Press Council of New

P.C.I. Review (April 1, 2017 - June 30, 2017)

A Quarterly Journal Vol. 35 l July 2017 l No. 3

About the Press Council of India

The Press Council of India was first set up in the year 1966 on the recommendations of the First Press Commission with twin object of “preserving the freedom of the press” and of “maintaining the standards of and the news agencies in India”. The Council is a quasi-judicial body which exercises over the authority’s jurisdiction as well the press. It adjudicates the complaints against and by the Press for violation of ethics and for violation of the freedom of the press respectively.

The Press Council is headed by a Chairman, who has by convention, been a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Council consists of 28 other members of whom 20 represent the press, five are from the two Houses of Parliament and three are from the cultural, literary and legal fields and are nominated by the University Grants Commission, the Sahitya Academy and the Bar Council of India respectively. The term of the Chairman and the members is three years.

The Council fund comes from the fee levied on news agencies/periodicals in the country on the basis of their circulation. No fee is levied on newspapers/news agencies/periodicals having circulation less than 25000 copies. The deficit is made good by way of grant-in-aid from Central Government. Procedure for filing the complaint Complaints against the Press It is open to any person to lodge a complaint with the Press Council against newspapers/news agencies /periodicals for breach of the recognized ethical canons of journalistic propriety and taste. The complainant need not necessarily be the person aggrieved or directly involved. The breach may be in the publications or non-publication of a news-item or statement, or other material, like cartoons, pictures, photographs, strips or advertisements which are published in a newspapers/periodicals. Cases can also be initiated by any member of the public against any professional misconduct by an editor, working journalist, staff of a newspaper or engaged in freelance work. There can also be a complaint against any matter transmitted by a news agency by any means whatsoever.

By virtue of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979, complaint shall be lodged with the Council within the following periods.

(i) Dailies, News agencies and weeklies...... within two months.

iii (ii) In other cases within four months.

Provided that a relevant publication of an earlier date may be referred to in the complaint Write to the Editor First It is requirement of the Inquiry Regulations that the complainant should initially write to the editor of the newspapers/news agencies/periodicals drawing his attention to what the complainant considers to be a breach of journalistic ethics or against public taste. Such prior reference to the editor affords him an opportunity to deal with the mater in the first instance and thus allows the respondent to take such remedial action as he might consider appropriate before the complaint is lodged with the Council. This rule is necessary because it acquaints the editor with identity of his accuser and details of the compliant. It is conceivable that in some instances the complainant has been wrongly informed or has misinterpreted the facts. In others, it may be a case of inadvertent error which the editor is only too ready to admit and correct. If the would-be-complainant is satisfied, that would be the end of the matter.

Where, after reference to the newspapers/news agencies/periodicals the person desires to proceed with the complaint, he should enclose with his complaint copies of correspondence with the editor, if no reply has been received from the editor, the fact should be mentioned in the complaint.

The complainant has, to give the name and address of the newspapers/ news agencies/periodicals editor or journalist against whom the complaint is directed. A clipping of the matter or news-items complained of, in original or self-attested copy (English translation, if the news item(s) is in Indian language) should accompany the complaint. The complainant has to state in what manner the passage or news-items or the material complained of is objectionable. He should also supply other relevant particulars, if any.

In the case of a complaint against non-publication of material the complainant will, of course, say how that constitutes a breach of journalistic ethics.

The Council cannot deal with any matter which is sub-judice in the law court. The complainant has to declare that “to the best of his knowledge and belief he has placed all the relevant facts before the Council and that no proceedings are pending in any court of law in respect of any matter alleged in the complaint.” A declaration that “he shall notify the Council forthwith if during the pendency of the inquiry before the Council any matter alleged in

iv the complaint becomes subject matter of any proceedings in a court of law” is also necessary. Complaints regarding oppression to Press Freedom Newspapers/news agencies/periodicals a journalist or any institution or individual can complain against Central or State Government or any organization or person for interference with free functioning of the press or encroachment on the freedom of the press. Such complaints should contain full particulars of the alleged infringement whereupon the Council shall follow the procedure of inquiry set out herein above so far as may be.

The opinion expressed by the Council sub serves two useful purposes, namely (i) that any abuse of press freedom does not pass without anybody noticing it or raising a finger or protest, and (ii) that the press should not in its own interest indulge in scurrilous or other objectionable writings considered below the level of recognized standards of journalistic ethics by a fair minded jury like the Council constituted of the press itself, for it would lead to degradation of the much prized freedom of the press.

Address Your Complaints or Enquiries to : The Secretary, Press Council of India Soochna Bhawan, 8, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, - 110 003. Phone : 91 (011) 24366403/24366745 (Extn. 319 & 320) Fax : 91 (011) 24366405/24366745 (Extn. 224) Email : [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; [email protected] Website : www.presscouncil.nic.in

The Annual Reports and the Quarterly Reviews of the Council provide information on activities of the Council. Current issues of these are available free of cost from the above address and also in the aforementioned website.

v Press Council of India (12th Term) Soochna Bhawan, 8, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110 003 Chairman: Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad

NAME ORGANISATION NOMINATED BY NEWSPAPERS Editors of Indian Languages Newspapers (Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)

Shri Ramesh Gupta All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference and Weekly Tej, Samachar Patra Sammelan New Delhi Shri Bipin Newar All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference and Chapte Chapte Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Hindi Daily, West Bengal Shri Uttam Chandra Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan and Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Sharma All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference Hindi Daily Muzaffarnagar, U.P. Dr. Suman Gupta Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan and Janmorcha, All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference Hindi Daily, Faizabad, Shri Prakash Dubey Editor’s Guild of India , Hindi Daily Nagpur Editors of English Newspapers (Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Shri Krishna Prasad Editor’s Guild of India Outlook (English) New Delhi

Working Journalists other than Editors (Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)

Shri Kosuri Amarnath Indian Journalists Union, National Union of Freelancer, Journalist, Journalists(I), Press Association and Working News Cameramen’s Association

Shri Prabhat Kumar Indian Journalists Union, National Union of Pratidin Dash Journalists(I), Press Association and Working News Odia Daily, Cameramen’s Association Odisha Shri Rajeev Ranjan Press Association, Working News Cameramen’s Aaj Samaj, Hindi Daily, Nag Association, Indian Journalists Union and National New Delhi Union of Journalists(I) Shri Prajnananda National Union of Journalists(I), Indian Journalists Anand Bazar Patrika, Chaudhuri Union, Press Association and Working News Cameramen’s Association Shri S.N. Sinha Indian Journalists Union, Working News Photo Journalist, Cameramen’s Association, National Union of (Freelancer) Journalists(I) and Press Association Delhi Shri Sondeep Shankar Working News Cameramen’s Association, Indian Photo Journalist, (Freelancer) Journalists Union, National Union of Journalists(I) New Delhi and Press Association Shri C.K. Nayak Press Association, Indian Journalists Union, The Shillong Times, Working News Cameramen’s Association and Shillong National Union of Journalists(I)

vi Owners and Managers of Big, Medium and Small Newspapers (Clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)

NAME ORGANISATION NOMINATED BY NEWSPAPERS

Shri Hormusji N. Indian Newspaper Society The , Cama Gujarati Daily,

Shri Ravindra Kumar Indian Newspaper Society , English Daily, Kolkata

Shri Kundan Indian Newspaper Society, Association of Small and Kutch Mitra, Gujarati Daily, Ramanlal Vyas Medium Newspapers of India and All India Small Kutchh (Bhuj), Gujarat and Medium Newspapers Federation

Shri Gurinder Singh All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, Indian Observer, Indian Newspaper Society, and Association of Small English Fortnightly, and Medium Newspapers of India New Delhi

Shri Vijay Kumar Indian Newspaper Society, All India Small and , Hindi Daily, Chopra Medium Newspapers Federation and Association of Jalandhar Small and Medium Newspapers of India

Shri Keshav Dutt Association of Small and Medium Newspapers of Rajput Maryada, Chandola India, Indian Newspaper Society and All India Small Hindi Weekly, and Medium Newspapers Federation Kanpur

Managers of News Agencies (Clause (c) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)

Shri G. Sudhakar Nair The Press Trust of India Limited Editor The Press Trust of India Limited, New Delhi

Nominees of University Grants Commission, Bar Council of India and Sahitya Academy (Clause (d) of Sub-Section(3) of Section 5)

Shri Pankaj Vohra University Grants Commission

Shri Apurba Kumar Sharma Bar Council of India

Dr. K. Sreenivasarao Sahitya Academy

Members of Parliament Nominated by Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha (Clause (e) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5) Smt. Meenakshi Lekhi (Lok Sabha)

Vacant (Lok Sabha)

Vacant (Lok Sabha)

Shri Prabhat Jha (Rajya Sabha)

Vacant (Rajya Sabha)

Secretary: Vibha Bhargava

vii viii PCI Review Contents

Foreword 1 Address at the inauguration of the Seminar on Ethical 3 Journalism-Role of the Press Council at Thiruvananthapuram by Shri Justice P. Sathasivam, Governor, Kerala Paid News - A menace by Justice (Shri) Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, Chairman 6 Government and the Press 9 Attack on Media 16 Press and the People 18 Social Media 20 Index of Adjudications Rendered during the Quarter 24 Adjudication of the Council 32 Subject Index of orders passed by the Press & Registration Appellate Board during the Quarter 199 Orders of Press & Registration Appellate Board during the Quarter 202

ix x Foreword

The PCI Review, a Quarterly Journal, encapsulates the events and activities pursued by the Council in carrying out its mandate to preserve the freedom of Press and improve the standards of Press in India. The Report is a reflection of the quasi judicial and advisory activities being pursued to pave road map for future endeavours and improvements in the media functioning.

The current journal being volume 35 is being reinitiated after 2013. The Council having deliberated on the need to reach out to its stake holders in a more impacting printed version apart from e-records, decided to restore the publication to promote accessibility to the Councils activities beyond the internet and at grassroot level of journalism and journalistic teaching institutes through public platform.

During the quarter the council had adjudicated 71 matters and rendered opinion on references from on demands raised for implementation for the welfare of journalists; Private Members bill on Prohibition of Publication and dissemination of objectionable material on Religion Bill, 2017 along with on the issue of Job Security of Journalist brought by Member, PCI and many more which can be accessed on the website of the Press Council of India.

Hereby, the quarterly journal is presented to the readers with the hope that the report would be a informative reference record and further the objectives of establishment of the Press Council of India.

1 2 Ethical Journalism-Role of the Press Council

*Justice P. Sathasivam

Sahodaree Sahodaranmaare, Shri Justice C.K. Prasad, Chairman, Press Council of India, Shri Amar Devalappilly, Secretary of Indian Journalism, Union, Shri V B Rajan, President, Chairman Organising Committee Shri Basheer Madala, Convenor, Organising Committee

Ellaavarkkum Ente Namaskaaram, It gives me great joy to inaugurate this Seminar on Ethical Journalism-Role of the Press Council, organized jointly by the Kerala Journalists Union and the Press Council of India. Let me at the outset, congratulate the organizers on the choice of this topic, at a time when the Press Council of India is celebrating its Golden Jubilee. The topic also has great relevance in the context of an unprecedented increase in the violation of ethical practices in journalism. As we all know, the Freedom of the Press is universally regarded as a corner stone of democracy. In India, the Legislature and the Judiciary have been empowered by the Constitution to step in whenever necessary, but the Press, which is regarded as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy does not enjoy such a provision. However, our Constitution guarantees Freedom of the Press by implication, as part of the right of every citizen to express his or her views freely. Today, the civil society all over the world stands up for the freedom of the Press and therefore, the Press has a responsibility to prove to be worthy of this trust. It is here that we emphasize the need for ethical practices in journalism. We all know that one of the mandates of the Press Council of India, which seeks to ensure freedom of the Press, is to set a code of conduct for media and journalists in accordance with high professional standards. While protecting the freedom of the Press, the Council also has the duty to ensure adherence to high standards of public taste. It also handles issues related to ownership, functional relations in the media and so on. However, the essential role of the Press Council is in being a mechanism for the Press to regulate itself, because, as Gandhiji observed, though an uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy, it is better to have control from within the system rather than from outside. Thus, our Press Council

*Address at the Inauguration of the Seminar on Ethical Journalism-the Role of the Press Council, Thiruvananthapuram-11:00 hrs. on 26-05-2017

3 has set some Ethical standards which insist on honesty and fairness, factual and objective presentation, providing an opportunity to reply to critical opinions, respect for privacy, duty to distinguish between facts and opinion, duty not to discriminate or to inflame hatred etc. Ethics should be the core of any profession. Ethical Journalism is not only about what kind of news is been broadcasted or published but also manner in which the news is conveyed to the viewers. The ethics of journalism have many aspects: professional norms, good manners and politeness. Moreover, there are hundreds of codes of conduct, charters and statements made by media and professional groups outlining the principles, values and obligations of the craft of journalism. Self-regulation is a unique trait of Press Council of India, which is widely acknowledged and applauded by all. Self-regulation is a solemn promise by quality-conscious journalists and media to correct their mistakes and to make themselves accountable to the public. Ever since its inception in 1966, the Press Council has stood sturdy in all kinds of hostile environment and discharged its duties dutifully. My humble greetings to all members of the journalist family for your effortless service to humankind. India is a vast country with diverse languages, religion & culture and a shining example of unity in diversity. So, is reflected in the press and media. It is truism that media is the mirror of society and reflects the contemporary needs and aspirations. But equally it is also a trendsetter and has its own impact on all the above. Recognizing your pivotal role, you must always be mindful of every act you commit. As the judge who heard the case and gave the verdict pertaining to the implementation of the “Majithia Wage Board recommendations,” I had an opportunity to study the Media scene at close quarters. The periodic wage revision and other facilities for Journalists should be carried out to ensure that media- persons can live in dignity and perform their work fearlessly and independently. In spite of the stunning growth of media and the resultant ‘information overload’, crucial issues of “poverty” and “deprivation” still remain ignored, when it is widely recognized that a free and fair Press can help in social development. Equally worrying is the quality of the new values that are being thrust upon our mass-mediated society, especially by the electronic and the social media. Soap operas that advocate violence and moral degradation, political trolls that portray people through unjust sarcasm, often amounting to defamation and the increasing obscenity in the use of language have become major social issues. Media freedom also has to be viewed in the context of social media beating almost every other medium in reaching large audiences. Today, each individual owns a medium, thanks to free access to social media. There is almost no regulation, no control. Even the threat of invoking cyber laws does not prevent people from spreading unfounded news and opinions about people and events. The irresponsible use of the social media deserves the attention of bodies like the Press Council, since the traditional media are also active on the social media.

4 All these instances point to the inadequacy of self-regulation as a means to address the complex problems that affect our media today. It is true that the Press Council of India enjoys statutory status with compulsive jurisdiction on all newspapers, but its actions and references have not been able to curb the undesirable trends that plague the media. I feel that the Press Council needs to be empowered with punitive powers that would be a deterrent in such cases. Besides, the Press Council needs to widen its range by bringing broadcast and social media also under it. Therefore, we should think of a Media Council that can check violations of ethical practices through stronger measures. The council’s role also should widen to the level of educating society on the provisions for redressing of grievances caused by unethical media practices. At present, the people affected by such practices do not respond mainly because they feel it beyond their means to confront a media giant. I would also suggest that the Council evolve a better mechanism to openly recognize the success of Media units in their informational and their developmental roles by highlighting them for the benefit of society. At present we have awards for excellence in journalism, but, we need to make the Media houses compete in being models of ethical journalistic practices. Ethical practices should come to be regarded as yardsticks that decide a media house’s existence in the business sphere. To conclude I, request my journalist friends to keep in mind that your first obligation is to the truth, loyalty to citizens. You must maintain and independence from those you cover. You should strive to make your product significant, interesting and relevant. I also take this opportunity to thank the journalistic fraternity in India for the positive role you continue to play in society, especially in promoting and defending the ideals of freedom and just governance. I have no doubt that media has a multidimensional role to play in the promotion of society’s values and virtues as well as in the dispensation of justice. However, with the advent of twenty-four hour satellite news channels, Internet and blogs etc. the task before today’s media person is more demanding. Never allow the market force to determine the news. Remember, journalism’s first obligation is to the truth and its first loyalty is to citizens. I hope that the ensuing discussions would put forward suggestions that would help the Press Council perform its role more efficiently. I compliment the Kerala Journalists Union for conducting this meeting in a befitting manner. I greet all the delegates and wish them a fruitful discussion. Ellaavarkkum Ente Aashamsakal Nanni Ja i H i n d

5 Paid-News, a Menace *Justice C.K. Prasad India is the world’s largest democracy marked by diversity in religion, language culture, food habit etc. Accountability of all the institutions to the political sovereign is the hallmark for a vibrant democracy. Press plays an important role in this. It acts as a watchdog for its survival and growth. It is expected from the Press to provide information that is factually correct, balanced and objective. This is the distinction between news and advertisement or the opinion expressed in editorials. ‘Paid News’ syndrome is not isolated. The abhorrent practice of paid news has spread its tentacles in large sections of the mass media. The result is that the level of trust in media has dropped, which is harmful to the cause of responsive democracy. It is sad that main-stream media outlets receive payments in exchange for publishing favourable articles and news. This type of news as is commonly known are generally sponsored by politicians and businessmen but according to the informed sources celebrities are also using this to advance their interests. Paid- News is a serious menace and I am sorry to say; it has gone beyond the corruption of individual journalist and media houses. It is all pervasive, structured and highly organized. Hence, in order to establish the credibility of the media, it is necessary to preserve its purity and ensure that stream of news remains unpolluted. Media houses plea that for running a newspaper one needs money and it has to choose between exploring the sources of income or close the press. With profound respect this logic does not appeal to me at all. It is preposterous. No one, including the media can be allowed to resort to dubious means for advancing its business or even to sustain it. Paid-News is a malady and hence, it is our duty to deal with it effectively. To remedy a wrong one needs to understand its causes, from and reach and why people indulge in it. There is no difference between advertisement and paid news and the only difference is that paid news does not appear as an advertisement. Information given in an advertisement, people doubt its correctness but when presented as news people believe it. The proliferation of ‘paid news’ phenomenon is largely due to failure of the Editors to maintain their independence. The number of Editors who would not brook any interference from the Management have started dwindling. Journalists, who collect news and express views, instead of being accountable to the Editors, are listening to their managers and employers. Freedom envisaged under the Working Journalists Act has eroded as senior journalists prefer to work under fixed

*Speech delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad, Chairman, Press Council of India on 14th March 2015 at Vijayawada (A.P.) in conference of Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists (APUWJ).

6 term contract and opt out of the protection accorded in the Act. The contractual employment has created a separate class of journalists, a category which does not enjoy benefits under the Working Journalists Act. Editors’ failure; give scope to the managers in playing more influential role in selection and presentation of news and importance of news is determined by the revenue that the media house would generate. The decreasing number of professional editors is another cause, which has contributed in the rise of paid news. Unfortunately owners are also editors and they see media more as any other business than a mission. Obviously, therefore, they are more committed to the balance sheet and loss and profit accounts than their social and political responsibilities towards the nation. Paid News is not a recently discovered phenomena or an election time episode. In last sixty years it has acquired different form accepting gifts to sponsored holidays, even payment in cash. It is wrong to say that only politicians are involved in it, businessmen indulge in it so also the corporates. Bollywood is also not far behind. This dubious means is not only used by them to propagate their creation or products but include suppression of scams for a price. Non election paid news involves very large transaction but that draw far less attention. Silence within the media over the cancer of paid news, to say the least is astonishing. Every institution which matters has debated this issue but sadly there are a large number of publications that have not spent a miniscule space for paid news. This indicates how compromised the media is! Nevertheless some section of media has raised their concern and brought facts about media selling the news space. This has raised serious question mark on the credibility of the journalists and media. Paid News is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud ad delivered in deceit. One is ready to pay whereas others are willing to accept, hence, it is difficult to establish. There may not be a straight jacket formula to prove that but that should not deter us. We cannot compromise on this and if we do so the entire edifice on which our democratic structure stands shall collapse. To meet this challenge a legal formulation is necessary. The Press Council of India as the guardian of the freedom of press and entrusted with the task of maintaining its standards had the occasion to consider this question. It had defined paid-news to mean any news or analysis appearing in the media for a price in cash or kind as a consideration. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology in its 47th report presented to the Government on May 6, 2013 examined this issue and though, had acknowledged the definition of paid news as propounded by the Press Council of India but emphasised the need to define what would constitute or quality as paid news. In my opinion the definition aforesaid does not bring various facets of paid news within its mischief. Advertisement camouflaged as news, denial of coverage to select electoral candidate, payment asked for truthful publication of facts, exchanging of advertisement space for equity stakes between media houses and

7 corporates are some of the instances which presently are not covered within the definition. For the purpose of discussion, I will define “paid news to mean, any word appearing in the media or omitted in the media, in lieu of consideration given, at or before or anytime or in future in any form”. An explanation in this can be added to include advertisement camouflaged as news to come within the ambit of paid news. Truth may not be a defence in paid news cases. Quid pro quo for publishing the photograph of an olympic gold medallist should come within the mischief of paid news notwithstanding the fact that photograph is of the gold medallist. Attempt to gain or regain or obtain pecuniary benefits should also be brought within the mischief of paid news. Vinod Mehta in “Editor Unplugged” writes about what happened after Outlook published the Radia tapes. He states,- Tatas suspended all commercial and editorial engagement with the Outlook group resulting into loss of Rs. 5 Crores to it. He narrates in detail the attempts he made to restore the business with Tatas by offering to express “categorical regret at the publication of the story”. It is also not uncommon that many unsuccessfully approach the functionaries in media for publication of certain information for a price or the converse, when media-men ask for a price for publication. To discourage and prevent this mind set I will suggest that any such attempt be also made penal. In my opinion to define paid news may not be difficult but because of its complexity its detection is a daunting task. If paid news is made a penal offence to establish it in a Court of Law it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However, in case, it is used for civil action lesser degree of proof is required and on the preponderance of probability one can record finding on paid news. It is high time to think for a mechanism to prevent the menace of paid news to preserve the integrity of media. For the purpose of discussion I suggest that appropriate amendment be made in the Press and Registration of Book Act, 1867, to include an act of paid news to be a ground for suspension/cancellation of registration of the Newspaper. The power to adjudicate the allegation of paid news must be entrusted to an independent body with a right to appeal to yet another independent forum. One may consider making ‘paid news’ as penal offence also. A Section may be added in the Penal Code, to incorporate the definition of ‘paid news’ and the punishment thereof. Further to shield the media from harassment and unnecessary prosecution appropriate amendment be incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring the prosecution to commence only after permission by an independent body, like the Press Council of India is granted. So long the law is not in place, I appeal to the good conscience of all those who play a role in media to desist, protest and condemn this pernicious practice before it eats the vitals of nation and make it hollow.

8 Government & Press

India needs free media: V-P Amid a debate on freedom of press, Vice-President Hamid Ansari today said India needs a free and responsible media to hold “power to account” and protect the rights of citizens. The comments by Ansari come against the backdrop of the recent CBI raids on the premises of NDTV co-founder Prannoy Roy. The NDTV described the raids as “a blatant political attack on the freedom of the Press”, a charge rejected by the CBI which said it was carried out following court orders. “When faced with unjust restrictions and the threat of attack, self-censorship in the media could have the opposite effect, aiding the covering up of abuses and fostering frustration in marginalised communities,” Ansari said. He said the Constitutional framework provides for required intervention by the State to ensure smooth working of the Press and society, but the laws provide that it should only be in the interest of the public at large. By the same token, the state should not impede the free flow of information that will go a long way in protecting and promoting citizens’ rights, he said. “The media, if it is to remain true to its calling, has to do likewise,” Ansari said, after releasing ’s commemorative publication “70 years of India’s Independence” in the presence of Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi at a function here. Ansari also said, “in an open society like ours, we need a responsible Press to hold power to account.” “This is why freedom of Press under Article 19 (1)(A) of the Constitution is subject only to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, public order, decency, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.” Ansari said in this age of ‘post-truths’ and ‘alternative facts’, where ‘advertorials’ and ‘response features’ edge out editorials, “we would do well to recall Nehru’s vision of the Press playing its role of a watchdog in democracy and look at the ethos and principles that powered his journalism.” Noting that Nehru, who started National Herald newspaper, believed that the media is a pillar of democracy, Ansari said he envisioned a free, unfettered and honest Press. The Working Journalists Act, which tried to ensure freedom of Press, was largely Nehru’s doing, he said. “The Act, I believe, is now in disuse, and short term contracts that make journalists beholden to the ‘preferred lines’ of the publications, are in vogue,” he added. — PTI (, New Delhi dated 13/06/2017)

9 Journalists can write anything now, unlike during Emergency: Naidu Union minister Venkaiah Naidu on Saturday insisted that journalists can write “anything’’ now unlike during the emergency in the 1970s. “Nowadays you can write whatever you want in this country. I saw an article written by an eminent journalist of the country which said if Narendra Modi dies tomorrow, then another Subbarao can become Prime Minister. You can write anything against the Prime Minister. They accuse, abuse the Prime Minister. They call him impotent also. How come they came to know of it? I do not know,” he said while releasing Board chairman A Surya Prakash’s book on the emergency. Naidu said that the Emergency is relevant after so many years because the younger generation needs to know why it happened and what the country did in response. “Constitutional questions arose during the Emergency. The hands of the Supreme Court and the press were tied down and except a few no one stood up to fight the Emergency,” he said. “Ramnath Goenka and his paper, , were among the few who stood up to fight the Emergency. I remember someone telling me that during the Emergency most of the media were asked to bend and they began to crawl.’’ Naidu claimed communists took over the institutions as Indira Gandhi was weakened between 1969 and 71. “These people have occupied all the universities and cultural bodies. But now there is a new thought across the country. It is a nationalist thought. People have realised they need native culture, thoughts and ideology and then people started supporting Narendra Modi and the BJP.’’ (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated 25/06/2017) BJD MP’s Newspaper article Irks Odisha CM

BJD (Odisha’s ruling party) Lok Sabha member Bhartruhari Mahtab upset his party members with a write-up on Sunday, five days after a column writen by him in a vernacular daily had ruffled his party leaders. BJD president and Odisha chief minister Naveen Pathaik expressed his disapproval.

Besides criticising party leaders like Damodar Rout and Surya Narayan Patro, Mr Mahatab also blamed local Odia news channels for “amplifying” his first article. “It’s ridiculous that Surya Narayan Patro is wondering how I won elections from Cuttack Lok Sabha seat four-five times if there are cracks in party. Similarly, Dr Damodar Rout is saying that I’m not aware BJD affairs as I am staying in Delhi. This present article is not for them. The objective of this article is to clarify thins as certain TV channels tried to amplify my first column.” he mentioned in the column.

10 “The Bharatiya Janata Party gained only due to loss of Congress votes. But BJD votes also have slashed from 43 per cent to 40 jper cent. This has to be admitted and preventive measures must be taken accordingly,” the column read. (, New Delhi dated May, 2017) Letters to the Editor State of the media

Except for the premeditated raid on a leading television channel, the role of the government in throttling the media is not as pronounced on the surface as some think (Left, Right, Centre’ “Is the media under siege?” June 16), Most of the top media and entertainment companies in India are owned by powerful corporate moguls and their close links with the current ruling dispensation are well-documented. It is naive to imagine that such companies would show the interest and the verve to lindulge in a complete exposltion of truths which have the potential to alter perceptions. For continuance of a regime exceedingly benevolent to them, Opposition parties and fellow media houses, which still believe in fair play, have to be necessarily pilloried. The media is in a self-imposed state of subservience.

The common man was never affected even during the Emergency. Nor was his freedom of expression in peril, as it is now. when acrimony arises between leftist and rightist intellectuals, the routine slogan of “freedom of the press is in danger “I raised. There is a vast difference between what the media was then and what the media was then and what it is now as the latter has now embraced some negatives such as “paid news “allurement” and sensationalism. A stray incident of a riad on a media house cannot be magnified by saying that the fourth estate is endangered.

(, New Delhi dated 17/06/2017) Journalism is different fromPR

Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan on Wednesday had some words of advice for those who earn their livelihood by writing. Asking journalists to use “beautiful language, “Ms Mahajan said we-journalists-should sometimes avoid telling the unpleasant truth. Speaking at a function organised by RSS-affiliated Indraprastha Vishwa Samvad Kendra, she also supported statements asking journalists asking journalists to report news in the national interest. Ms Mahajan said journalists can learn a lot from the mythical character Narad Muni when it comes to objectivity.”...Whatever is said should be said in beautiful language.

11 A lot can be communicated to the government using such (polite) language. Satyam Bruyat Priyam Bruyat, Na Bruyat Apriyam Satyam {Tell the truth. Tell nice things. Do not tell unpleasant truth} - this is also required sometimes.”

By saying that journalists should try to avoid unpleasant truths, what does Ms Mahajan mean? should we varnish information and dress it up for the public, which incidentally is paying to get authentic news? Does this mean that we don’t talk about the shortcomings of government programmes and like good stenographers take down whatever figures are given to us? And can beautiful language hide difficult truths? If the Speaker thinks that such journalism helps the government in power, she is wrong. No government can benefit from dressing uncomfortable facts in pleasant language or indeed not bringing them to public attention at all. In fact, Ms Mahajan is discounting the intelligence of citizens/voters if she thinks only good news from the media can shore up a party’s prospects in an election.

A person who has such a wishlist list for journalists obviously cannot be an admirer of someone likw George Orwell. Yet, here’s what he said about the profession: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” It’s time Ms Mahajan appreciates the difference between the two. However, she is not the only one to think this way; politicians cutting across party lines often express similar views. Shamefully, many journalists are also not without blame in shying away from being totally objective. Yet, Ms Mahajan is mistaken if she thinks that is way journalism should be.

(The Times, New Delhi dated 23/06/2017)

The Government and the Media

For nearly a decade, the dispatches from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) were seen as a harbinger of the new challenges confronting journalism. It documented the crisis in the Western news media industry, it investigated how Silicon Valley companies are upending journalism, it examined the limitation of algorithm-driven journalism, it talked about the failure of the pay wall, and about filter bubbles and echo chambers created by social media and its debilitating influence on journalism. One anticipates its arrival in the mailbox with a sense of trepidation.

However, its latest newsletter was a departure. It spoke about the best kind of newspaper war that is happening in the United States right now. It spoke about the competition of competence between the two major U.S. dailies — The

12 New York Times and The Washington Post — in their series of investigative stories about the Donald Trump regime. The CJR writer observed: “It wasn’t that long ago that both papers were in dire straights. Back in 2013, while The Times was struggling to attract digital subscribers and tweaking its pay wall, Jeff Bezos’s purchase of The Post was seen by some as ‘quixotic adventurism’. Four years later, both outlets have stabilised their financial footing, and news consumers are reaping the benefits.” Scrutinising the White House The close scrutiny of the White House affairs by the two newspaper majors was so intense that Margaret Sullivan, former Public Editor of NYT and the present media columnist for The Post , wrote: “The two papers have been answering each other’s major scoops like smitten teens volleying text messages.” And, to top it, last week also saw Kevin D. Williamson’s article in National Review , “The news ain’t fake,” that addressed the conservative audience who are distrustful of scoops from newspapers seen as left-leaning. He wrote: “We owe it to ourselves to take account of reality. And we owe it to the country, too. It is cheap, it is cowardly, and it is bad citizenship to simply shriek ‘fake news!’ every time reality forces a hard choice upon us. Living in a free, self-governing society means making a great many hard choices, and there is no one to make them but us.” These stories, in a sense, gives us tools to evaluate the role of Indian newspapers in holding those in power accountable. Evaluating the NDA government This week will mark the completion of three years in power of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The opinion about the performance of the government and that of the media is evenly divided. Those who support the present government, with an enviable presence on digital platforms, say that newspapers were unnecessarily critical of some of the historic decisions of the government. The other section feels that Indian newspapers have gone into a self- censorship mode and have failed to point out the gap between official rhetoric and the delivery of the official machinery. One criticism, by this section, against the media is that it is focussing more on the acts of omission and commission of the Opposition parties rather than that of the ruling dispensation. Over the next two weeks, this column will look at how Indian newspapers in general, and The Hindu in particular, reported on the government over the past three years. The views of the reading public play a vital role in defining the character of a newspaper’s coverage. There is a symbiotic relationship between popular opinion and the focus of a newspaper.

13 The feedback loop works both ways, implicitly and explicitly. I solicit readers’ views on this crucial topic, which will form the backbone of my analysis. I have no hesitation in agreeing with Milan Kundera’s description of our perception of the present: “There would seem to be nothing more obvious, more tangible and palpable than the present moment. And yet it eludes us completely… Each instant represents a little universe, irrevocably forgotten in the next instant.” In this age of information glut — profound, profane, trivia and rumours — we need to take a pause and relook at what type of newspaper war is happening here? Where does the newspaper’s contrarian and adversarial role end and where does it become a force multiplier for the ruling party? I will restrict my analysis only to newspapers because news television is mimicking gladiatorial sport and that requires a different set of skills and language to explain its content. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated 23/05/2017)

Former CJI Justice Dattu Asks Media to Avoid Sensationalism

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) chairperson and former Chief Justice of India Justice H L Dattu on Thursday emphasised that the media should steer clear of sensationalism and proactive journalism to become genuine protectors of human rights. He was speaking at a workshop on ‘The role of Media in Promotion and Protection of Human Rights’ at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU). Justice Dattu was critical about the current trend of “trial by media” by some news channels. He said, “A particularly worrisome aspect concerning the media are the ‘media trials’ under the guise of ‘debates’..... The news anchors act as the judge, jury and prosecutor – all roles rolled into one.” Justice Dattu opined that media debates, which seem more like screaming matches, completely overlook the nuances of the issue being discussed and often blur the fine line that separates an accused from a convict. Citing the University (JNU) case, he said, “Recent events in JNU, a central university of great national and international repute, and the role of a certain section of the media in whipping up public frenzy, which led to mob violence in court premises and even the threat of its use against the accused... is a pertinent case in point.” Justice Dattu noted that the mainstream media often fails to reflect some of the pressing challenges that confront large sections of society including Dalits,

14 Adivasis, women, rural poor, urban poor and workers in the unorganised sector, among others. He lauded the role of the vernacular media for continuing to highlight important human rights issues from the forgotten regions of the country. Earlier, addressing the gathering, NLSIU vice chancellor Prof R Venkata Raolauded the role of the media. He expressed concern over the safety of journalists, who in exercise of freedom of expression, become victims of attacks. He said it is the responsibility of the state to provide protection to mediapersons. Meera Saksena, acting chairperson of Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, opined that mediapersons need to be cautious in exploring the angle of scoop while reporting. She felt that people’s rights should not be trampled on a rush to achieve TRPs and circulation targets. ( dated 23/06/2017)

15 Attack onMedia

54 attacks on scribes in 16 months: report In the past 16 months 54 attacks on journalists were reported in the media, says a compilation on press freedom by a media watchdog. The Hoot; Indicating the dangers to investigative journalism.

Released on Tuesday, a day ahead of the World Press Freedom Day on May 3, the report says the actual number is probably much more, since the minister of state for home affairs Gangaram Ahir informed Parliament that there were 142 journalist death during 2014-15.

The report shows shrinking press freedom comes close on the heels of the World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, which has put India at 136th place, three places down from previous year.

The report says though seven journalists were killed, “reasonable evidence of their journalism being the motive for the murder” is available only in one case.

What’s more gripping is that most of the 54 attacks were carried out by police and mob resisting/protesting media coverage (9each) followed by politicians and their supporters (8).

“The stories behind each of the attacks reveal a clear and persistent pattern. Investigative reporting is becoming increasingly dangerous. Journalists who venture out into the field to investigate any story... are under attack,” the report says. (, New Delhi dated 3/05/2017)

Journalist moves SC against OSA charge in soldier suicide case Journalist Poonam Agarwal of the news website The Quint moved the Supreme Court on Tuesday, contending that the Official Secrets Act (OSA) cannot be invoked for protecting “delinquent Army officers”.

Agarwal, an associate editor at The Quint, shot a sting video in which Lance Naik Roy Mathew criticised the sahayak system in the Army. Following the release of the sting video, Lance Naik Mathew allegedly committed suicide. Agarwal has sought a probe into his death.

She was booked by Nashik police under sections of the OSA and those relating to criminal trespass and abetment to suicide under the IPC.

16 Challenging the FIR, Agarwal urged the apex court to issue suitable guidelines to prevent abuse of the OSA, which, the petition filed through advocate Anindita Pujari said, not only impinges upon fundamental rights but also journalistic freedom. She also sought directions for an appropriate inquiry into the alleged misuse of the sahayak system in the Army.

“The Army and its personnel, being citizens of India, are under equal constitutional obligation and duty to protect and promote a fair system of administration of justice through an unimpeded investigation and cannot be a party to its undermining and destruction in order to ward off scrutiny of any wrongdoings by its delinquent officers by journalists or responsible citizenry, by seeking to invoke draconian provisions of the OSA and the IPC,” said the plea.

The petition said a fair probe was being scuttled by invoking the OSA and the move would send out the message that exposure of misdeeds of delinquent Army officers would be visited with consequences so draconian that no one should dare to do so.

“The action of the Respondents (Army and Police) smacks of witchhunt and a clear motive to brush aside the real circumstances behind the unnatural death of Gunner Roy Mathew. Registration of an FIR against the petitioners amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner as a journalist,” the petition states.

Retired Army jawan Deep Chand, who ran the Army canteen in Nashik where the sting video was shot, is the co-petitioner with Agarwal. The FIR has arraigned him for allegedly letting Agarwal enter the canteen without proper authorisation.

