash Sharma Versus The Editor S.D.E. (Legal), BSNL Aligarh Nagari Mathura Aligarh Complaint This complaint dated 20.5.2005 has been filed by Shri Kailash Sharma, S.D.E. (Legal), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Mathura (U.P.) against Aligarh Nagari, Aligarh, U.P. for publishing false, baseless and defamatory news item captioned “BSNL Ki Khul Gai Pol” (BSNL exposed) in its issue dated 26.10.2004. The impugned news reports highlighted the immoral activities being conducted in the Exchange Building of the Township, situated in an isolated area of the city where allegedly liquor flows openly in the drink parties along with inedible foodstuff. These parties are organised by the SDO Telephone and attended by his intimate friends and even some time by his boss. It is also reported that these friends who under different name, lodge false complaint against the higher authorities of the department and put undue pressure over them to blackmail them. According to the complainant, the respondent in the impugned news item substituted the name of the complainant. The complainant submitted that due to non-fulfilment of the selfish desires of the reporter he in connivance with the editor, started a series that continued till month of November (25th issue of series) in his newspaper. The complainant submitted that the publication is seriously objectionable because not only the contents of the impugned series were factually wrong but also it was published without verifying the correctness of the same and that too with a motive to tarnish the image of BSNL. The complainant stated that the title given to the series has caused huge financial loss and it suggested that the complainant as a body is exposed. The complainant has sent the notice dated 28.10.2004 to the respondent editor who sent no reply but continued to publish objectionable series. The complainant further submitted that he tried to contact the respondent requesting them to stop publishing the false, misleading and malicious series and apologize for their ill motivated act. He has submitted that publication of series was initiated to virtually blackmail the officials of the complainant to

312 force them to fulfil the dubious desires of the reporter and the editor. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent editor. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 18.11.2005. Written Statement In his written statement dated 7.12.2005 the respondent editor has submitted that the news item in question has been published in public interest and neither the name of the complainant was mentioned nor any one was defamed. He has submitted that on receiving notice from the complainant, he replied with a copy of the letter served to the complainant’s counsel citing the basis for the news item. He has requested the complainant’s counsel to let him to know how the reporter was blackmailing him. The respondent submitted that instead of giving the reply, the complainant filed a case against the respondent and his reporter in the Mathura Court, which is pending and he also lodged the complaint in Press Council. The respondent has submitted that the said complaint is baseless and not on the facts. He has requested to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 5.1.2006 for counter comments. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant’s advocate sought adjournment due to ill health. The respondent in a fax dated 26.6.2007 reiterated that the matter is sub-judice. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee did not accede to the request of the complainant’s advocate for adjournment, which was made on the ground of ill-health, as no medical certificate was enclosed with the request. On merits the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had not rebutted the statement made in the written statement that matter was pending in a court at Mathura despite Council’s letter dated 5.1.2007 for counter comments. The complainant also did not pursue the complaint to make oral submissions to controvert the above fact. The Inquiry Committee, thus, decided to drop further proceedings in the matter being sub- judice. It recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

313 92) Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta Versus The Editor Mauranipur, Jhansi Parakh U.P. Jhansi, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 26.3.06 has been filed by Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, a Kerosene Oil dealer from Mauranipur, Jhansi, U.P. against “Parakh” a weekly newspaper, Jhansi for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items: The date and caption of the impugned news items read as follows: -

S.No. Caption Dated 1. “Jan kerosene ke upthok vikreta dakar gaye dramon 9.3.06 miti ka tel” 2. “Chori aur sinajori” – Jan kerosene upthok vikreta ka 23.3.06 sahas

According to the complainant, it was alleged in the first news item that he was engaged in the black marketing of Kerosene oil. He issued a rejoinder to respondent editor on 14.3.06 clarifying that the oil was being issued to the quota holders and no retail selling of the oil was over undertaken by him. Further, he was doing his job honestly and was not involved in black-marketing but, instead of the publication of the rejoinder another news item dated 23.3.06 was published by the respondent to blackmail him. The complainant has alleged that the respondent published the impugned news items without verifying the facts. He further stated that due to the publication of the impugned news item he suffered huge loss. He requested the Council to take action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Parakh Weekly, Jhansi, U.P. on 6.6.06. In response, the respondent editor in his written statement dated 22.7.06 has submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint were false and concocted. The respondent editor submitted that the news items in question were published on the basis of facts, and there was no need to publish the rejoinder. He stressed that the news published in his newspaper is true. He denied the allegation that the news items were published with a view to black mail the complainant. The respondent further stated that the other newspapers have also published the similar news. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 5.12.06

314 Counter Comments The complainant filed his counter comments dated 13.12.06 denying the contents of written statement of the respondent and alleged that the respondent has published false and concocted news items which caused him mental stress and agony. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 22.12.06 for information. Counter of the Respondent to the Counter Comments of the Complainant The respondent in his counter dated 25.2.07 denied the allegation of the complainant and submitted that these are totally false and baseless. He alleged that the complainant was black marketing the kerosene oil and after publishing this news his business was affected and due to this he was making fake complaints. He requested the Council to direct CBI to investigate the complainant’s kerosene oil agency. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta the complainant appeared before the Inquiry Committee. There was no appearance from respondent side. The respondent, Editor, Parakh in a letter dated 20.7.2007 intimated his inability to attend hearing due to illness and requested for adjournment. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent had asked them for gratification money which they declined and this resulted in impugned report with false and defamatory report alleging black marketing of kerosene oil that resulted in heavy loss in business. The complainant further stated that they complained to the Patrakar Sangh against the paper’s representative which expelled them. He alleged that after receiving notice from the Council the respondent editor again published news on 20.4.2006 under the caption “Jan Kerosene Upthok Vikrata Ke Charitra Ka Patan Ish Hadd Tak” which was vulgar and obscene. The complainant requested that stern action against the editor Parakh should be taken. He, however, stated that after February 2007 no publication was made against him. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records and turned down the request of adjournment sought by the respondent editor. The Inquiry Committee on merits held that the respondent Parakh published news items that had not been substantiated and repeated the charges with impunity. The impugned news items were targeted to harm the business of the complainant and also caused harm to his reputation.

315 In the absence of any evidence, it condemned the publication and decided to recommend to the Council to warn the editor Parakh, Jhansi for the impugned reports. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

93) Shri Jagdish Kumar Versus The Editor Chief Public Relations Officer Dainik Prajashakti Southeast Central Railway Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Complaint This complaint dated 27.4.2005 has been filed by Shri Jagdish Kumar, Chief Public Relations Officer, Southeast Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh against ‘Dainik Prajashakti’, a Hindi evening daily from Bilaspur for publication of allegedly defamatory, inaccurate, baseless, misleading and distorted news items against the railway authorities. The caption of the impugned items reads as follows: 1. “A case of bribery in allotting 112 Sqm. building to Neelam Food Plaza” “Suspicious role of Shri Pramod Kumar, GM, SECR and Saxena of IRCTC” and “ CPRO Jagdish Kumar told that Railway property is of GM. He can give it even in petty price” dated 5.4.2005. 2. “Pramod Kumar, GM, SEC Railway took 20 lacs in the selection of 20 typists” dated 7.4.2005. 3. “Pramod Kumar, GM, SECR has taken Rupees Two lakh from Mr. Ranjeet Biswas and appointed him in service at Hathband”, “Jagdish Kumar, RPRO stated that the Construction Department doesn’t come under the control of GM” dated 7.4.2005. 4. “Plundering by Pramod Kumar, GM, railway zone” dated 12.4.2005. 5. “GM of SERZ indulged in plundering”, “Bungling in Local purchase and photocopy machine” dated 20.4.2005. According to the complainant Shri Mirza Shaukat Beg, Owner and Publisher of the paper had threatened him to release all the display/advertisement to his newspaper, failing which he would publish defamatory reports in his newspaper about him and the General Manager of the Railways. He has added that it was not possible to release all the advertisements to every newspaper and explained

316 to the respondent that displays/advertisements were being released on rotational basis and there will be no disparity in term of release of advertisements to his newspaper as well. When his demand was not fulfilled the respondent editor published false, misleading and baseless news items in its newspaper. The complainant alleged that, as the Railway did not agree to the respondent’s undue demand, a series of defamatory, inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading and distorted news against the railway authorities were published regularly for the past few days by the respondent with a clear motive of undue pressure and to concede the organisation to his undue demand of releasing all the display/ advertisements to his newspaper. The complainant submitted that he had sent rejoinders dated 6th, 11th, 19th, 20th April 2005 consisting of factual and correct position of each and every news items but instead of refraining or giving any reply, the respondent again published the impugned news items in question. No Written Statement Show cause notice dated 3.6.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, “Dainik Prajashakti” at the address provided by the complainant but the same has been received back undelivered with postal remarks “Receiver absent every time”. The report of service of notice through the District Magistrate was also not received. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Santosh Kumar, Senior Public Relations Officer, South East- Central Railway, Bilaspur appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent editor, Dainik Prajashakti, though service was complete. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that the respondent Dainik Prajashakti published distorted and baseless news against the General Manager, South East Central Railway making serious allegations of bribery in allotting 112 sq. metre building premises to Neelam Food Plaza and lakhs of rupees in making appointments. He submitted that the Neelam Food Plaza was owned by Khandelwal Group, which had given the highest bid and, therefore, the said property was allotted to Neelam Food Plaza. He submitted that the series of news reports were made to defame the Railways when the demand of release of advertisements was not fulfilled by the complainant. The editor not only published the defamatory news items but each issue carried the photographs of the General Manager also. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the record and the oral submissions made before it on behalf of the complainant. It noted that silence on

317 the part of the respondent on the rejoinder of the complainant and also the notice of this authority, tends credence to the charges of the complainant that his inability to release the sought advertisement prepared the ground for the impugned reports, ridiculing the General Manager as well as Railways. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the publication of photograph of the General Manager, South East Central Railways with every impugned news report appeared to be aimed to damage his reputation. The respondent editor had thus breached the norms of journalistic conduct through his motivated writings. Further, by not publishing the clarification of the complainant the editor denied him his right to reply. For above infractions of journalistic conduct, the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the editor, Dainik Prajashakti, Bilaspur. It further decided to send a copy of the decision of the Council to DAVP, RNI, I&PRD, Government of Chhatishgarh for such action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

94) Shri Ajit Gulanikar Versus The Editor Consultant Mid Day Mumbai Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 19.8.2005 has been filed by Shri Ajit Gulanikar, Consultant, RWITC, Mumbai against Mid Day, Mumbai alleging publication of a false and defamatory news item captioned “Will RWITC answer these questions” in its issue dated 12.8.2005 relating to Mid Day claimed expose of tote scam at the RWITC. The portion of the news item objected to by the complainant is reproduced below: “TCS: Some years ago, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) which has created hugely successful software for the Bangalore Turf Club (BTC) bid for the RWITC tote software upgrade” “The TCS bid did not go through because Gulanikar quoted a fraction of the TCS price. How could Gulanikar, a freelancer with no set up, deliver at a fraction of the price. What a giant like TCS promised? Was he sure of being compensated in some other way?” The complainant, a computer consultant, working with the Royal Turf Club Limited (RWITC), has submitted that the activity of the club is to conduct horse racing in Mumbai and Pune with computer operated Tote betting

318 system. He has submitted that the respondent run a front page article on 11.8.2007 alleging an ‘elaborate insider scam’ was operating in the tote betting system ‘which may have been used to con bettors out of crores’ and the next day the impugned news article was published accusing him of underhand dealing in the bid to RWITC for Tote software upgradation. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news article made sweeping allegations based on inaccurate and untrue statements, which implied that he was associated with some kind of malpractice and was a party to illegal gains from the same. He has added that the statements made and conclusions drawn were inconsistent and contrary to the facts on records, false and without any basis, besides being defamatory in nature and injurious to his reputation as a professional consultant. The complainant supported his complaint with a letter from RWITC certifying that in the past fifteen years, no bid had been received from TCS for tote software upgradation. A letter was issued by the complainant to the respondent on 19.8.2005 but received no response. He has also alleged that the article was published by newspaper without verifying the facts. According to the complainant, the respondent editor has violated journalistic norms. No Written Statement No written statement was received from the respondent despite due service of notice. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Ajit Gulanikar, Consultant appeared in person. Shri Ankit Goyal Advocate appeared for the ‘Mid Day’. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The learned counsel for the respondent initially disputed receipt of show cause notice confronted with proof of service, he sought time to file written statement. He also produced the clarification published in the issue of 12.7.2007. The complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the clarification published after one and a half year and just before the hearing. On merits, the complainant submitted that the impugned publication had defamed him and affected his professional credibility throughout various Race Courses in India where he works as consultant. The complainant relied on the letter dated 19th August, 2005 of the RWITC Ltd., Race Course, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai, written to him confirming that the TCS for the past 15 years had not given any bid for tote software upgradation. Therefore, the insinuation that he was being compensated in some other way was found on false facts. He stated that the rejoinder published by the Mid Day was not satisfactory, as the target audience of Racing articles ought to have been informed on the same page as set aside for this readership, and the apology should

319 have come in Aug/Sep/Oct 2005 issue on Saturday/Sunday at the same column where the Racing articles were published, instead of July 2007. He also asserted that the reporter himself was a member of the Tote Committee 2005 and did not raise these issues at that point of time. He pleaded that his grievance would be redressed if the apology was published by the paper on the same page targeting racing audience and a formal censure is awarded by the Council. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the Mid Day had published a detailed article about Race Course and the paper had also published the denial of the complainant. He submitted that the complainant’s software was not audited for the last 17 years. The counsel added that the complainant had prayed in his complaint for publication of clarification. This was done by the newspaper. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on the basis of the records and oral submissions. It allowed the false statement of the respondent regarding non-receipt of show cause notice to rest in view of the oral submissions. On merits, it noted that the impugned publication formed a part of a ‘claimed expose’ by Mid Day of a Tote scam. The complainant is on record to state that the reporter himself was a member of the Tote Committee at the relevant point of time, but did not raise these issues at the appropriate forum. The absence of any basis for the statement that he outbid TCS is strengthened by the letter of RWITC that the TCS had never filed any such bid. Therefore, not only the insinuation at the close of para but even the question raised by the reporter fall flat. There is no doubt that the query as to whether he (complainant) was sure of being compensated in some other way was highly damaging in the context to the professional integrity and credibility of the complainant. Having faltered at this stage, the respondent failed to make amends with due promptitude and prominence and chose not to even file a defence of the charges till the matter was listed for hearing. In the circumstances, the Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the compliant and admonish the respondent paper. It may also direct the respondent editor to publish the clarification of 12.7.2007 with regret and apology on Racing Page in Saturday/Sunday issue of the Mid Day within two weeks of the service of the adjudication of the Council. The Inquiry Committee further directed that the copy of the clarification published in the Mid Day be sent to the complainant as well as to the Council for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

320 95) Sh. Mahant Devendra Dass Versus The Editor Manager Uttaranchal Saya Darbar Saheb Shri Guru Ram Dehradun Rai Education Mission Uttaranchal Dehradun, Uttaranchal Complaint This complaint dated 8.5.2006 has been filed by Shri Mahant Devendra Dass, Manager, Darbar Saheb Shri Guru Ram Rai Education Mission, Dehradun against Uttaranchal Saya, a monthly Hindi magazine alleging publication of false and defamatory news story captioned “Stigma on faith” in its April 2006 issue. It was reported in the impugned news story that in the history of a quarter and three hundred years of Jhanda Darbar Saheb, it was for the first time that the Mahant was found involved in the controversy of illegal sale of land of Darbar Saheb and the well wishers of Darbar Saheb were about to file a case under Section 92 (A)-CPC in the District Court. It has been reported that Shri Vishnu Nautyal and Shri Belochan Singh Rawat, the personal assistants of Mahant Devendra Dassji were being given more importance by expelling the old employees of the Darbar Saheb and teachers like S/Shri Pankaj Kukreti and Rakesh Gupta were reportedly expelled from the schools. It was also reported that out of 114 schools of the mission, only nine were recognized by the CBSE, New Delhi. That the Mahant reportedly visited his birthplace and was alleged to have given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- to his sister and another amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to his sister for the medical expenses of her son. The complainant submitted after becoming Mahant of Darbar Saheb, he had never visited his birth place at all. It was further alleged in the impugned news story that he renunciated Bramacharya and involved in worldly pleasures and further that Mahant Inderesh had died under suspicious circumstances. The respondent magazine in its May 2006 issue, published an editorial titled ‘Your Opinion’ referring to the previous story on the complainant’s organization, urging the public to supply with more and more information and evidence against the complainant for publication in the next issues. It was reported therein that a complaint about scams in the Darbar Saheb had been sent to the President, Prime Minister and the Home Minister and a petition been filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital against the Mahant, which is pending and the readers would be informed about the case, in the June 2006 issue of the magazine. The complainant has alleged that the magazine made an attempt to defame and tarnish his high profile image and that of Darbar Shri Guru Ram Rai Saheb, Dehradun, and submitted that the statements published by the respondent were baseless and fabricated. The complainant further alleged that the respondents had telephonically threatened him for extortion of money and that the recordings of

321 such talks were in his custody. The complainant issued a detailed clarification on 29.5.2006, asking the editor to publish apology in the next issue, but the respondent instead of doing so, published another defamatory editorial. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Uttaranchal Saya, Dehradun on 5.7.2006. Written Statement The respondent editor, Uttaranchal Saya in his written statement dated 24.7.2006 has denied the allegations that the impugned news story was published to tarnish the image of the Jhanda Darbar Saheb and asserted that it was intended to expose to the public the irregularities committed regarding the sale of the society land. Further the non-recognition of the schools of Guru Ram Rai Mission by the CBSE reported as it concerned the future of the children. The respondent editor, Shri Sanjay Shah denied that he or any of his reporters threatened the Mahant Shri Devendra Dass or demanded money, as alleged. The respondent submitted that as before the publication of the news item, it was necessary to have the complainant’s side of the story, he telephonically contacted the complainant who refused to meet him. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.9.2006 for information. Counter Comments Shri Chandrashekhar Pant, Public Relations Officer, Darbar Saheb, Dehradun in his undated counter comment received in the Secretariat of the Council on 23.10.2006 submitted that all the statements submitted by the respondent were misleading and the documents furnished by him were fake. He has submitted that when the respondent was going to print the impugned news story, no printing press was willing to print such objectionable material thus the magazine was published without print-line, and when enquired, the respondent said that it was printed at Saraswati Printing Press, which was however denied by the owner of the Printing Press. The complainant further stated that the impugned news story was published with the intention to blackmail the Jhanda Darbar and Guru Ram Rai Education Mission as was shown by the cover of the magazine with photograph of the Jhanda Saheb with the headline ‘Stigma on Faith’ printed on it. He has reiterated that it was true that the respondent threatened the Mahant Shri Devendra Dass over the telephone urging him to make compromise by meeting him in a close circuit room so that no recording of the conversation be made. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 30.10.2006 for information.

