sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aj (newspaper), Nand Gopal Gupta, The Samaja

PRESS COUNCIL OF

Compendium of Adjudications (April 1, 2010 - March 31, 2011)

New Delhi Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005 Compendium of Adjudications

Contents

Preface

Index of Adjudications of the Council for -- 1 the Period April 1, 2010 – March 31, 2011

Adjudications of the Council -- 19

PREFACE

While freedom of press is a right to be cherished at all costs, the most vociferous advocates of this right have also unequivocally advocated the case of balancing the right with the duty to report facts, clear and distinct from opinions and free from all biases and pre-conceived notions. For the Council the most potent instrument of furthering this cause is the medium of its adjudications on the complaints brought before it.

The high number in the complaints being received by the Council is ample proof of the faith expressed by the mediamen and the public alike in the working, importance and need for a body like the Council at the helm of the fourth estate.

I hope, the Compendium of Adjudications being published as usual in English as well as analyzing the adjudications rendered during the year will prove to be of interest to the readers and provide them the requisite information about the ethics expected of the press.

G.N. Ray Chairman Press Council of India

Index of Adjudications of the Council for the Period April 1, 2010 – March 31, 2011

S. Parties Date of No. Decision

Harassment of Newsmen 1. Complaint of Shri Vakil Ahmed, Freelancer, Ghaziabad, July U.P. against the anti-social elements and police authorities 30, 2010 2. Complaint of Shri Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, Journalist, ” Dainik Vikassheel Bharat, Mathura, U.P. against police authorities 3. Complaint of Shri Uttam Chand, District Incharge, ” Dainik Voice of , Mathura, against the local police authorities 4. Complaint of Shri Nanhelal Chandravanshi, Regional ” Representative, Rashtriya Hindi Mail, Baitul, M.P. against the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDOP), Thana-Sarni, Baitul, M.P. 5. Complaint of Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Editor, Tarun Mitra, ” , against the I&PRD, Government of Bihar, Patna, Bihar 6. Complaint of Shri Bishanpal Singh Chauhan, Journalist, ” Etah, U.P. and others against District Administration, Etah, U.P. 7. Complaint of Shri Manoj Kumar, Journalist, Editor, ” Rashtriya Vishal Times, Delhi against the Directorate of Press & Information, MCD, Delhi 8. Complaint of Shri Shivnath Harish Chander Davkhar, ” Editor, Igatpuri Times, Maharashtra against the local police authorities, Mumbai, Maharashtra 9. Complaint of Shri H.H. Mazid Hussain, Chief Editor, ” Daily Action and Dainik Hindi Action, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh against the police and anti-social elements, Bhopal, M.P.

1 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

10. Complaint of Shri Deepak Bahl, Journalist, Dainik October Jagran, Ambala Cantt., Haryana against Shri Sanjay 29, 2010 Kumar, Inspector, State Railway Police (G.R.P.), Ambala Cantt., Haryana 11. Complaint of Shri Sarvanan Karuppswamy, publisher/ ” editor/Reporter, World Human Rights Commission & Rescue Centre Report, (daily) Chennai against police authorities, Tamil Nadu 12. Complaint of Shri Anis Siddiqui, Press Photographer, ” Dainik, Bahraich, U.P. against Shri Rajesh Singh, Circle Officer (City), Bahraich, U.P. 13. Complaint of Shri Rajender Yadav, Representative, Aaj, ” , U.P. against Shri Satyaveer Singh, SHO, Jalaun, U.P. 14. Complaint of Shri Brijraj Chaurasia, Correspondent, Amar ” Ujala, U.P. against the local police authorities, U.P. 15. Complaint of Shri Kailash Nath Verma, District President, ” Shramjivi Patrakar Union and Correspondent, , Gonda, U.P. against the Northern Eastern Railway Authorities, U.P. 16. Complaint of Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak, Correspondent, ” Rahat Times, Sultanpur, U.P. against local police authorities, U.P. 17. Complaint of Shri Sageer Ahmed, Correspondent, ” Dainik Prashasan Prakash, Badaun, U.P. against the police authorities, U.P. 18. Complaint of Shri Dharmendra Rastogi, Correspondent, ” Dainik Aaj, and Shri Harnandan Rastogi, Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, , U.P. against the local police authorities, U.P. 19. Complaint of Shri Shardendu Trivedi, Advocate ” and District Representative, Swatantra Bharat, Banda, U.P. against the District Administration and police authorities, Banda, U.P.

2 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

20. Complaint of Shri Mohmad Rashid, Journalist, Waris–e– October Avadh, and Shri Jubber, Journalist, Janmukh, Chandoli, 29, 2010 Uttar Pradesh against Dr. Rajiv, J.J. Nursing Home, Chandoli, Uttar Pradesh and local police authorities, U.P. 21. Complaint of Mohd. Rafi Khan & Other Journalists, ” Lucknow, U.P. against the Employees of District Hospital and Police Administration, U.P.

22. Complaint of Shri Lakshmikant Pathak, District ” Correspondent, Jantantrik Prahari, Hardoi, U.P. against Shri Akhilesh Singh, SHO, Pali, U.P. 23. Complaint of Shri Jagat Narayan Sharma, Journalist, January Dainik Janmorcha, Gonda, U.P. against Shri Indrabahadur 3-4, 2011 Singh and others 24. Complaint of Shri Amzad Khan, Sub Editor, Crime Line, ” Kannoj, U.P. against the local police and anti social elements 25. Complaint of Dr. A.K. Gupta, Chief Editor, Wah Kya ” Baat Hai, Sonebhadra, U.P. against the district administration and local police authorities

Facilities to the Press 26. Complaint of Shri Khaliq Mansuri, Publisher, Quami July Inquilab, Ujjain, M.P. against the DAVP, New Delhi 30, 2010 27. Complaint of Shri Suresh Verma, Publisher/Editor, Kranti ” Kathan, Indore against the DAVP, New Delhi 28. Complaint of Shri Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Publisher, ” Tarun Chhattisgarh, Hindi Dainik, Raipur, Chhattisgarh against the Directorate of Public Relations, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 29. Complaint of Shri Jitender Kumar, Correspondent, Dixit ” Times, , U.P. against the District Information Officer, Agra

3 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

30. Complaint of Shri Jaiprakash Tamkoriya, Publisher/ July Editor, Dainik Chhattisgarh Vaibhav, Korba, Chhattisgarh 30, 2010 against the Directorate, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur

31. Complaint of Shri Z.A. Ansari, Editor, Indian Prashasan, October Delhi against the Director of Information & Publicity, 29, 2010 Government of NCT of Delhi

32. Complaint of Shri K.D. Chandola, Editor, Weekly Nagraj ” Darpan, Kanpur against postal authorities, Kanpur, U.P.

33. Complaint of the Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler ” Khabar, West Bengal against the Chairman, SAIL & Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

34. Complaint of the Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler ” Khabar, West Bengal against the postal authorities, West Bengal

35. Complaint of the Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler ” Khabar, West Bengal against the Eastern Railways, Kolkata and East-Central Railways, Bihar

36. Complaint of Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, January Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against 3-4, 2011 the Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh

37. Complaint of Shri Vijay Jaiswal, Editor, News Tender ” Bharat, Dehradun against the DAVP, New Delhi

Curtailment of Press Freedom

38 Suo-motu inquiry on the reported attack on the office October of Hamro Prajashakti, Gangtok, Sikkim, Press Release 29, 2010 of the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee and complaint of opposition political parties in Sikkim against Government of Sikkim regarding suppression of press freedom 4 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

Principles and Publication 39. Complaint of Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Dhanwantri July Pharmaceutical, Chandausi, U.P. against the Editor, 30, 2010 Lok Sewa, Ludhiana, Punjab

40. Complaint of Smt. Pooja Saxena, District Horticulture ” Officer, Bijnor, U.P. against the Editor, Shah Times, Moradabad, U.P

41. Complaint of Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, Reporter, ” Samajwadi Pariwar, Shahjahanpur, U. P. against the Editor, Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow, U.P

42. Complaint of the Commissioner, Municipal Council, ” Alwar against the Editor, , Alwar, Rajasthan

43. Complaint of Shri Dilip T. Mehta, Vadodara, Gujarat ” against the Editor, Sandesh, Vadodara, Gujarat

44. Complaint of Smt. Taralakshmi Joshi, Jodhpur against ” Shri Rajesh Trivedi, Correspondent, Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan

45. Complaint of Syed Mushtaq Hussain Rizvi, Baitul, M.P. ” against the Editor, Humse Kuch Chhupaya Nahin Ja Sakta, M.P.

46. Complaint of Shri D.P. Singh, National Spokesman/Vice ” President, Janhit Jagran, Meerut, U.P. against the Editor, , Meerut, U.P.

47. Complaint of Shri S.C. Kapoor, Wing Commander (Retd.) ” Noida against the Editor, , New Delhi

48. Complaint of Dr. Jasbir Arya, Director/Chief Editor, Crime October Free India Bureau, New Delhi against the Editor, Mail 29, 2010 Today, New Delhi

49. Complaint of Shri Praful Meghji Joshi, Thane, Maharashtra ” against the Editor, , Gujarat

5 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

50. Complaint of Ms. Smita Patwardhan, Sangli, Maharashtra October against the Editor, , Mumbai 29, 2010 51. Complaint of Shri Arun Mahadeo Joshi, Mumbai against ” the Editor, The Times of India, Mumbai 52. Complaints of Smt. B. Malini Mallya, Udupi District, ” Karnataka against the Editors (i) and (ii) , Karnataka 53. Complaint of Shri Syed Ali Hashmi, Hyderabad against ” the Editor, , Hyderabad 54. Complaint of Shri Shreerama Diwana, Udupi against the ” Editor, Udayavani, Manipal, Karnataka 55. Complaint of Shri Rigziyaan Samphle, District Magistrate ” and Shri Pramod Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, U.P. against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Kanpur, U.P. 56. Complaint of Shri V.K. Goyal, IPS, Deputy Commissioner ” of Police, Kolkata against the Editor, Telegraph, Kolkata 57. Complaints of Ms. Sunita Goswami & Shri Uday Shankar ” Goswami, Silchar, Assam against the Editors, , Samayik Prasanga and Dainik Nababarta Prasanga, Silchar, Assam 58. Complaint of Shri Raj Kishor Sahu, Advocate, Sambalpur, ” Orissa against the Editor, , Orissa 59. Complaint of Smt. Smitarani Mohanty, Puri, Orissa against ” the Editor, , Oriya Daily, Orissa 60. Complaints of the Project Director, Orissa State AIDS ” Control Society (OSACS), Bhubaneshwar against the Editors, (i) Samaya, Orissa,(ii) The , New Delhi (iii) , Kolkata (iv) Indo Asian News Service, New Delhi 61. Complaint of Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, , ” against the Editors, Awaz and Bihar Observer, Jharkhand 62. Complaint of Shri Prakash Panjumal Kukreja, Ulhasnagar January against the Editor, Sindhi Maharaan, Maharashtra 3-4 2011

6 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

63. Complaint of Shri Benjamin G. Macwan, Vapi, Gujarat January against the Editor, , Gujarat 3-4, 2011 64. Complaint of the Centre for Environment and ” Agrochemicals, Mumbai against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi 65. Complaint of Shri S.V. Mani, Journalist, Karnataka/Tamil ” Nadu against the Editor, Kumudam, Tamil Nadu 66. Complaints of Shri K.Ramasubramanian, State Secretary, ” Bhujan Samaj Party (BSP), Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) against the Editors (i) (ii) Tamizh Murasu (iii) Daily Thanthi (iv) , Tamil Nadu 67. Complaint of Shri S.S. Chamak, New Delhi against the ” Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi 68. Complaint received from the Ministry of Overseas Indian ” Affairs/Pravasi Bhartiya Karya Mantralaya, New Delhi against the Editor, Mid-Day 69. Complaint of Shri R.S. Paliwal, C.A., Nagpur, Maharashtra ” against the Editor, Sales Tax Review, Mumbai, Maharashtra 70. Complaint of Shri Ramnath G. Naik, Chairman, Gomantak ” Marathi Bhasha Parishad, Goa against the Editor, Gomantak, Marathi Daily, Goa 71. Complaint of Shri Prafulla Samantara, President Lok Shakti ” Abhiyan, Orissa against the Editor, The Samaj, , Orissa 72. Complaint of Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Dhanbad, against ” the Editor, , , Jharkhand 73. Complaint of Dr. Shamala Reddy, Chairperson, SGR ” Technical & Educational Society, Bangalore against the Editor, , Kottayam, Kerala

Press and Defamation 74. Complaints of Dr. M. Vijaykumar, Andhra Pradesh against July (i) and (ii) , Andhra Pradesh 30, 2010

7 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

75. Complaint of Shri Indrajeet S. Khanna, Manager, July Telecom, BSNL, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh against the 30, 2010 Editor, Sabhar Darshan, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh 76. Complaint of Shri Indrajeet S. Khanna, General Manager, ” Telecom, BSNL, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Raj Express, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh 77. Complaint of Shri B.L. Chauhan, Principal, Shri Surender ” Suri Government College, Sardarpur, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Raj Express, Indore, M.P.

78. Complaint of Dr. P.S. Ajmani, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh ” against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Ratlam, M.P.

79. Complaint of Shri D.K. Patel, Jabalpur, M.P. against the ” Editor, Navbharat, Jabalpur, M.P. 80. Complaint of Mohd. Karim, Chhattarpur, M.P. against the ” Editor, Chhattarpur Bhraman, M.P. 81. Complaint of Shri Sunil Kumar Hirani, Chartered ” Accountant, Betul, M.P. against the Editor, Aaj Ki Halchal, Betul, M.P 82. Complaint of Shri M.L. Jain, Councillor and Chairman, ” Legal and General Administration, Municipal Corporation and Other Councillors, Neemuch, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Neemuch Prahari, M.P. 83. Complaint of Shri Ashok Dongre, President, East Neemad ” District Co-operative Employees Union, Khandwa, M.P. against the Editor, Nirantar Chakra, Hindi Daily, Khandwa, M.P. 84. Complaint of Shri Sukhdev Sharma, State President, Akhil ” Bhartiya Jangid Brahman Mahasabha Jangid, Indore, M.P. against the Editor, Vishwakarma Sansar, M.P. 85. Complaint of Smt. Vimla Sanadaya, Principal, Government ” Girls Higher Secondary School, Jalore against the Editor, Marwar Tehalka, Jalore, Rajasthan

8 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

86. Complaint of Shri Lokesh Gupta, District Manager, July Telecommunication, BSNL, Bazaria, Swaimadhopur, 30, 2010 Rajasthan against the Editor, Sajag Pratinidhi, Rajasthan 87. Complaint of Shri A.K. Pathak, Director, Takshila Business ” School, Jaipur against the Editor, Samajvaad Prahari, Jaipur, Rajasthan 88. Complaint of Shri Govind Ram Gahlot, Labour Inspector, ” Labour Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 89. Complaint of Shri Kanubhai J. Desai, Editor/Publisher/ ” Owner, Hello Khelaru, Gujarat against the Editor, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 90. Complaint of Smt. Devi Ahuja, Office Incharge and ” Others, Gandhidham Cancer Society, Gandhidham, Gujarat against the Editor, Kutch Uday, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat 91. Complaint of the Director, Padma Pulse Processors (P) Ltd., ” Surat, Gujarat against the Editor, , Gujarat 92. Complaint of Shri Suprabhat Das, Public Relations Officer, ” Chhattisgarh Telecommunication Division, BSNL, Chhattisgarh against the Editor, Navbharat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 93. Complaints of Prof. Dr. Mridula Shukl, Indira Kala Sangeet ” Vishwavidhayala, Chhattisgarh against the Editor (i) Chhattisgarh and (ii) Navbharat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 94. Complaint of Dr. R.N. Das, Additional Director, Press & ” Public Relations Wing, Parliament House, New Delhi against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi 95. Complaint of Shri Khuman Singh, Agra, U.P. against the ” Editor, Amar Ujala, Agra, U.P. 96. Complaint of Smt. Rashida Begum, Rampur, U.P. against ” the Editor, Amar Ujala, Moradabad, U.P 97. Complaint of Shri Balraj Singh, Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. ” against the Editor, Hindustan, Lucknow

9 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

98. Complaint of Shri Riyazuddin, Students Print Media July Agency, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, U.P. 30, 2010

99. Complaint of Shri Kunwarpal, Bureau Chief, Dainik ” CNN-cum-News Network, Meerut, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut, U.P.

100. Complaint of Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Meerut, U.P. ” against the Editor, Pratigya, Meerut, U.P.

101. Complaint of Shri Rakesh Kumar Arya, IPS, Deputy ” Commissioner of Police (West), Gurgaon, Haryana against the Editor, New Bright Star Magazine, Palwal, Haryana

102. Complaint of Shri Y. Naveen, Tumkur, Karnataka against ” the Editor, Gouri Lankesh, Karnataka

103. Complaints of Surender @ Sweta, President, Eunuch ” Community, District Mau, U.P. against the Editors (i) Amar Ujala and (ii) Aaj

104. Complaint of Shri Ramshankar Gupta, Agra, U.P. against ” the Editor, Akinchan Bharat, Agra, U.P.

105. Complaint of the Forest Conservator and the Manager, ” Van Vihar Rashtriya Udhyan, Bhopal, M.P. against Shri Manoj Tiwari, Correspondent, Raj Express, Bhopal, M.P.

106. Complaint of Shri Jogesh Dhanda, Indore, M.P. (through ” advocate) against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Indore, M.P.

107. Complaint of Shri Mahavir Prasad Mansinghka, Chairman, ” Murlidharkirpa Hospital & Research Centre, Maksi, M.P against the Editor, Dainik Pratahkaal, Mumbai

108. Complaint of Shri Sandeep Godika, Jaipur, Rajasthan ” against the Editor, Current Jwala, Sodala, Jaipur

109. Complaint of the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Alwar ” against the Editor, , Alwar, Rajasthan

10 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

110. Complaints of Smt. & Shri Vijay Rawat, Dehradun & July Smt. Anuradha Bhattacharya Noida against the Editors 30, 2010 (i) The Hindu (ii) The Times of India (iii) The Hindustan Times (iv) (v) Dainik Jagran, (vi) (vii) The Mid-Day 111. Complaint of Shri Yash Paul Vadhara, United Kingdom ” against the Editor, The Times of India, Mumbai 112. Complaint of Shri Rajpal Malik, Assistant Commissioner October of Municipal Corporation, (through his advocate) 29, 2010 Ghaziabad, U.P. against the Editor, News Prahari, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 113. Complaint of Shri Sudeep Garg, Tapan Milk Products, ” Agra, U.P. against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Agra, U.P. 114. Complaints of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, U.P. ” against the Editors, (i) Amar Ujala (ii) Dainik Hindustan, , U.P. 115. Complaint of Shri Prem Kumar Agarwal, Founder, Prem ” Courier Service, Muradabad, U.P. against the Editor, Aaj, Bareilly, U.P. 116. Complaint of Shri Shailender Kumar, General Manager, ” Prathama Bank, Moradabad, U.P. against the Editor, Aaj, Bareilly, U.P. 117. Complaint of Shri Hari Kishan Verma, Meerut, U.P. ” against the Editor, Majmoon, Meerut, U.P. 118. Complaint of Shri Pramod Pachouri, Former District ” President, Rashtravadi Congress Party, Mathura against the Editor, Aakinchan Bharat, Agra, U.P. 119. Complaint of Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, ” Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane, Maharashtra against the Editor, San Marg, Kolkata, West Bengal 120. Complaint of Shri Shambhu Sharan Saxena, Editor, ” Mumbai Sathi against the Editor, Dophar Ka Samna, Mumbai, Maharashtra

11 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

121. Complaint of Shri Shekhar Narayan Gaikwad, Additional October Collector, Nashik, Maharashtra against the Editor, , 29, 2010 Nashik, Maharashtra 122. Complaint of Mohd. Nadeem, Aurangabad, Maharashtra ” against the Editor, Aurangabad Times, Aurangabad, Maharashtra 123. Complaint of Shri S. Ramanathan, Bengaluru, Karnataka ” against the Editor, The Times of India, Bangalore, Karnataka 124. Complaint of Shri Pradeep Kumar, C.M., Assistant ” Commissioner of Police (North), Kozhikode City, Kerala against the Editor, Malayala Manorama, Khozhikode, Kerala 125. Complaint of Shri Vinod Pratap Singh, District Sant Kabir ” Nagar, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastav, District Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, , Uttar Pradesh 126. Complaint of Shri Santosh Kumar, Advocate, , ” U.P. against the Editor, Jansansad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 127. Complaint of Shri Nand Gopal Gupta (Nandi), Cabinet ” Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad against the Editor, Daily News Activist, Allahabad, U.P. 128. Complaint of Shri Bhaskar Ghosh, Library & Information ” Assistant, National Library, Kolkata against the Editor, , Kolkata, West Bengal 129. Complaint of Shri Shantanu Bhowmick, Secretary, National ” Library Employees', Association, Kolkata against the Editor, The Indian Express, Kolkata, West Bengal 130. Complaint of Dr. N.C. Das, Principal, Rabindra Sadan ” Girls’ College, Assam against the Editor, Nababarta Prasanga, Assam 131. Complaint of Dr. Ramen Talukdar, Principal, Suren Das ” College, Hajo, District Kamrup, Assam against the Editor, , Dispur, Assam

12 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

132. Complaint of Smt. Atashi Dutta, Assam against the Editor, October Dainik Nababarta Prasanga, Assam 29, 210

133. Complaint of Mr. Abu Sadeque Ishtiaque Ahmed ” Choudhary, Managing Director, Daffodils Insurance Agency Private Limited, Guwahati, Assam against the Editor, Samayik Prasanga, Guwahati, Assam 134. Complaint of Shri Atoorva Sinha, Deputy Director (Admn.), ” Office of the Principal Director of Audit, (Central), Kolkata against the Editor, The Voice of Andaman

135. Complaint of Prof. Dr. Gandharba Ray, Department of ” Medicine, SSB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Orissa against the Editor, Samaj Aina, Oriya Fortnightly 136. Complaint of Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Bokaro against ” the Editors (i) Hindustan and (ii) Dainik Jagran, Jharkhand 137. Complaint of Shri Arvind Chandra, Managing Director, ” M/s Vanachal Builders Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi against the Editor, Hindustan, Ranchi 138. Complaint of Shri K.P. Singh, IPS (Retd.), Ex-Inspector ” General of Police, Patna against the Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Patna 139. Complaint of Shri Saifuddin Choudhary, President, Party ” for Democratic Socialism, Kolkata against the Editor, Pratidin, Kolkata, West Bengal

140. Complaint of Ms. Smitarani Samal, Secretary, Beauticians’ ” Association, Soundarya Beauty Parlour Dhenkanal against the Editor, Dharitri, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa 141. Complaint of Shri Deepak Raghunath Dhere, Ichalkaranji, January Kolhapur, Maharashtra against the Editor, Dainik , 3-4, 2011 Kolhapur, Maharashtra 142. Complaint of Smt. Mamta Ramesh Dubey, Correspondent, ” Subah Samna Crime Times, Mumbai against the Editor, Khabar Dar Khabar, Thane, Maharashtra

13 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

143. Complaint of Shri M.B. Thakur, Senior Journalist, Do January Baje Dopahar, Thane, Maharashtra against the Editor, 3-4, 2011 Sachcha Vijay, Maharashtra

144. Complaint of Shri Mahavir Prasad Mansinghka, Chairman, ” Murlidhar Kripa Hospital & Research Centre, Maksi, M.P. against the Editor, Kranti Bharat Samachar, Lucknow, U.P.

145. Complaint of Shri Alibhai Nathani, Chairman, M/s Ruby ” Macons Limited, Vapi, Gujarat against the Editor, Sansani Samachar, Sahai Alam, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

146. Complaint of the Director, Padma Pulse Processors (P) ” Ltd., Surat, Gujarat against the Editor, Gujarat Samachar, Gujarat

147. Complaints of Mohd. Zenul Abdeen, Secretary, Roshni” ” National Gramodhyog Sansthan, Sitapur, U.P. against the Editors, (i) Dainik Jagran (ii) Hindustan (iii) Pratipal Sanwad (iv) Satta Swarajya, U.P.

148. Complaints of Shri Lallan Prasad, Allahabad, U.P. against ” the Editors (i) Aaj, (ii) Amar Ujala (iii) Northern India Patrika and (iv) Dainik Jagran, U.P.

149. Complaint of Shri Shaham Siddiqui, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh ” against the Editor, Hindustan, Kanpur, U.P.

150. Complaint of Shri Mohd. Taiyab Palki, Chairman, Nagar ” Palika Parishad, Mau, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

151. Complaint of Shri Khuda Baksh, Safai Nayak, Nagar ” Palika Parishad, Basti, Uttar Pradesh & others against the Editors, Hindustan and Dainik Bhartiya Basti, U.P.

152. Complaint of Shri Devendra Prasad Joshi, Sub-Divisional ” Officer, Electricity Department Hardoi (through advocate) against the Editors (i) Dainik Jagran and (ii) Amar Ujala, Kanpur, U.P.

14 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

153. Complaints of Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Lucknow, U.P. January against the Editors (i) Daily News Activist (ii) Hindustan, 3-4, 2011 Lucknow, U.P.

154. Complaint of Dr. A.N. Singh, Proctor, University of ” Lucknow, Lucknow against the Editor, Daily News Activist, Lucknow, U.P.

