Press Council of India File No. 14/149/17-18/PCI Complainant Respondent Shri Pramod Sharma, Indore, M.P. the Editor, Prabhat

Press Council of India File No. 14/149/17-18/PCI Complainant Respondent Shri Pramod Sharma, The Editor, Indore, M.P. Prabhat Kiran, Indore, M.P.

Adjudication dated 15.02.2019 This complaint dated 10.7.2017 has been filed by Shri Pramod Sharma, Indore (M.P.) against “Prabhat Kiran”, Indore alleging publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “ गगरेप के फरार मूलिजम पर इनाम ” in its issue dated 6.7.2017. In the impugned news item, it has been reported that a woman from Sihore registered a complaint against the complainant and his relatives accusing them of gang raping her. It is further published that there are many criminal cases including under section 307 registered against the complainant and police have announced reward on him. Further, the news report states that 13 years ago, a theft case was registered against the complainant in Sihore and he was convicted later by the CJM Court. A case of attempt to murder is also registered against the complainant and the same was dismissed with the connivance of Police. During the investigation in the attempt to murder case, the complainant was asked to provide CCTV footage of his house but the time and date of the same were also tempered. Denying the allegations, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news item has tarnished his image in the eyes of society. He has further alleged that the newspaper is trying to implicate him with a motive to blackmail him. As regard the theft case is concerned, he has submitted that neither any theft case has been registered against him nor has the matter been under consideration in any court. The complainant pointed out that whether the CCTV footage has been verified by the expert, if not, then why the news has been published without verifying the facts? In respect to the case Under Section 307, the complainant has submitted that the Case No. 440/2014 dated 16.12.2015 was taken up by the Court in Indore, and he was acquitted as no grounds were found against him. The complainant vide letter dated 10.7.2017 drew the attention of the respondent to present the evidences and also to publish clarification on the matter, but no response has been received. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2017 was issued to the respondent editor, Prabhat Kiran, Indore but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “ लेने से इकार ”. The Show Cause Notice was, thereafter, issued to the respondent through email on 19.12.2017.

Written Statement The respondent has submitted his written statement dated 24.9.2018 at the time of hearing on 24.9.2018. While denying the allegation has stated that the complaint is based on false facts. The respondent has further stated that the complainant is a of criminal nature and many cases are pending against him in various police stations. The respondent has submitted that the impugned news item is based on the FIR No.85/2017 dated 6.2.2017 filed by the victim lady against the complainant and others registered in the Rajendra Nagar Police Station. In the said case the complainant got bail on 10.4.2017. With regard to theft case in Sihore against the complainant, the respondent has submitted that a case was registered against the Praveen Sharma and his father Nathmal Sharma and a case Criminal RevisionNo.3395/15 is pending consideration before Hon’ble High Court, Jabalpur. The respondent has stated that the complainant has a criminal background, therefore, they published true news item in good faith. While providing copies of the FIRs filed against the complainant in support of his statement, the respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complainant and he sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the complainant. A copy of the Written Statement has already been served on the representative of the complainant on 24.9.2018.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. Shri Mahender Baagri, representative appeared on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Despite service of Notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the Written Statement and all other connected papers and is of the opinion that the impugned news item has been published on the basis of an F.I.R. and other materials. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics while publishing the impugned news item. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the compliant.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the compliant.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

File No.14/472/14-15-PCI

Complainant Respondent

Shri Suresh A. Gadge, The Editor, Prop. Gadge Electricals, Pudhari, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Kolhapur.

Adjudication dated 15.02.2019

This complaint was filed by Shri Suresh Annappa Gadge, Proprietor, Gadge Electricals, Kolhapur, Maharashtra against the editor, Pudhari for publication of an allegedly false, mischievous and defamatory news item under the caption “Tussle between More-Kalagate on awarding tender to black-listed Contractor” (English translation) in its issue dated 20.6.2014. The Council Censured the newspaper. A copy of the Adjudication dated 10.6.2016 was forwarded to both the parties including DAVP, RNI and the Director, Divisional Information Office, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai on 3.8.2016 for information/necessary action. The respondent, newspaper approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi against the decision of the Council and the Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 31.10.2017 directed for a fresh hearing by the Inquiry Committee and make a report after affording all concerned parties an opportunity to be heard and after considering the matter afresh. The PCI would take an appropriate decision after considering the Inquiry Committee’s report.

Case Summary This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 19.08.2014, has been filed by Shri Suresh Annappa Gadge, Proprietor, Gadge Electricals, Kolhapur, Maharashtra against the editor, Pudhari for publication of an allegedly false, mischievous and defamatory news item under the caption “Tussle between More-Kalagate on awarding tender to black-listed Contractor” (English translation) in its issue dated 20.6.2014. It has been reported in the impugned news item that Ichalkaranji City Congress Committee President Prakash More was supporting the Councillors opposing award of Tender to blacklisted contractor faces lot of opposition from Councillors Congress Group Leader Balasahen Kalagate . The incident took place immediately after the party meeting in which the party leaders appeal to maintain unity among party. It is also stated in the impugned news item that Shri Suresh Gadge the contractor who is black-listed by Council administration got a tender of Rs.50 lacks of Electrical Department of Municipal Council. Councillor Bhimrao Atigre who objected to this made a complaint to party president Prakash More, about the party leaders. He told that Civil Court has directed the Municipal Council to remove the name of Gadge from black-list. However, lot exchange of works took place amongst More-Kalgate in presence of party ex-president Ashokrao Arge. When reporter gathered there, party workers took both More-Kalgate inside office. However, inside the close room also both were loudly arguing with each other. The complainant denied the allegations levelled by the respondent in the impugned news item. According to the complainant, the news item is totally false mischievous and defamatory and the respondent was well aware that he is not black listed but even though he published the impugned news item to defame him and lowered his image in the eyes of the public. The complainant vide letter dated 23.6.2014 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item and requested him to publish apology but received no response. A Show Cause Notice dated 9.9.2014 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Pudhari.

Written Statement : The respondent Managing Advisor, Pudhari in his written statement dated 16.9.2014 stated that they have published the clarification of the complainant on 27.6.2014 i.e. within a couple of days from the receipt of the notice and a copy of the same was also provided to the complainant and the complainant was satisfied with the clarification. In fact, he had expressed to their reporter that he was satisfied with the explanation. The respondent further stated that the matter was settled amicably and there was no need to file a complaint.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 11.5.2016 while reiterating his complaint stated that before publishing such a drastic and defamatory news, the respondent could have taken due care and caution to check the reality but this was not done by the respondent and directly published the news item even without ascertaining the truth and thereby defamed the character of the complainant. He alleged that because of the wrong and defamatory publication, his reputation was lowered in the social activists and the public at large. He further alleged that the act of the respondent is against the press ethics and the best example of yellow journalism.

Report of the Inquiry Committee and decision of the Council dated 10.06.2016 The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Sursh A. Gadge, the complainant is present in person. The respondent editor is represented by Shri Dilip Urkude, who claims to be the General Manager of the respondent newspaper posted at Pune. It is the assertion of the complainant that the respondent newspaper, Pudhari in its issue dated 20.6.2014 stated that the complainant is a blacklisted contractor. It is the assertion of the complainant that he is not a blacklisted contactor, and the impugned publication describing him as a blacklisted contractor, is false and concocted. The respondent filed a written statement in which they have stated that they have published clarification on 27.6.2014. However, the record what has been sent, is the publication made on 20.6.2014. Another publication dated 27.6.2014 has been brought to our notice in which it is alleged that the clarification has been published. The Inquiry Committee bestowed its consideration to the two alleged clarification published by the respondent newspaper, and is of the opinion that those are not clarifications but other news in which a passing reference has been made about the blacklisted of the complainant. Before publishing that, the complainant is blacklisted contractor, the respondent newspaper ought to have been more careful and verified it from the complainant, which they do not seem to have done in the present case. Before we part with the case, the Inquiry Committee would like to observe that Shri Dilip Urkude who appeared on behalf of the respondent newspaper, is not aware of the facts and circumstances of the case, and his plea is that he had been posted at Pune recently and therefore, not aware of the facts of the case. We would like to advice the respondent newspaper that in future, if they authorize any person to represent it, he should be fully instructed in the case, so that he can answer the questions raised by the members of the Inquiry Committee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Council finds the conduct of the respondent newspaper to be reprehensible and accordingly Censures it. A copy of this order be forwarded to the DAVP, Director General of Information, State Govt. of Maharashtra, and all other concerned.

Further submission filed by the complainant The complainant has filed his submission dated 25.9.2018 wherein, while reiterating his grievances, he has submitted that the respondent Editor has not even taken slightest care to obtain proper information before publishing defamatory news item. He has further submitted that the respondent has tried to misguide him by placing on record the wrong copy of the newspaper. The complainant submitted that the Ichalkaranji Municipal Council in its Council Meeting No. 3 Council Resolution No. 38, dated 1.7.2013 have cancelled the earlier Resolution No. 332 and 336 dated 20.12.2010, black listing the complainant. The cancellation of earlier Resolution, (black listing him) was withdrawn and he was requested again as contractor of Municipal Council and fresh work was even allotted to him. He has further submitted that the Article dated 27.6.2014 produced before the Council under caption” M/S Gadage Electricals name is not in blacklist” is a fake one and prepared only for deceiving Hon’ble Council. The original paper published on that date is quite different with caption “Differences in Nagarpalika on misunderstanding of Gadage’s name is in blacklist. Further, he has requested the Council to take stern action and even more harsh action against the respondent editor. The complainant further submitted that the respondent conveyed his satisfaction over the so called clarification dated 27.6.2014 published by him but the same was not in the manner in which he wants it so there is no question of conveying any satisfaction and nothing is conveyed to them.