322 Rejoinder to the Counter Comments The respondent Shri Sanjay Shah, Editor, Uttaranchal Saya in his rejoinder dated 11.1.2007 submitted that the Public Relations Officer of the complainant has misled the Council by deviating from the main issue, raising different points which all were false. A copy of the rejoinder was forwarded to the complainant on 21.5.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. S/Shri Chandra Shekhar Pant, Public Relations Officer, Darbar Saheb, Dehradun and Vinay Anand Bourai appeared for the complainant. Shri Sanjay Shah, Chief Editor, Uttaranchal Saya, Dehradun (the respondent) appeared before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that Shri Guru Ram Rai Saheb was a 350 years old establishment and it was running many schools and institutions from the offering made to Jhanda Darbar Saheb. These institutions were getting grant from government and UGC and more than 80 Schools were recognized by Central Board of Senior Education other were in the process of recognition. He submitted that the Darbar Saheb is most revered place in Northern Region and the impugned publication in “Uttaranchal Saya” seriously offended the sentiments of its followers. He added that the magazine did not publish the interview of Shri Mahant Devendra Dassji, which was taken by the editor. The magazine published the incorrect statement attributing it to the sister of Mahantji. It was alleged that the Mahantji had no fear of the Constitution. The complainant’s representative further submitted that the entire write up about Darbar Saheb was defamatory and intended to hurt the sentiments of all those who were attached to and held in great reverence the Darbar Saheb its Schools and Institutions in one way or the other. He clarified that a portion of news report about Shri Vishnu Nautiyal and the allegations of his acquiring Property/House was motivated and a subject matter of court proceedings as Shri Vishnu Nautiyal had filed a suit against the respondent magazine Uttaranchal Saya for its report about him. The complainant or the Darbar Saheb had no concern with the said proceedings. He also said that an interview given by the Mahantji was not covered at all. The complainant representative requested that the Council might take appropriate action against the editor, Uttaranchal Saya for its report stigmatising the belief on the Darbar Saheb and hurting the sentiments of the faith. The respondent editor submitted that it was the first issue of their publication in which the report about Darbar Saheb was carried. The respondent editor

323 submitted that the image and stature of Mahant of Darbar Saheb was parallel to the state government in Dehradun and thus no action was taken when the office of Uttaranchal Saya was attacked by miscreants at the instance of Mahantji. He added that the schools of Shri Guru Ram Rai Saheb at Vikas Nagar were not affiliated to CBSE and the students were brought to Patel Nagar, Dehradun for exams. He further submitted that the interview of Mahant was taken but could not be published. On questioning by the Inquiry Committee whether the statement of Mahant, that he had no fear of Constitution, was tape recorded during interview, the respondent editor stated that the tape was stopped at that point of time. The respondent editor further submitted that as per the Constitution of a Darbar Saheb, Mahant on seat was not supposed to meet his relatives. The respondent editor, however, offered that he was ready to publish the clarification of the complainant.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record of the case and considered the submissions made by the parties. It observed that the respondent editor, Uttaranchal Saya made an attempt to obtain the details of the Darbar Saheb and its functioning, social and educational works, by way of taking interview of Mahantji of Darbar Saheb (the complainant) and even tape recorded the entire interview but later instead of publishing the interview came out, with an offending write up with cover story “Stigma on faith” in the very first issue of the magazine. The impugned story had a tendency to hurt the sensibilities of its followers and personnel, teaching and non-teaching staff of its schools and institutions. The respondent editor by publishing the offending material had lowered the image of the Darbar Saheb in the eyes of the public. The Committee further observed that the magazine while commenting upon the Darbar Saheb had attributed statements to and made personal comments on the complainant Mahant that he had not been able to establish. The publication of unverified statement and photographs of the sister of the complainant Mahant was also irresponsible as it put the words in the mouth of the Mahant’s sister that the brother used to remit some sort of amount to his sister. In the opinion of the Committee the impugned publication was an instance of irresponsible journalism. The Inquiry Committee, however, noted the mitigating factor that the respondent editor had now sought to make amends by publishing the rejoinder of the complainant. The Committee thus, directed the complainant to send rejoinder to the respondent and further directed respondent editor to publish the rejoinder of the complainant with comments if it was in conformity with the criteria spelt out by the Council in its norms of right of reply. The editor was also directed to send a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the complainant as well as to the Council for record. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these directions to the parties and it recommended to the Council accordingly.

324 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

96) Shri Amar Kumar Mondal Versus The Editor Joint Secretary of Shramik Union Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Hindustan Cables Ltd. Khabar Rupnarainpur Unit Burdwan, West Bengal Burdwan, West Bengal Complaint This complaint dated 29.9.2004 has been filed by Shri Amar Kumar Mondal, Joint Secretary of Shramik Union, Hindustan Cables Ltd., Rupnarainpur Unit, Burdwan (West Bengal) against “Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar” for publication of allegedly distorted, confusing and motivated charges in news items under the captions “Transferring of CGM is the first step to make Hindustan Cables sick” and “Intervention of Gurudas Dasgupta rescinded transfer of CGM – Govt. thinking afresh on HCL” (English translations) in its issues dated 29.8.2004 and 5.9.2004 respectively. The allegations made in the newspaper and the complainant’s rejoinders are as follows:- News Item Dated 29.8.2004. Caption:- “Transferring the CGM is the first step to make Hindustan Cables sick”. 1. It has been projected in the caption that Shri N.C. Ghosh is Chief General Manager of HCL (Rupnarainpur Unit) but actually Shri Ghosh is GM (Unit Head). The HCL consisting of Rupnarainpur Unit, Hyderabad Unit and Naini Unit have been declared as ‘sick company’ under the provision of the concerned Act and it has been under BIFR well before Shri Ghosh being inducted in the Rupnarainpur Unit as GM (Unit Head). 2. The name of CMD is reported as Shri A.K. Chakraborty instead of Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee to avoid penal action against the then CMD. 3. It was stated that the HCL used to sell scrap cables, copper and other material on throwaway price. The scrap was being disposed of by way of tenders, informed the complainant.

325 4. As regards non-renovation of road of HCL, the complainant submits that it was due to scarcity of funds. 5. It has been reported that Shri Ghosh became successful in uniting INTUC, CITU, AITUC, HMS and officers association. According to the complainant, the company had a rich tradition of co- coordination amongst the unions and thus the report was totally false and baseless. 6. It was also totally false to report that the HCL was drawing up strategy to hand over HCL to Star Plus. 7. It has been reported that with the help of ruling party, Aggarwal industrialist having close link with Shri Somnath Chatterjee was ready to buy HCL at a throwaway price. The complainant submits that the identity of all concerned was not clearly mentioned and thus the report is false. 8. At the end, it has been reported that serious deliberation are taking place for merger of HCL with BSNL. The complainant submits that the report is published with ulterior motive and the union leaders had no knowledge of such merger. News Item Dated 5.9.2004 Caption: “Intervention of Gurudas Gupta rescinded transfer of CGM- Govt. thinking afresh on HCL”. 1. It has been alleged that everybody came to know the conspiracy of Shri Amor Mandol, who is very close to Shri S.R. Das and Shri A.K. Sil, Vigilance Officer. The complainant has submitted that the HCL was ailing with the result the employees were not getting salary and production of units had been totally stopped. The complainant lodged complaints in 2003 before CMD and CVO regarding mis- utilizing the company’s properties, undue favour extended to DAV School etc. and also mismanagement by Shri N.C. Ghosh, GM (Unit Head). His action thus can not be called conspiracy. The complainant further submits that there was no vigilance officer in the name of Shri A.K. Sil. 2. The complainant submits that the report regarding threats by union against transfer orders was false since he was present in that meeting. 3. The report regarding transfer of many officers was also false, except one transfer of Shri N.C. Ghosh.

326 4. Regarding transfer of Shri N.C. Ghosh to Naini Unit (U.P.) and controlling labour problem, the complainant has submitted that Shri Ghosh was transferred without promotion, which means he was on punishment transfer. 5. It was wrongly reported that Shri N.C. Ghosh was brought back in 1998 to Rupnarainpur Unit as GM (P&A). He was transferred as Manager (P&A). 6. It was wrongly reported that Shri N.C. Ghosh took charge of CGM(P) in 2002. 7. The newspaper reported about merger of HCL with BSNL, which was not in the knowledge of the union. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the news items submitted that the impugned news items were baseless, false, motivated, distorted and biased involving public figures and All India level recognized political party. The complainant submitted that the respondent had been publishing such type of provocative, false and baseless news items for vested interest concerning Hindustan Cables Ltd. in collusion with Shri N.C. Ghosh, CGM against whom several investigation/inquiries being carried out by vigilance/CBI and Shri Charanjit Singh, Secretary of INTUC/HCL/RNPR Unit who had been imprisoned two terms involving attempt to murder case of DSP of Excise Department and an employee of HCL. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent giving his rejoinder with a request for its publication but neither he received any reply from the respondent nor the rejoinder was published in respondent newspaper. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, Burdwan (West Bengal) on 17.10.2005. Written Statement The publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar in his written statement dated 29.10.2005 submitted that the complaint had been filed on the ground that the version/rejoinder had not been published. The respondent submitted that the complainant also pointed out some printing mistakes. The respondent submitted that printing mistakes, if any, was due to technical fault. The respondent stated that the news items were published in public interest and contents were verified from the authentic sources. The respondent submitted that the complainant had sent his rejoinder on the letterhead of the Shramik Union as the proof of his identity as the Joint Secretary of the said union. The complainant also identified himself as the staff of the Hindustan Cables (Dept –12, Staff No.6213). The respondent submitted that immediately after receiving his letter, the newspaper had communicated with the Hindustan Cables Ltd.’s authority inviting their reaction/ comments but there was no response. The respondent submitted that the news items were about the Hindustan Cables Ltd. and Hindustan Cables Ltd.’s authority 327 was the right authority to send its comments/rejoinder on the published news items. The respondent submitted that the complainant mentioned several allegations against his own officers, which is in-house problem of Hindustan Cables Ltd. and the newspaper had no control on it. The respondent submitted that on receipt of Council’s letter, they had contacted the CGM, HCL, General Secretaries of the Shramik Union, Labour Union, INTUC, HMS requesting them for their comments but no comments had been received. The respondent submitted that the news items were published during the tenure of the former editor. The respondent requested the Council to reject the complaint being devoid of merit, and averred that if the complainant is having personal rivalry with Mr. Ghosh the CGM of HCL, and the newspaper cannot be a platform for settling scores. The respondent submitted that the complainant had made several complaints against the newspaper to RNI, District Information Officer, Burdwan demanding withdrawal/closure of the newspaper. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 21.11.2005 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar. The complainant in a fax dated 8.1.2007 requested to hold hearing at Kolkata as he was not able to bear expenses for attending the hearing at Bhubaneswar. Smt. Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee, Publisher and Shri Narayan Chatterjee on behalf of editor appeared before the Inquiry Committee. Shri Narayan Chatterjee submitted that the complainant was an employee of Hindustan Cables Limited and claimed to be the Joint Secretary of the Shramik Union. The newspaper had written to the General Secretary of Sharmik Union Hindustan Cable Limited and CGM/HCL to find out whether the claim of the complainant was correct but the newspaper did not get any response. The respondent submitted that the complainant was misusing letter head of the Sharmik Union and hatching conspiracy since he belonged to coal mafia. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the complainant to contest his case decided to adjourn the matter with directions to forward the copy of the written statement again to the complainant for his counter comments. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for counter on 12.3.2007. Further Communication Received From the Respondent The hearing was next scheduled for 29.3.2007.

328 In response to the notice for hearing the respondent in his letter dated 11.3.2007 submitted that while appearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar he prayed for exemption in appearing before the next meeting of the Inquiry Committee to be held at New Delhi and his request was acceded by the Committee. The respondent resubmitted a copy each of the letter received from the registered trade union of Hindustan Cables and issue dated 13.11.2005 of the newspaper in which the letter was published. The respondent clarified that till date none of the trade union authority or the Hindustan Cables authority had sent any rejoinder on the published letter. The respondent further submitted that he personally approached Mr. Kanchan Dasgupta, the General Secretary of the Shramik Union, with a request to send his comment on the issue and letter published and Mr. Dasgupta agreed that, Shramik Union as a whole is having no complaint against the newspaper. The respondent submitted that the motivated case/complaint which was devoid of merit had been made before the Press Council only to harass him. The respondent further stated that the published news item was related to Hindustan Cables. But Hindustan Cables and registered unions including his (Shramik Union) union appreciated the news item and neither sent any rejoinder nor have criticized the news. One registered union (INTUC) in their letter welcomed the news item, where as Secretary of Shramik Union (in which Amar Mondal is the Joint Secretary) did not send any comment on the published letter. According to the respondent the decision of Press Council in the case of BDO/Salanpur Vs. Editor, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, annoyed the ex-MLA of CPIM, Mr. S.R. Das, and the then BDO, and the Coal Mafias, resulting in Amar Mondal, on their behalf trying to falsely implicate the newspaper. The respondent demanded compensations of Rs.50,000/- for the expenditure he had to bear, and for mental torture caused by Shri Amar Mondal. He pointed out that Amar Mondal is now threatening his newspaper agents with an intention to market out the newspaper. He requested for security of the editor/staff of the newspaper. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2007. There was no appearance from the either side. The complainant intimated his inability to attend hearing due to illness. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity to the parties, decided to adjourn the matter. Final Adjournment The matter next came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Amar Kumar Mondal, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance from the respondent’s side. The respondent

329 editor in a letter dated 29.5.2007 intimated his inability to appear before the Committee due to sudden demise of his uncle. The respondent further submitted that he had already submitted his oral and written submissions on 16.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar and on 29.3.2007 along with all relevant documents, which included the copy of his newspaper dated 13.11.2005 in which the letter addressed to Kanchan Das Gupta, Secretary, CITU/HCL was published. He stated that the matter was devoid of merit and biased in nature. The complainant submitted that he was not in a sound financial position to appear before the Committee again at Delhi if the matter was adjourned, because he was not getting salary for the last one year. The complainant added that the respondent after attending hearing in January 2007 at Bhubaneswar published a defamatory news item against him under the caption “Strong pleading of Khabar before Press Council’’ using unparliamentary language against him such as liar, goondaism, etc. in 21.1.2007 issue and reporting that he had been torn apart at the hearing whereas no such thing had happened. He requested that adjournment may be granted taking these points into consideration. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to allow the respondent to defend these charges. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/Shri Naryan Chatterjee, Advocate, and Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee, Publisher, appeared for the respondent Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, Burdwan. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent’s counsel stated that Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar is a popular newspaper and published news was based on the facts and findings and on the basis of the statement of Trade Union and Shri Naryan Chatterjee Ghosh the then CGM of HCL, Shri Naryanb Chatterjee Ghosh, had since retired and presently he is a Principal of a college in Burdwan. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had published the news when it came to his notice that the large number of irregularities were committed by Shri Amar Kumar Mondal, Joint Secretary, Shramik Union, Hindustan Cables Ltd, Rupnarainpur Unit, Burdwan. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was a part of the union office but he was not holding any portfolio. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper had published a news item on 13.11.2005 regarding illegal occupation of HCL quarter but the complainant had not made any complaint. The respondent alleged that the complainant was a mafia don in the area. He was, however, not able to defend the report published after the January 2007 Inquiry Committee meeting.