155. Complaint of Dr. A.N. Singh, Proctor, Lucknow University, ” Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Times of India, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

156. Compaint of Shri Atul Kapur, District President, Gramin ” Patrakar Association, Hardoi, U.P. against the Editor, Nispaksh Pratidin, Evening Daily, U.P.

157. Complaint of Dr. R.L. Singh, (Retd.), Principal Chief ” Conservator of Forest, Lucknow, U.P. against the Editor, Hitavada, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

158. Complaint of Shri Desh Deepak Verma, IAS, Additional ” Secretary and Financial Advisor, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Distribution, Government of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Nav Ratri, Lucknow, U.P.

159. Complaint of Shri D.K. Bose, Hony. General Secretary, ” Hindustan Football Club, New Delhi against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi

160. Complaint of Shri Naresh Kumar, Meerut, U.P. against ” the Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Meerut, U.P.

161. Complaint of Shri Hariom Anand, Managing Director, ” Anand Hospital, Meerut, U.P. against the Editor, Bhoodev, Meerut Cantt, U.P.

162. Complaint of Shri Jai Bhagwan Agarwal, MLA, Delhi ” against the Editor, Jan Pratibimb, Delhi

163. Complaint of Shri Vishwas Garg, Bathinda against the ” Editor, Dainik Pilot, Bathinda, Punjab

15 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

164. Complaint of Dr. Ashok Madhavdas Parwani, Medical January Practitioner, Village Goveli, Thane, Maharashtra against 3-4, 2011 the Editor, Hindu Hit, Thane, Maharashtra

165. Complaint of Shri Chhabbil N. Sangani, Jamnagar, Gujarat ” against the Editor, , Jamnagar, Gujarat

166. Complaint of Ms. Ekta Thakur, Mumbai against the Editor, ” , Mumbai, Maharashtra

167. Complaint of Smt. Bhanu and Shri Sreechandra, Bangalore ” against the Editor, Ranjane/Bodhane/Prochodhane Lankesh weekly, Bangalore, Karnataka

168. Complaint of Shri Pramod Kumar IPS, Inspector General ” of Police, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu against the Editor, Naveena Netrikkan, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

169. Complaint of Shri Kishori Mohan Paul, Headmaster, ” Member Secretary, Kamalbari Girls’ M.E. School, Jorhat, Assam against the Editor, , Guwahati, Assam

170. Complaint of Shri Kishore Mohan Paul, Headmaster, ” Member Secretary, Kamlabari Girls’ M.E. School, Jorhat, Assam against the Editor, , Guwahati, Assam

171. Complaint of Shri K. Hujuri, Secretary, Pub-Rupnagar ” Ganesh Mandir Committee, Guwahati against the Editor, Amar Asom, Guwahati, Assam

172. Complaint of Shri Goodnight Langrin Syemlieh, West Khasi ” Hills, Meghalaya against the Editor, Mawphor, Shillong, Meghalaya

173. Complaint of Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Sidhi Pandey, ” Deputy Chief Councillor, Nagar Panchyat, Daudnagar, Aurangabad against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Patna

174. Complaint of Miss Surekha Sama, Faridabad against the ” Editor, Dainik Jagran, New Delhi

16 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

175. Complaint of Shri Lokeshwra, Sub-Inspector, Karnataka January Police, Bangalore, Karnataka against the Editor/Publisher, 3-4, 2011 Veera Sindoora Lakshmana, Bangalore, Karnataka

Press and Morality

176. Complaint of Shri R.V. Sharada, State President, Working July Journalists Union, M.P., Bhopal against the Editor, Dainik 30, 201 Navbharat, Bhopal

177. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Bansal, Advocate/President, ” Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Kanpur, U.P.

178. Complaint of President, Pragatisheel Patrakar Association, ” Agra, U.P. against the Editor, I-Next, Kanpur, U.P.

179. Complaint of Shri Sukh Deo Singh, Sikar against the ” Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, Rajasthan

180. Complaints of Shri Edara Gopi Chand, State General ” Secretary, Anti-Obscenity Forum, Guntur, A.P. against the Editors (i) and (ii) Eenadu, A.P.

181. Complaint of Shri R.S. Saxena, Retired Senior Commercial October Officer, Central Railways, Mumbai against the Editor, 29, 2010 The Times of India, Mumbai

182. Complaint of Shri N.V. Ramakrishnan, Kottayam, Kerala ” against the Editor, Fire Magazine, Kerala

183. Complaints of Shri Sidheswar Acharyya, West Bengal ” against the Editors (i) Calcutta Times (ii) Boier Desh, Kolkata and (iii) The Sunday Indian, New Delhi

Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Anti Religious Writings 184. Complaint of Choudhary Nafees Ahmed and others, July Chhattarpur, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Chhattarpur 30, 2010 Bhraman, M.P.

17 S. Parties Date of No. Decision

185. Complaint of Md. Adil Jhadodiya, Vice President, July Masjid Committee, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh against 30, 2010 the Editor, Nandgaon Times, Chhattisgarh 186. Complaint of Shri S.C. Kapoor, Wing Commander (Retd.) ” Noida against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi 187. Complaint of Shri Farid-ul-Hassan, Managing Trustee, ” Active Intelligent Movement, Mumbai against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, Mumbai 188. Complaint of Shri Iswar Tudu, Secretary, All India Schedule October Caste/Tribes Council, Kolkata against The Editor, , 29, 2010 Kolkata, West Bengal

18 Adjudications of the Council

Harassment of Newsmen

1) Shri Vakil Ahmed 1. Anti-social elements Ghaziabad Versus 2. Police Authorities

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This undated complaint received on 17.6.08 was addressed to Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and its copy endorsed to PCI by Shri Vakil Ahmed, Freelance journalist alleging harassment and threat by anti-social elements due to publication of critical news items and inaction by the police. According to the complainant, he published critical news items in Hindi weekly ‘Divya Darbaar Times’ in the issues dated April 6-12, 2008, May 11-17, 2008 and June 29 – July 5, 2008 highlighting construction of a primary school in which inferior material was used and irregularities and inefficiency of the school administration and some shopkeepers situated nearby. Annoyed with the news, the Councillor of the area and some other anti-social elements began to harass and threaten him to kill. The complainant submitted that he approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad on 18.6.2008 but no action was taken. The complainant further submitted that he also made a complaint dated 18.2.2008 to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad requesting him to remove the husk shop situated near the primary school due to which the children were falling ill and the environment was getting polluted. The complainant alleged that the anti-social elements of his locality were pressurizing him to withdraw his complaint or face dire consequences. He also alleged that the police personnel of Inderpuri police station misbehaved with his wife on 17.6.2008 under the influence of anti-social elements. The complainant also forwarded a copy of the complaint dated 5.4.2009 to the Inspector General of Police, Meerut zone alleging that on 2.4.2009 he himself alongwith his colleagues went for the coverage of agitation of Teachers and Children at Darul Imdadiya Public School where the police misbehaved, beaten up them and registered a false case against them regarding teasing a woman. A non-cognizable report was also registered by the police on the behest of journalist, Shri Sarjit. The complainant requested to take necessary action in the matter.

19 Comments of the Respondent

Notice for statement in reply was issued to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., Home Secretary, Govt. of U.P., the Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad and the SHO, Loni Ghaziabad. The Superintendent of Police, City, Ghaziabad in his comments dated 4.7.2009 has submitted that the allegation of the complainant that on 2.4.2009 the police misbehaved and beaten up the journalists who had gone to Darul Imdadiya Public School for coverage of the agitation was not found true in the investigation conducted by the Asstt. Superintendent of Police. On the contrary on 2.4.2009 Shri Aslam alongwith his three associate and journalist, Akram had entered in the house of Smt. Sahjadi and taken her photograph, beaten her, threatened to kill her and on the complaint of Smt. Sahjadi a crime case No. 773/2009 under Sections 147/323/452/354/504/ 506 IPC was registered and investigation into the matter was being done by Sub- Inspector, Shri Braham Singh. The respondent further stated that on the complaint of Shri Sarjit a non cognizable report No. 78/09 under Sections 323/504/506 IPC was also registered in Loni police station against Rishipal and other police personnel regarding misbehaviour and snatching of complainant’s camera. This matter was also being investigated. He further stated that Shri Aslam is the husband of Smt. Sahjadi and harassment and dowry cases were registered against him and his family members. The respondent further stated that the socalled journalists alongwith Shri Aslam after entering into the house of Mrs. Sahjadi took her photograph, which is prohibited as per Muslim religion. Between Mrs. Sahjadi and the journalists a quarrel took place and she lodged a complaint in this behalf. The NCR was found false. He stated that on the basis of the facts it appears that the complaint is lodged to influence the expatiation proceedings initiated against Shri Akram. No fact came to the light that the police personnels have beaten up/misbehaved with the mediapersons.

A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 12.10.2009 for information/counter comments.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when it noted that Notice for Hearing issued to the complainant had been received back with the postal remarks “Left”. Shri Rajesh Kumar Bharti, S.I., Ghaziabad appearing for the police authorities reiterated the submissions already made in writing.

20 The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the matter brought to its notice had a bearing with personal tiffs rather than the press freedom or curtailment of privileges of the journalist. Further the complainant had also not pursued the matter since early 2009 and had left without providing any address. The Committee did not find any substance in the complaint and decided to recommend to the Council to close the case.

Held

The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.

2) Shri Anil Kumar Bhardwaj The Chief Secretary Journalist Government of Uttar Pradesh Dainik Vikassheel Bharat Lucknow Mathura Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

The Superintendent of Police Mathura, Uttar Pradesh

Shri Virender Singh Bhadoriya Sub-Inspector, Thana & Tehsil Mat Mathura, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 4.11.2008 has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, journalist, Dainik Vikassheel Bharat, Agra against the police authorities alleging implicating him in false cases and harassing his family members due to publication of a critical news article exposing a fake encounter. The complainant along with a colleague journalist, got published a news article under the caption ‘Police Ne Mara Fauji’ in ‘Jagta Shahar’, a weekly newsmagazine from Agra

21 in its issue dated 14.9.2008. According to the complainant, the publication of the news article in question, exposing the fake encounter, enraged the police and he was asked by the police officer to give affidavit against the impugned publication and also threatened to implicate him in false cases.

Notices for statements in reply dated 9.6.2009, were issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh including the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, the Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Inspector, Mathura.

Comments

In response to the notices dated 9.6.2009, the respondent, Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura in his comments dated 1.7.2009 denied the allegations and submitted that the complainant was habitual of filing false complaints against the police. He stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mathura inquired into the matter and the allegations levelled by the complainant that he was implicated in false case due to publication of critical news article, was found to be false. The District Magistrate, Mathura also in his comments dated 28.8.2009 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh in his comments dated 3.11.2009 submitted that the matter was investigated and the allegations were found to be false.

Copies of the comments were forwarded to the complainant 5.10.2009 for information and counter comments if any, but no response.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The complainant appearing in person submitted that he had done a story on fake encounter and thereafter the respondents were pressurizing him to give affidavit against the said story. The complainant submitted that in October 2008, the Police Officer came to his house and intimidated him and his family members. The complainant submitted that he was harassed and threatened by the Sub-Inspector.

S/Shri R.M. Bhardwaj, Additional Superintendent of Police, Mathura and Virender Singh Bhadoria, the accused Sub Inspector, Mathura appeared for the

22 respondent police authorities. The Sub Inspector submitted that the charges were false. The Sub Inspector submitted that the complainant was annoyed because they had rift over preparation of horoscope since the complainant being a ‘Pandit’ was making horoscopes also. The Sub Inspector apprised the Committee about unfortunate demise of his son just prior to three days of his marriage. When the Sub Inspector approached the complainant in his capacity as a ‘Pandit’, the Pandit ji prepared a horoscope of his second son and declared that his son will die in an accident soon following which they had an altercation. The Sub Inspector submitted before the Inquiry Committee that he had not exerted any pressure nor threatened the complainant. They even never met each other for the last one and half years. The Sub Inspector submitted that the complainant had been levelling false allegations of corruption of passing on the money to the senior officers and ministers etc. The Sub Inspector concluded that he has now been transferred to Mainpuri and he will not have any interaction with the complainant in future for his personal matters either.

The Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that the encounter mentioned in the news report of the complainant were actual encounter found in Magisterial inquiry. The respondent denied the charge that the complainant was ever asked to give any affidavit. The Addl. S.P. further submitted that the concerned Sub Inspector has since been transferred and there was no threat of any kind to the complainant. In case if he feels so, the Addl. S.P. assured that he will take care of the safety and security of the complainant.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and upon hearing the parties noted that the complainant had been unable to substantiate his charges with any evidence and cause of action had not arisen in the matter. Further, the Senior Police Officer had assured safety and security of the complainant. Moreover, the concerned Sub Inspector had since been transferred. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint in view of the assurance given by the respondents. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the case.

23 3) Shri Uttam Chand The Chief Secretary District Bureau Chief Government of U.P. Dainik Voice of Lucknow Lucknow Mathura (U.P.) Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

The Sr. Superintendent of Police Mathura (U.P.)

Shri Prem Pal Singh Sub-Inspector Sri Krishan Janam Sthan (Security) C/o Sr. Superintendent of Police Mathura ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 28.4.2008 has been filed by Shri Uttam Chand, District Bureau Chief, Dainik Voice of Lucknow, Mathura (U.P.) against Shri Prem Pal Singh, Sub-Inspector, Mathura alleging harassment and physical harm. The complainant submitted that on 20.4.2008 at 8:30 a.m. a quarrel of personal animosity took place between the women of two communities in Khateek Mohalla, PS-Sadar, Mathura where respondent-Sub-Inspector, Shri P.P. Singh reached and started to beat the women of one side. The complainant alleged that when he tried to cover the news, the respondent beat him up and threatened him of dire-consequences and destroyed his video camera and reel. The complainant further alleged that the respondent also snatched his gold chain and Rs.230/-. The complainant further alleged that the respondent arrested him, his wife and sister-in-law and registered a false case under Section 151 against them. The respondent also threatened to implicate him in false rape case. The complainant submitted that his colleagues met the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Mathura and informed him about the incident, who directed the City Officer to submit an Inquiry Report within 24 hours in the matter but no further action was taken against the respondents. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondents. Written Statement Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Government of U.P. on

24 8.7.2008. In response, the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Mathura in his written statement dated 28.7.2010 submitted that the matter was probed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Mathura who in his report stated that it was a personal dispute between the complainant and his neighbours, Shri Charan Singh and others. They were arrested by the Sub-Inspector, Shri Prem Pal Singh after registering a case under Sections 151/107/116 IPC to maintain peace and tranquillity in the area. The Sub-Inspector was transferred to Sadar Bazar Police Lines and the SHO, Sadar Bazar was also instructed to be more vigilant to maintain the peace in the area.

The respondent, Sub-Inspector, Shri Prem Pal Singh in his written statement dated 5.9.2008 while denying the allegations levelled against him in the complaint submitted that the complaint was false and baseless and the complainant had no evidence to prove his allegations. He further stated that a quarrel was going on between the complainant and his neighbours on 20.4.2008 and he reached there with police force and tried to settle the matter amicably but they did not agree. To maintain the peace and tranquility in the area both the parties were arrested and Challan has been filed in the Court under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.PC. The respondent denied the allegation of misbehaving with any of them and snatching/ breaking complainant’s camera.

A copy each of the written statement of the respondents was forwarded to the complainant on 13.2.2009 for information.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The complainant submitted that he was covering the news in his locality where two women namely, Smt. Sunita and Smt. Amita were fighting and beating up each other. The Police Officer instead of taking action against these two ladies, intimidated the complainant, snatched his camera and took away the reel. The complainant submitted that the SHO, Shri P.P. Singh was regularly visiting the brothel house run by these ladies and therefore he did not take action against them but booked him under Section 151 and also threatened him of dire consequences.

S/Shri R.M. Bhardwaj, Additional S.P., Mathura and Prempal Singh, SI, Mathura appearing for the respondent police authorities reiterated the comments already filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee on a careful perusal of the records of the case and hearing the parties noted that the complainant had failed to establish his

25 charges. It was satisfied with the police report that the incident related to personal dispute which was nothing to do with press freedom. As per records of the case, the police had taken a precautionary measure to book the parties to maintain peace and tranquility, which was a bare minimum action, which ought to be taken in normal course for bounding the parties to maintain peace. The Inquiry Committee did not find any merit in the case and submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and held that being a case of personal dispute having no nexus with press freedom and its preservation, the complaint be rejected.

4) Shri Nanhelal Chandravanshi The Chief Secretary Regional Representative Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Rashtriya Hindi Mail Bhopal Distt. Baitul (M.P.) Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal

The Superintendent of Police District Baitul Madhya Pradesh

Shri Kamal Morya S.D.P.O. Police Station Sarni District Baitul, M.P.

ADJUDICATION

Facts

Shri Nanhelal Chandravanshi, Regional Representative, Rashtriya Hindi Mail, Baitul (M.P.) has filed this complaint against Shri Kamal Morya, S.D.P.O., P.S. Sarni for alleged threats due to the publication of critical news item against the local police, highlighting their irregularities and inefficiency. According to the complainant, he published a news item under the caption “Thana Prabhari Ki Karya Pranali Prashansniya” on 5.9.2007. Annoyed with the statement therein that the S.D.P.O was reported to have a hand to increase crime in the area,

26 the S.D.P.O., Sarni issued an unsigned notice dated 8.9.2007 directing the complainant to appear before him for comments on 9.9.2007. When the complainant appeared before respondent, the respondent threatened to file a case of defamation of Rs.50 lakhs. The respondent used unparliamentary language and threatened to implicate him in false case, the complainant added. The complainant alleged that action of the respondent tantamounts to curtailment of freedom of press. He requested to take action against the respondent, S.D.P.O., Sarni.

Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, Superintendent of Police, District, Baitul and Shri Kamal Morya, SDPO, Sarni police station on 31.12.2007.

Statement in reply

In his reply dated 9.1.2008 the Superintendent of Police, Baitul (M.P.) has submitted that in this matter the Additional Superintendent of Police, Baitul who called the complainant in his office for statement, conducted an inquiry. The respondent has submitted that the complainant demanded financial help from Shri Kamal Morya, S.D.P.O., police station, Sarni who refused to pay. Annoyed with the refusal, the complainant has published the motivated story, added the respondent. The respondent has further submitted that the complainant threatened the S.D.P.O., to improve his attitude and working. The respondent further alleged that the complainant had given threats to file a case of defamation for rupees 10-20 lakhs. He has also submitted that the complainant did not cooperate during the inquiry. The respondent has submitted that the allegations made by the complainant were not found correct and no legal action has been taken against him

A copy of the statement in reply was forwarded to the complainant on 30.1.2008 for information/counter comments.

Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2009 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Deepak Parashar, Sub-Inspector, Baitul, M.P. and Jai Kumar Shinde, Advocate, Sarni, appeared on behalf of Shri Kamal Maurya, S.D.P.O., Sarni. The respondent’s representatives submitted that the notice to the complainant dated 8.9.2007 for appearance was not signed by the S.D.P.O. The complainant after publication of news had himself come to the S.D.P.O office and he might have obtained a copy of the notice, which was earlier proposed to be served on the complainant.

27 The Inquiry Committee was not convinced with the arguments advanced by respondent’s representatives. The Committee took serious note of the fact that the S.D.P.O. had sent a notice to the complainant asking him to appear before him at a specific date and time. The Committee opined that the S.D.P.O had no authority to send the notice. It directed Shri Kamal Maurya, S.D.P.O., Sarni through his representatives to personally appear before it at next date of hearing and file an affidavit explaining as to under what authority he had summoned the complainant. The matter was adjourned. Accordingly the parties were informed vide Council’s letter dated 8.10.2009 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. In the meantime the complainant vide his letter dated 10.9.2009 has informed that he was again threatened by the representatives of the respondent while he was coming out after hearing before the Inquiry Committee of the Council on 10.8.2009. According to the complainant, he feared that he could be implicated in false case. He has requested the Council to initiate necessary action against the respondent. Arguments The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010 after an adjournment on 4.1.2010. The complainant was not represented while the respondent, Shri Kamal Maurya appeared in person and filed an affidavit stating therein that no notice to the complainant was issued by him. The notice produced before the Council was unsigned. It was further stated that in no way the complainant was threatened or harassed by him. No case had been registered against the complainant during his tenure. He contended that the complaint against him was false and motivated. In his oral submission, he informed that he has been transferred to Murrana from Baitul. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments putforth before it by the respondent. The Committee noted that the main respondent, Shri Kamal Maurya, S.D.P.O. has been transferred from Baitul. The complainant had also not been representated at the last hearings. Further, the respondent in the affidavit affirmed that no case had been registered against the complainant during his posting at Baitul. The Committee in its report to the Council recommended to allow the matter to rest. Held The Press Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and allowed the matter to rest.

28 5) Shri Akhilesh The Director Editor, Tarun Mitra Information & Public Relations Patna Versus Department Government of Bihar Patna

Police Authorities Patna, Bihar ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 7.4.2007 has been filed by Shri Akhilesh, Editor, Tarun Mitra, Patna against the Secretary, Director and Joint Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for implicating in false case allegedly for publication of critical writing in September 2006 issue under caption “Sushasan Ko Kushashan Mein Badalta Soochna Jansampark Vibhag”. According to the complainant, he was exposing the rampant corruption in the Information & Public Relations Department of Bihar. Annoyed with the publication of critical news with connivance of Shri Arjun Roy, State Information Minister, the respondent lodged an FIR against him under Section 419/420 IPC on 25.1.2007 for violation of the Copyright Act and carrying an unauthorized advertisement. The complainant was informed by the Information Department that an excess payment made to him towards advertisement bill would be adjusted in the next advertisement bill. According to the complainant, the Joint Secretary, I&PRD sent an advertisement for publication to him in December 2006 with instructions that R.O. was being sent simultaneously. The complainant carried the advertisement on 21.12.2006. The complainant clarified that the Information Department releases advertisement through Internet and therefore anybody can utilize it. The complainant alleged that the Secretary and Director, Information & Public Relations Department lodged an FIR against under Section 419/420 IPC on 25.1.2007 for violation of Copyright Act and carrying an unauthorised advertisement. The complainant further alleged that due to government pressure and prejudiced by casteist inclination against him, the SHO filed the aforesaid case and arrested him on 11.2.2007. He was granted bail on 20.2.2007. The complainant’s contention was that he was handcuffed despite Supreme Court’s directions and the whole exercise was the result of ill will for critical writings, which were published on the basis of factual information. The Information & Public Relations Department did not send any rejoinder for redressal of their grievance, if any, due to the aforesaid publication. The complaint lies against the Information Officers for falsely implicating him in frivolous cases with a view to stop him from carrying any material against the

29 respondents and for violating Supreme Court’s directive regarding handcuffing of journalists. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Secretary, Director, Joint Director, Information & Public 0Relations Department and the SHO, police station Patna on 9.8.2007.

Written Statement

The Secretary, Director and Joint Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, Patna have filed their written statement dated 29.10.2007. The respondents have submitted that a government’s advertisement was published in the complainant’s newspaper which related to the House Development Department and the complainant was not authorised for the publication of the said advertisement. The respondents have submitted that advertisement was issued to Hindustan and The Times of India only but the complainant has published the same unauthorisedly and Tarun Mitra was not empanelled in their list. The respondents have submitted that an FIR was lodged against the complainant under Section 419/420 IPC on 25.1.2007 for violation of the Copyright Act and carrying an unauthorised advertisement. They have further submitted that the complainant was habitual of publishing the government’s advertisement unauthorisedly. These acts of the complainant mislead the people as well as the State Government.

The respondents have submitted that the owner of Tarun Mitra had issued a notice to the complainant and directed to stop the publication of Tarun Mitra, Patna edition due to fake activity being done by the complainant. The respondents further submitted that the complainant was using the name and address of a printing press whose owner had filed a case against the complainant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna found that the complainant has violated The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and passed the order to cancel the declaration of the complainant and a copy of the order was forwarded to the RNI and the I&PRD, Patna.

Copies of statement in reply were forwarded to the complainant on 27.1.2007 for information/counter comments.

Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2009 at New Delhi. The complainant did not appear. Shri Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Joint Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar submitted that the complainant had lifted the advertisement

30 and unauthorisedly published without approval of the Government. A case was registered against him to pre-empt any raising of bill. The respondent further submitted that another objection was that the complainant newspaper used the logo/emblem of the Government of Bihar.

Directions of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the arguments placed by the representative of the respondent that the case was registered as a precautionary measure so that the complainant should not raise bill for the unauthorized advertisement. The Inquiry Committee desired to satisfy itself of violation of copyright by the complainant newspaper in publishing the advertisement taken from internet where the aim of the government was to publicise its policies and programmes and the complainant newspaper claimed that it was doing so without raising any bill for advertisement. Yet the government was apprehensive of demand for payment by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee further noted that logo/emblem was a part of the advertisement and no wrong could be attributed for its publication.

Insofar allegations of arrest and handcuffing were concerned, the Inquiry Committee directed that the Superintendent of Police, Patna may hold inquiry into the allegations of handcuffing of the complainant and file report within a fortnight. It also directed the respondent authorities not to proceed with any of the cases against the complainant till final order by the Council.

Matter Adjourned

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.1.2010 at New Delhi when S/Shri K.R. Sharma, Assistant Director and Janki Raman Jha, Media Assistant, Government of Bihar appeared for the respondent and submitted that the pleading in respect of point relating to unauthorized publication of advertisement had been complete. So far as the question of handcuffing, the respondent submitted that the I&PR Department had no role to play. For this point they had written to the S.P. vide letter dated 4.1.2010.