Report of the Inquiry Committee hearing held on 17.12.2018 The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Suresh A. Gadge appeared in person. Shri Yuvraj Narvankar, Shri Vasant Sapre, Advocates and Shri Pramod Shankar Kadam, Ad. Clerk represented the respondent newspaper. The respondent was earlier Censured by the Council. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition before Delhi High Court . The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by Order dated 31.10.2017 passed in Writ Petition(C) 9033/2016 set aside the Order of the Council and directed that the matter be reheard after giving an opportunity to the parties. In the light thereof, the parties were given notice and they have appeared before the Inquiry Committee. The complainant submits that the impugned news item is false and published without taking his version. He further states that the newspaper has described him wrongly as black listed contractor. The learner counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that what transpired in the meeting had been reported. He points out that while opposing the grant of contract to the complainant, few of the councillors stated that he is a black listed contractor. He further points out that the respondent newspaper has come out with the clarification on the 27th June, 2014 in which it has been clearly stated that the complainant is not a black listed contractor. All these facts were not brought to notice of the Inquiry Committee, when it earlier heard the matter. The counsel for the respondent further states that it was a mistake that was clarified later on. The Inquiry Committee is satisfied that the respondent while publishing the impugned news item has not violated any code of conduct calling for action by the Council. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India F.No. 14/175/17-18-PCI

Complainant Respondent Shri A.M. Marathe, The Editor, Navi Mumbai Loksatta, Mumbai

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019

This complaint dated 27.7.2017 has been filed by Shri Ajay Madhusudan Marathe, Navi Mumbai against the Editor, Loksatta, Mumbai for publication of an Editorial on 29.5.2017 under the caption “Blood-soaked Vegetarianism”. It has been reported in the editorial that as per latest decision of the Ministry of Environment, they are going to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960. Under this amendment, the Ministry has banned the sale and purchase of milch animals in the weekly markets and various places in the country. The government stipulates that such sale- purchase should not be for slaughter houses and this ban will apply to cows, buffaloes, calves of both and camels. The government says that this decision is for protecting the interests of the animals, but if the government’s intention was only this protection of interests, it would have totally banned any sale of these animals, but that is not. It is further mentioned that on an average, animals go barren after nine to ten years and it becomes unaffordable for the farmer to keep feeding and maintaining them and the only economically viable way out for the farmers is to let go of such barren animals. This is a cycle which will now come to a halt. The editorial also mentioned that under pressure from the neo-Hindutva people, the government does not have the capability of thinking along these lines. From many quarters like Goa, West Bengal, Kerala, Haryana, Punjab, Maharashtra the whole of north-east etc, voices are being raised against this ill-informed decision of the government and the matter may end up in court battles and one can only hope that at least the courts will strike down this decision, because it is going to lead to much more hardship for the animals. This blood- soaked propagation of vegetarianism has to be stopped. The complainant submitted that the title has nothing to do with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules, 2017 as the rules do not ban slaughter of animal at all and there is no mention about vegetarian food or restriction and/or regulation and/or ban on any kind of food including meat. The complainant submitted that the language used by the respondent is trying to instigate people and mislead them about the rules and trying to project them what they are not at all. He has further submitted that the Rules nowhere mentioned about any ban on sale or purchase of milch animals in weekly market, hence the editorial is spreading lies. There is no ban on buying/selling of goats anywhere, in animal market or outside it. The complainant submitted that either the editor has not read the rules or he has read and he is deliberately trying to mislead the people. The complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2017 drew the attention of the respondent towards the editorial titled “Blood-soaked Vegetarianism”. The complainant vide his further letters dated 6.8.2017 and 9.8.2017 informed the Council that the respondent in response to his letter to editor filed his reply and stated that the interpretation and understanding of the editors is incorrect and also disputed the correctness of the translation annexed to the complaint. The respondent further stated that an editorial is a newspaper column expressing the editor’s opinion on a topical issue and an editor enjoys latitude and discretion on the subject of editorial and views expressed He has also stated that there is no bar to scrutinize government rules and regulations and expression of views thereon or examine the impact on the farmers and cattle traders and there is no misconduct as alleged. In response to the respondents reply, the complainant submitted that he stands by his complaint and editor has made general, vague statement & he has not shown the exact place, sentence wherein his interpretation & understanding of the editorial is incorrect and the editor feels the translation is incorrect but fails to identify the exact place, sentence, part of the sentence where the translation is incorrect. The complainant submitted that the editorial is written by an extremely irresponsible manner and the editor deserve severe punishment. He has requested the Council to take action against the editor. A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent Editor, Loksatta on 28.8.2017.

Written statement The respondent-Editor, Loksatta vide his written statement dated 13.9.2017 submitted that an editorial is, a newspaper column expressing the editor’s opinion on a topical issue. An editor enjoys latitude and discretion on the subject of editorial and views expressed. The complaint relates to an editorial in the paper which is devoid of any merit. According to the respondent, the subject Editorial was written within days of the notification of new rules on May 26. 2017 or thereabout. It deals with some portions of the rules which restrict the sale of cattle and the introduction of excessive regulations and paperwork. It is the editor’s opinion that farmers many of whom are uneducated would not have knowledge of the rules, and be able to comply. Power will be concentrated in the hands of those who control the Animal Market Committee. Further, once a product is sold, there is no way for a seller to control or even determine the manner in which the product is used. Thus even if a farmer fulfils the paperwork, there is no way he can ensure that the buyer will comply with the law. Also restrictions on free purchase and sale of cattle has been put – animal purchased cannot be sold for 6 months etc. This would seriously undermine the Rs.1 lakh crore industry of sale and purchase of cattle in India. The bureaucratic rules would result in crippling the industry, cause immense hardship to farmers and also increase corruption. They go beyond the avowed object of prevention of cruelty to cattle. The respondent has further stated that there is no bar in scrutiny of the Government rules and regulations and expression of views thereon, thus, there is no misconduct as alleged. The respondent has also stated that the complainant has not quoted that which sentence or paragraph is false or objectionable. The respondent submitted that the language, tone and tenor of the complainant are unnecessarily undignified and virulent. There are many such unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations in the complaint. He has stated that the convention of giving space in the newspaper by way of letters to the Editor column is to facilitate public debate and discussion. It is not to attack and bash the editor. He has requested the Council to dismiss the case with a warning. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for counter comments/information, if any on 3.10.2017.

Counter comments In response, the complainant vide letter dated 18.10.2017 while reiterating his complaint has submitted that the respondent in his editorial has shown complete disregard to tremendous cruelty faced by thousand animal in the country. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor 2.11.2017. Further comments filed by the respondent In response, the respondent editor, Loksatta vide letter dated 17.11.2017 while denying the allegations as alleged in the counter comments submitted that a reader can respond by sending a letter to the Editor giving his bona fide views or comments as part of a public discussion or debate. In the complaint, the complainant has chosen not to send a usual letter to the Editor seeking publication of his views. The complainant has chosen to do, is to pre-judge the Editor as guilty under the Press Council Act and Regulations and to usurp the judgment of this Hon’ble Council. He stated that he had sent a reply dated 31.07.2017 to the complainant’s letter and no further reply was received from the complainant. He added that the editorial has been carried in good faith, in public interest, being part of a public debate on a matter of public interest and concern, to highlight the possible abuses which may arise from the regulations and how the poor or illiterate may suffer. Thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. A copy of the further comments filed by the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 28.11.2017 and 22.12.2017 for information.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant along with Shri Devashree Tulankar, Advocate appeared in person. Smt. Poorvi Kamni, Advocate, Shri Vaidesh Thakur, Publisher and Shri Girish, Editor represented the respondent newspaper, Loksatta. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of the Editor of the Loksatta. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Editorial is the opinion of the Editor in relation to agrarian distress . In the opinion of Inquiry Committee, the Editor has the privilege to express his opinion in the Editorial. The Inquiry Committee does not find that he has transgressed the Editorial privilege and therefore no action needs to be taken. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint. Press Council of India F.No.14/8/17-18-PCI. Complainant Respondent

Dr. Shripal Sabnis, The Editor, President, Loksatta, Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Mumbai. Sahitya Sammelan, Pune (Maharashtra)

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019 This complaint dated 31.3.2017 has been filed by Dr. Shripal Sabinis, President, Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Sahitya Sammelan, Pune (Maharashtra) against “Loksatta” (Marathi) for allegedly publishing false and defamatory articles under the captions “ ीपाल क शशुपाल ” and “ न अपील या चुनौती ” in its issues dated 2.1.2016 and 12.12.2016 respectively. It has been reported in the impugned article that during a condolence event of Shri Mangesh Padgaonkar in a college, the complainant said “had Modi been attacked in Pakistan, we would have been compelled to pay tributes to him before eminent poet, Shri Mangesh Padgaonkar.” It has been further reported that some time back, the complainant had supported writers, who returned their awards. Sripal Sabinis is so comical that he criticised Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Pakistan. It has been further reported that whether the statement of the complainant is a joke or a sign of brainlessness and some persons could comment or discuss on it. According to the news report, Shri Sabnis has shown in his presidential address that he can evaluate the organisers and their organisation on the same touchstone of morality that he prizes. If he does so, Maharashtra will appreciate him otherwise the question that Shripal or Shishupal will stand. According to the complainant, he was duly elected as President of All India Marathi Literary Meet (Sahitya Sammelan) in 2016. During one of the lectures, he made a comment that substantially meant that there was a threat to the life of Prime Minister, Shri Modiji during his Pakistan tour and this view was expressed purely as an outburst of his nationalist point. He made this comment which meant that the Prime Minister had to risk his life in Pakistan. By making a mountain of Molehill, Shri Girish Kuber, the Editor of respondent newspaper, Loksatta wrote an editorial on 2.6.2018 titled “Shripal or Shishupal” against him and thereby published highly defamatory matter like “Any Tom, Dick & Hary” (Ganpat – its derogatory is Ganapya). The complainant has further stated that in the same article, the respondent also addressed him as “an individual without face (faceless) and without base (baseless) and has called him Joker (fool) and mean”. The complainant has alleged that the title of the article i.e. “Shripal or Shishupal” written and constructed in such a manner that presents him in the bad light of being “Shishupal”. The complainant has submitted that he wrote a letter in this regard to the respondent on 7.1.2016 but received no reply. The complainant has further submitted that on 12.12.2016 the respondent- Editor, Shri Girish Kuber wrote another defamatory article publishing that his lectures are “perverted”. The complainant has submitted that he wrote a letter in this regard to the respondent on 16.12.2016 but received no reply. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Loksatta, Mumbai on 30.6.2017. Written Statement The Editor, Loksatta, Mumbai vide his written statement dated 28.2.2018 denied the allegations levelled in the complaint. According to the respondent, the complainant had made a derogatory and demeaning speech about the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India during a condolence for poet Shri Mangesh Padgaonkar. The complainant criticised the visit of the Prime Minister to Pakistan stating that he was likely to be killed and that the condolence meeting would be for him instead of the poet. The low language used and the demeaning sentiments expressed by the complainant caused a public outrage in Maharashtra. Not only were BJP members in Maharashtra appalled but so were several outfits and groups. The respondent has further stated that the complainant was heavily criticised in press and media as also by public figures and politicians. The respondent has submitted that the other leading newspaper and news channels also criticised the complainant and ultimately the complainant was compelled to express his regrets for the same. The respondent has denied that the Editorial claimed that the complainant’s ‘writings are equal to zero’. The respondent has also denied that the complainant was called a “Jokes (fool) or a joker”. The respondent has stated that the content in which the reference to a joke was made in the Editorial is as follows: “Some time back, he had supported writers who returned their awards. Then in an about turn he had asked what returning awards will achieve. His recent outpourings were about how relations between India and Pakistan can be improved. However, this Sripal Sabinis is so comical that he will criticise Prime Minister Modi who went to Pakistan precisely with the intention of improving ties. If his criticism of the Prime Minister was logical, we could have understood it. But he spoke very badly of a possible funeral for the Prime Minister. Even in this, this man sunk so low that he said that we would need to hold a condolence meeting for the Prime Minister before one for Mangesh Padgaokar – This when Padgaokar had passed away just 24 hours earlier. Is this statement a joke or a sign of brainlessness? Or is it comic brainlessness? Or it is a brainless joke?” According to the respondent, the complainant has a grievance against the title of the editorial “Shivpal or Shishupal?” Shripal is a reference to Lord Krishna or Lord Vishnu. Shishpal is a character from the Mahabharata known for his intemperate attacks on Lord Krishna. It is left to the reader to decide, as the Editorial ends thus.... “This president of literary festival was also disturbed by Modi’s role in the Godhra episode. That is alright. It shows his sense of morality and idealism. This is indeed laudable. He needs to bring the same morality and idealism to bear on his conduct towards the organisers of the literary festival. If he does that, we will most certainly look on his moral purity with respect. It is still not too late. Sabnis should demonstrate in his presidential address that he can evaluate the organisers and their organisation on the same touchstone of morality that he prizes. If he does so, all of Maharashtra will sing his praises. All of the state will take immense satisfaction in realizing that this is the kind of principled intellectual icon that Maharashtra was looking for. If not, we will need to ask (with apologies to the respected Govind Talwalkar for borrowing his phrase), Maharashtra will ask if this is Sripal or Shishupal?” The respondent has further stated that the complainant had made grievance to second editorial dated 12.12.2016. He has not been able to find any reference to the complainant in the Editorial. If the complainant is able to provide the correct date and title of the Editorial in which his name appeared or reference was made to him, he reserves his right to deal with the same and file a further written statement. The respondent has stated that the editorial was published in good faith and in public interest and without malice. The respondent has further stated that the comments in the editorial are on the public speech by a person holding a public position. The respondent has also stated that the impugned article is not defamatory as contended by the complainant and there exists no grounds for warn, censure or admonish the newspaper or the editor. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 9.4.2018. Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 29.4.2018 while reiterating his complaint has stated that the written statement filed by the respondent carries only those points which are favourable to him. The complainant has further submitted that on 16.12.2016, he had invited the respondent editor to a public debate about the malicious claims made by him but received no response. The complainant has also submitted that visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister to Pakistan could have led him to unanticipated dangers, country infested with terrorists of all shades. This was his concern, which sections of politicians and certain people did not make any effort to understand. To raise this concern is not to wish ill of him. He has stated that the respondent is silent in his written statement about the connection between his comments about Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Pakistan visit and his literary contribution. The complainant has stated that several newspapers in different places of Maharashtra have published several reports of his speeches but not a single report uses adjectives that speak of dimness, clownish behaviour of perversity except the respondent editor. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 16.5.2018. Further reply filed by the respondent The respondent-Editor, Loksatta vide his further letter/rejoinder dated 30.11.2018 while reiterating his written statement has denied the allegation levelled in the counter comments of the complainant. The respondent has stated that the complainant also wholly suppressed from the Hon’ble PCI his controversial and derogatory remarks of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, that the outrage felt in Maharashtra especially among the Marathi speaking public, that a criminal complaint was filed against him, that this went on for 10 days after which he had been compelled to publicly express his regrets and privately apologize to the Hon’ble Prime Minister in a letter. The respondent has further stated that the complainant in his counter comments refused to provide to the Editor, a copy of the translation of the Editorial in English which he has admittedly filed with the Hon’ble PCI. The respondent has also stated that the complainant was heavily criticised in press and media as also by public figures and politicians. While denying the allegation of publication of defamatory article, the respondent has stated that there is no ground to warn, censure or admonish the newspaper. A copy of the further reply has been forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 10.12.2018. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Dr. Sripal Sabnis appeared in person. Smt. Poorvi Kamni, Advocate, Shri Vaidesh Thakur, Publisher and Shri Girish, Editor represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the Editor of the Loksatta who is the author of the impugned opinion piece. The Inquiry Committee has perused the writings and other connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent has not violated any code of conduct calling for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