Police found a diary from the abandoned barracks where Mathew’s body was found. The note in said he feared he would have to face a court- martial. Police are awaiting the forensic report to confirm if the note was written by Mathew. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated 12/04/2017)

17 Press and the People

‘Print Media Alive and Kicking’ The Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) has challenged popular belief that the print media in the country is dying, by releasing data to show that 2.37 crore newspaper copies were added in the last 10 years despite stiff competition from television and digital media. The ABC, which computes and publishes circulation figures of print publications since 1948, presented its findings for the last decade in Mumbai on Monday. To the surprise of many, the report showed a 4.87% increase in circulation, equating to a 2.37 crore rise in the number of copies sold. Additionally, KPMG, a consultancy service, projected a 7% increase in circulation over the next five years. Credible information Speaking at the event, ABC council member Shashidhar Sinha praised the findings, saying that there was a misconception that print is losing its relevance. “In no other market in the world you will find this. A rise in education, a growth in the economy and the fact that print remains the best place to source credible information from are the main reasons for this 4.87 % growth,” he said. Extolling the ABC’s research methods, Mr. Sinha said the process conducted by independent auditors changed over a period of two years. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated 09/05/2017)

Under Govt pressure, 5 dailies refused our ads: Chhattisgarh Cong. to Press Council

Chhattisgarh Congress president Bhupesh Baghel has written to the Press Council of India (PCI) alleging that five Hindi newspapers — he did not name them — in the state refused, under pressure from the government, to print full- page advertisements issued by the party. The advertisements were meant to appear on Thursday — the day BJP president Amit Shah flew to state capital Raipur. Shah has 22 meetings lined up over three days to strengthen the party organisation in Chhattisgarh, where elections are due in late 2018. Across newspapers on Thursday, there were front- page advertisements welcoming Shah. In his letter to the PCI chairperson, Baghel wrote, “The BJP National President Amit Shah is in Chhattisgarh between 8 and 10 June, and being an opposition party we wanted to ask some questions regarding issues of Chief

18 Minister Raman Singh’s corruption to Amit Shah. With that in mind, the state Congress committee decided to print advertisements on June 7, so that they could be published on June 8. Five prominent dailies refused to print our ads. While they did not give any official reason, internal discussions with those in charge of advertisements revealed that if they were to print the ads, they would face trouble from the government. I want to bring to your notice that the government has begun exerting pressure on the fourth pillar of democracy, so much so that an opposition party cannot even spend money and raise their issues.” Speaking to The Indian Express, Baghel said, “We wanted to publish advertisements regarding issues of corruption against this government. However, on Wednesday, one after the other, the five papers pulled out. Only one newspaper published the advertisement. When we tried to approach the newspapers, they said they could not publish the ads or they would face pressure from the government.” A government official said the allegation was baseless. “This is not something that the government gets into at all…. We were not aware of any Congress advertisements, and the newspapers may have taken the decision on their own. We had no part in it,” a senior official said. Shah on Thursday held meetings with booth workers to cabinet ministers, reviewing the party’s performance in the state. The BJP chief also had lunch with some spiritual leaders. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated 9/06/2017)

19 Social Media

Press Council Wants Social Media Under Its Ambit Social media should be brought under the ambit of the Press Council of India (PCI), the media watchdog’s chairman Justice (retd) C.K. Prasad said on Tuesday. “ Its (Social media’s) reach is much more than the print media, “he said, adding that the watch-dog’s name should be changed from the ‘Press Council’ to the Media Council. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated 17/05/2017)

Experts to Handle Tweets, FB Posts

The next time you come across a witty tweet, don’t be surprised when you come to know that it is from the Delhi police’s official handle. In an effort to keep pace with the raging social media trend, the Delhi police has hired experts to operate their social media accounts on Twitter and Facebook. A senior police official said that this will not only enhance their presence but will also proactively engage the users in spreading awareness on a daily basis. “We have hired an agency that will generate content for Twitter and Facebook as per our requirement. The content generated by the agency will be scrutinised by the concerned police official before putting it on the official Twitter handle and Facebook page of Delhi police,” said a senior police official. The purpose of hiring an agency is to generate content as per trend among the youth. The agency was approached because officers are mostly engaged in the maintenance of law and order and do not get time to keep the Twitter account or Facebook page updated. “We are going through a list of hash tags for the Twitter handle. The updated version of Delhi police Twitter handle will be available in a couple of days,” he added. The Delhi police, which joined Twitter in 2015, has 1,21,500 followers and 8,738 tweets. While on Facebook, 96,844 people have liked it. The is much ahead in terms of its social media presence. It has been liked by 1,64,220 people on Facebook and is followed by 2.77 million people on Twitter. Until now, the Delhi police was posting photos of its officers holding criminals or messages on festivals. Though all tweets posted from its handle

20 were informative, it lacked spunk and has thus failed to connect with the audience, said an official.

(The Asian Age, New Delhi dated 06/06/2017)

Govts Using Facebook, Twitter for Promoting Lies, Propaganda: Report

Governments and individuals are widely using social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter for promoting lies, misinformation and propaganda to manipulate public opinion around the world, an alarming nine-countries study has said.

According to the new set of studies from the University of Oxford, countries like Russia, where around 45% of active Twitter accounts are bots and Taiwan — where a campaign against President Tsai Ing-wen involved thousands of heavily co-ordinated accounts sharing Chinese mainland propaganda — contribute to the dirty politics on social media.

The reports, part of Oxford Internet Institute’s ‘Computational Propaganda Research Project’, include Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and the US.

Citing Philip Howard, Professor of Internet Studies at Oxford, The Guardian reported on Tuesday that “the lies, the junk, the misinformation” of traditional propaganda is widespread online and “supported by Facebook or Twitter’s algorithms”.

One of the techniques to alter people’s opinion is to build fake accounts to automate them to like, share and post on the social networks.

According to the report, these accounts serve to game algorithms to push content on to curated social feeds and drown out real issues by populating social networks with untrue information. As the number of likes and shares is large, users tend to believe the content that manipulates their opinion.

The researchers found that in the US, the propaganda took the form of “manufacturing consensus” — creating the illusion of popularity so that a political candidate can have viability where they might not have had it before.

“The illusion of online support for a candidate can spur actual support through a bandwagon effect. Trump made Twitter centre stage in this election and voters paid attention,” said the US report.

21 The report also found evidence of institutional support for the use of bots.

“Bots massively multiply the ability of one person to attempt to manipulate people. Picture your annoying friend on Facebook, who’s always picking political fights. If they had an army of 5,000 bots, that would be a lot worse, right?” Samuel Woolley, the project’s Director of Research, was quoted as saying in The Guardian.

(The Pioneers, New Delhi dated 21/06/2017) Facebook Can Curb Corruption

Social platforms like Facebook may help fight government corruption, especially in countries where press freedom is curbed, say researchers who studied the impact of social media during the 2012 anti-corruption protests in India.

Sudipta Sarangi of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in the US said his cross- country analysis using data from more than 150 countries shows the more Facebook penetrates public usage, the higher the likelihood of government corruption meeting protest. In short, social media serves as peer of the press, Sarangi said. “This study underscores the importance of freedom on the internet that is under threat in many countries of the world,” Facebook helps lessen corruption in governments where press freedom is low.“By showing that social media can negatively impact corruption, we provide yet another reason in favor of the freedom on the net,” Researchers began the study in 2012, when social media was being used to organise anti-corruption protests in India. They also followed the 2011 rise of Arab Spring. (, Hydrabad dated 25/04/2017) SFIO to trawl Social Media The governments white-collar crime investigation agency SFIO is developing a new system, which will trawl social media platforms for leads on any possible fraud-in-making. Also, the new system will help in early detection of corporate frauds and safeguard gullible investors from fly- by-night operators. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), which comes under the Corporate Affairs Ministry, has floated a tenderr for selection of a managed service

22 provider to develop this Early Warning System (EWS). The interested parties can submit their bids till July 10. The idea of developing an EWS was first floated in 2009 after the Satyam fraud came into light. The new system would leverage MCA 21 database as primary data along with data available from other regulatory organisations and external sources including social media, that help in detecting potential frauds. It would generate the data that helps in raising red flags and alerts using business intelligence and analytics capabilities. It would help in protecting investors from getting exploited by the deceitful companies or persons. Besides, it would help in identifying companies for further examination, scrutiny or detailed investigation by Registrar of Companies (ROCs), other offices of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, or by the SFIO. (Decan Chronicle, Hyderabad dated 05/06/2017)

23 Index of Adjudications Rendered During the Quarter

Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 1 Harassment of Newsmen June 21st, 2017

Complaint of Shri Bharat Bhushan Azad, Journalist, , Kotakpura, Punjab against Shri Amrit Pal Singh Bhati, SHO, City Kotakpura Station, Faridkot, Punjab 2 Complaint of Shri Kitabuddin Khan, Press Editor, June 21st, 2017 Budha Shanti Jansandesh, Kushinagar, UP against Local MP Shri Brahmasahankar Tripathi (Cabinet Minister of UP Government) and Police Authorities 3 Complaint of Shri Jai Prakash Bharadwaj, Bureau June 21st, 2017 Chief, Dainik Chetna Manch, Ghaziabad, UP against the Police Authorities 4 Complaint of Shri Habiburrehman (Kadam Rasul), June 21st, 2017 Correspondent, , Bahraich, UP against the Officers of Forest Department

5. Complaint of Shri Mohan Nagpal, News Editor/Sr. June 21st, 2017 Journalist, Daily Pilot, Bhathinda, Punjab against Inspector General of Police, Bhatinda Range and others. 6 Complaint of Shri Narendra Patel, Reporter, Bansal June 21st, 2017 News Channel and Shri Jitendra Soni, Reporter, ind- 24 News Channel, Satna, MP against Shri Vijay Singh Thakur, Police Station Incharge, Amarpatan, Satna, MP. 7 Complaint of Shri Shamim Khan, Editor, Dainik June 21st, 2017 Mahakaushal Express Sivni, M.P. against the police authorities 8 Complaint of Md. Sajid Khan, Freelance Journalist, June 21st, 2017 Raisen, M.P. against the Government of M.P.

24 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 9 Complaint of Shri Ramavadh Yadav, Journalist/ June 21st, 2017 President, Uttar Pradesh Shramjeevi Patrakar Union, Azamgarh, UP against Shri Ramashray Yadav, Gram Pradhan, Ibrahimpur, Azamgarh 10 Complaint of Shri Avnish Mishr, Journalist, Swatantra June 21st, 2017 Bharat, Shahjahanpur (UP) against Shri Iftekhar Ahmad, Police Station Incharge, P.S. Khutar, Shahjahanpur and others Facilities to the Press

11 Complaint of Shri Punyapal Ashok Kumar Shah, June 21st, 2017 Owner/Publisher/Editor, Dakshin Gujarat Vartman, Gujarat against the RNI 12 Complaint of the Managing Editor, Dainik Hind June 21st, 2017 Gazette, Seoni (M.P.) against Municipal Council, Lakhadon, Seoni (M.P.) Suo Motu Cognizance 13 *Suo-motu cognizance w.r.t. registration of a case June 21st, 2017 against for allegedly publishing fabricated news 14 Suo-motu cognizance with regard to murder of Shri S. June 21st, 2017 Karthigai Selvan, Journalist of Tamil Weekly magazine in Sattur, Tamil Nadu. 15 Suo-motu cognizance w.r.t. threats to the Journalist by June 21st, 2017 Shri Vijayakant, President, DMDK Party 16 Suo-motu cognizance regarding report carried in the June 21st, 2017 Hindu alleged misbehaviour by the President, DMDK Party with the Journalists 17 Suo-motu cognizance w.r.t. murder of Shri Ramchandra June 21st, 2017 Yadav, Journalist, Aryavrat, Darbhanga District of

* Incorporating adjudication in cross complaint by Ministry of Ayush, New Delhi against the editor, Milli Gazette (Sl. No. 34).

25 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 18 Suo-motu cognizance with regard to death threat to June 21st, 2017 Shri Manoj Kumar Giri, Journalsit, Amar Ujala by the U.P. Minister, Shri Radhey Shyam Singh Curtailment 19 Complaint of Shri S. N. Shyam, Journalist, Bihar June 21st, 2017 Press Mens Union, Bahadurpur, against Police Authorities and anti-social elements 20 Complaint of Shri Vishwanath Shrivas, Bureau Chief, June 21st, 2017 Sudarshan Expess, Bhind, MP against the Chief Municipal Corporation Officer, Bhind, MP 21 Complaint of Shri Sayyed Imran Alam, Editor, June 21st, 2017 Aitihasik Sakshya, , UP against Shri Tahseen Ahmad, Lucknow and Police Authorities

22 Complaint of Shri Ravinesh Gupta, Correspondent, June 21st, 2017 Dainik Shekhar Times, Shahjahanpur, UP against Shri Sarvesh Sharma, Inspector, P.S. Mirzapur, Shahjahanpur, UP Principles and Publication 23 Complaint of Ms. Nalini N. Nayak, Mumbai, against June 21st, 2017 the Editor, Times of India, Bhubaneswar 24 Complaint of Shri Ravi Kiran, Secunderabad against June 21st, 2017 the Editor, , Telangana 25 Complaint of Shri S. Bhaskaran, against the Editor, June 21st, 2017 Junior Viketan, Puducherry 26 Complaint of Shri Joy Joseph, Kerala against the June 21st, 2017 Editor, 27 Complaint of Shri V.K. Singh, Hon’ble Minister of June 21st, 2017 State for External Affairs, New Delhi against the Editor, Times of India 28 Complaint of Dr. Surendra Jain, Joint General June 21st, 2017 Secretary, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, New Delhi against the Editor, The Hindu.

26 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 29 Complaint of Shri Yusuf Ali Bohra, Secretary, Dawoodi June 21st, 2017 Bohra Janmat, Udaipur (Raj.) against the Rashtradoot, Udaipur (Raj.)

30 Complaint of Shri Sunjjoy Manohar Dhake, Publisher, June 21st, 2017 Kothrud Times, against The Editor, Kothrud Times, Supplement of , Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd, (BCCL), Pune, RNI and District Magistrate, Pune

31 Complaint of Ms. Varsha Vidya Vilas & Ms. Jyotika June 21st, 2017 Wale, Member, Action for the Rights of the Child (ARC), Vishrantuadi, Pune against the Editor, The Pune Mirror, Pune edition, Times of India

32 Complaint of Dr. Satish Pawar, Maharashtra against June 21st, 2017 the editor, , Maharashtra

33 Complaint of Shri Rajesh Kumar Chopra, R.K.C. Fans June 21st, 2017 Club, Balod, Chhattishgarh against the editor, I) Dainik Bhaskar, 2) Nai Duniya 3) Nav Bharat, 4) Patrika and 5) Haribhoomi, Raipur, Chhattishgarh

34 Complaint of Ministry of Ayush New Delhi against June 21st, 2017 the editor, Milli Gazette. (Adjudication incorporated in cross suo motu cognizance of harassment of Milli Gazette) (Sl. No. 13)

Press and Defamation

35 Complaint of Dr. Pallavi Darade, IRS, Mumbai against June 21st, 2017 the Editor, , Mumbai

36 Complaint of Shri Nakka Ananda Babu, MLA, Guntur, June 21st, 2017 A.P. against the Editor, Sakshi, Guntur Edition

37 Complaint of Dr. Sheetal Kumar J. Patil, Trustee, June 21st, 2017 Dr. J.J. Magdum Trust’ Jaysingpur against the The Editor, APRATIM, Jaysingpur

27 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 38 Complaint of Prof. Vipin Srivastava, Hyderabad June 21st, 2017 against the Editor, Times of India, Hyderabad 39 Complaint of Shri Karanam C, Hyderbad against the June 21st, 2017 Editors, , Deccan Chronicle, Andhra Pradesh, Prajasakthi, , Sakshi, Eenadu 40 Complaint of Shri Ramakant Pandey, Mumbai against June 21st, 2017 the Editor, Dakshin Mumbai 41 Complaint of Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, Former DGP June 21st, 2017 (HOPF), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against the Editor, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 42 Complaint of Shri Baleowda, Kunigal, Karnataka June 21st, 2017 against the Editor, Yuvakraanthkaarigal Asthra, Bangalore 43 Complaint of Smt. Savita Garg, Sambhal, UP against June 21st, 2017 the Editor, Nai Soch Nai Disha, UP 44 Complaint of Shri Ram Prasad Patel, Sagar, MP against June 21st, 2017 the Editor Peoples Samacharpatra 45 Complaint of H.N. Meena, General Manager, Neemach, June 21st, 2017 MP against the Editor, Dashpur Express, Neemach 46 Complaint of Ms. Ranjan Lata, District Kaimore, Bihar June 21st, 2017 against Editor, Dainik Aaj, Mau, U.P. 47 Complaint of Shri Bhagwandeen Sahu, Spokesperson, June 21st, 2017 Shri Vedant Seva Samiti, Chhindwara, M.P. against the Dainik Bhaskar, Chhindwara, M.P. 48 Complaint of Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., June 21st, 2017 Delhi against 49 Complaint of Shri Devendra Mishra, Shahjahanpur, June 21st, 2017 UP against the Editor, Rahat Times 50 Complaint of Shri Saddul Hussain, OSD to Hon’ble June 21st, 2017 Chief Minister of J&K against the Editor, Early Times, Jammu Edition

28 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 51 Complaint of M/s SOM Distilleries & Breweries Ltd, June 21st, 2017 Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, L.N. Star Newspaper, Bhopal 52 Complaint of Dr. Suneet Soni, Jaipur against the June 21st, 2017 Editors, , , Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal Samachar, News 4, Times of India, Hindi Pradesh-18 and RMZ infinity 53 Complaint of Shri K.P. Singh, President, Baroda June 21st, 2017 Rajasthan Ksthetriya Gramin Bank, Rajasthan against the editor, Dainik Rashtradoot 54 Complaint of Shri K.P. Singh, President, Baroda June 21st, 2017 Rajasthan Ksthetriya Gramin Bank, Rajasthan against the editor, Dainik Navjyoti 55 Complaint of Shri Surendra Anand, Chhatarpur, M.P. June 21st, 2017 against the editor, Raj Express, Chhatarpur, M.P. 56 Complaint of Pradeep Kumar, Assistant Store Keeper, June 21st, 2017 Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jaisalmer, Rajasthan against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 57 Complaint of Shri Damodar, President and Shri Rahul June 21st, 2017 Soni, Media Incharge, Maa Narmada Uddahan Samiti, Bistan Shetra, Khargon, M.P. against the editor, Patrika, Indore, M.P. 58 Complaint of Shri Yashvir Singh, Gautam, Budh Nagar, June 21st, 2017 U.P and Mohd. Khalid, Meerut, U.P against the Editor, , Meerut, UP 59 Complaint of Shri Pushpraj Singh Baghel, Satna, M.P. June 21st, 2017 against the editor, People Observer, Satna, M.P. 60 Complaint of Shri Gajendra Pal Singh, Secretary, June 21st, 2017 Shaheed Chandrabhan Smarak Samiti, Mawana, Meerut, UP against the Editors, Dainik Jagran, Hindustan, Meerut, UP

29 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 61 Complaint of Shri Sachin Jaiswal, MLA, Sitaupur June 21st, 2017 through his Counsel Shri Jemendra Kumar, Advocate, High Court, Lucknow against the Editor, Dainik Lokmat 62 Complaint of Mohd. Javed, Najibabad, Bijnor, U.P June 21st, 2017 against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut, UP 63 Complaint of Shri Sayyed Rizwan Ali, Bhopal, M.P. June 21st, 2017 against the Editor, Pariwarik Dastak, Bhopal, M.P. 64 Complaint of Shri Sarwat Sharif Khan, Advocate, June 21st, 2017 Bhopal, M.P. against the editor, Pariwarik Dastak, Bhopal, M.P. 65 Complaint of Shri Ayyub Khan, Member, Madhya June 21st, 2017 Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal, M.P. against the editor, Pariwarik Dastak, Bhopal, M.P. 66 Complaint of Shri Pandit Onkar Dubey, Jabalpur, M.P June 21st, 2017 against the editor, News Trap, Jabalpur, M.P. 67 Complaint of Shri Somnath Pawar, Gurukul June 21st, 2017 Chhindwara, M.P. against the editor Jabalpur Exrpess Chhindwara. 68 Complaint of Shri Ramesh Kumar Bakshi, Vice- June 21st, 2017 President (P&A), Birla Corporation Limited, Unit Satna Cement Works, Satna, M.P. againt the editor People Observer, Satna, M.P. Paid News 69 Reference received from Election Commission of India June 21st, 2017 against Editor Tamil Murasu for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections-2014 in the garb of news

(a). Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions- 2014 in the garb of news

30 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 70 Reference received from Election Commission of India June 21st, 2017 against Editor Odisha Bhaskar for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news a. Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor Krantidhara, Odisha for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news b. Reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Orissa Post for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions- 2014 in the garb of news c. Reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, , Odisha daily for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news d. Reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Orissa Express for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news e. Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor, Anupam Bharat for allegedly publishing paid news during General Elelctions- 2014 in the garb of news Press and Morality 71 Complaint of Shri Inderjit Kapani, Indore, MP against June 21st, 2017 the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Patrika

31 Adjudication of the Council

Harassment of Newsmen

1) Shri Bharat Bhushan Azad, Versus The Chief Secretary, Journalist, Punjabi Tribune, Government of Punjab, Faridkot, Punjab. Chandigarh. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. Director General of Police, , Chandigarh. Superintendent of Police, Faridkot (Punjab) Shri Amrit Pal Singh Bhati, S.H.O., Kotakpura Police Station, Faridkot, Punjab. Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 8.11.2014 has been filed by Shri Bharat Bhushan Azad, Journalist, Punjabi Tribune, Faridkot, Punjab against Shri Amrit Pal Singh Bhati, S.H.O. Kotakpur Police Station, Faridkot, Punjab Government of Punjab alleging mental and physical harassment by not taking any action on his complaint of threatening phone calls. The complainant stated that to cover a news regarding kidnapped children when he reached Faridkot on 12.9.2014, Shri Amrit Pal Singh Bhati, SHO, Kotakpura Police Station arrested him along with demonstrators and released him at 9 p.m. Thereafter, the complainant received numerous threat calls. He filed a complaint on 2.11.2014 in this regard in police station Kotakpura, who did not take any action in the matter. In his support the complainant had filed copies his critical writings against local Administration/ Police published in (along with English translation) and requested the Council to take action in the matter. A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 21.1.2015 followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 1.5.2015.

32 Report from District Magistrate, Faridkot The District Magistrate, Faridkot vide his letter dated 14.12.2016 has submitted that the inquiry was conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot. In the report it has been stated that as per the police record, inquiries were conducted on dated 2.1.2015 by Sh. Bikramjit Singh, P.P.S., Superintendent of Police (Investigation), Faridkot and on 4.2.2016 by Sh. Baljit Singh, P.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sub-Division), Kotakpura. To maintain law and order duty at the place of organised protest with regard to missing children, ASI, Gurmit Singh was deployed on duty to counter the agitation of agitators. In this agitation, 21 agitators were arrested and were brought to the police station City Kotakpura and the complainant, Shri Bharat Bhushan Azad was one of the agitators. Vide DDR No. 29 dated 12.9.2014 u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C., the agitators were presented before the Executive Magistrate, Kotakpura at 8.30 pm, and later released them immediately custody at the same time. Regarding allegations against unknown persons of threatening him on his mobile has revealed that a call was made by one Manjinder Singh @ Kalu r/o Village Dhilwan Kalan and Gurpreet Singh r/o Kotakpura who are minor in age and they are working in Baba Milk Plant, Kotakpura. The above said persons in their statement had said that the call was made by mistake to the complainant and they also felt sorry for this. However, during inquiry, harassment made by the Inspector Amritpal Singh Bhatti to the complainant, has not come to the notice, Hence, keeping in view the facts of above said report, this complaint may be filed. Reply of Shri Amrit Pal Singh Bhati, SHO, Kotakpura Respondent no. 5, Shri Amrit Pal Singh Bhati, SHO, Kotakpura vide his undated reply received in the Secretariat on 23.12.2015 has stated that there is no merit in the complaint and the Council does not carry any jurisdiction to take up the matter. He has requested to dismiss the same. Response from the Complainant The complainant in his letter which was received in the Secretariat of the Council on 14.2.2017 has alleged that the respondent has not made inquiry from the Civil officer but it was done by a Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot which is in violation of the orders of the Council. He has requested the Council to direct the respondent to get the inquiry conducted from a Civil officer. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following several adjournments, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the complainant, while Mr. Jasvinder Singh, S.P. Headquarter, Faridkot appeared on behalf of the respondent. He has produced

33 letter dated 8.4.2017 before the Committee signed by the complainant, Shri Bharat Bhushan Azad. In the said application, the complainant has prayed for withdrawal of the complaint. The Inquiry Committee talked to the complainant on his mobile number and being satisfied that he had filed the application grant permission to withdraw the complaint.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for disposal of the complaint as withdrawn. 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 case being withdrawn.

2) Sh. Kitabuddin Khan, Versus The Chief Secretary, Press Editor, Government of U.P., Buddha Shanti Jansandesh, Lucknow. Kushinagar (U.P.). The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P. Lucknow. Shri Brahamshankar Tripathi, Cabinet Minister, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow. The Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar (U.P.). Shri Omprakash Rai, Station House Officer, Police Station-Vishanpura, Kushinagar (U.P.). Shri GyanendraShukla, Inspector, Padrona, Kushinagar (U.P.). Shri Durgesh Kumar Singh, Chowki Incharge, Sidhua Bazar, Under Police Station-Padrona, Kushinagar (U.P.)

34 Shri Atul Sharma, Former Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar (U.P.).

Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, A.S.P. Crime, (U.P.).

Shri Prakash Shukla, Deputy District Collector, Tehsil Kasya, Kushinagar (U.P.).

Shri Vinay Pathak, Station House Officer, PS-Kasya, Kushinagar (U.P.).

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

Shri Kitabuddin Khan, Press Editor, Buddha Shanti Sandesh, Kushinagar (U.P.) in his complaint dated 16.8.2016 has alleged that the local MLA- Shri Brahamshanakar Tripathi (Cabinet Minister, Government of U.P.) has been continuously harassing him and his family for the last three years and also registering false cases with the connivance of the police authorities. The complainant further alleged that government authorities are not providing information/recordsdue to which he is facing difficulty in publishing the newspaper. The complainant alleged that he is also being deprived from the government schemes. The complainant submitted that he complained to the National Human Rights Commission in this regard in the year 2009. Pursuant to this, the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar assured him that they will take action if any incident comes into light but despite that criminal cases are being registered against him. According to the complainant, he filed written complaints to the Station House Officer, Police Station-Kasya on 4.1.2016 and 11.1.2016 with regard to encroachment on his land and manhandling by his co-partner but no was action taken by the police against the guilty. The complainant further informed that he also filed his complaint on the portal of Chief Minister of U.P. wherein the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar was directed to look into the matter. The Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar forwarded his complaint to the SHO, Kasya for necessary action on 26.2.2016 but on the contrary, SHO filed a criminal case under Section 107/116 against him and an investigation report

35 was forwarded to the Deputy District Magistrate, Kasya, who issued a bailable notice on 9.3.2016. The complainant, who was challenged by the notice and case filed against him. Hon’ble District Judge vide order dated 20.5.2016. The complainant submitted that he wrote several complaints in this regard to His Excellency President of India, Prime Minister, Chief Minister of U.P. and others but no action was taken. While requesting for condonation of delay in filing the complaint, he has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the respondents-Government of U.P. and Shri Braham Shankar Tripathi, Cabinet Minister of Government of U.P. on 13.12.2016.

Written Statement of Superintendent of Police The respondent-Shri Atul Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Oraiya (former SP, Kushinagar) vide his reply dated 25.12.2016 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that there was a family property dispute between the complainant and his brothers. With a view to maintaining law and order, a report was sent to the Deputy District Magistrate, Kasya for registering the case under Section 107/116 wherein a Notice dated 31.3.2016 under Section 111 was issued to the complainant and others. Since the complainant did not appear on appointed date, a warrant was issued against the complainant, however, on the appeal of the complainant the same was rejected by the Deputy DM’s order dated 20.5.2016. The respondent alleged that the complainant levelled false and baseless allegations against the police with a view to pressurise them for taking action against his brothers. The allegation of any torcher and raid, the respondent stated that the matter is related to family property dispute, which is pending consideration before court of law. The respondent further stated that the complaint is false and baseless and is liable to bedismissed.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 8.1.2017 while reiterating his complaint, alleged that the written statement of respondent-Superintendent of Police is inaccurate, false, misleading, baseless and completely distorted. The complainant stated that the reply of the respondent is not accordance with his complaint and liable to be rejected. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondents.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondents on 22.3.2017.

Further communication of the complainant The complainant vide letter dated 8.4.2017 submitted that his mother is

36 a landlord in the matter. A case No.493/15 has been registered in the court in the name of distribution of property and for maintenance of peace to avoid dispute amongst the family members. However, by making the distribution with consignment and forcefully, the respondents are making efforts to eject the complainant from home/office. He requested to take the decision accordingly.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. Sh. Kitabuddin Khan, the complainant appeared in person whereas Shri Arun Kumar Chaubai, Sub Inspector, Police Station- Kasaya, Janpad represented Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complainant, the written statement and all other connected papers. The grievance of the complainant is that he has been unnecessary harassed by the police. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance of the complainant is absolutely misconceived. It seems that there is dispute amongst the family members of the journalist over the property and for maintenance of peace the police authorities had to submit report to the Magistrate for appropriate action.

The Inquiry Committee finds no merit in the grievance of the complainant and, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal.

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.

3) Shri Jai Prakash Bhardwaj, Versus The Chief Secretary, Bureau Chief, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Dainik Chetna Manch, Lucknow, UP C-16, Vikram Enclave, Shalimar Garden, P.S. The Secretary, Sahibabad, Home (Police) Department, Ghaziabad, U.P Government of UP, Lucknow, U.P

The Director General, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, UP

37 Shiv Vipin Kumar, Constable, P.S. Sahibabad, S.O.G, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Shri Ravinder Yadav, Constable, P.S. Sahibabad, SOG, Ghaziabad, UP The District Collector, District Ghaziabad, UP The Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad, UP Shri Krishnapali Chief Head Constable, Police Station, Sahibabad, S.O.G, Ghaziabad, UP Shri Pankaj Sharma, Constable, P.S. Sahibabad, S.O.G, Ghaziabad, UP

Adjudication Dated 21.06.2017

This complaint dated 2.11.2016 has been filed by Shri Jai Prakash Bhardwaj, Bureau Chief, Dainik Chetna Manch, Ghaziabad, U.P. against the police personnel for allegedly misbehaving and threatening him during collection of news. The complaint submitted that on 24.10.2016 while he was covering an incident of manhandling by policemen in plain clothes of four gas cylinder delivery boys, the SOG policemen, Sahibabd mal-treated him, trying to snatch his mobile and threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant further informed that the policemen were aware that he is a journalist and he had also shown them his ID proof before the incident took place. He wrote to the Home Minister, Chief Minister. The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Jaiprakash Bharadwaj appeared in person. Shri Anoop Kumar Singh, FPS (ASP), GZB appeared on behalf of the respondent.

38 The complainant confirm that he does not want to proceed in the matter any further. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter nay further and recommends for its disposal. 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 as matter settled between the Parties.

4) Sh. Habiburrehman Versus The Chief Secretary, @ Kadam Government of U.P., Rasul, Lucknow. Correspondent, The Secretary, Amar Ujala, Home (Police) Department, Bahraich (U.P.). Government of U.P., Lucknow. The District Collector, District Bahraich (U.P.). The Superintendent of Police, District Bahraich (U.P.). Shri J.N. Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Katarniya Ghat, District Bahraich (U.P.). The Range Officer, Forest Division, Katarniya Ghat, District Bahraich (U.P.). The Station House Officer, Police Station Sujoli, District Bahraich (U.P.).

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017 This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 24.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Habiburrehman @ Kadam Rasul, Correspondent, Amar Ujala, Bahraich (U.P.) against the officers of Forest

39 Department, Bahraich for allegedly implicating him in false case as a reprisal measure due to publication of critical writings. According to the complainant, he exposed the misdeeds prevailing in the forest department through column of his newspaper due to which the officers of the forest department harbour personal animosity against him. The complainant further informed that on 7.8.2016 one holy man (Baba Hujur)had expired in Bichchiya Bazar and his funeral rites were conducted by the local people in the reserved forest area. The complainant stated that he was also there for collection of news due to which the officers of forest department registered a case No.0715/16 on 8.7.2016 in Police Station- Sujoli against the 24 local residents including him and his two sons under Sections 142/143/186/188/153A/332/33 IPC and Forest Protection Act. Later on, Section 153A was removed by the Investigation Officer and a chargesheet was filed under general sections. The complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent-Range Officer, KatarniyaGhat on 3.12.2016 in this regard. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the respondents-Government of U.P. and Forest Officers concerned on 8.12.2016. Written Statement of Regional Forest Officer The Regional Forest Officer, Katarniya Ghat Range, Bahriach vide his written statement dated 25.12.2016, while denying the allegation, has stated that the complaint is false and baseless. The respondent alleged that the complainant is habitual of publishing false news against the officers/employees and villagers with a view to harass them and in this way he defames the profession of journalism. According to the respondent, the complainant described himself as main Sewak of Baba Hujur in the news items published in Amar Ujala under the caption “lar ckck gwtwj dk fu/ku fcfN;k esa meM+s vuq;k;h” and “ckck ds vafre n'kZu dks meM+s vuq;k;h”. Besides, the complainant assembled thousands of people on loudspeaker, hence, the complainant was not present there in his capacity as a journalist and thereby violated the Rules of Forest Department. While denying the allegation of curtailment of freedom of press, the respondent stated that State Administration has taken cognizance of the incident and the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble court of law. Written Statement of Superintendent of Police, Bahraich The Superintendent of Police, Bahriach vide his written Statement dated 26.1.2017 has informed that the matter was investigated by the Circle Officer, Nanapara, Bahraich and it was found that case No.0715/16 registered on 8.7.2016 in Police Station-Sujoli against the complainant and others under Sections 142/143/186/188/153A/332/33 IPC and several Forest Protection

40 Act. During the investigation, the allegations have been proved against the complainant and other accused and a chargesheet No. A/109 dated 25.11.2016 has been filed.

Further response from Regional Forest Officer The Regional Forest Officer, Katarniya Ghat Range, Bahriach vide his further response dated 31.3.2017 has stated that on 6.10.2016 Baba Hujur had expired in Bichchiya Bazar and his funeral rites were conducted by the local people in the reserved forest area. He has stated that a huge crowd gathered in the funeral of Baba Hujur and three people named Bahadur Singh, Rajesh Ojha and Uvesh Rehman tried to build a mazaar on the forest land where Baba Huzur was buried and it was in violation of Forest Acts. He has further stated that the complainant is in one of several persons who were involved in spreading communal tension in the forest area by building a mazaar in forest areas. He has submitted that the complainant has provided wrong information about the death of Baba Huzur that he died on 7.8.2016 while the truth is that he died on 6.10.2016.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, despite service of notice. Shri Saurabh, Inspector, Crime Branch, Behariach and Shri Ranikrishan Pratap Singh, Regional Forest Officer, Katarniya Ghat Range, Behariach appeared for the respondents. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement filed by the Regional Forest Officer and the Superintendent of Police. From the perusal of the report of the Superintendent of Police, it is evident that after investigation, the allegation has been found to be true and accordingly, the complainant and others have been charge-sheeted. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed with the complaint any further. The Inquiry Committee recommends for the disposal 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 Dispose of the complaint.

41 5) Shri Mohan Nagpal Versus The Chief Secretary News Editor Government of Punjab Daily Pilot Chandigarh. Bhatinda (Punjab) The Inspector General of Police, Bhatinda Range Bhatinda (Punjab)

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 10.11.2016 was filed by Shri Mohan Nagpal, News Editor/Sr. Journalist, Daily Pilot, Bhatinda (Punjab) against the Inspector General of Police, Bhatinda Range, Bhatinda (Punjab) for allegedly filing false FIR against him. According to the complainant, he published two news items in his newspaper under the captions “izsl Dyc ds uke ij i=dkjksa dks /kefd;ka vkSj xq.MkxqnhZ” and “iatkc dsljh dk i=dkj tldj.k ehr mQZ ehrk mQZ dkyk dj jgk izsl Dyc ds uke ij xq.MkxnhZ” in its issues dated 22.9.2016 and 26.9.2016. The complainant further informed that earlier he had filed a criminal complaint against some members of “Bhatinda Press Club” before a judicial court, which is still pending whereas the “Press Club of Reporters” at Bhatinda is running parallel and he is the President of this Club. The complainant alleged that in retaliation to this groupisim and avenge publication of above said news, some members of Bhatinda Press Club influenced Shri S.K. Asthana, IGP at Bhatinda and alleged that he (the complainant) attacked one person Shri Jaskaran Meet, Press Reporter with lethal weapons and without going into the facts an inquiry, the IGP ordered an inquiry after registering a police case in PS-Civil Lines, Bhatinda under Section 341/323 ST Act. The complainant stated that the IGP did not even bother to call him as how a person of 70 years, patient of blood sugar and hypertension, can attack a person 35-years-old. The complainant stated that in order to oblige a group of reporter IGP took such extreme step of discriminating nature. The complainant has written to the IGP, Bhatinda Range on 2.11.2016 and demanded high level enquiry. The complainant has filed an Affidavit that the subject matter of the complaint is not pending before any judicial court at Bhatinda. He has requested the Council to hold an inquiry in the interest of justice and also in the interest of maintaining the freedom of press. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh and the Inspector General of Police, Bhatinda Range, Bhatinda on 8.12.2016 but no reply was received from them.