The Inquiry Committee noted the statement made by the respondents that an FIR was lodged against the complainant under Section 419/420 on 25.1.2007 for violation of the Copyright Act and carrying an unauthorized advertisement. Due to the said misconduct the owner of the Tarun Mitra has issued a notice to the complainant editor and directed to stop the publication of Tarun Mitra, Patna edition. Action had also been taken against him under the PRB Act 1867. Further, the Inquiry Committee, proceeded to consider the allegations of handcuffing, and noted that the respondent authorities had neither

31 filed any reply nor entered any appearance. The Inquiry Committee directed the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar to file reply and ensure that the department is represented through an authorised officer at the next hearing. In default, the Inquiry Committee will resort to summoning the respondent police authorities. It decided to adjourn the matter.

The Senior Superintendent of Police in his report dated 6.1.2010 received through the Secretary, State Government of Bihar vide letter dated 25.1.2010 stated that on the complaint of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Joint Director, I&PRD Department an FIR No.36/7 under Section 419/420 IPC and 5(ii) Copyright Act, 1957 was filed on 25.1.2007 against Shri Akhilesh Kumar (complainant) for violation of Copyright Act and carrying an unauthorized advertisement. Later, a chargesheet No. 484/08 was also filed in the matter.

Arguments

The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. There was no appearance before it on behalf of the complainant. Shri Anuj Kumar, S.H.O and Shri Rajesh Bhusan, Secretary, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar represented the respondent authorities. Shri Anuj Kumar submitted that as per the police diary the complainant was not handcuffed. The complainant did not submit any specific documents or evidence to show that he was handcuffed. The FIR was filed with the police and chargesheet in the matter was filed. He added that matter was pending in Court.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

On consideration of the record and oral arguments advanced before it, the Inquiry Committee noted that as regards subject matter of the complaint, i.e., harassment following publication of unauthorised advertisement was pending in court of law. Without commenting on the merits of the case the Committee expressed its concern over the invocation of the Copyright Act and Section 420 of IPC in the matter. Further, if the charges of handcuffing of the complainant, for this violation were correct this belied all reasonable expectation from an inquiry under law. With above observations the Inquiry Committee referred its report for final adjudication to the Council.

Held

The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee, the records and the arguments put forth advised the Government of Bihar to reexamine the matter and file appropriate report before the Court.

32 6) Shri Bishanpal Singh The Chief Secretary Chauhan Government of Uttar Pradesh Correspondent, Dainik Aaj Lucknow Shikohabad Road Etah, Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

The Senior Superintendent of Police District Etah, Uttar Pradesh

The District Magistrate District Etah, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated, 5.11.2006 has been filed by Shri Bishanpal Singh Chauhan, journalist, Etah and others regarding harassment by the District Administration, during the re-election of the Etah Municipal Corporation on 5.11.2006, alleging that the following officials kept the mediapersons/newsmen away from covering news: 1. Shri Ram Kumar, District Magistrate 2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Rai, the Senior Superintendent of Police 3. Shri Vijay Singh Pal, Addl District Magistrate 4. Shri Saligram Verma, Addl. Superintendent of Police 5. Shri Abid Mansoor, SOG, Incharge The complainant has stated that re-election was held on 5.11.2006 at 39 booths and media was covering the incident of booth capturing at the behest of the Samajvadi Party with the help of the administration. The complainant furnished photocopies of news clippings published by various newspapers alleging that the respondent officials not only harassed and beaten up the journalists but also misbehaved and their press passes/vehicle passes and vehicles were snatched/ stopped/seized. The complainant thus requested for action against the respondents. Notices for statement for reply were issued on 6.2.2007 to the Chief Secretary, Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah district, Uttar Pradesh.

33 Statement in Reply

In his comments, dated 17.2.2007 the District Magistrate, Etah has submitted that several reports had been received from the various Administrative Officers which showed that during the Municipal election of Etah, 15 personal vehicle passes were issued for coverage of election, one mini bus was provided by the department to journalists for coverage of election. None of the journalists had applied for private vehicle for coverage the election; however, four vehicles were provided to journalists for coverage of election. The respondent submitted that during the election some anti-social elements tried to disrupt election by throwing stones, firing and during the incident some police official were injured. In between Shri Arif Khan and Shri Ram Niwas, police officials misbehaved with Shri Sanjay Tomar, correspondent inadvertently. On receipt of the complaint, both the police officials were suspended. The remaining allegations were found false.

The Under Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in his letter dated 17.4.2007 filed the report of the SSP and the Area Officer, Etah in which it was stated that on 29.10.2006 during the election of local bodies, bogus voting was noticed. Sudden disturbance was caused by some persons who threw stones and fired upon the Area Officer and police officials who were injured and police registered a case against the culprits. The culprits entered in the police station and broke the lock and released the candidate, Shri Prajapalan Verma with three other prisoners. The police thus registered a criminal case against them. The respondent submitted that two officials namely, Shri Mohd. Arif, ASI and Constable Clerk, Shri Ramnivas Yadav misbehaved with Shri Sanjay Tomar, representative of Amar Ujala and the Area Officer recommended to punish both the officials by deducting salary of fifteen days.

A copy each of the comments was forwarded to the complainant for information/counter comments.

Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.1.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on either side while the government had requested for adjournment in view of the counting of votes of local authority and elections scheduled for the day. In order to afford one more opportunity to the parties, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter.

Arguments

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at

34 New Delhi on 31.5.2010. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/Shri Asit Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Etah and Kedar Nath Singh, Additional District Magistrate represented the respondent authorities who placed before the Committe a letter dated 29.5.2010 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah. It was submitted therein that initially the service of both the officers, complained against, were terminated. Later on after departmental inquiry a fine of 15 days salary was imposed on Shri Aarif Khan while the other officer was not found guilty. It was further submitted that no action was pending in the matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record. The Committee noted that the respondent authorities had taken consequential measures on the complaint of Shri Bhishan Pal Singh Chauhan, correspondent, Dainik Aaj by taking action against the erring officers. In the opinion of the Committee no further action was needed in the matter. It referred its report to the Council for final adjudication.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case opined that action required in the matter had been duly taken by the state government and the complaint did not disclose any further ground for observation under Section 15(4) of the Press Council Act. It decided to close the case.

7) Shri Manoj Kumar The Directorate Journalist/Editor Versus Press and Information Rashtriya Vishal Times Municipal Corporation of Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 2.09.2008 has been filed by Shri Manoj Kumar, Journalist/Editor, Rashtriya Vishal Times, Delhi against the Directorate of Press and Information, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Municipal Commissioner indulging in maligning the character of the small newspapers with false and frivolous allegations. He has submitted that MCD charged small newspapers being involved in yellow journalism with ulterior motive by issuing an Office Order dated 22.08.2008, which reads as follows:

35 ‘It has been brought to the notice of the Commissioner that some of the so called small newspapers were indulging in yellow journalism with ulterior motive to the extent of threatening the officials of different levels. It has therefore been decided that no cognizance should be taken of the reports published in such newspaper. If required, legal action should be initiated against them. However, the officers must continue to take due care and take necessary action in respect to the newspapers writing in public interest.’

The complainant further alleged that the Office Order of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi clearly made derogatory remarks against the small newspapers and it was circulated in the market, causing the local newspaper editor/owners to feel insecure and it damaged their image badly. The complainant has requested that the order passed by the MCD be revoked and action be taken in the matter, as the MCD has no authority to issue such order.

Comments

In response to the Council’s letter dated 2.1.2009, the respondent Director, Press & Information, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed his comments dated 14.01.2009 and submitted that they give due regard to all newspapers and respect their role in society and freedom of expression. He stated that Office Order of MCD was of advisory in nature issued to two categories of officers namely, (i) all Heads of the Department and (ii) Zonal Deputy Commissioner, only and was meant for restricted circulation to concerned officials of these two categories only. The respondent further submitted that allegation made by the complainant that the Office Order being circulated in the market and it badly damaged their image was false, as the MCD had not circulated the Office Order in the market. The respondent further stated that said feelings of insecurity and allegation of tarnishing their image appeared to be self–imposed for which MCD was not responsible. It was surprising as to how copies of the said Office Order landed in the market. The respondent submitted that the said Office Order in reference clearly stated that “the officer must continue to take due care and take necessary action with respect to the newspapers writing in public interest”. The respondent further stated that a letter dated 3.7.2008 addressed to the Chief Minister of Delhi was duly replied to the complainant on 7.10.2008 and added that a civil writ petition bearing No. 7171/2008 filed by the complainant

Foot Note: In pursuance of the decision of the Council, the Director (P&I), MCD, New Delhi vide letter dated 12.10.2010 informed the Council that the impugned order dated 22.8.2008 has been withdrawn and fresh order dated 12.10.2010 has been issued. 36 and others against the State (Delhi) before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, challenging the said Office Order was ultimately dismissed being withdrawn.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 16.4.2009 denied the comments of the respondent and submitted that the respondent has not been able to suitably reply to the allegation levelled in the complaint. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent.

Arguments

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. Shri Rajinder Paul Singh appeared for the complainant while Shri Yogender Singh Maun, Deputy Director, Press and Information represented the respondent authorities, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The representative of complainant stated that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had levelled allegations of yellow journalism on all Small and Medium Newspapers in an office order issued by it. Any newspaper could be aggrieved by the contents of the Office Order.

Shri Yogender Singh Maun appearing for Municipal Corporation of Delhi clarified that the Office Order was meant for internal circulation only. However, he added that they would modify the order by withdrawing it.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth by the parties. It noted that the contents of the office order dated 22.8.2008 were objectionable. It opined that there was no need to issue the impugned order. However, in view of the assurance held out by the representative of the M.C.D to withdraw the order, the Committee felt that no further action was required in the matter. It reported the matter to the Council for final disposal.

Held

The Press Council on perusal of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi to withdraw the impugned order dated 22.8.2008 by issuing a fresh order a copy of which should be sent to all concerned and to the Press Council for record.

37 8) Shri Shivnath Harishchander Davkhar The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Maharashtra Igatpuri Times Mumbai (Marathi Weekly) Maharashtra Nashik, Maharashtra Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Maharashtra Mumbai

The Director General of Police Maharashtra, Mumbai

The Police Station Head Officer Igatpuri Police Station District Nashik Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 26.5.2008 has been filed by Shri Shivnath Harishchander Davkhar, Editor, Igatpuri Times, (Marathi weekly) against police authorities alleging harassment due to publication of a news item in his weekly newspaper issue dated 20.11.2007 under the caption “Igatpuri Nagar Palika Chunav Main Sattadhariyon Ki Agnipriksha” (Hindi translation). The election of Corporation of Igatpuri was held on 25.11.2007. According to the complainant a detailed report of the work done during the tenure of Shivsena was given in the published news item due to which the Shivsena workers and the police was annoyed and in retaliation the Shivsena workers threatened to kill him. The complainant has submitted that he made a complaint of this incident to the police but the police did not take any action in the matter. He has further submitted that on 17.12.2007 the result of Municipal Committee Election was declared and the Shivsena got majority. According to the complainant the Shivsena workers attacked him and his brothers again and due to that they were seriously injured. He has further stated that he again lodged the complaint to the police but the police instead of registering the case against the Shivsena workers, registered a false case against him and his family members with the connivance of the respondents. The delay in filing of the complaint was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman in exercise of the powers conferred on him as per Regulation 3 (1) (f) (ii). He has requested to take necessary action by directing the police authority to cancel the false case registered against him.

38 Notice for Statement in Reply Notices for statement in reply to the respondent Chief Secretary, Secretary (Home) Police Department, Director General of Police, Government of Maharashtra and Police Station Head Officer, Igatpuri Police Station, Igatpuri, Maharashtra were issued in the matter on 18.8.2008. No written statements were received from either of the respondent in the matter till date. A.D. cards are on record. The complainant vide letter dated 25.2.2009 has submitted that the respondent police is pressurising him to withdraw the case. In response to notice dated 18.8.2008, the respondent Desk Office, Home Department (Special) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai in his comments dated 23.7.2009 informed that his case under IPC 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 504, 506, vide Cr. No. 122/07, after investigation police arrested all 17 accused and chargesheet was filed in the court on 23.2.2008. The respondent further pointed out that five cases have been registered against the complainant at Igatpuri police station under Sections 121/07-143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 (ii) 50/80-323, 504, 506 (iii) 13/99 Mumbai Police Act under Section 66 (1) B (iv) 38/99-66 (1) B (v) 29/04-66 (1) B. The respondent further submitted that the police had never acted with malicious intention against the complainant. A copy of the reply has been forwarded to the complainant for information. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. The complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent authorities. The complainant stated that his FIR has been registered and the matter was pending in court. He added that even now he was receiving threats from the Police Inspector that he should not publish anything against the police. Report of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and submissions of the complainant the Committee noted that the police had taken action and the matter was pending trial in the court. Thus, the present complaint was sub-judice. As regards the threats, being received by the complainant, the Inquiry Committee opined that he may file fresh complaint, if so advised. It referred its report to the full Council for its decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case dropped further proceedings in the matter being subjudice. The Council further opined that the complainant, may, file fresh complaint in case he receives threats by the police.

39 9) Dr. H.H. Mazid Hussain The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Government of Madhya Pradesh Daily Urdu Action/ Bhopal Dainik Hindi Action Versus Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal

The Superintendent of Police Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

The District Magistrate Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 5.9.2007 has been filed by Dr. H.H. Mazid Hussain, Chief Editor, Daily Urdu Action/Dainik Hindi Action, Bhopal against the local police and some misdirected religious fanatics for alleged destruction of his house and office and also deadly attack on him and his family members. According to the complainant due to the publication of critical news item, some Muslim religious fanatics and police personnel attacked his office and residence on the night of the 26th August 2006, which lasted for the next three days. All his properties including his newspaper office and his house were damaged/burnt down and all his belongings such as offset printer etc., were looted, alleged the complainant and added that he and his family members had to flee to save their lives. He has alleged that he and his wife lodged FIR with the police but instead of taking action, the police filed false complaints against them so that they would not be able to proceed any further in their complaint. Moreover, the police got the false news published in newspapers and telecast in television channels about the incident, added the complainant. He has impleaded the following individuals as respondents i.e. the District Collector, Bhopal, the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board, Bhopal, Committee Masjid, Bhopal, Muslim Festival Committee, Bhopal, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Navbharat, Dainik Jagran, Dainik Raj Express and fourteen more persons mentioned in the FIR. He alleged that some big national dailies of Hindi and English were also roped in to publish false news items against him.The complainant further alleged that on 28.12.2007, the anti-social elements threatened him over the phone and at night the police came to his house and threatened that the complainant was about to publish some objectionable news items and thereafter the police went

40 to the printing press which not only caused hindrance to freedom of the press but also caused inconvenient to the staff. No Comments A notice for statement in reply was issued to the government of Madhya Pradesh including the Chief Secretary, and Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and the District Magistrate, Bhopal on 5.5.2008 but received no response. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore when the complainant appeared in person and reiterated that the police did not register the FIR filed by him. The complainant, however, informed that the Crime Branch conducted investigation into the matter and procured CD/SMS. He requested the Committee to call for CD/SMS from the Crime Branch which would give clear picture. The complainant submitted that the High Court, Jabalpur had acquitted him of the charge of alleged provocation. Shri Prabhu Dayal, ASI appearing for police authorities submitted written reply dated 30.3.2010 of SHO, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal.It was stated therein that the complainant, Dr. Majid Hussain resides in the Kilol Park Masjid along with his family and also running his press from there. Some local persons filed a complaint in the police station that he was not allowing them to stay there or to perform prayers. On 26.8.2006 he filed a complaint in the Shyamla police station that some anti social elements were destroying the masjid and engaged in illegal construction. They had also collected explosive material in the store room. Police has not initiated any action on his earlier complaint dated 22.8.2006. According to the ASI, no explosive material was found during the investigation, but local people got annoyed. They not only raised slogans to vacate the masjid but also attacked the complainant’s residence. Police tried their best to cool them down but the agitated mob did not listen. The police helped the complainant and his family members to reach a safe place. The Inquiry Committee noted that the officials deputed by the police authorities were not conversant with the facts of case. Moreover, the copy of the reply filed at a belated stage was not given to the complainant for his counter. It therefore, directed the S.P., Bhopal to depute senior officer to present the case at the next hearing. In the meantime, the complainant may send his counter within three weeks with a copy to be served on the government. Arguments The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

41 1.6.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant appeared in person Shri Prabhu Dyal Singh, ASI, again appeared for the respondent police authorities. Reiterating the complaint, the complainant submitted that number of muslim fundamentalists have been maintaining a constant pressure on him to use his press for their publicity and the impartial views expressed by his newspaper always irked them. Many a times his newspaper was attacked and attempts were made to set it ablaze. He had been threatened by the fundamentalists, who with the connivance of the police in the garb of attack on the masjid, tried to destroy his press. Just before the incident in question a news item was published in his newspaper regarding attack on one of the priests and role of the police. On 26.8.2006 they conspired and attacked on his press. Being head of the masjid he filed a report in the police station. He never mentioned that terrorist or Pakistani was staying in the masjid. Police neither took any action on the report nor made any enquiries in the matter. According to the complainant the news items published in different newspapers as per the police sources, indicated that people, who had conspired against him were behind spreading rumours that police entered in the masjid with their shoes on and raided the premises and that he had filed a false complaint regarding terrorist were staying in the masjid. The complainant informed that at the time of the incident the SHO filed a non bailable FIR against him, while the Department of Home, Government of Madhya Pradesh had clearly ordered that an FIR could be filed against a journalist only after inquiring and permission of a DIG rank officer. A violation of this order could attract action against the erring officers. The complainant filed a copy of the orders and submitted that as the SHO had violated the subject orders, he should be suspended and necessary action be initiated against him as per the law.

According to the complainant the IG, Police had informed him that as per the intelligence reports received by him, alleged accused named by him were suspected to be real culprits. Even then, the police had not filed any FIR on the complaint filed by him and his wife. He clarified that on 22.2.2007, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur had quashed all proceedings against him. The complainant further submitted that though the Wakf Board had claimed ownership of the land, where his office is located, he had substantial documentary evidences to prove that the land belongs to him. He has been living there for the last years and that he had been having official telephone connection with documentary proof from the District Collector. He had at no point of time been informed by either Wakf Board or any other Government agency regarding illegal encroachment of the land. The complainant alleged that he had been receiving threats from the culprits to close the press and vacate the premises failing which he would face dire consequences. He requested for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.17 crores towards damaging of his press and the mental harassment undergone by him and his family.

42 Shri Prabhu Dayal Singh, ASI, representing the respondent submitted that the complainant Dr. Majid Hussain stays along with his family in Kilol Park Masjid which is a property of Wakf Board and also operates his press from there. Some local residents filed a complaint in the police station that Majid Hussain calls himself President of Kilol Park Masjid and control the Masjid on his terms. He does not allow poor people to pray in the Masjid. On 26.8.2006 Dr. Majid filed a report in the police station that some anti social elements had damaged a portion of the masjid and people are still on the rampage. People have stored explosive material in the masjid and making some illegal construction and no action has been initiated. The situation had become explosive. After the inquiry neither the complaint was found true nor any explosive material was found. When muslim community of the Bhopal got the news of explosive material in the masjid they flared up. Gathered in the masjid and shouted to kill Majid Hussain and asked him to vacate the place. Police took Dr. Majid and his family members to the safe place. The mob pelted stones and burnt his car. Police controlled the situation. On the night of 26.8.2006 the Assistant Secretary of the Wakf Board gave charge of the masjid and its property to the new Masjid Committee. Due to conflict of both the parties, they were accusing each other. Besides appointing of a new Masjid Committee, Dr. Majid was not giving its charge to them. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee examined the records of the case and oral arguments put forth before it by the parties. It took on record the written replies filed by the complainant and the respondent. The Inquiry Committee also took note of the Order dated 27.12.2005 of the Department of Home, Government of Madhya Pradesh as a very important and an effective measure to restrain the atrocities on the journalists and to maintain the freedom of the press. But by not taking action on the FIR filed by the complainant and arresting him without prior permission or inquiry of the DIG level officer, the State Police authorities had not only violated the order/circular issued by its Government but had also hindered the freedom of the press by allowing destruction of the property/press of the complainant. The direction of the Press Council in its previous adjudication on the complaint of Dr. H.H. Mazid Hussain had also not been heeded. The Inquiry Committee viewed it very seriously and observed that even while the government had failed to comply with its directions to depute a senior officer, the officer had failed to comply with the circular of its own government to protect the free functioning of the press. It thus, decided to recommend to the Council to direct the government to investigate non compliance with the provisions of the referred circular and take action against the erring/

43 guilty officers. It also directed the police authorities to take necessary action on the FIR filed by the complainant, get the matter investigated, and take appropriate action to ensure that the complainant is not restrained in performance of his journalistic duties. It opined that a copy of the adjudication be forwarded to the National Human Rights Commission for compensation as claimed by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee further recommended that the Order/ Cirular dated 27.12.2005 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh be forwarded to all the State Governments and Union Territories to follow it as guideline in order to maintain freedom of the press. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee was satisfied that the complaint against the government was established and decided to forward a copy of the adjudication to the Chief Secretary, Secretary (Home), Police Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, DIG, Police, Madhya Pradesh and National Human Rights Commission for the action as recorded in the report of the Inquiry Committee. The Council also directed to forward a copy of the Order/Circular dated 27.12.2005 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to all the State Governments and Union Territories for adoption.

10) Shri Deepak Bahl Shri Sanjay Kumar Journalist Inspector Dainik Jagran Versus Railway Police (GRP) Ambala Cantt. Ambala, Haryana Haryana ADJUDICATION Facts This undated complaint, received on 16.12.2008, has been filed by Shri Deepak Bahl, Journalist, Dainik Jagran, Ambala Cantt., Haryana against Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector, CIA Staff, Railway Police (GRP) for alleged misbehaviour and snatching of camera while he was covering news. According to the complainant, while he was covering news about the case of Abdul Razzak at Railway Station late at night on 8.12.2008 and taking photograph of the car of the Superintendent of Police, the respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector, GRP with some police officials enquired as to why he had taken the photographs, snatched his camera and deleted all the photographs he had taken. He also alleged he was forcefully detained for twenty minutes. Though the complainant informed Shri K.K. Mishra, the Railway Inspector General about the incident, he took no action in the matter.

44 Comments of the IGP, Railways, Panchkula, Director General of Police, Haryana, Panchkula, Superintendent of Police, Railways, Ambala and the Inspector, GRP, Ambala were invited on 4.5.2009.

Comments

In response to the Council’s notice for comments dated 4.5.2009, the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Ambala vide his comments dated 15.9.2009 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and informed that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ambala had conducted inquiry into the incident calling both the parties in the matter and found no substance in the matter as the complainant failed to prove the incident. The respondent submitted that Shri Sanjay Kumar had neither misbehaved nor snatched the camera of the complainant.

The Director General of Police, Haryana, Panchkula in his comments dated 2.8.2009 submitted that an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ambala in the matter and during the investigation, the statements of both the parties, i.e. the complainant, Shri Deepak Bahl, Journalist and the respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector were recorded and the report of the investigation revealed that the complainant had no evidence or witness of the incident to substantiate his charges.

A copy each of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 28.7.2009 and 20.8.2009 for information/counter comments.

Ist Adjournment

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2009 at New Delhi. The complainant was not represented. He, however, in an undated letter received in the Secretariat of the Council on 14.12.2009, stated that the respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector GRP, on inquiry admitted that he had deleted the photographs from his camera. He also stated that he had in front of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ambala who conducted inquiry into the matter, stated that he had no witness except the respondent Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector GRP, who had admitted that he deleted the photographs from his camera and he has a recording of this on his mobile. Shri Mansir Singh DSP Hq. GRP Ambala and Shri Kashmir Singh, Inspector who appeared for the police authorities submitted that the matter was inquired into by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ambala and during the course of inquiry, the complainant stated that his witness to the incident was Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector, GRP. The respondent further submitted that Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector has since been transferred to Bhiwani.

45 Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the respondents, felt that the presence of both the parties was necessary in the matter and the prime respondent, Inspector Sanjay Kumar be directed to present himself at the next hearing. The notice to Shri Sanjay Kumar be served through the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.2.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant appeared in person. Shri Thirath Ram, Inspector appeared for GRP. The complainant submitted that the respondent Shri Sanjay Kumar had deleted all the photographs, which he had taken with whole day hard work. According to the complainant, in case the Inspector had any objection to the photograph of the S.P. being taken at the main gate, he could have deleted only that photograph and not his whole day work. Shri Thirath Ram, Inspector appearing for GRP stated that the main party to this complaint is now serving under S.P., Bhiwani and GRP had no role in the matter. The Inquiry Committee noted that the main respondent Shri Sanjay Kumar who was served notice of hearing through S.P., Bhiwani had failed to appear before it. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter with the direction to the SP, Bhiwani to ensure presence at the next hearing of Shri Sanjay Kumar, the then Inspector, CIA staff GRP and presently posted under S.P., Bhiwani. The Inquiry Committee decided that GRP be arraigned as a performa party and may not to be called at the next hearing. It also directed the complainant to file transcript of his discussion with the respondent. The matter stood adjourned. Accordingly the parties were informed to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee vide letter dated 5.4.2010. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appearing in person pointed out the continued absence of respondent. The Inquiry Committee directed the S.P., Bhiwani to ensure that the notice is served on the main respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar under confirmation to the Council and make sure that the Inspector is present at the next hearing. It simultaneously directed the complainant to ensure that the transcript of the conversation is filed immediately as per directions given at the last hearing. The matter was adjourned.