F. No. 14/282/17-18-PCI

Complainant Respondent Shri Bishop Dominic Savio Fernandes, The Editor, Auxilary Bishop, Mumbai Mirror, Archdiocese of Bombay, Mumbai Maharashtra.

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019

This complaint dated 14.9.2017 has been filed by Shri Bishop Dominic Savio Fernandes, Auxilary Bishop, Archdiocese, Mumbai against the Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai allegedly publishing false article under the heading “ Women raise hell on finding CCTV Camera in ladies washroom at Mahim Church ” in its issue dated 5.9.2017 and follow-up article published on 7.9.2017 under the caption “Churchgoers Approach Cops, seek action”. It has been reported in the impugned article that Father Simon Borges, Parish Priest of St. Michel’s Church, says security feature was added after a spate of thefts, vows to remove it if it’s making women uncomfortable. Parishioners at one of Mumbai’s oldest churches are furious at installation of a CCTV camera inside women’s washroom. This is total exposure for women…please tell our priests to wake up and be sensitive to us ladies. We don’t want men crowding around hoping to see some live porn. Advocate Joseph Sodder, who has also raised the issue with the Archdiocese of Bombay, said the installation amounted to outraging the modesty of women. Father told Mirror a series of thefts prompted the security features and if it is making them uncomfortable, we will remove it. Denying the impugned article, the complainant stated that it would be difficult to comprehend how the reporter could have filed such a report if she had not personally visited the site to verify the facts, she has not personally met the authorities of the Church. The source of information seems identical to an email that was forwarded to us. The report was inaccurate inasmuch as it confuses the true facts of the case. The legitimate and permissible installation of the camera at the entrance of the rest room was a security measure to capture unwarranted entrance of any burglars or antisocial elements. The report on this surveillance, which is in keeping with the security laws, was distorted by juxtaposing it with the false allegations of individuals imputing baseless motives to the organisers of indulging in clandestine voyeurism. This was further compounded by the supporting images used by the reporter showing the doors of the inner toilets in such a way as to subtly create an impression that the CCTV camera was positioned to in the privacy of women and outrage their modesty, which is not the truth of the matter. The CCTV camera is pointed outward towards the entrance and this type of reporting is a gross violation of ethical journalism and tantamount to defamation. The complainant stated that the second report was filed with inaccuracies. Both stories were filed by the reporter and there was no fairness and impartiality in either article and the other side of the story was never explored and if at all mentioned was reduced to a few lines. The complainant vide e-mail dated 6.9.2017 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned article and requested him to tender apology, but received no response. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Mumbai Mirror, Maharashtra on 31.10.2017. Written statement The respondent vide his undated written statement received in the Secretariat on 29.11.2017 has submitted that the complaint is totally false, incorrect and an attempt to curb the freedom of the press. The respondent has stated that the article is factually correct, carried in good faith and is based on the complaint made by parishioner to Cardinal Oswald Gracias vide an email and the copy of the same is in his possession. The respondent has further stated that the article was published with the sole intention of highlighting the concerns of women parishioners who were uncomfortable with the CCTV surveillance in the washrooms. The respondent has also stated that the article was published without any malice towards anyone or the other priests or the Christian community. The respondent has stated that they replied to the complainant in response to their Notice dated 6.9.2017 and in this regard a follow-up article was also published with the version of the church. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 12.12.2017 for counter comments.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his Counter Comments dated 23.02.2018 has stated that the Written Statement is contrary to the record and is based on wilful suppression and deliberate distortion of true facts. He has further stated that the respondent initially took no steps to rightly report facts or give the Church an opportunity to deal with and clarify the false baseless allegations or hear and publish the Church’s side of the story in its truthful and correct form. He has also stated that the respondents lied that the Camera is a 360 degree camera when the pictures itself show that the camera was affixed to the wall and the focus was facing the corridor and not the women’s toilet and does not invade the privacy of any person. He has stated that the report is based only on the alleged complaint made by a parishioner to the Archbishop Oswald Cardinal Gracious on 04.09.2017 and the contents of the article were per se false, misleading and defamatory. He has further mentioned that while the cameras were installed in the year 2014 at the instance of women who complained about the robbery of their articles kept in the corridor, alongwith clear notices to the public at large, till date St. Michael’s Church Trust has not received even one complaint from any parishioner or devotee. Even the sender of the email, in the last three years, has never raised any such grievance with the Church Trust. He has also stated that Reporter has falsely implied that the Church is snooping on women devotees, which itself is not only false, but also defamatory. He has denied that there was no warning about the CCTV cameras or that there has been any violation of law or breach of privacy and denied that the respondent has published an article with the Church’s version. He has further stated that till date no other article publishing the version of the Church in its truthful and correct form has been published by Mumbai Mirror. He has denied that there was no warning about the CCTV cameras, or that there are no rusty screws, or that there has been any violation of law or breach of privacy. He has also stated that the contents of the complaint upon which respondent has published impugned article, are false, fictitious and unverified, as verification of those complaints that the priests are watching a live porn recording from the CCTV camera would in fact impute that pornographic activities are taking place in the corridor of the church by female devotees of St. Michaels which is untrue. He has requested the Council that the relief prayed for in the complaint be granted. A copy of Counter Comments was sent to the respondent on 13.04.2018 for information.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. Fr. Shijo Vadakumkaoo, priest along with advocates appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri Kunal Endait, Chief Manager and Smt. Linah Baliga, Special Correspondent represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the complainant, the representative of the Mumbai Mirror and the author of the story. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Newspaper has given a slant to the existence of CCTV camera in the corridor of the ladies washroom which has given credence to the allegations made by C.D’souza and forms part of the news item. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the newspaper ought to have avoided that. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, Warns the newspaper to be more careful in future.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Warn the newspaper. Press Council of India File No. 14/146/17-18-PCI

Complainant Respondent Shri P.M. Shah, The Editor, Chartered Engineer, The Times of India. Vapi, Gujarat Mumbai.

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019

This complaint dated 10.7.2017 has been filed by Shri P.M. Shah, Chartered Engineer, Vapi, Gujarat against the Editor, Times of India, Mumbai for allegedly publishing an instigating news article under the caption “Musa: Show Gau Rakshaks Islam’s Muscle” in its issue dated 6.6.2017. It has been reported in the impugned article that former Hizbul Mujahedeen Commander Fakir Musa, in his first message as an Al Quida operative, released an audio recording slamming Indian Muslims for not joining Islamic jihad for “Gaza-e-Hind”. Invoking the recent atrocities against Muslims in India, Musa reiterated that the war was not just limited to Kashmir. The news item also mentions that the Muslims in India are the most shameless Muslims in the world and they should be ashamed of calling themselves Muslims. Indian Muslims are the most ‘beghairat quam’ who cannot speak up against oppression and injustice. Warning Indian Muslims, Musa said you still have a chance to stand up and join us show cow vigilantes the muscle of Islam and Muslim community. The clip also carried a display of Al Qaida’s motivator and recruiter Imam Anwar al Awlaki picture and quote “The end result is Islam will win”. The complainant submitted that after perusal of the entire article it appears that the respondent is working for Al-Qaida. According to the complainant, the respondent becomes mouthpiece of Al-Qaida as he has printed word by word what Musa spoke. The complainant has further stated that the respondent is making the print available who could not hear the audio of Musa and also instigating Muslims to join Al-Qaida. The complainant also submitted that the respondent editor divided Indian Muslim community one for pro another for against Al-Qaida. The complainant vide letter dated 10.7.2017 drew the attention of the respondent- editor, The Times of India but received no reply. A Show Cause Notice dated 11.9.2017 was served to the respondent editor, Times of India.