330 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the respondent editor after attending the hearing of the matter at Bhubaneswar again came out with an highly exaggerated report berating the complainant. The said impugned publication dated 21.1.2007 even tended to undermine the proceedings before the Press Council and indicated mala fide of the respondent. On merits of the case, the Inquiry Committee noted that the allegations made in impugned news items dated 29.8.2004 and 5.9.2004 had not been substantiated by any documentary evidence. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the newspaper should have made independent verification of facts including those about the complainant’s alleged activities. It opined that the newspaper failed to substantiate the allegations made in the impugned news report and further compounded the offence by publishing another offending news report when proceedings of the case were pending before the Inquiry Committee. The impugned publication did not establish the bonafide of the respondent. It, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to reprimand the editor for not maintaining the journalistic norms and ethics and to caution respondent editor to be more careful in future while publishing news reports carrying personal allegations to ensure that the reports are free of any bias or malafide. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

97) Shri Ashok Chauhan Versus (i) The Editor D.S.P. Punjab Kesari Karnal, Haryana Jalandhar, Punjab

(ii) Shri Vijay Garg Reporter Punjab Kesari Complaint This complaint dated 27.4.2005 has been filed by Shri Ashok Chauhan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnal, Haryana against Punjab Kesari, Jallandhar for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “bªÉÚ]ÉÒ {É® iÉèxÉÉiÉ BÉEÉÌàɪÉÉå ºÉä nÖBªÉÇ´ÉcÉ®” (Misbehaviour with the employees on duty) in its issue dated 18.4.2005. In the impugned news item it has been alleged that the complainant misbehaved with and used unparliamentary language against the journalists of national level newspapers and kicked them out. When the journalists

331 tried to know the reason, the complainant ran after them to beat them. Realising the situation, they escaped unhurt. The complainant has also furnished a clipping of next edition dateline 19th April, which is encaptioned : “àÉÖJªÉàÉxjÉÉÒ ºÉä ÉÊàÉãÉä {ÉjÉBÉEÉ®” (Journalists meet the Chief Minister). It has been stated in this news item that the CM had assured the journalists that action against the erring officials would be taken for their misbehaviour with the journalists. The complainant has submitted that two press reporters namely, Shri Vijay Garg and Shri Vinod Bindal, District Karnal, Haryana were misusing their power and creating nuisance and terror in the locality. The complainant has submitted that on 16.4.2005 the election of the Municipal Committee, Assandh was held. In these elections, the mother of Shri Vijay Garg namely, Smt. Kailash Devi and close relative of Shri Vinod Bindal namely Shri Narain contested the Municipal election from ward No. 14 and 03 respectively and both these news reporters in order to help their candidate win in an illegal and unlawful manner tried to pressurise the Returning Officer and polling agents of other contestant and other officials. The complainant has submitted that he is an officer of the D.S.P. rank in Haryana and was deputed for conducting peaceful poll in the Assandh. On receiving a message from the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer, he restrained Shri Vinod Bindal from the illegal act. The complainant has submitted that due to the said reasons these persons have given false reports to the Punjab Kesari on 18.4.2005 levelling false allegation against him. The complainant has submitted that he sent legal notices to both the press reporters, Chief Editor, Punjab Kesari and Editor, Punjab Kesari on 26.4.2005 but no reply has been received from the other side. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari, Shri Vijay Garg, Reporter and Shri Vinod Bindal, Reporter. Written Statement of Shri Vijay Garg, Press Reporter Shri Vijay Garg, press reporter in his written statement dated 20.1.2006 has submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant are totally false, frivolous, baseless and concocted. The respondent has submitted that the matter is sub judice as the complainant has already issued a legal notice through his counsel on the same subject on 26.4.2005 and in the notice he has mentioned that he will lodge a complaint against the reporter in the competent court of law. The respondent has submitted that the complainant is misusing the powers of his post. The respondent has submitted that the complainant misbehaved with all the press reporters, area Assandh and thereafter an emergency meeting was called by the Patrakar Sangh, Assandh on 16.4.2005 in which a resolution was passed regarding the misbehaviour of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the Patrakar

332 Sangh met the Chief Minister, Haryana and after investigation through competent sources, regarding the misbehaviour of the complainant, it was found that the complainant was at fault and the complainant was transferred to another District. The respondent has submitted that he has already replied the notice of the complainant in detail vide notice dated 26.5.2005 through his advocate. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.2.2006 for information. Written Statement of Punjab Kesari The editor, Punjab Kesari in his written statement dated 30.1.2006 has submitted that the contents of the complaint as alleged by the complainant are absolutely incorrect, wrong and denied. There is no violation of any journalistic ethics or norms in the publication of the news item in question. The questioned news item has been published in the routine and ordinary course of the publication of the newspaper without any ill will, malice or motive and as an item of news. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has not denied the incident reported in the news. The only difference is that there are two versions of the incident, which has taken place during municipal elections. The respondent has submitted that the press reporters, Shri Vijay Garg and Shri Vinod Bindal levelled allegations against the complainant whereas the complainant accuses the press reporters for the incident. From the facts of the case, it is clear that it is a case of personal rivalry and enmity between the complainant and the press reporters and both sides are giving their own versions. The respondent has submitted that the newspaper has no involvement in the same and the news has not been carried to help anybody or to harm anybody. The matter of dispute between both the parties turned into a local agitation and the representatives of various newspapers also gathered together and passed a resolution in a meeting. The respondent has submitted that even the complainant feels and believes that the newspaper has no role in it and he has no complaint against the newspaper. The respondent has submitted that the complainant never approached the newspaper establishment for the publication of his version, which could have been carried at any time at his request. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.2.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 16.2.2006 has submitted that it was wrong to say that his complaint is false and baseless or the complainant was misusing his post. The complainant has submitted that the mother of Shri Vijay Garg, press reporter namely Smt. Kamlesh Devi was contesting the election of Municipal Committee, Assandh and Shri Shiv Narain Bindal a relative

333 of Shri Vinod Bindal, press reporter of The Tribune was also contesting the Municipal Committee election for the post of Councillor on 16.4.2005. The complainant has submitted that he was on duty at Assandh being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh area for peaceful polling of the election. Both the press reporters desired victory of their respective candidates in the said election through any illegal and unlawful manner that is why both the press reporters tried to pressurise the Returning Officer and Polling Agent and other officials on duty. They both created nuisance in the said vicinity. The complainant has submitted that he received message from the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer and Polling Agents against both the press reporters for misbehaving and creating nuisance in the polling booths and as such for getting peaceful election some police officials restrained both the press reporters from creating nuisance. The complainant has submitted that it was wrong to say that the complainant misbehaved with all the journalists and it was also wrong to say that the complainant was transferred from the District on the complaint of the journalists. The complainant has submitted that he is doing his duty in the same District as per rules and regulations of the Department. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled by Shri Vijay Garg, press reporter has submitted that the news was published only in Punjab Kesari at the instance of Shri Vijay Garg and Shri Vinod Bindal, press reporters. The complainant further submitted that he did not receive any reply from the respondent and has requested the Council to take appropriate action against the erring respondents. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 6.3.2006. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri N.C. Sahni, advocate appeared for the respondent, Punjab Kesari. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the newspaper Punjab Kesari had no lis in the matter. It appeared that there was animosity between the complainant and the reporters. The newspaper did not offend any norm of journalistic conduct by reporting the incident. On being enquired by the Inquiry Committee whether the matter was sub-judice, the counsel for the respondent submitted that only the complainant and the reporter could answer to the query. He added that the complaint was nothing but a simple grouse against the reporter. He prayed that the newspaper may not be made a party in the case. The Inquiry Committee reasoned its opinion on the averments made by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent newspaper was not a necessary party to the complaint. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent Punjab Kesari through its counsel to cause inquiry into the statements of the reporters and

334 file a statement with its stand also indicting whether the matter was sub-judice and if so, inform the Council about its status. The Inquiry Committee then decided to adjourn the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. The directions of the Inquiry Committee have been conveyed to the parties vide Council’s letter dated 22.1.2007. In response to Council’s letter dated 22.1.2007, Editor, Punjab Kesari vide his letter dated 16.2.2007 informed the Council that the impugned news-item had been reported by Mr. Vijay Garg, Press Reporter, Asandh (District Karnal). The objection of matter being sub-judice was raised by Mr. Vijay Garg, Press Reporter in his reply. The newspaper had no information about this aspect. The respondent editor further stated that extensive inquiry was made to find wherein proceeding was pending before the Court of law but could not trace. The respondent stated that the reporter Mr. Vijay Garg is no longer associated with this paper and therefore, refuses to co-operate. The respondent, editor prayed that the matter may please be dropped. The complainant Shri Ashok Chauhan, DSP did not have any grouse against the newspaper and his complaint is against the reporter only, who is not co-operating in the matter. The complainant vide his letter dated 14.2.2007 stated that as per the proceedings communicated to him, the respondent counsel appearing for the Punjab Kesari had stated that the matter had become sub-judice but the counsel for the respondent was unable to disclose whether the matter was pending in the court of law. The complainant reiterated that the matter was not pending in any court, except the present inquiry. The complainant prayed that the matter may be taken up in the interest of justice. The copy of the replies were sent to both the sides vide Council’s letter dated 6.3.2007 for information. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Ashok Chauhan, DSP, Haryana Police, Panipat appeared in person along with Shri Balbir Singh, advocate. Shri M.M. Thapar, appeared for the respondent. The complainant reiterated that the relatives of the reporters of Punjab Kesari were contesting the election and creating nuisance to pressurise the officials on election duty. On getting information from the election officials, he did his duty but the reporters sent false and defamatory news to Punjab Kesari alleging

335 misbehaviour by the complainant with journalists. The complainant further submitted that the grievance was only against the reporters and not the newspaper Punjab Kesari. The respondent submitted that they have already made their submissions on last hearing and the Punjab Kesari was not a necessary party to the case. The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the matter decided that the hearing in r/o newspaper, Punjab Kesari was complete. The Inquiry Committee directed that notices of hearing be issued to the reporters namely (1) Shri Vijay Garg and (2) Shri Vinod Bindal. The matter was adjourned accordingly. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry committee on 4.6.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant in a letter dated 24.5.2007 intimated his inability to appear before the Inquiry Committee due to meeting of the Senior Police Officials in the State. S/Shri Vijay Garg and Vinod Bindal, respondent reporters appeared before the Inquiry Committee. Shri Vinod Bindal submitted that the complainant misused his position in filing the complaint against him and making him respondent as he was in no way responsible for the report published in Punjab Kesari. Noting that the cause of complaint emanated from the impugned report in Punjab Kesari, the Inquiry Committee decided to delete the name of Shri Vinod Bindal from the list of respondents under intimation to the complainant and directed that on the next date, notice of hearing be sent to the complainant and Shri Vijay Garg, Reporter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Vijay Garg, Reporter of Punjab Kesari, appeared before the Committee and reiterated the submissions made in his written statement dated 20.1.2006. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the complainant despite service of notice for hearing. On merits of the case, the Committee noted that the question before it was the ethicality of the impugned report captioned “Misbehaviour with the employees on duty”. This was distinct from the alleged attempt of the reporter to influence the election process, that was with the jurisdiction of a different forum. The Committee observed that the matter needed consideration on two facts, one, the maintainability of the complaint, and the second, the ethicality of the publication. On the first count, it noted that being a public servant, the complainant,

336 as per the rulings of the apex court and norm 3 of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct drawn up by the Press Council, may not move against defamation for conduct in discharge of duties. He, however, has a right to complain against inaccuracy. The impugned report on examination establishes that the journalists had in fact passed a resolution and met the Chief Minister of the State regarding the incident. Thus inaccuracy of the report was not established. The Inquiry Committee thus held that the complainant had been unable to substantiate his complaint and recommended to the Council not to take cognizance of it under Section 14 (c) of the Press Council Act. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

98) Smt. Nisha Trivedi Versus (1) The Editor Owner Dainik Jagran Suhag Herbal Beauty Parlour Unnao, U.P. (2) The Editor Hindustan and

(3) The Editor Aaj Complaint These complaints dated 21.6.2005 have been filed by Smt. Nisha Trivedi, Owner of a beauty parlour, Unnao (U.P.) against three Hindi daily newspapers alleging publication of false and defamatory news items the captions of which are as follows: 1. “Janch Ke Chakkar Mein Parlour Mein Phanse ASP Unnao” Hindustan dated 20.8.2004 2. “Karyabhar Sambhalte Hi Facial Karne Ja Pahunche Chhote Captain” Dainik Jagran 21.8.2004 3. “Chhote Captain Ke Sondariya Prem Ko Lekar Mahakme Mein Halchal” Dainik Jagran dated 20.8.2004 and 4. “Kutch Nahin Bas Yun Hi Skin Mein Thori Problem Thi” Aaj dated 20.8.2004. According to the complainant, the area police officials, the SHO and CO were harassing her in a love marriage case of one, Neetu Mishra and Deepak Shukla, and had implicated her in the case. She lodged complaints against the

337 police officers with the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the Human Rights Commission. The Superintendent of Police, Unnao was nominated to conduct inquiry into the matter. The complainant has alleged that the respondent newspapers carried defamatory news items at the time when the SP came to her parlour for inquiry but reckless allegations that the SP, instead of making inquiry, entangled himself into the loves and beauties of the parlour. She has added that the news items were false and defamatory, published to defame her and her family. The complainant has objected to the impugned news items and sent her rejoinder but none of them published her version. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 18.11.2005. 1. Written Statement of Dainik Jagran The respondent, in its written statement dated 27.12.2005 has submitted that the two news item captioned “Karybhar Sambhalte Hi Facial Karne Ja Pahunche Chhote Captain” and “Chhote Captain Ke Sondariya Prem Ko Lekar Mahakme Mein Halchal” dated 20.8.2004 and 21.8.2004 respectively were based on factual information. He has stated that the incident of an inquiry made by male police officer by entering into a women beauty parlour, without accompanying female police staff, instead of summoning the owner to the police station, was published in public interest. The respondent has submitted that the news items were published without any intention to defame the complainant, but instead helped to save her from police harassment. He has furnished affidavit filed by the concerned–city correspondent, Unnao to the affect that the news items were true and based on the actual incident. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.1.2006 for information. 2. Written Statement of Aaj The respondent Resident Editor, Aaj vide its written statement dated 2.5.2005 has submitted that all the allegations levelled by the complainant against the newspaper, were false and baseless. He has stated that the news item was published on the basis of information gathered from the sources of police and traders union, by the concerned correspondent who reached the place of incident when the police were investigating the matter of complaints of the eloping of a couple without their parents’ consent. The respondent has denied having received any rejoinder/complaint from the complainant for publication of her version. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.6.2006 for information. 3. Written Statement of Hindustan The Authorised Signatory of the Hindustan filed written statement dated

338 28.5.07 and submitted that though no letter of the complainant complaining against the publication was received in the office of the Hindustan yet they are ready to publish the reasonable clarification requested for as long as it is confined to the report and is not of a lengthy nature. The respondent has submitted that in relation to the very incident, which is the subject matter of the present complaint, Smt. Nisha Trivedi, the complainant has approached the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench by way of a criminal Misc. writ petition seeking various reliefs. Hindustan is a party in the said writ petition being Respondent No.11. It is alleged in the writ petition that the news report published in Hindustan was published on the basis of information given by police officials. The respondent has further submitted that in the writ petition a specific relief has been claimed against Hindustan that they may be punished for contempt of court for publishing the impugned report. In this view of the matter it is not justified for the complainant to pursue two remedies for the same cause of action. On merit of the complaint, the respondent denied the allegation that the news report was false. According to the respondent the news report was based on information gathered by the correspondent by actually visiting the site of the incident and there was sufficient justification for publication of the news report. Matters Adjourned The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Dainik Jagran. There was no appearance on behalf of the other two respondent newspapers, namely Hindustan and Aj. Learned counsel for the Hindustan had requested for adjournment. The complainant in a fax dated 5.6.2007 also requested for adjournment on account of disruption of rail services due to agitation of Gujjars. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford one more opportunity to the parties decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. A fax dated 28.8.2007 received from the complainant requesting for adjournment, due to sudden demise of a family member. Shri Birender Kumar Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Dainik Jagran. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent counsel for Dainik Jagran submitted that the news was published since it was a lady parlour and not meant for man. When the police