46 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while the respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar appeared in person. The respondent denied having deleted any photographs. He submitted that he did not know the complainant. He added that he was inquiring into the incident of blast in Samjhauta Express. No one was allowed to enter the place. The complainant was stopped from entering the place. Therefore, he got angry. The respondent clarified that he did not misbehave. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by Shri Sanjay Kumar, the respondent. The Committee noted that the complainant at the last hearing and the hearing before had assured that he would send a transcript of the conversation he had with the respondent inspector carrying his admission of having deleted the photographs but he neither entered appearance before the Committee nor sent the transcript. The Inquiry Committee, in view of the statement of the respondent and the complainant’s failure to substantiate his charges did not find grounds for action against the respondent and filed its report to the Council. Held The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and the facts of the case decided to close the complaint.

11) Shri Sarvanan Karuppuswamy The Police Authorities Editor/Publisher/Printer Versus Tamil Nadu “World Human Rights Commission Chennai & Rescue Centre Report”, English Monthly Chennai ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Sarvanan Karuppaswamy, Editor, “World Human Rights Commission and Rescue Centre Report”, English monthly, Chennai has filed this complaint dated 11.8.2009 against Shri J. Cedric Manual, Inspector of Police, Organized Crime Unit, Crime Branch(CID), Coimbatore City, Tamil Nadu alleging harassment by registering false cases against him under different sections. The complainant has submitted that his organization and press team has been creating awareness relating to Human Rights issues and on education and

47 science, law and culture through their publications. They are fighting for the cause of down trodden, violation of human rights and bringing in social reforms. On November 12, 2008 they filed a complaint against Tamil Nadu Government regarding Dr. Ambedkar College violence about Law and Order problem requesting action against the erring police officers. The National Human Rights Commission registered the case No.1492/22/13/08-09/UC and issued notice to the Director General of Police and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on November 14, 2008 and after receiving the notice the police authorities and government machinery bent upon wrecking vengeance on them registered false cases and harmed his reputation with the help of the Coimbatore district administration authorities. In an another incident the complainant and his team reported about the Arul Migu Vanapathrakaliyamman temple authorities’ violations, because of this report the Assistant Commissioner V. Shanmugam and R. Vasantha were arrested on 16.1.2009 Cr. No.63/09 under Sections 294 (B) & 323 IPC at Mettupalayam Police Station. On this issue also NHRC registered cases Nos. 2311/22/5/08-09/oc and 2219/22/5/08-09/oc and issued notice to the District Collector. He submitted that Tamil Nadu Police with the help of Coimbatore District authorities filed a case No.191/2009 under Section 420 against him through T. Jayaraman on 8.2.2009 and also hired reporter, editor and publisher to publish false, baseless news against him to harm his reputation. The news reports were published on 8.2.2009, 9.2.2009, 10.2.2009, 21.5.2009, 2.6.2009 and 7.8.2009. The complainant further submitted that he however had obtained anticipatory bail in the case but on the pretext of Inquiry he was tortured and abused by the Tamil Nadu Police and finally, the Tamil Nadu police by taking extreme step stopped his press activities.

He further submitted that one Krishna Kumar also filed case No.1/2009 under Sections 170, 177, 417, 429, 420, 468, 120(b) IPC to CBCID against him and his press organization employee by misusing the law and the IPC sections. The complainant alleged that without proper investigation, he was arrested on 7.5.2009 and no one in his family was informed by the police about his arrest. On the contrary the IGP (CBCID) informed the media about his arrest and gave false statement by leveling un-substantiated allegations. The complainant further stated that on the Law College violence, National Human Rights Commission again issued notice to the Director General of Police and the State Human Rights Commission in Tamil Nadu. After receipt of the notice the respondent police took him from judicial custody to police custody. During the custody the respondent police took him at his office in Kolathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The police broke his Press institution’s locks & lockers, seized his all original RNI certificates, damaged his press office computer software & Human Rights violation related documentary file, 27 GB capacity “D” drive formatted completely, removed his dress, assaulted him with iron rods and shoes very cruelly. The complainant

48 further stated that on 18.5.2009 the CBCID produced him before the Judicial Magistrate who recommended his medical treatment but the police refused the order of the Magistrate. He alleged that the police misused its power by admitting him in the Central Jail but the prison authority after seeing his critical and physical injured position sent him to Coimbatore Medical College hospital, for treatment on 18.5.2009. He alleged that the respondent police violated the basic press freedom and the independence of the press rights. He also filed the photographs of his damaged properties by the police team and their rowdies. Vide another letter dated 5.9.2009 the complainant made five respondents as (i) Dr. C.K. Gandhirajan, IPS, Inspector General of Police, State Human Rights Commission, (ii) J. Cedric Manuel, Inspector of Police, (iii) K. Soundarajan, Inspector of Police, (iv) T. Jayaraman, Reception Officer and (v) V. Shanmugam, Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer. He submitted that the respondents not only misused their powers on him, his institutions and his employers but gone to the level of barbaric treatment on him. He further stated that the police had given wrong press releases and press meet dated 21.1.2009, 8.2.2009, 9.2.2009 and 10.2.2009 in Tamil Osai, Dina Malar, Dinakaran, The Hindu and Daily Thanthi, etc. He also alleged that the police team forced him to attempt suicide. He mentioned that the police with their rowdies had illegally stolen all his documents and papers related to him and his organization. The complainant submitted that he had not committed any criminal or civil offence but the respondent police authorities have been taking wrecking vengeance against him because he and his journalist/reporting team filed a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission for action against erring police officials. After receipt of the notice the respondent police registered false cases one after another. The police team had been harassing him by calling him for an enquiry and not only filed false cases but also arrested him, tortured him and destroyed his press/ properties/documents and not allowing him and his team to enter inside their office. The complainant has alleged that he had been harassed physically and mentally. Not only his press had been damaged but his body has also affected permanently with blood related disease. He has no money for the treatment, neither any physical and mental energy to fight these unconditional powered respondent police. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondent, police authorities to save and secure his life and freedom of the press and compensation be provided to him. Respondent’s reply In response to the notice for comments dated 9.10.2009 the Superintendent of Police CBCID, Chennai in his reply dated 21.12.2009 has informed that two cases have been registered in B4 Race Course PS Cr.No.191/2009 under Sections 420 @ 170, 177, 182, 417, 419 & 420 IPC and Coimbatore City OCU

49 CBCID Cr. No. 1/2009 under Sections 170, 177, 417, 419, 420, 468, 471, & 420(B) IPC against Saravanan Karuppusamy and Sakthi & Prabhavathi. Both cases are under investigation and the above said accused were arrested on 7.5.2009 and 19.11.2009. A copy of the respondent’s reply was forwarded to the complainant on 15.3.2010. In the meantime Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vide letter dated 5.1.2010 forwarded a copy of President Secretariat’s letter No.PIA/9433 dated 17.11.2009 along with a representation of the complainant for appropriate action in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant along with S/Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Ashutosh Kumar, advocate appeared before the Committee while Shri S. Tajeshwari, Suptt. Of Police, CBCID represented the respondent authorities. The complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. He added that after publication of news reports on Human Rights violation cases were registered against him. The counsel for the complainant pleaded that the complainant was being harassed being a journalist. The representative of the respondent authorities submitted that the cases had been registered against the complainant on public complaints. This complaint was only to divert the authorities from their legal obligations and investigations. The complainant was not harassed as a journalist. Cases have been registered against him. He added that in one case chargesheet had been filed against him. He added that in one case investigation was on final stage. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Committee considered the records and the oral arguments of the parties. It noted that cases were pending trial against the complainant. It observed that one could not be permitted to take refuge under rights of a journalist for protection from other laws of the land. The cases pending trial would be decided by the court on their individual merits. The Inquiry Committee, however, directed the police authorities to ensure that as far as the journalistic functions are concerned the complainant is able to discharge them without any hindrance. It made its report to the Council for decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to close the case accordingly.

50 12) Shri Anis Siddiqui The Chief Secretary Press Photographer Government of Uttar Pradesh Hindustan, Bahraich Lucknow Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh

Shri Rajesh Singh Circle Officer (City) Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 2.6.2008 has been filed by Shri Anis Siddiqui, Press Photographer, Hindustan, Bahraich against Shri Rajesh Singh, Circle Officer (City), Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh for alleged threats due to publication of critical news item captioned ‘Teen Lakh Ke Laptop Chori’ (Laptop worth Rs. 3 lacs stolen) in its issue dated 28.5.2008.

The complainant has submitted that on the same day he was doing photo-coverage of a musical event performance by a Bhojpuri Singer, Shri Manoj Tiwari on 28.5.2008, and when the respondent Circle Officer (City), Shri Rajesh Singh saw him, he started abusing him, he assaulted him by throwing him of the stage and also threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant alleged that the action of the respondent officer was a reprisal measure due to publication of a photograph of a crime scene where a theft was committed at a Mobile Shop in the neighbourhood of the police station.

Comments of the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and Circle Officer (City), Bahraich were invited on 9.7.2008.

Comments

In response to the Notices for Statements in Reply, the respondent Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Circle Officer (City), Bahraich in his comments dated

51 26.8.2008 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and submitted that the issues have been raised by the respondent to defame him in the eyes of the society. Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, Under Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 18.12.2008 forwarded a copy of the inquiry report and submitted that the investigation conducted into the matter found all the allegations of manhandling to be false and baseless and that all those assembled on stage had been asked to vacate the stage as a safety measure. The complainant did not get any medical done for the alleged injuries sustained by him. The District Magistrate, Bahraich vide letter dated 27.8.2008 also submitted that the inquiry conducted into the matter found that the allegations could not be substantiated and there was basis for charge of reprisal measure.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010. The complainant, Shri Anis Siddiqui appeared in person while Shri Ram Kewal, Circle Officer represented the respondent, police authorities.

The complainant reiterated that on 27.5.2008 he covered a theft of laptop and on 28.5.2008 during the show of Shri Manoj Tiwari he was thrown off the stage while he was taking the photographs. According to him this was reprisal measure due to publication of the photograph.

The representative of the respondent stated that during the show a huge crowd had gathered and some of them went up to the stage. On the request of Shri Tiwari, the police tried to remove public from the stage and during the action the complainant might have fallen from the stage. He added that this was not intentional.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral submissions put forth. The Committee noted that several newspapers had exposed the incident but there was no evidence to establish this to be a reprisal measure. It, therefore, observed that the police authorities needed to be careful while dealing with the media creating a balance between their duty to cover events and law and order management. It submitted its report to the Council.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee accepted its findings that the charge of reprisal measure could not be established, cautioned the police authorities to be careful in future while managing media coverage of public events.

52 13) Shri Rajender Yadav The Chief Secretary Representative Government of Uttar Pradesh Aaj, Hindi Daily, Kanpur Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh

Shri Satyaveer Singh Station House Officer Konch Police Station Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 16.10.2008 has been filed by Shri Rajender Yadav, Representative, Aaj, Hindi Daily, Kanpur against Shri Satyaveer Singh, Station House Officer, Konch Police Station for alleged threat to kill him due to publication of critical news items. According to the complainant, he published a news item under the caption ‘DM Ne Kiya Konch Kotwal Ko Line Hazir’ in the newspaper issue dated 26.8.2008 which carried the order of the District Magistrate, Jalaun. It was mentioned in the impugned news item that Shri Satyaveer Singh, SHO, Konch Police Station was mentally imbalanced and was therefore transferred to Police Line in public interest. It was also stated that the District Magistrate suggested to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) that the Station House Officer may require to be posted after mental check-up. The complainant further stated that some political leaders besieged the Konch Police Station and the respondent SHO was suspended by the SSP, and when the news story was published, the respondent threatened to kill him. The complainant has alleged that the action of the respondent police officer amounted to suppression of the freedom of the press and requested the Council to take action in the matter.

Comments

In response to the Council’s Notice for Statements in reply dated 5.1.2009,

53 the respondent Station House Officer, Shri Satyaveer Singh in his comments dated 19.1.2009 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that the complainant had levelled false allegations to defame him. He submitted that he had written to the editor Aaj, Kanpur and also sought information on the news item from the Tehsildar under the RTI Act, 2005 who denied that any such event took place as published by the complainant. He submitted that the critical news item was only published by the complainant newspaper. It would have also published by other newspapers if it was true. The respondent further stated that a departmental inquiry had also been initiated on receiving notice from the Council.

The Superintendent of Police, Jalaun in his comments dated 10.2.2009 has submitted that the matter was inquired into by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, and no allegation was substantiated. He forwarded a copy of the inquiry report and submitted that the respondent police official has also been transferred from the Police Station, Konch. The District Magistrate vide letter dated 28.4.2009 has also endorsed the comments filed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun and forwarded its copy. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 6.4.2009.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010. Shri Rajinder Mayank represented the complainant, Shri Rajender Yadav while Shri Hari Ram, Circle Officer appeared for the respondent authorities.

The representative of the complainant stated that Shri Satyaveer Singh, S.H.O threatened to kill the complainant due to publication of a critical news report against the S.H.O. He added that the news was based on the orders of the District Magistrate and after telephonic talk with the District Magistrate only the facts were published but had no material to support the publication. The S.H.O had gone to court against the orders of the District Magistrate. The Inquiry was conducted without recording the evidence of the complainant.

Shri Hari Ram, appearing for the police authorities stated that no threat was given to the complainant. The S.H.O complained against, was transferred on 13.8.2009. There was nothing on record to show that the SHO was mentally unstable. He added that the written evidence of the complainant was duly recorded.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and

54 the oral submissions of the parties. At the outset, the Committee noted that the complainant in the news report dated 26.8.2008 had stated that Shri Satyaveer Singh, S.H.O was suffering from mental imbalance. The charge appeared to be some off the cuff remark without having any documentary basis and were thus inappropriate. The Committee warned the complainant to refrain from publishing such unverified reports. The Committee further noted the transfer of the respondent SHO and directed the police authorities to ensure that the complainant was not harassed in any manner in discharge of his journalistic duties. It submitted its report to the Council.

Held

The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee disposed off the complaint with the above directions to both the parties.

14) Shri Brijraj Chaurasia The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of Uttar Pradesh Amar Ujala, Jaunpur Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

The Station House Officer Jamalpur Police Station Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDCIATION

Facts

This complaint dated 24.4.2008 has been filed by Shri Brijraj Chaurasia, Jamalpur based Correspondent of Amar Ujala, Varanasi against the SHO, Jamalpur for alleged harassment and threats following publication of a critical news report. According to the complainant, he has been receiving threats to his life from the local police officials for having exposed their misdeeds in his writing which was published in his newspaper under the caption ‘Yuvak Ki Hatya, Jamalapur Mein Fenki Mili Laash’ in its issue dated 20.4.2008.

55 The complainant has alleged that the respondent SHO called him to the Police Station and asked him to stop such critical publication failing which to get ready to face the consequences. The complainant further alleged that he was constantly under the fear of being killed and had written to the police authorities drawing their attention to the matter, but no action has been taken in the matter. The complainant in his further communication dated 27.6.2008 has furnished a number of other clippings in which critical reports were published.

Comments

In response to the notices for comments dated 26.11.2008, Shri Naveen Chandra Tripathi, Under Secretary to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 8.9.2009 has informed that the matter was inquired into and as per the inquiry report of the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, the allegations of the complainant were found to be false and baseless. He has stated that a missing motorcycle No. UP 62 K 0391 (in respect of which a case No. 4347/06 has been filed) was in the complainant’s possession, which he claimed to have purchased but when he failed to prove with documentary evidence that he had purchased the vehicle, it was impounded on 23.2.2008 by the police. The complainant was aggrieved over such legitimate action of the police. Filing a copy of an inquiry report, the respondent submitted that the concerned SHO has also been transferred to other police station.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010. Shri Balraj Chaurasia, complainant appeared in person while Shri Dinesh Chandra, Additional Superintendent of Police represented the respondent authorities. The complainant reiterated that due to publication of critical news reports against the police his motorcycle was taken by the police. He was unnecessarily harassed. However, he added that since the concerned S.H.O, Shri Suresh Kumar has been transferred, he had no complaint against the police authorities. The respondent also reiterated the written submission and assured that the complaint was lodged out of resurgence against the SHO.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Committee on consideration of the records and particularly the sequence of events was not satisfied that the charges were made out. Moreover, in view of the statement of the complainant that with the transfer of the concerned S.H.O he had no grievance against the police, the Committee opined that no further action subsisted in the matter. However, the Committee directed

56 the police authorities to take necessary steps so that the complainant discharges journalistic duties in a free and fair manner. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Council on perusal of the record concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to allow the matter to rest with the above observation and directions.

15) Shri Kailash Nath Verma The General Manager District President North Eastern Railway Shramjivi Pratakar Union Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Gonda, Uttar Pradesh Versus The Zonal Manager North Eastern Railway Lucknow Zone, Uttar Pradesh

The Assistant Commissioner Railway Security Force Gonda, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 20.4.2008 has been filed by Shri Kailash Nath Verma, District President, Shramjivi Patrakar Union, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh against the North Eastern Railway alleging threats and harassment due to publication of critical news item ‘Daroga Ke Ghar Khana Na Banane Par Khanee Pari Jail Ki Hawa’ (Got jailed for refusing to cook food at Railway Cop’s house) in Dainik Aaj issue dated 5.4.2008. It was reported in the impugned news item that an unemployed youth, who worked under the Railway Officer doing household works for a long time, was sent to jail for refusing to cook food at the Railway Cop’s house. The youth was also reported to have been tortured and exploited. According to the complainant, due to publication of the critical news item, the respondent threatened to send him to jail. On 17.4.2008, a News Correspondent, Shri G. C. Srivastav went to the Railway Station for gathering news, a railway security personnel namely Avnish Kumar Rai insulted him and threatened to lock him up. When the complainant got the information by phone, he reached the railway station and approached the Zonal

57 Manager for filing their complaint. The complainant alleged that the Zonal Manager, instead of taking action against the erring security personnel, ordered his subordinates to impose on them a fine of Rs.270/- despite the fact that they produced platform tickets. The action of the respondent amounted to curtailment of the freedom of the press, alleged the complainant and requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter.

Notices for statement in reply dated 6.11.2008 were issued to the respondent railways authorities including the General Manager, the Zonal Manager, Northern Eastern Railways, Lucknow and the Assistant Commissioner, Railways Security Force, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

The Divisional Manager Railway, Lucknow in his comments dated 2.12.2008 submitted that the matter was enquired into and it was found that the complainant Shri Kailash Nath Verma with a colleague, came to the Gonda Railway Station and entered into the waiting room. He tried to engage the officials on duty which disrupted their official work. An argument broke out and it eventually reached the DRM, who was busy with her official work and asked them to wait for a while to which the complainant insisted that their problem must be sorted out first. The respondent added that the behaviour of the complainant disrupted the work of the government servants and the complainant and his colleague had no right to be there without any platform ticket. Thus, the appropriate action was taken against them for entering restricted area without authorization and disturbing the government servant performing their official duties.

A copy of the comment was forwarded to the complainant on 11.5.2009 for information/comments.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 23.5.2009 reiterated what he had submitted earlier and stated that they went to meet Smt. Ashima Singh, the DRM after purchasing platform tickets (enclosed its photocopies) she refused to talk to them and ordered the security personnel (RPF) to charge them. They took them to the a Passenger train and later charged them traveling without tickets from Lucknow to Gonda.

The complainant has filed photocopies of the challan tickets. Denying the averments of the respondent, the complainant alleged that the respondent had

58 misled the Council. A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to the respondent on 7.8.2009 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.2010 at Varansi. The complainant appeared in person. Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, PRO entered appearance on behalf of the respondent authorities.

The complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. He added that he had reported the matter to the Railway Minister also but no action has been taken. The complainant further stated that the DRM was pressurizing him to withdraw the complaint.

Shri Ashok Kumar, appearing for Railways submitted that though the complainant talked to him over the telephone yet he did not give anything in writing. The complainant should have contacted him as he was the Public Relation Officer of the Railways and was dealing with the press persons also. Regarding imposition of fine, he submitted that the complainant might have travelled without tickets.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the submissions put forth by the parties. The Committee noted that though the complainant reported the matter to the Union Minister for Railways, Government of India with copies to many authorities but not to the Public Relations Officer at Gonda who could have sorted out the issue. The Committee was of the view that in case of any difficulty, the complaint should have first been made to local authorities. It also noted the contradictory statements of the complainant’s unauthorized presence on the platform and the challan being for ticketless travel. The Committee felt the facts before it did not disclose sufficient grounds for observation against the authorities under Section 15(4) of the Act. It however, advised the complainant and the local railway authorities to maintain co-ordial relations and work in coordination with each other. The Committee decided to Dispose off the complaint. It reported to the Council for final decision.

Held

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

59 16) Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of Uttar Pradesh Rahat Times Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh

The Station House Officer Police Station, Musafir Khana Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint received in the Council on 2.5.2008 has been filed by Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak, Correspondent, Rahat Times, Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Nagender Singh, the Station House Officer, Musafir Khana for alleged harassment as a reprisal measure due to publication of critical news item. According to the complainant, he focused on corruption, money extortion and the inaction of the police, in his writing on his news report captioned ‘Rok Nahin Lag Pa Rahi Hai Apradhik Ghatnao Par’ which was published in Rahat Times issue dated 4.4.2008. Annoyed with the critical news report, the respondent Shri Nagender Singh, Station House Officer, with the help of a villager named Ram Milan filed a false case under Section 107/166 Cr.P.C. charging him of breaking the drain of the government tube well, alleged the complainant. He has stated that the question of breaking of drain does not arise since none was constructed on any tube well. On 14.5.2008, the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Deputy District Magistrate, which conducted an inquiry into it and found him innocent but a copy of the Inquiry Report was not given to him. He then tried to draw the attention of the respondent SHO but could not succeed. The complainant alleged that the action of the respondent tantamounts to curtailment of the freedom of the press.

Written Statement

The respondent, Shri D. C. Mishra, the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur in his comments dated 2.8.2008 has submitted that the matter was inquired into

60 by Shri A.P. Singh, Zonal Officer, Sultanpur and furnished, inter-alia, a copy of the Inquiry Report. It was stated in the Inquiry Report that on the complaint of Shri Ram Milan, an NCR No. 43/2008 under Section 506 IPC was lodged at Musafir Khana Police Station against the complainant Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak and Shri Sunil Kumar Pathak and the same was converted into an FIR under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. on 18.4.2008. It was also stated that due to the filing of the police case and investigation was going on, the complainant in order to put pressure on the police, filed the instant complaint before the Press Council.

A copy of the comment was forwarded to the complainant on 6.11.2008 for information/counter comments.

Counter Comments

The complainant filed his counter comments dated 14.11.2008 via fax. He denied the comments of the respondent and stated that the complaint filed by Shri Ram Milan regarding harassment was false. Reiterating his grievance, the complainant submitted that on the false complaint against him made by Shri Ram Milan regarding breaking of drain pipe an NCR No.4318 had been registered against him. He requested the Council to take action in the matter.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 30.3.2009 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010. The complainant, Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak appeared in person while Shri Ved Prakash Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police represented the police authorities.

The representative of the police authorities submitted that after inquiry Shri Nagendra Singh, the S.H.O has been transferred and proceeded against and the NCR had also been closed since the charge by Ram Milan was false.

The complainant pleaded that the police did not take any action against the person who filed false F.I.R. against him.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the record and the oral submissions put forth before it noted that the police authorities, taking cognizance of the complaint, inquired and proceeded against the concerned S.H.O. Thus, the Committee opined sufficient corrective action was taken in the matter. It,

61 however, observed that the police should have also taken action against the person, Shri Ram Milan who in collusion with the S.H.O filed a false case against the complainant, Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak. It made its report to the Council for decision. Held Concurring with the report of the Inquiry Committee, the Press Council decided to close the complaint in view of the remedial action taken by the police.

17) Shri Sageer Ahmed The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of Uttar Pradesh Dainik Prashasan Prakash Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Bisouli, District - Badaun Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Senior Superintendent of Police Badaun, Uttar Pradesh

The SHO Police Station - Bisouli Badaun, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Sageer Ahmed, Correspondent, Dainik Prashasan Prakash, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 19.5.2008 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Badaun, with a copy to the Press Council, filed this complaint against Shri Naurangi Lal, Senior Sub Inspector, Police Station Bisouli for snatching his camera and exposing its film/reel while he was covering a demonstration in the presence of the police officers and implicating him in false case. The complainant in his formal complaint dated 26.7.2008 has submitted that on 18.4.2008 at 7.30 p.m. while he was covering a demonstration against electricity problem at police station, Badaun Road, he captured the photographs of two persons pelting stones on a truck and burning a banner of the BSP in the presence of police officials. The respondent Senior Superintendent of Police objected to taking of photographs and not only snatched his camera and exposed

62 its film/reel but also threatened to implicate him in false case. Later the respondent also included his name in the FIR filed under Sections 147, 336, 283, 427 IPC and 7 CLA against the demonstrators. The complainant approached the Senior Police Officers to de-list his name from the FIR but to no avail. Comments In response to the notice for statement in reply dated 14.10.2008, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun in his comments dated 24.1.2009 submitted that as per the inquiry report of the Inspector Incharge, Bisouli on 18.4.2008 at around 6.40 p.m. about 150 - 200 persons jammed the road in front of the police station, Bisouli, demonstrating against non availability of electricity. He alleged that the complainant had political connections and he was instigating the mob to block the road and engaged in activities of arson/damaging public property. The SSI, Shri Naurangi Lal registered an FIR under Sections 147, 336, 283, 427 IPC and 7 CLA against 10 demonstrators including the complainant for disturbing peace. Later chargesheet had been registered in the case. As per the report the allegation levelled by the complainant could not substantiated. A copy of the comment was forwarded to the complainant on 19.5.2009 for his counter comments. No reply has been received so far despite issuance of reminder dated 18.6.2009. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010 the complainant, Shri Sageer Ahmed appeared in person while Shri Uday Veer Singh, SSI represented the police authorities. The representative of the respondent police authorities informed the Committee that the chargesheet in the matter has been filed and the matter was in the court. Report of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that the police has filed the charge sheet in the matter and was pending trial in the court. It noted that the matter was sub-judice and the Committee was restrained from proceeding further in the matter. It placed its report before the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to drop further proceedings in the matter being sub-judice.