42 Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present whereas Shri Naveen Saini, AIG (Crime Branch) represented the respondent Inspector General of Police, Bhatinda Range, Punjab Police. Shri Naveen Saini, the AIG (Crime) appears on behalf of the respondent. The complainant by mail dated 8th April, 2016 has communicated to the Council that he does not want to proceed further in the matter as the FIR No.168 dated 29.9.2016 of PS-Civil Lines, Bhatinda has been cancelled. Inquiry Committee gives permission to the complainant to withdraw the complaint. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends closure of case for being withdrawn. 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 close the case for being withdrawn.

6) Shri Narendra Patel, Versus The Chief Secretary, Reporter, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bansal News Channel, Bhopal (M.P.). Satna (M.P.) The Secretary Home (Police) Department, Shri Jitendra Soni, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Reporter, Bhopal (M.P.). Ind-24 News Channel, Satna (M.P.) The Director General of Police, , Bhopal (M.P.) The District Collector, Satna (M.P.). The Superintendent of Police, Satna (M.P.). Shri Vijay Singh Thakur Station House Officer, Police Station-Amarpatan, Satna (M.P.).

43 Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017 Shri Narendra Patel, Reporter, Bansal News Channel and Shri Jitendra Soni, Reporter, Ind-24 News Channel, Satna (M.P.) in their joint undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 22.11.2016, alleged that Shri Vijay Singh Thakur, Station House Officer, Police Station-Amarpatan, Satna (M.P) had brutally beaten them and implicated them in false case. According to the complainants, the news regarding illegal activities of Shri Vijay Singh Thakur was telecast on their reports on 4.11.2016 in the regional news channels. Annoyed with this, the respondent threatened to implicate them in false cases. The complainants submitted that they wrote to the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and Superintendent of Police, Satna in this regard on 8.11.2016 and 11.11.2016 respectively but no action was taken. The complainants alleged that on the mid-night of 13/14.11.2016 the respondent-Shri Vijay Singh Thakur and his staff forcibly entered their houses and started to beat them brutally and also misbehaved with ladies in the family. The respondent took them to the Police Station and registered false case under Arms Act. The complainant has requested to take necessary action against the guilty policemen. A Report on facts of the case was called for from the respondent-Government of Madhya Pradesh vide Council’s letter dated 14.12.2016. Comments The Superintendent of Police, Satna, M.P. vide his letter dated 31.1.2017 has submitted a Report on the facts of the case. In his report, it has been stated that a case No. 385/16 u/s 20B of NDPC Act was registered against an accused namely Shri Rajesh Kushwaha in Amarpatan PS who was taken into judicial custody. The complainant, Shri Narendra Patel came to the police station and requested the SHO to release the accused. The SHO objected to such request and asked the complainant to go outside. Upon which, the complainant got energy and started abusing him and also threatened him. The SHO registered the entire incident in the Diary Register no. 18 at around 13.58 pm. It has also been stated that on 14.11.2016, the SHO Vijay Singh Thakur, on receiving the information, raided the house of the complainant, Shri Narendra Patel and found one pistol and three bullets and therefore a case no. 410/16 u/s 25, 27 of Arms Act was registered against the complainant, Shri Narendra Patel and the fact that pistol was given by Jitendra Soni to Narendra Patel is mentioned in the FIR. It has been further stated that when the journalists made allegations of man handling by the SHO, then a case no. 411/16 u/s 294/323/506B, 34 of IPC was registered against the Inspector Vijay Singh, Nirmal Singh, Siddharth Patel, Jai Prakash Kushwaha, Chandraprakash Kushwaha and two others. There officials are suspended and departmental enquiry is pending against them.

44 The Assistant Inspector General of Police (Complaint), Bhopal vide his letter dated 4.2.2017 and the Deputy Collector, District Satna vide his letter dated 7.3.2017 has forwarded the same report. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 7.2.2017, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Narendra Patel, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Pannalal Awasthi, Dy. S.P. appeared on behalf of the respondent and states that a Case no. 410/16 u/s 25/27 of the Arms Act has been entrusted for investigation to a police officer from a different District. He also states that the investigation of the said case and the cases filed by the complainant against the police officer shall be concluded within a month. Let it be done. In view of the aforesaid assurance, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and recommends for the disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid directions. 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 Dispose of the complaint.

7) Shri Shamim Khan, Versus The Chief Secretary, Editor, Government of Madhya Dainik Mahakaushal Express, Pradesh, Sivni (M.P.) Bhopal (M.P.) The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (M.P.) Shri Avadhkishore Pandey, Superintendent of Police, Seoni (M.P.).

Adjudication Dated 21.06.2017 This complaint dated 30.4.2016 has been filed by Shri Shamim Khan, Editor, Dainik Mahakaushal Express, Sivni (M.P.) against Superintendent of

45 Police, Seoni for allegedly harassing and trying to implicate him and other journalists in false cases maliciously due to publication of critical writings. According to the complainant, after posting of Shri Avadhkishore Pandey as Superintendent of Police on 21.12.2016, the incidents of looting and firing tremendously increased in Seoni district and he exposed the lazy system of the police through his newspaper time to time. Annoyed with this, the Superintendent of Police maliciously started to take false action against the journalists, reputed persons and common men. The complainant further submitted that he published a news item of a truck accident in his newspaper on 25.4.2016 and thereafter on 27.4.2016 the respondent posted the clipping of the said news on Whatsapp Group stating that “please peruse the news passed below that one side police is trapping the robbers with the help of people and on other one journalist was trying to distract the police by giving information of a truck accident and when no action was taken by the police then he creates a story! Now you consider and decide the malicious intent inherent in the news”. The complainant stated that as a responsible citizen and journalist, he gave information over mobile regarding communal tension in Faizganj Chowk to the respondent on 8.4.2016. The complainant alleged that during a press conference on 27.4.2016, the respondent targeted him by saying that a journalist, provoke the riots and then he gives the information. According to the complainant, he complained to the Director General of Police, Bhopal and thereafter his statement was recorded by the D.I.G., Chhindwara. The complainant apprehended that he might be entangled in a false case. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 5.7.2016.

Written Statement of Superintendent of Police, Seoni Shri A.K. Pandey, Superintendent of Police, Seoni in his written statement dated 26.7.2016 while denying the allegation has stated that Seoni is a very sensitive district for communal viewpoint, therefore, he took some tough decisions for peace under the law. While describing his achievement during his six months tenure the respondent has informed that he also created a WhatsApp Group for conversation between the police and press. According to the respondent, on 25.4.2016, a truck took place mishap near by-pass and information in this regard was not received by the police but the complainant published news on 25.4.2016 by criticising the police under the caption “cdfj;ksa ls Hkjs Vªd ls mij esgjcku iqfyl”. With regard to allegation of posting the said news item on WhatsApp, the respondent submitted that his write-up was in connection with the news item under the caption “jhok ls ukxiqj rd pyrk gS gkth 'kdhy dk flDdk” posted by the complainant on WhatsApp. The respondent

46 further submitted that the complainant made a complaint to the DGP, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and matter is being investigated by the DIG, Chhindwara. The respondent alleged that the complainant often publishes false and defamatory news without taking the version of the concerned and thereby violated the norms of journalistic ethics. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 29.8.2016 while reiterating his complaint has alleged that the written statement of the respondent is far from truth. The complainant has submitted that an Independent MLA from Seoni, Shri Dinesh Rai Munmun also raised question during Monsoon Session of Legislative Assembly about weak working procedure of the police inSeoni. The complainant also denied the allegation of the respondent that he violated the norms of journalistic ethics. While levelling the allegation of harassment against the respondent, the complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action in the mater.

Comments of Superintendent of Police, Seoni Shri A.K. Pandey, Superintendent of Police, Seoni in his comments dated 14.10.2016, while reiterating the contents of the written statement, has stated that the allegation of the complainant that the reply filed by him is false and misleading, is absolutely wrong as whatever the reply filed by him is supported by the written evidences. He further stated that he never mentioned anyone name in the Press Conference held on 27.4.2016 and it could not be a basis of the present complaint. He further denied all other allegations of the complainant levelled in the counter comments of the complainant on him.

Complainant Further Submissions The complainant vide his letter dated 2.10.2016 has stated that after the notice for hearing issued by the Council to the respondent, the respondent police Shri A.K. Pandey pressurized him through Shri Shailesh Mishra, TI by calling him in the police station several times for recording his statement despite the fact that he has already recorded his statement earlier three times.

Respondent’s Reply Shri A.K. Pandey, Superintendent of Police, Seoni vide his reply dated 21.12.2016 has stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant are absolutely false and baseless. He denied putting any pressure on the complainant to withdraw the complaint filed by the complainant before the Council. He alleged that the complainant in his submissions used abusive language.

47 Complainant’s Response The complainant vide his letter dated 18.12.2016 has submitted his counter comments on the comments of the respondent dated 14.10.2016. He has stated that most of the reply in this is far from the truth and is misleading. Respondent’s Reply The respondent, Shri A.K. Pandey, SP, Seoni vide his letter dated 15.3.2017 has filed his counter on the response of the complainant dated 18.12.2016. He has stated that the police department has completed the investigation in the matter and is in the report, the complainant in his complaint mentioned that he wants his reputation as it was in the tenure of Dr. Raman Singh, then SP but how a police maintain relations with a journalist is the prerogative of the police as their prime responsibility is to maintain law and order and in that to decide what is more beneficial is lies with the police. The complainant has no right to interfere in this. With regard to the allegation of writing on social media, it has been stated in the report that it is the fundamental right of Shri A.K. Pandey, Superintendent of Police. It has been found in the investigation that being aggrieved with not getting the same importance from Shri Pandey as the complainant got earlier, the complainant filed this complaint and it has no basis and deserved to be dismissed. Complainant’s Response The complainant vide his letter dated 2.5.2017, while reiterating his complaint and other allegations, has requested the Council to direct for investigation against the Superintendent of Police, Shri A.K. Pandey from an IPS Officer of any other range except Jabalpur Range. He further express danger of his life from the Superintendent of Police and requested the Council to direct the police to provide him security. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 4.10.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore. Shri Shamim Khan, the complainant appeared in person. Shri A.K. Pandey, SSP, Seoni appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the respondent. The complainant happens to be an editor of a newspaper. His allegation is that because of his critical writings, he is being harassed by the police authorities, particularly, the Superintendent of Police. The complainant admits that at the instance of an individual who has no connection with the police authorities, a case of extortion and another case of wrongful confinement have been lodged against him. In such case, if the police follow the procedure prescribed in the

48 law for proclamation and executes warrant, its action cannot be said to be illegal. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is misconceived. 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 Dismiss the complaint.

8) Md. Sajid Khan, Versus The Chief Secretary, Freelance Journalist Government of Madhya Pradesh, Raisen, Bhopal Bhopal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh Police Bhopal. District Magistrate, District: Raisen Madhya Pradesh Superintendent of Police, Raisen, (M.P.) Shri Ramsnehi Mishra, Additional Supdt. of Police, Raisen, M.P. Shri Abhay Nema, SHO, Raisen, Raisen, M.P. Shri Mohit Kumar, Sub-Inspector (Investigation) P.s: Raisen, M.P. Shri Athar @Achhe, Ward No.16, Old Tehsil Mohalla Raisen, M.P.

49 Shri Ansar Khan, Ward No.16, Old Tehsil Mohalla, Raisen, M.P. Shri Mubarik Khan, Ward No.16, Old Tehsil Mohalla, Raisen, M.P. Adjudication 21.06.2017

The complaint dated 14.12.2016 has been filed by Shri Sayyad Khalid Qais, State President, Akhil Bhartiya Patarkar Suraksha Samiti Bharat, Bhopal against anti-social elements for allegedly registering false case against Md. Sajid Khan, Freelance Journalist, Raisen, Madhya Pradesh with the connivance of the police due to publication of critical news items. Shri Sayyed Khalid Qaise was requested vide Council’s letter dated 23.1.2016 to advise the affected journalist, Shri Sajid Khan to file formal complaint complying with the requirements of the Inquiry Regulations, 1979. In response thereto, Shri Sayyad Khalid Qais vide his letter dated 05.01.2017 forwarded the complaint dated 05.01.2017 of Mohd. Sajid Khan. The complainant submitted that he has filed a written complaint in the police station against some anti-social elements of the area and published news item about their gambling dens. Annoyed with the publication of critical news item and the complaint, they registered a false case No. 583/2016 dated 21.9.2016 against him with the connivance of the police authorities. The complainant has further submitted that the police without any investigation and evidence under the pressure of gambling den owners registered a case against him. He has also submitted that police authorities forcefully got his signatures on blank papers and misbehaved with him. The complainant drew the attention of the police authorities and District Administration on the incident but received no response. The complainant wrote to the Collector, Raisen, Superintendent of Police Raisen and other Senior Police authorities in this regard but no action has been taken against the culprits. He has requested the Council to take action in the matter. The complainant vide his further letter dated 02.02.2017 informed that on the complaint of Advocate Shri. B.P Bansal, National Vice-President, Journalist Movement Association (I), the Additional Superintendent of Police, Raisen submitted false, distorted and basless investigation report dated 07.01.2017 to the Superintendent of Police Raisen. The complainant alleged that instead of

50 preparing investigation report with regard to Section 2-3 of National Honour Defamation Act, 1971, the Police took statements of his family and neighbours, which was subjected matter of a family property dispute. The complainant informed that the said statements do not disclose that he violated the Section 2-3 of National Honour Defamation Act. While forwarding a copy of the investigation report 07.01.2017, the complainant has requested the Council to inquire into the matter. Notice for statement in Reply were sent to the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Director General of Police, Bhopal and District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Raisen and other at Raisen on 20.01.2017. Written Statements of SHO and SI, PS-Kotwali, Raisen The respondents-Shri Abhay Nema, SHO and Shri Mohit Dubey, SI, Police Station-Kotwali, Raisena nd vide their spate written statements dated 17.02.2017 informed that one Mohd. Athar filled a complaint dated 17.09.2016 against the complainant for defamation of national flag by submitting a CD and two Photographs. The said complainant was investigated by Shri Mohit Dubey, SI and found that the complainant displayed a banner of National Flag in the front of his shop mentioning his own name and name of a weekly newspaper, Ekal Satya and during the investigation, the complainant removed and destroyed the banner. Since the allegations proved true, a case was registered against the complainant. The respondents submitted that the complainant could not produce any identity card to establish he is journalist. During the investigation, the Public Relations Office, Raisen also denied having any information regarding appointment of the complainant as journalist in any newspaper or magazine. The respondents further submitted that the complainant is history-sheeter and several criminal cases are registered against him since 2004. Written Statement of SP, Raisen The respondent-Superintendent of Police, Raisen vide his written statement dated 25.02.2017 while returning the original copy of the Notice for Statement in Reply issued by the Council to him has reiterated the written statement as submitted by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Raisen above. Written Statement of District Collector/District Magistrate, Raisen The respondent-District Collector/District Magistrate, Raisen vide his letter dated 14.03.2017 has forwarded the investigation report dated 25.02.2017 of Superintendent of Police Raisen as referred above. A copy of the written statements was forwarded to the complainant on 21.04.2016.

51 Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.05.2017 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. There was no appearance from the complaint side whereas Ms. Kiran Lata Kerkella, Additional Superintendent of Police, Raisen represented the respondent side.

Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. Ms. Kiran Lata Kerkella, Additional Superintendent of Police, Raisen is present before the Committee on behalf of the respondent. It is the allegation of the complainant that he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the brother of a gamble against whom he has published the story. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all other connected papers. The respondent has shown to the Inquiry Committee the photograph of the act done by the petitioner which led to the registration of the case. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complaint is absolutely misconceived. 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.

9) Shri Ramawadh Yadav, Versus The Chief Secretary, Journalist/President Govt. of U.P., Uttar Pradesh Shramjivi Lucknow (U.P.). Patrakar Union, The Secretary, Azamgarh (U.P.) Home (Police) Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow (U.P.). The District Collector, Azamgarh (U.P.). The Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh (U.P.). Shri Ramashrey Yadav, Gram Pradhan/Asstt.Teacher, Village-Ibrahimpur (Sikandpur), Azamgarh (U.P.).

52 Adjudication 21.6.2017

Case Summary This complaint dated 20.9.2016 has been filed by Shri Ramawadh Yadav, Journalist/President, U.P. Shramjivi Patrakar Union, Azamgarh (U.P.) against Shri Ramashrey Yadav, Gram Pradhan/Assistant Teacher, Village, Ibrahimpur (Sikandpur), Azamgarh for alleged harassment and fatal attack on him due to publication of critical writings and inaction of the police. According to the complainant, he published news items in the newspapers viz Aaj, Swatantra Bharat, Pioneer and Dainik Shree Times in public interest regarding misappropriation in developmental works, illegal encroachments etc. by the respondent-Shri Ramshrey Yadav. Annoyed with this, the respondent started to harass and misbehave with him and his family. The complainant alleged that on 4.4.2016 the respondent along with his associates vandalised his house and also attacked on his elder son and a Case No.129/16 under Section 323/504/506/147/427/236 IPC was registered by him in local police Station. The complainant further alleged that on 17.6.2016 the respondent along with his associates again attacked him and a Case No.0152/16 under Section 323/504/506 IPC was registered but no enquiry has been initiated in both the cases. The complainant submitted that he wrote to the higher police and administrative authorities including Hon’ble Chief Minister of U.P. many times but no productive action has been taken by anyone. He has requested the Council for protection. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the respondent-Government of U.P. and Shri Ramashrey Yadav on 4.11.2016.

Reply of Shri Ramashrey Yadav The prime respondent-Shri Ramashrey Yadav vide his undated written statement, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 29.11.2016, while denying the allegation levelled in the complaint informed that he and the complainant are family lease holds and the complainant is continuously indulging in tactics to blackmail him in the garb of journalism. The respondent informed that the complainant filed a Petition No.31968/2016 in the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, which is pending consideration. The respondent stated that the complaint is not maintainable as it has no basis.

A copy of the reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 8.12.2016.

No response has been received from the Government of U.P.

53 Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment on 10.1.2017 the matter came up for final hearing on 16.5.2017 at Indore.

The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant and has perused the complaint and reply filed by the respondent. The inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the issue does not concern the freedom of the press and in fact is a dispute between two individuals. The Inquiry Committee doesn’t find any ground to interfere in the matter. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

10) Shri Avnish Mishr, Versus The Chief Secretary, Journalist, Government of U.P., Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow. Shahjahanpur (U.P.). The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. The Director General of Police, , Lucknow. The District Collector, District Shahjahanpur (U.P.) The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) The Circle Officer, Puvayan, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) Shri Iftekhar Ahmed, Station House Officer, Police Station-Khutar, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

54 Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts This complaint dated 13.11.2016 has been filed by Shri Avnish Mishr, Journalist, Swatantra Bharat, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) against Shri Iftekhar Ahmed, Station House Officer, Police Station Khutar, Shahjahanpur for allegedly threateningto kill and implicate him in false case due to publication of critical writing. According to the complainant, he published news regarding illegal activities of the respondent. The complainant further informed that he played an important role of mediator in journalist-Jagender Singh murder case by facilitating compromise between State Minister-Shri Rammurty Singh Verma and family of Shri Jagender Singh due to which Samajvadi Party M.P.-Shri Mithilesh Kumar and others harboured grudge against him and he apprehends danger to his life as very often he gets threat of encounter and implication in false cases from them. The complainant submitted that he sent a complaint in this regard to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur and also registered the complaint on the portal of Govt. of U.P. On the directions of the State Government, an inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur and Circle Officer, Puvayan, Shahjahanpur. As per findings of the inquiry while his identity as journalist was questioned, the accused was found innocent. As complainant apprehended danger to his life, he has requested the Council to conduct a high level inquiry into the matter.

Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Government of U.P. on 20.1.2017. Written Statement of SHO, Khutar The respondent-Shri Iftekhar Ahmed, SHO, Police Station-Khutar vide his reply dated 4.2.2017 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that he never threatened the complainant to implicate him in false case or to encounter him, as alleged. The respondent further submitted that neither he has any ill-will or malice towards the complainant nor is he doing any unlawful act on the direction of any powerful person. According to the respondent, he has no information regarding mediator role of the complainant in the Journalist Joginder Singh murder case as he was not posted that time in Khutar Police Station. The respondent stated that the information is duly provided by him to all the journalists, who visit the Police Station. The respondent further stated that no incident of dacoity has taken place during his tenure.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 16.2.2017.

55 Written Statement of S.P., Shahjahanpur The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur vide his written statement dated 5.2.2017 has informed that the matter was investigated by Shri R.K. Bhartiya, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, who in his report submitted that the allegation made by the complainant of threatening to implicate him in false case by Shri Ifteqar Ahmed, SHO, Khutar could not be proved as no case was registered against the complainant in the Police Station Khutar from either side.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.4.2017. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore.

The Complainant has filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. Respondent, SHO is represented by his counsel. The Inquiry Committee considered the prayer of the complainant seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee grants the prayer. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint as withdrawn. Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the 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 as withdrawn. Facilities to the Press

11) Shri Punyapal Ashok Versus The Registrar, Kumar Shah, Registrar of Newspapers for Owner/Publisher/Editor, India, New Delhi. Dakshin Gujarat Vartman, Valsad (Gujarat)

Adjudication 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 16.2.2017 has been filed by Shri Punyapal Ashok Kumar Shah, Owner/Publisher/Editor, Dakshin Gujarat Vartman, Valsad (Gujarat) against the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) for not taking

56 any action on his applications regarding change of ownership of his newspaper since last eight years. According to the complainant, his newspaper is regularly publishing since 2000 and his father late Shri Ashokkumar Chunilal Shah was founder of the paper but due to his murder in the year 2009, the complainant had given an application dated 9.6.2009 to the RNI for entering his name as owner/editor/publisher of the newspaper. In response thereto, the RNI vide its letter dated 17.9.2009 has sought documents and the same were provided by him on 30.5.2013. The complainant has further submitted that since no further communication received from the RNI, he applied again on 14.10.2014 along with all necessary documents. In response thereto, the RNI vide letter dated 24.6.2016 again sought the documents and the same were provided by him to the RNI on 4.8.2016. The complainant has alleged that despite submitting all documents the RNI is knowingly not clearing his application with regard to name change. He has requested the Council for necessary action in the matter.

A status report of the matter was called for from the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), New Delhi on 10.3.2017.

Reply of the RNI Shri Ramakrishna Pillai, Assistant Press Registrar, RNI, New Delhi vide his reply dated 30.3.2017 has informed that the complainant’s newspaper titled “Dakshin Gujarat Vartaman” (Gujarati weekly) is registered with RNI under Registration No.GUJGUJ/2000/02175 from Valsad (Gujarat). The RNI office has received some documents for change of ownership of the said newspaper. On scrutiny, the documents have been found to be incomplete. Accordingly, the Publisher has been intimated vide RNI’s letters dated 17.9.2009, 18.3.2015 & 27.7.2016. He has further informed that RNI has also received complaints against ownership and non-filing of Annual Return by the publisher of the said weekly. The same have been forwarded to the District Magistrate, Valsad for further necessary action.

A copy of the RNI’s reply was forwarded to the complainant on 10.4.2017 for information/counter comments.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant. Although Shri Deepak Ranvir, Deputy Director, PIB has appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Newspaper for India but when questioned in regard to the facts of the case, he is unable to give any answer. In fact, he states that he doesn’t know anything about the case. The Inquiry Committee expects that the Registrar of Newspaper for

57 India will authorize such person to represent it before the Inquiry Committee, who knows the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is unfortunate, that a matter of change of ownership is hanging fire since 2009 with the Registrar of Newspapers for India. It is an admitted position that after the death of the owner, an application was filed for change of the name of the owner. According to the respondent, Registrar of Newspapers, the same is not being done, purportedly on the ground that the complainant has not furnished the complete papers. It is unfortunate that the Registrar of Newspapers had not indicated the specific papers, documents or information which are lacking for granting the prayer of the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee directs the Registrar of Newspapers for India to give the details of the documents and information, which have not been furnished by the complainant for change of the ownership, within two weeks. The complainant on receipt of the said information shall furnish those documents and information within one week thereafter. The complainant doing so, the Registrar of Newspaper shall consider the prayer of the complainant and pass appropriate orders within three weeks thereafter. The Inquiry Committee directs for disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid directions.

Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the 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.

12) The Managing Editor, Versus The Chief Secretary, Dainik Hind Gazette, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Seoni (M.P.) Bhopal (M.P.). The Principal Secretary, Urban Welfare Department, Bhopal (M.P.). The Commissioner, Urban Welfare Department, Bhopal (M.P.). The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Lakhadon, Seoni (M.P.) The Chairman, Municipal Council Lakhadon, Seoni (M.P.).

58 Adjudication 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 3.9.2016 has been filed by the Managing Editor, Dainik Hind Gazette, Seoni (M.P.) against the Municipal Council, Lakhadon, Seoni for for allegedly adopting discriminatory attitude towards his newspaper in issuing the advertisements. According to the complainant, the Hindi Gazette is largest circulated newspaper in the district but the respondent Municipal Council has given only two advertisements till date. The complainant stated that the reason for not issuing the advertisements to his newspaper is not clear. The complainant informed that in the past, former Chairman of Nagar Panchayat Lakhadon sent a letter dated 22.5.2013 to the Superintendent of Police, Seoni wherein allegation of plotting conspiracy was levelled against him, requesting to take necessary action in the matter. The complainant apprehended that the respondent being biased towards his newspaper, has deprived it of advertisements. The complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent-Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Lakhadon on 6.5.2016 in this regard but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

No Written Statement Notices for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 7.2.2017 but received no reply from either side.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and has heard the Chief Municipal Officer, Lakhadoh, and the representative of the government. It is the allegation of the complainant that though it is a widely circulated newspaper had given only two advertisements by the Municipal Council. It is not a case of the complainant that for his adverse or critical writing the newspaper is deprived of advertisement. In that view of the matter the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that no case of interference is made out. The Inquiry Committee accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

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

59 Suo Motu Cognizance

13) Suo-motu cognizance w.r.t. registration of a case against The Milli Gazette for allegedly publishing fabricated news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

Attention of the Council was drawn towards the news dated 16.8.2016 w.r.t. registration of a case against The Milli Gazette published in The Indian Express, and Hindustan Times. It has been reported in the news items that the Delhi Police questioned a journalist Shri Pushp Sharma for at least four hours in connection with a story published in The Milli Gazette on the Ayush Ministry alleging that the Ministry does not consider Muslim candidates as Yoga Trainers or Teachers for World Yoga Day for foreign assignment. It has been further reported that the police also registered an FIR under IPC Section 153-A and Section 468 against The Milli Gazette for publishing the article based on what newspaper and the journalist, Shri Pushp Sharma, said was an RTI reply sent by the Ministry. It has been also reported that the Ayush Ministry denied that it had sent the reported RTI reply. Police sources confirmed that Shri Sharma, who has been asked to join the probe was questioned at Kotla Mubarkpur PS two days after an Under Secretary at the Ministry lodged a complaint in this regard. According to the news reports, Shri Sharma confirmed that the police took him to the Kotla Mubarakpur Police Station where they misbehaved and threatened to implicate him in a false case. It has been further reported that the Ayush Ministry in its complaint stated that the RTI reply was fake. Meanwhile, The Milli Gazette, New Delhi vide his letter dated 28.3.2016 while expressing gratitude for taking suo-motu action in the matter has informed that the Milli Gazette published a report authored by veteran journalist, Shri Pushp Sharma under the title “We don’t recruit Muslims: Ayush Ministry” in the issue dated March 16-31, 2016 based on the Ayush Ministry’s reply to an RTI. The Editor, Mili Gazette has further informed that the report stated that Muslims were not recruited for the assignment by the AYUSH Ministry. According to him, Shri Sharma sought information from Ministry of AYUSH regarding YOGA related queries vide applications dated 17.9.2015 and he received many responses from AYUSH Ministry on his three RTI applications and in one of the papers sent by the Ministry, it was specifically mentioned that “As per Government Policy-No Muslim candidate was invited, selected or sent abroad”. Shri Sharma, thereafter, prepared and submitted the same along with letters of the Ministry to Milli Gazette. He has submitted that the news

60 report on the issue was published in Milli Gazette’s online edition of 11.3.2016. Upon publication of the said report on Milli Gazette website, AYUSH Ministry, instead of responding to the facts contained in the same claimed the report is false and fabricated and complained to the police and a FIR No.0225 of 2016 dated 15.3.2016 under Sections 418, 468, 471, 153A IPC was registered at PS Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. He has mentioned that a bare perusal of the FIR shows that none of the offences alleged therein are made out. He has alleged that Shri Sharma was harassed by the police and various agencies by questioning and interrogating him many times. He has further alleged that despite submitting all documents pertaining to RTI applications and their respective replies to the police on 16.3.2016, the police served a notice under Section 41A & 91 Cr. PC dated 16.3.2016 asking Shri Sharma to come again on 17.3.2016. Accordingly, Shri Sharma visited to the PS on 17.3.2016 where police again issued notice Section 41A and 91 Cr.PC dated 17.3.2016. According to him, Shri Sharma again visited to PS on 18.3.2016 and he was issued a letter dated 18.3.2016 directing him not to leave Delhi and the country without the permission of the police and that he will joint investigation again when and if required. He has alleged that imposing such a condition on a professional journalist is a serious violation of his rights as a citizen as well as his professional duties. The Editor has stated that the AYUSH Ministry, till date, has failed to reply to various queries by the media about the real situation as regards to the recruitment of Muslims by the ministry. According to him, the ministry issued a statement through Facebook on 11.3.2016 and thereafter the ministry issued a statement through PIB on 12.3.2016. They replied to the Ministry’s Facebook post through a statement on their website immediately on the same day since the Ministry’s statement talked about an altogether different issue. They have also reported the statement of the Ministry, issued through the PIB on 12.3.2016 on their website. The editor has stated that the said news report was published in good faith and with a sense of duty and responsibility towards the society and thereafter the same news was carried by many newspapers, news portals and TV channels due to its important nature. He has requested the Council to issue censure to the AYUSH Ministry and direct withdrawal of the said FIR. A report on facts of the case was called for from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Council’s letter dated 22.3.2016 followed by a reminder dated 21.4.2016 but received no response. In his mail letter dated 12.4.2016 the affected journalist-Shri Pushp Sharma, The Milli Gazette reiterated the allegation regarding registration of case against him by the police.

Council vide his e-mail dated 21.4.2016 asked to Shri Pushp Sharma to provide a copy of the RTI reply given by the Ayush Ministry.

61 Reply of Pushp Sharma In response to Council’s letter dated 21.4.2016, Shri Pushp Sharma vide his another e-mail letter dated 11.5.2016 informed the Council that all the documents have been submitted to investigating Officer, Kotla, Mubarakpur Police Station since it was a part of investigation. Shri Sharma has also stated that once police submits documents taken from him as part of investigation them he shall come with 2nd set of document proving how a gang operates on the name of Yoga. Shri Sharma further stated that since 18.3.2016 he has been ordered not to leave Delhi/Abroad and he is facing unconstitutional travel restriction ban.

Comments from Addl. DCPP, South, New Delhi In response to Council’s letter dated 22.3.2016, Shri Nupur Prasad, IPS, Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South, New Delhi in his comments dated 2.6.2016 has stated that the complaint is against Shri Pushp Sharma for allegedly reporting a news in the newspaper Milli Gazette and in that news he had used a document stating that the said document have been provided to him by the Ministry of Ayush but the said document is fake and have been used to disturb harmony. During the course of enquiry a case vide FIR NO. 225/2016 u/s 418/468/471/153A IPC dated 15.3.2016 was registered in Police Station, K.M. Pur, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, many documents have been collected from the Ministry of Ayush and Mr. Pushp Sharma. The alleged fake document is without any dispatch number and there is no signature of any officer on that document. He further stated that the details given in the documents have been denied by the Ayush Ministry and none have correlated the details of the fake letter. Also there is no enclosure as mentioned in the alleged document. He also stated that the alleged person, Shri Pushp Sharma has been arrested by the local police on 13.5.2016 and his bail application has been dismissed by Shri Dhiraj Mor, Ld. MM, LD Saket Court and the accused was sent to the Judicial Custody till 30.5.2016.

Response from the Respondent The editor, Milli Gazette in his letter dated 11.7.2016 has stated that the matter is sub-judice and also the newspaper were and remain committed to publish any rejoinder by the Ministry of Ayush. He has requested the Council to direct the Ministry of Ayush to send its rejoinder to them for publication and to withdraw its police complaint once they published its rejoinder.

Enquiry Report from Addl. DCPP, South, New Delhi Shri Nupur Prasad, IPS, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District,

62 New Delhi vide his letter dated 6.7.2016 submitted that a detailed enquiry report has already been provided to PCI but further enquiry revealed that in case, the Editor/Publisher of the news magazine, Milli Gazette, Dr. Zafarul Islam Khan was examined and his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. He further stated that the accused Pushp Sharma was arrested on 13.5.2016 and sent to judicial custody for two days on 14.5.2016 by the Ld. Duty MM. He further stated that the counsel of accused filed the bail application of the accused on 14.5.2016 and the bail application was fixed for 16.5.2016. He submitted that on 16.5.2016, the accused was produced from Jail and he was sent to judicial custody till 30.5.2016 and the bail application of the accused was also dismissed by the LD MM. He further submitted that during investigation of the case, 469 and 466 IPC have been added in the case. The case is presently pending investigation.

A copy of the aforesaid enquiry report was forwarded to the editor, Milli Gazette on 7.11.2016.

Cross Complaint Filed by the Ministry of Ayush Vide communication dated 29.3.2016, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting forwarded a reference of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Ayush relating to complaint against the Milli Gazette for allegedly using fabricated documents to publish misleading and incorrect news captioned “’we don’t recruit Muslims Modi Government Ayush Ministry”. This being a cross complaint related to relevant matter considered u/s 13 (13/229/15-16) was simultaneously placed before the Inquiry Committee. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 12.7.2016 and 6.9.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Pushp Sharma, the concerned journalist appeared in person. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, SHO, Jamia Nagar, Shri Jagdish Yadav, ACP, Defence Colony, Shri Mukesh Walia, SHO, Kotla Mubarakpur, Dr. I.V. Baswanand, Director, MDNYY, Dr. I.N. Acharya, Director, CCRYN, Shri K.Sinha, Under Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, Smt. Banarnai Naik, Under Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, Shri Aryan Biswas, Under Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, Smt. Shiela Dubey, Under Secretaty, Ministry of Ayush and Smt. Sushma, Section Officer, Ministry of Ayush appeared for the respondents. It is a common ground that the subject matter of the complaint is pending trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further.

63 The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for disposal 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 Dispose of the complaint. 14) Suo-motu cognizance with regard to murder of Shri S Karthigai Selvan, Journalist of Tamil Weekly Magazine in Sattur, Tamil Nadu.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 Facts A news report that appeared in The Hindu’s issue dated 9.1.2017 reporting gruesome murder of Shri S. Kathigai Selvan, Journalist of a Tamil magazine in Sattur (Tamil Nadu) prompted the Council to take suo-motu cognizance of the matter. It was reported in the news item that Shri Selvan was hacked to death outside Tamil Nadu Hotel on the outskirts of Sattur. The police said an armed gang assaulted Shri Selvan, who was at the hotel, and left him dead in a pool of blood. It was also reported that the Superintendent of Police said that Shri Selvan was also a partner in the leased restaurant of Tamil Nadu Hotel and the motive for the murder was under investigation. Reply of Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Shri M.Rajaranjan, Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar vide letter dated 9.3.2017 submitted a report stating that that he has conducted a detailed enquiry over the murder of the complainant. According to the report, the complainant was not murdered, in his capacity as a journalist, but due personal enmity with one Athinarayanan and heavy loss incurred by the deceased. He further stated that suitable action has already been initiated against the accused concerned and the investigation is also on the right line. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. Shri A.V.Mathi, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Distt., Tamil Nadu was present on behalf of the respondent.

The Council took suo motu cognizance when, it came to its notice that a journalist, named Shri S Karthigai Selvan was murdered in Sattur District of

64 the State of Tamil Nadu and called for a report from the State Government. The State Government has submitted its Report. Mr. A.V. Mathi, Additional Superintendent of Police has appeared on behalf of the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police. He states that in regard to the murder of the journalist, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged and during the course of investigation, two persons have been arrested and five have surrendered in Court and all of them are in judicial custody. He states that the charge sheet in the case shall be filed within the stipulated period. It may be noted that the journalist has not been murdered in connection with any journalistic work. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and disposes of the matter. It recommends to the Council accordingly.

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 matter.

15) Suo-motu cognizance with regard to threats to the journalists by Shri Vijayakanth, President, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK).

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

It was come to the notice of the Press Council of India that a prominent politician in Tamil Nadu, Mr. Vijayakanth, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) reportedly threatened journalists at Salem on 20.4.2016. The news item reported that the DMDK leader and chief ministerial candidate of PWA- DMDK alliance ‘Captain’ Vijayakanth lost his cool yet again with the journalists in Salem on 20.4.2016. Soon after he alighted from the car to participate in a Consultative Meet with his party candidates for the upcoming Assembly polls, journalists gathered around him to ask questions. A visibly upset, Vijayakanth, folded his tongue and raised his hand as if to assault the media personnel. He then angrily gestured by waving his hands around to make way for him. It was further reported that this is not the first incident that the Captain has been losing his temper, as he had behaved in an unruly manner with the media several times in the past too.