339 came, people had gathered outside the parlour and therefore it was a matter of news for the readers. The respondent counsel stated that Dainik Jagran was ready to publish the rejoinder of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on the basis of oral and written submissions before it and noted that the complainant had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Allahabad, Lucknow bench against the State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh Secretariat, Lucknow and others and the reference of the news reports which was a matter of Inquiry before the Council had also been made in the said writ. The respondents before the Council had averred that the incident had in fact taken place and was worthy of public attention and they had received no rejoinder on the issue. The Committee therefore on consideration of both the factors held that there was no reason for it to proceed with the case and recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

99) Shri Vishnu Kumar Gupta Versus 1. The Editor Chandosi Amar Ujala Muradabad Uttar Pradesh 2. The Editor Dainik Jagran Moradabad Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 20.7.2007 has been filed by Shri Vishnu Kumar Gupta, Chandosi, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh against two Hindi daily newspapers, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran, Moradabad alleging publication of the following objectionable news items:- 1. “Traders annoyed with harassment”. (Amar Ujala dated 13.7.2005) 2. “Traders hand over memorandum to (Amar Ujala dated 14.7.2005) the SDM”. 3. “Traders annoyed by the harassment (Dainik Jagran dated 13.7.2005) by LIU employee”. 4. “Traders Union give threat for agitation”. (Dainik Jagran dated 21.8.2005)

340 According to the complainant, he had filed a case against his tenant, who is a member of the local trade union for vacating his premises/shop. He has alleged that showing solidarity with his tenant, the trade union caused publication of the impugned news items, alleging harassment by the complainant thereby causing problems to the business community. He has alleged that the false and baseless news items were published against him and his family without verification. The complainant submitted that the attention of the respondents was drawn vide his letter dated 20.7.2005 with the request to publish the clarification of the impugned news items but to no avail. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent-editors, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran on 5.1.2006. Written Statement of Amar Ujala The respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 19.1.2006 specifically denied that the impugned news items were defamatory or published to damage the reputation of the complainant. According to him, it was a fair reporting and was published on the basis of written memorandum dated 13.7.2005 submitted by the Traders’ Union to SDM, Chandausi and Chief Minister, Chief Secretary and Director General of U.P. Similarly another representation was handed over by the President of Traders’ Union to Hon’ble Chief Minister of U.P. As such the newspaper published the mere fact of handing over of representation to the SDM and the Chief Minister and carried its contents and no allegation of its own had been made in the impugned news items. The respondent stated that he neither violated the norms of journalistic conduct nor indulged in gross professional misconduct as alleged by the complainant. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Written Statement of Dainik Jagran The Resident Editor, Dainik Jagran vide his written statement dated 19.1.2006 while denying the allegation of non-verification of facts on the ground that the complainant remained unavailable, clarified that the news item dated 13.7.2005 was published on the basis of a letter written by Shri Vinay Kumar, President and Shri Kuldeep Kumar, General Secretary of “Bara Bazar Vyapar Sangh” to the Chief Minister of U.P. Similarly the second news item dated 21.8.2005 was based on the Press Release issued by the Bara Bazar Vyapar Sangh. However, they have received a letter dated 20.7.2005 from the complainant for publication of clarification but the said letter did not properly clarify as to what portion of the news item was objectionable to the complainant and it contained his domestic problems. Further the impugned news items did not identify the complainant by name but highlighted the mal-treatment meted out by him towards the Traders’

341 Union recorded in the letter addressed to the Chief Minister of U.P. and the misuse of the position by the complainant to create panic in the market. A copy each of the written statements was forwarded to the complainant on 18.4.2006 (after failing on earlier two attempts on 20.2.2006 and 7.3.2006) for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala. The Inquiry Committee noted that notice of hearing sent to complainant was received back with postal remark “Out of Station”. Since the service was not complete the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava represented Amar Ujala, Moradabad while Shri Anupam Markandey, News Editor appeared for the Dainik Jagran, Moradabad. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representatives of Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran reiterated the submissions made in the written statements. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the respondent newspaper had carried the impugned reports based on the statement given by the local Trade Union. This fact was also mentioned in the complaint itself that the trade union caused publications of the impugned reports. The written statement had not been countered nor had the complainant pursued the matter since filing it. It was of the opinion that since the impugned publications in the respondent newspapers were based on memorandum and Press Release of the Trade Union, the respondents had reasonable basis for the publication of the news reports. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the case being devoid of substance. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

342 100) Shri Lal Chand Pandey Versus The Editor Sub-Registrar (1st) Hamara Yuva District Sadar Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint, dated 2.5.2005 has been filed by Shri Lal Chand Pandey, Sub-Registrar (1st), District Sadar, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh against Hamara Yuva, a Hindi weekly, Muzaffarnagar for publication of a series of allegedly fabricated, false and baseless news items against him with a motive to blackmail him. English translation of the captions of the impugned news items read as follows: Sl. No. Caption Date 1. Shri Lal Chand Pandey, Sub-Registrar (Ist) having 16.3.2005 least knowledge, considers himself above all- If you are honest, declare your whole property. Sub-Registrar Shri Lal Chand Pandey to declare his property. Shri Pandey illegally earns Rs.10,000/- daily. 2. Shri Pandey is making strenuous efforts for his 6.4.2005 transfer. Apprehending CBI inquiry at any time. Lal Chand Pandey threatened Kawar Pal Sharma, Editor, Hamara Yuva to send him to jail. Commissioner and District Magistrate cannot hurt me because I have purchased everyone. I will be highly obliged if Shri Pandey drag me to Allahabad because I have never seen Allahabad. It will help me in tracing Pandey’s illegal property. Sub-Registrar Lal Chand Pandey (Sadar) Ist influenced inquiry by spending lacs: Report 3. Lal Chand Pandey abused the Commissioner 25.4.2005 openly: we said- we cann’t tolerate it. Lal Chand Pandey was threatened by the administration? Will Pandey ji send us to jail, better to save himself, as you sow, so shall you reap. Even we do not like to shake hand with a foolish persons like Lal Chand Pandey, Sub- Registrar: Sharma

343 The complainant alleged that the respondent Chief Editor, Hamara Yuva asked for monthly gratification for publication of favourable reports about his functioning as sub-registrar and on refusal published a series of false and critical reports to defame him. The complainant alleged that the respondent also used unparliamentary language in the news items. Denying the allegations made in impugned reports the complainant submitted that these were totally false and baseless. The complainant alleged that the respondent published the impugned news reports not only to defame him but to blackmail him. The complainant submitted that he issued a letter on 2.6.2005 to the respondent-editor but he failed to respond to the letter of contradiction. According to the complainant he has an excellent and impeccable record as the sub-registrar for the last seven years without any adverse entry in his service book. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 22.7.2005. Written Statement The respondent editor, Hamara Yuva in his written statement dated 8.8.2005 while denying the allegations furnished documents in support of his stand and submitted that whatever had been published was true and it was published in public interest. He stated that he had never demanded any gratification from the complainant. He submitted point-wise reply as under:- a) The Sub-Registrar used unparliamentary language against Commissioner and District Magistrate in front of public. A complaint application from public was enclosed; b) The rejoinder dated 2.6.2005 was sent to office of the newspaper for publication but it was received on 10.06.2005. Due to ill health the publication became irregular and whenever it is resumed the same will be published; c) The allegation of publishing baseless news item was wrong. The news items published against Shri Pandey were true and based on facts; d) No demand for Rs.5,000/- was ever made and complainant may prove it; e) No amount of money had been offered by him to some higher administrative officers as alleged by the complainant; f) The Sub-Registrar had been misusing his position and earned huge amount in last three years by his corrupt activities. A number of administrative inquiries are pending against the complainant for loss of revenue. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.9.2005 for information.

344 Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The respondent in a letter dated 4.6.2007 informed his inability to attend the meeting due to non-availability of reservation during agitation of Gujjars. The respondent, however, also submitted that the newspaper Hamara Yuva had ceased publication since 2005.

The Inquiry Committee noted that the notice of hearing sent to the complainant had been received back with the postal remarks “No officer of this name in Haridwar”. Therefore, in order to ascertain facts, it decided to adjourn the matter.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Kavar Pal Sharma, Editor, Hamara Yuva was appeared before the Inquiry Committee.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The respondent editor informed the Inquiry Committee that the said publication, Hamara Yuva had been closed.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that a copy of the written statement of the respondent editor dated 8.8.2005 was sent to the complainant but the complainant did not file any counter to rebut the statement of the respondent editor. Further, it noted that the notice of hearing sent to the complainant had been received back as he was not traceable. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the complainant failure to keep the Council informed of his address. Under the circumstances it observed that the complainant was not interested to pursue his complaint. Further the paper had also since closed the publication, it therefore, recommends to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

345 101) Mohd. Yusuf Qureshi Versus The Editor General Secretary Dainik Jagran Rashtriya Janata Dal Meerut Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint Mohd. Yusuf Qureshi, General Secretary, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh has filed this complaint dated 27.5.2005 and 21.6.2005 against “Dainik Jagran”, Meerut (U.P.) for publication of a series of baseless, false, defamatory and unverified news items as under which have the tendency to provoke the public:- 1. A photograph with the caption “Harrow-tractor plough over children’s graveyard – bones unearthed.” “City boiling, demand for strict action, SDM summons the contractor and the land owner.” dated 6.5.2005. 2. A photograph with caption “Children burnt with the boiler ashes” dated 6.5.2005. 3. “Boiler ashes under ground started burning – Uproar.” A photograph with caption “Smoke coming out of boiler ashes near the tower at Mawana” dated 19.5.2005. According to the complainant, there was no children’s graveyard and the bones were of a horse and as such there was no question of resentment, as alleged. As regards another news item dated 6.5.2005 regarding boiler ashes, there was no mention of name and address of the child, thus the same was intended to blackmail the Sugar Mills. The third news item dated 19.5.2005 was about a place where a minor fire had broken but the respondent exaggerated it by making it sensational. The complainant has alleged that he had drawn the attention of the respondent editor on 27.5.2005 against the concerned reporter based at Mawana but no action has been taken. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 3.8.2005. Written Statement The respondent resident editor, Dainik Jagran in his written statement dated August, 2005 has stated that the complainant, who claimed to be the National Secretary of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, be asked to show its proof. He has submitted that the news items were published after due verification and therefore the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and baseless. The respondent has stated that the concerned SDM, Mawana P.C.S. Office has got the matter inquired into through Naib Tehsildar and termed the news items to be absolutely true. A copy of the letter dated 13.8.2005 of District Authority has been enclosed

346 by the respondent. An FIR dated 18.7.2005 has been lodged at Police Station, Mawana by Shri Khurshid Alam Bharati under Sections 323/452/504/506 and a case no. 239/2005 has been registered against him. An affidavit/letter from different persons like former MLA and other respectable persons has been attached to substantiate the character of the complainant. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 30.9.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 19.12.2006 has submitted that he has been the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Janata Dal and furnished a copy of the appointment letter dated 6.12.2000. Regarding the inquiry into the incidents reported to be conducted, the complainant stated that the same was published without the notice of the concerned authorities but only in order to get supporting evidence to the news items published by the respondent. The complainant further stated that the impugned news items were false and baseless, defaming him in the public. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 6.6.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that both the parties had requested for adjournment. Acceding to their request the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Shrikant Asthana, Regional News Editor, Dainik Jagran District Meerut, appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent filed a letter dated 22.8.2007 of the complainant wherein the complainant stated that he no longer wished to pursue the complaint against the respondent Dainik Jagran as he was satisfied with the discussion with the editor and settlement had been arrived at.

347 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted from the letter of the complainant that the matter had been compromised between the parties. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to close the complaint. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

102) Smt. Kamla Rani Versus The Editor Block President Dainik Jagran Bhojpur, Modinagar, U.P. Noida Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 16.6.2005 has been filed by Smt. Kamla Rani, Block President, Bhojpur, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh against Dainik Jagran, Noida, Uttar Pradesh alleging publication of an objectionable news item captioned “Block President’s son fired at Nurse” in its issue dated 10.6.2005. While filing copy of the FIR lodged with regard to the incident, the complainant submitted that a case no. 265/05 and 266/05 was registered in Modinagar Police Station, Ghaziabad and it did not contain the name of her son. It was added that the news item was published to tarnish her image as Block President by her political opponents to defame her. She issued a rejoinder dated 11.6.2005 to the respondent editor stating that her son Narender was neither involved in the firing on the nurse nor was arrested as claimed in the impugned news item. The complainant sent her rejoinder by fax to the respondent newspaper twice but it evoked no response and also furnished a copy of the FIR, filed by the victim nurse, wherein the accused is some other person and not the complainant’s son. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Noida on 27.7.2005. No Written Statement The respondent has not filed his written statement in the matter. The Postal Department vide letter dated 19.12.2005 have confirmed that the notice was delivered to the respondent on 30.7.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007

348 at New Delhi. Shri K.P. Singh appeared for the complainant while Shri B.K. Mishra, Legal Advisor represented the respondent Dainik Jagran.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

Shri K.P. Singh appearing for the complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper implicated the son of the complainant, Block President in the incident of shootout that occurred at 8.30 a.m. in the campus whereas the brother of the nurse, who was in possession of illegal “Katta” (mini rifle) had triggered off by mistake. The Block President’s son was not even mentioned in the FIR. He further submitted that the newspaper in its subsequent correction on their protest published it captioned “Narendra Unblemished” without referring to the Block President, thus her name continued to be defamed.

The respondent submitted that the correction had been published in the issues dated 16.6.2005 and 23.6.2005 under the caption “Chikitsaley main goli chalane ke prakaran mein Narender bedag”. The respondent contended that the complainant was satisfied with the publication of rejoinder and had settled the matter. The respondent furnished a copy of the letter dated 3.8.2005 of the complainant stating that she did not want any further action in the matter.

The representative of the complainant questioned the authenticity of the letter. As the contents of these letters dated 3.8.2005 filed before the Inquiry Committee by the respondent’s representative and dated 5.6.2007 addressed to the Press Council of India filed by the representative of the complainant were contrary to each other, the Inquiry Committee, in order to check the veracity of these letters from the complainant decided to adjourn the matter and directed that the complainant should personally appear before the Committee at the next hearing.

Accordingly a letter dated 3.8.2007 was issued to the complainant to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee to appear before the Committee.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, Shri Birender Kumar Mishra Advocate, appeared for the respondent Dainik Jagran, Noida, U.P.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

Learned counsel appearing for Dainik Jagran submitted that the complainant was not interested to pursue the complaint, as she was satisfied with the publication of her rejoinder.

349 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that pursuant to proceedings on the last hearing, the complainant was addressed a letter dated 3.8.2007 intimating the contrary statements made by the parties on 5.6.2007 before it, and had asked the complainant in order to ascertain the veracity of the documents, to personally remain present at the next hearing. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant did not appear before it despite service of notice nor had she confirmed the correctness of editor’s statement. The Committee therefore was not inclined to proceed with the matter. It recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Further Development An affidavit dated 23.8.2007 received after the hearing of the matter from the complainant, Smt. Kamla Rani stating therein that the respondent Dainik Jagran had published false, concocted and defamatory news on 10.6.2005 against her family. The complainant further submitted that the corrigendum published by Dainik Jagran was not so prominent as the impugned news item. The complainant stated that the incident reported in the news item had nothing to do with her family. The complainant denied having written any letter dated 3.8.2005 settling the matter and stated that the said letter submitted before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 by the respondent was fake. The complainant requested for action against the respondent newspaper. The Council perused the record of the case, report of the Inquiry Committee and the contents of the affidavit of the complainant. The Council opined that the complainant should have appeared personally before the Inquiry Committee for making deposition. It however noted that the complainant in the affidavit had categorically denied having settled the matter. The Council while disapproving the conduct of the respondent Dainik Jagran in submitting the alleged fake letter dated 3.8.2005 of the complainant advised the respondent newspaper that the newspapers are expected under the norms of right of reply to give due prominence to the contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder. The published rejoinder was not in conformity with these. The Council observed that newspapers are expected to keep in mind the norms of journalistic ethics universally recognized. However, it felt that at this point of time no purpose will be served by directing the respondent to publish it again. The Council decided to allow the matter to rest here. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

350 103) Sister Shalini, H.C. Versus The Editor Headmistress Dainik Jagran St. Teresa’s Girls High School Patna, Bihar Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 25.2.2006 has been filed by Sister Shalini, H. C., Headmistress, St. Teresa’s Girls High School, Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar against “Dainik Jagran”, Hindi daily alleging publication of false, baseless and malicious news report captioned “ljdkjh fo|ky; esa f’k{kk ds O;kikj ls vkØks’k” (Resentment against business of education in the government run school – English translation) in its issue dated 3.1.2006. According to the complainant, the respondent newspaper charged that being a government school, it was extracting Rs. 1,350/- as admission fee while the other government schools charged only Rs. 100/-as admission fee. She has submitted that their school is not a government school but a government aided minority school where the government is providing salaries to some approved teachers for the sanctioned posts which are comparatively less than salaries received by teachers of the government schools. The complainant further stated that their school does not receive any other financial support from the government for its development and maintenance. Therefore, they took some extra money from the students for the development purpose and Rs. 1,000/- caution money at the time of admission of the students, which is refunded when they leave the school and thus the actual admission fee is Rs. 350/- only. The complainant alleged that the news item, which stated that the school is extracting Rs. 1350/- as admission fee, is totally false and misleading which tarnished their image. Theirs is the first school in Bihar that began imparting education to girls in 1940s. The complainant also stated that the accusation that the school is unfairly charging money in the name of school uniforms and is forbidding the guardians from getting the uniforms from outside, is totally false. The truth is that their school does not take money for the uniforms, but in order to maintain quality and uniformity, it counsels the guardians to get the uniforms made at a local “Knitting Centre”, which is being run to help widows and destitute women, and no guardian has ever protested/lodged any complaint in this regard, added the complainant. She also denied the charge of protest staged by the guardians and asserted that the photograph is of parents/guardians and students who had been called for admission that was conducted peacefully. The complainant submitted that a rejoinder dated 11.1.2006 was sent to the respondent pointing out the objectionable contents in the report with a request to publish the same but the respondent neither published the same nor gave any reply.