Written Statement The respondent Editor, the Times of India, vide his written statement dated 25.10.2017 has informed that contents in the news item are not actionable without any proof of special damage and none has been alleged in the complaint. The respondent has further submitted that no special or other damage has been caused to the complainant or public at large in consequence of the publication of the news report. There can be no bar on the freedom of the Press and media from reporting on public debate relating to the matter wherein larger public interest is involved and the news item was already widely reported in the print media which is in public domain. The respondent submitted that the allegedly objectionable and unethical news report was published in good faith, in public interest without malice and was based on information/documents received from reliable sources, believing the same to be true and correct. The respondent while denying the allegations of the complainant submitted that the news report intended to highlight the burning issue of terrorism and dearly and prominently highlight the statement made by Indian Army itself is a very strong message for those who are engaging in terrorist activities. The respondent further submitted that unfortunately the complainant has chosen to interpret the said news report in a negative manner, whereas the same actually stands as a fantastic piece of information for the general public. He has submitted that the said article is based on the actual tape released by the representative of a terrorist organization and certain parts thereof have been stated ad verbatim to exhibit the real face of terrorism and various facts attached thereto. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.11.2017.

Counter Comments The complainant vide counter comments dated 08.01.2018 has stated that the respondent editor intentionally published impugned news article word by word what Musa spoke in his audio just to instigate Indian Muslims. He has further stated that respondent’s contention in written statement saying to dismiss his complaint does not make his stand strong. He has requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent paper. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent newspaper on 25.1.2018 for his information.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Kunal Endait, Chief Manager, Legal and Smt. Linah Baliga, Special correspondent represented the respondent, the Times of India. Despite service of Notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the Written Statement and all other connected papers. The complainant does not allege that the statement quoted in the newspaper is incorrect. His grievance is that it is intended to instigate the followers of the religion. The Inquiry Committee does not find that the respondent newspaper by publishing the news item has violated any code of conduct calling for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

F.No.14/65/18-19-PCI.

Complainant Respondent Shri Umang Satish Popat @ Thakkar, The Editor, Mumbai, Avadh Times, Maharashtra. Amreli (Gujarat)

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019 This complaint dated 20.4.2018 has been filed by Shri Umang Satish Popat & Thakkar, Mumbai, through his advocate, against “Avadh Times” (Gujarati), Amreli (Gujarat) for allegedly publishing false, fabricated, distorted, unsubstantiated, derogatory and defamatory news item in its issue dated 23.1.2018 under the caption “Blaming immoral relations with father, the photos with Tantrik made viral – Blackmailed the wife, the husband obtained signatures on divorce papers against her assent” (English translation). As per English translation provided by the complainant, it has been reported in the impugned news item that- “The lady aged 27 residing near Shrinath Cotton at Dhari, her marriage was solemnized with Umang Satish Popat residing at Kandivali, Mumbai. After marriage to make the lady mentally unsound, he had repeatedly took her to Tantrik. And performed the Tantrik rites, through spy camera he had shoot the photos and videos. Those photos and videos were uploaded by her husband upon social media, thereby he made them viral thereby conspired to defame the lady. This lady having immoral relations wither guardian father, her husband was spreading such false rumours in community. Thereby to damage social prestige of her guardian father. Simultaneously by blackmailing her upon the divorce papers, he obtained signatures of lady without her consent before the Notary. In this respect further action initiated by police upon lodging the complaint.” Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has alleged that the respondent published derogatory and defamatory statement. According to the complainant, he initially resided at Dahanu in Maharashtra with his parents, Shri Satish Thakkar and Mrs. Indu Satish Thakkar. In September, 2016, he got a proposal for re-marriage from a marriage co-ordinator, Shri Vijay Kotak and the proposal came from one Shri Bharat Popat, Amreli, Gujarat for one Ms. Alpa. He married with Ms. Alpa on 5..12.2016 at Amreli as per the Hindu rituals. However, he had inhibitions about the status and relations of Shri Bharat Popat with Ms. Alpa, his to-be wife as the wedding card for the marriage described Ms.Alpa as the daughter of Mrs. And Mr. Bacchubhai Valjibhai Limbasiya, and no where did the name of Shri Bharat Popat reflected in any manner whatsoever. The complainant has stated that no single person from Limbasiya family attended the wedding. When the queried about the absence of persons from Limbasiya family including the biological father and mother of Ms. Alpa, it was informed by Shri Bharat Popat that after the adoption in the year 2014, there is no relation of Ms. Alpa with her biological parents. The complainant has stated that Shri Bharat Popat forced him to register their marriage and accordingly their marriage was got registered on 19.8.2017 at Dhari. Immediately thereafter, Ms. Alpa showed he worst colours as she created a hue and cry at very taken opportunity and the bickering between her and him increased manifold. The complainant has further stated that he realised that there was something fishy going on and that Ms. Alpa and Shri Bharat were planning something very dangerous. In consequence of the same, he lodged a complaint with the local police station regarding torture and harassment caused by Ms. Alpa and Shri Bharat Popat. According to the complainant, Ms. Alpa and Shri Popat threatened and pressurised him to transfer his flat in the name of Ms. Alpa. With many turn of events having occurred during the course of time, ultimately on or about 22.12.2017, a Deed of Mutual Divorce was executed between him and Ms. Alpa. The complainant has alleged that on 23.1.2018, the respondent newspaper published impugned article and under this article the respondent named him and related the fantastical story without bothering to verify the truth and veracity of the facts. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent deliberately maligned and disrepute him without verifying the truthfulness of the story placed before them by Mr. Bharat Popat. The complainant has also alleged that the respondent used the power of the pen systematically to discredit him. The complainant vide his letter/Notice dated 20.4.2018 drew the attention of the respondent but to no avail. While requesting for condoning of delay in filing the complaint, he has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Avadh Times, Amreli, Gujarat on 27.7.2018. Written Statement The respondent-Publisher, Avadh Times vide his written statement dated 23.8.2018 has informed that the impugned news item was based on the FIR copy received from the Mahila Police Station, Amreli dated 21.1.2018 and also the written statement received from the victim, Smt. Alpaben Bachhubhai Limbassiya dated 21.1.2018. The respondent has produced copies of the FIR and statement of Smt. Alpaben Limbassia. While denying the allegation levelled by the complainant, the respondent has requested the Council to revert the show-cause notice. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.9.2018 for information/counter comments.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Umang S. Thakkar appeared in person. Shri Bharat D. Chawan, Editor & Publisher represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant. Despite service of notice, excepting representative of the Awadh Times the other respondents have not appeared. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the Written Statement and other connected papers. The Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to give his version in short form to the respondent newspaper within two weeks. The complainant doing so, the respondent shall publish the same in the newspaper within one week thereafter. With the aforesaid direction, the Inquiry Committee disposes of the matter.

Complainant Respondent Shri Umang Satish Popat @ Thakkar, The Editor, Mumbai, Gujarat Samachar, Maharashtra. Rajkot (Gujarat)

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019 This complaint dated 20.4.2018 has been filed by Shri Umang Satish Popat & Thakkar, Mumbai, through his advocate, against “Gujarat Samachar” (Gujarati), Amreli (Gujarat) for allegedly publishing false, fabricated, distorted, unsubstantiated, derogatory and defamatory news item in its issue dated 23.1.2018 under the caption “Against assent took signatures, at Mumbai – The husband obtained divorce invalidly, the wife lodged complaint” (English translation). As per English translation provided by the complainant, it has been reported in the impugned news item that- “With guardian father having immoral relations, as well doubting upon character, such was blamed upon her wife by husband residing at Mumbai, he took her to mental insane Tantrik, performed the Tantrik rites, shoot the video thereof and threatened her to defame in community, the husband blackmailed her and against her assent obtained signatures obtained divorce, due to this incidence the depressed spouse lodged the complaint at Amreli, due to which much uproar created. Blaming having immoral relations with guardian father, performed rites by Tantrik, complaint of blackmailing by husband The lady name-AlpabenBachubhai Limasiya, residing at, Visavadar Road, Dhari, her marriage was solemnized on date 5-12 last year, with Umang Satishbhai Popat of Mumbai, thereafter husband of suspicious nature under pretext of unsound mental condition of the lady, sunk in superstitious feelings, he had repeatedly took her to Tantrik, performed the rites and he shoot the video of this rites, blaming that his wife being characterless and having immoral relations with her guardian father, thereby spread false rumours in community, harassed her mentally and physically, husband had threatened to ruin the life of his wife, to defame in community and in social media to make viral the video with the Tantrik, to defame herself and her guardian father, he demanded the money, by blackmailing, before Notary he obtained her signatures upon divorce papers, against her assent thereafter not returned the photos of Tantrik rites, Alpabenhas lodged such complaint at Amreli before lady police, lady ASI, S.D. Jethva has initiated the investigation”. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has alleged that the respondent published derogatory and defamatory statement. According to the complainant, he initially resided at Dahanu in Maharashtra with his parents, Shri Satish Thakkar and Mrs. Indu Satish Thakkar. In September, 2016, he got a proposal for remarriage from a marriage co-ordinator, Shri Vijay Kotak and the proposal came from one Shri Bharat Popat, Amreli, Gujarat for one Ms. Alpa. The complainant has further stated that Shri Kotak and Shri Bharat Popat assured him and his family that Ms. Alpa was appropriate for him in all manners. He married with Ms. Alpa on 5.12.2016 at Amreli as per the Hindu rituals. However, he had inhibitions about the status and relations of Shri Bharat Popat with Ms. Alpa, his to-be wife as the wedding card for the marriage described Ms.Alpa as the daughter of Mrs. And Mr. Bacchubhai Valjibhai Limbasiya, and no where did the name of Shri Bharat Popat reflected in any manner whatsoever. The complainant has alleged that on 23.1.2018, the respondent newspaper published impugned article and named him and related the fantastical story without bothering to verify the truth and veracity of the facts. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent deliberately maligned and disrepute him without verifying the truthfulness of the story placed before them by Mr. Bharat Popat. The complainant has also alleged that the respondent used the power of the pen systematically to discredit him. The complainant vide his letter/Notice dated 20.4.2018 drew the attention of the respondent but to no avail. While requesting for condoning of delay in filing the complaint, he has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent. A Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Gujarat Samachar, Rajkot, Gujarat on 26.7.2018.