Council took suo-motu cognizance of the matter and response of Shri Vijayakanth, President, DMDK was sought vide Council’s letter dated 22.4.2016.

65 Written Statement of the respondent The Counsel for the respondent vide the written statement dated 23.11.2016 denied that Mr. Vijaykanth had threatened the journalists at Salem, Tamil Nadu on 20.4.2016. He has submitted that on that day when large number of public, his party workers, party people and press people crowded and surrounded Mr. Vijaykanth, then in order to remove crowd and to have a space to go, he had asked his party workers and public to give space to go with his own body language. He alleged that the electronic and print media focused the same as he had threatened the journalist. He has further submitted that the respondent had no intention to threaten any journalist in the open crowd. He has furnished a video CD along with his reply in order to establish his claim that he had no intention to threaten any journalist. He has stated that the respondent have never or ever intend to misbehave with any journalist or reporter. He further stated that in the name of journalist some of the local rowdies and criminals were assembled in front of the respondent and showed slogan against him illegally without any permission. He has submitted that he himself and through his party workers made complaint with the police against the illegal action done by the rowdies in the name of journalist. He further submitted that the respondent also issued a press release dated 31.12.2015 condemning the strangers and local rowdies in the name of journalist who are doing criminal activities against the respondent and his party. He has also enclosed a CD in support of his contention. He has requested the Council to dismiss the suo-motu complaint against the respondent. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi followed by three adjournments dated 13.7.2016, 6.9.2016 and 6.2.2017. The complainant is not present whereas Shri G.S.Mani, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Shri G.S.Mani, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent conveys that respondent had expressed regret for the incident and assured that he will not behave in the same way in future. In view of the Regret and Assurance given by the respondent, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for disposal of the case. 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 matter.

66 16) Suo-motu cognizance regarding report carried in The Hindu with regard to alleged misbehaviour by the President, DMDK Party with the journalists. Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

Attention of the Council was drawn towards alleged misbehaviour of Shri Vijayakanth, President, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) with the journalists on 27.12.2015 by spitting on them and questioning their credentials at a press conference. A news report published in The Hindu, reported that DMDK leader, Shri Vijayakant turned his ire on the media when asked if the AIADMK had any chance of returning to power after the 2016 Assembly polls. Attending a blood donation camp organised by his party, he spat on the mike of satellite channels and wondered whether they had the guts to pose a similar question to Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalithaa. It was further reported that this was not the first time that Shri Viajayakant had reacted with caustic words in a press conference. A few months ago, he embarrassed leaders of multi-party delegation that met Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi in New Delhi when he reacted furiously to media questions. The behaviour of the leader of opposition evoked strong condemnation across social media and from journalists. Taking a suo-motu cognizance of the matter, response of Shri Vijayakant, President, DMDK was sought vide Council’s letter dated 4.1.2016. Written Statement Shri G.S. Mani, Advocate reply on behalf of the respondent dated 23.11.2016 in which he denied of spiting at any press reporter or press or media on 27.12.2015. He has submitted that on 27.12.2015, the press reporters and journalists belonging to the ruling party and other opponent party and intentionally and repeatedly asked irrelevant questions and compel him to answer for that which is totally unethical. He has stated that the alleged spitting is not at all spitting as the same is a body language. He has submitted that a video clip is produced with this reply can establish that the respondent had no intention to spite at any journalist. (It is pertinent to mention here that no video CD was attached with the reply. He has requested the Council to dismiss the suo-motu complaint against the respondent. He has stated that the respondent has never or ever intent to misbehave with any journalist or reporter. He further stated that in the name of journalist some of the local rowdies and criminals assembled in front of the respondent and shouted slogan against the respondent. He has submitted that the respondent himself and through his party workers lodged complaint with the police against the illegal action done by the rowdies in the name of journalist. He further submitted that the respondent also issued a

67 press release dated 31.12.2015 condemning the behaviour of strangers and local rowdies in the name of journalist who are doing criminal activities against the respondent and his party. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 13.7.2016, 6.9.2016 and 6.2.2017, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent conveys that the respondent had expressed regret for the incident and assured against repetition of such conduct in future. Observing that it does not behove a public person to conduct himself in view of the regret and assurance given by the respondent, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for disposal 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 decide to Dispose of the matter. 17) Suo-motu cognizance with regard to murder of Shri Ramchandra Yadav, Journalist, Aryavrat, Darbhanga (Bihar). Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017 The Press Council of India in a suo-motu cognizance took note of reports of gruesome murder of Shri Ramchandra Yadav, Journalist, Dainik Aryavrat, Darbhanga District of Bihar, who was shot dead by unidentified assailants on 12.11.2016 while he was returning home after meeting a local Block Development Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan police said the culprits fired Yadav at the back, killing him instantly. It was further reported that Shri Yadav was working for a Hindi daily before he became the Mukhia. Report on facts of the case was called for from the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Director General of Police, , Patna and Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga vide Council’s letter dated 15.11.2016. Comments The Senior Superintendent of Police, Dharbhanga has submitted the Report on the fact of the case. Report states that on 11.11.2016, the journalist, Shri

68 Ramchandra Yadav was murdered and a case no. 231/16 u/s 302/34 IPC and 27 of Arms Act was registered on 11.11.2016 in Kusheshewar PS. In the FIR, the name of Sikander Yadav, Vinod Yadav, Praveen Yadav, Surender Yadav, Rasiklal Yadav and Trupeet Narayan Yadav were registered as accused. On 29.11.2016, the accused Trupeet yadav and Sikander Yadav were arrested and sent to the judicial custody. Another accused Rasiklal Yadav surrendered on 7.12.2016 before the Court and is in judicial custody.

The Inspector General of Police (Provision), Bihar Patna vide his letter dated 17.2.2017 has forwarded the same report.

The Sub-Division Police Officer, Biraul vide his letter dated 6.4.2017 submitted the same report in which it has been mentioned that a charge sheet no. 14/17 u/s 302/120B IPC and 27 of Arms Act has been filed on 25.2.2017 against three accused and an impoundment confiscation action is initiated against the remaining accused.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 6.2.2017, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Suresh Kumar, SDPO, Biraul, Darbhanga appeared on behalf of SSP, Dharbhanga.

The Council took suo-motu cognizance when it came to its notice that one journalist namely Shri Ramachandra Yadav was murdered and called for a report from the State Government and the Superintendent of Police. The report has been submitted and from its perusal, it is evident that for the murder of the said journalist, Shri Kusheshwar Asthan PS case no. 231/16 u/s 302/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act has been registered, on the statement of the son of the deceased. Further, during the course of the investigation, several accused have been arrested. From the perusal of FIR as also from the result of the investigation, it is evident that the said journalist had left the profession in the year 2001 and thereafter entered politics and the murder had taken place because of the property dispute and not in relation to a journalistic work.

In that view of the matter, the Inquiry committee is not inclined to proceed in the case any further and recommends for its disposal.

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 drop the suo-motu proceedings.

69 18) Suo-motu cognizance with regard to death threat to Shri Manoj Kumar Giri, Journalist, Amar Ujala by the U.P. Minister, Shri Radhey Shyam Singh. Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts The Press Council of India has taken Suo-Muto cognizance the PTI report that Shri Radhey Shyam Singh, a then Minister in Uttar Pradesh threatened a local journalist of Amar Ujala, Shri Manoj Kumar Giri in Kushinagar threatening to set him afire for his reportage critical of him. The journalist filed a complaint with the police and handed over the CD containing the threat.

In the meantime, the affected journalist of Amar Ujala, Shri Manoj Kumar Giri vide his email dated 12.2.2017 filled a complaint alleged that the U.P. Minister, Shri Radhey Shayam Singh threatened over mobile on 10.2.2017 to kill him. Apprehending danger to his life, he requests for security and necessary action.

Taking a suo-muto cognizance of the matter, a Report on facts of the case was called for from the Government of U.P. and Shri RadheyShyam Singh, the then State Minister, Govt. of U.P. on 14.2.2017.

Reply of Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar Shri Raju Babu Singh, Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar vide his reply dated 17.2.2017 informed that the matter was investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar, who in his Report submitted that on the complaint of Shri Manoj Giri a Case No.506/171F of IPC was registered against Shri RadheyShyam Singh on 11.2.2017 in the Police Station-Hata and the case is being investigated by the Sub-Inspector, Shri Vikas Yadav. The respondent further informed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar has been directed to investigate the case on merits impartially at the earliest.

Since the detailed report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar was not found attached, the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar was called upon vide Council’s letter dated 23.2.2017 to furnish the same.

The Council’s notice issued to the prime respondent-Shri Radhey Shyam Singh was received back undelivered from the postal authorities. Re-issued to him on another address on 2.3.2016, no response was filed.

70 Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Shri Niranjan Kumar Rai, Sub-Inspector appeared on behalf of Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.

When it came to the notice of the Council that the Minister had threatened a journalist of Amar Ujala, it took suomotu cognizance and called for a report from the State Government. The Superintendent of Police had given his report on 17.2.2017 in which, it has been stated that on the basis of the complaint of the journalist, Shri Manoj Kumar Giri, case No.506/17 I F of IPC was registered against the then Minister. Another report dated 13.5.2017 has been sent by the Superintendent of Police in which he has stated that during the course of investigation, the allegations has been found to be true and charge sheet under Section 504 and 506 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been filed in the Court on 16.4.2017. In view of the aforesaid, the inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and directs for disposal of the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint. Curtailment

19) Shri S.N. Shyam, Versus The Chief Secretary, Journalist/State President, Government of Bihar, Bihar Press Men’s Union, Patna. Patna Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The Director General of Police, Bihar Police, Patna

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 3.11.2015 has been filed by Shri S.N. Shyam, journalist/State President, Bihar Press Men’s Union, Patna regarding attack and

71 police atrocities on journalists in Bihar. The complainant cited following few incidents:

1. fnukad 30.9.2015 dks lhrke<+h ds ojh; Lora= i=dkj o nSfud tkxj.k ds iwoZ i=dkj Jh vt; fonzksgh dh vKkr geykojksa }kjk xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nhA bl laca/k esa Fkkuk lhrke<+h Vkmuesa dkaMla 790/2015 ds rgr Hkk n¡ fodh /kkjk 302/34 ,oa 27 vkElZ vä esa vKkr geykojksa ds fo#) ekeyk ntZ fd;k x;k gS ijarq iqfyl vHkh rd ekeys dk mn~Hksnu rd ugha dj ikbZ gSA

2. fnukad 27.9.2015 dks izSl Nk;kdj Jh jkts'k Ökk ¼vktrd½] Jh 'kf'kmŸke ¼ÇgnqLrku½ vkSjJh tqysdkj bR;kfn dks lekpkj ladyu ds nkSjku iqfyl }kjk cqjh rjg ihVk x;kA 3. ckadk esa ekfld if=dk ds LFkkuh; fjiksVZj Jh latho dqekj ds lkFk iqfyl nkjksxk us O;Zogkj o xkyh xyksp fd;kA 4. eqt¶+QqiwZj esa i=dkj uohl dqekj jatu dks iqfyl us ÖkwVs ekeys esa Qalkdj tsy Hkst fn;kA 5. Hkkxyiqj esa ,d izSl Nk;kdkj Jh vftr dqekj Ökk dks vKkr geyk ojksa us cqjh rjg ihVkA 6. vkbZ-uSDlV ds Nk;kdkj Jh euh”k dqekj dh vijkf/k;ksa us Edksrks D;ZDys Nhu yh o mudh iRuh ds #is; o xgus ywV fy,A iqfyl }kjk dksbZ dkjokgh ugha dh xbZA 7. 24.9.2015 dks x;k ds nSfud HkkLdj ds i=dkj Jh fefFkys'k ikaMs dh xksyhekj dj gR;k dj nh xbZA 8. dSewj ds i=dkj Jh nsoozr dh geykojksa }kjk gR;k dh dksf'k'k dh xbZA iqfyl }kjk dksbZ dkjokbZ ugha dh xbZA 9. Qqyokjh 'kjhQ+ ds izSl Nk;kdkj Jh lq/khj Çlg dh dqN ekgiwoZ xksyhekj dj gR;k dj nh xbZA iqfyl }kjk dksbZ dkjZokgh ugha gqbZA 10. iVuk esa fnukad 2.11.2015 dks i=dkj Jh vkuan dqekj dks Fkkusnkj us tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA ,l ,l ih }kjk dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh xbZA The complainant prayed before the Council to enact a “Journalist Protection Act” and take action against the erring officials. Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondent Government of Bihar on 27.11.2015. Complainant’s Further Communication’s The complainant vide his letter dated 13.7.2016 apprised the Council about several other incidents of attack on journalists in Bihar and sought that law be made for security of journalists and also that the Home Minister himself at his level initiate necessary action in the matter. The complainant vide his letter dated 22.1.2017 has stated that Bihar Police had not taken action on the Council’s order and alleged that police is harassing the journalists. On 21.1.2017, Inspector of Madhepura PS misbehaved and

72 beaten the State Head of Sadhna Plus and also snatched his mobile, camera and threatened to kill him. He further informed that on the same day Shikarpur Police arrested a journalist, Shri Manjay Lal at around 10.30 pm. The complainant vide his further letter dated 6.9.2016 and 13.7.2016 has brought to the notice of the Council about the other incidents of harassment to the journalists by the Bihar Police. Comments from Inspector General of Police, Patna The IGP, Patna, Bihar vide his letter dated 1.9.2016 has submitted the Action Taken Report on the incidents relating to attack on journalists and police atrocities in Bihar. In the Report, he has stated that the allegations of assault on the journalists by the police have not been found correct. Due and appropriate enquiry was conducted on the complaints filed by the journalists and their relatives without any delay. It has been further stated that the police is committed to provide security to the journalists and if any complaint received, necessary action will definitely be initiated on the complaint. The IGP, Patna Bihar vide his further letter dated 6.3.2017, while providing a detailed report on the actions initiated over the incidents on assault on journalists as provided by the complainant, has stated that the investigation in the matter is pending and necessary directions were given to the concerned Superintendent of Police to complete the investigation and furnish the Report. The IGP, Patna Bihar vide his further letter dated 30.3.2017 furnished the action taken on the incidents of assault on journalists and in one of the cases Charge sheet has been filed while investigation in other cases is pending. Reply from the Complainant In response to the Report of the Inspector General of Police dated 1.9.2016, the complainant vide his letter dated 4.12.2016 has stated that the said Report is incomplete and is self-made and factless. Rejecting this Report he requested the Council to direct the police for security of the journalists. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 13.7.2016, 6.9.2016 and 7.2.2017, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Vivekanand, AIG(Q) appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has considered the record.

This complaint has been filed by the President of the Bihar Press Men Union. In the complaint, he had narrated the incidents involving the journalists.

73 Mr. Vivekanand, AIG(Q) has appeared on behalf of the respondent and has given details of the result of the investigation of cases in which the journalists are involved. He assures the Council that whenever any case involving journalists shall come to the notice of the Government, it will be investigated expeditiously.

The Inquiry Committee is satisfied with the assurance given and recommends for the disposal 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 Dispose of the complaint on assurance given by the State Government.

20) Shri Vishwanath Shriwas Versus The Chief Secretary, Bureau Chief, Government of Madhya Sudarshan Express Pradesh, Bhind (M.P.). Bhopal (M.P.) The District Collector, District Bhind, M.P. Shri J.N. Para, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind (M.P.).

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 17.10.2016, has been filed by Shri Vishwanath Shriwas, Bureau Chief, Sudarshan Express, Bhind (M.P.) against Shri J.N. Para, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind for alleged misbehaviour during collection of news. The complainant submitted that he published a news item in his newspaper issue dated 16.9.2016 regarding an encroachment but no action was taken by the authority on it to publish follow up of the said news item he contacted Shri Para over phone on 22.9.2016 who denied him information by using unparliamentarily language. The complainant further submitted that he gave a written complaint to the District Collector, Bhind on 24.9.2016 but to no avail. While forwarding C.D. of the conversation with the respondent,

74 the complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent.

Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, the District Collector, Bhind and Shri J.N. Para, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind on 17.11.2016. Written Statement The respondent, Shri J.N.Para vide written statement dated 13.4.2017 submitted that after publication of the impugned report, an inquiry on the said place was conducted and the temporary encroachment was removed from the road. The complainant enquired about the encroachment and he was apprised on the action taken on it but the complainant repeatedly sought similar information. Annoyed with this, the complainant has filed complaint with false allegation. The respondent submitted that he did not misbehave with the complainant and respects the journalists. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi followed by an adjournment dated 7.2.2017. The complainant, Shri Vishwanath Shriwas appeared personally whereas Shri Indra Singh Negi, Project Officer represented on behalf of the respondent District Magistrate, Bhind.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of the respondent District Magistrate, Bhind. The allegation of the complainant is that when response from the Chief Municipal Officer, Bhind was sought, he misbehaved with him. In support of the allegations, he produced before the Inquiry Committee a CD. The Inquiry Committee has heard the recorded conversation between the complainant and the said Chief Municipal Officer. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is absolutely misconceived.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommended to the Council to Dismiss 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 of the complaint.

75 21) Sh. Sayyed Imran Alam Versus The Chief Secretary Editor Government of U.P., Atihasik Sakshya Lucknow. Lucknow (U.P.). The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh Police, Lucknow. The District Collector, Lucknow. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Lucknow. The Station House Officer, Police Station-Ashiana, Lucknow. Shri Tehsin Ahmed, Barabanki (U.P.).

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 26.11.2016 was filed by Shri Sayyed Imran Alam, Editor, Atihasik Sakshya, Lucknow (U.P.) against the anti-social elements for allegedly sabotaging his office premises due to publication of critical writings and subsequent inaction of the police authorities in the matter. According to the complainant, he published news in his newspaper on 27.8.2016 and 6.10.2016 regarding involvement of Shri Tehsin Ahmed with drug mafia. The complainant alleged that, annoyed with this, Shri Teshin Ahmed and his associates attacked his office on 16.10.2016 and took away computer, scanner, printer and important documents. The complainant further alleged that Shri Tehsin Ahmed also sabotaged his office on 24.11.2016. The complainant gave a written complaint to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Lucknow but no action has been taken so far. Alleging that the police is protecting the guilty, he has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

76 Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Government of U.P. and Shri Tehsin Ahmed on 5.1.2017.

Comments of Sr. Superintendent of Police, Lucknow The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Lucknow vide his written statement dated 30.1.2017 informed that the matter was investigated by the Circle Officer, Cant, Lucknow, who in his investigation report dated 28.1.2017 submitted that during the inquiry Shri Tehsin Ahmed informed that the brothers of the complainant were his tenants but they do not want to vacate his house. After many efforts, they vacated his house on 24.11.2016 but they did not pay the rent. Annoyed with this, the complainant filed false complaint. The respondent further submitted that Shri Tehsin Ahmed also informed that neither the complainant lived in his house nor his office was there. All the witnesses have too denied any such incident took place on 16.10.2016 and 24.11.2016 as alleged by the complainant. The respondent stated that neither the complainant appeared for recording his statement nor he offered any witness, however, he informed over telephone that his affidavit/complaint be treated his statement. The respondent further submitted that with regard to complaint by him to the Police Station- Ashiana, the matter was investigated by the Sub-Inspector, Shri Rajwant Singh and the allegations were proved false and baseless. The respondent also submitted that keeping in view the criminal record of Shri Tehsin Ahmed, the Inspector Incharge, Police Station-Ashiana has been directed to be vigilant on the activities of Shri Tehsin Ahmed.

Comments of District Magistrate, Barabanki The Additional Officer (Complaints) on behalf of the District Magistrate, Barabanki vide his letter dated 15.2.2017 informed that the matter has been investigated by the Deputy District Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki. The Deputy District Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki in his Report dated 10.2.2017 has stated that during investigation it has come to know that the complainant presently is not residing in Village Tikra Usma and he is living somewhere in Lucknow now. He has further stated that due to the aforesaid reason, Notice has not been served on the complainant.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his point-wise counter comments dated 1.3.2017 while reiterating his complaint has alleged that the written statement filed by the respondent authority is based on false facts. According to the complainant, the respondent in his investigation report referred the address of another house of Shri Tehsin Ahmed. The complainant further informed that he was also tenant of

77 Shri Tehsin Ahmed from where he was running his press office and the rent was paid timely. The complainant also informed that he had appeared for recording his statement and submitted his statement in writing.

The complainant vide his further responses dated 28.1.2017, 28.3.2017 15.4.2017, 26.4.2017 informed that the respondent Tehsin Ahemad has registered fake FIR against him in connivance with the local police.

Comments from Shri Tehsin Ahmed The Notice for Statement in Reply issued to the respondent-Shri Tehsin Ahmed was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “ysus ls badkj fd;k”. Therefore, the District Magistrate, Barabanki was requested vide Council’s letter dated 18.1.2017 to serve the Notice to Shri Tehsin Ahmed under intimation to the Council.

Shri Tehsin Ahmed vide his letter dated 3.4.2017 has stated that the complainant is a very clever person and he very cleverly mentioned his address as Aurangabad Khalsa, Lucknow and not mentioned the house number while his both houses are registered under Municipal Corporation. He alleged that the complainant is involved in extortion of money through his profession of journalism. He has further stated that he never allotted his house to the complainant on rent and never took any rent from the complainant.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. Syed Imran Alam, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Kumar Yadav, Dy. Superintendent Police appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the matter relates to the landlord-tenant dispute and has nothing to do with the journalistic activity.

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 Dismiss the complaint.

78 22) Sh. Ravinesh Gupta Versus The Chief Secretary, Correspondent Government of U.P., Dainik Shekhar Times Lucknow. Shahjahanpur (U.P.). The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. The District Collector, Shahjahanpur (U.P.). The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur (U.P.). Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, Sub-Inspector/H.C.P., Police Station-Mirzapur, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 15.10.2016 was filed by Shri Ravinesh Gupta, Correspondent, Dainik Shekhar Times, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) against Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, Sub-Inspector, Police Station-Mirzpur, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) for allegedly misbehaving and manhandling him during collection of news. According to the complainant, he went to the Police Station on 13.10.2016 for collection of news where the Sub-Inspector, in inebriated condition, misbehaved with him by using unparliamentary language. The complainant further informed that he apprised the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, concerned SHO and Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Division and about the incident and sought action against the Sub-Inspector. The complainant vide his further letter dated 19.11.2016 informed that during the meeting of District Journalists Organisation held on 11.11.2016 under the chairmanship of District Collector, Shahjahanpur, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur informed that the Sub-Inspector has been transferred. The complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the action taken by the authority as the Sub-Inspector is still working in the police station. He has requested the Council to take strict action against the Sub-Inspector.

Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the respondent-Government of U.P. on 6.12.2016.

79 Written Statement of Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur vide his written statement dated 28.12.2016 informed that the matter was enquired by the Additional Superintendent of Police Rural, Shahjahanpur in pursuance to the letter dated 27.10.2016 of Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly. The respondent further informed that the complainant substantiated his allegation during the investigation. The respondent also informed that Shri Ganga Prasad Pathak, Head Constable (Retd.), Police Station-Mirzapur also sent a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone indicating the allegation of demanding money from him by the complainant. The respondent submitted that on receiving complaints from the public, Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, H.C.P has been transferred to Police Lines, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 1.11.2016. A copy of the written statement of the SP, Shahjahanpur was forwarded to the complainant on 24.3.2017. Written statement of Inspector/HCPP, Shahjahanpur The respondent, Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, Inspector/HCP, Shahjahanpur vide letter dated 8.4.2017 submitted that when he was posted at Police Station- Mirzapur, the complainant used to visit the Station frequently and often fiddle with the confidential documents placed on the table. He used to sneakily look out for records or documents without permission. On objecting him to such misconduct, the complainant used to argue with the Police Officers and passes demoralising remarks. Further, the complainant also lodged a false complaint before the higher officers and pressurised also on them to take penal action against him. In this regard, the matter was investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police on the order of Senior Superintendent of Police who found that the allegations are false and baseless. The respondent added that Shri Mahesh Chander, Mirzapur has filed a case No.203/2014 U/S 323,504,336 203/2014 against the complainant and his three brothers at the Police Station. Having enough evidences against them, a charge-sheet has been filed on the matter before the court. The respondent stated that he is an honest and conscientious police official and ensures to be the same as always. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present whereas Shri Dhenonjoy Singh, S.O., Police Station-Mirzapur, Shahjahanpur represented the respondent.

Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. The Superintendent of Police, Shahjanpur is represented. From the report of the

80 Superintendent of Police, it is obvious that he has taken action against the erring police personnel. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to Dismiss 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. Principles and Publication

23) Smt. Nalini N Nayak Versus The Editor, Retired Register Income Tax , Appellate Tribunal Bhubaneswar. Former Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Mumbai

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 6.9.2016 has been filed by Smt. Nalini N Nayak, Mumbai against the editor, Times of India, Bhubaneswar for publication of an allegedly wrong information in the news item in its issue dated 7.7.2016 under the caption “Keonjhar girl becomes first lady pilot from state”. It is reported in the news item that Shelbi Mishra is act to become the first lady pilot from the state with 400 hours of flying experience, Mishra started her career with the Air Asia recently after completing two years of rigorous training in the US. It is also reported in the impugned news item that her father Shri Bipin Mishra, a Mumbai based businessman sent her to US for fulfilment of her dream.

The complainant stated that the impugned news item is factually incorrect. The first woman pilot was Ms. Giriwala Mohanti who obtained the private pilot license first and followed with the elite daughter of a Hindol Raj, Ms. Nalini. Thereafter he cited the case of his daughter Geetanjali Nayak qualifying in 1992. The complainant stated that in 1993 the Times of India, Bhubaneswar published a news story on his daughter Ms. Geetanjali reporting that “She is the first Oriya woman to obtain a commercial pilots license from both India and abroad for single, multiple and instrument lands of different aircraft.” The complainant drew the attention to the respondent towards the wrong reporting and requested him to correct their misreport suitably though a subsequent report.

81 The Times of India, Bhubaneswar editor, after due enquiry wrote subsequently in its issue dated 7.7.2016 as follows: “Geetanjali Nayak (now Parlekhar), one of the first two women commercial pilots from Odisha, said but for the scholarship she could realise her dream of flying as a career. Geetanjali, who got his commercial pilot license in 1992, is currently flying with Jet Airways in different International sectors out of Mumbai.” The complainant stated that the Times of India, Bhubaneswar edition nowhere in above news report regretted the earlier wrong reporting and left friends and relatives of Ms.Geetanjali are in confused state about the truth and this has resulted in her mental suffering for no fault of hers. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India on 26.10.2016 but no response has been received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. The complainant, Shri Nalini N.Nayak appeared personally whereas there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The complainant is aggrieved by a news item published in the Bhubaneswar issue of the Times of India, in which it has been stated that Shelbi Mishra is the first woman-pilot from the State of Odisha. It is the plea of the complainant that the aforesaid news is absolutely incorrect and, in fact, his daughter, Gitanjali Nayak was the first Oriya woman-pilot. His further plea is that he wrote to the respondent newspaper to correct the mistake and admit its fault. The respondent, The Times of India, thereafter came out with further story on the said news which included reference to his daughter but has not admitted the mistake.

Despite service of notice to the respondent, it has not chosen to appear nor filed its show cause. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the complaint and all other connected papers. At this stage it is apt to reproduce Norm No. 13 of Norms of Journalistic Conduct framed by the Council, same reads as follows: “When any factual error or mistake is detected or confirmed, the newspaper should suo-motu publish the correction promptly with due prominence and with apology or expression of regrets in a case of serious lapse.” The Inquiry Committee directs the respondent newspaper to publish corrigendum to admit its incorrect statement that Shelbi Mishra was the first lady plot from the State; instead the Geetanjali Nayak was the first woman- pilot from the State of Orissa. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion

82 that the conduct of the respondent newspaper in not admitting, its mistake is reprehensible and it accordingly recommends for Censure the Bhubaneswar edition of The Times of India. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly upholds the complaint with the aforesaid directions. (Order be communicated to DAVP/ RNI/State I&PRD only.) The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council to uphold 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 uphold the complaint and Censure the newspaper. A copy of the adjudication be forwarded to the DAVP etc. for appropriate action.

24) Shri N. Ravi Kiran Versus The Editor, Secunderbad Eenadu, Hyderbad Telangana/Andhra Pradesh

Adjudication Dated : 21.06.2017

This complaint dated 31.07.2016 has been filed by Shri Narayana Ravi Kiran who claims himself to be a responsible reader who had voiced against an alleged impugned news item published by one of the leading dailies of Telangana state ‘Eenadu’ a Telegu daily, caption in English read as “Sitting long hours is nothing short of smoking” (however the complainant has filed to submit translated version of the article and his initial). The complainant submitted that as a regular follower of Eenadu with reference to an article published, he has submitted his feedback/grievance vide email dated 09.10.2015 stating that the news items contains untrue facts and are not verified. However, instead of looking into the matter, the respondent newspaper revealed his identity to his employer consequently the complainant was at the verge of losing his job, hence he wrote another email dated 20.07.2016 giving an explanation to the respondent newspaper. The complainant submits that instead of tackling a mistake, the respondent newspaper chose to reveal the name of the complainant which is against the journalistic ethics and had requested the Council to look into the matter and enquire whether the facts stated in the alleged impugned news item really exists or not and to take necessary actions against the respondent newspaper for their irresponsible attitude towards readers.

83 A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent either, Eenadu, Hyderbad, Andhra Pradesh on 30.08.2016 Written statement filed by the respondent In response, the respondent vide written statement dated 03.10.2016 through the Sr. Manager-Legal submitted that the article in question is general in nature, based on enquires and research made by a reporter which supports to highlight one of the solutions to tackle the ill effects of sedentary jobs which is said to have been successfully deployed by a company named Wells Fargo India Solutions at Hyderabad. The respondent informs that the news items discusses three issues as stated. 1. Fifty four percent health problem result from long sitting. 2. IT companies looking for solutions, and 3. Standing zones established to provide relief to employees. The written statement states that the journalist has published the article after collection information regarding how Wells Fargo India Solutions (WFIS) had taken measures to encourage employees to partake meetings in standing position so as to reduce the ill effects of sedentary jobs and the same has been well appreciated by one and all and even the company about which the story was written had not disputed the facts which depicts that the facts are not untrue. The editor has also stated that as the mail was sent to the feedback team it was not considered as a complaint and rather a feedback and did not reach the Editor and also the veracity of the story was enquired into by the Senior Staff and was found to be correct and only after eight months when the complaint was filed with the PCI he has received it which states that revealing the name of the complainant to his employer is unethical. The editor, through the legal team has submitted that the facts given in the alleged impugned news item are the information which has been shared by the Chief Administrative officer of the company and even his photograph has been published with the news item and he himself did not object to it. However, on receiving a complaint/feedback from an employee of the same company disputing the information given by an authorised representative of WFIS it became important for the newspaper to cross check the validity of the shared information with the management of WFIS. And even the Reporter, Shri UIppuituru Sreenivasulu, has submitted a Declaration that the article is factual and based on personal enquires made by him and does not contain false information. Counter Comments In response to the written statement, the complainant submitted an undated statement requesting the Council to appoint a third party team to analyse and

84 investigate the matter and then the actual truth will come out and he sticks to his earlier statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee. The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.03.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. The complainant was not appeared whereas Shri G.V.S Jagannadha Rao, Advocate represented for the respondent.

Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. In fact he has written to the Council to decide the case at the earliest. Respondent is present. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement, the counter comments and all other relevant records, The Inquiry Committee has heard Shri G.V.S Jagannadha Rao, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not violated any journalistic ethics, so as to call for action by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council 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.

25) Shri Baskaran Versus The Editor President Junior Vikatan Puducherry Development Party Tamil Weekly No.51, Second Cross, Selva Nagar Uruvaiyar, Puducherry

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 12.08.2016 has been filed by Shri S. Baskaran, President, Puducherry Development Party against the Editor, Junior Vikatan alleging publication of a defamatory article about the of Puducherry under the caption “Puducherry Police Earns Lakhs through Prostitution”.

In the impugned news item outlining the modus operandi of the operation, it is contended that Puducherry may well be announced as capital of prostitution

85 in the next few days. Prostitution has become culture of the Pudcherry which has French culture. As the cost of liquor is lower, Puducherry has become an evergreen choice for the drinking people who come from Chennai and Bengaluru. The city is fully filled by them in the weekends. A brokers team focusing those people and run prostitution through poor girls.

According to the complainant the news item hurts the sentiments of people of Puducherry as it directly means that entire Puducherry State is like that. It is the responsibility of the Police department to take action on these kind of illegal activities. The respondent has no right to portray people of Puducherry in bad light by disgracing it as capital of prostitution. The complainant vide letter dated 10.08.2016 and 3.9.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards impugned publication with a request to publish apology for using such words, but received no response. He requested the Council to take strong action against the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice was issued on 15.12.2016 to the respondent editor, Junior Vikatan but no response has been received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. Shri S.Baskaran, the complainant was present whereas there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

Adjournment request of the respondent is taken on record. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the complaint and all the connected papers and is of the opinion that it is the duty of the press to shed light on dark spots. The respondent newspaper has not committed breach of any journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for the 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.

26) Shri Joy Joseph, Versus The Editor, Kerala Malayala Manorama Kerala

86 Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 10.8.2016 has been filed by Shri Joy Joseph, Kerala against the editor, Malayala Manorama, Kerala alleging publication of fake news in its issue dated 27.2.2016 under the caption “Telephone message threat to Rashtrapati, security enhanced”. It is reported in the impugned news item that anonymous phone calls were made to the Presidents’ Secretariat in Delhi minutes before arrival of Rashtrapati at the meeting place i.e. CMS College, Kottayam. The news report also indicates that security officers were in distress at Kottayam. It is further reported that the phone call was made from within the limits of Delhi. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the person who made the call was taken into custody at Delhi. The complainant submitted that the news appeared only in respondent newspaper and nothing regarding the said threat was reported in any other daily, news channel, radio news etc. on that particular date. The complainant further submitted that he was an ex-employee of the sister concern of the respondent newspaper from1997-2008 and because of the prejudicial and malicious intentions, the respondent published and highlighted the said news. According to the complainant it was in order to cover the adverse impact of a past incident in connection with his arrest on 16.3.2013 when the Hon’ble President visited Malayala Manorama, Kottayam to inaugurate the 125th anniversary celebration of the respondent newspaper. The complainant vide e-mail dated 19.9.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the publication of impugned news item and requested them to provide proof, but received no response. He requested the Council to take action against the respondent. Comments Notice for Comments was issued to the respondent editor on 16.12.2016. In response thereto, the respondent editor vide letter dated 31.12.2016 stated that they have not published any fake news and whatever they published is based on information received from the police authorities. He has also stated that a case is pending in the high court of Kerala between their organization and the complainant and hence the matter is subjudice. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 14.2.2017 for information/counter comments, if any. Counter comments The complainant vides counter comments dated 25.2.2017 submitted that the comments filed by the respondent is fake, fabricated, unsustainable and liable to be ignored. According to him, the respondent tried its level best to

87 misguide the Council and tactfully twisted from the actual subject-publishing of fake news, without substantiating the impugned news with evidences/proofs. Further, the respondent stated that the news was given by the police. The police who have so replied cannot issue fake news to the respondent and therefore statement of the Malayala Manorama is wrong. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. There was no appearance from the complainant side whereas Shri Millu Dandapani, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. The respondent newspaper is represented by its counsel. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the counter comments/arguments of the complainant and all other connected papers. The Inquiry Committee has also perused the impugned news item and is of the opinion that while publishing the same, the respondent newspaper has not violated any code of conduct, so as to call for action by the Council. It recommends to the Council for the dismissal of the complaint accordingly. 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 for dismissal of the complaint.

27) Shri V.K. Singh, Versus The Editor, Hon’ble Minister of State for External The Times of India, Affairs, New Delhi. Mumbai. Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 29.1.2016 has been filed by Shri V.K. Singh, Minister of State for External Affairs, New Delhi against the Editor, Times of India for alleged publication of a defamatory news item under the caption “Armed forces barred from buying jammers” In the news item it has been reported that “The decision to keep the Defence Forces out of the list of authorised agencies is significant as questions were raised on the now defunct Army’s Technical Support Division. The TSD was set up during the tenure of the former Army Chief General V.K. Singh who was

88 accused of carrying out unauthorised operations. The jammers or interceptors imported by the TSD for evaluation purpose could not be accounted for after the government decided to close down the unit “Jammers can be procured only by states police department and jail authorities. The complainant stated that the impugned news items is basically about purchase of Jammers and talks of Defence Forces not being mentioned as an agency to buy jammers. The complainant stated that impugned story talks about TSD raised by him and talks of interceptors having been bought. According to the complainant the editor for sure knows difference between jammers and interceptors then how come a story on jammers, one can bring interceptors, their alleged accounting and a unit raised by the Army. How is it related and how a news item on procurement policy on jamming equipment, has his (complainant’s) name. A Show Cause Notice dated 7.3.2016 was issued to the respondent newspaper, The Times of India, New Delhi. Written Statement The advocate Shri Shailendra Singh, Counsel for the respondent in his written statement dated 2.4.2016 denied the allegation of the complainant and submitted that it is practically impossible for a newspaper to have journalist/ reporter at each and every place to collect information and his client’s newspaper has carried the news provided by the PTI after giving due credit to them which can also be seen at the bottom of the news. He has further stated that since PTI was the origin of the news, it was also received by the other newspaper which too have widely reported and carried news articles on the same subject matter that constitutes the core of the impugned news. The Hon’ble Council can see and verify that the news carried in all the publications including his client of newspaper are one and the same. The respondent denied that his client has inserted the complainant’s name in the news without any justification or reason. The respondent has requested to drop the proceeding in the matter. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 6.9.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

This complaint was filed as back as on 29.1.2016.