351 Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Patna on 31.3.2006. Written Statement In his undated written statement, received in the Sectt. of the Council on 14/6/06, the Editor-In-Charge, ‘Dainik Jagran’, Muzaffarpur submitted that the news-item in question was also published in other newspapers. The respondent submitted that they published the news item in question in public interest and for public welfare. The respondent further submitted that the news item in question is absolutely true and has been published on the basis of the facts. He concluded by saying that by publishing the news item they exhibited the true facts before the public. He alleged that the complainant made this complaint due to biased attitude. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was sent to the complainant on 23/6/2006 for information. Counter Comments In her counter comments dated 1.8.2006, the complainant submitted that the allegation levelled by the respondent that the security of Rs. 1,000/- deposited by each student at the time of admission is never refunded to them is the most malicious and a total lie based on his revengeful prejudices against their minority Christian school. She has submitted that the respondent jumped to such a false conclusion without verifying the facts on records which he could easily do if he had contacted them. The complainant further stated that there is no complaint petition against their school pending with the District Magistrate or District Education Officer, as alleged by the respondent in his written statement. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 24.8.2006. Counter of the Respondent to the Counter Comments of the Complainant In his counter dated 25.9.2006 to the counter comments of the complainant, the respondent-Editorial-In-Charge, Dainik Jagran reiterated that the impugned news item was published with due care and impartially and contended that the list attached by the complainant containing the names of students to whom refund has been paid did not contain their signature. The list appeared to have been prepared in haphazard manner and therefore its authenticity was in doubt. He has requested the Council to dismiss the case. A copy of the counter of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 8.12.2006 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. 352 The complainant in her letter dated 24.4.2007 intimated that due to some sudden exigencies, she was unable to attend the hearing. The complainant requested to hear the case after May 15th, 2007. The Inquiry Committee acceding to her request, decided to adjourn the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Prakash Chand Dubey, Advocate, appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Dainik Jagran. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the allegation made in the impugned news report that the school was charging excess fee and was not refunding caution money was totally false and misleading and had tarnished their image. The school has filed documents before the Council that makes it abundantly clear that the caution money was refunded to the students. Further, theirs was not a government school but a government-aided school and the free structure was as per norms. The counsel further submitted that the photographs of allegedly agitating students were also not correct as it was photograph of the students entering into school for routine assembly. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the counsel for the complainant, directed that the audited accounts may be filed by the complainant school to establish the fact that the caution money was actually refunded to the student who had applied for it. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter accordingly. Accordingly the complainant was requested vide Council’s letter dated 6.8.2007 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Final Hearing The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant vide her letter dated 20.8.2007 submitted the audited report in respect of caution money that the school had recovered and refunded during the past three years.

DETAILS OF CAUTION MONEY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2005 Amount (Rs) Received during the year 169,000.00 Repaid during the year 126,400.00

353 FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2006 Received during the year 172,240.00 Repaid during the year 143,740.00

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2007 Received during the year 191,000.00 Repaid during the year 150,100.00

The complainant also submitted that caution money had been refunded in accordance with the number of students leaving her school and applying for the refund during the said period. The complainant submitted that the audit report of her chartered accountant would indicate that the said school has been regularly refunding the caution money to the students whenever they leave the school and apply for it. The complainant submitted that this would prove her complaint that the concerned newspapers indulged in malicious reporting.

Recommendations of Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that from the documents, it was established that the respondent Dainik Jagran had published unsubstantiated news report against the complainant school without verifying the facts. The Inquiry Committee observed that the Press must endeavour to cross check and verify the correctness of its report so as not to unfairly damage the reputation of an institution. The Inquiry Committee also observed that it was a fit case for respondent to publish the rejoinder of the complainant school following the norms of journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee therefore directed the complainant to send a rejoinder to the respondent editor for its publication and the respondent editor to cause publication of the same within a fortnight of its receipt. The respondent was further directed to send a copy of the newspaper carrying the clarification to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the above directions.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

354 104) Sister Shalini H.C. Versus The Editor Headmistress Hindustan St. Teresa’s Girl High School Muzzafarpur Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar Bihar

Complaint

This complaint dated 25.2.2006 has been filed by Sister Shalini H.C., Headmistress, St. Teresa’s Girls High School, Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar against Hindustan, Muzzafarpur alleging publication of malicious news report captioned ‘Agitation regarding the amount for admission’ (English translation) in its issue dated 3.1.2006.

It has been alleged in the impugned news item that, despite being government aided, the school is collecting Rs. 1350/- as admission fee, which is in violation of the government rules and laws. According to the complainant, the government is providing salaries only to some approved teachers, which are less, compared to the salaries of the government school teachers. Besides, the school does not receive any other financial support from the government for the development and maintenance of the school. However, they charged extra money from the students for the development purpose, stated the complainant and added that they took Rs. 350/- at the time of admission in class VI. The remaining amount of Rs. 1000/- is also collected as caution money at the time of admission, which is refunded to the students when they leave the school. She has alleged that the news item, which stated that the school is extracting Rs.1350/- as admission fee, is totally false and misleading. This has tarnished the image of the school, which is the first school in Bihar that began imparting education to girls since 1940s. The complainant also stated that the accusation that the school is unfairly charging money in the name of school uniform and is forbidding the guardians from getting the uniforms from outside, is totally false. The truth is that the school does not charge for the uniforms, but in order to maintain quality and uniformity, it advised the guardians to get the uniforms made at a local ‘Knitting Center’, which is being run to help widows and destitute women and no guardian has ever protested/ lodged any complaint in this regard, added the complainant.

The complainant has stated that they sent a rejoinder dated 11.1.2006, pointing out the objectionable contents in the report with a request to publish the same but the respondent neither published nor gave any reply to the rejoinder. She has alleged that the impugned news item was published for maliciously maligning the image of their school.

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 31.3.2006. The respondent has not filed his written statement in the matter.

355 Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in her letter-dated 24.4.2007 intimated that due to some sudden exigencies, she was unable to attend the hearing. The complainant requested to hear the case after May 15th, 2007. The Inquiry Committee acceding to her request, decided to adjourn the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Prakash Chand Dubey, Advocate, appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Hindustan. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the allegation made in the impugned news report that the school was charging excess fee and was not refunding caution money was totally false and misleading and had tarnished their image. The school has filed documents before the Council that makes it abundantly clear that the caution money was refunded to the students. Further, theirs was not a government school but a government-aided school and the fee structure was as per norms. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the counsel for the complainant, directed that the audited accounts may be filed by the complainant school to establish the fact that the caution money was actually refunded to the students who had applied for it. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter accordingly. Accordingly the complainant was requested vide Council’s letter dated 6.8.2007 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Final Hearing The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant vide her letter dated 20.8.2007 submitted the audited report in respect of caution money that the school had recovered and refunded during the past three years. DETAILS OF CAUTION MONEY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2005 Amount (Rs) Received during the year 169,000.00 Repaid during the year 126,400.00

356 FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2006 Received during the year 172,240.00 Repaid during the year 143,740.00 FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2007 Received during the year 191,000.00 Repaid during the year 150,100.00 The complainant also submitted that caution money had been in accordance with the number of students leaving her school and applying for the refund during the said period. The complainant submitted that the audit report of her chartered accountant would vindicate that the said school has been regularly refunding the caution money to the students whenever they leave the school and apply for it. The complainant submitted that this would prove her complaint that the concerned newspapers indulged in malicious reporting. Recommendations of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that from the documents, it was established that the respondent Hindustan had published unsubstantiated news report against the complainant school without verifying the facts. The Inquiry Committee observed that the Press must endeavour to cross check and verify the correctness of its report so as not to unfairly damage the reputation of an institution. The Inquiry Committee also observed that it was a fit case for respondent to publish rejoinder of the complainant school following the norms of journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee therefore directed the complainant to send a rejoinder to the respondent editor for its publication and the respondent editor to cause publication of the same within a fortnight of its receipt. The respondent was further directed to send a copy of the newspaper carrying the clarification to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the above directions. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

105) Shri V.H. Dalmia Versus The Editor Vishwa Hindu Parishad The Times of India New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 29.12.2005 has been filed by Shri V.H. Dalmia, Vishwa

357 Hindu Parishad, New Delhi against The Times of India alleging publication of an objectionable write-up under the column ‘The Speaking Tree’ captioned “Take Cue from Panchkanyas On Women’s Liberty” in its issue dated 24.12.2005. The objected portion of the write-up read as follows: “There is the popular legend of the great love between Radha and Krishna. Radha was married to Govardhan but had the deepest love for Krishna. According to Puranic folklore, Radha once caught her husband spying on her while she and Krishna were making love. Radha reacted by hitting Govardhan and in the ensuing scuffle, her husband died. Repenting the loss of life of her husband, Radha later got back his life through prayer. The message is clear. No one has the right to spy on another or question an individual’s love choice. Love and sex are personal choices between consenting adults”. According to the complainant the impugned write-up had also mentioned the names of other spiritual women i.e. Draupadi, Ahaliya, Kunti, Tara and Mandodari as having premarital or extramarital sexual relationship. The complainant submitted that all these are figment of imagination of the writer only to defame the Hindu Religious Deities. He has further stated that no newspaper should have published such material, which denigrates Hindu religion, without verifying the facts, which hurts Hindus’ religious sentiments. The complainant also alleged that no newspaper would dare to publish any such thing against any other religion. The complainant while citing an example publication of a rejoinder to a picture of a body tattoo by The Times of India issue dated 7.2.2006 under the heading “A clarification” admitted to their mistake for having included a holy Islamic evocation in Arabic and published a quick apology rejoinder. However, in the instant case respondent did not accept their mistake nor apologized publically even after his attention was drawn towards the impugned publication. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India, New Delhi on 31.3.2006 but no written statement has been filed. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee held on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Miss Neha Khatri, advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent The Times of India. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the respondent was not present but they wished to argue the matter in the presence of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford last opportunity of hearing to the respondent newspaper, decided to adjourn the matter.

358 The respondent editor, The Times of India and its legal department were reminded vide Council’s letter dated 29.5.2007 to file the written statement in the matter and to ensure presence of their representative on the next date of hearing. Despite forwarding another copy of complaint to the legal department of The Times of India vide Council’s letter dated 13.6.2007 on their own request letter dated 5.6.2007, no document has been filed. Written Statement The Inquiry Committee noted that The Times of India had filed written statement on 25.6.2007 denying the contents of the complaint as contained in its various paragraphs. It contended that the article dated 24th December 2005 under the heading “The Speaking Tree” was published in The Times of India, in sectarian light and to enlighten and broaden the horizon of each section and segment of readership, and not to hurt anyone’s sentiments. The respondent submitted that it would be difficult and suicidal for the freedom of a secular press to atone its reports and articles in the way they are being described in the complaint. The respondent further submitted that the interpretation of mythology cannot be monopolized in democratic society which have many folk and local versions of the same, to just cite an illustration:- The complainant claims that Radha was married to Lord Krishan but according to the Brahmavaivartha Purana the name of Radha’s husband was Sudama, he was a gopa. According to a Gujarati Scholar Shri Dinkar Joshi, a member of the Gujarat Sahitya Parishad and a scholar of the Gujarat Theosophical Society, Radha’s husband was one Shri Rayan. Mr. Joshi too has mentioned him as a gopa. Hence, there were three different versions of the same relationship. The respondent submitted that the article was based on mythological books written by various authors and the newspaper has a duty to create awareness among its readers as a responsible newspaper. The respondent vehemently denied that the said article was published to hurt the religious sentiments of any community. The respondent further submitted that the role of responsible media is to inform and enlighten its readers about current events, social stigmas, superstitions, general knowledge, mythology and culture and show new and progressive path to the society at large. The respondent has further submitted that the newspaper has great respect for every religion since it is the very essence of our secular and democratic fabric of our country and it is definitely not the intention to destroy the secular fabric of our country. In view of above, the respondent advocate had requested the Council to drop the proceeding against The Times of India. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. Ms. Divya Kesar, Advocate appeared for the complainant and requested for an opportunity to file counter to the written statement.

359 The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the complainant, decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. S/Shri Acharya Sohan Lal Ram Rang appeared along with Amit Verma and Brij Mohan Singh, Advocate for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, The Times of India. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the newspaper had no proof in support of their write up. Shri Acharya Sohan Lal Ram Rang raising reference to the written statement sought to present detailed reference to other scholarly works that contested the submissions of The Times of India. The Inquiry Committee however noted that the complainant was afforded an opportunity to file the rejoinder to the written statement in the matter on its own request but it did not do so. The Inquiry Committee opined that the proper course was that the complainant should have filed his rejoinder and provided a copy to the other side for arguments. In the absence of any written rejoinder from the complainant, the Inquiry Committee was not inclined to proceed with the matter. It, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

106) Smt. Hemambika R. Priya Versus The Editor Official Spokesperson The Pioneer Central Board of Excise & Customs New Delhi Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 1.12.2006 has been filed by Smt. Hemambika R.Priya, Spokesperson, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India against “The Pioneer”, New Delhi alleging publication of irresponsible and malicious investigative report in its issue dated 28.11.2006 captioned ‘Vedanta scandal back to haunt FM’ with sub heading ‘Why is Govt. dragging its feet on recovering huge tax dues?’ referring to an evasion case booked by it alleging that Government has dragged its feet in recovering the sums due to it.