Written Statement The respondent-Shri Shreyans S. Shah, Managing Editor, Gujarat Samachar vide his written statement dated 23.8.2018 has submitted that the impugned news item is solely based on FIR No.1/1/2018 lodged with Mahila Police Station of Amreli by the victim, Alpaben against the complainant containing serious allegations related to offences punishable under Section 384, 498A, 114 IPC. According to the respondent, there is nothing in the complaint which suggests violation of any code of conduct set by the Press Council of India. This complaint filed with ulterior motive for preventing further publication of the news against the complainant which is likely to be taken by the police/judiciary. The respondent has stated that the FIR is a public document and matter of public domain. It is a case of woman who is subjected to extortion and harassment by the complainant and cognizance taken against the complainant by the lawful authority by registration of offence. The respondent has further stated that it is a matter of public interest and it is within the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The respondent also stated that there is no substance in the complaint. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.9.2018 for information/counter comments.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Umang S. Thakkar appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Gujarat Samachar. Despite service of notice, respondent has not appeared. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the Written Statement and other connected papers. The Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to give his version in short form to the respondent newspaper within two weeks. The complainant doing so, the respondent shall publish the same in the respective newspaper within one week thereafter. With the aforesaid direction, the Inquiry Committee disposes of the matter. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India F.No.14/67/18-19-PCI. Complainant Respondent Shri Umang Satish Popat @ Thakkar, The Editor, Mumbai, Amreli Express, Maharashtra. Amreli (Gujarat)

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019 This complaint dated 20.4.2018 has been filed by Shri Umang Satish Popat & Thakkar, Mumbai, through his advocate, against “Amreli Express” (Gujarati), Amreli (Gujarat) for allegedly publishing false, fabricated, distorted, unsubstantiated, derogatory and defamatory news item in its issue dated 22.1.2018 under the caption “First took to Tantrik there performed the rites-The lady of Dhari, her husband only tried to blackmail her-Before Notary, Signed in the divorce against assent” (English translation). As per English translation provided by the complainant, it has been reported in the impugned news item that- “Alpaben Bachubhai Vakjibhai Limasiya, residing at Visavadar Road in Shrinath Cottion Dhari, her husband, Umang Satish Popat, residing at 302, Gokul Heights, Mathuradas Road, Kandivali, Mumbai to make her mentally unsound he reportedly took her to Tantrik, performed upon her Tantrik rites and without her knowledge through spy camera shoot photographs and videos, then threatened her to upload those photographs and videos upon social media and spreading false rumours in community that she having immoral relations with her guardian father. Thereby to damage social prestige of herself and her guardian father, thereby blackmailing her, against her assent before notary took her signatures upon divorce papers and now not returning the alleged photographs and videos and consideration of those photographs and videos the accused demanded the money, in this respect the complaint is registered by lady police station.” The complainant has alleged that on 22.1.2018, the respondent newspaper published impugned article and under this article the respondent named him and related the fantastical story without bothering to verify the truth and veracity of the facts. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent deliberately maligned and disrepute him without verifying the truthfulness of the story placed before them by Mr. Bharat Popat. The complainant has also alleged that the respondent used the power of the pen systematically to discredit him. The complainant vide his letter/Notice dated 20.4.2018 drew the attention of the respondent but to no avail. While requesting for condoning of delay in filing the complaint, he has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Amreli Express, Amreli, Gujarat on 26.7.2018.

Written Statement The respondent-Editor, Amreli Express vide his written statement dated August, 2018 while denying the allegation of the complainant has stated that the impugned news item published by him is a public information as obtained from the copy of the FIR made available to him which is complaint filed by the wife of the complainant with Dhari PS vide CR No.I- 1/2018 dated 21.1.2018 under Section 384/498A/506/114 IPC, therefore, it cannot be said that any fake news is published or fabricated or cooked up and the FIR has been made the basis for the publication of the news item. The respondent has further stated that before publishing the impugned news item, the same had been verified personally by him as well as by the Investigating Officer. Denying any violation of any rules framed by the PCI, the respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.9.2018 for information/counter comments.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Umang S. Thakkar appeared in person. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Amreli Express. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the Written Statement and other connected papers. The Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to give its version in short form to the respondent newspaper within two weeks. The complainant doing so, the respondent shall publish the same in the respective newspaper within one week thereafter. With the aforesaid direction, the Inquiry Committee disposes of the matter.

F.No.14/432/17-18-PCI

Complainant Respondent

SBI Capital Markets Limited, The Editor, Mumbai. The Economic Times, Mumbai.

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019

This complaint dated 19.12.2017 has been filed by SBI Capital Markets Limited, Mumbai, through Advocate, against the Editor, The Economic Times, Mumbai for allegedly publishing false, fabricated and malicious news item in its issue dated 9.8.2017 under the caption “ Earn, the SBI Caps Way! ” in the column “MINTSTREET Masala”. The impugned news read as follows:- “There are many ways to earn a living, but SBIU Capital Markets has come up with a novel way, though with a bit of help from the Finance Ministry. When the Government suggested that the advisory firm come up with principles of prudent living for banks. SBI Caps came up with one. In fact, it circulated the brief which looked like a few points from a management school text book to many banks, some of whom did not even need the advice. But the surprise came a few weeks later, the adviser sent in ‘lakhs of rupees’ for the unsolicited advice.” Denying the allegation, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news item is totally false, fabricated and malicious and published without verifying the facts from them. According to the complainant, the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India appointed them for designing a detailed time bound turnaround plan in consultation with the top management of the Public Sector Banks by which sustainable viability can be achieved in the next few years. Accordingly, Offer letters were sent by them to the Public Sector Banks outlining the terms and conditions, scope of services and compensation structure and after perusing the Offer letter by the Public Sector Banks sent their consent/acceptance for engaging him as Advisor of implementation of time bound turnaround plan and advice/report to the Public Sector Banks involved:- i) several round of discussions with the client and assimilation of the information to understand about the key problem areas of the bank; ii) Preparation of detailed projections for next three financial years with quarterly projection; iii) provided guidance on various cost control measures, NPA management, increase in profitability etc. According to the complainant, the impugned news item states that some of the banks did not even need his advice. In this regard, the complainant has stated the advice was tendered based on the specific request made by the controllers of the Public Sector Banks viz. DFS, Government of India and on acceptance of Offer letter by the respective Pubic Sector Banks. With regard to the allegation of bill in lakhs of rupees for the unsolicited advice, the complainant has stated that the offer letter which was accepted by the respective Public Sector Banks outlines the fee structure which was accepted by the Banks and hence the question of surprise does not arise. The complainant has further stated that the respondent manifestly published an inaccurate, baseless, misleading article without verifying the facts from them. The complainant vide Notice dated 21.8.2017 has drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item requesting him to publish an apology in writing. The complainant has again issued legal notice dated 22.9.2017 to the respondent requesting him to remove the impugned article. In response thereto, the respondent vide his reply dated 12.10.2017 while vehemently denying the allegations levelled in the notice has stated that so far as the used of the words ‘unsolicited advice’ is concerned, it was the Finance Ministry which asked SBI Markets to do so and not the banks which received the advice. The respondent has further stated that the impugned article published in normal course and in good faith. While expressing dissatisfaction on the reply of the respondent, the complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, The Economic Times, Mumbai on 24.1.2018.

Written Statement The respondent-Editor, The Economic Times vide his undated written statement, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 22.2.2018 while denying each and every allegation levelled in the complaint has stated that impugned news item was published in normal course in public interest based on information received from authorised and trusted sources, information and/or documents received from reliable sources duly verified and believed to be true and correct and without any malice towards anyone. The respondent has further stated that the impugned news item does not make any allegations, imputations or innuendo whatsoever against the complainant, therefore, complainant’s grievances are unjustified. According to the respondent, the impugned article deals with the very important matter of the greater public concern which simultaneously revolves around public funds and investments, which is the paramount consideration of every welfare state, including India. They are duty bound to report material information in the best interest of their discerning readers, more particularly the investor’s interest. Moreover, the complainant being wholly owned subsidiary and the Investment Banking arm of State Bank of India has substantial public interest and attention, hence, the complainant cannot be permitted to claim any special privilege of being outside the ambit of public scrutiny. The complainant has further stated that they have in the impugned article highlighted the fact that the Finance Ministry issued advisory to the complainant on the issue of principles of prudent living for banks. They have without any intent added certain lighter words and phrases and passed message without any ill intent whatsoever towards the complainant. The mere fact that the advice issued by the Ministry was circulated by the complainant to other banks clearly demonstrates that the complainant is extremely strong on the compliance and ethics front. It is imperative that the complainant could have simply concealed the said advice and/or implemented for the self, however, the complainant went out of the way and informed others similarly placed organisations clearly exhibits the bonafide intention of the complainant. While denying violation of any norms of journalistic ethics, the respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the case.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 12.3.2018 Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated June, 2018 while reiterating his complaint has denied the written statement of the respondent-‘Economic Times’. The complainant has further stated that merely stating that the information has been derived from trusted sources does not hold good in law and that the respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their statement. According to the complainant, the respondent made self-contradictory statement in the written statement. On the one hand, the respondent has alleged that the news report is factually correct and has been published in public interest while on the other hand he admitted that the article was published in the column “Mintstreet Masala”, on lighter note, which statement of this “responsible newspaper” is to believe is not clear. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news report has cast a wrong impression of SBI Markets in the minds of readers and that the same has caused loss of repute and goodwill to them. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 21.8.2018.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The respondent newspaper in its issue dated 19th August, 2017 published a news item under the caption" Earned the SBI Caps Way” in the column Mintstreet Masala" It reads as follows “There are many ways to earn a living, but SBIU Capital Markets has come up with a novel way, though with a bit of help from the Finance Ministry. When the Government suggested that the advisory firm come up with principles of prudent living for banks. SBI Caps came up with one. In fact, it circulated the brief which looked like a few points from a management school text book to many banks, some of whom did not even need the advice. But the surprise came a few weeks later, the adviser sent in ‘lakhs of rupees’ for the unsolicited advice.” It is the assertion of the complainant that the entire contents of the aforesaid news item is false, fabricated and malicious. The respondent in his reply has tried to defend the same, seeking shelter under the right of freedom of speech. It is further stated as under: “We say and submit that unfortunately the complainant has misinterpreted the intent and the message we have tried to convey to our discerning readers. This Hon’ble Forum would appreciate that the said news report came to be published by us in our column viz. MINSTREET Masala! Which has been introduced by us in our newspaper with an intent to engage our discerning readers on lighter note, since the remaining part of the newspaper comprise the serious and academic reports. Mere title of the caption of the column itself is self-explanatory. In view of the above the article needs to be interpreted along with its column.” The complainant submits that this has maligned the institution as a whole on the basis of the fact narrated therein which are untrue. The Inquiry Committee does accept that the respondent newspaper has freedom to write in lighter mode but that freedom does not give the newspaper to write about an institution or an individual untrue facts even in a lighter note. This is primarily the defense of the respondent. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, facts are sacrosanct which cannot be allowed to be distorted in lighter note. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that such an insinuation brings down the reputation of an Organization and cannot be condoned on a specious plea that it is in a lighter note. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent has violated norms of journalistic ethics and calls for action. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspaper be Censured . A copy of the Order be forwarded to the Director of Public Relation(DIPR), Govt. of Maharashtra, Director General of DAVP. DIPR, Maharashtra who in turn shall communicate this Order to all concerned.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Censure the respondent newspaper with the above directions.