63 18) Shri Dharmendra Rastogi The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of Uttar Pradesh Dainik Aaj Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Bhojipura, Uttar Pradesh Versus Shri Harnandan Rastogi The Secretary Correspondent Home (Police) Department Rashtriya Sahara Government of Uttar Pradesh Bhojipura, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh

The Circle Officer Nawabganj, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

Shri Dharmendra Rastogi, Correspondent, Dainik Aaj and Shri Harnandan Rastogi, Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, Bhojipura, district Bareilly, U.P. have jointly filed this complaint dated 14.6.2008 against the local police authorities for harassment and threatening to implicate them in false cases due to publication of critical reports highlighting their misdeed and irregularities. The complainants have alleged that the critical publications annoyed the local police authorities and to take revenge they conspired to implicate them in false case. The complainant has submitted that on 20.4.2008 some goons attacked some jeweller brothers. The villagers caught one of the goons and handed over to the then SHO, Shri Kaum Singh, but he released him without taking any action. The complainants reported the incident in their newspapers on 22.4.2008 and 23.4.2008. Being annoyed with the critical publications, the respondent SHO, Shri Kaum Singh along with other police officials attempted to kill them with their service pistol. On their complaint, action was initiated against the SHO and he was transferred awaiting posting. To take the reprisal measure, the respondent SHO threatened them to get ready to face the consequences. His relative, Shri Sher Bahadur was deputed as SHO in the police station and they both conspired against them and threatened to involve them in false encounter. The complainants wrote to the senior police authorities but failed to get any relief. They have requested action against the erring officials to enable them to perform their journalistic duties freely and fearlessly.

64 Comments Notices for statement in reply dated 11.11.2008 were issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh including Chief Secretary, Secretary (Home) Police department, Lucknow, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly and Circle Officer, Nawabganj, Bareilly. In response the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly in his comments dated 10.12.2008 submitted that the matter was inquired into by the Zonal Officer, Nawabganj and it was found that on 19.4.2008 the complainants came to Bhojipura from Bareilly by a tempo. They not only manhandled the tempo driver when he demanded the payment but also shouted at him, disturbed the peace of area through unlawful activities. The nearby shopkeepers gathered at the spot. The tempo driver filed a case under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC against the complainants, Shri Dharamandra Rastogi and others in police station Bhojipura on 27.5.2008. On inquiry, sufficient evidences were found against the complainants. The Shopkeepers gathered at the spot were also made witness by the police and thus chargesheet was also filed in the matter. The respondent further alleged that the complainants had filed the misleading complaint in the Press Council to pressurize the police authorities. Counter Comments The complainants in their counter comments dated 26.7.2009 denied the allegations made by the respondent and submitted that the matter was referred to the SHO against whom they had filed the complaint and thus the justice could not be expected. Reiterating their grievance the complainants submitted that no action had been initiated against their cross complaint. They alleged that their witnesses were also harassed by the police. They requested the Council to grant them justice. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondents on 4.8.2009. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.2010 at Varanasi. Shri Dharmendra Rastogi, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent police authorities. However, the Deputy Inspector General in a fax dated 17.8.2010 requested for adjournment. The complainants in hand written and oral submissions reiterated the averments in the complaint and added that they apprehended danger to their life. Report of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record the Committee noted that the matter was

65 pending in the court and therefore, any decision by the Council in the case would effect the matter which was sub-judice. The Committee, however, felt that Director General of Police may be addressed to ensure that the complainants were not harassed in any way in discharge of their journalistic duties. It reported to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to drop further proceedings in the matter. It further decided that D.G. of Police, Government of U.P. may be addressed to take necessary step to ensure free journalistic functioning of the complainants.

19) Shri Shardendu Trivedi The Chief Secretary Advocate, Representative Government of Uttar Pradesh Swatantra Bharat Lucknow Uttar Pradesh Banda, Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The District Magistrate Banda, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Banda, Uttar Pradesh

The Chief Medical Officer Banda, Uttar Pradesh

The District Primary Education Officer Banda, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 23.6.2008 has been filed by Shri Shardendu Trivedi, Advocate and District Representative, Swatantra Bharat, Banda against the District Administration and Police Authorities for allegedly threatening and harassing him due to publication of critical news items highlighting their irregularities and inefficiency. The complainant also alleged that a false case has also been

66 lodged against him and added that due to the atrocities of the respondent, he could not perform his duty efficiently. He had written to the higher authorities about his grievances but no action has been taken in the matter. The complainant has furnished clippings of critical news items published by him in his newspaper. Comments The Chief Medical Officer, Banda in his comments dated 27.11.2008 has informed that he joined the duty on 2.8.2008 as the Chief Medical Officer at Banda and the then CMO was transferred to District Itawah thus the matter is not related to him. The District Magistrate, Banda in his comments dated 5.12.2008 has submitted that the complainant misbehaved with Smt. Neelam Kushwaha, the District Programme Officer at her residence and she lodged an FIR at the Police Station, Banda and a case No. 565/08 under Sections 386/501/506 IPC was registered against the complainant, which is pending before a court of law. The District Magistrate also submitted that the complainant, as a precautionary measure to protect himself in the ongoing court case, has filed the instant complaint before the Press Council. The Superintendent of Police, Banda in his comments dated 28.11.2008 and 26.12.2008 submitted that the matter was inquired into by Shri Vijay Tripathi, Ex-Zonal Officer, City, Banda and it was found that on the complaint of Smt. Neelam, a case No. 565/08 under Sections 386/501/506 IPC was filed against the complainant on 6.6.2008. He stated that the complainant was arrested at the midnight of 7.6.2008 and was presented before the court on 16.6.2008 and the matter is under consideration of the court of law. He also furnished a copy of the Inquiry Report, conducted by the Zonal Officer, City, Banda. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.10 at Varanasi. The complainant, Shri Shardendu Trivedi alongwith Satya Dev Trivedi appeared before the Committee while S/Shri Omkar Rana, Basic Education Officer, Dr. K.N. Srivastava, Dy. C.M.O. and Gyanendra, C.O. City represented the respondent authorities. The C.O. City informed the Committee that the subject matter was pending trial in Court and was, thus, sub-judice. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on considering the record noted that the subject matter of the complaint i.e. the complaint of the authorities which led to alleged harassment was pending in the court of law. The complainant ought to take up

67 this related issue before the court itself. It, therefore, decided to drop the proceedings in the matter and submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the report and decided to close the complaint being sub-judice.

20) Mohd. Rashid The Chief Secretary Journalist Government of Uttar Pradesh Waris-e-Avadh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Mughalsarai, Chandoli Uttar Pradesh The Secretary Versus Home (Police) Department Shri Juber Ahmed Government of Uttar Pradesh Journalist Uttar Pradesh Janmukh Mughalsarai, Chandoli The Superintendent of Police Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Chandoli, Uttar Pradesh

Dr. Rajiv J.J. Nursing Home Alinagar, Chandoli Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts

This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 2.1.2009 has been jointly filed by Mohd. Rashid, a journalist working with ‘Waris-e-Avadh’ and Shri Juber Ahmed, a journalist working with ‘Janmukh’, Mughalsarai against Dr. Rajiv of J.J. Nursing Home, Alinagar, Chandoli, U.P. alleging harassment due to publication of critical news report about an accident in which a school principal got injured and later died in the nursing home. The complainants furnished the news clippings, the captions of which are as follows:

S.No. Captions Newspapers/date 1 Chikitsakon Ki Laparwahi Se Marij Ki Mout: Janmukh Hangama, Torphor 24.10.2008 2 News item in Urdu Script Waris-e-Awadh 24.10.2008

68 According to the complainants, on 22 October 2008 at around 6.30 P.M, Shri Johar Siddiqui, their neighbour a principal returning from the school, got injured after falling from a bridge and was admitted at the respondent’s clinic namely J.J. Clinic and Nursing Home. Without any doctor to attend him, he eventually died there awaiting the doctor for medical treatment. The complainants have alleged that this was not the first but one of the numerous incidents that occurred in the respondent’s clinic, and the respondent put pressure upon them not to publish the incident in their respective newspapers, but did not succeed. The complainants have alleged that due to the publication of the critical news item, the respondent lodged false cases against them with the police. Statements in reply dated 9.8.2009, were called for from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and Dr. Rajiv of J.J. Nursing Home, Alinagar, Chandoli, Uttar Pradesh. Comments Dr. Rajiv, J.J. Nursing Home in his comment dated 6.7.2009 has submitted that on 22nd October 2008 at about 8.45 in the evening, an accident victim namely, Johar Siddiqui, with serious injuries was bought to his nursing home in unconscious condition. The victim eventually died at around 10.30 pm due to the injuries and not due to the alleged carelessness of the Nursing Home as was evident from the post-mortem report. Immediately after the victim had died, those persons who came with the victim viz. Shri Parvez Qureshi, son of Md. Maqbool, Shri Juver, son of Md. Maqbool, and Shri Rasheed son of Herman along with some 15 to 20 people and the relatives of the victim forced themselves inside, accusing and threatening the management, plundered and looted the Nursing Home; and broke glass panes and doors. The respondent also alleged that the mob had beaten the employees/staff of Nursing Home and broken medical equipments such as x-ray machines causing loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent further submitted that the deceased Johar Siddiqui met with an accident having falling from Rajghat bridge in Varanasi and sustained severe injuries. Instead of being taking to a nearby hospital, the deceased was brought to his nursing home which was 18 kilometers away thus the delay in medical treatment to the injuries ultimately proved fatal to the victim, added that respondent. He also submitted that a case has been registered under Sections 147, 452, 336, 392, 427, 504, 506 IPC against the complainants and the matter is sub-judice. In order to save themselves from the case, the complainants approached the Council. The Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in his comments dated 4.9.2009 has submitted that the matter was inquired into and it was found that the charges levelled by the complainants were false. The fact that came into light showed that on 22.10.2008, the late Johar Siddiqui, Principal met with

69 an accident while returning home and breathed his last at 10.30 pm at Dr. Rajiv’s Nursing Home following which his relatives and the complainant indulged in verbal abuses and demolition of the hospital properties. The matter was brought to the court of law and it is still pending.

A copy each of the comments were forwarded to the complainant on 22.7.2009 and 9.10.2009 for information and counter comments.

Counter Comments

The complainants S/Shri Zuber Ahmed and Md. Rasheed in their counter comments dated 19.10.2009 submitted that the late Johar Siddiqui, after meeting with the road accident at 6.30 p.m. somehow managed to reach Kasab Maharal, Mughalsarai. His family members took him to Dr. Rajiv’s Clinic at Parmar Katra, Mughalsarai where the doctor on duty, Dr. Rajiv gave him prescription line of treatment and on his advice, Siddiqui was taken to his Nursing Home namely ‘J.J. Clinic and Nursing Home’, Alinagar, Mughalsarai. There was no doctor on duty at the J.J. Clinic and Nursing Home, but only the compounder and even after repeated calls by his mobile as well as landline telephones, Dr. Rajiv did not reach there. The patient died at 10.30 p.m. due to the carelessness of the doctor, alleged the complainants. The complainants submitted that it was confirmed that Dr. Rajiv or any doctor was not present at the J.J. Nursing Home during the time between 8.45 p.m. of 22.10.2008 to 1.45 a.m. of 23.10.2008 then how could Dr. Rajiv state that in the treatment of the Johar Siddiqui there was no negligence of the doctors of his clinic. In this regard, a written complaint was given by Shri Abdul Rahman, to the police station, Alinagar but no action had been taken against the erring doctor or his nursing home alleged the complainants and added that the Area Officer, Sadar and the Superintendent of Police, Chandoli tried to save Dr. Rajiv and his clinic. The complainants vide further communication dated 12.11.2009 have submitted that they have not received any notice or information from the Court with regard to case No.301/08 and the court case has no reference to the death of Johar Siddiqui.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010. Shri Javed Sidiqqui appeared for the complainant while S/Shri R.L. Prajapati, ASM and Amod Kumar, Deputy Suprintendent of Police, represented the respondent authorities.

Shri Amod Kumar submitted that the complainant was a party to the complaint lodged by the Doctor and chargesheet had been filed in Court in the matter. 70 Report of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and submissions of the representative of the respondent authorities, the Committee noted the complainants personal interest in the matter which led to their reported protests at the Nursing Home, leading to registration of a case inter-alia against them. This matter was sub-judice and had a direct bearing on the issue of harassment before the Court; making the matter sub-judice. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to drop further proceedings in the matter being sub- judice.

21) Mohd. Rafi Khan The Chief Secretary Assistant Office Incharge Government of Uttar Pradesh Bureau Chief Office Lucknow Krishak Saptahik Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

The Superintendent of Police Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh

The Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 12.2.2009, has been filed by Mohd. Rafi Khan and other journalists from Lucknow against the officials of the district hospital, Sitapur and the local police administration for allegedly harassing them by implicating in false cases. According to the complainant, on 27.1.2009, he got information that the costly medicine which were meant to be distributed free of cost at the government hospital being sold out illegally by the concerned pharmacists in connivance with other employees. He along with some other journalists, then went to the hospital, reached the Medicine Distribution Center at around 1Oclock, and informed the Chief Medical Superintendent, district

71 hospital. On failing to get access to the medical store, they at once opened the door and found medicine dealers holding bags full of medicines. When they tried to stop them from fleeing, some employees of the hospital namely Indrakishore Bajpayee, Sweeper, Kamlesh, C.P. Verma, Pharmacist; Shashikant, Pharmacist and some trainee pharmacists abused him and his journalists colleagues with filthy language. Two employees namely Indrakishore and Kamlesh beat them up with sticks and shoes and also broke his camera and amidst this commotion, the drug dealers escaped from the scene, stated the complainant. They had reported the matter to all the concerned higher authorities including the Chief Medical Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Chief Secretary, Health Minister and the Chief Minister by registered post. However, instead of taking action against the illegal medicine dealers, the local police registered case against them alleged the complainant. Notices for statement in reply dated 23.4.2009 were issued to the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh including the Chief Secretary, the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur and the Chief Medical Officer, district hospital, Sitapur. Comments of the Chief Medical Officer The Chief Medical Officer, district hospital, Sitapur in his comment dated 5.5.2009 has stated that on 27.1.2009, at around 1:50 pm, some people came to him and complained that the staff of the Medicine Distribution Centre was assaulted. On immediate inquiry, it came to light that some people tried to open the backdoor of the Centre and on failing, they tried to break it down. A cleaning staff (Safaikaramchari) of the hospital Shri Kamlesh was beaten up and abused in filthy language with casteist slang for delay in opening the door, stated the respondent Medical Officer and added that there was no stick etc nor broken camera was found on the place of incident. The respondent further submitted that on the complaint of Shri Kamlesh, an FIR was filed in the Police Station, Sitapur but despite issuance of reminders dated 2.5.2009 and 22.5.2009 to the concerned Station House Officer, no action taken report had been received. A copy of the comment was forwarded to the complainant on 18.6.2009 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comment dated 26.7.2009, denied the allegations levelled by the respondent and requested that action should be taken against Shri Kamlesh and others for assaulting him and his journalist colleague. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 16.10.2009 for information. 72 Counter Comments of the State Government The Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 11.2.2010 forwarded a copy of the comments of the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh. The Superintendent of Police, Sitapur in his comments dated 1.1.2010 has informed that the matter was inquired into by the Circle Officer, City and as per the Inquiry Report, the complainant Md. Rafi entered in the Medicine Room and manhandled the staff employees there. An FIR was lodged under Sections 147/332/353/504/506/427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Law Act and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act. The Inquiry Report further stated that later a chargesheet was filed on 6.2.2009 and an accused Ram Yadav was arrested and others got stay orders on arrest. The Inquiry Report also alleged that the complainant lodged a false and misleading complaint after the chargesheet was filed. The respondent also stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be substantiated. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.10 at Varanasi. The complainant Mohd. Rafi appeared in person while Dr. Arun Kumar Gautam represented the respondent side. The complainant reiterated the averments in the complaint. He added that his F.I.R. was not registered by the police whereas the assault on them was an attempt to prevent them from exposing the wrong doing. Dr. Gautam appearing for the respondent authorities categorically denied the allegations of breaking camera and added that no journalist was attacked. The complainant with his companions had beaten the staff of the hospital, a complaint of which was lodged with the police. The matter was pending trial in the court. One of the accused was arrested while others got stay from the court. Report of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and oral arguments put forth before the Committee, it noted that chargesheet in the matter has been filed and matter was pending in the Court. The Committee found that subject matter of inquiry before the Committee had bearing upon the matter pending in the Court. It, therefore, could not undertake further proceedings in the matter being subjudice. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to drop further proceedings in the matter being sub-judice.

73 22) Shri Lakshmikant Pathak The Chief Secretary Hardoi District Correspondent Government of Uttar Pradesh Jantantrik Prahari Lucknow Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Director General of Police Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow

The Superintendent of Police Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh

Shri Akhilesh Singh The Station House Officer Pali Police Station Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 16.1.2009 has been filed by Shri Lakshmikant Pathak, Hardoi District Correspondent, through the editor, Jantantrik Prahari, a Hindi Daily from Lucknow against Shri Akhilesh Singh, Station House Officer, Pali for attacking his house along with police force on 31.12.2008, assaulting him and his family members, snatching cash and jewellery and further threatened to eliminate him. He has furnished copies of critical news items captions of which are as follows:- Captions Dates Hardoi: Pali Thanedar Ke Uthpidan Se Macha Kohram 13.12.2008 Apradh Sanshipt – Premi Ke Sahyog Se Pati Ko Peeta 9.5.2007 45 Varshya Mahila 7 Bachhon Ko Chhorkar Premi Ke 31.7.2007 Sath Farar The complainant has alleged that due to publication of critical news reports, the respondent Station House Officer got irked and conspired to harass him. He sent a constable to his house at 3.00 am, took him to the police station and put him behind bars. The respondent SHO threatened him that if any further news would be published, he would be killed in a fake encounter. The complainant has submitted that he informed the higher authorities about the incidents but failed to get any relief. He has requested the Council to initiate action against

74 the respondent Station House Officer to enable him to discharge his journalistic duties freely and fearlessly. Notices for Statement in reply dated 6.10.2009 were issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh including the Chief Secretary, the Secretary (Home) Police Department, the Director General of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi and Shri Akhilesh Singh, the concerned Station House Officer, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. Comments The Superintendent of Police, Hardoi in his comment dated 31.10.2009 has submitted that the complaint against the Shri Akhilesh Singh, Station House Officer, Pali was inquired into by the Area Officer, Shahbad, Hardoi. In its Inquiry Report dated 23.10.2009 it was mentioned that on the basis of information dated 23.1.2007, received from Shri Ashutosh @ Chanda Babu, an NCR No. 15/07 under Sections 323/504 IPC was registered against the complainant and three others, and later based on the injury report, the NCR was converted into an FIR No. 687/08 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC at Police Station, Pali and the matter has been under consideration of the court of law. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 17.11.2009 for information and counter comments, if any. Dr. Balkar Singh, the District Magistrate, Hardoi vide letter dated 30.11.2009, furnishing a copy of the inquiry report, stated that the matter was inquired into by the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi and the complainant was arrested but was out on bail. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 11.12.2009 has denied the allegations levelled by the respondent. He has submitted that the respondent was misleading the Council by trying to change the course of the subject and had not given the facts of the matter. The complainant asserted that he filed the instant complaint against Shri Akhilesh Singh, the Station House Officer, Pali Police Station who attacked him and his family, and threatened to eliminate him due to publication of critical news reports and no case is pending in any court of law in this regard. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 29.12.2009 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Munni Lal, Deputy Supdt. of Police represented the police authorities.

75 The representative of the police authorities submitted that the complainant was involved in a property dispute. Chargesheet in the matter had been filed and was sub-judice. Report of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of record and submissions of the representative of the police authorities the Inquiry Committee noted that the fact, the complainant being a journalist could not present cognizance of other action under the general laws of the land. The matter was sub-judice and, therefore, the Council was debarred from holding inquiry in to the matter. It made a report to the Council accordingly for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to drop proceeding in the matter being sub-judice.

23) Shri Jagat Narayan Sharma The Chief Secretary Journalist, Dainik Janmorcha Government of Uttar Pradesh Gonda, Uttar Pradesh The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh

Versus The District Magistrate Gonda, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Gonda, Uttar Pradsh

The Gram Pradhan Jabarnagar, Paras Umri Begamganj, Gonda Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 10.9.2008 has been filed by Shri Jagat Narayan Sharma, Journalist, Dainik Janmorcha, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Inderbahadur Singh for alleged filing of false complaint against him with the police. According to the complainant, Shri Inderbhadur Singh @ Pappu Singh, Assistant Teacher in a local primary school lodged a false complaint, through Smt. Kanti, Gram Pradhan, Jabarnagar, Gonda before the Begumganj Police

76 Station under the SC/ST Act due to publication of critical news items in Dainik Janmorcha and Dainik Aaj under the captions ‘Jabranpur School Mein 5 Salon Se Nahin Banti Chhatravrati’ and ‘Chhatravrati Ki Maang Karne Wale Abhibhavkon Ki Mil Rahi Dhamkiyan’ in their respective issues dated 12.8.2008 and 13.8.2008. The complainant has alleged that due to the publication of the critical news items, Shri Inderbahadur Singh and Rajender Pratap Singh sons of Smt. Shranari Devi, Ex-Village Head of Jabranagar threatened him with dire consequences with the support of Shri Ramesh Gautam, MLA. The complainant alleged that a case was registered against him under the ‘SC/ST Act’ on 28.8.2008 with the help of the Gram Pradhan. The complainant also alleged that on the 5th and 7th of October, 2008 he and his family members were beaten up by the respondent and also looted his house. The complainant further stated that the information about the incidents were brought to the notice of the concerned authorities including the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Gonda but no action was taken in the matter. He alleged that due to the atrocities of the respondent, he could not perform his duty efficiently and requested the Council to intervene in the matter. Notices for statement in reply dated 11.12.2008 were issued to the Government of Uttar Pradesh including the Chief Secretary, the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, the Superintendent of Police, Gonda and the Gram Pradhan, Jabarnagar, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010 Shri Jagat Narayan, the complainant appeared in person while S/ Shri Ram Adher Prasad and Parbhakar Tiwari represented the respondent authorities. The representatives of the respondent authorities filed a copy each of the letter dated 12.8.2010 of the District Magistrate, Gonda written to the complainant and the report of the Circle Officer, Tarabganj to the District Magistrate Gonda. The complainant submitted that though the chargesheet had been filed in the matter yet no one was arrested. The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Ravi Kumar Tiwari, Deputy Director Information, representative of District Magistrate, Gonda submitted that the matter was pending in the Court. He informed that there was a dispute between the complainant, Shri Jagat Narayan Sharma and Shri Inderbhadur Singh @ Pappu Singh over sale purchase of a gun. The complainant had sought permission for sale of the gun which had been broken and with the intervention of the Court was released to him with the conditions. The representative of the respondent filed a copy of the letter dated 12.8.2010 addressed to the complainant informing that the matter was inquired by the Circle Officer, Tarabganj and an

77 investigation report was received from the Superintendent of Police, Gonda. The report dated 8.12.2008 revealed that thecomplainant registered a case No. 258/ 2008 under Section 395/397 of IPC against Shri Inderbahadur Singh @ Pappu Singh and others and after investigation a chargesheet filed before the Court, which is under consideration. During inquiry, the Inquiry Officer deposited the complainant’s, SBBL gun in the Tarabganj, Police Station. It was released to him on the order dated 24.11.2008 of the Judicial Magistrate, Gonda on the condition that it would be produced before the Court at his own expenditure as and when required, without any change and it would not be transferred to any one. On the report of the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, the District Magistrate directed to inform the complainant that in the absence of positive decision of the Court it is not possible to give required permission of sale of the above said broken gun and purchase of new one. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the complainant had not filed any counter, repudiating the statement of the respondents. Further the matter was sub-judice, therefore recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to close the case being sub-judice.