When the matter was taken up on 6.9.2016, the complainant was given liberty to file an application for impleading the Press Trust of India (PTI) as one

89 of the respondents. He has not chosen to do so, even after the lapse of more than six months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to afford further opportunity to the complainant and recommends for the 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.

28) Dr. Surendra Jain, Versus The Editor, Joint General Secretary, The Hindu, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Delhi Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sector-VI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 28.9.2016 has been received from Dr. Surendra Jain, Joint General Secretary, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Delhi against the editor, The Hindu for allegedly misquoting and use of frivolous term “fringe elements” for a nationally reputed organization, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in its issue dated 9.8.2016 under the caption “VHP, Hindu outfits condemn Modi remarks on gau rakshaks”. It is reported in the impugned news item that after Prime Ministers condemnation of militant cow protection organizations or gau rakshaks and their attacks on Dalits, the fringe elements of the Sangh Pariwar, namely the VHP said cow protection had been an activity that it had been undertaking for a long time and that it would continue to do so. The impugned news item reported that “We will not like to comment on the issue (of violence against Dalits), however, cow protection has been going on since long and we will continue to work for it, VHP General Secretary, Dr. Surendra Jain said.”

Denying the statement published in the respondent newspaper, the complainant submitted that he has been quoted out of context in the news item and in fact when he was asked to comment on the Prime Minister’s statement regarding Gau Rakshaks, he declined to comment and had only said “We will not like to comment” and no question was put on ‘Dalit issue’. The complainant has also submitted that the term “fringe elements” used by the respondent for the VHP is extremely derogatory, demeaning and damaging to the

90 reputation of an organization of national repute. The complainant vide e-mail dated 10.8.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication and requested him to publish rejoinder along with the apology. In response thereto, the respondent editor, the Hindu vide e-mail dated 11.8.2016 furnished explanation and informed that there is no malafide of any kind in the reporting. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Hindu, Delhi on 21.12.2016. Written Statement In response, Shri P. Jacob, Sr. Managing Editor, The Hindu vide letter dated 5.1.2017 submitted that the report was published without any malafide or any attempt to defame or malign any person or group. Further, the statement made by the complainant “We will not like to comment on the issue”, was sought to be put in perspective by the addition of the words “of violence against Dalits”, as by itself the former comment would not have been clear, and the addition was marked out by square brackets to differentiate it. The square brackets have important uses in precise journalistic writing, especially when a writer needs to add information to a quotation. They enable a writer to add explanatory information, fix obvious errors. The respondent also submitted three clippings in his support. The respondent further submitted that as the editor received an email message from the complainant on the report, he promptly replied on 11.8.2016. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate along with Shri Neeraj Gupta appeared for the complainant while Shri Amit Baruah, Resident Editor appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the Counsel for the complainant and the representative of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case including the cited journalistic writing practices, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent has not violated any code of conduct so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the disposal 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 Dispose of the complaint.

91 29) Sh. Yusuf Ali Bohra, Versus The Editor, Secretary, Dawoodi Bohra Janmat, Rashtradoot, Udaipur (Rajasthan) Udaipur, Rajasthan.

Adjudication DATED 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 7.10.2013 has been filed by Shri Yusuf Ali Bohra, Secretary, Dawoodi Bohra Jamaat, Udaipur (Rajasthan) against the editor, Rashtradoot, Udaipur, Rajasthan alleging publication of a public Notice under the caption “Expression of Interest” in English which is unreadable and illegible. According to the complainant the rest of the news/advertisement on the same page is very clear but the said publication is a deliberate attempt to misled the general public for grabing the property. The complainant alleged that the respondent editor has done this so that Wakf property is transferred without any hindrance. He further alleged that it is the connivance of the respondent editor and Madarsa Tayyabiah Society so that any organization or individual could not be aware of the said noting “Expression of Interest”. The complainant wrote a letter dated 3.9.2013 to the respondent editor of Rashtradoot but the respondent did not provide legible copy of the said advertisement nor replied. The complainant requested the Council to take appropriate action against the newspaper.

No Written Statement: A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Respondent editor, Rashtradoot, Udaipur, Rajasthan on 5.3.2014 but despite a time bound reminder dated 10.7.2014 no response has so far been received from him.

Complainant’s Letter The complainant vide his letter dated 14.11.2016 has requested the Council to dismiss the instant complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following several adjournments, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Ramjat Yadav, Office Assistant appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Taking into account, the statement made by the editor of Rashtradoot that the copy of the newspaper annexed by the complainant was the pre-publication copy of the newspaper, by Order dated 10.1.2017, the Inquiry Committee had

92 directed the respondent to produce the printed copy of the newspaper. This is done.

The copy of the newspaper produced today, shows that the impugned advertisement is legible. The complainant has not chosen to appear to controvert the same. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee doesn’t find any substance in the grievance of the complainant and recommends for dismissal of the complainant.

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 Dismiss the complaint.

30) Shri Sunjjoy Manohar Versus The Editor, Dahake Publisher, Kothrud Times, Kothrud Times, Supplement of Maharashtra Times, Kothrud Mitra Bennett, Coleman and Co.Ltd. Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. (BCCL), Pune Pune The Press Registrar, Registrar of Newspapers for India, New Delhi The District Magistrate, Pune Collector Office, Pune

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 20.11.2015 has been filed by Shri Sunjjoy Manohar Dahake, Publisher, Kothrud Times against Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.(BCCL), Pune for publishing a Marathi Weekly supplement under Kothrud Times title along with their Marathi daily Maharashtra Times.

The complainant submitted that their paper, ‘Kothrud Times’ periodical has registered title and it’s RNI Registration No. is MAHENG/2011/35991 and date of Registration is 7.3.2011. The title was verified on 30.9.2010. In spite of this, ‘Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd’(BCCL) has started publishing a Marathi weekly supplement under ‘Kothrud Times’ title along with their Marathi daily ‘Maharashtra Times’ in Pune on every Friday since 26.6.2015. The complainant submitted that he had already sent complaint letter to RNI, SDM, Pune and SDM, Pune City on 26.6.2015 in this regard. The RNI while endorsing a copy

93 to the complainant sent a letter to the DM, Pune requesting to initiate inquiry in the matter and inform RNI accordingly on 17.7.2015. He informed that the complainant sent letters to the DM, the SDM, Haveli Sub-Division, the SDM, Pune City Sub-Division, Pune on 17.8.2015 but no action has been taken by the respective authorities in the matter till date in spite of all these correspondence. The complainant requested the Council to take appropriate and strict legal action against Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., (BCCL) for the illegal use of the title ‘Kothrud Times’ and issue prohibitory orders to stop the illegal use of the title.

Notices for Comments were sent to the RNI, New Delhi, the D.M. and the Editor, ‘Kothrud Times’ BCCL, Pune on 19.1.2016.

No Response In connection with above Notice, the respondent SDM, Pune sent to Council an endorsement letter dated 18.3.2016 addressed to Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli in vernacular. The Council vide letter dated 25.4.2016 requested to furnish translation of the same in English/Hindi, but received no response.

Complainant’s Further Response The complainant vide his further response dated 3.10.2016 has informed the Council that BCCL has appealed in the Court of Hon’ble Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveli Sub-Division for cancelling the declaration of Pune Mirror title on 14.11.2013. But the Pune Mirror title is in the sole custody of Kothurd Mitra Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. As per PRB Act, 1867 since 14.12.2010. He further informed that now the Hon’ble Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveli Sub-Division, Pune has given the final verdict in this case in their favour and dismissed the appeal of BBCL on 13.5.2016. He has stated that the verification, declaration and registration process of Pune Mirror title was completed through the good office of Hon’ble Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pune City. He has further stated that the ownership rights of Pune Mirror title are also officially and authentically allotted to Kothurd Mitra Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. by the RNI, New Delhi under PRB Act, 1867. He has furnished a copy of final verdict of Hon’ble Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveli Sub-Division, Pune for reference.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 3.10.2016 and 15.3.2017, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Kunal Endait, Chief Manager along with Shri Deepak, Deputy Director, PIB, Bhopal appeared for the respondent.

94 The Inquiry Committee has perused the written statement and all other connected papers. It has also heard the representative of the respondent, Maharashtra Time.

It is the allegation of the complainant that Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. is publishing a ‘Kothrud Times’ as a supplement to Marathi Daily, Maharashtra Times. It is the claim of the complainant that the title, ‘Kothurd Times’ belongs to him and registered and verified in his favour. Despite that the Maharashtra Times is publishing Kothurd Times every Friday, since June 2015.

In the reply, the respondent has not denied that such a supplement is published but according to the respondent it has a page/column in Maharashtra Times in the name and style as Kothrud Times and the Said column/page is not used as and by way of the Tittle or for that matter as masthead. The respondent has further averted that Kothurd Times is not a separate publication but a description of the content published on the said page. It has been emphasised that Kothurd is a prominent residential and commercially popular area and therefore, significant number of Pune based residents are interested to know about the developments in the Kothrud area.

It is an admitted position that the complainant owns the title Kothrud Times. It is further admitted that the weekly supplement of the newspaper Maharashtra Times is published as Kothrud Times. According to the respondent, the supplement with the heading Kothrud Times is not published as a tittle or a masthead but shown as such only to indicate that the news on those pages is from/shares information on Kothrud area.

The Inquiry Committee has given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and is of the opinion that the plea taken by the respondent is untenable. The Inquiry Committee has perused the supplement ‘Kothrud Times’ and from that it is apparent that it has been used as a tittle and masthead. The projection and size of the font of Kothrud Times is larger and from that one can safety infer that it has been used as a Title. In this way, the respondent Maharashtra times has used the title Kothrud Times which does not belong to it but belongs to the complainant. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the conduct of the respondent Maharashtra Times in using the title of the complaint and thereafter declining corrective step is unethical and reprehensible and therefore, needs to be censured. It is the notice of the Counsel the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. had indulged in such an activity earlier. It published ‘Pune Mirron’as supplement to one of the daily newspaper. Though, the said title was registered in the name of the other/person. It is only after a complainant was filed that it shipped from using the said title.

95 The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspaper, Maharashtra Times be Censured. 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 newspaper, Maharashtra Times, BCCL, Pune. It further directs the respondent newspaper not to come out with the supplement under the title ‘Kothrud Times’. A copy of the order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Pune, the RNI, I&PRD, Government of Maharashtra and the Director General, DAVP for necessary action at their end.

31) Ms. Varsha Vidya Vilas, & Versus The Editor, Ms. Jyotika Wale, The Pune Mirror, Member, Action for the Rights of Pune edition, Times of the Child, (ARC) India. Vishrantuadi, Pune.

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 1.3.2012 has been filed by Ms. Varsha Vidya Vilas & Ms. Jyotika Wale, Member, Action for the Rights of the Child, (ARC) Vishrantuadi, Pune through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting against The Pune Mirror, Pune edition of The Times of India for publication of a regular feature namely “Ask the Sexpert” alleging that the feature brazenly violates all the norms. The complainant averred that such a column, which is 100% adult in content, should immediately be stopped from publication in the supplement which has a place for children’s corner, cartoons and games such a Sudoku etc. and if at all the said newspapers is keen to enlighten its readers on the said subjects, it can bring out a weekly supplement targeted for adults which parents or teachers can prevent the children from reading. The complainant has further alleged that there is an another adult story, namely, ‘Diary of a single girl’ appearing in ‘Times Life’, a Sunday Supplement which is full of suggestive encounters with her boyfriend which is again completely inappropriate for children and youngsters that needs to be removed from the said supplement and moved to some separate adult supplement.

The complainants sought urgent steps to stop publication of these features so that further damage to already vitiated environment leading to ever-increasing crime may be checked.

96 A show cause notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 1.3.2013.

Written Statement In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 1.3.2013, the respondent Shri Sanjay Manohar Dhake, Editor, Pune Mirror, published by Kothrud Mitra Publications Pvt. Ltd. in his written statement dated 15.3.2013 has submitted that the information in the notice about ‘Pune Mirror’ publication is wrong and false. Pune Mirror periodical is a fortnightly and the publication dates are on Ist and 16th of every month. Dates of newspaper cuttings attached to notice don’t match with their publication dates. In support the respondent submitted that RNI registration number.

Counter Comments A clarification was sought from the complainants who has submitted that they were absolutely clueless about the existence of two Pune Mirrors by the same name published from Pune and had obtained the registration number of Pune Mirror from the official site of Registrar of India and had given the information regarding the address and owner corresponding to the results from that site. The complainant also stated that they are surprised to know about the existence of other Pune Mirror from Council’s letter.

The impugned publications were carried by Pune Mirror published by the Bennett Coleman & company of the Times of India Group. Show Cause Notice has accordingly issued.

Written Statement of The Times of India In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 18.7.2013 the respondent, The Times of India in his written statement stated that the Pune Mirror publishes a daily column called “Ask the Sexpert” on question asked by readers on various issues and problems relating to health and sex. The respondent stated that Pune Mirror being a responsible newspaper has always taken initiatives and provided the society with the articles/news which is beneficial and is helpful for the society. The column “Ask the Sexpert” not only answers the queries raised by the readers, but in the process, also provides valuable information relating to health and sex to the discerning readers. The articles published are thoroughly checked and edited by the editorial team and the said column by giving information on sexual issues and problems, helps persons in getting information regarding practicing safe sex and preventing unsafe sexual practices.

97 The respondent further submitted that they vehemently deny the allegations made in the letters written by the complainants and requested the Council to dismiss the proceedings in the matter. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Written Statement filed by Pune Times Mirror The respondent, Pune Times Mirror, The Times of India Group vide letter dated 16.11.2015 has submitted the required response giving reference to the Groups response to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.7.2013. The respondent denied each and every allegation made in the complaint and further draw the attention of the Council that there is a dispute between the parties about the ownership of the said title ‘Pune Mirror’ and a series of litigation before the various competent authorities has been pending orders and hearing in this regard. The respondent further informed that they have filed an application under section 8(B) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 for cancellation of declaration filed by the Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd for the title ‘Pune Mirror’ before the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s Court, Pune to cancel the registration granted to the aforesaid entity. The same is pending for Orders before the aforesaid court. He also submitted that they have also filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 80 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court against the Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Sunjjoy Manohar Dahake for infringement and passing off of their registered trdemark “Pune Mirror” which is pending for hearing. The respondent vehemently deny allegations of Mr. Sunjjoy Dahake that they have published Pune Mirror newspaper illegally from 2010 to 2014. The respondent prayed the Council to withdraw/dismiss the proceedings against them. Response from Shri Sunjjoy Manohar Dahake, Editor, Pune Mirror Shri Sunjjoy Manohar Dahake, Editor, Pune Mirror, Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. in his response dated 7.9.2015 filed at the time of hearing dated 7.9.2016 at Nagpur has submitted that the Title and Ownership Rights of PUNE MIRROR are in the sole custody of Kothrud Mitra Newspapepe rPvt. Ltd., Pune (KMNPL) since June 2010. He further submitted that Pune Mirror title (Title Code: MAHENG 11456/13/1/2008-TC) was verified for Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (BCCL) on 24.1.2008. But their title was automatically de-blocked on 25.1.2010 only because BCCL did not complete the Registration process within the stipulated period of two years from the date of title verification, as per RNI rules and PRB Act, 1867. Still BCCL continued to publish a supplement under Pune Mirror title illegally for four years i.e. from 26.1.2010 to 29.1.2014. He also submitted that as the instant complaint was with reference to a regular feature namely, “Ask the Sexpert” appearing in the

98 illegally published supplement under Pune Mirror title of the Pune edition of the Time of India, that KMNPL are no way related to the case and therefore he has requested to drop their name from this case. Response from RNI/DM, Pune The RNI, in response to the Council’s letter dated 19.10.2015,vide his letter dated 3.12.2015 has submitted the requisite report. In the report he has stated that the title ‘Pune Mirror’ is registered with RNI vide MAHENG/2010/34712 dated 14.12.2010 in favour of Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Whereas the title ‘Pune Times Mirror’ is registered with RNI vide MAHENG/2014/55530 dated 6.5.2014 in favour of ‘Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.’ He has furnished the copies of the registration details of both the publications.

The District Magistrate filed a response in Marathi but no English translation thereof was filed despite reminder. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following several adjournments, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainants. Shri Kunal Endait, Chief Manager (Legal) along with Shri Sudipta Basu, Resident Editor appeared for the respondent.

The complainant claims to be the member of a group called the ‘Action for the rights of the Child’ at Pune. They are aggrieved by the publication of a column in the Pune Mirror published by the Bennett Colman in “Ask the Sexpert”. According to the complainant, the said column contains hundred percent adult content and the children are unnecessarily exposed to those contents. Ms. Sudipta Basu, the editor of the then Pune Mirror (now the Pune Times Mirror) has appeared before the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee gives liberty to the complainant to meet the editor of the Pune Times Mirror and apprise their view point to her. The editor has assured the Inquiry Committee that she will consider the view point of the complainant objectively and take decision in the best interest of the readers. The Inquiry Committee directs for disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid observations. 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 Dispose of the complaint.

99 32) Dr. Satish Pawar Versus The Editor, Mumbai Lokmat, Aurangabad, Maharashtra Maharashtra

Adjudication Dated:21.6.2017

This complaint dated 17.06.2016 has been filed by Dr. Satish Pawar, Mumbai against the Editor, Lokmat, Aurangabad for publication of false inaccurate, baseless, distorted and misleading news report in its supplemented dated 24.04.2016, named “Manthan” under the caption “Disease of Medicine” – Playing with helpless poor patients attending Government Hospital and X-Ray of health department playing with the life of poor patients. The complainant sought consideration of these impugned with reports of anterior dated between 06.04.2016 to 14.04.2016 that changed to come purchase medicine.

It is reported in the impugned news item that people staying in slums and below poverty line take treatment from public health department, but they don’t get the same as departments are interested only in purchase. It is also reported in the front page news that the negligence of public Health Department is not only by the Minister, but by the Secretary and Director. It is further reported in box item that after exposing the State’s public health department’s medicine purchase scam, officers are suspended, enquiries started. It is reported in inner page that the newspaper had exposed 297 Crores, scam & medicine purchasing him. Besides there is no doctor at some places and no hospital at the some places and if both are there then there is no medicine, at some places and unwanted medicine is very high in stock.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned publication the complainant submitted that the news item published without verifying the facts. He has also submitted that the news item is inaccurate baseless, misleading and distorted. The complainant stated that while mentioning his name in the impugned news report he was never asked any explanation before publishing the report. The complainant further stated that while publishing the so called wrong doing the concerned never asked the facts and the respondent never bothered to go through relevant papers or even asked relevant information to him or the officers concerned. The complainant further stated that the respondent projected him as incompetent. According to the complainant misleading and distorted news published about his selection for the post of Director of Health Services and the claim of the respondent that the information was collected under RTI is also incorrect.

100 The complainant vide letter dated 26.05.2016 draw the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news report and demanded to publish and unconditional apology in front page of the newspaper, but received no response was received from the respondent. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Lokmat, Maharashtra on 2.8.2016 but no response was received. Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 14.03.2017, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore. The complainant Dr. Satish Pawar, the Complainant appeared in person. Shri Gopal Joshi, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the Complainant and the counsel for the respondent. It has perused the complaint and all other connected papers. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the story on purchase of medicines and other incidental aspects had basis and thus, the respondent newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for the disposal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and dispose of the complaint.

33) Shri Rajesh Kumar Chopra, Versus 1. Dainik Bhaskar Member, 2. Nai Dunia R.K.C. Fans Club, 3. Navbharat Balod (Chhattisgarh) 4. Patrika 5. Haribhumi

Facts This complaint dated 28.11.2016 has been filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Chopra, R.K.C. Fans Club, Balod (Chhattisgarh) against (1) Dainik Bhaskar (2) NaiDunia (3) Navbharat (4) Patrika and (5) Haribhumi for allegedly publishing one-sided objectionable news items. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:-

101 S.No. Name of Caption Date Newspaper 1 DainikBhaskar pkj nqdkus f'k¶V] 18 QhV pkSM+h gqbZ lM+d 20.11.2016 2 NaiDunia pkj ?kaVs esa vkB QhV pkSM+h gqbZ ou ifjlj 21.11.2016 dh lM+d 3 Navbharat lathouh dsUnz ds :i esa lapkfyr gksxk 21.11.2016 uofufeZr dkEiysDl 4 Patrika 40 lky ckn O;kikfj;ksa dks feyk LFkkbZ 22.11.2016 fBdkuk 5 Haribhumi xqeVh eqDr 'kgj cukuk liuk 23.11.2016

In the impugned news items it has been reported that the road between old Bus Stand and Fawara chowk has been broadened by demolishing four shops and these shops have been temporarily shifted to New Complex. The broadening of road has facilitated traffic movement in the street. It was further reported that this work being done by the Primary LaghuVanopaj Cooperative Society, Balod and its President-Shri Yagyadutt Sharma said that the shops in the new complex will also be allotted to the shopkeepers shortly.

The complainant alleged that the respondent-newspapers deliberately published one-sided news with a view to give favour to the President of Primary LaghuVanopaj Cooperative Society, Balod. The complainant further alleged that the respondent-newspapers did not refer to the Order dated 10.11.2016 of the Hon’ble High Court of Bilaspur whereby the Committee was directed to stop further construction of the disputed commercial complex.

The complainant drew the attention of the respondent-newspapers on 4.2.2017 with a request to publish clarification in the interest of the readers but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editors of (1) Dainik Bhaskar (2) Nai Dunia (3) Navbharat (4) Patrika and (5) Haribhumi on 16.2.2017. Written Statement of Navbharat The Editor, Navbharat, Raipur vide his written statement dated 10.3.2017 while denying the allegations has stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is baseless. The respondent further stated that the impugned news item was based on the information given by Shri Yagyadutt Sharma, President of Primary Laghu Vanopaj Cooperative Society, Balod and published in the public

102 interest in routine course. The respondent also stated that the same news was published in other newspapers also. The respondent informed that no payment was received by them either from Shri Yagadutt Sharma or Forest Department for publication of impugned news. According to the respondent, the impugned news items were published in the newspapers along with photographs, which clarified it that the construction was started long before publication of impugned news items. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 19.4.2017. Written Statement of Patrika The Resident Editor, Patrika, Raipur vide his written statement dated 10.4.2017 while denying the allegation has stated that the complaint is baseless and based on false statements and prima facie liable to be dismissed. While denying the allegation of favouring anybody, the respondent stated that the impugned news item was based on the information given by Shri Yagyadutt Sharma, President of Primary LaghuVanopaj Cooperative Society, Balod. The respondent further stated that it appears that the complainant has personal grudge with Shri Yagyadutt Sharma, therefore, he filed the complaint before the Press Council maliciously and prejudicially. While denying the allegation of violation of any norms the complainant stated that the impugned news item was published in public interest. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the written statement of the Partika was forwarded to the complainant on 2.5.2017. Counter Comments to Navbharat The complainant vide his counter comments dated 25.4.2017 while reiterating his complaint and allegations has stated that the respondent-Navbharat has not bothered to get the version of the competent authority before publishing the impugned news item. He has further stated that the written statement of the respondent-Navbharat is liable to be dismissed.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 2.5.2017. Further communication of the complainant The complainant vide further communication dated. 15.05.2017 while denying the allegation as alleged in the written statements submitted that he has filed the complaint without any malafide. He stated that the respondent

103 newspapers published the news reports only on the basis of the statement of individual person, Shri Yagyadutt Sharma and deliberately not even contacted the concerned important officers of forest deptt. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant appeared personally whereas Shri. Rahul R. Kadam, Assistant Manager, Nai Dunia and Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Deputy Manager, Patrika represented for the respondent newspapers. The Inquiry Committee has head the complainant and the respondent. The complainant does not deny that the facts of road widening etc., stated in the impugned news item are correct. However, he states that it ought not to have highlighted the statement of one Shri Yagyadutt Sharma. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is absolutely misconceived and it, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complainant. 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.

34) Adjudication covered and reported as cross cognizance at Sl. No. 13.

Press and Defamation

35) Dr. Pallavi Darade, IRS Versus The Editor Additional Municipal Mumbai Mirror Commissioner The Times of India Municipal Corporation for Greater Building Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg Dr. D.N. Road Mahapalika Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400001

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

Dr. Pallavi Darade, IRS, Additional Municipal Commissioner, Brihad Mumbai Corporation, Mumbai filed this compliant dated 11.7.2016 against the editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai alleging publication of false, baseless, concocted and defamatory news item under the caption “CM’s Ex-Secy’s Wife losing BMC Clout” in its issue datedd 14.5.2016. It is reported in the impugned news item that BMC Commissioner reshuffled Additional Municipal Commissioner, Pallavi

104 Darade’s portfolio for the second time, leaving her in-charge of only License and Removal of Encroachment department after taking away Solid Waste management and Education Departments. Facing backlash from Corporators, cutting across party lines, over the poor performance of Additional Municipal Commissioner, BMC Chief, Shri Ajay Mehta has removed key departments from under her. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the complainant recently came under fire from Corporators for her poor performance in the SWM (Projects).

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the title of the said article clearly shows the mind of the respondent whose only mission seems to be to tarnish her image and demean her by constantly referring to as Secretary’s wife. The complainant states that repeated use of words like striped, ex-secretary’s wife clearly shows the targeted and malicious attack on a woman by the respondent implying that a woman is not capable of handling such position. The complainant vide letter dated 2.6.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news article with a request to furnish unconditional apology for publication of the defamatory news article on the same page and same prominence within two weeks, but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor Mumbai Mirror on 22.8.2016. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 22.8.2016 the respondent, through its Authorised Signatory vide written statement dated 17.11.2016 denied the allegations levelled in the complaint and submitted that the impugned news report is factually correct, carried in good faith, in public interest and without cast any aspersions on Dr. Darad’s previous work experience or competence. The said news was based on Office Order issued by the Municipal Commissioner wherein the portfolios were reshuffled and some key portfolios held by the complainant, Additional Municipal Commissioner Dr. Pallavi Darade were removed and given to other Additional Municipal Commissioner. He further stated that the due efforts had been made to get her version but despite their best efforts, the complainant did not respond. The respondent also submitted that the issue was that portfolios of several officers of MCGM were changed and along the Additional Municipal Commissioners, only the complainants portfolios were removed while the other four additional Municipal Commissioners got additional departments that were taken away from the complainant and it was a matter of public record. He further stated that the said news report does not mention any anti-feminine word and no deliberate attempt has been made to create any sort of distortion to create misunderstanding in the minds of the people, as alleged by the complainant.

105 The complainant added that the said news report in no way attributes or even suggests that the complainant’s portfolios were removed because she was a woman. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 14.12.2016 Counter comments In response to written statement, the complainant, Dr. Pallavai Darade vide her counter comments dated 13.1.2017 while reiterating her complaint submitted that the reply filed by the respondent paper is neither verified or affirmed by the answering respondent. Further, the main aim in the news is for defaming the complainant and creating a controversy to increase paper’s circulation by hook or by crook. The complainant further submitted that there is not a single explanation as to how the defamatory and misogynist terms used in the said articles reflect the standard of honest journalism and ethical and professional practices. The complainant prayed for appropriate action against the respondent. A copy of the counter comments forwarded to the respondent on 7.2.2017 for information. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. Shri Pallav Shishodia, Senior Advocate and Shri Anand Sukumar, Advocate appeared for the complainant whereas there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard Mr. Sisodiya for the complainant. Despite service of notice, respondent has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement, rejoinder and all other connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper while publishing the impugned news item has not committed any breach of the journalistic ethics, so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council 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.

106 36) Shri Nakka Ananda Babu, Versus The Editor M.L.A., 89-Vemuru Constituency, Sakshi, Telugu Daily Chairman, Committee on Welfare of Guntur District Minorities, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 26.9.2016, has been filed by Shri Nakka Ananda Babu, M.L.A., 89-Vemuru Constituency, Hyderabad against “Sakshi”, Telugu daily, Guntur edition alleging publication of false, fabricated and defamatory news items under the captions “Jackals Grabbed Kuglar Site” and “Gulam to Jackals Round to ground, Key role of MLA” in its issues dated 6.8.2016 and 7.8.2016 respectively. (Translation provided by the complainant)

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 6.8.2016 that the MLA of TDP from Guntur grabbed land cheaply and earned crores of rupees. It was further reported that the MLA with his ruling power tried to grab the properties of Church at cheaper rates. The Christian association elders informed that the complainant is behind it and trying to grab other properties also.

In the second impugned news item dated 7.8.2017 it was reported that the Corporation has not touched the site of the Church during expansion of road which was appended towards Gunta Ground. It was further reported that the Church Council passed a resolution to allow 12 ft. in the site of Gunta Ground for road expansion but the Corporation expanded the road 22 ft towards Gunta ground. The elders of the Church reported the matter to the Government but no action has been taken. It was also reported that ruling party people, specially complainant indirectly have taken over the church sites and has caused crores of rupees loss to church.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant alleged that the news items contains several false and baseless averments and published without pre-publication verification. The complainant further alleged that the impugned news items are glaring cases of incorrect reporting of the proceeding of the Government and the same were published with a malafide intention to adversely affect and impact the free and fair administration and have caused immense loss of goodwill, reputation in the general public, as well as in political circle.

107 The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 6.9.2016 with a request to publish an unconditional apology but received no response. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Sakshi Daily on 6.10.2016. The complainant was advised to file Declaration regarding non- pendency of the matter in any court of law but, did not do so. Written Statement of Sakshi Daily The respondent-Editor, Sakshi daily (Jagati Publication Ltd.) vide his written statement dated 29.10.2016 informed that on the same subject matter, Police Station-Arundulpet registered an FIR in Crime No.236/2016 dated 10.8.2016 against the Editor of Sakshi, Editorial Director and all Directors of Jagati Publication Limited including the Non-Executive Chair Person of the Company. The respondent further informed that they have approached the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad challenging the prosecution initiated by the complainant in W.P. No.31062/2016 and the Hon’ble Court by its interim Order dated 19.9.2016 in WPMP No.38440/2016 in WP No.31062/2016 granted stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR No.236/2016. The complainant (Sh. Nakka Ananda Babu) is arrayed as Respondent No.4 in the said WP. The respondent informed that the subject matter of the complaint before the Press Council is same and substantially an issue before the Hon’ble Court and thus the matter is sub-judice and a ‘matter pending in a court of law’ for the purposes of Section 14(3) of the Press Council Act. He has requested the Council to drop further proceedings in respect of the instant inquiry. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 27.12.2016 to intimate whether the matter is pending before the court of law but no response was received from him. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. The complainant was not present whereas Shri R.Dileep Reddy, Executive Editor, Sakshi, Daily Newspaper appeared for the respondent. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. The respondent is represented. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the matter is sub-judice. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint being sub-judice.

108 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 for being sub-judice.

37) Dr. Sheetal Kumar J. Patil Versus The Editor, Trustee, Dr. J.J. Magdum Trust APRATIM, Jaysingpur Jaysingpur

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 18.11.2016 has been filed by Dr. Sheetal Kumar J. Patil, Trustee, Dr. J.J. Magdum Trust, Jaysingpur, Kolhapur, Maharashtra against the editor, Apratim, Jaysingpur for allegedly publishing series of baseless and defamatory news articles as follows:

S. News Item Dated No. 1. Jaysingpur City Ready to Hit Educationists; Wall Built on 5.11.2016 Main Road 2. Whether the Application of Election Candidate Mrs. Son- 6.11.2016 ali Magdum will be Accepted or Rejected?; Matter in Court Use of Education Institutions for Political Gain; The Money Earned through Excessive Donations Will Be Used to Play Political Game 3. Fear from Educationists who loot students and still proceed- 8.11.2016 ing to Loot Jaysingpur Citizens 4. The Verdict on Election Candidate Application of Adv. Son- 9.11.2016 ali Magdum in High Court 5. Why Arrest nobel man on the very occasion of his birthday 15.11.2016 and who behind the cruelty? College students in Election Campaigning in Ward 06 6. Use of Donation Money in Election Campaigning 16.11.2016

It is reported in the impugned news items that Mrs. Sonali Vijay Magdum used educational premises, money earned through illegal ways (donations) for political gains. It is also reported that she used principals, teachers, students and

109 school machinery for elections campaigning as she is contesting election for municipal corporator.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items the complainant submitted that Mrs. Sonali V. Magdum is contesting election at her own. Their educational institutions and their resources were never used for any personal benefit or even political gains by their trustees in last 39 years in the history of their Trust and will also never be used in future. The complainant vide letter dated 16.11.2016 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned publication and requested him to tender unconditional apology, but received no written statement has been filed.

No Reply Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor Apratim, Maharashtra on 15.12.2016 but no response was filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2017 at Hyderabad. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondents have chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. It, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of 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 case.

38) Prof. Vipin Srivastava Versus The Editor, Professor of Physics and The Times of India, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Hyderabad. University of Hyderabad Hyderabad.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 20.10.2016 has been filed by Prof. Vipin Srivastava, Profession of Physics and Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad against “The Times of India”, Hyderabad edition for allegedly publishing series of defamatory news items against the University of Hyderabad. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:-

110 S.No. Captions Dates 1 Shoddy Upkeep Mars UoH 26.12.2015 2 University faculty divided over students protest 27.3.2016 3 UoH students demand fee rollback 5.5.2016 4 Student flag UoH the vacant seats 13.8.2016 5 Hostel worries have to stay for UoH students 15.8.2016 6 Protests rock UoH campus over JNU Activist’s 13.10.2016 Treatment and suspension of five security officials student leader called ‘trespassers’ 7 Umar visit puts Uoh on boil again 13.10.2016 (Delhi edition)

The complainant alleged that on numerous occasions the respondent- newspaper reported about the University without verifying the facts and thereby has been maligning the image of the University of Hyderabad. According to the complainant, the rejoinders sent by the University are being ignored as a rule. Concerned about the possible reasons for the negative campaign carried out by the respondent-Times of India about the University, they met the Resident Editor, The Times of India at Hyderabad many times but to no avail. The complainant submitted that the respondent lifted the material from Facebook and other social media or anonymous sources, selectively that pertain to some petty issue on the campus and published them prominently. The complainant further submitted that the news given by selected individuals gets utmost priority leaving aside the press release given by the University. The complainant also submitted that they sent various rejoinders which were never published by the respondent even in parts. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, The Times of India, Hyderabad on 9.11.2016. Written Statement of Times of India The respondent-The Times of India vide its written statement dated 8.2.2016 while denying the allegation has stated that the impugned news items are factually correct, carried in good faith, in public interest, based on information derived from the reliable sources including the staff of the University, students of the university. According to the respondent, the impugned news articles will reveal that they do not make any allegations, imputations or innuendo

111 whatsoever against the complainant or any other person/entities including the University, therefore, the complainant’s grievances are unjustified. The respondent further stated that the impugned news articles deals with the very important matter of the greater public concern which simultaneously revolves around students’ right to education along with their rights to have clean and safe hostel accommodation, proper utilisation of public funds for the University construction etc. The respondent has also stated that the complainant has no locus standi in this matter as the impugned articles were public in the greater public interest to achieve and protect public welfare and in pursuance to Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. According to the respondent, there was no intention whatsoever to defraud or bring disrepute to anyone, more particularly to the complainant and/or the University. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the written statement of the respondent-Times of India was forwarded to the complainant on 15.2.2017 for information.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. The complainant, Prof. Vipin Srivastava was persent whereas there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent paper.

The complainant appears in person. The respondent has filed its written statement but has not chosen to appear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee gives liberty to the complainant to give its version to the respondent newspaper. The respondent newspaper shall publish the same after necessary editing with further liberty to state its view point. The complainant shall give its version within two weeks. The respondent shall publish the same within two weeks thereafter, bearing in mind the directions aforesaid. The Inquiry Committee while taking this view has taken note of the grievance made by the complainant that the rejoinder sent by the University has been ignored by the respondent newspaper as a rule. The Inquiry Committee recommends for disposal of the complaint with the directions aforesaid.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint accordingly.

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 dispose of the complaint.

112 39) Shri Karanam Chiranjeevulu Versus The Editors, S/o late Shri Lingaiah, 1. Andhra Bhoomi Senior Civil Judge, 2. Deccan Chronicle Mangalagiri, Guntur District, 3. Hyderabad 4. Prajasakthi 5. Andhra Jyoti 6. Sakshi and 7. Eenadu

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 8.9.2016 has been filed by Shri Karanam Chiranjeevulu, Senior Civil Judge, Malkangiri, Guntur District against various newspapers objecting to the following news items as detailed herein below:

Sl. Caption Name of the No. Newspaper/Date 1 Malkangiri Sub-Judge has been suspended Andhra Bhoomi Corruption charges are the basis for 12.8.2016 suspension 2 Sub-Judge suspended Deccan Chronicle 12.8.2016 3 Malkangiri Sub-Judge Suspended Andhra Prabha 12.8.2016 4 Senior Sub-Judge ‘Karnam’ Suspended Prajasaksthi 12.8.2016 5 Malkangiri Senior Civil Judge Chiranjeevulu Andhra Jyothi has been suspended 12.8.2016 6 Malkangiri Senior Civil Judge has been Sakshi suspended 12.8.2016 7 Malkangiri Senior Civil judge Chiranjeevulu Eenadu has been suspended 12.8.2016

It is reported in the impugned news reports that High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh has suspended the complainant, Shri Chiranjeevulu, Sub-Judge, Malkangiri on charges of

113 corruptions made against him while he was working as Sub-Judge in Nandigama, Krishna District. It is also reported in the impugned news items that High Court has made diligent investigation after receiving the complaint against him and he has directed Principal District Judge Sumanlatha to issue suspension order to him after the allegations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items the complainant submitted that the respondents published false and defamatory articles to damage his reputation in the society at large and in his relations. He has also submitted that the respondents not only published defamatory statements in local papers but also in main editions without trying to know what exactly the truth is and neither did they take his version before publishing the impugned news item nor they sought information from the Hon’ble high Court in this regard. The complainant vide letter dated 29.10.2016 drew the attention of the respondents towards the impugned publication and requested them to take action against the reporters who filed false reports without knowing the truth. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondents.

Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editors, Andhra Bhoomi, Deccan Chronicle, Andhra Prabha, Prajasakthi, Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu on 27.12.2016.

Written Statement of Andhra Bhoomi In response to the Show Cause Notice, the Editor, Andhra Bhoomi, vide letter dated 20.1.2017 stated that the impugned publication is based on the true facts wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad has issued suspension order against the complainant on the ground of “guilty of grave misconduct.” The report was based on the information as released by the High Court vigilance and as provided by his local legal correspondent and published the same in good faith.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to complainant on 7.2.2017 for information and comments, if any.

Written statement of Eenadu The respondent editor, Eenadu vide his written statement dated 6.2.2017 submitted that he has gone through the complaint and found that the allegations in the complaint are false and vexatious and there are no merits in the complaint. He has submitted that the impugned publication is a factual report on suspension of a Civil Judge of Senior Division basing on the order issued by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. He has further submitted that the complainant himself

114 has filed the order of the suspension which clearly shows that the news report published in their newspaper merely reported the contents of the suspension order. He has also submitted that suspension of judicial officer is a matter of public concern and as such the impugned news item was published only in public interest for public good without any malice, ill will or intention to defame the complainant. The impugned publication was made in routine course and there is no malice against the complainant.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 22.2.2017 for information.

Written statement of Sakshi In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 27.12.2016 the respondent editor, Sakshi vide written statement dated 17.1.2017 submitted that the news was published on the proceedings issued by the Hon’ble High Court. The publication of the said news item is carried in good faith without any malice, motive or ill will and the publication is in regard to a true fact and the same is published with an intention to bring the truth to the knowledge of the public.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 22.2.2017 for information.

Counter comments The complainant vide counter comments dated 6.3.2017 submitted that the contents of written statements filed by the respondents are all false, invented and concocted and be put strict proof of allegations. The respondents admitted that the suspension is on the ground of guilt of grave misconduct but the matter is at the end of pre-cognizance. According to the proceedings in ROC 700/2015, vigilance cell dated 11.8.2016, the suspension is on the ground of public interest whereas all the respondents published that he was suspended on corruption allegations without verifying with him. Grave misconduct is entirely different from that of corruption. The respondents did not attach the copy of source of information received from the High Court along with the written statement. The complainant requested to take action against the respondents.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. Shri P.Nagendra Reddy appeared on behalf of the complainant and Shri G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent editor, Eenadu.

115 The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the counsel for the Eenadu. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the reply and all connected papers and is of the opinion that the impugned news items are based on an Order passed by the High Court on the Administrative side. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspapers have not breached any code of conduct, so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council 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.

40) Shri Ramakant Pandey, The Editor, Shri Bansidhar Aggarwal, Versus Dakshin Mumbai Model School, 290/271, Wadala, Mumabi-400031.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 11.11.2016 received in the Secretariat of the Council on 29.11.2016 has been filed by Shri Ramakant Pandey, Mumbai against the editor, Dakshin Mumbai alleging publication of false, baseless, incorrect, unverified news item in its issue dated 19.09.2016 under the caption “?kwl nks QSlyk ge esa yks”. It is reported in the impugned news item that a teacher who is State Awardee, prepares reports in favour of the person who gives him bribe. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the Bombay High Court in its order raised question on the irresponsible conduct of the complainant. The news item also stated that whenever a school/college principal accused of wrong doings their school management constitute an inquiry committee comprising of three persons viz. one State Awardee teacher, second nominated from school management and third, nominated from the side of accused teacher, to investigate the matter.

According to the complainant, the news item is totally false and based on wrong information. The complainant also submitted that the respondent has not tested the veracity of the facts. He further stated that he always maintains dignity of law and it is not correct that he has given report by accepting bribe. The complainant also submitted that due to publication of the impugned news item his reputation is lowered in the eyes of his relatives, friends, headmasters

116 and teachers. The complainant vide letter dated 11.11.2016 requested the respondent to publish unconditional apology in the same manner on the same page, but received no response. He has requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter.

Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Daskshin Mumbai on 20.12.2016 Written Statement The Editor, Dakshin Mumbai vide letter dated 05.01.2017 filed written statement stating therein that the complaint filed by Shri Ramakant Pandey is false and frivolous. Shri Ramakant Pandey has misled the Council. The respondent said that his correspondent has verified entire facts against the complainant and thereafter published the news in Dakshin Mumbai.

He has further stated that he has gathered sufficient proof against the complainant, and pointed out that the Honourable High Court Bombay has also observed in its Judgement in writ petition 6199 of 2016 that learned Convenor and the State awardee teacher were not aware of their role, duties and obligations while conducting inquiry and had acted totally contrary to the basic principles of law, justice and good conscience and in most irresponsible manner, the management accepted such perverse recommendation of such inquiry Committee without application of mind and took drastic action of termination of the services of the respondent and the complainant has not disclosed his matter to the Council. An offence also has been registered under the SC/ST Atrocities Act against the complainant. The respondent prayed to the Council that the complaint against Dakshin Mumbai may be dismissed with heavy cost.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 12.1.2017.

Counter comments In response to the respondent’s written statement dated 05.01.2017, the complainant vide letter dated 11.01.2017 addressed to the editor, Dakshin Mumbai and copy endorsed to the Council submitted that they published false, fabricated stories and relying upon the wrongful version of some union members who had earlier given wrong news. The complainant is not satisfied with the written statement of the respondent.

The complainant vide further communication dated 1.3.2017 while reiterating his complaint submitted that the impugned news article is published with the connivance of disgruntled miscreants against whom action has been

117 taken by their respective managements. In this regard, the media should act responsibly and not indulge in character assassination of a person who has been working in quasi judicial committees as per law. He further mentioned that commenting on the report of the Inquiry Committee amounts to contempt of court. The complainant prayed to take action in accordance with law.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. There was no appearance either from the complainant or the respondent side.

Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear nor is the respondent present. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the reply and all other connected papers and is of the opinion that the impugned news item is based on the observations made by the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not violated any code of conduct, so as to call for action by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council 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.

41) Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, Versus The Editor, Former DGP (HOPF), Deccan Chronicle, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Presently, BJP Leader Hyderabad.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 11.11.2016 has been filed by Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, Former, DGP (HOPF), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against the editor, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad alleging to publication of a false, frivolous, baseless, news item in its issue dated 14.9.2016 under the caption “KCR goes after Nayeem’s Link” and “VIPs deny links with Nayeem”. It has

118 been reported in the said news items that the Chief Minister of Telangana state gave permission to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take action against the politicians and officials who had nexus with slain gangster, Nayeem. It is further reported in the box news that a few names which apparently have cropped up as Uma Madhava Reddy, NethiVidyasagar, Karne Prabhakar, Veeresham, V. Dinesh Reddy and others. The news report mentioned that the SIT briefed the Chief Minister about the investigation and mentioned inadvertently some politicians and officials with renegade naxal and action is expected to be taken against some key persons.

In the second news item, it has been reported that some politicians and officials and others whose names apparently have cropped up during the investigation have denied links with the gangster. Officially SIT has also not named anyone so far. It is also reported that former DGP, Shri V. Dinesh Reddy was the first to deny having ever met Nayeem and stated that he had in fact issued memo to SIT to nab Nayeem, but indicated that the then political leadership had not given green signal.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items the complainant submitted that the two news items are apparently concocted, motivated, fabricated and are intended to malign him who has a clean and impeccable track record. The complainant further submitted that the respondent never contacted him for his version before publishing his name. The complainant vide legal notice dated 17.9.2016 requested the respondent to furnish basis/sources of the information on which they have published the impugned news item. The respondent vide notice dated 28.10.2016 replied to the complainant and stated that they have not published anything wrong and defamatory against the complainant and they are willing to publish statement or material issued by the complainant with regard to the publication. The complainant was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent and requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter against the respondent editor.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad on 21.12.2016.

Written statement In his written statement dated 19.2.2017, the respondent submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as it is devoid of merits and without any just and proper cause of action. The news item does not in any way convey to the readers or to the public in general, that the complainant is involved in the crime and that he is an accused in the said case being investigated by the SIT. The news item reflects the course of action chalked out by the Chief Minister of Telangana

119 against the crimes committed by the notorious gangster Nayeemuddin alias Nayeem against innocent public. He has submitted that the nexus between the gangster and bureaucrats, politicians and police officials have shocked society, and the state government was determined to curb the menace. The news item were published based on public records and the information was given by sources in the Chief Minister’s office and same was published without any malice or motive with a bonafide intention to bring the truth to the knowledge of the public in good faith and does not amount to violation of any statutory rules or laws. He has also submitted that the complainant filed this complaint just to embarrass them and levelled allegations which are irrelevant to this case. He has requested the Council to reject the complaint.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.2.2017 for information.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad, Telangana. The complainant was not present whereas Shri B.H.Kasinath, Associate Editor, Deccan Chronicle appeared before the Inquiry Committee.

Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant. The representative of the respondent newspaper states that the complainant has also filed criminal case No.1015 of 2016 in the Court of the 17th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in which the respondent has received the Summons. In view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the case any further.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for closure of the case as the matter is sub-judice.

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 close the case for being sub-judice.

42) Shri Balegowda Versus The Editor Circle Inspector of N. Rajugowda Balagadinda Police CHRITHRE Kunigal Police Station Yuva Kraanthkaarigala Asthra”, Bangalore (Karnataka) Fortnightly, Bangalore (Karnataka)

120 Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 6.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Balegowda, Circle Police Inspector, Police Station-Kunigal, Bangalore (Karnataka) against the Editor, N. Rajugowda Balagadinda CHRITHRE-Yuva Kraanthaarigala Asthra”, Kannada Fortnightly, Bangalore allegeding publication of false, misleading and defamatory news items along with complainant’s photographs in uniform under the caption “Victims victimized for fake case; Balegowda’s bribe yearning are countless?” and “Fake case Balegowda, the Deal King!” in its issue dated 7.6.2016 and 12.8.2016 respectively. The impugned news items highlighted the complainant as corrupt officer, who filed false cases against the innocents for making money. The impugned news items further reported that the complainant not only harasses the public for money but also his subordinates. It was also reported that many complaints are registered against the complainant before the SP, IGP, DG, Human Rights Commissioner. Describing complainant’s police career, it was also reported that the complainant had made property worth hundreds of crore.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant alleged that the respondent published unfounded and baseless allegations with a view to defame him in the eyes of public, police department, family and friends. The complainant further alleged that the entire allegations against him in the impugned articles are false and published with a malicious intention against him and his family members. The complainant also alleged that the impugned articles are stories invented by the respondent of his own after colluding with one Shri Nagaraj Yadav for wrong gain. The complainant vide his letter dated 5.7.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news items with a request for publication of unconditional apology but to no avail. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, “N. Rajugowda Balagadinda CHRITHRE-Yuva Kraanthaarigala Asthra” on 20.1.2017 but the paper has not filed written statement. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad. Shri Narasimha Gowda, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri N. Raju Gowda, Editor appeared for the respondent.

121 The Inquiry Committee has heard the complaint and the respondent. It is an admitted position that the complainant has filed OS No. 5826 of 2016, which is pending for decision before the Additional City Civil Sesion Judge, Bangalore and also Criminal Case PCR No. 8710 of 2016 (CC No. 20781 of 2006) which is pending before the Fifth Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. Relevant record has been filed for being sub-judice. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the case any further. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for closure 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 Close the case for being sub-judice.

43) Smt. Savita Garg, Versus The Editor, District Sambhal, Nai Soch Nai Disha, U.P. Sambhal, U.P.

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 30.08.2016 has been filed by Smt. Savita Garg, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor of ‘Nai Soch Nai Disha’ alleging publication of false, offensive, obscene and misleading news items in its editions dated 18.07.2016, 04.08.2016 and 11.08.2016 under the captions “pqids ls ekj fn;k Mad] Hkud rd u yxh” and “pksj dh nkM+h esa frudk] xqeuke lekpkj ls fryfeykbZ vk;ksftdk, eSa 'kjekbZ] eSa ?kcjkbZ fQj Hkh eq>s ykt u vkbZ” respectively against her and a Social Organization being run by her viz. Gayatri Mahila Mandal.

In the impugned news item dated 18.07.2016 it has been reported that snakes and scorpions secretly sting and leave poison but a bastard as per his tendency secretly disappear after stinging and jokes with his relatives sitting at his home that “I have again stung and grabbed Lakhs of Rupees”. It is further stated in the impugned news item that in the name of marriage ceremony of poor girls, such person grabbed money from the Government and Public officials and Organizers of the function are unaware of this fact.

It is stated in the impugned news item dated 04.08.2016 that the organizer (herein Complainant) of the ceremony took more than half of the donations to her house. It is also stated in the impugned news item that after facing embarrassment

122 in society for misusing funds meant for poor girl’s marriages, she has started taking thumb impressions of newlywed girls and their mothers to justify herself. It is stated in the impugned news item dated 11.08.2016 that the organizer of the ceremony took 80% of the gifts, offerings and clothes etc. to her home and only 20% were given to the girls. Denying the allegation levelled against her in the impugned news items the complainant has alleged that in a Mass marriage function, the respondent had demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards advertisement from her as the said event was organised by her social organization viz. Gayatri Mahila Mandal which was refused by her as that was wastage of money. Annoyed over this, the respondent started ‘smear’ campaign against Gayatri Mahila Mandal by portraying her in bad light. On asking the respondent to publish rebuttal, the respondent published more such scurrilous news items against her. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.10.2016 to the respondent Editor, Nai Soch Nai Disha. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 4.11.2016, while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has stated that the newspaper has not published the name of any person in the impugned news item. He further denied the allegation of blackmailing and stated that the news item was published in public interest. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.11.2016 has stated that the respondent has given misleading facts in his written statement and alleged that the respondent has tried to defame the complainant in order to blackmail her. She has requested the Council to stop the publication of the respondent newspaper and to cancel the Declaration of respondent newspaper. Further papers filed by the respondent The respondent vide further communication dated 9.4.2017 while reiterating the written statement submitted that the allegation in the complaint are baseless and without any proof or reason. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 15.12.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.4.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Krishan

123 Kumar H/o Smt. Savita Garg appeared for the complainant. Shri Rajat Kumar Gupta from Sambhal appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the representative of the complainant as also the respondent and has also perused the complaint, the reply and the connected papers. True it is, that in the complaint that the name of the complainant has not been mentioned, but from the story, it is evident that it was intended towards the complainant. It is the allegation of the complainant that the respondent newspaper earlier praised the complainant and thereafter the respondent demanded money for advertisement and when it was not given within one week, the defamatory story was published. The Inquiry Committee, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is inclined to accept the allegation made by the complainant that because she refused to give to the respondent the advertisement demanded, the defamatory story has been published. The Inquiry Committee is further disturbed by the language used in the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee holds that the respondent newspaper should publish the clarification. The Inquiry Committee further directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent and the respondent, in turn, is directed to publish the same. Besides, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, having violated the code of conduct, deserves to be censured. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspaper be Censured. The Inquiry Committee recommends for the disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid directions. 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 ‘Nai Soch Nai Disha’, Janpad-Sabhal, U.P.

44) Shri Ram Prasad Patel Versus The Editor National President/Proprietor Peoples Samachar Garib Vikas Sanstha Bhopal (M.P.). Sagar (M.P.).

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 1.9.2016 has been filed by Shri Ram Prasad Patel, National President/Proprietor, Garib Vikas Sanstha, Sagar (M.P.) against “Peoples Samachar”, Bhopal (M.P.) for allegedly publishing false, baseless and

124 defamatory news item under the caption “ fnYYkh dh xjch fodkl laLFkk fu;e dk;ns rkd ij j[k dj pyk jgh gS cSad&foÙk foHkkx ds QthZ vkns'k ls foÙk ea=h ds xg` ftys e as [kyq x;k cadS ” in its issue dated 1.9.2016.

It was reported in the impugned news item that after bogus chit fund companies Janhit Banks are now functioning to fleece the gullible farmers. The bank is being operated by the Garib Vikas Sanstha and opened in the home district of Finance Minister with fictitious orders of the Finance Department. As a result, its branches are being opened in the home districts of the Chief Minister, Home Minister and others in the State. According to the impugned news item, the Peoples Samchar enquired into the matter and found that the said Order No.437 dated 9.6.2016 issued by the State Finance Department is fictitious. The impugned news item further reported that this bank being operated from a single room which has no permission of RBI doesn’t have proper infrastructure and lacks security. It was also reported that the Operator of the banks, Shri R.P. Patel, President/Proprietor of the Garib Vikas Sanstha has sent a letter dated 1.7.2016 to the Principal Secretary (Finance) giving references therein of two orders of Finance Department with regard to bank’s new branches and appointments and its copies were endorsed to the Collectors of Vidisha, Sagar and Raisen.

While denying the allegations, the complainant alleged that the impugned news item is based on false facts. The complainant submitted that his organisation i.e. “Garib Vikas Sanstha” is registered under Firms & Societies Act and the Finance Department, Government of M.P., Bhopal gave approval for opening the branch of bank and the concerned District Collector and officers were also duly informed about opening of the bank and no objection has raised by the Government. According to the complainant, Writ Petition No.10917/16 and 12017/16 were placed before the Hon’ble Court of Jabalpur in this regard and the Court passed an Order dated 24.8.2016 for registration of the tufgr cSad in the District Headquarter. The complainant stated that the detail information regarding Bank Branches and its appointments are being given to the RBI regularly and the RBI has also not raised any objection in this regard. The complainant alleged that the respondent- newspaper published the impugned news item without proper pre-verification, which is irresponsible and against the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant further alleged that due to publication of impugned news item his reputation has been severely affected and caused him mental stress.

The complainant issued a Notice dated 1.9.2016 to the respondent for publication of contradiction but to no avail.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Peoples Samachar, Bhopal on 7.11.2016 but no response was received.

125 Further letter dated 29.3.2017 of the complainant While reiterating the complaint, the complainant vide letter dated 29.3.2017 submitted that he issued a letter to the Chief Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Govt. Finance Deptt., Bhopal informing that the bank is only for members of the Samiti and not for public. The Deptt. has given its consent letter dated 9.6.2016 to the complainant stating that the Samiti can open its branch at its own level. He also submitted that confirmation of the letter for issuing was also given by the concerned Section Officer of the deptt.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi followed by adjournment dated 6.2.2017. There was no appearance from either side.

Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. On the earlier occasions also he had not appeared. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papers and 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.

45) Shri H.N. Meena Versus Shri Radha General Manager, Govt. of India Vallabh Goel Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, The Editor, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Works, Dashpur Express Neemuch-458441 (M.P.) Neemuch, MP.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This complaint dated July 13, 2016 has been filed by Shri H.N. Meena, General Manager, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Works, Neemuch (MP), against the editor of Daily local Hindi newspaper, Dashpur Express, Neemuch, MP for allegedly publishing baseless and untrue charges against the complainant and the organization which is headed by the complainant, in issue dated June 12, 2016 captioned “charcha aur vivado mein ghira raha factory Mahaprabandhak Meena ji ka karykal”.

126 It is reported in the impugned news item that one and half year term of the GM of the Asia’s Biggest Opium and Alkaloid Factory remained a very controversial one. Lot of irregularities in the working style of Shri H.N. Meena and negligence in discharge of responsibility and several bad decisions during his tenure of work as the General Manager of the organization has adversely affected the functioning of the organization. The news item also alleges that Shri Meena instead of doing his duty kept himself occupied with other work such as participating in Save Girl Child campaign or cleanliness program or yoga camps etc. The complainant submitted that the news item is defamatory and libellous against the Govt Opium and Alkaloids Works, Neemuch, which is directly under the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and is the biggest organisation in Asia that legitimately manufactures life saving opiate drugs. The Complainant vide his letter dated July 11, 2016 has communicated his grievance to the editor of the respondent newspaper stating that the article was published in the paper without taking due care and proper inquiry from the concerned authorities and has been published with an intention to malign a person/ organisation that is engaged/established to serve the society. The complainant stated that the impugned news item is injurious to the reputation of the Ministry of Finance which is the controlling authority. The complainant further claimed that by publishing an unverified and false news item against a much reputed Govt. Organisation and its GM, the editor of the Newspaper has breached journalistic ethics and have requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent newspaper. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.08.2016 was issued to the respondent newspaper for written submission in the matter. In reply dated August 30, 2016, the editor of the respondent newspaper requested the Council to send the copy of the complaint and the show cause notice in Hindi since the newspaper is in Hindi. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was reissued to the respondent newspaper in Hindi on September 9, 2016. Complainant’s objections The complainant vide his letter dated September 29, 2016 submitted that the request made by the respondent newspaper is pointless and had claimed that this proves that his complaint is true and factual and as because the respondent newspaper doesn’t have any answer, hence they are adopting delay tactics to drag the matter. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 14.3.2017 stated that the incidents referred in impugned news item have occurred during the tenure of

127 Shri Meena. He has further stated that Shri Meena has filed this complainant only on some particular portion of news but the news item should be read as a whole. He submitted that the news item was not published with the intention to harm the reputation of Shri Meena. He further submitted that the news was published on the basis of the complaints filed against Shri Meena during his tenure. He requested the Council to provide justice in the matter. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 27.3.2017. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi followed by two adjournments dated 15.12.2016 and 7.2.2017. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant whereas Shri Subhash Ojha represented the respondent newspaper. Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. On earlier two occasions also he had not appeared. The complainant has sent an application, inter alia, stating that because of the arrival of opium in the factory neither he nor any of the employees can be spared to attend the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the ground urged is absolutely untenable and accordingly rejects the prayer. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers and finds no merit in the grievance of the complainant and 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.

46) Km.Ranjan Lata Versus The Editor Distt. Kaimoor, Dainik Aaj, Mau, Bihar Uttar Pradesh

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This undated complaint received in the Secretariat on 17.12.2015 has been filed by Km. Ranjan Lata, Bihar against the Editor, Dainik Aaj, Mau, Uttar Pradesh allegedly for publication of baseless and false news against her as detailed herein below:

128 Sl. No. Caption Date 1 Banno hawalat mein 2- 7- 2015 2 Khatm ho gaya khel banno pahuch gayi jail 3 -7- 2015 3 Filhal jail mein hi rahegi banno 4- 7- 2015 4 SDM ka chaalak bhi jad mein, banno ka agla nishana 6-2014 kaun banega 5 Sasural mein gol gappe naa pakar tamtamayi banno 6- 2014

In the impugned news items it is alleged that Ms. Ranjan Lata, a 420, has been arrested by the Police on a non-bailable warrant. Her husband and brother have distributed mangoes and sweets after hearing news of her arrest. She is used to file false cases against people of UP and Bihar to extort money from them.

The complainant submitted that she is a dalit high school teacher having dowry case against her husband and lives alone. Being SC and divorcee, she has been victimized and also harassed by her husband physically, mentally and economically. The complainant submitted that she is a reputed teacher but the respondent paper has defamed her and had lowered her reputation in the society due the objectionable and baseless news items. However, other newspapers have published true and factual news related to her case. The complainant further stated that she met Shri Rishikesh Pandey, Bureau Chief, Aaj on 10.7.2013 in connection with publication of mandatory statement in newspapers as a part of divorce proceedings pending in the district Court. She alleged that Bureau Chief, Aaj is a journalist of criminal record who raped her and many cases U/S 354/342/323/504 IPC 307 SC/ST Act are pending against him. She further stated that he has filed false cases against her due to which she was imprisoned for two months (July & August, 2015), and alleged that he got published baseless and false news without any proof against her. Now she is suspended for six months from services and suffering financial loss. The complainant vide letter dated 4.12.2015 drew the attention of the respondent to publish rejoinder but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent Editor, Dainik Aaj, Bihar on 8.6.2016.

Written Statement In response, the respondent vide letter dated 20.6.2016 submitted that the news items have been published based on the information provided by her

129 husband and father. The respondent submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are baseless as the complainant was present in the school of Bihar as per record. She used to blackmail people by registering false cases against them and the court has granted Stay based on proofs and the cases are subjudice. The complainant has also filed a case against her father for sexual harassment and her brother and sister as well. The complainant has filed cases of snatching and eve teasing against the landlords wherever she lives on rent. He informed that the complainant is in the habit of filing false cases.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 30.6.2016 but received no response.

Further Response from the Bureau Chief, Aaj, Mau, M.P. Shri Rishikesh Pandy, Bureau Chief, Aaj, Mau, M.P. vide his letter dated 29.8.2016 stated that the complainant had registered a false case against him in Mau police station on 22.8.2013. He informed that the complainant had beaten the clerk of her school against which the school Principle and teachers demanded transfer of the complainant in written from the higher officials. He further informed that the landlord of the complainant also lodged an attempt to murder case against her. He also submitted that the complainant has lodged a false complaint against him which is pending before the court of law.

A copy of the same was forwarded to the complainant on 27.9.2016 for information/comments, if any.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi followed by adjournment dated 8.9.2016 and 6.2.2017. There was no appearance either on behalf of the complainant or the respondent side.

Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear before the Inquiry Committee. On the earlier occasions also she had not appeared. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council 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.

130 47) Shri Bhagwandeen Sahu, Versus The Editor, Spokesperson, Dainik Bhaskar, Shri Yog Vedant Sewa Samiti, Chhindwara, Chhindwara, Distt. Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh 480001

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 2.9.2016 has been filed by Shri Bhagwandeen Sahu, Chhindwara, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar allegedly for publication of baseless news item under the caption‘vklkjke dks LokLF; ds vk/kkj ij tekur nsus ls badkj’ in its issue dated 12.8.2016. It is reported in the news item that Supreme Court of India has declined for interim bail to Asaram Bapu on health ground. And rejected the application filed by the respondent. It is reporting that Shri Asaram is imprisoned at Jodhpur jail on the allegation of raping a minor girl, the court directed AIIMS to constitute Medical Board having three members for Medical Examination and to submit the report within ten days. The lawyer of Asaram Bapu has requested the court to grant him interim bail for one or two months for his treatment by Panchkarm Ayurveda method in Keralam, but the court has not accepted the plea. The complainant alleged that the respondent has published the baseless news item deliberately to mislead the common man with ill intention. He submitted that the court has not rejected the bail but has directed AIIMS to provide his medical report after examination. The complainant alleged that the matter is related to the court and surprising the impugned was the paper has vilated the court’s order. The news item has hurt religious sentiments of 11 crore disciples of Shri Asaram and 44 crore disciples associated with them. The complainant vide letter dated 23.8.2016 drew the attention of the respondent and requested to publish apology/ corrigendum for the same but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent. A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Dainik Bhaskar’, Madhya Pradesh on 7.11.2016. Written Statement The respondent paper vide written statement dated 23.11.2016 submitted that the impugned news item in Chhindwara edition was published only after due selection and examination of news content by the editor of Bhopal edition. The respondent further submitted thatt the report in his edition was published on the basis of orders given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the bail on application

131 of Shri Asaram Babu. The respondent added that in his edition, mistake it was published that his (Shri Asaram) plea was dismissed instead of denying interim bail by the court. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments date 27.12.2016 has stated that the respondent is trying to mislead the Council by stating that the complainant has not furnished any evidence in support of his contention that Dainik Bhaskar, Chindhwara edition had been publishing antinational news for the last three years. The complainant has submitted that a criminal case is pending against the respondent newspaper for the last two years and publication of the order of the Supreme Court by manipulating facts, is nothing but an anti-national activity.. The complainant has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 7.2.2017, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. Advocate Gaurav Kumar appeared for the complainant while there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the complaint, the written statement and the counter comments. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not committed any misconduct in publishing the impugned news item. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the 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 Dismiss the complaint.

48) 1. Financial Technologies (India) Ltd Versus Mr. Sundaresha (FTIL) Subramanian, Through: Anupam Dasgupta Associate Editor 2. (Assistant Manager- Legal) Business Standard Business Standard 3. Mr. Jignesh Shah Limited, Chairman Emeritus & Mentor, Nehru House, FTIL, R-Square, 12, N.S. Road, 4 Bahadur Shah JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (West) Zafar Marg, Mumbai- 400049. New Delhi-110002

132 Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 11.03.2016 has been filed by Financial Technologies (India) Ltd. through Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Assistant Manager- Legal, and Mr. Jignesh Shah, Chairman Emeritus & Mentor, FTIL against Mr. Sundaresha Subramanian, Associate Editor, Business Standardfor allegedly publishing factually inaccurate, biased and prejudiced news item against the complainants which is violative of provisions regarding accuracy and fairness of facts, breaches Right to Privacy of the individual on whom the news item is based on and does not adopt pre-publication verification and fall foul of the guidelines on Trial by Media enshrined in the Principles and ethics issued by the Council.

The complainants objected to the news items as detailed herein below:

Sl Date Caption Grievance No. 1. 18.02.2016 “Jignesh Shah The news item reveals the whereabouts Appears before of Mr. Jignesh Shah on February 17, EoW ahead of 2016 during a certain time period. HC hearing” As it is nowhere made out as to how reporting his exact location of a person is so necessary or important for news report in any manner. Therefore such reporting according to the complainant is prejudicial to and violative of ‘right to privacy’ of Mr. Shah. Also in order to sensationalise the news, the journalist has linked two completely different facts one related to the hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application of Mr. Shah and the other is the matter of summons issued by the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) in one news item. This kind of sensationalism has an adverse effect on the rights of Mr. Shah as such kind of reporting can make an adverse effect on the judicial and investigative proceedings that are pending before various forum.

133 Also the news item used a phrase ‘duo is accused of allegedly conniving’ while referring to Mr. Shah and another accused Mr. Jagmohan Garg of M/S Mohan India, with the intention to prove collusion between the two, on contrary the two have never met before the NSEL payment defaults came to light which proves the inaccuracy of the news item. 2. 19.08.2015 “Delhi Police The article, instead of giving an insight Question whatsoever into the NSEL payment Jignesh Shah” defaults, follows a time-lapse detail of interrogation of Mr. Jignesh Shah by the EoW Delhi, right till ‘the time of filing the report’. 3.13.10.2014 “” NSEL The counsellor of the complainant claims investors move that the facts mentioned in the news item SC against is far from the truth. The report states Jignesh Shah that Bombay High Court granted bail bail order” to MR. Jignesh Shah on health grounds whereas the truth was health was not at all a ground for granting of bail. The respondent instead of reporting the truth has invented a ground of his own i.e, health reasons with an intention to downplay the real grounds of grant of bail and tried to show Mr. Shah in bad lights.

The counsel of the complainant submitted that almost every impugned article by the respondent contains a picture of Mr. Jignesh Shah with the sole intent of causing prejudice against him in the ongoing investigations and various sub-judice matters on the contrary other articles written by him, or other corporate, do not carry any pictures. This shows that the involved journalist has tried to discriminately cover the issue relating to the complainant. Mr. Jignesh Shah is a first generation entrepreneur and is considered as a pioneer in the field of creating the financial markets infrastructure in India and abroad and has founded FTIL. But on 20th November 2014 he resigned from the post of FTIL’s Managing Director and assumed the role of Chairman Emeritus and Mentor (a non-Board, non-executive honorary position), NSEL is a subsidiary

134 of FTIL, AND Mr. Shah was a non-executive Director on the Board of NSEL from which he has resigned on 22nd December 2014 and therefore was never concerned with the day-to-day functioning of the NSEL exchange platform. It is further submitted by the Counsel to the complainant that after the NSEL payment defaults, the respondent journalist has written and published more than 40 news item. The complainant submitted that the respondent associate editor has adopted a one sided and tarnishing approach in covering the story related to Mr. Shah in order to defame him. A legal notice dated 19.02.2016 was sent to the respondent editor. The complainant pleaded the Council to take action against the Journalist Mr. Sunderasha Subramanian for the abovementioned acts and omissions and for any other relief that the complainant are entitled to, in law may also be granted in their favour. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2016 was issued to the respondent newspaper. Written Statement The respondent filed its written statement received by the Council on 1.06.2016 informing the Council that he has been working as journalist for eleven years and have worked with three leading dailies in Mumbai and Delhi and throughout his career he has never been levelled before with such allegations of violating journalistic norms or ethics. He submitted that the complaint has been filed by the complainant before the Council to intimidate his newspaper from publishing reportage in respect of the scam popularly known as the NSEL payment crisis scam, the value of which is estimated to about 5600 crores and which has affected roughly about 13,000 persons directly. The respondent further submitted that he was actively involved in unearthing the scam by visiting various warehouses in Delhi, Chandigarh, Ludhiana, Panchukula and Naraingarh to find out whether the warehouses are carrying the stock which has been claimed. In this context he also wrote about brokers. The complainant company FTIL is a company promoted by Mr. Jignesh Shah, the second complainant. FTIL in turn promoted the National Stock Exchange Ltd. (NSEL). The problems arose when several FIRs were registered. These matters were investigated by higher authorities like the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch of Mumbai Police and , by the Forward Market Commission, and by the Registrar of companies. Saying this respondent claimed that as a responsible journalist and as a responsible newspaper, the respondent and his newspaper have scrupulously followed the journalistic ethics and norms while reportage.

135 Counter Comments The complainant in its counter comments submitted that the contents of the complaint filed by the complainants are reiterated to be correct and reaffirmed as true and correct and has denied the submission of the respondents made in its written statement before the Council as malafide and pleaded the Council that the counter comments/rejoinder of the complainant may kindly be taken on record and the complaint be allowed in terms of the reliefs sought therein.

Surrejoinder filed by the Respondent Shri N. Sundaresha Subramanian, Associate Editor, Business Standard vide his undated surrejoinder received in the Secretariat of the Council on 2.9.2016 has stated that the allegations put forth by the complainant that the respondent continues to publish articles on the complainant/s is absolutely false. He further stated that the complaint nothing but an attempt to pass off many of their sub- judice arguments and claims as if these are undisputable facts and with the ulterior motive of misguiding the Hon’ble Council. He also stated that the respondent did balanced and merit based reporting without any bias relating to the complainant. He reiterated that the complaint is an attempt to terrorise and browbeat an honest reporter and put the respondent under mental agony. He has given a para-wise reply and denied the contents of all the para of the counter comments of the complainant. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint being false and baseless with heavy cost.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 7.9.2015, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Rishabh Sancheti, the complainant appeared in person while Shri N.B. Joshi, Advocate along with Shri Manoj Sharma, A.R. and Shri Sundausha Subramanium, Associate Editor appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the counsel for the respondent. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Newspaper and the editor states that they adopt the written statement filed by the correspondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the written statement and other connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not violated any code of conduct and norms of reporting by publishing the impugned news item.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

136 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 Dismiss the complaint.

49) Shri Devender Prasad Mishra, Versus The Editor, Retired Principal, Rahat Times, Kakori Shaheed Inter College, Lucknow, U.P. Mohalla-Narayanpur Kot Kasba, Janpad-Shahjanpur, U.P.

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 15.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Devender Prasad Mishra, Shahjahanpur, U.P. against the editor, Rahat Times, U.P. alleging publication of baseless and defamatory news item devoid of facts under the caption “Kakori Shaheed Inter College mein chhatro ke sanchayika mein gol maal ” in its issue dated 8.9.2016. It was reported in the impugned news item that matter of embezzlement of Security deposit charged from students has heated up. School’s Sports and Security deposit In-charge has levelled allegation against Principal and Manager for misappropriating funds. The complainant submitted that the Security Deposit account is operated jointly by the present Principal and the Office In-Charge. He retired as Principal in 2010 and has no interference in school’s affair. The former Principal or Manager has no concern with this matter. The complainant vide legal notice dated 20.92016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned report but the same was received back with postal remarks “addressee does not stay on this address”. The complainant alleged that the false report was published to malign him in the society without verifying the facts. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Rahat Times, U.P. on 8.12.2016. Written Statement The respondent vide letter dated 12.1.2017 while denying the allegations submitted that the report was published on the basis of facts. Shri Rajaram, Assistant Teacher of the college has provided written information to paper’s correspondent in this regard. He further submitted that the complainant has

137 himself accepted the facts in his letter addressed to the Council as well as to them that security deposits for months have not been disbursed to the students who have left the school. Hence, it is proved that the report was published on facts and without any malafide intention.

Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 3.4.2017 the reply of the respondent is prima facie misleading and hide the facts as when the complainant sent his first notice to the respondent, it was received back undelivered with postal remarks that ‘praptkarta iss pate par nahi rehta hai’ while the notice of the Council and the letters of the Principal were received by the respondent on the same address.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. There is no appearance on behalf of the complainant, despite service of notice. However, he has filed an application making prayer for disposal of the case on the merits. Shri Pratap, appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and other connected papers and finds that the impugned news item has been published on the basis of a communication of the teacher of the School himself.

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 Dismiss the complaint.

50) Shri Saadul Hussain, Versus The Editor, O.S.D. to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Early Times, J&K Jammu Edition

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 26.09.2016 has been filed by Shri Saadul Hussain, OSD to Hon’ble Chief Minister of J&K against the Editor, Early Times alleging publication of defamatory, utterly malicious and false report under the caption

138 “Influential bank manager dictates terms to Commissioner Secretaries”in its issue dated 23.09.2016.