Press Council of India

F.No.14/395/17-18-PCI

Complainant Respondent

Shri Aadinath Anna Goundaje, The Editor, Kolhapur, Daily Sakal, Maharashtra. Pune, Maharashtra.

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019

This complaint dated 14.10.2017 has been filed by Shri Aadinath Anna Goundaje, Kolhapur (Maharashtra) against “Daily Sakal”, Kolhapur for allegedly charging money for publication of news about his society. According to the complainant, he is retired person and now working as social worker and due to his social work, he is in contact with Press Reporters. In April, 2016, he met one Shri Ganesh Shinde, News Reporter of Daily Sakal. After introduction, he provided information and photos about waste water problems of Dr. J.J. Magdum Housing Society, Jaysingpur to Shri Ganesh Shine. The complainant has informed that Shri Shinde told him that “ their newspaper would not be financially benefited for publishing their news. However, if they publish any advertisement, their newspaper will earn money. Therefore, either he (complainant) has to pay amount as per their advertisement tariff for getting the news published or he has to purchase 500 copies and distribute in their area. ” The complainant has further informed that Shri Shinde, thereafter, charged him for each and every news provided by him. He paid Rs.1,10,000/- in cash to Shri Shinde for getting the news published in Daily Sakal and Rs.18,000/- for function arranged by him. According to the complainant, when he discussed the matter with other press reporters about this system of news publishing, they informed him that “News are published without any charges and advertisement are charged as per tariff”. The complainant has stated that when he asked Shri Shinde about this, he denied all cash transactions and started threatening him. The complainant has submitted that he sent complaints dated 3.8.2017 to the Daily Sakal, Kolhapur Office and again on 6.9.2017 to the Head Office of Daily Sakal at Pune, but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Daily Sakal, Pune on 26.12.2017.

Written Statement The respondent vide his written statement dated 15.1.2018, filed through his advocate, while denying the allegation of receiving amount for publication of news items between the period of May-August, 2016 has stated that the complainant has made false allegation. According to the respondent, the complainant had earlier made a complaint on 3.8.2017 to Sakal Papers Ltd. against Shri Ganesh Shinde, Reporter. The detail inquiry for said allegation/complaint was conducted and it was noticed that the complainant used to pressurize the Reporter to publish his news items, for his personal interest. The respondent has further informed that the complainant at times used to inform about news items, which would be helpful for public at large and which were also published many times. But thereafter, the complainant wanted his news items to be published in newspaper for his personal interest especially when he wants to publish some articles against one Shri Ajit Patil, Gram Panchayat Member, Mouje Agar Tal. Shirol, District Kolhapur as there is personal enmity between the complainant and Shri Ajit Patil. When the Reporter refused to get news published, the complainant pressurized him to publish. The respondent has further alleged that the complaint is false and baseless. His reporter never obtained/received/demanded any amount for publishing news items from the complainant.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 22.1.2018 while reiterating his complaint has alleged that the written statement of the respondent is totally false and it shows that they ignored complaints against paid news policy of Daily Sakal and Reporters of Daily Sakal. The complainant has stated that he is a retired person and working as social worker and he has no personal interest. With regard to inquiry conducted by the respondent newspaper, the complainant has stated that the respondent did not send any letter or information about the inquiry. With regard to allegation of personal enmity between him and Shri Ajit Patil, the complainant has informed that he has no personal enmity with Shri Patil. In fact, Shri Patil is a Gram Panchayat Member and he is also working as a contractor for this Gram Panchayat, which is against Government Rules and he tried to stop illegal work and this is not a personal enmity. The complainant has informed that he filed complaints against Shri Ajit Patil to several government offices. The complainant has stated that all other newspapers published his news without any charges and only respondent newspaper charges him for publication of news, which means the respondent is working on only paid news. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 6.2.2018.

Further Counter Comments The complainant, Shri Adinath Anna Goundaje vide his further Counter Comments dated 17.12.2018 has reiterated the explanation filed earlier and submitted that he has filed a Criminal Complaint against the news reporter Mr. Ganesh Sindhe, in the court of J.M.F.C. Jaysingpur U/S 406 and 420. He has filed the complaint not with the ulterior motive but Mr. Ganesh Shinde has filed suit for compensation with an intention to harass him.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Aadinath Anna Goundaje appeared in person. Shri M.D. Karde, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the counsel for the respondent newspaper. It is the common ground that the complainant has filed Criminal Case against the Reporter in respect of the subject matter of the impugned news. The Inquiry Committee takes note of the aforesaid statement and disposes of the complaint.

Press Council of India

File No. 14/396/17-18/PCI

Complainant Respondent Mrs. Sarla Ramesh Diwate, The Editor, Sheynagar, Aurangabad- 431 005. Lokmat Times, Aurangabad.

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019 This complaint dated 3.11.2017 has been filed by Mrs. Sarla Ramesh Diwate, Aurangabad, Maharashtra against the editor, Daily Lokmat Times, Aurangabad, alleging publication of a defamatory news item under the caption: “32 booked for duping trader of Rs. 1.74L” in its issue dated 20.9.2017. It has been reported in the impugned news item that Thirty-two persons including BSNL engineer, his wife and daughter in law were booked on the charge of duping a trader of Rs. 1.75 lakh by persuading him to invest in a bogus scheme in 2006-07. It has been further reported that the prime suspect of the cheating case has been identified as Ramesh Tukaram Diwate (Shreyanagar) who is an engineer in the BSNL. Other suspects are identified as his wife, son and daughter in law. The impugned news item states that the BSNL Engineer informed his friend about a scheme with promising returns wherein one has to invest Rs. 41, 364 after which a four- wheeler like Maruti Car would be purchased in his name. The purchased vehicle would be given on the rent to companies and Rs. 4,000 will be given to the investor towards rent for few years. The vehicle later would be handed over to the investor. Impressed by the features and returns of the scheme, one Shri Gande agreed to pay the down payment for four wheeler and received Rs. 4,000 towards rent for eight month only. Later, he stopped receiving the money and was convinced that he had been duped and therefore lodged a formal complaint with the Police Station. Finally, a case was registered against the complainant. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant (wife of BSNL Engineer) has alleged that the impugned news item was published without verifying the facts with a view to tarnish their image in the society. The complainant has stated that she has nothing to do with Unique Company as Director except being investor. The complainant has further stated that she has been working as an LIC agent for last 24 years and the impugned news affected her LIC business and defamed her in society. According to the complainant, the FIR related to this crime has already been lodged in 2007 against Unique Company, in Jinsi Police Station, double FIR cannot be registered. She has submitted that she drew the attention of the respondent newspaper vide letter dated 13.10.2017, but received no response. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2017 was issued to the respondent Editor, Lokmat Times.

Written Statement The respondent, Shri Yogesh Gole, Resident Editor, Lokmat Times vide his written statement dated 13.1.2018 while denying the allegation levelled in the complaint has informed that the impugned news item dated 20.9.2017 was officially given to all media by Aurangabad Police and issued the Press Note dated 19.9.2017. The respondent has further submitted that all the facts, figures, names and other things mentioned in the news item are based on the FIR and the information provided to the Lokmat Times by the Investigating Officer of the Police. The respondent has stated that there is neither exaggeration of any kind of news nor distortion of the facts and it was published as routine crime news without prejudice to anybody and has been covered by all the major newspaper of the city. The respondent further stated that the news was published without the intention to harm anybody’s image in the society. He has requested the Council to initiate action against them. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 9.2.2018 for information/comments.

Counter Comments The complainant vide counter comments dated 23.2.2018 has informed that the respondent’s statement about receiving Press Note officially by the Aurangabad Police is completely false as on 19.9.2017 total 12 crimes were registered, out of which ACP (Crime) officially issued only four Press Notes which she has collected through R.T.I. information. She has further submitted that a copy related to Press Note produced by the concerned newspaper is not a Press Note but a copy of DCR(Daily Crime Report) copy supplied to all newspapers on 19.9.2017 by email as a routine work of Police Department, no name of any accused is mentioned in the DCR copy. Hence, the respondent newspaper is misleading the PCI. The complainant submitted that except Lokmat Times, no other newspaper published such news on 20.9.2017. She has further submitted that the complainant of the said crime on 31.1.2018 vide dairy No. 41/31.1.2018 of Cidco Police Station gave a statement that 22 names were wrongly included in FIR and requested to the delete “the names with request no action”, including complainant’s name. A copy of Counter Comments was forwarded to the respondent newspaper on 26.3.2018 for information.

Further submission filed the complainant Shri R.T. Diwate, representative/husband for the complainant, vide communication dated 17.12.2018 has filed further papers in support of his contention. He has submitted that there was no Press Note by the Police on 19.9.2017 as claimed by the Lokmat Times, it was an email to all newspaper covering said FIR which includes nobody’s name. He has further submitted that no other newspaper published his name except Lokmat Times as wife of BSNL Engineer Ramesh Tukaram Diwate. He has requested to take strict action against the respondent newspaper.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.12.2018 at Mumbai. Shri Ramesh T. Diwate, representative along with Shri Naresh K. Kulsange, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri Satish Ligadev, HR Head, Smt. Chaitali Rohankar and Shri Pendse, Advocates represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the complainant's name find mentioned in the FIR and therefore the respondent newspaper has not committed any wrong by giving her name in the news item. However, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent was very casual in filing the reply and making false assertion in that the news item is based on an official release issued by the Police. The complainant has placed on record material to show that no such release was issued. The Inquiry Committee expects the respondent newspaper to be careful in future, while putting up its defence. With the aforesaid observation, the Inquiry Committee disposes of the complaint.

Press Council of India File No. 14/436/17-18/PCI Complainant Respondent

Mr. Sayyad Tanvir Alam Sayyad Niyaz Ali, The Editor, Amravati (Maharashtra.) Preranapunj, Amravati (Maharashtra.)

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019

This complaint dated 28.12.2017 has been filed by Mr. Sayyad Tanvir Alam Sayyad Niyaz Ali, Amravati against the Editor, Preranapunj, Amravati alleging publication of defamatory news item along with photograph under the captions: “ तनवीर आलम के इशारे पर पलसु कायवाह !” and “डीसीपी गये थे लैब मे, पकड़ लया लाख का गुटका ” in its issue dated 19.12.2017. It has been reported in the first impugned news item that Police conducted a raid at ‘Eagle Sales’ and recovered tobacco/Gutka worth lakhs of rupees. The raid was conducted on the tip off a Mukhbir (Informer), Mr. Sayyad Tanvir Alam Sayyad Niyaz Ali. Mr. Tanvir Alam informed the police about Gutka Godown and on the basis of this information, police seized all the material on the spot. It has been reported in the second impugned news item that the D.C.P conducted a raid and seized Gutka of Rs. 4-5 Lakh and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the culprits. The complainant has objected that the respondent published defamatory news item by pronouncing him as “Mukhbir” to Police in the impugned news item and also objected to the contents of impugned news item which states that he had played a role in the raid for seizure of Gutka. The complainant has stated that the respondent editor has also published his photograph and highlighted by encircling it in the news item. He has submitted that the respondent editor has committed offence under sections 500, 501 and 502 of IPC, therefore, he has lodged a complaint against him at Kholapuri Gate Police Station. He has further submitted that the respondent Editor in order to defame him, distributed copies of the news in the Muslim locality. The complainant vide another letter dated 15.2.2018 raised the question about the registration of the newspaper i.e. is being circulated unauthorisedly since 2014. He drew the attention of the respondent Editor vide letter dated 21.12.2017 but no response was received. A Show Cause Notice dated 5.3.2018 was issued to the respondent Editor, Preranapunj, Amravati (Maharashtra.)