24) Shri Amzad Khan The Chief Secretary Sub-Editor Government of Uttar Pradesh Crime Line Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Sheikhana Kannauj Uttar Pradesh Versus The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh

The Station House Officer Police Station Chibramau Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint received in the Council on 30.5.2008 has been filed by

78 Shri Amzad Khan, Deputy Editor, Crime Line, a Hindi monthly magazine from Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh against the police and anti-social elements alleging harassment and threats due to publication of critical news item under the caption ‘Filmein Dekhkar Hero Nahin Ban Paye Aur Ban Gaye (sic) FASHION KI TADAK BHADAK NE BANAYA VAHAN CHOR’ in its October 2007 issue. The complainant has alleged that after the publication of the critical news report, one constable named Manoj Shukla, a relative of an accused in the vehicle thief, threatened him. The complainant informed the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj but no action had been taken in the matter, instead the police personnel and criminals frequented his house, giving him threats. The complainant also alleged that on 15.10.2007, he was fired upon and injured by the vehicle thief mafia man named Devender Chaturvedi and the police refused to register a case in the matter. However, with the intervention of the law Court, a case was filed against the culprits under Sections 307 and 506, of IPC, added the complainant and again on 27.1.2008 the mafia, with the power of money in connivance with the police, sent him to jail and threatened to kill him for writing news items against them. He alleged that the mafia had been watching his every step and they could kill him any time. Statement in Reply The respondent, Shri Prakash Tripathi, the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj in his comments dated 16.11.2008 submitted that the matter was inquired into by Shri M.P. Verma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kannauj. Shri Verma in his Inquiry Report stated that the complainant was arrested on 7.6.2008 at around 16.40 for possessing contraband substance, smack, of about 150 gram. He was taken to the police station and a case was registered against him under NDPS Act. He stated that in order to put pressure on the police authorities and to hide his illegal business of drugs, the complainant approached the Press Council with false and frivolous complaint by taking the shelter of the freedom of the press. Shri Navin Chandra Tripathi, Under Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his comments dated 28.4.2009 furnished a copy of the Inquiry Report and submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant Shri Amzad Khan, Sub-Editor, Crime Line were found to be false. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 10.2.2009, the complainant denied the allegations and contention of the comments filed by the respondent and submitted that he had been acquitted by the Court in most of the false cases in which he was entangled by the respondents. He added that he was also likely to be acquitted by the Court in a particular false case No. 392/06 under Sections 411,

79 520, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. He added that he and his family were in danger of being implicated in false cases by the respondent and requested for their safety and security.

Arguments

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 19.8.2010. The complainant was not represented before it while Shri Purshotam Sharma, Inspector represented the police authorities who placed before the Inquiry Committee the comments of the Superintendent of Police, Kannuaj, Uttar Pradesh submitting that inquiry showed the complainant was habitual criminal and was trying to seek protection from those processes of law on account of being a journalist.

As the complainant was not present, the Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter directed that a copy of the comments of the respondent police authorities be sent to the complainant for his counter.

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Purushotam Sharma, Inspector appeared for the respondent and reiterated that fourteen cases were filed against the complainant under different Sections of the IPC between 2000 to 2008. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was satisfied as there was no apparent threat to his life and therefore he had not appeared before the Inquiry Committee at the present and on the last hearing. The respondent assured that the complainant will not face any hindrance in performance of his journalistic duties.

The complainant in his letter (received in the Council on 3.11.2010) while denying the allegations made by the police authorities, submitted that in most of the false cases filed against him, he had been acquitted by the Courts. Giving list of such cases, the complainant submitted that he was working as a sub editor in the Crime Line, (a Monthly Magazine of Kannauj) and publishing news items with sincerity in public interest. As a result police got annoyed and filed false cases against him and his family members. He requested the Council to grant him justice to enable him to do his journalistic duties freely and fearlessly.

Report

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted the absence of complainant on two successive hearings. The Inquiry Committee took on record the assurance given by respondent for ensuring unhindered discharge of journalistic work. Taking the assurance on record the Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint.

80 Held The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee disposed off the complaint with above directions.

25) Dr. A.K. Gupta The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Government of Uttar Pradesh Wah Kya Baat Hai Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh The Secretary Versus Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh

The District Magistrate Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 14.8.2008 has been filed by Dr. A.K.Gupta, Chief Editor, Wah Kya Baat Hai, a Hindi Monthly magazine from Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh against the district administration and local police authorities for allegedly harassing him due to publication of critical news report. He had published a critical news report in the November 2008 issue of his magazine, under the caption “ppkZvksa dk cktkj xje gS & uDlfy;ksa dks foLQksVd lIykbZ djus okyksa ij ikacnh ugha?” exposing illegal activities of excavation of minerals by use of explosives in Sonebadra area. When he visited the area for follow up news from local labourers and took photographs, a contractor Mustfa along with one Bablu accompanied by some 15-20 veiled people threatened him, snatched his camera, mobile and key of his bike and damaged the chip of the camera. They threatened him with undignified languages and abused him. The complainant informed the higher authorities but no avail. Statement in Reply In response to the Council’s notices for statement in reply dated 11.12.2008, the respondent Station House Officer, Dala, Sonebhadra, in his comments dated 22.12.2008 submitted that the complainant tried to go to the excavation sites where explosive was blasted. The security related prevention of his venturing out in the dangerous area was taken by the complainant in a negative way

81 leading a scuffle without any serious arguments. The respondent added that he inquired into the matter personally and found that the charges against any one could not be substantiated. The respondent SHO also furnished a copy of settlement letter purported to be issued by the complainant in which it was certified that complainant didn’t want any further action in the matter. The Superintendent of Police, Sonebhadra in his comments dated 21.1.2009 submitted that during the time of blasting explosive in minerals mines, the complainant wanted to take photographs and gather information but for safety reasons, he was stopped from going to the mines and he took it amiss. The respondent further stated that preventing the complainant from taking photograph took a serious turn and arguments broke out between him and the Petidar Shri Mustafa, who worked at the mines. The Superintendent of Police inquired into the matter and found no charges against any one. He also furnished a copy of the settlement letter stating that the complainant wanted no further action in the matter. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 14.2.2009 submitted that the respondents, in order to save themselves and to conceal their illegal activities, misled the Council. He also submitted that the settlement letter in question was also the handiwork of the respondent on which he was forced to put his signature. Report The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.2010 at Varanasi. The complainant, Dr. A.K. Gupta appeared in person while Shri O.P. Rai, C.O. represented the respondent authorities. At the outset the complainant submitted that while no action was taken on his FIR he was forced to sign the settlement letter but he wanted to pursue the complaint. The Inquiry Committee, while adjourning the matter, directed the complainant to intimate in writing that he was withdrawing the letter of settlement dated 14.12.2008 and wished to pursue his complaint. In the meantime the complaint should be investigated by the police under intimation to the Council within two months. The matter again came up for hearing on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. Both the parties were present. The complainant submitted that after the last hearing the police officer had called the accused and the complainant and took action against the accused and asked him to compensate the cost of camera damaged. The complainant submitted that the accused had made payment and he was satisfied with the measures. Shri O.P. Rai, Circle Officer appeared for the respondent and submitted that the matter stands settled.

82 The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the matter has amicably settled. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided to close the complaint being settled.

Facilities to the Press

26) Shri Khaliq Mansuri The Director Publisher, “Qaumi Inquilab” Versus DAVP Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh) New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 10.3.2008 has been filed by Shri Khaliq Mansuri, Publisher, “Qaumi Inquilab”, an Urdu weekly published from Ujjain against the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity (DAVP), New Delhi for denial of renewal of rate contract for issuance of government advertisements. According to the complainant his newspaper is being published for the last one decade. When he applied for renewal of rate contract, the respondent DAVP noticed a minor discrepancy that his newspaper was giving a commission 50% instead of 40%. The complainant submitted that he removed the discrepancy and enclosed therewith a certificate of the Chartered Accountant and again filed the papers for renewal of rate contract. The complainant has alleged that such type of discrepancy was also found in the other newspapers, but their rate contract had been approved by the DAVP. The complainant alleged that the respondent had adopted discriminatory attitude towards the Urdu newspapers and requested to take necessary action in the matter. Comments In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 2.5.2008, the respondent, Joint Director (Advt.), DAVP, New Delhi vide his reply dated 14.8.2008 submitted that the publisher “Qaumi Inquilab” Urdu weekly had applied for renewal of rate contract on 31.8.2006 along with media particulars and specimen copies, which was scrutinized and found that the commission on sale of copies was more than 40%. Therefore, the rate contract of the weekly could not be renewed and the complainant publisher was duly informed on 16.4.2007. The respondent further submitted that the complainant again submitted

83 the media particulars and revised Annexure XII on 26.2.2008 and that time the media particulars were found to be in order and the rate contract of the “Quami Inquilab” Urdu Weekly was issued over a circulation of 6,631 (sold copies) @ Rs. 6.79 per sq.cm. for a period from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2009. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 29.9.2008 submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply of the DAVP as at an earlier occasion also the DAVP, approved the rate contract of his newspaper only after the intervention of the PCI. The complainant submitted that the respondent renewed rate contracts on the same day and issued advertisements to other newspapers but deprived his newspaper, Qaumi Inquilab. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore. Shri Khaliq Mansuri, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Gopal Ji Rai, Assistant Media Executive appeared for the DAVP. The complainant submitted that DAVP discriminated and deprived his paper of government advertisements due to trivial discrepancy. The complainant however informed that the DAVP has now done renewal. The representative of DAVP denied any kind of discrimination as alleged and submitted that renewal had been allowed after the discrepancy has been removed. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and was satisfied that the grievance of the complainant had been redressed after compliance with rules. The Inquiry Committee, however, impressed upon the DAVP to pay attention to the practical difficulty of small newspapers and adopt a more liberal policy towards them. It submitted its report to the Council to dispose off the complaint. Held The Press Council concurred with report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint with the observations made therein.

27) Shri Suresh Verma The Director General Publisher/Editor Directorate of Advertisement Kranti Kathan Versus & Visual Publicity (DAVP) Indore, (M.P.) New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Suresh Verma, Publisher/Editor, ‘Kranti Kathan’ Hindi weekly published

84 from Indore, Madhya Pradesh in his complaint dated 4.9.2008 against DAVP alleged non-renewal of rate contract to his newspaper for the year 2007-08. According to the complainant, his newspaper was granted rate contract by the DAVP upto 31st December 2006 but after that the DAVP raising many queries, did not grant rate contract to his newspaper for the year 2006-2007. The complainant further submitted that he had fulfilled all the requirements, but the respondent deprived him of renewal of rate contract to his newspaper despite informing the Director, DAVP personally about the position. The complainant alleged that the respondent adopted delay tactics in renewing the rate contract. The complainant in his further communication dated 27.5.2009 has informed the Council that his two bills amounting to Rs.2884/- and Rs.1730/- were lying pending with the DAVP. Despite informing the DAVP, he did not receive any amount from the DAVP. The complainant requested the Council to direct the respondent for renewal of rate contract 2006-07 (onwards three years) and also direct the respondent to clear the advertisement bills. Comments In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 9.6.2009, the respondent Additional Director General, DAVP, New Delhi vide comments dated 13.7.2009 submitted that the “Kranti Kathan” weekly, Indore was on DAVP’s approved panel till 1999-2000 and also in the year 2006 on circulation of 5225 copies @ Rs.33.93. The weekly was considered for DAVP empanelment but rejected by the competent authority and also by Panel Advisory Committee in their meeting held on 27-28 April,2004 due to ‘Poor Printing’. The DAVP had informed the complainant from time to time to apply afresh for DAVP empanelment after improving the printing quality of the publication. However, the publisher of the weekly has not improved the quality of printing inspite of several reminders, resulting in rejection of the weekly for issuance of DAVP rate contract. The respondent further submitted that the publisher may be directed to apply afresh online in the month of August, 2009 and also submit physical file alongwith all required documents and specimen copies with improved printing quality for DAVP empanelment on or before 31.8.2009. On receipt of the application, the case of the “Kranti Kathan” weekly will be placed before the Panel Advisory Committee meeting for their consideration as per norms. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.11.2009 submitted that the reasons recorded by the DAVP in respect of not mentioning the place of publication on the masthead and poor printing was absolutely wrong and based on previous complaint before the Council in 2000 decided in 2004. The complainant further submitted that the DAVP did not renew his rate contract for the year 2000-01 when there was no such government policy in force. The

85 complainant further submitted that he applied in the old media questionnaire, which was entirely according to the provisions of Government Advertisement Policy and Rules. The complainant further submitted that the respondent by mistake had sent new media questionnaire to him with the advice to apply for renewal of rate contract. The complainant submitted that when he had applied afresh after rectifying all questionnaires, the DAVP had renewed the rate contract for the year 2006-07 after intervention of the Council. After that the DAVP stopped advertisement to his newspaper. The complainant alleged that the respondent was deliberately trying to harass him by adopting delaying tactics. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore. Shri Suresh Verma, Publisher/Chief Editor, Kranti Kathan appeared in person. Shri Gopal Ji Rai, Assistant Media Executive, DAVP appeared for the respondent. The complainant submitted that the rate contract was given in 2006 and it was given for a period of three years. Since he was issued one advertisement in 2007, he presumed that no further application for renewal was necessary. He further stated that the media form dated 28.8.2006 was received by him in February 2007 and the annexure 12 of the media form was not applicable in his case. The complainant also stated that he had given affidavit on the non-judicial stamp regarding non-receipt of cheque, yet payment was not made. The representative of DAVP submitted that the complainant had made necessary improvement in its printing and his case would be considered, if he applies online before 31.3.2010 i.e. today. As regards payment of bills, the respondent submitted that the complainant may submit the bill and the payment would be made. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and upon hearing the parties noted that the complainant was to have availed online facility of applying for empanelment in the prescribed manner giving details of his bank account etc. so that the DAVP could also make online payment. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to apply afresh online as suggested by the representative of DAVP. It simultaneously directed the representative of the DAVP to check the reasons for non payment of his bills and to clear them on an urgent basis. It made its report to the Council for disposal of the case accordingly. Held The Press Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dispose off the complaint with in the above lines with directions to the parties to inform compliance.

86 28) Shri Kaushal Kishore Mishra The Director Publisher Directorate of Public Relations Tarun Chhattisgarh Versus Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 4.10.2008 has been filed by Shri Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Publisher, Tarun Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh against the Directorate of Public Relations, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur for alleged denial of advertisements to his newspaper. According to the complainant, they have focused, in the articles of their newspaper, on the working of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State, Dr. Raman Singh, in public interest and due to some critical write-ups; the State government stopped releasing advertisements to their newspaper. He has alleged that the attitude and action of the respondent Directorate of Public Relations is an attack of the freedom of press and requested the Council to take action in the matter.

Comments

In response to the notice for comments dated 6.2.2009, the respondent Commissioner, Directorate of Public Relations, Government of Chhattisgarh in his comments dated 19.3.2009 has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that the complainant’s newspaper has never been deprived of advertisements of the State Government as well as that of the Directorate. He has stated that advertisements have continuously been issued to the complainant’s newspaper, but owing to the enforcement of the election code of conduct with effect from October, 2008 for the forthcoming legislative assembly elections, government departments had issued much less quantity of advertisements for release to the newspapers, which resulted in the complainant not receiving the quantity of advertisements he had expected during the period.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comment dated 25.4.2009 has denied the submissions of the respondent in his comments and stated that the respondent Directorate of Public Relations blocked release of advertisement to their newspaper during the period starting from 7.9.2008 to 9.10.2008. He has stated

87 that during its twenty-five years of publication, they had never approached the Press Council, except in the instant case. He has retaliated the reason being cited by the respondent that due to the elections process, less quantity of advertisement being released, as baseless since he has witnessed many elections in the past and no such a thing has had happened.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when both the parties were present. The complainant submitted that his newspaper was deprived of the advertisement by the Government for one month two days. The complainant’s grievance was that the advertisements were stopped by the officers over telephone. The complainant further submitted that he met the CM and raised his problem before him who replied that he was aware of the stoppage of advertisement. The complainant submitted that although the advertisements have been restored, his grievance was deliberate stoppage of advertisements.

Shri Umesh Mishra, Deputy Director, Department of Public Relations, Government of Chhattisgarh appearing for the respondent reiterated the comments made in writing.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the parties. It appeared to the Inquiry Committee that the advertisements could not be released probably due to Elections code and since the advertisements has been restored immediately, no cause of action subsists. So far as quantum of advertisements was concerned, the assessment is done on yearly basis and not taking into consideration a particular month. The Inquiry Committee, however, before parting with the complaint reiterated its guideline that issuance of government advertisement was not a largesse or bounty and its utilization had to be ensured in a judicious manner within the frame work of a clearly laid down policies. It made its report to the Council with these observations for disposal of the case.

Held

The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint.

88 29) Shri Jitendra Kumar The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of U.P. Dikshit Times Lucknow, U.P. Hindi Weekly Versus Agra, U.P. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

The District Information Officer Agra (U.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.1.2008 has been filed by Shri Jitendra Kumar, Correspondent, Dikshit Times, Hindi weekly, Agra (U.P.) against the District Information Officer, Agra for non-issuance of Accreditation Card despite approval by the Press Accreditation Committee in its meeting held on 27.10.2005. The complainant submitted that he met the Joint Director, I&PRD, Government of U.P., Lucknow who apprised him that the accreditation cards probably have been lost from the District Information Office, Meerut and the Deputy Director Information, Meerut has been directed to lodge a complaint in this regard so that duplicate accreditation card could be issued. The complainant alleged that the respondent neither filed any FIR nor issued any duplicate card to him. The complainant further alleged that he is facing a lot of problems in dissemination of news apart from financial loss due to the indifferent attitude of the respondents. He requested to take necessary action in the matter. Comments of the Director, I&PRD, Government of U.P., Lucknow were invited in the matter on 14.3.2008. The Joint Director, I&PRD, Government of U.P., Lucknow vide her comments dated 9.6.2008 informed that the Press Accreditation Committee in its meeting held on 27.10.2005 granted accreditation cards to three journalists including the complainant from Agra district. On 19.12.2005 accreditation cards of all the three journalists were sent to the DIO, Meerut for signature with the direction to send back to the DIO, Agra for issuance to the concerned journalists including the complainant. The respondent further stated that on enquiry by the DIO, Agra the DIO, Meerut informed that the cards had been sent on 21.3.2007. On the basis of the information received from the DIO, Meerut, the DIO, Agra was directed to intimate the Meerut Office about the factual position i.e. non

89 receipt of card. The respondent further informed that after having received information from the DIO, Agra that no card has been received by them, the DIO, Meerut was directed to lodge an FIR and send a copy of the same to the Headquarter. Vide Council’s letter dated 31.12.2008 the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow was requested to intimate the Council about the action taken in the matter. When no response was received from the respondent, notices for statement in reply were issued to the Government of U.P. on 23.9.2009. Written Statement The respondent, Deputy Director, Information, Government of U.P., Agra in his written statement dated 14.10.2009 while reiterating their comments submitted that the complainant was apprised many times about non-receipt of his card by them. The respondent further submitted that on 7.10.2008 an FIR was lodged in Nanchandi police station, Meerut by the Deputy Director, Information, Meerut regarding loss of cards. The respondent concluded by saying that in this case further necessary action has to be taken by the Head Office, Lucknow now. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The complainant submitted that he got the card, although belatedly. The complainant submitted that it should have been given well in time. Shri Raj Gopal S. Verma, DIO, Agra appearing for respondent submitted that the card was issued by head office in Lucknow. Since there was no authorized officer in Agra, the cards were issued through District Office. The Accreditation cards had been lost by the Meerut Office and the delay in filing FIR was on their part. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the record noted that the matter stands settled by release of new accreditation card in favor of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, however, observed that the respondents at Meerut had been working in lackadaisical manner and had caused hardship to the complainant. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint as settled with the above observations. The Council decided to allow the matter to rest accordingly.

90 30) Shri J. Tamkoria The Director Editor/Publisher Versus I&PRD Dainik Chhattisgarh Vaibhav Government of Chhattisgarh Korba, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 19.1.2009 has been filed by Shri Jaiprakash Tamkoria, Editor/Publisher, Dainik Chhattisgarh Vaibhav, against the Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur alleging non empanelment of his newspaper in the list of government advertisement. According to the complainant, he had applied on 1.9.2007 for empanelment of his newspaper with all the relevant documents but his newspaper has not been empanelled due to the publication of a critical news item under the caption “Chhattisgarh Shashan Ki Koi Vigyapan Niti Nahin” in its issue dated 22.11.2008. Annoyed with the critical news item the respondent deliberately rejected empanelment of his newspaper, alleged the complainant. He met and apprised the Chief Minister about his grievance in writing and the Chief Minister office forwarded his complaint to the respondent Information and Public Relations Department with request to take appropriate action in the matter. Comments In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 1.5.2009, the respondent Joint Director (Advs.), Public Relations Department, Raipur, in his comments dated 23.9.2009 submitted that the complainant’s application for empanelment of his newspaper was considered by the Committee at its meetings on 19.11.2007, 21.2.2008, 2.7.2008 and 20.1.2009: and in July 2009, and the complainant was asked to comply with requirements by furnishing eight point information. As and when the complainant complied with the requirements they will proceed further in the matter and apprised the Council of the progress. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when both the parties were present. Shri Jaiprakash Tamkoria, complainant appeared in person and submitted that he had again applied in September 2009 after complying with all the requirements as required by the Department of I&PRD, Govt. of Chhatishgarh in their letter dated 6.7.2009 but to no avail. The complainant submitted that his newspaper suffered huge advertisement loss due to denial of empanelment. Shri Umesh Mishra, Deputy Director, appearing for the Department of I&PRD, Government of Chhatishgarh, submitted that his case was placed

91 before the Empanelment Committee and the discrepancies found in his case had been intimated to the complainant. It was again placed before the Accreditation Committee two days ago and the decision was still awaited. On a query, the representative of the respondent informed that they had adopted the Model Advertisement/Accreditation Policy of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. He, however, could not satisfy the Committee about the reasons/criteria of seeking information regarding subscribers name and addresses and their mobile numbers. The Inquiry Committee prime-facie was of the view that the complainant newspaper having completed all the requirements was entitled to be empanelled in the state government approved list of newspapers for release of the advertisements. Taking note of the submissions made by the respondent that the matter was to be decided shortly, the Inquiry Committee, kept the matter pending to await confirmation thereof. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Arguments The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010. The complainant appearing in person, informed the Committee that till date accreditation was not given to him. Shri Umesh Mishra, Deputy Director represented the respondent Department of Publication, Government of Chattisgarh. He stated that the complainant’s case was considered by the Accreditation Committee on 27th March 2010 but was not approved due to some shortcomings, namely, the two publications brought out by the complainant contained same editorial and the circulation figures was also not correctly given. He added that the circulation was verified from the agents of the newspaper. The complainant countered the submissions and stated that he had replied to all the points raised. He added that the agents have denied having given any information to anyone. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and upon hearing the parties observed that the complainant was being denied empanelment by the Department in the release of government advertisements on one pretext or the other for the last three years. The Committee directed the respondent authorities to decide the matter finally after giving him opportunity so that he could remove the deficiencies, if any. The Inquiry Committee reported the matter to the Council for final adjudication in the light of its findings and observations. Held The Council on perusal of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent, I&PRD, Government of Chattisgarh to finally decide the case of the complainant within two months under intimation to the Council. 92 31) Shri Z.A. Ansari The Director Editor Versus Information & Publicity Indian Prashasan Government of NCT of Delhi Delhi Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 3.12.2007 has been filed by Shri Z.A. Ansari, editor, Indian Prashasan, Delhi against the Director, Information & Publicity, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for alleged discrimination in granting the accreditation. According to the complainant, he filed the Press Accreditation form duly filled along with all relevant documents in the office of the Directorate of Information and Publicity, Government of NCT of Delhi in the month of March 2007 but received a reply dated 17.10.2007 from the Information Officer (Press), Directorate of Information and Publicity that the Accreditation Committee decided to keep the matter pending because DPAC wanted to study the new empanelment guidelines for weeklies before deciding his case. He has requested the Council to direct the respondent to issue his press accreditation card in the interest of justice. Comments In response to the notice dated 17.3.2008, the Head of the Office, Directorate of Information and Publicity, Government of NCT of Delhi in his comments dated 15.4.2008 submitted that the complainant applied for accreditation card in March 2007, which was considered by the Delhi Press Accreditation Committee (DPAC) on 31.8.2007 and it decided to keep the matter pending because DPAC wanted to study the new guidelines for weeklies before deciding the case. The complainant was apprised of this on 17.10.2007. In the next meeting held on 26.11.2007, the DPAC decided not to issue accreditation card to the complainant as the complainant’s newspaper was not empanelled with the Government of NCT of Delhi because as per guidelines of the DPAC, accreditation cards are issued to those newspapers which stood empanelled by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Information and Publicity. Further Correspondence In his counter comments dated 18.8.2008, the complainant submitted that the respondent misguided the Press Council by giving wrong information as only 16 weeklies were empanelled with the Delhi Government, while accreditation card had been issued to 58 weeklies. He has alleged that the action of the Delhi Press Accreditation Committee was against the principles of natural justice, perverse and liable to be set aside and requested the Council to direct the respondent to issue him accreditation card.