It was reported in the impugned news item that “Sources said the “influential” official of the rank of “bank manager”, nicknamed “Ibne battutta”, for the social media account he allegedly operates since 2010, has been calling the shots in high level meetings where, as per protocol, such junior official are not entitled to comment. Early Times learnt from reliable sources that Ibne battutta doesn’t mind dictating terms to senior officials of police and civil administration during the meetings held to review law and order in Kashmir, on the boil for the past over two months. “We really feel awkward when this bank manager, obviously having no expertise in law and order, steps into bigger shoes than he is entitled to…How can he decide on what needs to be done and where to restore normalcy and how? This is making mockery of the system,” said a Commissioner Secretary, asking not to be named. He said the resentment among the bureaucracy has been so high against this “influential official” that many of the Commissioner Secretaries avoid attending such meetings when he is present. Since July 8, when Kashmir erupted in protests against the killing of militant commander Burhan Muzaffar Wani, the government has been holding regular meetings, mainly at the residence of Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, where the top brass reviews situation and decides future course of action to restore law and order. “But while senior officials cautiously speak only when asked to do so, this man has been calling the shots,” said a senior official, privy to the meetings.” It is also published that “sources said the man speaks what his masters want him to speak. “Actually he is being used to speak on something what some ministers don’t want to directly tell to the meeting. He speaks his master’s voice,” the sources said adding “this was why some of the ministers appreciate what he speaks.” Officials said last year, he was unduly” elevated as a Chief Executive Officer, though he was allegedly “too junior an officer to have been given the prestigious charge.”

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant alleged that the news item is defamatory, utterly malicious, lie based and aimed at maligning him and also indirectly aims to portray others in bad light. According to the complainant, he has never ever attended any such meeting nor has he ever been part or participant of any ‘police and civil administration meetings held to review law and order in Kashmir’. He added that after publication of such false news, his house was attacked by unknown miscreants by stones and rocks, terrorising his family and incurred huge loss to property. The complainant vide letter dated 24.09.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication and requested to provide

139 proof for the publication but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

A Notice for Comments issued to the respondent editor, Early Times, Jammu on 16.12.2016.

Written Statement The respondent editor vide letter dated 4.1.2017 submitted that the newspaper has nowhere violated any journalistic ethics or code of conduct nor jeopardized anyone’s life. The respondent stated that the report has neither mentioned his name nor his designation to expose his identity or risk his life. While filing the report on this sensitive issue, they ensured maintaining journalistic ethics but there was no other way out. According to the respondent, the report was actually a complaint from the senior officials in the state government. Pleading anonymity the officials had said that Mr. Hussain who is actually a bank manager “illegally” elevated to work as OSD with the Chief Minister due to his political contacts, unduly poking his nose at the high level meetings. In fact, officials said his undue interference started in April 2016, when during his first interaction with officials in Kashmir, Chief Minster Mehbooba Mufti asked Mr. Hussain to deliver a lecture on governance to the senior government officials during a function held at SKICC in Srinagar. The same can be duly verified. As senior officials had been requesting them to file a story so that Mr. Hussain is “cut to size”, they as responsibility exposed the indiscipline while keeping identity of Mr Hussain concealed. The respondent further submitted that Mr Hussain in his complaint has claimed that he has “never ever” attended any meetings where “security or law and order” is discussed and to contradict this fact. The respondent attached a picture where he is seen sitting behind the Chief Minister during a meeting on law and order which was chaired by the Hon’ble Home Minister Shri Rajnath Singh himself.

Reply from Mr.Majid Hyderi Mr. Majid Hyderi, Freelance Journalist, Early Times in his reply dated 11.4.2017 filed at the time of hearing dated 11.4.2017 has submitted that when the complainant’s name or designation are not mentioned in the impugned story, how did his identity get exposed or has the report risked his life. He has further submitted that the report was actually based on a complaint received from some senior officials in the state government. He has stated that the complainant claimed that he has never ever attended any meetings where security or law and order is discussed. He has attached a picture to belie the complainant’s claim as he can be seen sitting behind the Chief Minister during a meeting of law

140 and order. He alleged that the complainant is a very influential and thus wants to intimidate small journalists through multiple means including a fabricated complaint before the Press Council of India.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, despite service of notice. Mr. Majid Hyderi, Freelance Journalist appeared for the respondent.

The author of the news, Mr. Majid Hyderi has filed his reply. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the reply and other connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for any action.

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 Dismiss the complaint.

51) M/s SOM Distilleries & Versus The Editor, Breweries Ltd., L.N. Star Newspaper, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This undated complaint received in the Council on 12.11.2015 filed by M/s SOM Distilleries & Breweries Ltd., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh against L.N. Star Newspaper, Bhopal for making defamatory remarks against SBDL in article “SOMke khilaf karwahi se bach rahe afsar” (Officers staying away from action against SOM) was published online as well as vide print edition on 8.9.2015. According to the complainant, the article dated 8.9.2015 made following defamatory remarks against SDBL which are follows: 1- vnkyr ds vkns'k ds mYya?ku vkSj /kks[kk/kM+h ds ekeys esa ugha gqbZ dk;Zokgh 2- xM+cM+h feyus ds ckn Hkh lkse fMLVhysjhl ,oa czosjhT+k ds f[kykQ ,Q+vkbZvkj djus ls cp jgs vQlj

141 3- ;wch xzqi ds izfl) czkaM fdaxfQ+'kj dh [kkyh cksaVy ds QthZ rjhds ls bLrseky ds ekeys esa vkcdkjh foHkkx lkse xzqi ds f[kykQ ,Q+vkbZvkj ntZ djus ls cp jgk gS lke xqzi dh bl /kks[kk/kM+h dh iksy bankSj esa [kqy pqdh gSA 4- lw=ksa ds vuqlkj lkse xqz voS/k ykHk ysus ds fy, bl rjg dh xM+cM+h yacs le; ls dj jgk gSA 5- xM+cM+h ds ckn vQlj dk;Zokgh djus dh fgEer ugha tqVk ik jgs gSA

The complainant stated that all the aforesaid remarks and statements are baseless and have no substantial proof beyond it. There is no specific name of the officer or particulars related to it, has been mentioned along with such accusations. This itself makes it prima facie evident that such allegations are baseless and are made just to malign the reputation of SDBL and its officials. The complainant further submitted that the article published vide e-paper on 8.9.2015 are derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, filthy and abusive in nature with the aim to defame the Company SDBL. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 19.10.2015 to respondent editor and requested to publish unconditional apology in his newspaper and pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Ten Crores only) but received no response. The complainant has requested the Council to take cognizance in the matter and admonishing and censuring the said newspaper.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 28.12.2015.

Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 19.9.2016 has submitted that the instant complaint deserved to be dismissed at the very inception on the ground that the entire publication is made on the basis of the evidences available with them and nothing immaterial or derogatory has been published.

Foot Note- Further papers from the counsel for complainant.

He has further submitted that the publication made by him does not amount to criminal defamation as there exists no intention of the respondent to malign the reputation of the complainant but to portray reality before its readers and to make their readers cautious and vigilant from getting cheated or deceived by any such unfair practice as adopted by the complainant towards the customers. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint and further impose exemplary costs on the complainant for filing such frivolous complaint in the interest of justice.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 9.8.2016 and 4.10.2016, the matter

142 came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore. There was no appearance from either side.

This complaint was filed as back as on 12.11.2015. An application has been filed by the complainant for adjournment of the case. The matter has been called out. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the complainant for adjourning the matter. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all the connected papers. The respondent has justified the publication of the impugned news item on the basis of the inter- departmental letters. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that by publishing the news item, the respondent newspaper has not violated any journalistic ethics, so as to call for action. 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 Dismiss the complaint.

52) Dr. Suneet Soni, Versus1. The Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Near Amarpali Circle, 2. The Editor, Divya Bhaskar Jaipur. 3. The Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, 4. The Editor, Bhopal Samachar. 5. The Editor, News 4. 6. The Editor, Time of India. 7. The Editor, Hindi Pradesh 18. 8. The Editor, RMZ Infinity.

Adjudication 21.06.2017

This complaint dated 20.9.2016 has been filed by Dr. Suneet Soni from Jaipur alleging publication of defamatory/derogatory news item by the respondent newspapers, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur, the Times of India, Jaipur edition, News-4, Rajasthan, Bhopal Samachar, Bhopal, Hindi Pradesh-18, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad & Google India PVT. Ltd. alleging that a criminal case has been registered on baseless, frivolous grounds. The complainant has submitted that he is a reputed doctor and having a good social image; he has been in the medical field for long. He has informed the Council that a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 92/2016 registered in the police station Pushkar,

143 Ajmer dated 26.04.2016 is pending before the learned trial Court and is sub- judiced at the stage of evidence. However, this case was highlighted by both the electronic and print media right after the filing of the case where the complainant has been shown in bad light and has been portrayed as a culprit even before the Court’s decision. This act of media has maligned his reputation socially and professionally. The complainant is concerned that the alleged false publications by the media may have an adverse effect on the Court proceedings.

The complainant has informed the Council that legal notices dated 15.09.2016, pertaining to the alleged publication of misleading and defamatory news item has been issued to the Editors of Rajasthan Patrika, Divya Bhaskar, Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal Samachar, News-4, Rajasthan, Times of India, Jaipur edition, Hindi Pradesh-18, Google India PVT. Ltd. for removing/deleting all the defamatory news material pertaining to him published by the newspapers which is allegedly meant for tarnishing/spoiling the reputation of the complainant. Further, vide communication dated 22.11.2016 the complainant has shared a copy of the Court order dated 8.11.2016 that states that the complainant is acquitted in the matter, however the impugned news items are still existing in the electronic media. Brief of the alleged impugned news items published by the respective respondent newspapers are given below,

Srl. e-paper Caption Newspaper Brief of the content no Date and (electronic actual version) report date 11.21.2016 Accused Times of India Doctor accused of raping (May 31, of raping his patient in Pushkar is 2016) patient, sent to jail on Monday. The Ajmer news states that the accused doctor sent Dr. Soni runs a private to prison clinic ‘Medi-Span’in Jaipur as reported by the Police the victim contacted the Doctor for hair loss and than started sharing messages in facebook and watsapp. While the Doctor and the victim visited Pushkar together where she was been drugged by the doctor and she lost conciousness and thereafter

144 she was raped by the Doctor who had already fled next morning. The rape victim again on March 26 after ten days registered a complaint in Pushkar police station where the police verified the matter and seized the prescriptions which doctor had given to the patient.

11.21.2016 B has kar. Dushkarmo ka States that in Pushkar’s hotel (May com aropi kakathit a lady was drugged and 30,2016) doctor giraptar, raped by a Doctor who after jail beja committing the crime fled from the crime location next morning. The victim was a patient of the accused doctor and was consulting him for hair transplant treatment.

11.21.2016 Bhopal Doctor ne In Pushkar’s hotel one lady (May 30, Samachar mahila marij was drugged and raped by 2016) ko behosh kar her doctor who was arrested rape kardala by the Police. The victim was the accused’s patient for hair transplant treatment and both planned a trip to Pushkar where in the hotel the victim was drugged by the doctor and raped by him and the doctor fled from the crime scene. The victim filed her complaint and the accused was arrested by the police.

11.21.2016 News 4 Hair Contents incomplete. (30, May Rajasthan transplant 2016) surgeon Dr. Suneet Soni arrested in ajmer.

145 11.21.2016 Rajasthan Sharmsar … States that a Doctor who was (30, May Patrika doctor ki contacted by the victim for 2016) kartut, ilaj hair transplant treatment was ke bahanay victimised by the doctor and mahila marij on registering her complaint ke sath kiya the doctor was sent to jail ganda kam. by the concerned Court and the crime took place on 16th April 2016 when the victim accompanied the accused Doctor to Pushkar and the crime took place there in the hotel. Remaining three articles were covered by the electronic media and were thus not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Counsel.

In response to the complainant’s legal notices, no clarification has been published by any of the respondent newspapers and neither the news which was published in the e-papers of few of the respondent newspapers are still existing in their websites . Copies of printouts of the alleged impugned news items still existing in the e-papers of the respondents concerning the matter has been forwarded by the complainant vide his further communication dated 22.11.2016

Therefore the complainant has pleaded the Council to take necessary legal steps against the respondent newspapers in the matter. Reply Filed by the Respondent Show Cause Notices seeking for written statement dated 23.12.2016 was issued to the respondent newspapers. A brief of the written statements filed by the respective respondent newspapers are given below.

Srl. Date Respondent Brief no. newspaper

1. J anuary Times of India, The written statement was filed by the 16, 2017 Jaipur Edition respondent through its Lawyer which states that his client i.e., Times of India, Jaipur Edition, “denies each and every allegation made in the complaint regarding the news.

146 It specifically denies that the news is defamatory and false as alleged. It is factual reporting based on the fact which are not denied in the complaint by the complainant”. Times of India, Jaipur edition submits that the “news was carried in good faith, in public interest, based on the first information report filed against the complainant”. Further the written statement states that as the “grievance of the complainant is that the news pertains to the subjudice matter and ought not to have been carried by the newspaper(s). There is no bar to carry news about subjudice matter unless the court has passed any directions/order for its non- publication”. The written statement further states that the complainant has shared that legal notices were issued to the respondent newspapers but had hidden the fact that Times of India, Jaipur edition has replied to the complainant where it has asked for sharing the Court order that states that the subjudice matter is not permissible by the Court to be covered by the media. Hence there was no intention whatsoever to defame or bring disrepute to the complainant and the complaint is uncalled for and is liable to be withdrawn. 2. January News 4-Rajas- The written statement states that there 23,2016 than has been no advertising of any kind (date of which has given rise to biased or unfair receipt in publicity of the Court case through any the Sec- social media. Nothing was published on retariat) the website of News-4 Rajasthan dur- ing the pendency of Court proceedings. The respondent further states that “a piece of information was published on the internet and on website News-4-Ra- jasthan conveying that the applicant has been made a victim of the criminal act.

147 further mentioned that the gang also minted a big amount of Rs. 1 crore from the applicant by filing a false FIR. Noth- ing new was published during the Court proceeding and nothing ever has been published on the website which can be called defamatory for the applicant”. Therefore, the conduct of the Editor of News 4 Rajasthan is within limit and as per the code of ethics of journalism. The newspaper has further requested the Council to held the complainant for mis- guiding the Council for filing a “made- up complaint”against the newspaper. A copy of the written statement of Times of India, Jaipur Edition and News 4 Rajasthan were forwarded to the complainant on 27.01.2017. 3. J anuary Network 18 The statement states that the complainant 30,2017 has failed to point out or name specific story published by the Network 18 in which he has been allegedly defamed or in which any news about any sub-judice matter has been published and there- fore, the complaint against Newtwork 18 deerves to be dismissed.

A copy of the written statement of Network 18 has been forwarded to the complainant on 08.02.2017. Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.05.2017 at Indore. Shri Om Prakash Arya, Learned Counsel appeared for the complainant whereas Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Deputy Manager, for Patrika Shri Pradeep Singh, Editor News 4 Rajasthan and Shri Shailesh, Advocate for Google India Pvt. Ltd represent the respective respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the complainant and the representative of the respondents and has also perused the complaint, the reply and other connected papers. The complainant is aggrieved by the publication of the news of his arrest, in connection with the offense of rape. The counsel for the complainant does not deny that such a case was registered against the complainant and he was arrested with the same case. The Inquiry Committee is

148 of the opinion that the respondent had basis to publish the news item and while doing so they have not breached any journalistic ethics.

The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complainant.

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

53) Shri K.P. Singh, Versus The Editor, President, Baroda Rajasthan Dainik Rashtrdoot. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer, Rajasthan. Adjudication 21.06.2017 This complaint dated 15.12.2016 has been filed by Shri K.P. Singh, President, Baroda Rajasthan KshetriyaGramin Bank, Ajmer against the editor, DainikRashtrdoot, Jaipuralleging publication of a false, misleading and defamatory news item in its issue dated 7.11.2016 under the caption “cM+kSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad us fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ /kkjdksa ls 250 dh Bxh dh djksM”+ . It is reported in the impugned news item that Baroda Rajasthan KshetriyaGramin Bank has collected rupees 2000/- from the farmers for Kisan Credit Card in the name of processing fee and inspection. The news reports stated that the Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Garmin Bank maintained 785 branches in 21 districts and the bank has issued seven lakh Kisan Credit Cards. It is further reported in the news item that the bank has not followed the guidelines issued by RBI and illegally collected a sum of Rs.250 crores between 2013-2016 from 30 lakh farmers. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the Collector has given farmers assurance that he will look into the matter. He has also informed that one of the officers has intimated him that bank officer visited the land on which they gave them loan, so they charged processing & inspection fee.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item the complainant submitted that the impugned published news item is totally false, fabricated and far from the truth. The respondent published the impugned news item without verifying the facts from the bank and due to publication of defamatory news item, the bank lost its reputation in the eyes of the public which has hampered its business. The complainant vide letter dated 9.11.2016 requested the respondent to publish

149 the contradiction of the said news item. In response thereto that Shri Mahesh Sharma, Local Editor, Dainik Rashtradoot vide letter dated 11.11.2016 informed him that the news was released by Univaarta not by their own correspondent and in this regard they may contact with the news agency. The complainant vide another letter dated 21.11.2017 requested to publish contradiction of the said news item but received no response. Written statement: In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2016 the respondent Managing Editor, Dainik Rashtradoot in his written statement stated that the news item published in their newspaper was provided by Jhunjhunu based social worker, Shri Rajan Choudhary through a press release. He has also enclosed a copy of the letter received from Shri Rajan Choudhary. The respondent submitted that the news was published for the benefit of the farmers and it is the duty of a responsible newspaper that the any news which is for the benefit for the general public must published and there was no malafide to defame the bank at all. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.2.2014 for counter comments. Counter comments In response to the written statement the complainant vide his counter comments dated 3.3.2017 stated that the respondent must verify the news before publishing the same, which has not been done. The respondent by publishing false news without verifying the facts, maligned the bank in the eyes of its customers. He has further submitted that the respondent used the name of Reserve Bank of India for sensationalizing the news. He has requested the Council to take stringent action against the respondent. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 11.4.2017 for information. Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.05.2017 at Indore. Shri L.N. Sharma and Shri Ram Lal, Assistant Manager appeared on behalf of the complainant and Shri Ranjeet Yadav, appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of the respondent. The newspaper has in the impugned news item highlighted the plight of the farmers regarding payable fee for issuance of credit card. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the impugned report is in the larger interest of the society and the country. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that

150 the respondent newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint with the aforesaid observations. Held: The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and dismissal of the complaint.

54) Shri K.P. Singh, Versus The Editor, President, Baroda Rajasthan Dainik Navjyoti. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 Facts: This complaint dated 21.11.2016 has been filed by Shri K.P. Singh, President, Baroda Rajasthan KshetriyaGramin Bank, Ajmer against the editor, DainikNavjyoti, Rajasthan alleging publication of a false, misleading and defamatory news item in its issue dated 7.11.2016 under the caption “fdlkuksa ls djksM+ksa #i;s dh Bxh”. It is reported in the impugned news item that Baroda Rajasthan KshetriyaGramin Bank has collected rupees 2000/-each from the farmers who have Kisan Credit Card, in the name of processing fee and inspection. The news reports stated that the Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Garmin Bank maintained 785 branches in 21 districts and the bank has issued 7 lakh Kisan Credit Cards. It is further reported in the news item that the bank has not followed the guidelines issued by RBI and illegally collected a sum of Rs.250 crores between 2013-2016 from 30 lakh farmers. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the Collector has given them assurance that he will look into the matter. He has also informed that one of the officers has intimated him that bank officer visited the land on which they gave them loan, therefore, they charged processing and inspection fee. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item the complainant submitted that the published news item is totally false, fabricated and far from the truth. The respondent published the impugned news item without verifying the facts from the bank and due to publication of defamatory news item the bank lost its reputation in the eyes of the public which hampered its business. The complainant vide letter dated 9.11.2016 requested the respondent to publish the

151 contradiction of the said news item. In response to that Shri Mahesh Sharma, Chief Editor, DainikNavjyoti vide letter dated 11.11.2016 informed him that the news was released by “Vaarta” not by their own correspondent and in this regard you may contact with the news agency. The complainant vide another letter dated 21.11.2016 requested to publish contradiction of the said news item but received no response. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondent. Written statement: In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2016, the respondent Chief Editor, Dainik Navjyoti in his written statement stated that the impugned news item was provided by UNIVAARTA on 6.11.2016. He has stated that Univarta is a National Level news agency and any news provided by them does not need any verification. The respondent stated that Univaarta in their mail dated 9.1.2017 submitted that “they received the news from Shri Rajan Chaudhry, Social worker, Jhunjhunnu, who have done a study about the matter on ground level. All the contents mentioned in the news item were provided by Shri Rajan Chaudhary. Shri Rajan Chaudhary informed that he tried to contact the officers of the bank but they said “due to heavy work load they are very busy and cannot talk on the matter”. Univaarta also stated that they have no intention to malign the image of the bank. The respondent stated that they have not breached any norm of Journalistic Conduct formulated by Press Council of India and the news published was in public interest and for the public. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 30.1.2017 for counter comments. Counter comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.2.2017 submitted that their bank recovers fees from Kisaan Credit Card Holders as per provisions of KCC policy as allowed by RBI or NABARD. All banks are independent for the assessment of charges as they have approval in principal from their Board of Directors. The Banks are audited time to time by NABARD or any statutory auditors so as to ensure that requisite guidelines are followed. The complainant submitted that their bank operates with transparency and information about the recovery are made available in website www.brkgb.cog m which can be accessed by public. The respondent has published the news without verifying the facts to defame the bank which has adversely affected their business. The respondent has misused the name of RBI to make the news report sensational. Further, the respondent has himself accepted that all documents for the report have not been provided by the news agency Univaarta and hence, it is clear that the report is

152 false, baseless and based on manipulated facts. The complainant requested to take appropriate action against the respondent.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 3.5.2017 for information. Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.05.2017 at Indore. Shri L.N. Sharma, Sr. Manager and Shri Ram Pal, Assistant Manager appeared for the complainant while Shri Shivesh Garg, Chief of Bureau, Delhi appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of the respondent. The newspaper has in the impugned news item has highlighted the plight of the farmers regarding payment of fee for issuance of credit card. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that this is in the larger interest of the society and the country. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action.

The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint with the aforesaid observations. Held: The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and dismissal of the complaint.

55) Shri Surendra Anand, Versus The Editor, Chhatarpur, Raj Express, Madhya Pradesh. Chhatarpur

Adjudication 21.06.2017

This complaint dated 14.12.2016 has been field by Shri Surendra Anand, Chhatarpur against the editor, Raj Express, Chhatarpur alleging publication of false and vague news item in its issue dated 25.11.2016 under the caption “Anand Par Darz ho Sakta hai Maarpit Ka Mukadama”. It is reported in the impugned news item that a case may be registered in the name of Shri Surendra Anand for slapping a worker, who worked under him. It is also reported in the impugned news item that a case can be registered in city police station

153 against businessman, Shri Surendra Anand for intimidating his employee who has alleged that his employer forcibly took possession of the bike which he purchased for him and also intimidated him. In this news item the complainant has been identified by his name who alleged to have opened Bike Showroom on the land allotted for Polythine Bag Factory. The complainant further submitted that the respondent newspaper published another news item in its issues dated 7.12.2016 and 8.12.2016 under the captions “Aaj diya jayega Anand Hero Ko Bhukhand Khali Na Karney Ka Notice” and “90 Din Main Bhukhand Khali Na Karney Par Rajsat Hogi Sampatti.” It is reported in the impugned news item that the court has passed the order for vacating the land allotted to Anand Hero at NH 75 for 99 years lease, because the land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was allotted. It is also reported in the impugned news item that legal action will also be taken against them, if anything found illegal. It is reported in the second news item that the Commerce Department issued notice to Shri Surendra Anand for vacating the land within 90 days otherwise the land will be acquired by the State Government. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items the complainant submitted that the news items were published to defame his name. The complainant submitted that the respondent neither took his version before publishing the impugned news item nor verified the facts from his office. The complainant vide letter dated 2.12.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publications and requested him to publish unconditional apology with prominence, but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 9.1.2017 was issued to the Respondent Editor, Raj Express, but received no response. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.05.2017 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Shri N.K. Soni, Advocate appeared for the complainant whereas there was no representation on behalf of the respondent side. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complainant the connected papers. The complainant in his complainant has nowhere averred that his employee had not lodged any case against him. Further, he has not denied the fact the land, over which the showroom for sale of motorcycle exists , was allocated for another purpose. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is absolutely misconceived. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complainant.

154 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 complainant.

56) Shri Pradeep Kumar Versus The Editor, Assistant Store keeper, Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur Jaisalmer (Rajasthan). (Rajasthan)

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 15.12.2016 has been filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar, Assistant Store Keeper, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) through his counsel against “Dainik Bhaskar” for allegedly publishing series of false, baseless, misleading and defamatory news items. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Captions Date 1 fMLdke ds LVksj ls pqjk;k 10 djksM+ dk lkeku vkSj 'kq# 22.10.2016 dh fctyh pksjh 2 fMLdke ds ?kksVkys ij cksys lklan 3.11.2016 3 fMLdke esa fcth pksjh&tkap esa nks"kh ik;s x;s nks ,bZu o ,d 17.11.2016 LVksj dhij 4 fctyh pksjh esa vf/kdkfj;ksa dh fefyHkxr] vk ldrs gSa u, 18.11.2016 vkSj ekeys

Series of impugned news reports alleged that involvement of DISCOM’s employees in stealing of transformers and other equipment worth Rs.10 crore from the DISCOM have come to the light. The impugned news reports highlighted the misdeeds of the complainant, who has been accused of preparing misleading report for installation of electricity poles to facilitate stealing of electricity. A case has been registered with the appropriate authority.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant alleged that the impugned news items are false, baseless, misleading and published with a view to tarnish his image. The complainant further alleged that due to personal animosity and biased attitude towards the scheduled caste

155 community, Shri Mangiram Jat, Superintending Engineer under a conspiracy with the connivance of the Bureau Chief of respondent-newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar has published these impugned news items. The complainant also alleged that Shri Mangiram Jat also registered a false case on 15.11.2016 under Section 267 IPC but no action has been taken so far by the police in the matter. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent-editor through Notice dated 15.12.2016 but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. A Show-cause notice was issued to the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur on 27.3.2017 but no response has been received. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. There was no appearance either from the complainant or the respondent side. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papers and finds no merit in the grievance of the complainant. 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.

57) Shri Damodar, Versus The Editor, President, Patrika, Maa Narmada Udavahan Nahar Samiti, Indore (M.P.). Bistan Region, Khargaon (M.P.) Shri Rahul Soni, Media Incharge, Maa Narmada Udavahan Nahar Samiti, Bistan Region, Khargaon (M.P.)

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This joint complaint dated 17.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Damodar, President and Shri Rahul Soni, Media Incharge of Maa Narmada Udavahan

156 Nahar Samiti, Bistan Region, Khargaon (M.P.) against “Patrika” for allegedly publishing a series of false, baseless, motivated and defamatory news items. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Captions Date 1 vkjksiksa ds ?ksjs esa lfefr v/;{k 6.5.2016 2 c<+h eqf'dysa] ,d vkSj f'kd;r ntZ 7.5.2016 3 fdlkuksa ls Bxh cnkZ'kr ugha] ikbZ&ikbZ dk ysaxs fglkc 14.5.2016 4 ugj ds pnsa dh Hkh [kqyh Qkby&Bx naifr us mMkbZ 24.5.2016 ysunkjksa dh uhan 5 tuizfrfuf/k;ksa us tkuk ihfMr fdlkuksa dk nnZ 25.5.2016 6 ojnku lkfcr gksxh flapkbZ ifj;kstuk 4.6.2016 7 ueZnk tydh cwan&cwan dk gks mi;ksx 7.6.2016

Allegations of irregularities prevailing in the complainants’ committee and embezzlement and cheating of lakhs of rupees have been levelled in the impugned news items.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainants informed that that maximum farming/agriculture area in the region is dry due to shortage of water. Therefore, they constituted their Committee with a view to help the farmers through watering schemes. As a result, an amount of Rs.515 crore has been sanctioned at the administration level. Annoyed with this, the local correspondent maliciously published false and baseless news items with a view to defame them in public at large. The complainants alleged that the correspondent used highly defamatory and unparliamentary language in the newspaper with their photographs, which were taken from the facebook. The complainants submitted that they drew the attention of the Editor, Patrika but neither he published the contradiction nor gave any reply. They have sought justice in the matter.

Show-cause notice was issued to the Editor, Patrika, Indore (M.P.) on 8.12.2016.

Written Statement The respondent-editor, Patrika vide his written statement dated 23.2.2017 while denying the allegations, has stated that the complaint is false, baseless and based on false statements and prima facie liable to be dismissed. The respondent

157 further stated that the impugned publications are based on the written complaints submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Khargaon by the BJP leader, Shri Ramesh More, farmers and others against the complainants, therefore, it could not be expected to be false and baseless in any manner. The respondent further stated that the statement of the complainant-Shri Rahul Soni was also published in the newspapers. While denying the allegation of violation of any norms the complainant stated that the impugned news item was published in public interest. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainants on 19.4.2017. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant alongwith Shri Rahul Soni, Media Incharge appeared whereas Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Deputy Manager represented for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all other connected papers. The Inquiry Committee notes that the respondent newspaper has published the news on the basis of the various reports given to the police. Not only that, the complainant’s version has also been incorporated. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics in publishing the impugned news item. 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.

58) Shri Yashveer Singh, Versus The Editor, through Advocate Dainik Jagran, Mohd. Khalid Meerut. Uttar Pradesh. Adjudication 21.06.2017

This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 6.9.2016 has been filed by Shri Yashveer Singh, Uttar Pradesh through his

158 advocate against the editor, Dainik Jagran for publication of a defamatory news item under the caption “gkbosijpqLr pkSdhijlqLr ” in its issue dated 7.8.2016. It is reported in the impugned news item that while police movement on Highways has increased, in police stations, the police officials are lethargic.

The complainant submitted that the respondent entered his barrack without knocking the door and clicked his half naked photograph when he was taking rest after his duty was over. The complainant’s objection on the said news item is that after duty is over, the police officials is free to do anything whatever he wants to do such as taking rest, having food etc. The complainant submitted that he and his family members were in distress when they saw the impugned photograph. The complainant vide notice dated 2.9.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.05.2017 at Indore; Madhya Pradesh following by adjournment dated 10.01.2017. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant and respondent side.

Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear. The respondent has also not chosen to file any reply. It is the grievance of the complainant that the newspaper correspondent entered his barrack without knocking the door and took his half naked photograph, when he was taking rest after the duty hours. According to the complainant, the publication of half-naked photograph, has invaded his privacy. In the absence of any defence the Inquiry Committee is satisfied that when the concerned constable was resting at the barrack after duty hours, it was inappropriate for the journalist to take his photograph and publish the same in the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee disapproves the conduct of the newspaper and accordingly warns it to be careful in future. The respondent newspaper is further directed to publish the order passed by the Council in its newspaper. With the aforesaid directions, 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.

159 59) Shri Pushpraj Singh Baghel, Versus The Editor, Pushpraj Travels, People Observer, Satna (M.P.) Satna (M.P.).

Adjudication 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 10.12.2016 has been filed by Shri Pushpraj Singh Baghel, Pushpraj Travels, Satna (M.P.) against “People Observer”, Hindi weekly, Satna for allegedly publishing false, misleading, highly objectionable and defamatory news item under the caption “ifjogu foHkkx dh vka[kksa esa /kwy >kasd jgk iq"ijkt” on December 7-13, 2016 issue. It was reported in the impugned news item that the complainant has been illegally running his buses even without permit due to his political clout. The complainant is also not paying the tax arrears worth lakhs of rupees to the government and the matter is thoroughly investigated, the complainant will be behind the bar. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant alleged that the respondent maliciously published false, misleading news item along with his photograph due to which his social and professional image has tremendously damaged. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 10.12.2016 but to no avail. Show-cause notice was issued to the Editor, People Observer, Satna on 25.1.2017. Written Statement The Managing Editor, People Observer, Satna vide his written statement dated 22.2.2017 while denying the allegation levelled in the complaint has stated that the impugned news item was based on the facts. The respondent further stated that he has no personal animosity or ill-will with the complainant. While furnishing a copy of the letter of Regional Transport Officer, Satna as a proof, the respondent stated that an amount of Rs.10,67,576/- is pending as tax arrears against the complainant and this fact may be confirmed from the Regional Transport Officer, Satna. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 6.3.2017. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore.

160 Shri Abhishek Shukla, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant before the Committee. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and the connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper while publishing the impugned news item has not violated any code of journalistic ethics so as to call for action. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

60) Shri Gajendra Pal Singh, Versus The Editor, Advocate/Secretary, Dainik Jagran, Shaheed Chandrabhan Samarak Samiti, Meerut (U.P.). Mawana, Meerut (U.P.).

The Editor, Hindustan, Meerut (U.P.)

Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts This complaint dated 13.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Gajendra Pal Singh, Advocate/Secretary, Shaheed Chandrabhan Samarak Samiti, Mawana, Meerut (U.P.) against “Dainik Jagran” and “Hindustan” “newspapers for allegedly publishing false, misleading, baseless distorted and defamatory news items under the captions “'kghn iqfyl dfeZ;ksa dh Le`fr esa laxhr la/;k” and “ 'kghn izn'kZuh ds lekiu dk;ZØe esa v'khyrk ” in its issues dated 16.9.2016 and 18.9.2016 respectively.

The impugned news item Jagran reported that the Shaheed Chandrabhan Samarak Samiti organised music eve in memory of martyr police personnel without prior permission. The SDM, Mawana said that permission for organising fete was given. The organiser did not take permission for organising musical eve or Ragini programme.

In the impugned news item published in Hindustan, it was reported that

161 ‘Ragini’ programme which was organised at the closing ceremony of exhibition dedicated to martyr wherein women artists performed allegedly witnessed vulgar dancer due to which organisers removed their banners from the stage. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item published in the DainikJagran, the complainant alleged that the impugned news item is false, baseless and defamatory. The complainant further alleged that the representatives of the Dainik Jagran, S/Shri Yogesh Aatrey and Sanjiv Pandey had malice towards the families of the martyrs and deliberately published false and baseless news with a view to tarnish the image of the Committee. The complainant also alleged that the respondent-Dainik Jagran false published version of the SDM. With regard to impugned news item published in Hindustan, the complainant alleged that the respondent published the impugned news item in distorted manner with a view to tarnish the image of their Committee. Denying the allegation of any obscenity and vulgarity in the programme the complainant stated that no other newspaper published such news as reported by the paper. The complainant alleged that both the newspapers did not publish the version of any member of the Committee and thereby violated the norms of Journalistic conduct. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent-newspapers towards the impugned news items but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Reply Show-cause Notices were issued to the “Dainik Jagran” and “Hindustan” on 11.1.2017 but no response was received from either. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspapers has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics while publishing the impugned news item. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

162 61) Shri Sachin Jaiswal, Versus The Editor, M.L.A., Lokmat, Sitapur (U.P.) Lucknow (U.P.)

Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts This complaint dated 19.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Sachin Jaiswal, MLA, Sitapur (U.P.) through his counsel-Shri Jemendra Kumar against “Lokmat”, Hindi daily for allegedly publishing series of false, baseless, misleading and defamatory news items. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S. No. Captions Date 1 /keZ vkSj v/keZ dh tax vius vafre ik;nku ij ----- rks 15.9.2016 nkfx;ksa dks fey x;k ,y vkbZ;wdk lkFk 2 ekfQ;kvksa ds fy, gS [kq'k[kcjh vxjekU;rk izkIr i=dkj 26.9.2016 cuuk gS rks lhrk iqj vkbZ;s 3 jax ckt fo/kk;d mlds ifjokj dk gSjr vaxst Date not dkjukek given

It was reported in the first impugned news item dated 15.9.2016 that MLA’s son has got support of several senior politicians to confirm his win in election. It has been further reported that if the department like L.I.U. is supporting corrupt politicians then what will be situation of the area is easily predictable. It has further reported that Sachin Jaiswal has become popular now a days and several questions have been raised in the impugned news like why the powerful politician of Samajwadi Party, Sachin Jaiswal entered in the field of media?, who is the powerful politician accumulated wealth by selling government land at very nominal rates?, who knows that currently Sachin Jaiswal is known as a powerful politician?. In the impugned news item inter alia also reported that the filthy game played by the father-son duo over the last ten years is now exposed before the public.

In the impugned news item dated 26.9.2016, it has been reported that Sachin Jaiswal is known to be brother of Smt. Madhu Tambe, Information Director, who is most corrupt officials of the department. It was further reported that Madhu Tambe used her entire power to make Sachin a journalist despite the fact that Sachin does not know anything about the journalism.

163 In the last impugned news item, it was reported that Smt. Rashmi Jaiswal is the Chairman of Municipal Corporation only on papers but it is being run by her husband-Sachin Jaiswal. It was further reported that the MLA and his entire family indulges in extravagance. It was reported that the Chairman of Municipal Corporation and his MLA father-in-law are also involved in land dealings.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainants alleged that the impugned news items are false, baseless, misleading and published with a view to tarnish his and his family image. According to the complainant, he is MLA from Sitapur for last four times and his wife is also a Chairperson of Municipal Legislative Council but the Bureau Chief of respondent- newspaper, Smt. Sushma Pandey with a view to damage his and his family’s political image, by using defamatory and unparliamentary words, has levelled many serious allegations, which are false and misleading.