360 According to the complainant the impugned news article is full of factual inaccuracies and published with intent to malign the image of the Finance Minister and the Ministry of Finance, rather than for its intrinsic news value. The incorrect points which appeared in the impugned article as well as the factual position read as follows: S.No. Incorrect points appearing Factual position in the article 1. Documents with The Pioneer The fact is that it was reveal that the Finance Ministry primarily on account of the has dragged its feet on recovering stay granted by the Hon’ble huge amounts of Central Excise High Court of Bombay that and Custom Duties from the the dues could not be Aurangabad-based Vedanta Group recovered. Company, M/s Sterlite Optical Technologists Ltd. (SOTL) 2. After completion of the The Commissioner vide investigation, the Excise and order dated 11.7.2003 Customs Commissioner of confirmed the demand of Aurangabad directed M/s SOTL Rs. 240 crores as excise duty to pay Rs 240.4 crore of Central liability and Rs. 9.26 crores Excise and Rs. 9.26 Crore of as the customs duty liability. Customs Duty including fine On an appeal being filed, and penalty on July 11, 2003. the Customs, Excise and On Sterlite’s appeal, the Central Service Tax Appellate Excise component was brought Tribunal (CESTAT) vide down to Rs 199 crore. order dated 17.6.2005, confirmed the demand of Rs. 188 crores (Rs 84.34 crores, penalty of Rs. 84.34 crores and reduced the redemption fine to Rs.20 crore) as regards the customs duty, the CESTAT directed that the liability may be adjudicated afresh. 3. The Commissioner also did not The Department made enforce the bond of Rs. 145 crore, demands upon the company executed by M/s SOTL to cover on 27.6.2005 and 30.6.2005 the amount of duty involved in to recover tax dues. Efforts bringing in duty free imports. were also made to enforce

361 the bank guarantee given by the assesses. At this stage, the company filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. By order dated 21.7.2005, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the Department should not take any coercive action till the statutory period for filing an appeal against the order of the CESTAT had expired. Meanwhile, the company was directed to keep all bank guarantees alive. 4. The Finance Minister said on The company filed an November 9th this year that the appeal against the order of matter was sub-judice and the CESTAT before the Hon’ble court had stayed the demand High Court of Bombay. The made on M/s SOTL. The Mumbai Hon’ble Court by an order- court had also transferred the case dated 12.8.2005 granted to Aurangabad Bench. Incidentally, an interim order of stay on Mr. Chidambaram had argued for recovery of dues, and the stay and was successful in permitted the party to use obtaining it. the confiscated capital goods. Shri Harish Salve, Shri Rohan Shah, Shri Tarun Gulati and Shri M.R.Baya argued for the appellant. Shri P. Chidambaram was already the Finance Minister, and therefore the allegation that he argued the case and was successful in obtaining the stay is totally false and malicious. 5. The Finance Minister has stated The DGFT is an attached that the Director General of office of the Ministry of Foreign Trade (DGFT) will Commerce and Industry,

362 decide the issue before the and not Ministry of Finance. customs authorities could On the question of re- pass a fresh adjudication determining the liability of order. Mr. Chidambaram says customs duty, the matter that he has requested the DGFT relating the eligibility of to make an early ‘determination’ M/s SOTL to an export so that further action could be Promotion Capital Goods taken to re-adjudicate the Customs (EPCG) licence as well as Duty liability. It is baffling that, the issue relating to DGFT, which comes under the fulfillment of the export Finance Ministry, has been dragging obligation under the EPCG its feet despite Mr. Chidambaram’s licence have to be decided claim of personal interest in by the Directorate General expediting the matter. of Foreign Trade (DGFT) before the customs authorities can pass a fresh adjudication order. This department has regularly been pursuing with DGFT to decide the matter expeditiously. 6. While the Finance Ministry has As the case was not taken claimed that the department up by the Aurangabad instructed the counsel to file an Bench for a long time application before the Chief Justice despite efforts by the of the Bombay High Court seeking Department, the Chief transfer of the matter to a bench Commissioner took up the of the High Court dealing with matter with the Chief revenue matters on a regular basis, Justice of the High Court it is not clear when the instruction of Bombay who advised was issued and when it was that an appropriate complied with. application may be filed before the Chief Justice in his administrative capacity. The legal counsel on behalf of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad filed an application seeking transfer of the matter from the Aurangabad Bench to a Bench of the High Court of

363 Bombay, which deals with revenue matters on 10.11.2006, and the case was heard on 23.11.2006. The Bench has given two week’s time to the opposite party to file a counter, the case is likely to be heard in mid-December. 7. Disclosures in a book, Vedanta’s Mr. Chidambaram has Billions, states that the Finance already clarified in the Rajya Minister had served as a Director Sabhya that when he was a of a company Vedanta Resources, private citizen and not and drawn huge perks, holding any public office Mr. Chidambaram reportedly drew and not even a Member of US $ 70,000 annually as non- Parliament, he was invited to Executive Director of the company. be a non-official Director of Vedanta Resources. He was non-executive Director of the company for a short period from 10.12.2003 to 22.5.2004. Upon his election to the Parliament in May 2004 and before he accepted public office, he tendered his resignation on 22.5.2004. He also declined to accept any remuneration for the short period that he was non-executive Director.

The complainant has alleged that the news item was published by respondent-editor without verifying the facts or obtaining the versions of the concerned before the publication in a clear case of misuse of freedom of the Press. The complainant has further submitted that the Department had drawn the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned publication on the same day i.e. 28.11.2006 giving factual position with the request to publish its clarification in the newspaper with equal prominence but neither the respondent published her clarification nor gave any reply. In her further letter dated 21.12.2006, the complainant submitted as a supplementary complaint that The Pioneer has published the rejoinder sent by this department on 5.12.2006. However, this rejoinder was

364 not published in its entirety was not a true presentation of the facts furnished by CBEC and the selective publication presented a biased and premeditated conclusion with the intent to escape liability on account of wrong and malicious reporting done originally. The omissions highlighted with reference to the rejoinder were:- • After the order of CESTAT, the Department made demands upon the company on 27.6.2005 and 30.6.2005 to recover tax dues. • Efforts were also made to enforce the bank gurantee given by the assessee. At this stage, the company filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. By order dated 21.7.2005, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the Department should not take any coercive action till the statutory period for filing an appeal against the order of the CESTAT had expired. Meanwhile, the company was directed to keep all bank gurantees alive. • The High Court permitted the party to use the confiscated capital goods. • Shri Harish Salve, Shri Rohan Shah, Shri Tarun Gulati and Shri M.R. Baya, argued for the appellant seeking stay on the CESTAT order, and not Shri P. Chidambaram as mentioned in the article. • The High Court then passed an order transferring the case to the Augangabad Bench of the High Court because the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench. However, the interim relief granted to the company was not withdrawn by the High Court. • The Department has been regularly pursuing with DGFT to decide the matter relating to the eligibility of M/s SOTL to an Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) licence as well as the issue relating to fulfilment of the export obligation under the EPCG licence before the customs authorities pass a fresh adjudication order. • Shri P. Chidambaram declined to accept any remuneration for the short period that he was a non-executive Director from 10.12.2003 to 22.5.2004. Written Statement In reply to the show cause notice dated 19.12.2006 the respondent Managing Director & Editor, The Pioneer, New Delhi vide his written statement dated 29.1.2007 submitted that they had published the detailed clarification of the complainant on 5.12.2006 as assured on 30.11.2006 by e-mail but the complainant chose to file a complaint before the Press Council. He has denied the allegation of oblique motive behind the publication of the impugned news item and asserted that the report had been carried as the issue had agitated members of Parliament,

365 concerned about the various aspects of the disclosures made in the book “Vedanta Billions”. Counter Comments The complainant, in her counter comments dated 14.3.2007 reiterated that the rejoinder was issued on the same day the original article had appeared in the newspaper, with a request to the respondent in the interest of fairness and propriety, for its publication in the following day’s edition with equal prominence. However, it was published only after a lapse of six days, in a selective manner with material omissions, in order to present a biased and premeditated conclusion. She has further asserted that through the comments published together the rejoinder, the respondent editor had used the opportunity to further malign the Ministry of Finance. She again requested the Council to take necessary action against the newspaper. Reply to Counter Comments The respondent, in his reply dated 11.6.2007 to the counter comments of the complainant, stated that the rejoinder furnished by the complainant to the news article was promptly published, at a prominent place with comments from the concerned reporter which proved that ample care and attention has been paid to the rejoinder and has been treated with all seriousness despite the fact that it was evasive on several issues. He also stated that the grievance of the complainant appeared to be that the rejoinder has not been published in full and has added that the relevant contents / comments in the rejoinder have been published. Moreover, there is no right vested in the complainant to seek a full publication of the rejoinder added the respondent. The respondent further stated that the attitude of the complainant appeared to be vindictive as after the dispatch of the rejoinder, she did not wait for its publication. Although an official assurance was given for publication of the rejoinder, the complainant had immediately filed the complaint before the Council. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Gaurav Duggal, Advocate for the complainant vide letter dated 23.7.2007 sought adjournment on the ground of self illness. S/Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Manager-HRD and Upmanyu Hazarika, Advocate appeared for the respondent, The Pioneer. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the complainant’s counsel and decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.8.2007. Shri Gaurav Duggal, Advocate appeared for the

366 complainant. Shri Upmanyu Hazarika, Advocate appeared for the respondent, The Pioneer. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee At the outset, the respondent raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint, citing the ruling of the apex court in “R.Rajgopal Vs. State of T.N. & Ors” (1994) where the court had limited the right of the government and its organs seeking remedy against defamation. The second ground for objection was that the matter was sub-judice and the Press Council was thus restrained from considering the complaint under Section 14(3) of the Press Council Act. The complainant countered in response that the complaint had been moved not for defamation of the department or the Finance Minister, but on the grounds of inaccuracy in the impugned report and the subsequent truncated publication of the rejoinder. The second objection was countered by saying that the impugned publication was not sub-judice. On merits of the case, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the impugned report was based primarily on information contained in a letter written by a parliamentarian and a book titled “Vendanta’s Billions”. Proceeding on the above, the respondent’s reporter had drawn up the above report but had not cared to take the version or ascertain the facts from the concerned department. The carelessness with which the report had been drawn up was apparent from the basic fallacies that even the department involved had not been correctly associated with the Ministry concerned and the name of the lawyer who had signed the stay application of M/s. SOTL had been wrongly mentioned as Mr. Chidambaram. This indicated that the report had been prepared with some pre-conceived notion. When the department sought publication of its version, very material facts, that affected the credibility of the report, were omitted in the publication delayed by six days. The most material of this was that the department had duly pursued the matter for recovery; that the Finance Minister had not argued the stay application and that he had not accepted any remuneration from M/s. SOTL for the period he functioned as non-executive Director. The respondent’s counsel countered that the impugned publication was based on an investigation conducted with due care and caution on a matter of vital public interest and importance. Some inaccuracies had crept in into the report, therefore, the rejoinder sent by the government was published with prominence with the newspaper’s own response to it. He again cited the observations of the court in Auto Shanker case, supra to contend that correction was also not a right which the government could claim. The respondent concluded with the submission that the matter may be allowed to rest with the rejoinder published. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Council considered the matter on the basis of the records and oral

367 submissions before it. It first dealt with issue of maintainability with reference to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the rights of the government and its organs to sue for defamation. It observed that even before the cited ruling of October 7, 1994 on the point of law, the Council had considered the matter from the ethical perspective in May 1994 in ‘Medikeri Muncipal Committee Vs. Shakti’ and upheld the right of the free press to fair comments and criticism of the functioning of bodies exercising governmental functions. It observed that certainly the public servants and the government department are not expected to maintain a suit for damages for defamation touching the discharge of their public duty and functions which must in a democracy, necessarily be open to critical evaluation and public security. This is a right the public rightly expects to exercise through the medium of the press – print or electronic. However, at the same time it is essential to distinguish between defamation and inaccuracy. The press as a custodian of public interest and a protector of its rights is also expected to bring correct information to its notice so that it is able to correctly judge those to whom it has entrusted the responsibility of running the country. To this, the public authorities are certainly entitled. On the second point of maintainability under Section 14(3) of the Press Council Act, the Committee noted that the sub-judice matter pertained to the dues of M/s. SOTL. The Inquiry Committee was neither expected nor required to judge that issue in any manner. Its mandate was to examine the compliance with the tenets of journalism by the respondent in carrying the impugned report. Thus, the Committee decided not to accept the plea of non- maintainability on both the counts. On merits, the Committee proceeded with the matter accepting the bonafide of the paper for public good. It further noted that the impugned publication claimed to be ‘Pioneer Investigation’, thus attracting the parameters drawn up and defined by the Press Council in ‘R.C.Bhargava, Chairman, Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs. The Statesman; July 1993’. The relevant portion may be quoted here with advantage : - Investigative reporting has three basic elements. a. It has to be the work of the reporter, not of others he is reporting; b. The subject should be of public importance for the reader to know; c. An attempt is being made to hide the truth from the people. Norms follow as a natural corollary requiring : - (a) That the investigative reporter should, as a rule, base his story on facts investigated, detected and verified by himself and not on hearsay or on derivative evidence collected by a third party, not checked up from direct, authentic sources by the reporter himself.

368 (b) The newspaper must adopt strict standards of fairness and accuracy of facts. Findings should be presented in an objective manner, without exaggerating or distorting, that would stand up in a Court of law, if necessary. (c) The reporter must not approach the matter or the issue under investigation, in a manner as though he was the prosecutor or counsel for the prosecution. The reporter’s approach should be fair, accurate and balanced. All facts properly checked up, both for and against the core issues, should be distinctly and separately stated, free from any one-sided inferences or unfair comments. The tone and tenor of the report and its language should be sober, decent and dignified, and not needlessly offensive, barbed, derisive or castigatory, particularly while commenting on the version of the person whose alleged activity or misconduct is being investigated. Nor should the investigative reporter conduct the proceedings and pronounce his verdict of guilt or innocence against the person whose alleged criminal acts and conduct were investigated, in a manner as if he was a court trying the accused. Also necessary to quote here is the norm on Right of Reply: - “i) The newspaper should promptly and with due prominence, publish either in full or with due editing, free of cost, at the instance of the person affected or feeling aggrieved/or concerned by the impugned publication, a contradiction/reply/ clarification or rejoinder sent to the editor in the form of a letter or note. If the editor doubts the truth or factual accuracy of the contradiction/ reply/clarification or rejoinder, he shall be at liberty to add separately at the end, a brief editorial comment doubting its veracity, but only when this doubt is reasonably founded on unimpeachable documentary or other evidential material in his/ her possession. This is a concession which has to be availed of sparingly with due discretion and caution in appropriate cases”. The matter was considered by the Committee taking all the factors into consideration. It observed that there was no reason before it to doubt the bonafide of the respondent. It is, however, not just desirable but essential that to protect its own credibility, the press regulates and guides itself by the universally accepted most basic tenets of journalistic conduct. The Committee felt that adjudged against the norms quoted above, the newspaper had faulted on two counts, one, the report lacked accuracy on some counts which were material to the story and the course of investigation, and second, when these errors were pointed out in the

369 rejoinder, the omission deprived the complainant an opportunity to clarify the matter and establish its bonafide before the public. The press has to remember that it is not a prosecutor in any investigation and should be guided by the paramount principle of a person’s innocence unless the alleged offence is proved beyond doubt by independent reliable evidence and, therefore, even within the constraint of space, the material facts should find space in the rejoinder so that the public, as the ultimate judge of any matter, is guided by the complete and accurate facts in forming its opinion. The readers’ right to know all sides of any issue of public importance is a natural corollary of the freedom enjoyed by the press in a democracy. For the foregoing reasons, the Committee recommends to the Council to direct the respondent editor, The Pioneer under Section 14(2) of the Press Council Act, 1978, to republish the rejoinder of the complainant within a fortnight of the service of Council’s adjudication giving due reference to the impugned publication of the rejoinder with a note that this is being published on the directions of the Press Council of India. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decides taking all the factors into consideration, to direct the respondent editor, The Pioneer, New Delhi, to publish within a fortnight from the date of service of adjudication prominently on the front page, the gist of its adjudication in the newspaper, highlighting the portions omitted from the rejoinder of the complainant and the observations of the Council.

107) Shri Govind Bihari Nigam Versus The Editor Vice Chairman Punjab Kesari Kali Charan Nigam Institute of Delhi Technology, Banda, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 26.9.05 has been filed by Shri Govind Bihari Nigam, Vice Chairman, Kali Charan Nigam Institute of Technology, Banda (U.P.) against Punjab Kesari, Delhi for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items in its issues dated 19.2.05, 1.7.05 and 1.8.05 captioned “Engineering College Ki 21 Lakh Ki R.C. Kati,” “Donation Ke Naam par Chhatron ko thag raha hai Kalicharan Nigam Institute” and “Avyavastha hi Avyaasha, Naam ke liye sirf Engineering College” respectively. The allegations in the first news item dated 19.2.05 is though time barred and second news item dated 1.7.05 have been repeated in the last news item dated 1.8.05. According to the reporter that the Government issued a R.C. (Recovery Certificate) of Rs. 21 lacs (penalty) to the

370 college that it was robbing the students in the name of donation. It has been further reported that Harijan Act and Land Mafia Act should be applied on the management. The impugned news item alleged that smack, charas, opium, heroin and explosives were being smuggled through the underground godown of the College. Further it has been alleged that the Institute does not have proper infrastructure such as play ground, swimming pool, AC Library, 500 computers as claimed. The impugned publication also alleged that there is no teaching in the college due to lack of a good teachers. According to the complainant, the impugned reports have been published by the respondent with a view to blackmail him and his institution. The complainant denied all the allegations levelled against them in the impugned publication. He stated that the respondent published the impugned news items without any proof and pre-publication verification which caused irreparable loss to the prestige of their institution. The complainant submitted that Shri Sumit Srivastava met with an accident with Tractor, approximately one kilometer distance from the College complex who was later on declared dead by the doctor and the College had initiated adequate action on receiving the information. An amount of rupees one lac as compensation was given to Srivastava’s father due to the efforts made by the College, thus the allegation levelled in the impugned publication that the college had not taken any action is totally false and baseless. The allegation levelled in the impugned news item that the building of the college is situated on Harijan’s land is also false and has been published with the sole motive to defame the institution. He alleged that publication of such news item shows that the respondent has indulged in yellow journalism and his main aim was to extort the money through this tactics. He submitted that attention of the respondent editor was drawn on 30.8.05 towards the impugned publication but he did not publish his denial. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari, Delhi on 30.11.05 but he did not file his written statement in the matter despite a Time Bound Reminder dated 5.7.2006. Written Statement Later the respondent Director, Punjab Kesari in his reply dated 4.7.2007 submitted that the reasons given by the complainant for delay in filing the complaint were illogical, baseless as he during the period had filed an application before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Banda, Uttar Pradesh which is still pending. According to the respondent the contentious issues raised in the complaint by the complainant are the subject matter in a pending matter no.197 of 2005 filed by the complainant before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent also forwarded a copy of the notice along with the application filed by the complainant in the court.