93 The respondent reiterated their stand on 5.11.2008 and 5.10.2009 while the complainant in his undated letter received on 6.1.2009 submitted that the respondent assured him that his matter would be listed in the month of February 2008 but no meeting was held. He requested the Council to direct the respondent to issue provisional accreditation card during the pendency of his matter. The respondent Deputy Director (Press), Directorate of Information and Publicity in his letter dated 19.3.2009 furnished a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the DPAC on 26.11.2007 wherein old applications including that of Shri Z.A. Ansari were considered and subsequently rejected as they were not empanelled with DIP. Minutes of another meeting of DPAC held on 12.3.2008 was also furnished by the respondent wherein the DPAC reiterated its decision that applications from newspapers not empanelled with DIP shall not be entertained. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person and averred that government wanted the press to function as per its desire. His newspaper wished to cover Vidhan Sabha and when he visited the Vidhan Sabha, he was not allowed to enter the premises in the absence of the accreditation card. Then he approached the Directorate for the same. The complainant submitted that he fulfilled all the requirements and submitted the form for accreditation. At that time, the rules did not stipulate the requirement of empanelment with Delhi Government for advertisement as eligibility criteria. This clause was subsequently added and should not affect his case. Now his application has been pending for the last two years. Shri M.C. Maurya, Deputy Director, Information and Publicity appeared for the respondent and submitted that only newspapers empanelled for Advertisement were granted accreditation by the Accreditation Committee consisting of seven members. Director Information and Publicity is member Secretary of the Accreditation Committee. The complainant’s case is in process and within a month or two a decision is likely to be taken. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s case was not considered since his newspaper was not in the list of Home Department of Government of NCT of Delhi although it was registered with the RNI. This indicated that he was not sending copies of his newspaper to the Delhi Government as required by the PRB Act. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties directed the complainant to send his newspaper regularly to the concerned Department of Government of

94 NCT of Delhi enabling the respondents to consider his case for initial empanelment. Simultaneously, the respondents were directed to place the case of the complainant for accreditation before the Accreditation Committee and apprise the Council of its outcome. The matter was adjourned to enable compliance. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 28.7.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was present in person while Shri M.C. Maurya, Deputy Director represented the respondent, Directorate of Information and Publicity, Delhi Government. The complainant submitted that though a provisional accreditation card has been received there was no guarantee that permanent card would be issued as his weekly was not being empanelled. The representative of the respondent submitted that till finalization of empanelment of the complainant’s Hindi weekly, a provisional press card has been issued to him. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Committee on consideration of the records of the case and oral arguments of the parties noted that with issuance of provisional press card to the complainant, no cause of grievance remained. Any final decision is to be taken by the government at the appropriate time in keeping with the criteria and policy laid down. The Committee made its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to close the complaint.

32) Shri Keshavdutt Chandola The Chief Post Master Editor, Nagraj Darpan Weekly Kanpur G.P.O. Kanpur (U.P.) Kanpur (U.P.)

Versus The Post Master General Kanpur (U.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts In this complaint dated 6.2.2006 addressed to the Minister for

95 Communications, Government of India, New Delhi and copy endorsed to Press Council, Shri Keshavdutt Chandola, Editor, Nagraj Darpan, Hindi weekly, Kanpur and President, Association of Small Newspapers of India, Kanpur alleged nonrenewal of postal registration number of some newspapers by the Chief Post Master, Kanpur. The complainant submitted that about 10 newspapers including his Hindi weekly, ‘Nagraj Darpan’ and fortnightly ‘Lok Sahitya Varta’ had applied in time for renewal of the postal registration number of their newspapers. The applications were forwarded to the Chief Post Master, GPO, Kanpur and to Senior Superintendent, Kanpur City but the Chief Post Master rejected the letter of the Senior Superintendent and demanded late fee. Even after giving references of the Senior Superintendent, he refused to renew the registration. The complainant further submitted that they had also apprised the Post Master General, Kanpur but the renewal had not been done. According to him, the rejection of renewal of registration was illogical and unreasonable.

The complainant informed that during the year 2003-2005, the renewal of registration had been done by the Post Master General, Kanpur. Later, the Senior Superintendent and the Chief Post Master, GPO, Kanpur were authorized for renewal and registration. But the newspapers were not informed about this change. Thus they applied to the Senior Superintendent as per the directions of the PMG Office, Kanpur. Since both the officials were of the same rank, the newspapers could not suffer for the lack of information. The complainant submitted that no action had been initiated by the respondent Post Master General, Kanpur on their letter dated 20.1.2006. He requested to direct the respondent to renew the postal registration number of their newspapers.

Notices for statement in reply were issued to the respondent authorities on 19.4.2006.

Comments

The Chief Post Master, Kanpur in his comments dated 17.5.2006 submitted that the postal registration of the ‘Nagraj Darpan’ was valid upto 31.12.2005 and as per rules it was necessary to file fresh application for renewal of postal registration of the newspaper at least 90 days before expiry of the postal registration but the complainant had not filed his application before 31.12.2005. The respondent further submitted that the complainant filed his application of renewal of postal registration to the Deputy Superintendent of Post Office, Kanpur City after 60 days from the due date i.e. 31.12.2005 and he was asked to pay late fee of Rs.50/- and he was also apprised about the rules and regulations for renewal of postal registration. The respondent stated that the complainant was not ready to pay the late fee despite request by the Head Post Office on 2.3.2006.

96 A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 30.5.2006 for information/counter comments, if any. Counter Comments In his comments dated 8.9.2006 the complainant informed that to avoid any controversy he deposited Rs.100 in the office of the Chief Post Master, Kanpur well in time, as desired, which was against the law. Despite fulfilling all requirements, the respondent had not renewed his postal registration. Besides the respondent again demanded the name and address of their readers/viewers. The complainant alleged that due to non renewal of postal registration, they were facing financial problems. The complainant further alleged that their readers were also enraged due to non-delivery of the newspaper. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondents on 20.2.2007 for information. Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Chandrabhan Kumar, Inspector (PG) Kanpur, appeared for the respondent. The complainant in a letter dated 19.7.2008 intimated that the respondent Postal Department was adopting discriminatory policy in the matter of renewal of postal registration and charging late fee wrongly taking into consideration the letter dated 30th December 2007 though the letter for renewal was sent on November 30, 2005. In case of other newspapers date of 30th November, 2005 was accepted. The complainant further submitted that he had applied well in time, but the Postal Department had transferred his case, and it was forwarded to the Chief Post Master, GPO, Kanpur by the Senior Superintendent, Kanpur City without his notice. The respondent refused renewal of postal registration without depositing of late fee i.e. Rs. 50/-. The complainant requested for redressal of the grievance of the newspapers on waiting list since the demand of late fee by the respondent was wrong. Shri Chandrabhan Kumar, Inspector (PG) Kanpur, appearing for the respondent submitted that the postal registration of the complainant has been renewed after the complainant paid the late fee as per rules. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents noted that the respondent had not placed any document to show when the zones had been changed and whether the publisher had been informed of it. The Committee therefore directed the respondent to file the copy of the renewed postal registration in favour of the complainant newspapers alongwith the above information.

97 Reply of the Chief Post Master, Kanpur The respondent Chief Post Master, Kanpur in his reply dated 22.6.2009 while giving the detailed facts submitted that the complainant was not aware of the amendment in the IPO rules, 1933 and so he refused to deposit the requisite late fee despite reminder. The complainant again applied for renewal after the expiry of previous registration showing his willingness to deposit the necessary late fee. As per rule 142 of Post Office guide part-I, the complainant was informed to submit a list of atleast 50 bonafide subscribers. The list provided by the complainant was got verified by the office and accordingly renewal was issued on 8.12.2006. Hence, there was no undue delay at their office level as alleged by the complainant. Reply of the Complainant The complainant vide his letter dated 23.7.2009 questioned why his case was transferred to the Chief Post Master, Kanpur whereas other cases were cleared by Sr. S.P.O. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for consideration by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. On consideration of the records of the case the Inquiry Committee noted that the postal authorities, Kanpur had renewed the postal registration number of the complainant’s newspaper in December, 2006. Thus, the Committee opined that no cause of grievance remained. It submitted its report to the Council. Held On consideration of the record of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee, the Council decided to allow the matter to rest as with the renewal of postal registration no cause of grievance remained.

33) The Publisher The Chairman Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. Khabar Lodhi Road, New Delhi West Bengal ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 21.11.2008 has been filed by Ms. Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee, Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, Chittaranjan, Burdwan (West Bengal) against the Chairman, SAIL & Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.,

98 for alleged discontinuation of releasing of advertisements and for denying empanelment for release of advertisements to her newspaper. According to the complainant, her newspaper used to get regular tender/display advertisements but after merger of ISSCO with SAIL, the advertisements were discontinued. The complainant submitted that the Government of India has issued a new uniform advertisement policy on 2.10.2007, earmarking 35% of advertisement expenditure to regional language newspaper, out of which 15% expenditure is to be allotted to small newspapers, remote area and border area’s publication. But the SAIL authority was not giving importance to the policy and denying the claims of weekly newspapers. Moreover, the respondents were inclined towards big newspapers published from metro cities. The complainant has requested for empanelment of her newspaper by the respondents. Written Statement In response to the notice for statement in reply dated 11.5.2009 the respondent, Dy. General Manager (Corporate Affairs), Steel Authority of India Limited in his comments has submitted that newspapers for tender advertisements are decided based on factors such as the requirement of the requisite department, target audience, circulation of the dailies, on a time-bound basis etc. and publication’s meeting these requirements are provided with due opportunity to tender advertisements. The Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar published from Chittaranjan was being given tender advertisement by the SAIL even after merger of IISCO Steel Plant (ISP), Burnpur, with Steel Authority of India Ltd. Recently tender advertisement in the month of December 2008, January 2009 and February 2009 were released for publication. However, the complainant’s newspaper had not been seen in the newspaper stalls at Durgapur, Burnpur and Bokaro which are in proximity of Chittaranjan from where the weekly is published. The respondent submitted that the SAIL has always strived to establish a good rapport with the media, and there is no instance of any curtailment of the freedom of the press. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 23.5.2009 while appreciating the respondent for their good rapport with the media submitted that her newspaper published from the border of West Bengal and Jharkhand State is the only newspaper empanelled by the DAVP. Its sale is made through agents, annual subscribers and rural, semi urban areas. The complainant reiterated her request for empanelment of her newspaper by SAIL for release of tender and display advertisements at the DAVP rates. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

99 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when both the parties were present. Shri N.K. Chattopadhyay, advocate appeared for the Gramanchal Shilpachaler Khabar and submitted that the newspaper had received one advertisement in February 2009 from IISCO. He denied having received any advertisement from SAIL. The complainant representative further submitted that the newspaper Gramanchal Shilpanchler Khaber has a very good circulation in the border area and is on approved list of ICA Department of Government of West Bengal as well as DAVP. The newspaper was empanelled with IISCO and getting tender, classified and display advertisements but after its merger with SAIL, the advertisement support was minimized and stopped since March 2010. Shri Darpan Chatterji appearing for the respondent submitted that the complainant newspaper was given three advertisements in 2008-09, four in 2009-10 and one in the current financial year. The respondent representative also claimed that recently an advertisement was issued to Gramanachal Shilpanchler Khaber, through an e-mail. On being pointing out by the Inquiry Committee that the document placed before it set out the cut off date of publication as 9.6.2010 whereas the release order was of 24.6.2010, the respondent gave vague reply that it was a copy of an e-mailed order. The respondent however pleaded that the advertisements were released through an agency hired by the respondent and he will enquire about it. Further the paper was empanelled for Chittaranjan plant and not Durgapur. The respondent representative assured the Committee that the matter be looked into and no discrimination be made against the complainant newspaper. Report The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties at the very outset expressed its concern over the respondent filing misleading release order, which according to the respondent had been e-mailed to the complainant newspaper. The contradictory dates on the release order indicated, there was no occasion for complainant to acknowledge the said release order or publishing the same. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, directed the respondent to cause inquiry into it and bring to task the advertisement agency responsible for it. On merits of the case, the Inquiry Committee finds that the complainant newspaper is a weekly in the Chittranjan area covering two States, and on principle small newspaper require special consideration as per central policy for advertising framed by DAVP. The Inquiry Committee noted the submissions made by the representative of the respondent authorities that there would be no discrimination in granting advertisement support within the policy formation and the time frame and target of the advertisement. In view of the assurance given by the respondent, the Inquiry Committee allowed the matter to rest. It recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint with these observations.

100 Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee agreed with the Inquiry Committee and directed the respondent to follow the DAVP’s policy in releasing advertisement to small newspapers. It further observed that even in the matter of granting largesse, a public authority is expected to function under a fair and balanced policy and the constitutional commitment as a socialist democratic republic. It expects the respondent authority to abide by these principles in all its action.

34) The Publisher The Post Master General Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar West Bengal Circle West Bengal Kolkata

Versus The Post Master General South Bengal Region Kolkata

The Assistant Director of Postal Services South Bengal Region Kolkata

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 3.11.2008 has been filed by Smt. Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee, Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, Bengali weekly, Chittaranjah, Burdwan, West Bengal against (i) the Post Master General, West Bengal, (ii) the Post Master General, South Bengal Region and (iii) Shri A.K. Mondal, Assistant Director of Postal Services, Kolkata for non-issuance of advertisement to her newspaper. The complainant has submitted that she made complaint before the Department of Public Grievances and Administration on Reform against the postal authorities, which was examined by ADPS (PG), who directed Assistant Director Postal Service to settle the case on 26.12.2007. She has further stated that Shri A.K. Mondal, Assistant Director, Postal Services vide letter dated 29.5.2008, denied the claim of her newspaper on the ground of their being less post offices at the place of publication of newspaper. The complainant averred that the area is having more than 10 post offices, whereas her newspaper is circulated in different areas of Asansol. The complainant further submitted that the Council in its decision dated 28.5.2005 on her earlier

101 complaint had directed the Postal Department to issue advertisements to her newspaper on the basis of a considered policy framed in this regard keeping in mind the reach and importance of the small papers for the population of the remote and small areas where big papers did not reach but postal services were needed. They were also directed to consider the case of the complainant’s weekly, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, Burdwan for issuance of advertisement as per policy. The complainant further pointed out that her earlier complaint was disposed off on the basis of the assurance of the Post Master General, South Bengal that they will include Gramanchal Shilpanchler Khabar in their media planning list and send regular tender advertisements but the respondent postal authorities failed to keep the assurance despite issuance of many reminders. The complainant challenged the statement of the respondent that the place of publication of newspaper is having less then 10 post office. According to the complainant, the place of publication of her newspaper is having more than 10 post offices, whereas circulation of the newspaper is not restricted within the particular block resulting the newspaper circulated in different areas of Asansol. The complainant submitted that in response of the respondent’s letter dated 1.12.2007 she had sent the DAVP rate contract valid upto 31.12.2009, on 21.7.2008. She further submitted that the Government of India has revised Press Advertisements policy from 1.10.2007 and directed all the Central Government Department/Ministry to allot funds towards the publication of advertisement on small newspaper. Government also fixed the ratio of advertisement for big medium and small newspapers. Accordingly they were claiming 35% of total advertisement towards small newspapers, and postal authorities be directed to include Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar in their advertisement mailing list.

Written Statement

In response to the Notice for statements in reply dated 28.1.2009 the respondent Shri A.K. Mondal, Assistant Director of Postal Services, South Bengal Division, Kolkata in his written statement dated 6.3.2009 has stated that most of the advertisements brought out by the Divisional Office are related to advertisement of vacancies for recruitment which requires wider publicity and the leading newspapers of that area in terms of circulation are chosen. Thus Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar having limited circulation was not considered. If the department needs publicity of its products, the same can be considered for such newspapers subject to availability of fund.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata where both the parties were present. The complainant representative Shri N.K. Chattopadhyay, advocate submitted that the respondents

102 are biased towards small newspapers. He cited the earlier decision dated 28.6.2005 of the Press Council for framing a considered policy and considering the case of the complainant newspaper for issuance of advertisements as per policy, asserting that nothing was done thereafter. The complainant representative reiterated the submissions and requested that the postal authorities should include Gramanachal Shilpanchaler Khaber in the panel for release of advertisement as per Government of India’s new advertisement policy allocating 35% of advertisements to small newspaper.

Shri Joydev Das, Public Relations Inspector (Postal) appearing for postal authority submitted that the Assistant Director has limited resources and not authorized to issue advertisements. The recruitment policy is dealt centrally and advertisement in this behalf is given to national dailies. The respondent representative reiterated the comments already filed.

Report

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the parties. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the Postal Department having different public service products such as a saving scheme for rural people etc. ought to release information to such areas benefiting small newspaper. The respondent herein, however, contended lack of authority in release of advertisement to small newspapers which again in the opinion of the Committee should be decided by way of a uniform policy on the pattern of DAVP’s advertisement policy and criteria of allocation for big, medium and small newspapers. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent that in view of varied level of authorities in the postal department, the authority having appropriate competence must lay down through a specific policy as to how different categories of newspapers will be utilized for publicizing different schemes. The Inquiry Committee while parting with the complaint noted that the respondent postal department despite its verdict given in the year 2005 did not abide its direction for framing a policy for small newspapers in view of need of postal services in remote area and, issuance of advertisement to Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khaber as per policy. The Inquiry Committee deprecated the conduct of the respondent in not honouring its own assurance and recommended to the Council that the Ministry of Communication and Department of Post at the Centre be addressed for appropriate action in the matter.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted its findings and recommendations and adopting them in toto, decided accordingly.

103 35) Ms. Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee The General Manager (PR) Publisher Eastern Railways Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar Kolkata, West Bengal Chittaranjan, Distt. Burdwan West Bengal Versus The General Manager (PR) East Central Railways Hazipur, Bihar ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 5.11.2008 have been filed by Ms. Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee, Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, Chittanranjan, West Bengal against (i) Eastern Railways and (ii) East Central Railways for alleged discontinuation of advertisements to her newspaper having DAVP approval. According to the complainant, as per Ministry of Railways and Railway Board letter No. 97/PR.18/E dated 2.7.97 and Minister for Railways letter No. 2000/ PR/18/41 dated 21.11.2000, the Eastern Railways allowed her newspaper for publication of Eastern Railways advertisements but since a long time they had discontinued sending advertisements. She has stated that Eastern Railways has been bifurcated into two railways zone i.e. Eastern Railways and East – Central Railways, thus the letter issued to the General Manager, Eastern Railways by the Railway Board and Railways Minister stands valid for both the railways zones. The complainant has submitted that the East Central Railways was part of the Eastern Railways before the bifurcation, thus both the railways may be asked to empanel her newspaper with their media planning list for sending advertisements. Comments In response to the Notices for Comments, the Chief Public Relations Officer, Eastern Railways, Kolkata in his comments dated 25.2.2009 has submitted that they need to follow the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Railways. The consolidated policy guidelines on advertising in print media, issued by the Railway Board under the Ministry of Railways stated that the primary objective in advertising is to secure the widest possible coverage at optimum cost and it is not intended to be financial assistance to the newspapers/periodicals, stated the respondent. He further stated that it should always be attempted to get maximum possible mileage through minimum expenditure by releasing advertisements to the selected newspapers and periodicals depending upon their circulation, rate and standing. The respondent submitted that the railways does not allot or issue advertisement to newspapers but buy space in newspapers at rates specified by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Buying space for

104 advertisement is a commercial activity and is governed by the principle of sound business, stated the respondent and added that while doing so, the guideline provided by the Railway Board is followed and space is bought in newspapers depending upon their circulation and cost involved. While there is every effort to make railway organization financially strong with the decision of controlling or expenditure, the complainant’s weekly Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar was not available in the market submitted the respondent. He concluded by stating that at present it was not possible to release advertisement to the complainant’s newspaper and their request for it may be considered in future on merit. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 23.5.2009 accepted the fact that the respondents are bound to comply with the policy guidelines issued by the Railway Board. However, she has the backing of previous approvals and stated that in the year 1997, Mr. Anuj Dayal, Deputy Director, Public Relations, Railway Board in his letter dated 2.7.1997 addressed to the General Manager (PR)/Eastern Railway, Kolkata accepted the claim of her newspaper and the then Chairman and the Railways Minister were also supported her newspaper, which was sufficient to prove her claim and the submissions made by the respondent were devoid of merits. The complainant submitted that her newspaper is empanelled with the DAVP and the government is also having strict policy guidelines with regard to small newspapers by earmarking 35% of the total expenditure on advertisement account for small newspapers. The complainant has charged the respondent with favouring the newspapers published from Kolkata over those in the rural areas as being small market meant less profit thus deprived them of their rights. The respondent registered her strong objection to the statement of the respondent that her newspaper Gramanchaler Shilpanchaler Khabar is not available in the market and alleged that this is a complete biased and false statement. Before recording such type of remarks, the respondent should have verified the matter from the concerned authorities, asserted the complainant. The Government of India and the Railways Ministry gave extra privilege to small newspapers, which are working as the bridges between urban and rural India and also have in its policy to make small rural newspapers financially stable by sending more advertisements submitted the complainant, and requested the Council to deliver her justice by getting tender and display advertisements from Eastern Railways and East-Central Railways. Further Comments of the Respondent The respondent Chief Public Relations Officer, Eastern Railway in his further comments dated 11.8.2009 has submitted that the complainant vide letter dated 23.5.2009, addressed to the Council and copy endorsed to them, had informed that she would like to withdraw her complaint against the Chief Public

105 Relations Officer, Eastern Railways. He also stated that an advertisement of Eastern Railways was given to the complainant in July 2009 and in future, they would also be given advertisment on rotational basis depending on the publicity mileage required for Eastern Railways. The respondent further submitted that the Eastern Railways has been following the DAVP guidelines by giving advertisements over 15% to small newspapers on regular basis for extending a support to them. He has requested that a clear cut policy/guidelines be indicated regarding the issue of advertisements to those small newspapers/periodicals considering the following points:- a) for releasing advertisement to those small newspapers, which have almost no circulation as not a single copy of some of the newspapers is available in the market, b) it may be appreciated that any government organization is now having a policy to save public money by controlling expenditure, c) quality of those publications is very poor and published without any professional approach, d) though date of publication is maintained, actually periodicity is not maintained properly. Published, at least in some cases, when advertisement is collected, e) giving of advertisements to any such newspaper may lead to the claims/ demands of huge number of other such newspapers/periodicals. A copy of the further comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 24.9.2009 particularly on the issue of withdrawal of her complaint. The complainant in her letter dated 21.11.2009 submitted that she had filed complaints against two Railways Zones and the East Central Railways did not give its response to it nor empanelled her newspaper. Regarding withdrawal of the complaint by the respondent she submitted that when the letter was sent to the Council she and the respondent Chief Public Relations Officer, Eastern Railways reached on an agreement with the Chittaranjan Press Club and one or two advertisements were released to her newspaper and then stopped. The submissions made by the respondent in his letter dated 11.8.2009 was insulting to the small newspapers, alleged the complainant and the request of guidelines from the Press Council was not agreeable to her. The complainant expressed her dissatisfaction over the action taken by the respondent and requested the Council to get her justice in the matter. Arguments The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. Shri N.C. Chattopadhyaya, advocate appeared for the

106 complainant and submitted in oral and written arguments that the Gramanchal Shilpanchler Khabar is enlisted with Eastern Railway since 1997. After bifurcation of Eastern Railway, New Railway Zone, East Central Railways was constituted. Automatically all the orders issued before the bifurcation stands as it is for both the railways and the newspaper should have been included in the media list of Eastern Central Railways, but no communication was received from them despite recommendations of the Railways Minister and others. The complainant counsel submitted that the newspaper published from C.L.W. Railway town and Eastern Railways Zone, it might be considered for release of advertisements at DAVP rate. He also pointed out that Public Relations Manual and Advertisements Policy of the Railways establishes the claim of small newspapers that: (a) Railways should draw up a comprehensive media list of DAVP approved newspapers/periodicals for release of advertisements. (b) Advertisements may be released to Small, Medium & Regional Language publications on ‘rotation basis’ to ensure that claims of small, medium as well as regional language newspapers/periodicals are also taken care of. The complainant counsel further submitted that as per Advertisement Policy of the Government of India, 15% advertisements are released to the small newspapers. He submitted that CPRO, Eastern Railways, had sent a skeleton numbers of display advertisements in the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 to their newspaper but the claim to include it in the media list for classified and display advertisements regularly has been denied. The newspaper is a leading Bengali weekly of West Bengal and Jharkhand State. It is published from a complete railway colony at Chittranjan which is a protected place under Salanpur block thus being published from State Border Area, it is playing key role in exchange of news and views in between government and general public. Moreover, being in the approved list of West Bengal and DAVP for release of advertisement, the local railway authorities like Eastern Railway, East Central Railway might be considered for release of advertisements to the newspaper without any discrimination. The complainant counsel admitted that though Eastern Railway released few display advertisement to the newspaper but classified advertisement has been denied and the East Central Railway has completely denied the advertisements. The complainant counsel requested that her newspaper may be allowed to get regular, tender, classified and display advertisements from CPRO/Eastern Railway, GM/Eastern Railway, CPRO/East Central Railway, GM/East Central Railway considering the need of the newspaper and rural people. Shri Ashok Kumar Gangopadhyay, Public Relations Officer appeared for the respondent General Manager (PR), Eastern Railways, Kolkata and submitted a list of advertisements released to the complainant newspaper. Reiterating the

107 written statement filed by them earlier, the respondent stated that the advertisements are being released to the newspapers as per the guidelines issued by the Railway Board in which it is clearly mentioned that for selection of publications for release of classified and tender advertisements an attempt should be made to get the maximum coverage in the newspapers. He pointed out that Eastern Railway is already following the DAVP guidelines by giving advertisements over 15% to small newspapers on regular basis for extending a support to them but they also have to control expenditure for advertisements. Shri Dilip Kumar, C.P.R.O./East Central Railway, Hajipur appeared for the respondent General Manager (PR), East Central Railways, Hazipur, Bihar and submitted that four states are covered by the East Central Railways and the complainant’s weekly newspaper is published from Burdwan, Kolkata. Most of the advertisements are issued by the Railway Board and the complainant’s newspaper does not fall within their zone. Report The Inquiry Committee considered the matter and at the very outset finds that the grievance of the complainant are of two folds: (a) While the complainant was alleging discontinuation of advertisements by Eastern Railways, it appeared to the Inquiry Committee that the complainant newspaper had been receiving display advertisements from Eastern Railway and the classified advertisements were denied for the reasons that the classified advertisements as well as tender advertisements had cut off dates and a targeted time and it was difficult to empanel weeklies for them. (b) The second grievance of the complainant is that the newspaper was being published from the border area of the West Bengal, Jharkhand and Bihar and having circulation in the bordering States and therefore the second respondent namely East Central Railway should have also empanelled their newspaper for release of advertisements. The Inquiry Committee noted that the Central Advertisements Policy in its clauses 6.1 and 6.2 stipulated release of advertisements to Small, Medium and Regional Language Newspapers. In view of clauses 6 (i) & (ii) of Railway Manual it was nowhere stated that only display advertisement be issued to the Small, Medium & Regional Language Newspapers and not the classified advertisements. The Inquiry Committee directed that with the policy framework, the complainant’s case may be considered by the respondents on rotational basis for release of Display & Classified Advertisements to ensure that claims of Small & Medium as well as Regional Language newspapers periodicals are taken of.