Written Statement The respondent, Chief Editor, Prernapunj vide his written statement dated 23.3.2018 while denying the allegation has informed that during the said raid, the complainant was present and in his presence all procedures were done. This can clearly be noticed from the photographs taken at the spot where the complainant was present with police personnel, therefore, the said news referring the complainant Mukhbir/Informer was reported. The respondent has further submitted that by publishing news item, he has increased complainant’s dignity in the eye of the police and society. Thus, the said “Mukhbir” word used in the newspaper should not be construed as defamatory. He has further submitted that the complainant with ulterior motive lodged non-cognizable offences against him with the Police Station without any substantial substance which is an infringement to the Press freedom. A copy of the Written Statement was forwarded to the respondent Editor on 9.4.2018 for information.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 1.5.2018 while reiterating his complaint has alleged that the written statement is totally false, fabricated and imaginary. The complainant has further stated that he is ready to file relevant documents at the time of hearing/arguments. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 17.5.2018.

Apology letter tendered by the respondent newspaper Shri Anil Munhot, Editor vide letter dated 18.12.2018 has tendered an apology stating that they have inadvertently used the name of the complainant in the news item published in their newspaper on 19.12.2017 which hurt the sentiments of the complainant. They have therefore, tendered an apology to the complainant and further assured to publish clarification in their edition on 20.12.2018.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. Shri Tanveer Alam, complainant along with advocate Shri N.R. Shah appeared in person. The respondent Editor, Anil Munot along with Shri Mahendra S. Chandak , Advocate represented the respondent newspaper. The Editor of the respondent newspaper is present and has filed a manuscript of the expression of regret which he proposes to publish in the newspaper. This has been shown to the complainant’s counsel and he is satisfied with that. Taking into account aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee disposes of the complaint.

Press Council of India

F. No. 14/426/17-18-PCI Complainant Respondent

Shri Banshi Dhar Jindal, The Editor, President, Sandhya Border Times, Chamber of Commerce, Sriganganagar, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. Rajasthan.

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019 This complaint dated 30.12.2017 has been filed by Shri Banshi Dhar Jindal, President, Chamber of Commerce, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) against “Sandhya Border Times”, Sriganganagar for allegedly publishing false, misleading and defamatory news items. The date and caption of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Caption Date

1 थानेदार बोला -उंचे लेवल का है मामला , जैसे नदश मलेग, कारवाई कर दगे 6.12.2017 2 बंशीधर िजंदल क पारवारक फम जीडी आटो मोटस पर मकदमाु 10.10.2017 3 सरसा म लडकय का शाररक तो ीगंगानगर म मानसक शोषण 31.8.2017 4 संथाओं ने सच बोला तो खलु जाएगी गोरखधंधे क पोल 10.6.2017 5 कया लोहडी - शण संथाओं एसई रकाड मांगा 2.6.2017 6 कया लोहडी म शा पैकेज बांटने के मामले क जांच शु 25.5.2017 7 बंशीधर िजंदलक कया लोहडी जांच के घेरे म 11.5.2017 8 आपका कसूर यह है 14.2.2017 9 सुपरहट होगी सीडी 25.11.2016 10 िजंदल ने चैबर आप कामस को बनाया जेबी संथा 12.9.2017 11 झूठ वाहवाह का खेल है कया लोहडी 11.2.2016 12 10.12.2015 घर म रेवडयाँ बांटकर हुआ चैबर आफ कामस का गठन 13 दल क महलाओं के शमनाक वीडयो देख ीगंगानगर म लोग ले रहे 2.9.2017 चटखारे 14 महलाओं ने आधुनकता के नाम पर उतार फक शम -हया 21.11.2017 It has been reported in the first two impugned news items that the G.D. Auto Motors, a Firm of Shri B.D. Jindal has received payment of Rs.5 lakh from Municipal Council by fitting up old engine in Fire-Brigade vehicles. The Municipal Council has filed a case of fraud amounting to Rs.5 lakh against Shri B.D. Jindal for fraudulently charging money purportedly for new engines by fitting up old engines in Fire-Brigade vehicle. The Investigation Officer said that the matter is high profile and the action will be taken accordingly as per direction of the higher police authorities. It has been further reported in the impugned news items that the complainant has organised a programme i.e. “Kanya-Lohri” and collected money/donation fraudulently in the name of education packages for girl students. In this regard, many complaints were addressed to the Prime Minister, Chief Minister and higher officers for not providing benefits to the girl students by the complainant. Higher authorities passed order for inquiry in the matter but nobody appears to be serious for taking action against the complainant. It has been further reported that the Chamber of Commerce did not disclose the details of the education packages. It has also been reported that the Kanya-Lohri organised by the complainant is under police investigation. The police have called record from the associate educational institutes of Chambers of Commerce and also called for list of students from the complainant to whom education packages were given. It has been further reported that the complainant has also formed his own JB Organization and appointed his own family members as its officers and thereby filing false complaints arbitrarily against the traders on the letter-head of the Chamber of Commerce. Denying the allegations, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news items are totally false, baseless, misleading and published with a view to harass and defame him and his organization-The Chamber of Commerce. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent-Editor, Shri Ravi Chamariya threatened him over phone time to time stating that if he (the complainant) does not support him, he will defame him and thereafter the respondent started publishing objectionable and defamatory impugned news items against him. The complainant has stated that the impugned news items dated 2.9.2017 and 21.11.2017 are not related with him but it shows that how the respondent publishes and portrays the women in bad manner, which is not justifiable. The complainant vide his letter dated 15.2.2018 has written to the respondent asking him to produce documentary evidence in support of impugned news items and also asked him to publish contradiction. In response thereto, the respondent-editor, Sandhya Border Times vide his letter dated 22.2.2018 has asked to produce clarification/version about each and every impugned news item so that further action could be taken. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show Cause Notice was issued to the Editor, Sandhya Border Times, Sriganganagar on 4.4.2018.

Written Statement Shri Ravi Chamariya, Editor, Sandhya Border Times vide his written statement dated 17.4.2018 while denying the allegations levelled in the complaint has stated that the impugned news items were based on facts. According to the respondent, the complainant organized a program i.e. Kanya-Lohri in December, 2015 for getting appreciation. In this regard, he published the news items along with complainant’s version but despite that the complainant expressed his disappointment over phone and threatened to close down his newspaper. Thereafter, the complainant started filing false complaints against his newspaper to the higher authorities with a view to pressurize him. The respondent has submitted that the impugned news item with regard to filing of a case against the complainant’s firm G.D. Auto Motors was based on the FIR No.838/17 registered in Police Station Harumangarh Town. The respondent has alleged that the other leading newspapers also published the stories but the complainant maliciously filed complaint only against his newspaper. The respondent has submitted that the complainant’s son, Shri Vinay Jindal filed complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar with regard to the impugned news items. On the direction of Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police investigated the matter and found that the complaint is baseless. The respondent has alleged that the complainant has filed false, misleading complaint prejudicially, which is liable to be dismissed. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 3.5.2018.

Further submission of the complainant The complainant, Shri Banshi Dhar Jindal has filed further submissions in support of his case at the time of hearing held on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. He has submitted that the way respondent has published the news many times merely on basis of FIR shows his ill intention towards him and objected to the language used in the newspaper by the respondent. He has submitted that after his complaint with the DAVP and RNI, it constituted a Committee and the DAVP directed to stop the advertisement of the respondent newspaper as the circulation of the newspaper was found to be 50990 instead of 75000. Further, the complainant has requested the Council to direct RNI to block the title of the newspaper.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Banshi Dhar Jindal appeared in person. Shri Ravi Chamadiya, Editor represented the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and respondent Editor. It has also perused the petition of complaint, the Written Statement and all other connected papers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee gives liberty to the complainant to furnish his version in detail to the respondent Editor within two weeks. The respondent Editor on receipt of the same is directed to publish it in the newspaper with same prominence with expression of regret within one week from the date the complainant furnishes its version. The respondent shall also forward the version of the complainant published in the newspaper to the Council within one week of its publication. With the aforesaid direction, the Inquiry Committee disposes of the complaint.

Press Council of India F.No.14/63/18-19-PCI

Complainant Respondent Shri Santosh Kumar Deviprasad Shukla, The Editor, Clerk, Lokshahi Varta, Office of Superintendent of Police, Nagpur, District Washim (Maharashtra). Maharashtra.

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019

Shri Santosh Kumar Deviprasad Shukla, Clerk, Office of Superintendent of Police, District Washim (Maharashtra) has filed this complaint dated 17.4.2018 through his advocate against the Editor, Lokshahi Varta (Marathi), Nagpur (Maharashtra) for allegedly publishing false and defamatory news items under the captions “How is Mr. Shukla fit for duty” and “The services of anti-government Mr. Shukla to be terminated” (English translations) in its issues dated 7.4.2018 and 9.4.2018 respectively. It has been reported in the impugned news item dated 7.4.2018 that (translation provided by the complainant) – “The district police administration and its Supreme authorities had not at all taken any cognizance to destroy the germs and insects and tests, inspite of the fact that the newspaper like Lokshahi Warta are bringing before them, the various irregularities and also helping them in their ‘Departmental Press Control’..... The government on 28.3.2005 has issued a G.R. and considering the same it is brought to your notice that how Mr. Santosh Devidas Shukla working in the police department on the post of Junior Clerk is working with the District Police Department till today. Mr. Devidas Shukla is not eligible to work with the establishment of the District Police Administration. He is being settled in police department with his arms folded and from the time this Prasad of Devis has joined the police department since then, there is dissatisfaction instead of Santosh and he has established dissatisfaction among other police officers, Mr. Santosh has also destroyed the service record of the other police officer with the garb of money. He has also accrued the income in the tune of lakhs of rupees...... The person named Santosh Shukla working on the post of Junior Clerk is actually father of not three but four issues which makes Mr. Shukla in eligible for service however still he is working with the police department and more specifically with the District Superintendent of Police this is a history and the subject for an independent Ph.D...Santosh Shukla was appointed on 29.10.2007 in the services, he is liable to be removed for the services however, he has been kept in the services illegally and the entire salary and payment which he has received from October, 2007 to April, 2018, this amount should be deducted from the salary to Superintendent of Police, Washim...In such sequences the Shukla should be removed from services and the loss done by Mr. Shukla to the Police Department is a matter of departmental enquiry...... to be continued”.