371 The respondent alleged that the complainant while filing the complaint with Press Council of India concealed the material facts about pending of the matter before the court. The respondent while reserving the right to file a detailed reply, requested the Council to drop the inquiry in the matter being sub-judice. Complainant’s Reply Dated 20.7.2007 The complainant in response to the notice for hearing submitted in his letter dated 20.7.2007 that no pre-publication verification had been done by the respondent reporter. In fact the reporter filed complaints in different govt. departments and after the inquiry all complaints had been found false and imaginary, thus closed. According to the complainant no proof had been filed by the respondent newspaper in support of the impugned publications. The complainant clarified that no matter was pending before any court of law at the time of filing this complaint and he had not hidden any facts while filing the affidavit. The complainant further submitted that the matter filed before the Court of Law is related to the compensation and it is not related to the matter being considered by the Press Council of India. The complainant requested to provide him a copy of the reply filed by the respondent and requested to adjourn the matter to enable him to present his case. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.07.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant vide his letter dated 20.07.2007 requested for adjournment. He contested the respondents claim that the matter was sub-judice. S/Shri Parvinder Sharda and Harsh Chopra, Sub-Editor appeared for the Punjab Kesari. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the complainant, decided to adjourn the matter. The matter is again placed before the Inquiry Committee for consideration, if the case filed by the complainant before Court of Law for compensation due to defamatory publication of the news item which is also subject matter of dispute before Press Council, will be treated as matter being sub judice. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.08.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate and Shri Ashok Sharma appeared for the Punjab Kesari. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter was pending in the Court of Civil Judge and therefore the proceedings attracted the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Press Council Act that debar the Council from considering any matter which is sub-judice.

372 Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee directed the editor, Punjab Kesari, to file an affidavit that the subject matter of the complaint before the Council was sub- judice as stated in the written statement dated 4.7.2007. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint after receiving the affidavit. Further Development After the hearing a letter was received from the complainant Shri Govind Bihari Nigam, Vice-Chairman, Kalicharan Nigam Institute of Technology, Banda (U.P.) wherein while reiterating his complaint, he denied the allegation of hiding the fact that the matter was sub judice at the time of filing the complaint. The complainant further submitted that he has approached the court of law for the compensation, while the Press Council of India has to inquire the veracity of the impugned publication. According to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the court of law and the Press Council of India are entirely different and independent. The complainant has requested the Council to include his submission in the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee and decide the case on merits. Shri Ashwini Kumar, Director, the Hind Samachar Ltd., Delhi, vide his letter dated 7.9.2007 also filed an affidavit sworn on 7.9.2007 on behalf of the Punjab Kesari stating therein that the issue raised in the complaint filed by Shri Govind Bihari Nigam, the complainant are also subject matter of a civil suit bearing no.197/2005 titled as: Shri Govind Bihari Nigam Vs. Punjab Kesari before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Banda (U.P.). The respondent further stated in the affidavit that in view of provisions of the Press Council Act, 1978, the Council is not empowered to hold an inquiry into any matter in respect of which any proceeding is pending in a court of law. The respondent requested the Council to drop the proceedings in the matter. Decision of the Council The Council considered the matter in the light of the documents placed before it and as recommended by the Inquiry Committee and decided to drop further proceeding in the matter under Section 14(2) of the Press Council Act.

108) Shri D.P. Singh Versus The Editor Meerut, U.P. Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily Meerut, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 7.6.2005 has been filed by Shri D.P. Singh of Meerut, U.P. against Amar Ujala, Meerut for publication of an allegedly false and baseless news item under the caption “Farji Death Certificate bana makan harap liya”-

373 (House grabbed through false death certificate)- English translation in its issue dated 4.6.2005. It was alleged in the news item that the complainant, a tenant of Shri Suresh Chandra Mathur, had grabbed the house by furnishing fake death certificate to the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad. The impugned news item stated that on a complaint of Shri V.K. Mathur S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Mathur resident of Neemuch, M.P. given to District Magistrate, Meerut that his father was missing for the past three months when he had gone to Meerut to collect rent from the complainant, an inquiry was conducted by the C.O, Civil Lines and it was revealed that the complainant had declared Shri S.C. Mathur dead and got death certificate and on the basis of which he made himself a nominee in the property. It has also been stated in the impugned publication that the death certificate was examined by the C.M.O. and City Health Officer and they found it as “fake”. According to the complainant he had purchased the House in 1986 from Shri Suresh Chandra Mathur and had made all the payments by Bank Drafts. The complainant submitted that as per terms of the Will, he was legal heir of the house after the death of Shri Suresh Chandra Mathur. When he got information about the death of Shri Suresh Chandra Mathur he applied for the transfer of the house. The U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad after scrutiny of all documents had transferred the house in his name. The complainant denied any kind of bungling in the said transfer of property. The complainant while furnishing a copy of his complaint to the I.G.P., Meerut dated 21.5.2005 alleged that the complaint of Shri V.K.Mathur was fictitious and prepared by one Shri Brijesh Kumar who was having animosity with him. The Inquiry Officers were giving undue importance to the fictitious complaint of Shri Brijesh Kumar and to his statements by doing partiality not recording his statement, added the complainant. The complainant alleged that due to the publication of the impugned news item his image has been lowered down in the eyes of the public. He further alleged that the respondent published the impugned news item with biased attitude and offended against the standard of journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that he gave a very brief rejoinder to the Amar Ujala on 5.6.2005 that the news is baseless and based on fictitious complaint and that the Inquiry Officers were not recording his statement, but the editor neither gave any response nor published any corrigendum despite another letter dated 8.6.2005. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut on 3.8.2005. In response, the respondent editor in his written statement dated 29.3.2006 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that the publication of the news item is neither objectionable nor the newspaper

374 or editor has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics and public taste. The respondent submitted that the publication has been honestly made in the belief of its truth and also upon some reasonable ground for such belief after exercise of such means to verify its truth as will be taken by a man of ordinary prudence under like circumstances. The respondent specifically denied that the news item in question was piece of yellow journalism and was published intentionally with a view to increase the circulation of the newspaper. He alleged that the complainant levelled such type of highly defamatory allegation purposely just to give the colour in his complaint. He submitted that the news item in question was objective and fair reporting made in good faith in discharge of public duty and devoid of any malice. The respondent further submitted that the news item was published on the basis of the facts in public interest and without any intention to defame the complainant or any other person, and by publishing it they performed their journalistic duty. The respondent denied that they committed any professional misconduct. He concluded that the entire complaint is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 17.4.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri D.P. Singh, complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the Amar Ujala published a totally fabricated news report giving the impression that the complainant grabbed the house of Shri S.C. Mathur worth Rs.40-50 lacs. The complainant submitted that Shri S.C. Mathur was an engineer in Awas Vikas Parishad and the complainant had bought the house through ‘Power of Attorney’ from Shri S.C. Mathur 20 years ago with all the documentation such as Agreement/POA/Will and the payment was made through Demand Draft. The complainant got the house transferred in his name when he came to know about the demise of Shri S.C. Mathur since as per Will the house was to be transferred after the death of the owner. He added that the death certificate was called by him from the son of the deceased and that was received by him through post. The complainant alleged that the application on which the inquiry was conducted by CMO was a fake complaint by a local who was jealous of him and the newspaper based its report on it. He further stated that he got the house transferred in his name through an agent. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi appearing for Amar Ujala submitted that the news report was based on documents and complaint to CMO, Meerut. The inquiry

375 report described the death certificate of Shri S.C. Mathur as a fake certificate and stated that no person of given name died at A-19 Shastri Nagar, Meerut. The respondent further relied on the letter of LIC that the said Shri S.C. Mathur or the complainant Shri D.P. Singh never occupied the house in question. It was a matter of forgery that was brought to the notice of the readers and the public, added the respondent. He added that the copy of death certificate was requisitioned by the complainant after filling a form. This form and certificate were of 1997. The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the record and oral arguments put forth before it noted that the death or disappearance of Shri S.C. Mathur as per the news report of 2005 was of a few months prior to that period whereas the death certificate produced by the respondent was of 1997. It also noted the statement of the complainant that he procured the copy of the death certificate from the son of the deceased. This was not before the Committee. The Inquiry Committee therefore, directed the complainant to file certified copy of the Death Certificate of Shri S.C. Mathur provided by Shri Mathur’s son as also documents establishing transfer of house and the period thereof. The matter was accordingly adjourned. The complainant was reminded vide Council’s letter dated 16.8.2007 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant did not appear. He however requested for adjournment of the case. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Legal Manager and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appeared for Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of Amar Ujala submitted before the Committee that the complainant had filed a case No. 6917/05 titled: D.P. Singh Vs Brijender Gupta in the Court of A.C.J.M., 2 Meerut, in respect of the news item dated 4.6.2005 captioned “Farji Death Certificate bana makan harap liya” in Dainik Amar Ujala that according to the complainant caused defamation. The respondent representative also filed a photocopy of proceedings dated 18.11.2005 before the court in the said matter. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents noted that a case under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code was pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., 2 Meerut. The Inquiry Committee therefore noting that the complainant had not complied with the directions of the Inquiry Committee decided to drop the proceedings in the matter being sub-judice. It recommended to the Council accordingly.

376 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

Press and Morality

109) Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal Versus The Editor Advocate & President Rashtriya Sahara Desh Kalyan Samiti Noida, Uttar Pradesh Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh Complaint The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide its letter dated 23.6.2004 forwarded a complaint dated 10.6.2004 of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate and President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad against Rashtriya Sahara for publishing obscene/nude photographs. The complainant expressed concern about the growing trend in media in publishing obscene material, and submitted that the photographs and language used in the articles is not in consonance with the Indian Culture and heritage and shall have deteriorating effect specially on the impressionable minds. The complainant further submitted that such publication is in violation of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and punishable under Sections 292, 293 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. He requested the Council to initiate strict action to prohibit such publications. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Rashtriya Sahara on 3.6.2005 to which there was no reply. Matter Adjourned The matter first came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate appeared in person while Shri V.K. Singh, Dy. Manager, (Personnel) represented the respondent newspaper, Rashtriya Sahara. Shri V.K. Singh, appearing for Rashtriya Sahara submitted that the copy of the complaint was not received by the newspaper and therefore the reply could not be filed. The Inquiry Committee while providing copy of the complaint to the representative of the Rashtirya Sahara directed the respondent to file its written

377 statement in the matter. It further, directed that a copy of the written statement may be sent to the complainant for his counter, if any. The Inquiry Committee accordingly adjourned the case for being listed before it at one of its future meetings.

Written Statement

In response to Council’s reminder dated 7.2.2007, Rashtriya Sahara, Noida filed written statement dated 6.3.2007 submitting that the complaint is baseless and concocted. To get illegal and unjustified advantage, the complainant has knowingly and intentionally concealed the truth and real facts and did not approach the authority with clean hands. The respondent further submitted that the impugned photographs had been published in almost all leading newspapers and periodicals all over in India and that was based on, and taken from Internet at the time of Olympic, 2004. The respondent concluded that the photographs did not seem to be objectionable and are in common usage. However, if the said photographs had hurt the complainant, the newspaper regrets the same.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.03.2007 at New Delhi. The complainant in a letter dated 19.03.2007 requested to take decision on the basis of the documents. Shri V.K. Singh, Dy. Manager, Legal Rashtriya Sahara appeared for the respondent.

The respondent submitted that the newspaper in its reply dated 6.3.2007 has tendered regret, for the hurt to the complainant.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material on record opined that the newspaper should carefully select material for publication so as not to project the women in undignified manner or offend the general sensibilities. The Inquiry Committee perused the reply filed by the Rashtriya Sahara and noted that the respondent newspaper has tendered regret. The Inquiry Committee therefore, recommended to the Council to bring the Councils norms on the subject to the notice of the paper and allow the matter to be closed in view of expression of regret by the Rashtriya Sahara.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

378 110) Shri B.K. Sinha Versus 1. The Editor Income Tax Officer Dainik Jagran Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 2. The Editor Vichar Saransh

Complaint

This complaint dated 10.2.2006 has been filed by Shri B.K.Sinha, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand against a Hindi daily newspaper Dainik Jagran, Ranchi allegedly for publication of pictures of tennis icon Miss Sania Mirza as soft porn object.

According to the complainant, the respondent, Dainik Jagran published a broadsheet calendar for the year 2006 and therein it had splashed an in-action portrait of Miss Sania Mirza and alleged that the respondent deliberately chosen a particular posture of Miss Mirza where a part of her under garment became visible in a uniquely eye catching manner, with an all too apparent intention of exploiting the pose as soft porn object to titillate and charm its readers. He has alleged that choosing this particular photograph out of thousands of in-action photographs of Miss. Sania Mirza available, as salacious poster in the newspaper was totally unethical and violative of journalistic ethics and complete disservice to values of journalism. The in-action picture of Miss Sania Mirza relates to a Wimbledon match played by her in 2005 and at that time almost every national daily and the periodicals covered it along with news coverage. However to exploit it in a manner that borders on harnessing its soft porn values is an abuse of editorial discretion. There was no response to the show cause notice issued by the Council on 1.6.2006.

No Appearance

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter dated 23.04.2007 requested for time for appearing before Inquiry Committee and making submissions.

The Inquiry Committee however, decided to proceed on the basis of the material on record and merits of the case. It noted that the impugned sports photograph of the tennis player could not be adjudged obscene warranting action under Section 14 (1) of the Act. It recommended to the Council to close the complaint.

379 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

111) Mr. Ashok Basappa Udyavar & Others Versus The Editor Mrs. Sheetal V. Mehta & Others Maharashtra Thane, Maharashtra Buland Times Thane Maharashtra

Complaint

These complaints, dated 21.11.2005 and 25.11.2005 have been filed by 1.Mr. Ashok Basappa Udyavar & Ors and 2. Mrs. Sheetal V. Mehta & others; two groups of residents of Vasai Taluka, Thane, Maharashtra against Maharashtra Buland Times, a Marathi daily newspaper for publication of indecent and explicit photographs along with allegedly objectionable news items captioned ‘Dance Bar Closed – Sex Bar Began’ and ‘The Sexual Activities in Cyber Café’ in its issues dated 21.6.2005 and 10.11.2005 respectively.

The complainants have alleged that the impugned photographs were not only indecent but likely to corrupt the minds of the public in general and the youth in particular. They have submitted that the editor of the respondent newspaper, namely Shri Ashok Mohanlal Soni has been indulging in extortion and blackmailing, and cited as many as 25 cases of defamation and criminal activities, pending in the court against the respondent. According to the complainants, the newspaper stood registered as a ‘weekly’ in the name of Ms. Savita Sanju Pawar but is presently published as a daily by Shri Ashok Mohanlal Soni as owner, editor and publisher for settling his personal scores and also for extortion. They issued notice dated 18.12.2005, drawing the attention of the respondent editor to the impugned publications and his activities of extortion and blackmailing which was returned undelivered with remark ‘refused.’

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 27.2.2006.

Written Statement

The respondent editor, Shri Ashok Soni in his written statement dated 18.3.2006 has submitted that the complaint against him and his newspaper was false, frivolous and vexatious and there was no cause to take action under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 against him. He has stated that the impugned news items carried true story with pictures of the bitter facts happening in the

380 society and the same were published with a view to create awareness among the people to check such happenings, and for the betterment of the society as well. He took adequate precautions by keeping the size of the photographs tiny and these were blurred images stated the respondent and added that he had already published apology in the next issue of the newspaper in case the impugned publications had hurt the sentiments of any person. With regard to the right over the newspaper, the complainant has stated that Mrs. Savita Sanju Pawar had transferred all her rights in respect of the newspaper to him by her communication dated 1.9.2003. With regard to the complaints of Mrs. Sheetal Mehta and five other signatories, the respondent has submitted that showing it to be a complaint of the residents of Vasai Taluka was a pathetic attempt to unnecessarily harass him to settle personal scores. In respect of complaint of Ashok Udayavar & others, the respondent has stated that they were jealous about the marketing success of his newspapers and there were pending litigations between them. The respondent has denied all allegations levelled against him and stated that amongst the 25 cases shown pending against him, cases from serial number 15 – 25 were unknown to him and did not concern him. He further submitted that the complaints of Mrs. Sheetal Mehta and others was frivolous, misconceived, misleading and mischievous filed with ulterior motive to harass him. Counter Comments The complainant Mrs. Sheetal V.Mehta who received a copy of the written statement directly from the respondent filed her counter comments dated 16.4.2006 and submitted that the entire statement of the respondent was vague, evasive and not addressing the subject matter. With regard to the impugned photographs, the complainant has stated that if the respondent was exposing illegal activities, why the photographs were being withheld by the respondent and why a police complaint was not lodged. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.7.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Ashok Basappa Udyavar for the complainant and Shri Ashok Mohanlal Soni for the respondent appeared before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Ashok Basappa Udyavar submitted that respondent editor had published seven obscene photographs. One of the photographs had earlier been shown as a photograph of dance bar and after six months same was repeated as if of a cyber café. He regularly published objectionable material and on complaint being

381 made he stopped that publication to start another paper. The complainant’s representative further submitted that the respondent editor had floated as many as six newspapers during 2001-2005 with different titles and that too without Registration Number. The complainant reiterated the allegations made in his complaint and requested that stern action should be taken against the respondent editor.