The complainant has submitted that he issued a Notice dated 29.11.2016 through his counsel to the respondent but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Show-cause notice was issued to the Editor, Dainik Lokmat, Lucknow on 9.1.2017. Written Statement Ms. Pratibha Singh, Editor, Lokmat, Lucknow vide her written statement dated 20.1.2017 while denying the allegation has stated that the complaint filed by him, is false and baseless. According to the respondent, neither the complainant is a MLA nor he representative of the public but on the contrary the complainant is of criminal nature and a case of land dispute and attempt to murder are registered against him and news in this regard has also been published by other newspapers. The respondent further submitted that the complainant got illegal LIU Report as photographer of “Vishwa Varta” while many cases are pending against him.. The respondent also submitted that the father of the complainant, Shri Radhey Shyam Jaiswal is MLA from Sitapur and many cases of attempt to murder and scams are registered against him. According to the respondent, on receiving the notice from the complainant, the concerned Bureau Chief was asked to provide the documentary evidence with regard to the impugned news item and also was directed verbally and writing for controlling the language. The respondent further informed that the complainant is trying to threaten and pressurise their Bureau Chief-Ms. Sushma Pandey, who has filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur in this regard. The respondent stated that the impugned news items are based on facts. The respondent expressed regret to the complainant for any hurt, if caused.

164 Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. The respondent is represented by Shri Rajeev Thakur, Reporter. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all the connected papers. The Complainant is aggrieved by that portion of the impugned news item, in which he has been described as rungbaaj,gj, mafia,,g gunda etc. The Inquiry Committee finds that there are large number of cases pending against the complainant and in that view of the matter, the grievance made by the complainant is absolutely misconceived. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

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

62) Mohd. Javed, Versus The Editor, S/o.- Mohd. Akhtar, Amar Ujala, Paswan, P.O. Jalalabad, Meerut, U.P. Nazibabad Police Station, Bijnor.

Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts This undated complaint received in the Secretariat on 27.12.2016 has been filed by Mohd. Javed, Nazibabad, Bijnor, U.P. against the editor of Dainik Amar Ujala, Meerut, UP for publishing defamatory article in its issue dated 9.12.2016 captioned “Bank me khata dharako ka hangama, chairman samarthako ne yuvak ko pita”. The article states that hundreds of accounts holders were queuing in front of the Punjab National Bank, Jalalabad, branch located at Bijnor Nazibabad Road. Overcrowding at the Bank led to disruption of the traffic on the highway. Meanwhile the Chairman of Jalalabad reached the spot and had an argument with a young man in que and the Complainant herein the Chairman’s supporters beat the young man which led to lots of hue and cry and later when the bank declared that they are out of cash, the account holders protested and blocked the traffic. The police was called and the situation was brought under control only after

165 assuring the account holders that cash will be made available soon. However, the complainant alleges that the editor in order to hide the misdeeds of the Chairman of Jalalabad, UP had misreported the entire incident in the said article and in reality the complainant who is a social worker and has no political interests was present at the spot on the day of the incident took place. He requested the police authority for a fair distribution of the bank token amongst the women and men standing in the queue. The Chairman, Mr. Yakub Rain accompanied by his supporters reached the bank and created a ruckus and abused the complainant in the presence of police officials. However, these facts were not presented the news item. Also, as the complainant alleges that even after writing to the editor of the respondent newspaper to publish the clarification no response has been received by him and therefore he has pleaded the Council to take necessary action against the respondent newspaper. Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 5.1.2017 was issued to the respondent newspaper to which the reply of the respondent editor states that the averments made in the complaint are not admitted except that the said news item was reported in its issue dated 9.12.2016 and the rest of the allegations as made in the complaint are not admitted and denied. According to the respondent editor the news item was a general news item and was published within journalistic norms and ethics, in good faith and on the basis of an incident happened on a particular time and the truth was reported in the news item and the name of the complainant or identity was not revealed in the reporting. The impugned news item states that Mr. Yakub Rain, Jalalabad Chairman has assaulted one of the account holders and no identity has been revealed and the same has been admitted by the complainant himself. The news item was published with an intention to inform the public about the incidents happening around them and does not intend to defame anyone. The respondent further submits that Amar Ujala is a responsible Hindi newspaper which tries to report every matter concerning the public importance in a free, fair and unbiased manner and the complainant may out of some personal grudge or vendetta has filed such frivolous complaint and the allegations made by the complainant in this regard are false. The respondent newspaper had requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the relpy and all other connected papers and is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is absolutely misconceived. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

166 Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the 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.

63) Sh. Syyed Rizwan Ali, Versus The Editor, Bhopal, Pariwarik Dastak, (M.P.). Bhopal (M.P.)

Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts This complaint dated 4.3.2017 has been filed by Sh. Syyed Rizwan Ali, Bhopal (M.P.) against “Pariwarik Dastak”, Hindi daily, Bhopal for allegedly publishing false, motivated, misleading and defamatory news items under the captions “Bhopal (M.P.) Hkksiky ds ts- ds- Itkyk ekeys esa cksMZ ps;jesu 'kSdr vkSj ih, fjtoku dks vkjksih cukus ds fy, U;k;ky; esa xqgkj” and “dkys dkjukeks ij inkZ Mkyus ds fy, vuks[kk dkjukek&77 lky ds odhy dks fVªC;quy dk lnL; cuk;k x;k” in its issues dated 16.1.2017 and 18.1.2017 respectively.

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 16.1.2017 that due to registration of a case of irregularities against former Chairman of Waqf Board, the construction work of J.K. Plaza on the property of Waqf Board has been stopped. It was further reported that the Chairman, Shri Shaukat Khan was also involved in the matter but he has saved himself with the connivance of the police. It was also reported that the matter is pending consideration before the court of law and an officer, Nissar Ahmed has filed an application before the CJM Court for listing the name of the Chairman and his P.A., Rizwan Khan as accused.

In the second news item dated 18.1.2017, it was reported that the complainant is the Personal Assistant to the Chairman of Waqf Board and has links with the Waqf mafia and builders due to which he was suspended by the former CEO of the Board but later on he was reinstated after tendering apology. It was further reported that after transfer of the CEO, the Chairman again appointed him as his Personal Assistant.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant has alleged that the respondent published false and motivated news with a view to tarnish his image. The complainant alleged that the

167 respondent-newspaper published the impugned news item without proper pre- verification, which is irresponsible act and against the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that he issued a Notice through his counsel to the respondent-editor on 4.3.2017 but neither the complainant furnished any documentary evidence nor published the contradiction. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

No Reply Show-cause notice issued to the Respondent-Editor, Pariwarik Dastak, Bhopal on 22.3.2017 but no response has been received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Syed Rizwan Ali, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant prays for adjournment of the case for production of certain documents. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to grant that prayer.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and has perused the grievance made in the complaint. The allegation made in the complaint is absolutely vague and from that, no case for interference is made out by the Council. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

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

64) Sh. Sarwat Sharif Khan, Versus The Editor, Advocate, Pariwarik Dastak, Bhopal (M.P.). Bhopal (M.P.)

Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts This complaint dated 8.2.2017 has been filed by Shri Sarwat Shareef Khan, Advocate, Bhopal (M.P.) against “Pariwarik Dastak”, Hindi daily, Bhopal for allegedly publishing false, motivated, misleading and defamatory news item under the caption “dkys dkjukesa ij inkZ Mkyus ds fy, vuks[kk dkjukek&77

168 lky ds odhy dks fVªC;quy dk lnL; cuk;k x;k” in its issue dated 18.1.2017. The impugned news item reports about the alleged corrupt activities of the Waqf Board. According to the impugned news item, setting aside all rules and regulations of Waqf Board, a 77-year old advocate-Shri Ayyub Khan has been appointed as Member of Waqf Tribunal. It was further reported that in all of Waqf Tribunal, Advocate Sarwat Shareef (complainant) is also important player in the game of corruption prevailing in the Waqf. After being appointed as member- Ayyub Khan without taking any permission from the Board has referred 90% matters to the Complainant at his own level, which is illegal. According to the impugned news report, the complainant also played an important role in appointing Shokat Khan as President of the Board. The complainant is also responsible for loss of Rs.8 crore to the property of the Board. This matter is pending consideration before the court of law and an application for listing the complainant as accused has also been filed.

Denying all the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has alleged that the respondent published false and motivated news with a view to tarnish his image. The complainant alleged that the respondent-newspaper published the impugned news item without proper pre- verification, which is irresponsible act and against the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that he issued a Notice through his counsel to the respondent-editor on 25.1.2017 but neither the respondent furnished any documentary evidence nor published the contradiction. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

No Reply Show-cause notice issued to the Respondent-Editor, PariwarikDastak, Bhopal on 22.3.2017 but no response has been received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Shri Sarwat Shareef Khan, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant prays for adjournment of the case for production of certain documents. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to grant that prayer.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and has perused the grievance made in the complaint. The allegation made in the complaint is absolutely vague and from that, no case for interference is made out by the Council. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

169 Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the 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.

65) Sh. Ayyub Khan, Versus The Editor, Member, Pariwarik Dastak, Madhya Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.) Bhopal (M.P.)

Adjudication 21.06.2017 This complaint dated 9.2.2017 has been filed by Shri Ayub Khan, Member, Madhya Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.) against “PariwarikDastak”, Hindi daily, Bhopal for allegedly publishing false, motivated, misleading and defamatory news item under the caption “ dkys dkjukesa ij inkZ Mkyus ds fy, vuks[kk dkjukekk – 77 lky ds odhy dks fVªC;quy dk lnL; cuk;k x;k” in its issue dated 18.1.2017. It was reported in the impugned news item that to cover up the black deeds prevailing in the Waqf Tribunal, a 77 year old advocate-Shri Ayyub Khan (complainant) has been appointed as Member of Waqf Tribunal violating the Waqf Act. An advocate, Mohd. Mukhtar filed a Writ Petition in this regard before the Hon’ble High Court but later on he withdrew the same. Denying all the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has alleged that the respondent published false and motivated news with a view to tarnish his image. The complainant alleged that the respondent- newspaper published the impugned news item without proper pre-verification, which is irresponsible act and against the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that he issued a Notice under Section 500 IPC through his counsel to the respondent-editor on 1.2.2017 but neither the complainant furnished any documentary evidence nor published the contradiction. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

No Reply Show-cause notice was issued to the Respondent-Editor, Pariwarik Dastak, Bhopal on 22.3.2017 but no response has been received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Syed Rizwan Ali, representative appeared for the complainant while

170 there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant prays for adjournment of the case for production of certain documents. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to grant that prayer.

The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant and has perused the grievance made in the complaint. The allegation made in the complaint is absolutely vague and from that, no case for interference is made out by the Council. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

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

66) Shri Pandit Onkar Dubey, Versus The Editor, Founder, News Trap Weekly, Maa Narmada Maha Aarti Samiti, Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.)

Adjudication 21.6.2017 Facts This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 13.10.2016 has been filed by PanditOnkar Dubey, Founder, Maa Narmada MahaAartiSamiti, Jabalpur (M.P.) against “News Trap Weekly” for allegedly publishing false, misleading and defamatory news item under the captioned “ueZnk egkvkjrh esa 75 yk[k dk ?kiyk ” in its issue dated 25.6.2016. Allegation of embezzlement of donation approximately amounting to Rs.75 lakhsby the members of MahaAartiSamiti has been levelled in the impugned news item.

While denying the allegations, the complainant has alleged that the respondent maliciously published false, misleading and defamatory news item. The complainant has submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent 20.8.2016 and requested him to publish contradiction but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent.

No Reply Show-cause Notice was issued to the Editor, News Trap, Jabalpur on 8.12.2016 but no response has been received.

171 Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2017 at Indore. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the reply filed by the respondent today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent newspaper. The complainant doing so, the respondent newspaper shall publish his version after necessary editing. The Inquiry Committee directs for disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid directions.

Decision of the Council The Press Council on consideration of the 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.

67) Shri Somnath Pawar, Versus The Editor, Manager, Saint Shri Asaram Ji, Jabalpur Express, Gurukul, Chhindwara, M.P. Chhindwara.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 5.12.2016 has been filed by Shri Somnath Pawar, Manager, Saint Shri Asaram Ji, Gurukul Chhindwara against the editor, Jabalpur Express alleging publication of a news item under the caption “ueZnk egkvkjrh esa 75 yk[k dk ?kiyk” in its issue dated 28.11.2016.It is reported in the impugned news item that the reports of affairs amongst the teachers are now a subject of discussions amongst the students of famous Gurukul situated at Parsiya Road. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the Institution which claims to be a renowned institute for sacrament/refinement of children, nowadays has been in spotlight for obliterating them. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the management is also not taking any action in the matter.

The complainant submitted that the editor of Jabalpur Express has published this false, baseless and defamatory news item about the Institute and misguided the general public. The respondent very well knows that only one Gurukul is located on the place mentioned in the impugned news item and the same belongs to “Sant Shri Asahram Ji Gurukul”. The Gurukul is of National and International standard and large number of students are studying here. The complainant submitted that the respondent published the impugned news item intentionally with a motive to blackmail for money. The respondent has defamed

172 the Gurukul and denigraded its reputation in the eyes of public and society. The complainant vide notice/letter dated 29.11.2016 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication and requested him to publish clarification/contradiction of the same, but no clarification/contradiction has been published.

No Written Statement A Notice for Comments was issued to the respondent editor, Jabalpur Express on 26.12.2016, which was received back in the secretariat with postal remarks “refused to accept”.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Respondent Editor, Jabalpur Express on 31.1.2017 and same was e-mailed to them on Feb. 8, 2017, but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2017 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. There was no appearance either from the complainant side or the respondent side.

Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all the connected papers and finds no merit in the complaint and accordingly recommends to the Council 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.

68) Shri Ramesh Kumar Bakshi, Versus The Editor, Vice-President (P&A), People Observer, Birla Corporation Limited, Satna (Madhya Pradesh) Unit-Satna Cement Works, Satna (Madhya Pradesh)

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

This complaint dated 11.7.2016 has been filed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Bakshi, Vice-President (P&A), Birla Corporation Limited, Unit-Satna Cement

173 Works, Satna (M.P.) against “People Observer” (weekly) for allegedly publishing false, baseless and defamatory news item captioned “cD'kh vkSj mldk dV~Vk” in its issue dated June 29- July 5, 2016.

It was reported in the impugned news item that the complainant, who is deputed as Vice-President in Satna Cement Work became famous in the factory for his wrong doings and also for his so-called country pistol. It was further reported that the complainant shows the pistol to his colleagues, subordinate officials and labours of the factory. It was also reported that the complainant has no valid license of that pistol. Further, there is no need to keep the pistol with him as there is sufficient security in the factory.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has alleged that the respondent deliberately published the false and concocted impugned news item with a view to defame him in the society. The complainant submitted that he took disciplinary action against some corrupt officers/officials of the factory, who in connivance with the respondent have got published the impugned news item. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item but received no response. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, People Observer, Satna on 9.9.2016.

Written Statement The Editor, People Observer vide his written statement dated 4.10.2016 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that the impugned news item was based on facts. The respondent informed that a criminal case against the complainant is pending consideration before the court of law. The respondent stated that the impugned news item was published without any malafide intention.

Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 14.10.2016 submitted that the respondent in his written statement gave reference of his internal matter, which has no relevance with the present case and published defamatory and false impugned news.

The complainant in his further comments dated 16.12.2016, while reiterating his complaint, has submitted that due to the impugned publication, the complainant’s image got tarnished and he has therefore requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent.

174 Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2016 at Lucknow. Shri Prabhakar Singh, Advocate appeared for the complainant. The Counsel for the respondent, who appeared before the Committee, prays for time. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accept his prayer. The prayer is rejected.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and the impugned news item. It is of the opinion that there is no basis for the newspaper to describe the complainant to be a person keeping katta. Not only this, such a news has been published in successive issues of newspaper. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the publication of such a baseless news against an individual, maligning his character, is against the journalistic norms.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for Censure of the respondent newspaper, People’s Observer, Satna, M.P.

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 Censure the respondent newspaper, People’s Observer, Satna, M.P. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Satna, the Director, Information & Public Relation Department, M.P. and the Director General, DAVP for appropriate action.

Paid News 69) Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor Tamil Murasu for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

Facts The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter No.491/Paid News/LA-2014/911 dated 1.12.2014 has referred cases of paid news reported during (Tamil Nadu) General Election 2014 for taking action against the Editor Tamil Murasu, Madurai, Edition. The details of news items published in newspaper are as follows:

175 S. Name of the Title of the News items Name of the Cost of No. candidate and party newspaper/ said news affiliation to whom broadcast item and Notice issued in Paid media and per DIPR/ News case date of DAVP publication rates that accounted 1 SP Durairaj-DMK New flyover will be Tamil Murasu Rs.12600.00 constructed special dated 9.4.2014 interview 2 PR Senthilnathan What are the Tamil Murasu Rs.9,600.00 ADMK implementation of dated 15.4.2014 schemes Special interview 3 Thiru Pongalur N Welcome to Sengathire Tamil Murasu Rs.9,000.00 Palanisamy, DMK Sangath Tamizhe for dated 5.4.2014 Kogumandalam 4 Thirju Pongalur N AIADMK Shrinking of Tamil Murasu Rs.4,800.00 Palanisamy, DMK small industries dated 5.4.2014 5 Thiru Ganesh kumar, AIADMK Shrinking of Tamil Murasu Rs.4,800.00 DMK small industries dated 5.4.2014

It is reported in the impugned news item that DMK candidate, Mr. Durairaj for Sivaganga Parliamentart Constituency informed that he would establish new industries in Sivaganga Constituency. He gave a special interview in the midst of active campaign. It is further reported in other impugned item that AIDMK candidate for Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency has listed the schemes to be implemented by him in Sivganga if is he elected. In another impugned news item it has been reported that one leader Kalaigner started his political career in Coimbatore. He worked in media in Salem city and then worked in Kudiarsu Magzine published by E.V. Ramasamy. Pongalur N. Palanisamy in contesting in Pollachi Parliamentary Constituencies. Supporters are working for his victory. No Written Statement Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 13.2.2015 and time bound reminder dated 28.3.2016 to the respondent but received no response. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2017 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance either on behalf of the ECI or on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice.

176 The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against inter- alia the newspaper ‘Tamil Murasu, Madurai, Edition’ in its various issues. The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because addverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”

177 The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item published in Tamil Murasu, Madurai, Edition It is simultaneously seized of another reference against ‘Dinakaran’ Madurai edition in case number 14/741/14-15- PCI for publication of reports similar to these impugned in the case in hand. The Inquiry Committee has noted that the reports in his publications almost a verbatim reproduction of each other, despite being separate entities. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, the Inquiry Committee has proceeded to consider the impugned news items. The Inquiry Committee is satisfied that the impugned news item constitution paid news. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the newspaper ‘Tamil Murasu’, be Censured. 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 Censure the respondent newspaper, Tamil Murasu, Madurai Edition, Chennai. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Madurai, the Director, Information & Public Relation Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, the Director General, DAVP and the Election Commission of India for necessary action at their end.

69(a) Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor Dinakaran for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions- 2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

Facts The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter No.491/Paid News/LA-2014/911 dated 1.12.2014 forwarded cases of paid news reported during (Tamil Nadu) General Election 2014 for taking action against the Editor, Dinakaran, Madurai edition. The details of news item published in newspaper are as follow:

S. Name of the can- Title of the Name of the newspa- Cost of said No. didate and party News items per/broadcast media news item affiliation to whom and date of publica- and per Notice issued in tion DIPRR/DAVP Paid News case rates that ac- counted

178 1 SP Duraijaj-DMK I will establish Dinakaran dated Rs.18240.00 new industries 9.4.2014 special inter- view 2 PR Senthilnathan What do work Dinakakran dated Rs.21,600.00 ADMK for constitu- 15.4.2014 ency –special interview

3 Thiru K Ganeshku- Dinakaran dat- Rs.5,625.00 mar, DMK ed 21.4.2014

4 Thirju Pongalur N Achievements Dinakaran dated Rs.5,625.00 Palanisamy of DMK re- 21.4.2014 mime in Health sector

It is reported in the impugned news items that DMK candidate, Mr. Durairaj for Sivaganga Parliamentart Constituency informed that he would establish new industries in Sivaganga Constituency. He gave a special interview in the midst of active campaign. It is further reported in other impugned item that AIDMK candidate for Sivaganga Parliamentary Constituency has listed the schemes to be implemented by him in Sivganga if he is elected in elections. In another impugned news item it is reported that the Vice President of the State DMK Doctors wing, Dr. Gokul Kiruba Sankar has said that Kalaignar Insurance Scheme was implemented during the DMK regime and treatment was given in all Government and private hospitals. No Written Statement Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 2.2.2015 and time bound reminder dated 28.3.2016 but received no response. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2017 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance either on behalf of the ECI or on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarding the report of confirmed case of paid news inter alia against the newspaper ‘Dinakaran, Madurai edition’ in its various issues.

179 The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item published in ‘Dinakaran’, Madurai Edition. It is simultaneously seized of another reference against ‘Tamil Murasu’ in case no. 14/742/14-15-PCI for publication of similar

180 to the reports impugned in the case in hand. The Inquiry Committee has noted that reports in the two newspaper on a verbatim reproduction of each other despite being separate entities. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, the Inquiry Committee has proceeded to consider the impugned news items. The Inquiry Committee is satisfied that the impugned news item constitutes paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the newspaper ‘Dinakaran, be Censured.

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 Censure the respondent newspaper, Dinakaran, Madurai Edition, Chennai. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Madurai, the Director, Information & Public Relation Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, the Director General, DAVP and the Election Commission of India for necessary action at their end.

70) Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor Odisha Bhaskar for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

Facts The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter No.491/Paid News/LA-2014/911 dated 1.12.2014 has forwarded a case of paid news reported during (Odisha) General Election 2014 for taking action against the Editor, Odisha Bhaskar. The detail of news item published in newspaper is as follow:

S. Name of the Title of the Name of the Cost of said No. candidate News items newspaper/ news item and party broadcast and per affiliation to media and date DIPR/DAVP whom Notice of publication rates that issued in Paid accounted News case

181 1 Soumya Ranjan Khandapada Odisha Bhaskar Rs.4,563.80 Patnaik, Aam re Aama dated 1.4.2014 Odisha Party Odisha Parti Samarthan Badhuchhi (English Translaion- Support of AOP increases)

It is reported in the impugned news item that the people of Khandapara Assembly Constituency are up against dynastic rule and corruption and hundreds are flocking to AOP candidate Soumya Ranjan Patnaik. It is further reported that several BJD leaders in recent past have come under AOP fold. It is also reported that AOP strength is on the rise in Khandapara say voters. No Written Statement Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 2.2.2015 and but received no response. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from the Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Odisha Bhaskar’ in its issue dated 1.4.2014. The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

182 No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.” The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item published in Odisha Bhaskar, Bhubaneswar edition in the light of aforesaid principles. Taking into consideration the contents, tenor and manner of presentation of news item. The Inquiry Committee is satisfied that the impugned news item is paid news. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the newspaper ‘Odisha Bhaskar, Bhubaneswar edition’, Odisha be Censured. 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, Odisha Bhaskar, Bhubaneswar edition, Odisha. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, the Director, Information & Public Relation Department, Govt. of Odisha, the Director General, DAVP and the Election Commission of India for necessary action at their end.

183 70 (a) Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor Krantidhara, Odisha for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017 The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 1.12.2014 has sent a case of paid news reported during the General Lok Sabha Elections, 2014 for taking necessary action against the Krantidhara, Odisha for publication of paid news in its issue dated 27.3.2014 under the caption “Dasamanthpur Block Congress President and two others joined BJD (English Translation)”. As per the English translation provided by the ECI, it has been stated in the impugned news item that Dasamanthpur Block Congress President, Shri Ramakanta Dalai and its Vice President, Shri Pratap Khosla and senior Congress worker, Shri Ananta Khora joined BJD at the official residence of Koraput District BJD President, Shri Jayaram Pangi. It has been further stated that during this occasion, the Ex-MLA, Shri Gupta Prasad Das, MP candidate, Shri Jhina Hikaka MLA candidate for Laxmipur Heema Gomango and Dasmanthpur Block BJD President, Pandit Bisnoi were also present. Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 2.2.2015. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 10.3.2017 has stated that the impugned news was a fact and neither fabricated nor made by their own anticipation. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarding the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Krantidhara’ in its issue dated 27.3.2014. The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication

184 in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.” The Inquiry Committee has perused the English translation of the impugned news item in the light of the aforesaid principles. From the contents, tenor and manner of presentation of the impugned news item, it is difficult for the Inquiry Committee to come to the conclusion that it is paid news. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal. 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 case.

185 70 (b) Reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Orissa Post for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter No.491/Paid News/LA-2014/911 dated 1.12.2014 has forwarded cases of paid news reported during (Odisha) General Election 2014 for taking action against the Editor, Orissa Post. The detail of news item published in newspaper is as follow:

S. Name of the Title of the Name of the Cost of No. candidate and News items newspaper/ said news party affiliation broadcast media item and to whom Notice and date of per DIPRR/ issued in Paid publication DAVP News case rates that accounted 1 Shri Tathagat BJD Orissa Post dated Rs.2,808.00 Satapathy, BJD nominees 14.4.2014 candidate of well-placed 09 Dhenkanal in Dhenkanal Parliamentary Constituency It is reported in the impugned news item that the issue of displacement, rehabilitation, resettlement and environment have come to fore in the politically sensitive Dhenkanal Lok Sabha Seat which has witnessed large scale industrialisation and is home to massive coal deposit. It is further reported that good record of candidates and wide support of Chief Minister work’s to the advantage of BJD nominees.

No Written Statement Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 30.1.2015 and time bound reminder on 28.3.2016 but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad. Shri Tathagat Satpathy, Editor appeared on behalf of the respondent.

186 The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Orissa Post’ in its issue dated 14.4.2014. The respondent in their oral submissions have contended that Orissa Post and Dharitri had formed a group of journalists for broad coverage from the ground and reports were based on their assesments.

The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is

187 news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.” The Inquiry Committee has perused the English translation of the impugned news item in the light of the aforesaid principles and the oral submissions. From the contents, tenor and manner of presentation of the impugned news item, it is difficult for the Inquiry Committee to come to the conclusion that it is paid news. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal. 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 case.

70 (c)Reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Dharitri, Odisha daily for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter No.491/Paid News/LA-2014/911 dated 1.12.2014 has forwarded cases of paid news reported during (Odisha) General Election 2014 for taking action against the Editor, Dharitri, Odisha daily newspaper. The details of news items published in newspaper is as follow:

Sl. Name of the Title of the Name of the Cost of said No. candidate and News items newspaper/ news item party affiliation broadcast and per to whom Notice media and date DIPR/DAVP issued in Paid of publication rates that News case accounted

1 Prafulla Pangi, Election Dharitri dated Rs.9,936.00 BJD Campaign of 27.3.2014 BJD

188 2 Smt. Hema Hema & Dharitri dated Rs.15,180.00 Gomango of BJD Kailash went 27.3.2014 and Sri Kailash on campaigning Kulesika INC in Bandhugam Block

It is reported in the impugned news item that a public meeting was organised by the MLA candidates of BJD at Nilagiri Bana where Koraput MP, Shri Jayaram Pangi joined along with Shri Ragjuram Podal, MLA, Koraput and they together requested the participants and the general public and the workers to vote for Shri Prafulla Pangi, BJD Candidate from Pottangi A/C. In other impugned news item it was reported that the Laxmipur candidates, Smt. Hema Gomango and Shri Kailash Kulesika of Congress campaigned in Bandhugam Block after conducting holy rituals at Jagannath Temple and Hanuman Temple and they promised to solve all the basic problems of the people in Bandhugam Block. No Written Statement Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 2.2.2015 but received no response. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad. Shri Himanshu, Director appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarding the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dharitri’ in its issue dated 27.3.2014. The respondent in their oral submissions have contended that Dharitri and Orissa Post had formed a group of journalists for broader ground coverage and the reports were based on real time assessments. The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

189 At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”

The Inquiry Committee has perused the English translation of the impugned news item in the light of the aforesaid principles and the oral submissions. From the contents, tenor and manner of presentation of the impugned news item, it is difficult for the Inquiry Committee to come to the conclusion that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal. 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 case.

190 70(d) Reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Orissa Express for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter No.491/Paid News/LA-2014/911 dated 1.12.2014 has forwarded a case of paid news reported during (Odisha) General Election 2014 for taking action against the Editor Orissa Express. The details of news item published in newspaper are as follow:

S. Name of the candidate Title of the Name of the Cost of said No. and party affiliation to News items newspaper/ news item and whom Notice issued in broadcast per DIPR/ Paid News case media and date DAVP rates that of publication accounted

1. Ganeswar Ganeswar’s Orissa Express Rs.3,708.72 Behera,INC,97(SC) scale dated 6.4.2014 Kendrapara Assembly weights Constituency heavy

As per the English translation provided, the impugned news report depicts candidate of one party in bad light and simultaneously shows contestent of other party in positive manner.

Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 11.3.2017 has denied such allegations of paid news and stated that they don’t publish such kind of news at nay time their news paper.

Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 30.1.2015 but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice.

191 The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarding the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Odisha Express’ in its issue dated 6.4.2014.

The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”

192 The Inquiry Committee has perused the English translation of the impugned news item in the light of the aforesaid principles. From the contents, tenor and manner of presentation of the impugned news item, it is difficult for the Inquiry Committee to come to the conclusion that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal. 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 case.

70 (e) Reference received from Election Commission of India against Editor, Anupam Bharat for allegedly publishing paid news during General Elelctions-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 21.6.2017

The Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter No.491/Paid News/ LA-2014/911 dated 1.12.2014 has forwarded cases of paid news reported during General Election- 2014 for taking action against the Editor, Anupam Bharat, Behrampur, Orissa. The detail of news item published in newspaper is as follow:

S.No. Name of the Title of the Name of the Cost of candidate and News items newspaper/ said news party affiliation broadcast media item and to whom Notice and date of per DIPR/ issued in Paid publication DAVP News case rates that accounted 1 Minati Mallik, My priority Anupam Bharat Rs.4,449.12 Independent 82, is dignity (Berhampur) dated Baliguda(ST) of women- 28.3.2014 Assembly Minati Constituency

It is stated in the impugned news item that in 67 years of Independence in Balliguda Assembly constituency under Kandhamal Parliamentary constituency, no women has come forward and expressed willingness to be a candidate. But in general Election-2014, a woman has come forward to contest in the election as an Independent Candidate to uphold the dignity of women.

193 No Written Statement Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 30.1.2015 to but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2017 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarding the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Anupam Bharat’ in its issue dated 28.3.2014.

The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is as follows: “Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would

194 not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”

The Inquiry Committee has perused the English translation of the impugned news item in the light of the aforesaid principles. From the contents, tenor and manner of presentation of the impugned news item, it is difficult for the Inquiry Committee to come to the conclusion that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal.

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 case. Press and Morality

71) Shri Inderjit Kapani 1. The Editor Indore Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Ltd. Madhya Pradesh Indore, Madhya Pradesh. 2. The Editor Dainik Patrika Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

Adjudication Dated: 21.6.2017 This complaint dated 08.09.2015 filed by Shri Inderjit Kapani, Indore, Madhya Pradesh (MP) against the editor of Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Patrika, Indore, MP for allegedly publishing baseless, confusing and misleading advertisements in their publications.

The complainant submitted that the said newspapers religiously indulge in publishing misleading advertisements of hoax astrologers and babas that

195 guarantee to cure sex related issues in their publications. The complainant submitted that the Dainik Patrika newspaper had published Weekly Horospcope in its issue dated 30.08.2015 Pg. 10 and Daily Horoscope in its issue dated 31.08.2015 Pgs. 6 & 8, issue dated 27.08.2015 Pgs. 6 & 11, issue dated 30.08.2015 Pgs. 13 & 5 and carry advertisements of various fake astrologers such as Baba Amil Sufi, Baba Amar Bangali, Baba Mirja Bangali and many such names with their contact numbers and pictures. Similarly, Dainik Bhaskar in its issue dated 30.08.2015 Pg.12, D.B. Star issue dated 27.08.2015 had published an advertisement of Tarot Power Jaspal Tuteja and even in the classified advertisement page published advertisements of different misleading and hoax astrologers. Generally, these people only provide their contacts numbers in the published advertisements to trap the gullible people and on calling them, they ask their clients to submit a certain amount and after receiving the money, just flee from that place. This kind of advertisements, according to the complainant is very dangerous and misleading and nothing but bluff and inhumane as through these kind of advertisement fraud people get a chance to commit crime and play with the sentiments of the people. The newspapers, agencies need to act responsibly.

The complainant further submitted that he had also drawn the attention of the editors of the respondent newspapers Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Patrika vide his letters dated 27.02.2016 requesting both the editors of the respondent newspapers to stop publishing such misleading and hoax advertisements related to tarot reading & astrology e.t.c and at times advertisements promoting sex related issues but he did not receive any response from either of the respondent editors. Hence, the complainant approached the Council to intervene in the matter and do justice.

A Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2016 issued to both the editors of the respondent newspapers ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ and ‘Dainik Patrika’, Madhya Pradesh. Written statement of Patrika The respondent while denying the allegations as alleged submitted that the said advertisements are published as per relevant rules and recognised principles. The newspapers never advise and give guarantee to their readers to follow them. It all depend on discretion of the readers. It is expected from the readers of the newspapers to have complete information before believing/ implementing on it. The newspapers will not be considered responsible for any type of claim/presentation given by the advertisers. The respondent submitted that the allegations in the complaint are based on possibilities and requested for order to dispose them.

196 The matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee initially on 12.7.2016 deciding to set up sub-committee for the purpose of obscene advertisement. The Report of the Sub-Committee in this regard was accepted by the Council on 9.9.2016 Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2017 at New Delhi followed by two adjournments dated 12.7.2016 and 7.2.2017. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant whereas Shri Mahesh Ku.Vijayvergiya, Advocate represented for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee considered the matter in light of the recommendation of the Sub-Committee in the matter. It is of the opinion that by publishing the impugned classified advertisements, the respondent newspaper is encouraging superstition and therefore, needs to be prohibited/restrained. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee directs the respondent newspapers to be careful in future and to refrain for publishing these kinds of advertisements. 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 direct the respondent newspaper to be careful in future and not publish these kinds of advertisements.

197 Subject Index of orders passed by the Press & Registration Appellate Board during the Quarter

S. Parties Date of Decision No. Decision 1. Application for recall of Order 12th April, Adjourned dated 12.06.2015 passed by Board 2017 on the appeal of Shri Vishnu Goyal, Editor and Publisher, National Herald, English Daily, Indore, Madhya Pradesh and Ors. against the Order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Appeal of Mr. Kailash Dhondu 12th April, Dismissed with the Mali, Editor, Mosam Girna, Daily 2017 direction Newspaper, District Nashik, Maharashtra against the Order dated 7.7.2016 passed by (i) Sub Divisional Officers Office, Sub Division, Malegaon, District Nashik, Maharashtra ( (ii) Mr. Bharat Vithal Patil, Malegaon, District Nashik, Maharashtra. 3. Appeal of Shri Manoj Kumar 12th April, Disposed off with Saluja, Publisher, Printer/Editor of 2017 the direction appeal “Relation of India News”, New Delhi allowed with the against the Order dated 18.08.2016 matter remitted back passed by the Joint Commissioner for reconsideration of Police (Licensing), New Delhi. according to law 4. Appeal of Smt. Sarla Agarwal, 12th April, Disposed off with Owner, Publisher & Printer and 2017 the direction appeal Shri Pawan Agarwal, Editor of allowed with the “Parivartan Ka Daur” Moradabad, matter remitted back U.P. against the Order dated for reconsideration 10.6.2016 passed by the Additional according to law District Magistrate (City) Moradabad, U.P.

198 5. Appeal of Smt. V. Jothi, Owner, 12th April, Disposed off with Publisher & Editor of “Seithi 2017 the direction Oli” Tamil Weekly Newspaper, Murungapakkam, Puducheery against the Order dated 21/10/2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Puducheery w.r.t. the cancellation of Declaration of the Newspaper. 6. Appeal of Shri Ram Chandra 12th April, Dismissed Mission through its Elected Working 2017 Committee Member, Shri K. Guru Prasad, U.P. of Bi-monthly journal “Sahaj Marg” Shahajanpur, U.P. against the Order dated 16.9.2016 passed by the City Magistrate, Shahjanpur, Utter Pradesh. 7. Appeal of Shri Abhijit Ashok 12th April, Disposed off with Rane, Publisher & Printer of 2017 the direction “Vrutta Mitra” Hindi Daily Newspaper, Mumbai against the Order dated 17/10/2016 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai w.r.t. the cancellation of Declaration of the newspaper. 8. Appeal of Shri Abhijit Ashok Rane, 12th April, Disposed off with Publisher & Printer of “Mumbai 2017 the direction Mitra” (Marathi) Mumbai against the Order dated 17/10/2016 of cancellation of Declaration of the newspaper passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai . 9. Appeal of Shri Abhijit Ashok Rane, 12th April, Disposed off with Publisher & Printer of “Mumbai 2017 the direction Mitra” (Marathi & Hindi) Mumbai against the Order dated 17/10/2016 of cancellation of Declaration of the newspaper passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai .

199 10. Appeal of Shri Keshav Dutt June 22nd, Disposed off with Chandola, Publisher, Nagraj 2017 direction Darpan, Hindi Weekly, Dehradun against the District Information Officer, Haridwar, Uttrakhand for delaying in accepting the Declaration made in respect of his newspaper for Haridwar Edition. 11. Application for recall of Order June 22nd, Adjourned dated 12.06.2015 passed by Board 2017 on the appeal of Shri Vishnu Goyal, Editor and Publisher, National Herald, Ednglish Daily, Indore, Madhya Pradesh and Ors. against the order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216