It has been reported in the news item dated 9.4.2018 that (translation provided by the complainant) – “Washim was blessed with Mr. Stalin as the Superintendent of Police and he has brought a new edition of timings in the Ganesh Festivals, the person who had left the police department black face is non-other than Mr. Shukla, his act and deeds are very dangerous and ex-serviceman name Kathode who had third issues in the year 2005 was brought to the notice of Superintendent of Police by Mr. Shukla and was left in eligible by him, at that time this Shukla failed to remember that, he was the father of how many children and therefore, he had left Mr. Kathode with no other choices. In Petition No.6/2017 which was an outcome of the J.M.F.C. Mangarulpir and Session Court and at the High Court the process filing of FIR on Shukla is under way as he had fabricated the documents and therefore he had done the losses of the other employees and this would definitely need towards the registration of crime against Shukla....Mr. Shukla who has been appointed on compassionate ground, working as a lower clerk, having four children and has done the anti-government activities, how he has purchased a posh flat; how much amount from the Collector Washim for his establishment expenses and other expenses; and how much amount has been expended on the same for the last three financial years, this had to be done by us and the Central Government is liable to reply to us for the same, the cashier at the Police Superintendent office has been super annulated from last three years, however, still he is completing the pendency same is the case with the departmentally enquiry officers, all these allegations are un-answered...... to be continued”.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news items are false and defamatory. According to the complainant, there has been no allegation against him in his entire service and has been working with entire integrity and honesty. The complainant has alleged that the news items have been published with an intention to malign him in the eyes of the public without any evidence. The complainant has alleged that the reporter of the newspaper, Shri Mangal Ingole Washimkar intentionally and malafidely published the impugned news items with an intention to extort money. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent demanded money to stop publishing such news against him. The complainant has also alleged that the respondent made personal defamatory comments and published false statements without any cogent evidence to support the news item. The complainant vide letter dated 17.4.2018 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publications and requested him to publish apology in their newspaper, but received no response. The complainant vide his further letter dated 23.5.2018 has also produced a copy of another impugned news item dated 17.4.2018 under the caption “The Departmental enquiry of Shukla is the farcical drama”, wherein it has been reported that (translation provided by the complainant) – “Mr. Santosh Deviprasad Shukla named clerk is setting with his folded arms at the office of Superintendent of Police and that too without any eligibility to be in the services when the other persons are behind his removal. All the police except the police officer class are expecting the removal of Mr. Shukla. The Superintendent of Police had issued departmental enquiry of Mr. Shukla and appointed Additional Superintendent of Police as enquiry officer. This order of enquiry is nothing but a face drama and a perfect example for the killing of time. According to the news report, Mr. Santosh Shukla has made in this appointment on the basis of compassion and corruption and he is not at all eligible for the services. The appointment to Mr. Shukla was given without any consideration of the government resolution since 2005 and the authority who has given the appointment to Mr. Shukla, there departmental enquiry is very much necessary to Mr. Shukla. Mr. Shukla was appointed on 29.10.2007 and he has also submitted his affidavit of having of four children in 2009, however, still the working in the department. He has sought his appointment by doing corruption and therefore, he was being transferred to office of S.P., Washim. He has also carried out ‘racial discrimination’ and this has resulted into his posting in the establishment office of the S.P. it has been further reported that Mr. Shukla used to take Rs.200/- from the officers for any of therefore, this was his significant act and therefore Mr. Shukla has been nominated as the person is corrupt in the entire police department. It has been also reported that this child born to Mr. Deviprasad Shukla whose name is Santosh is actually “Asantosh”...... To be continued”. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Lokshahi Varta, Nagpur on 2.7.2018.

Written Statement Shri Bhaskar Londhe, Editor, Lokshahi Varta vide his written statement dated 19.7.2018 while denying the allegation levelled in the complaint has stated that the complainant secured service in the police department on compassionate ground in 2007 by hiding the fact that he had four children. As per government resolution issued by The Governor, Maharashtra, person having more than three children are ineligible for recruitment in government service. Shri Shukla, therefore, was ineligible for recruitment in the police department. Despite this, the complainant was recruited because he had hidden the fact that he had four children. The respondent has further stated that their report merely highlighted this dishonesty on the part of the complainant and questioned how he can continue in service. The respondent has submitted that the impugned news reports are based on official records, which are in their possession such as complaints against the complainant on the same subject made by the employees in the police department itself, an RTI reply issued by police department, etc. Hence, the impugned reports contain the true facts. While denying the allegation of malafide intention and extortion, the respondent has stated that their reporter, Shri Mangal Ingole reported the truth and no money was demanded from the complainant. He has stated that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.7.2018.

Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant vide his counter comments dated 30.8.2018 while reiterating his complaint has stated that the written statement of the respondent is false and fabricated. The complainant has stated that the respondent newspaper itself held that he is not fit for duty, however, as a matter of fact, there is no authority for the news agency/publication to ascertain his services. The complainant has submitted that there are malicious news items published on 7.4.2018, 9.4.2018, 18.4.2018, 20.4.2018, 21.4.2018 and 27.4.2018. The complainant has stated that the respondent failed to explain about the crux of the entire news episodes which were published by them. These items are terribly defamatory and against him and family members. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 4.10.2018 for information.

Further Reply from Respondent The respondent-Editor, Lokshahi Varta, Nagpur vide his further communication dated 12.10.2018 while reiterating his written statement has stated that the impugned news items were based on true facts. He has alleged that the complainant has maliciously given a distorted version of his reply. The respondent has also submitted that the complainant earlier filed complaint with regard to only two impugned news item and now he has illegally expanded the scope of inquiry by adding reports alleged to have been published by them on 17.4.2018, 18.4.2018, 20.4.2018, 21.4.2018 and 27.4.2018. The respondent has alleged that the complainant filed it with the sole intention of harassing them and these extraneous additional allegations only reinforce this fact. He has requested the Council to completely ignore the counter comments filed by the complainant. A copy of the communication of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 17.10.2018 for information. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Santosh Kumar, appeared in person. Shri Bhaskar Londhe, Editor represented the respondent newspaper. It is common ground that the complainant has filed a case for extortion against the reporter who has given the report. In that way of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and directs for disposal of the complaint being sub-judice.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

F.No.14/554/17-18-PCI

Shri Ganesh Niranjan Kamble, The Editor, Police Hawaldar, Dainik Bhaskar, Police Headquarter, Maharashtra. Garhchiroli (Maharashtra)

Adjudication dated 15.2.2019 This complaint dated 28.2.2018 has been filed by Shri Ganesh Niranjan Kamble, Police Hawaldar, Police headquarter, Garhchiroli (Maharashtra) against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Maharashtra for publication of news item in its issue dated 25.10.2017 under the caption “Nyay ke liye do varsh se guhar laga rahi pidita”; 26.10.2017 “Do varsh se adhar mein latki jaanch punah aarambh” and 15.10.2017 “Havaldar Kamble Nilambit, Aaropi giraftar”. It is reported in the impugned news items that a minor, victim of molestation has been misled by police for two years in Aarmori police station area and now parents of the minor girl had knocked the door of administration in this regard. It is reported in another news item that after publication of the news, the police has started investigation in the matter and trying to locate the culprit Sachin Salve. The news item dated 15.12.2017 stated that in molestation case, Hawaldar Ganesh Kamble has been suspended by the District Superintendent, Police and orders in this regard has been issued. The news item also stated that the complainant have been suspended with the charge for negligence of duty. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant submitted that he has investigated the matter with the permission of Station House Officer and whenever he tried to meet the parents and relatives of the victim they never supported him. According to the complainant, neither the victim nor the relatives ever came to the police station for registering complaint. He has taken the version of the victim at his residence and obtained all the documents and has shown it to the Station House Officer for registering complaint but he has not registered the complaint. According to the complainant, the respondent has published the news item to defame him and malign his image in the eyes of the public. The complainant vide letter dated 30.4.2018 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publications, but received no response. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondent. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Gadhchirouli on 17.10.2018.

Written Statement Shri Roopraj Wakore, District Representative, Dainik Bhaskar, Garhchiroli vide his written statement dated 15.11.2018 while denying the allegation has stated that the complaint is totally false and baseless. The respondent has stated that the impugned news item published on the basis of the complaint filed by the family of the victim lady. The respondent has further stated that due to publication of impugned news item, the accused were arrested and the complainant was also terminated from service for negligence. The respondent has also stated that the complainant instead of producing the evidence of this case to the Police Station kept it at his home for two years. The respondent has informed that the matter was disclosed after seeking information under RTI Act by the victim’s family from the concerned Police Station. The respondent has stated that the impugned news item caused to give justice to the victim. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 30.11.2018.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Ganesh N. Kamble appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the record and is of the opinion that the impugned news had been published on the basis of the allegations made against the complainant. During the course of hearing the complainant has filed a written submission attempting to show that the allegations made against him is untrue. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee it is not for it enter with the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made against the complainant. This aspect needs to be examined by the Competent Authority. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper while publishing the news has not violated any code of conduct so as to call action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

F. No. 14/540/17-18-PCI

Shri Daxeshkumar Kanaiyalal Chhunchha/Khatri, The Editor, Gujarat Ahmedabad Mirror, Ahmedabad.

Facts: This complaint dated 21.3.2018 has been filed by Shri Daxeshkumar Kanhaiyalal Chhunchha/Khatri, Gujarat against the editor, Ahmedabad Mirror, Ahmedabad for publication of news item in its issue dated 10.1.2018 under the caption “Dog lover, neighbours spar over stray menace”. It is reported in the impugned news item that faced with extreme stray dog menace and threats from society resident feeding stray dogs by causing inconvenience to others, a group of 100 members of the Gokuldham Meadows near Sanathal Circle approached the Changodar police station. It is also reported in the impugned news item that according to the residents, bungalow number 209 owner Daxeshkumar Chuncha regularly feeds stray dogs and even has placed beds for them to sleep on. The news item further reports that Pratima Joshi another resident alleged that Daxesh and his family threatened her when she asked them to feed the dog further away from her house. The news item carried the version of the complainant who stated that feeding stray dogs is not a crime and the dogs roaming around in the society is not my fault. Attacking an animal is a crime as per the law. The complainant submitted that the editor has defamed him and his family members in the society without checking the facts. He has further submitted that the respondent newspaper deliberately published false statement including his name whereas no such statement was given by him ever. The complainant has submitted that when the matter was sub-judice before the lawful authority, it is not the prerogative of the respondent newspaper to write against him. According to the complainant, he and his sister were arrested after publication of the news in the Ahmedabad Mirror. The complainant vide letter dated 21.3.2018 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item with a request not to print, cite, mention, incorporate etc. name or statement or news without his will or wish, but received no response. No Written Statement A Show Cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Ahmedabad Mirror, Ahmadabad on 17.9.2018, but no response has been received. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing on 18.12.2018 at Mumbai. The complainant, Shri Daxesh Kumar appeared in person. Smt. Tuhina Sahai represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondent and perused the Complaint and all other connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not committed any misconduct by publishing the impugned news. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.