Shri Ashok Mohanlal Soni appearing for the respondent admitted that the photographs should not have been published but also contended that the material published had a news value to create awareness as to what was going on in the area. The respondent further submitted that the matter was published in the newspaper in public interest.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents and hearing the parties decided that respondents charge of personal animus between the complainant and respondent was immaterial in view of the nature of impugned publications. It held that the impugned photographs were obscene and highly objectionable and not fit for a newspaper. The Committee was also not satisfied about the claimed purpose of awareness creation. Owing to the nature of photographs, it did not deem it fit to dilate on them in this report. Suffice it to say that they were not fit for publication in a newspaper. If the plea of the respondent of exposing the wrong doing is accepted, the newspaper could have exposed the immorality prevailing in Cyber Café through its writings that too with proper caution of restrained presentation of news. The publication of obscene photographs touching pornography was not at all warranted in the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee strongly condemned the act of the respondent editor in carrying the impugned photographs and decided to recommend to the Council to censure the Editor, Maharashtra Bulandh Times, for violation of journalistic norms and ethics in publishing the indecent photographs. It further recommended that the impugned photographs and a copy of the adjudication be sent to the for inquiry and action under the provisions of law. Copies of the Council’s adjudication be also forwarded to DAVP, RNI, I&PRD, Government of Maharashtra for such action as they deem fit in the matter.

It recommended to the Council accordingly.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

382 112) Suo-motu inquiry against English monthly Debonair for publishing obscene photographs and write-ups. This Suo motu action involving the March 1999 issue of Debonair where Press Council had awarded censured to the respondent was reconsidered by the Council on the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 17.9.2004. Background On receipt of the decision of the Council, the respondent M/s Maurya Publications (P) Ltd and others (Publisher of Debonair) filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4923/2000 before the Delhi High Court Vs. Union of India & others against the decision dated 14th February 2000 passed by the Press Council in the suo- motu inquiry initiated by it in May 1999 for publication of prima facie obscene material/photographs. The petitioner contended that they were not given any opportunity of personal appearance/hearing. They also denied having received any notice of hearing for the inquiry held on 10th January 2000 and 11th January 2000. The petitioner further stated that the Press Council of India predetermined the case even before the conclusion of suo-motu inquiry by writing to the Chairperson, National Commission for Women & Chairperson Delhi Commission for Women and also Commissioner of Police asking them to take action against the printers and publishers of their magazine for publishing obscene photographs under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The Council, however, contended that the publication had filed the written statement in response to show cause and the records established due despatch of notice of hearing, though the AD card had not been received back. The petition was heard and finally disposed off on 17.9.2004 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which in its order dated 1st September 2004 held that “as the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no notice of hearing was received by the petitioner and that, the petitioner had addressed a communication dated 8.5.2000 informing the Press Council about this fact and in response thereto by the letter dated 22.6.2000 of the Press Council of India, the petitioner was informed that Registered A.D. notices were sent to the petitioner and further that “However, if you want a fresh hearing, it will be given to you”. The petitioner will be given re-hearing of which notice of hearing will be given to him.” The matter was reopened by the Council as per the decision aforementioned on 28.3.2005 and listed for hearing thereafter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.10.2005. S/Shri Mohan Pungaliya, Barrister-at-Law, Trilok Chander and Vikas appeared for Debonair.

383 Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for Debonair submitted a preliminary ground for dismissal of the matter that Debonair was arraigned before the courts in various similar matters and the issue was thus sub-judice. The contention was not accepted by the Committee as the particular edition of March 1999 before the Council was not sub-judice. The counsel then argued that the Council had pre-judged the issue as the show cause notice was sent to the Debonair on 2.6.1999 and the Press Council simultaneously wrote to the National Commission of Women and the Delhi Police for taking action against the magazine. Further that adequate opportunity of presenting the case before the Council was not given to the Debonair. Therefore, the ‘censure’ given by the Council may be withdrawn. He added that other authorities may also be advised accordingly. The Committee considered the submissions of the learned counsel for Debonair and felt that withdrawal of the censure or otherwise could be considered only after the matter had been heard on merits. In the meantime, however, having regard to the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the submissions of the counsel for the respondent regarding directions to the National Commission for Women and the police authorities, the Committee decided to keep the ‘censure’ awarded to the Debonair in abeyance till the magazine was afforded an opportunity of oral submissions before the Committee at the next meeting. The above authorities also be informed of this decision, the Council decided. Accordingly the Secretary, National Commission for Women, Government of India, New Delhi and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi were informed vide Council’s letter dated 4.4.2006 Matter Adjourned When the matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee New Delhi on 22.8.2006 Shri Jitender Rao, Manager appeared for the Debonair. He filed before the Committee an application seeking for adjournment on the ground that the senior counsel was pre-occupied struck up in the Mumbai High Court. A letter dated 21.8.2006 from Mr. Vanit Jain, Director was also received for adjournment. Accordingly the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing on 28.3.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Mohan Pungaliya, Advocate appeared for Debonair. The counsel appearing for Debonair submitted that the matter related to March 1999 and since then the standards of the society had changed. He submitted that magazine was being published for past 30 years and priced Rs. 80/- with no

384 annual subscription. It has no regular subscribers. Mostly the executives who travelled by air bought the magazine to pass their time. It was not meant for family and was not subscribed to the families. The magazine can not be equated with daily newspapers that reach homes. The counsel stated that the magazine was being sold at Railway Stations/Airports and thus was not a family magazine and laws allowed its publication. The counsel drew the attention to the prevailing standards of satellite TV and the situation prevailing in electronic media in India. The counsel also drew attention of the Inquiry Committee to adjudication of the Press Council of Indian in the matter of DD Aggarwal Vs. Debonair 1996 on obscenity where the Press Council of India did not find any substance in the complaint. The counsel also cited judgement of the Apex Court in the matter: Ajay Goswami Vs. Union of India (AIR March 2007 page 493-509) when the Court had observed that the adults could not be deprived of their share of entertainment. The counsel further submitted that the police had instituted 32 cases against the magazine on the directives of the Press Council of India. He argued that the test of obscenity was to be employed in the context of change in the standards of the society. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the counsel decided to adjourn the matter and observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement on : Ajay Goswami Vs. Union of India had only recorded its observations. The Committee further observed that contemporary standards could not be set by what the television aired. It desired that since the magazine claimed to be a randomly sold adult magazine, it may satisfy the Committee of the mode by which the Magazine ensured that it was sold only to adults and also to satisfy what the contemporary standard countrywide were, so that the impugned matter justified random sale at bookstalls. It directed the editor, Debonair through his counsel to file the documents in support of the contentions placed before the Committee by the counsel within three weeks from the date of hearing i.e. 28.3.2007. Further Adjournment The respondent’s request for another adjournment of the hearing scheduled on 4.6.2007 was also acceded to. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter last came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the Debonair. The respondent vide his letter dated 24.8.2007 forwarded therewith written submissions submitting that the Press Council had issued a show-cause notice to Debonair on 2.6.1999 in accordance with Regulations 5 (1) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations 1979 as to why the PCI should not take action under Section 14 of Press Council Act and called upon him to submit the written statement. The respondent submitted that the Debonair expected that only after 385 receiving his written statement and holding inquiry as required under the said Act, the PCI would have to decide the matter on merits. The respondent further submitted that they were shocked and surprised; that without waiting for his written statement and holding inquiry, the PCI had already come to unilateral decision that said impugned magazine contained obscene photographs/write ups. The respondent further submitted that this was obviously the subjective decision by the PCI and not on merits. The decision was sent to various Government Departments and Police Authorities for taking criminal actions against Debonair for publishing obscene photographs/write-ups. The respondent further submitted that Press Council has no power to send such directions to government or police authorities. The respondent added that after this illegal action it was challenged in the High Court of Delhi in Civil writ petition No.4923 of 2000, Hon’ble High Court directed the PCI that, if Press Council of India felt necessary to hold inquiry, it could be only after giving proper notice to him. The respondent further submitted that the said one sided illegal subjective decision of Press Council still exists and it is even in the record of several public authorities, therefore there can not be fair inquiry in accordance to the principles of natural justice. The respondent further submitted that the delay in holding inquiry after lapse of more than eight years has become redundant and had defeated its purpose and it was impossible to decide such matter now. The delay was not caused by Debonair but entirely by Press Council which had not complied with the provisions of said Act and Regulations. The respondent requested the Council in the interest of justice to drop the above inquiry and spare him the further expenses and harassment. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered that matter in the light of all the records before it and noted that the Council had in 1999 written to the National Commission for Women/police authorities for action under the provisions of the IPC against all such publications. The report of the Inquiry Committee to the Council made in January 2000 was its assessment of the ethical responsibility of the magazine vis- à-vis the impugned material in March 99 issue. Moreover, the very purpose of affording fresh opportunity of hearing to the respondent before the Council was to consider it de-linked from the earlier decision. The Inquiry Committee noted that at hearing held on 28.3.2007 the respondent had been directed to file the documents in support of the contentions placed before the Committee by the counsel within three weeks, that the magazine claimed to be a randomly sold adult magazine, it may satisfy the Committee of the mode by which the Magazine ensured that it was sold only to adults and also to satisfy what the contemporary standard countrywide were, so that the impugned matter justified random sale at bookstalls. Instead of doing so the respondent had raised technical objections. The Committee was thus satisfied on the face of the non-compliance with its directions

386 that the respondent was not able to establish steps to ensure its sale to adults only. Insofar in specific impugned publication in March 1999 issue are concerned, the Committee perused the items listed below: “Pictures: Pages 5,7,35 to 44, 63 to 66, 75 to 78, 85, 106; Debonair Advisor’ at pages 58, 59, “The Debonair guide to sexualities Relationship” at page 67-74. Sex Advisor at pages 82 and 83, “Jehanabad Station” 84 to 87, Erotica-A rose blooms” 88 to 101, Poetry-Motherhood insane”92-93". It was satisfied that the impugned material if circulated beyond the stated target readership, violated the basic ethics of decency and morality and deserved censure by the Council under section 14(1) of the Press Council Act. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

Communal, Casteist and Anti Religious Writings

113) Shri Naresh Thakkar Versus The Editor Director Samachar Jagat, Hindi daily Chittor Darshan Rajasthan News Channel Jaipur Chittorgarh, Rajasthan

Complaint This complaint dated 18.3.2005 has been filed by Shri Naresh Thakkar, Director, “Chittor Darshan” News Channel, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) against “Samachar Jagat”, Hindi daily, Jaipur (Rajasthan) alleging publication of an objectionable news item captioned “vÉÉÉÌàÉBÉE =xàÉÉn {ÉEèãÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ +ÉÉ®Éä{É” (Charge of spreading communal frenzy – English translation) in its issue dated 15.3.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the private T.V. channel i.e. “Chittor Darshan” by repeatedly showing a video of an incident at Bhilwara, provoked religious sentiments and the citizens had written to the State Government for taking action against the channel for fanning communal passions. The complainant while denying the allegations stated that the impugned news item was false and baseless and had been published with prejudice with the intent to malign the image keeping in view the popularity of the channel. The

387 complainant further submitted that on a complaint, the police authorities scrutinized the contents of the news telecast on Chittor Darshan news channel but found nothing inflammatory/objectionable. The complainant alleged that the respondent published the impugned news item without verifying the facts. The complainant further stated that he sent a contradiction to the respondent- editor, Samachar Jagat, but the same was not published. A show cause notice was issued to the editor, Samachar Jagat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) on 4.7.2005. Written Statement The Chief Editor, Samachar Jagat in his written statement dated 4.8.2005 while denying the allegation levelled against him questioned how the complainant could get the clean chit, when no enquiry was made by the District Magistrate. The respondent forwarded the statement/clarification of his correspondent, who submitted that the impugned news item was based on facts and published without malafide. He furnished copies of the letters from District Magistrate, Deputy Divisional Magistrate and Information & Public Relations Officer, Chittorgarh in which it was stated that they had held no inquiry. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.9.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.9.2005 alleged that the written statement of the respondent was misleading, as his complaint was not related with the “Clean Chit’’. The complaint pertained to serious allegation of spreading communal frenzy through the news channel. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.02.2007 at Udaipur. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Manohar Agarwal, District Correspondent, Samachar Jagat, Jaipur represented the respondent newspaper. The representative of Samachar Jagat submitted that the news item was published on the basis of a Press Release and CD given by the public, who had agitated against the channels repeated telecasting of old news to arouse communal passion. The respondent stated that the newspaper had not received any contradiction from the complainant. The respondent further stated that the said channel was not registered with District Administration and Postal Department. The respondent added that there was no possibility of clean chit to the channel since the authorities had not conducted any enquiry into the matter. It was added

388 that there was no malice in publishing the news and it was published in national interest. Since serious allegations of spreading communal passion through the TV channel had been levelled against the complainant, the Committee in order to ascertain the basis of the news report directed the respondent’s representative to file within a fortnight from the date of hearing, the CD and the Press Release which formed the basis for the impugned item. The matter was adjourned accordingly. As directed by the Inquiry Committee the respondent forwarded a copy of the Press Release and CD vide his letter dated 3.3.2007. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.04.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee perused the Press Release and CD filed in support of the impugned publication and noted that these provided due basis for the publication of the report challenged before it. The Inquiry Committee further noted complainant’s absence despite opportunity of hearing afforded to him. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to close the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

114) Dr. K.V. Sangameswaran Versus The Editor Consultant Radiologist, Pune Times of India Maharashtra Pune Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 11.12.2005 has been filed by Dr. K.V. Sangameswaran, Consultant Radiologist, Pune against the Times of India, Pune for publishing of two objectionable articles dated November 5 and November 7, 2005 i.e. (i) ‘Stick To Your Ground’ ‘Cant fight caste by berating Hinduism’ and (ii) ‘Where Gandhi meets Ambedkar’ ‘No space for Hindu leaders in that common ground’ respectively. The Second article commented on the first article by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. The article dated 5.11.2005 Stick to your ground mentioned the names of social reformers such as Basavanna from Karnataka, Narayana Guru from

389 Kerala and Swami Dayanand Saraswati of the Arya Samaj as examples of people who fought caste. However in the second article dated 7.11.2005 Where Gandhi meets Ambedkar, the author Ramachandra Guha has pointed out that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar mentioned a string of Hindu social reformers, but left out Gandhi. Both the authors of the above articles expressed their views on the social reformation in the Hindu society and the complainant wrote a letter dated 10.11.2005, to the respondent editor, the Times of India, Pune and the same was published on 14.11.2005. The complainant has been aggrieved over the alleged slanderous attack on Hindu religious leaders and deviation from historical facts in context, with conversion of the same into political view. He has further been aggrieved over the editing of his letter to omit some points that he considered to be of importance. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 3.3.2006. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 26.6.2006 has submitted that the two different articles, which were carried in the newspaper, were from two different people, and are from different fields altogether and in the respective articles they expressed their own independent views. The newspaper published the views of both and even carried the views of the complainant when he addressed a letter to the editor, stated the respondent and added that it is a very well known fact that the editor of newspaper keeps getting letters from the readers in large numbers and it is practically impossible for them to carry each and every letter in the newspaper. The respondent further submitted that as an editor, he enjoys discretion to select the letters for publishing as they are always short of space and in order to overcome this shortage, they edited letters and published it. They have no intention to hurt the feelings and sentiments of its readers or anyone else, added the respondent. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.7.2006 for information. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.04.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and noted that the impugned publications were opinion pieces which the authors had written as per their understanding of the issue. Further the complainant appeared to be aggrieved over publication of edited version of his letter to the respondent editor. On this, the Inquiry Committee accepted that the editor had the discretion to edit the letter in

390 a manner that the viewpoints of the sender are covered. It further noted that the complainant’s letter to editor published on 14.11.2005 was sufficient to convey the message the complainant wanted to place before the readers. Under the circumstances, the Committee opined that matter did not warrant action under Section 14 (1) of the Act. It, accordingly recommended to the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter and close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

q

391