108 So far as the complaint against the second respondent was concerned, the Inquiry Committee was of the view that the complainant may represent appropriately her case afresh before the respondent authorities East Central Railways for their consideration. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee opined that the advertisements are the life line of the small newspapers and it is essential to maintain their economic viability to maintain an unbiased and independent press. The small newspapers caters to the vital section of the local public thus they should be given due advertisements. Therefore, the Press Council directed the respondents to follow a uniform policy for the empanelment for advertisements and ensure that release of advertisement on rotational basis to all empanelled newspapers against the set criteria.

36) Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Uttar Pradesh Muzaffarnagar Bulletin Lucknow Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) Versus The Secretary & the Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

The District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 22.08.2007 has been filed by Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) against Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow alleging stoppage of advertisements to his newspaper. According to the complainant, his newspaper was being published since last 35 years as number one newspaper of the district and stands duly approved for advertisements by the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity (DAVP) and State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant submitted that being a Member of the Press Council of India and as Convenor of Fact Finding Committee (FFC) of Press Council of India he summoned many higher government officials of U.P. State Government

109 including the Information Director, Government of Uttar Pradesh during inquiry at Lucknow. The complainant stated that his newspaper had been getting advertisements regularly from DAVP but to put covert pressure and cause prejudice to the inquiry of the Fact Finding Committee, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh deliberately reduced the quantum of advertisements. The complainant submitted that the Information & Public Relations Department also passed an order for stoppage of advertisements to his newspaper.

The complainant submitted that when he inquired from the higher authorities about the matter, they did not give any satisfactory reply. According to the complainant, he also tried to contact the Director, Information & Public Relations Department on his cell-phone but all efforts went in vain. The complainant further alleged that officers of many districts including of Muzaffarnagar had been directed to release advertisements regarding appointment and local bodies to ‘Amar Ujala” and “Dainik Jagran” for publication. The District Magistrate had issued written orders in this behalf and this biased and malafide step of the respondent Government was against the rules and amounted to suppression of press freedom by financially pressurizing his newspaper. The complainant has submitted that action of State Government officials is malafide and guided by ulterior motive. The complainant stated that he never published any objectionable news item against any higher government official. He has requested to take necessary action in the matter.

Comments of the Respondent

Notices for statement in reply dated 29.11.2007 were issued to the Chief Secretary, the Secretary & the Director of Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.

Shri Diwakar Tripathi, Director, Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in his comments dated 28.12.2007 denied stoppage of advertisements to the complainant newspaper. He submitted that government advertisements were issued to the complainant’s newspaper through “Pawansut Ad Creations (P) Ltd.” and “Srimant Satya Advertising Agency”, Lucknow on the occasions of “Independence Day 2007” and “on completion of 100 days of Uttar Pradesh Government”. The respondent submitted that the Ad Agencies vide their letters dated 18.12.2007 and 19.12.2007 informed that the “Muzaffarnagar Bulletin” was informed in their Office through phone and by e-mail for publication of advertisements. The respondent stated that on the occasion of the first death anniversary of Shri Kanshiram, the advertisements were issued only to selected newspapers, as it was not a general release advertisement. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

110 Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.01.2008 submitted that the reply of the respondent Director was incomplete as he replied only two questions out of 21 and which were far from truth and misleading. The complainant further submitted that no advertisement was issued to his newspaper by any advertisement agency through phone or e-mail. The respondent did only paper work in the matter, he alleged. The complainant stated that on the occasion of first death anniversary of Shri Kanshiram, the government advertisement was issued to all the newspapers except Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. Comments of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar The District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar vide his letter dated 12.03.2008 filed comments of the Information Officer, Muzaffarnagar and the Additional District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in the matter. Giving parawise reply, the respondents denied the allegations made by the complainant, Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, that his newspaper had been denied advertisements being issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The respondents submitted that advertisements amounting to Rs. 2,63,667/- had been issued to the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin from July, 2007 to February, 2008. Thus the allegations of discrimination and non issuance of advertisements were found to be baseless and far from facts. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint. Further comments of District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar The District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar vide his letter dated 9.1.2008 received in the Secretariat on 24.4.2008, denied the allegations of the complainant that officers of many districts including of Muzaffarnagar had been directed to release advertisements regarding appointment and local bodies only to Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran for publication. Filing a copy of his reply dated 14.11.2007, the District Magistrate has clarified that the then Additional District Magistrate, (Admn.) to maintain quality in the construction related work in local bodies had called a meeting of all Executive Officers/Engineers and issued the directions that “Advertisements of tender be issued for publication to the newspaper like Amar Ujala or Dainik Jagran or other newspapers having good circulation in the area”. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar clarified that the directions did not reflect that the advertisements be issued only to Amar Ujala or Dainik Jagran. In fact name of these two newspapers had been mentioned as example of newspapers having good circulation. The Administration has no objection for publication of advertisements to any local newspapers having good circulation. Hearings by the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

111 16.5.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh appeared in person before the Committee. Shri Sheetla Singh also appeared to pray impleadment in the matter in the interest of protection of freedom of the press which was declined. Shri Yugal Kishore Pandey, District Information Officer, Muzaffarnagar appeared on behalf of District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Shri T.S. Rana, Assistant Director, Information, Uttar Pradesh and Shri Chanderpal, Information Department, Uttar Pradesh appeared for the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma apprised the Committee that he being the Convenor of the Fact Finding Committee in the complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur Kheri based Staff reporter/correspondent of Amar Ujala against the police authorities, had been inquiring into the charges and had to summon the U.P. government officials to elicit their response. As an indirect pressure tactic, the Government of U.P. deprived his duly empanelled newspaper Muzaffarnagar Bulletin of government advertisements at State as well as local level. As per DAVP rate contract for the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2009 the circulation was 51,296 and rate per Sq.Cm. Rs.14.25/- in r/o Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. He cited an example that even the advertisement routinely released to all major empanelled papers of 15th August 2007 and “100 days of the Chief Minister, Ms. Mayavati” were not released to his paper. Regarding local advertisements he referred before the Committee a circular Number 851/MC/Merit/07 dated 7.7.2007 issued by SDM(Admn.), Muzaffarnagar, in its Para 2 mentioned that the “tender advertisement be given to Amar Ujala or Dainik Jagran and to any other such paper as had good circulation”. He averred that as Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran were not local papers this circular was in contravention of Section 304 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, which reads as follows: Section 304: Method of giving public notice:- “Subject to the provisions of this act, any rule, regulation or bye-law, in every case where public notice is to be given by a Board, such notice shall be deemed to have been given if it is published in some local English or vernacular paper (if any) and posted upon a notice board to be exhibited for public information at the building in which the meetings of the Board are ordinarily held.” He also referred to the OM issued by the then District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 23.7.2002 directing all the Head of Departments that tenders and other paid information should be published in the newspapers of Muzaffarnagar having maximum circulation so that more and more people could read the same. The circular of 7.7.2007 he stated was in contravention of the above. Quoting further instance of harassment Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma placed on record a

112 Release Order of I&PRD, Lucknow issued on 10.9.2007 where required date of publication was between 12.9.2007 to 13.9.2007 but Release Order reached the paper after the date set for publication. Shri T.S. Rana, Assistant Director, I&PRD submitted that all the classified and displayed advertisements are issued to Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. The respondent submitted that except two advertisements, all the advertisements were released to the complainant newspaper. As regards issue of advertisements at district level, I&PRD has no role since the advertisements are issued by the local bodies/PSUs. Shri Yugal Kishore Pandey, District Information Officer, Muzaffarnagar appearing for District Magistrate, submitted that the distribution of advertisements is decided at higher level. In the circular in question, there was no intention of directing release of advertisements in favour of two leading newspapers Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran and that their reference had been made only by way of example. The Inquiry Committee in order to judge the issue through the comparative quantum of the advertisements issued to the daily newspapers in the State of Uttar Pradesh directed the respondent Government to furnish the data for last two years detailing the names of newspapers, the number of classified and displayed advertisements issued to the daily newspapers of the State, the comparative monetary payment to them and their circulation. The Inquiry Committee also directed the D.M., Muzffarnagar to furnish the same data for the District within a month. The Inquiry Committee further directed that the circular No. 851/MC/Merit/07 dated 7.7.2007 issued by the S.D.M. (Admn.) Muzaffarnagar be kept in abeyance and the status quo be maintained till the Council decide the matter. The matter was adjourned accordingly. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 and 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri A.S. Chaudhary, ADIO, Muzaffarnagar, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, I.O., based at New Delhi appeared on 24.07.2008. Shri T.S. Rana, Assistant Director, Information, based at New Delhi appeared on 25.07.2008 along with Shri A.S. Chaudhary for respondents. The complainant reiterated his earlier submissions stressing that his newspaper Muzaffarnagar Bulletin was targeted by the State Government to cause harassment and loss of advertisement revenue as a deliberate act following his actions as convenor of the Fact Finding Committee of the Press Council in a case of police harassment of a journalist of Lakhimur Khiri. The complainant further submitted that advertisements worth lakhs that would have come to his

113 paper, as per policy guidelines on local advertisements were diverted to other papers like Amar Ujala/Dainik Jagran. Shri A.S Chaudhary appearing for district administration submitted that the amended order was issued on 27th May, 2008 clarifying that the advertisements be issued to local newspapers as before. Thus the administration had abided by the stay order issued by the Council at last hearing. A copy of this order was filed. Shri T. S. Rana appearing for Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh produced a 50 pages document to exhibit classified and display advertisements issued to newspapers by their department. The complainant in turn raised the following points: 1. He had not been provided a copy of the replies/documents being filed now so he was unable to place his arguments thereon. 2. The Order dated 27.5.2008 in respect of local advertisements may have been brought on record, but it had not been circulated to facilitate reversion to the earlier procedure. 3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarngar had not responded to the letters of the Press Council. 4. They had accepted that the impugned order was wrong but had not informed what action was being taken against the person who had issued illegal orders. 5. They may inform what action had been taken and when since the orders of 27.05.2008. The Inquiry Committee was not satisfied with the delayed and incomplete follow up action taken by the respondents as the respondents were directed to file data for last two years detailing the names of newspapers and number of advertisements issued to daily newspapers of the State but the respondent authorities instead of filing year wise statement have filed a consolidated statement which did not enable examination of the issues of charge in the quantum of advertisements as per complainant’s averments. The Committee also observed that very junior level officers were deputed to appear before the Committee who were unable to reply to the queries of the Committee. Thus, to have a clear picture and to judge whether the action of the government was vindictive, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the case and decided to summon the Secretary, Information; the Director, Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar to appear personally before the Inquiry Committee and explain (a) year wise break up of advertisements issued to daily newspapers by the Information & Public Relations Department between 2006-2008 and (b) as to how and when the

114 order dated 27th May, 2008 was circulated by the district administration and the follow up action thereon. The representative of the government was directed accordingly and the matter was adjourned. Reply of ADM(Admn.), Muzaffarnagar In response to the Council’s letter dated 27.5.2008 the ADM (Admn.), Muzaffrnagar vide his letter dated 14.7.2008 (received in the secretariat on 12.8.2008) filed data/details relating to the quantum of advertisements issued to the daily newspapers of the district and the amount paid to them for the last two years. Besides a copy of the Order dated 27.05.2008 was also forwarded wherein it was stated that the Order dated 4.7.2007 has been cancelled with immediate effect and the advertisements will be continued to publish as before in the two local newspapers under Section 304 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1916. Complainant’s Counter Reply With reference to 50 pages document exhibiting classified and display advertisements issued to the newspapers by I& PRD, Lucknow during the last two years i.e. 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2008, the complainant in his letter dated 4.9.2008 has submitted that this document submitted by the respondent was totally misleading. According to the complainant during the last two years the State Government has distributed the money by way of advertisements to only the multi edition newspapers, which includes even the newspapers outside the State. The small & medium newspapers of the State have been ignored and the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin suffered due to prejudiced attitude of the Government. Giving reference of the comparative details of the advertisements issued to the newspapers of the State, the complainant pointed out that the lion’s share had been distributed to the two newspapers i.e. ‘Dainik Jagran’ and ‘Amar Ujala’. With the result the small and medium newspapers had been ignored and deprived of their due. The complainant further alleged that the Information & Public Relations Department categorised the newspapers into big, medium and small at its own convenience. It issues advertisements to some newspapers which are not even in existence. The complainant has further submitted that DAVP issues advertisements to the newspapers all over India directly without routing through any Advertisements News Agency but the State Information Department has 29 advertisement agencies. Out of which many are not even recognized by INS. The complainant has alleged that these agencies get 15% commission from the government advertisements and later this money, which runs into crores, is distributed among the officials.

115 The complainant further alleged that these agencies misdeed with the small newspapers by not providing them advertisements in time and later after publication of advertisements demand 15% to make the payment to pay to the Information Department. The complainant has submitted that the distribution of advertisements should have been done as per the system adopted by the DAVP without any agency. Routing through the advertisement agency infact causes loss to the newspapers. The complainant prayed that the Council may direct the state government to classify the newspaper on the basis of its name and ownership and not on the basis of Regional editions. Besides atleast 70% of the amount be ensured for the small & medium newspapers as per the policy of the centre in this regard. The complainant alleged that the comparative data relating to advertisements issued to the daily newspapers of the district during the last two years submitted by the District Administration, Muzaffarnagar was totally misleading as it had not mentioned the advertisements issued to the ‘Amar Ujala’ & ‘Dainik Jagran’. The complainant has submitted that the basis of the instant complaint was that these two newspapers i.e. ‘Amar Ujala’, & ‘Dainik Jagran’ are not being published from Muzaffarnagar, even though availing the maximum advertisements of the district and for this written orders had also been issued. According to the complainant, the Council while adjourning the matter directed the district administration to amend the order but the district administration has not taken serious note on the issue. The complainant has raised the following points:- 1. Despite directions of the Press Council the district administration has not issued directions mentioning ‘Amar Ujala’ and ‘Dainik Jagran’. As a result maximum advertisements are being issued to these two newspapers with deliberate attempt to harass the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. 2. Copy of the Order No. 581 dated 27.05.2008 issued by the district administration has neither been provided to them nor has been circulated to the other departments. The Inquiry Committee during the hearing on 24.7.2008 had asked the representative of the administration who failed to reply. Thus the order appears to be misleading as it has neither mentioned the name of ‘Amar Ujala’ and ‘Dainik Jagran’ nor the adjournment directions of the Council. 3. Comparative data relating to issuance of the advertisements during July, 2007 to July, 2008 including ‘Amar Ujala’ and ‘Dainik Jagran’ be called from the district administration to have clear position. 4. The administration has deliberately not included ‘Amar Ujala’ and ‘Dainik Jagran’ in the comparative data to avoid the exposure that the

116 advertisement being issued to the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin have been released to ‘Amar Ujala’ and ‘Dainik Jagran’ by issuing written & oral directions. 5. The Information Directorate, Lucknow and the District Collector, Muzaffarnagar deliberately depriving the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin from the advertisements to put economic pressure on it so that inquiry being conducted against the State Government influenced. 6. The comparative data of the last two years filed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar itself showed that the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, which is a 36 years old newspaper of the district got advertisements of worth Rs. 217376/- whereas the other newspapers i.e. Royal Bulletin and Muzaffarnagar Ujala which have less circulation got more advertisements. 7. Administration has provided comparative data of the local bodies and the other departments of the district issuing advertisements to the other newspapers except the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. A copy of the complainant’s letters dated 4.9.2008 was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 22.09.2008. In compliance with the directions of the Inquiry Committee, summons dated 18.9.2008 were issued to the Principal Secretary, Information; the Secretary & the Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar to personally appear before the Inquiry Committee to make oral as well as documentary submissions. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri A.S. Chaudhary, ADIO, Muzaffarnagar, R. S. Panwar, Advocate, Sant Kumar, Deputy Collector, Muzaffarnagar, for D.M., Muzaffarnagar, T.S. Rana, Assistant Director, Information appeared for the respondent Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. At the outset, the Committee noted the non-appearance of the respondents summoned by it, and desired to know from the representatives the reasons for failure of the officers to be present in person. Shri R.S. Panwar, Advocate, representing the D.M., Muzaffarnagar, submitted that the District Magistrate had been prevented from appearing personally in response to the summons on account of inspection tour of Muzaffarnagar on 15.10.2008 itself by Secretary to the Chief Minister and Special Secretary to the Chief Minister, and in support

117 thereof, filed copies of orders of tour programme where his presence was essential. He also filed the reply of the D.M. dated 13.10.2008 on merits of the matter. Shri T.S. Rana appearing for Principal Secretary, Shri Vijay Shankar Pandey and Director, Shri Sunil Kumar, Information and Public Relations Department, filed a copy of the application by the Director, addressed to the Press Council and endorsed to the Assistant Director, praying that the Principal Secretary and he were unable to present themselves due to pre-occupation with various programmes of the Chief Minister and were, therefore, deputing Shri T.S. Rana with all the records. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The documents/replies on merits were taken on record and the complainant was directed to file his response thereon. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the application of the respondents in response to the summons for personal appearance. The Committee took serious note of non-appearance of the respondent despite issue of summons to Principal Secretary, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Secretary & Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, U.P., and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The Committee, on perusal of the application of the D.M., Muzaffarnagar, was inclined to accept the prayer for exemption on the ground of supportive documents. However, insofar as the non-appearance of the Principal Secretary and Director, Information, U.P. Government was concerned, it was constrained to reject the same on the following grounds. 1. The application dated 13.10.2008 by Director, Information, had not been directly received by this Authority till date, and only an endorsement thereof to a junior officer of the Government had been produced by the said officer. 2. The application did not cite any cogent reasons for exemption and the vague statement of preoccupation in the programme of the C.M. was nota valid reason, as officers of the State would be expected to have workto occupy them but were also expected to schedule them with due deference to their duty towards a statutory authority discharging adjudicatory functions. 3. Insofar the Principal Secretary, Information, was concerned, he had failed to make any application in response to the summons for personal appearance and application filed on his behalf by the Director, Information, was not admissible.

118 For all the above reasons, the Inquiry Committee, exercising its power under Section 15(1) of the Press Council Act, read with the powers vested in it under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, decided to enforce the summons under Section 32, read with Section 81 of the CPC, 1908, against the Principal Secretary, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh by binding them to a surety of Rs.25,000/- each for their personal appearance at the next hearing. The matter stood adjourned. The proceedings of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Council’s letter dated 10.12.2008. Further reply received from the Complainant The complainant vide his letter dated 19.11.2008 pointed out that the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin hardly received one or two advertisement sans display advertisement during the period. The complainant has submitted that he will present clippings of the advertisements being issued to the other newspaper, at the time of next hearing justifying his grievance that his paper has been deliberately harassed to put financial pressure. The complainant vide his another letter dated 19.11.2008 objecting to the criticism made by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in his written reply filed at the time of hearing of the case on 15.10.2008, submitted that the comments made by the D.M., Muzaffarnagar are irrelevant and have put a question mark of the working of the Press Council of India. The complainant submitted that if the District Administration think that the statement made by the D.M. is correct and within the limitations of the Administration then what was the impact of the Council’s stay on the order passed by the D.M. on 7.7.2007. The complainant further submitted that why District Magistrate implemented the orders of 2002 in 2007 only on Muzaffarnagar Bulletin after 5 years. The complainant further submitted that District Magistrate vide his unconstitutional orders dated 7.7.2007 diverted the advertisements of Muzaffarnagar Bulletin to Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran. The biased step of the respondent amounted to suppression of press freedom by financially pressurizing his newspaper. A copy each of the letters were forwarded to the respondents vide Council’s letter dated 6.1.2009 for information. Notice for hearing were issued to the parties vide Council’s letter dated 2.2.2009 and simultaneously Notice for Security and for personal appearance were issued on 13.2.2009. In response to ‘Notice for hearing’ Shri Vijay Shankar Pandey, Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 6.2.2009 requested the Council that the respondent department has already furnished the reply in the matter through their officer (Shri T.S. Rana). Regarding appearance before

119 the Inquiry Committee by the Principal Secretary and Director, I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the respondent has requested the Inquiry Committee to allow them to appear before the Committee through the counsel. In response thereto the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh was asked to satisfy the Inquiry Committee that he cannot abstain from duty without detriment to public service/public interest. IVth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.3.2009 at New Delhi. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, the complainant appeared in person. The respondent Shri Vijay Shankar Pandey, Principal Secretary, Information and Public Relations accompanied Shri A.K. Vali, Advocate who also represented Shri Sunil Kumar, Director, Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow along with Shri Diwakar Tripathi, Secretary, Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Bhuvnesh Kumar, District Magistrate, Muzaffarngar. The advocate also placed on record documents to establish that Shri Sunil Kumar, Director had been relieved of his post and had been since given central posting. This was taken on record. Insofar the complaint against the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar was concerned, the Complainant submitted that he was satisfied with the remedial action taken by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar and did not want to proceed with the complaint against District Magistrate. The submissions were taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent filed written statement raising some preliminary objections and also asserted that Muzaffarnagar Bulletin was infact better placed vis-à-vis other papers. The complainant however, submitted that the grievance against Information and Public Relations Department had been aggravated due to continuous discriminatory attitude of the Department. The complainant cited an instance of Royal Bulletin that in the past six months it was released government advertisement worth Rs. 25 lacs whereas Muzaffarnagar Bulletin got meager advertisement of Rs. 60,000/- only. In reply to the complainant’s statement about discrimination in release of government advertisement, the counsel argued that the complaint pertained to the year 2007 and the complainant can’t raise new issue. As the complainant was not served with a copy of the written statement of the respondent, the Inquiry Committee handed over a copy of the written statement to the complainant with the directions to file reply with a copy to the opposite side. The matter was accordingly adjourned. The Inquiry Committee also observed that personal appearance of the Principal Secretary, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. at the next hearing wasnot necessary. It also accepted the prayer of the complainant to allow to rest the proceeding against the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.

120 Proceedings of the Inquiry Committee meeting were conveyed to the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 28.4.2009. A copy of the letter was also sent to the complainant for necessary compliance. Complainant’s reply dated 15.4.2009 The complainant in his reply dated 15.4.2009 reiterated his original complaint. With reference to the statement filed by the respondent that it is discretion of the information Director to issue advertisements. The complainant submitted that with this jurisdiction, it is also duty of the Information Director not to be prejudice or favourable towards one newspaper. He stated that the Muzaffernagar Bulletin is suffering due to the prejudiced attitude of the State Government. The complainant submitted that recently on the occasion of Dr. Ambedkar Diwas, the Government advertisement of one full page was issued to Royal Bulletin and other newspapers except Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. The complainant alleged that his newspaper was targeted by the State Government to cause harassment and loss of advertisement revenue as a deliberate act. Muzaffarnagar Bulletin has been ignored and deprived of the dues deliberately to put financial pressure. The complainant submitted that after filing the present complaint dated 18.10.2007 the advertisements amounting to Rs. 1,18,276.10 have been issued to the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin but the payment has not been made. He requested the Council to give directions to the respondent State Government to stop harassment of the Muzaffarngar Bulletin and ensure that it will not be harassed in future too. Vth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6. 2009 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. Shri A.K. Vali, Advocate and Smt. Abhilasha Kulshreshta, Joint Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow appeared for the respondent, I&PRD. The complainant submitted that the respondents were continuously harassing him by not releasing the requisite quantum of advertisements as compared to other similarly placed local newspapers of Muzaffarnagar and also not making payments of his 32 bills pending for the last three years. The complainant submitted that the respondent department had recently returned 14 bills asking him again to furnish original Release Orders, though he had deposited all the original Release Orders at the time of filing of the bills. He contended that as per rule framed by DAVP, a duty is cast on the department either to accept or reject the bills within specified time limit, but the I & PRD had kept his bills pending for the past 2 years and had now asked him to produce the original Release Orders which he had already submitted. The complainant further submitted that the respondent department was inimical because he was

121 convener of a Fact Finding Committee inquiring into the complaint of an Accredited Journalist Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur Kheri based correspondent of Amar Ujala against the state authorities. The respondent authorities were bent upon to harass him and put undue pressure on him one way or the other. He also countered the averments of the respondent that incidents/actions post the complaint date could not be agitated in this inquiry by contending that these actions were in continuation of the attempt at browbeating him and thus constituted a contemptuous action. The complainant submitted that respondent I&PRD during (October 08 - February 09) issued advertisements worth Rs. 11 lacs to Royal Bulletin whereas the advertisements of only Rs. 41,000/- were issued to Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. The complainant concluded with his original complaint that the respondent – I&PRD had issued advertisements worth Rs. 20 Lacs during September 2007 to 15 October 2007 (45 days) to Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran and his paper was being discriminated by being put to monetary losses. Shri A.K. Vali, Counsel for the respondent I&PRD submitted that the department had not discriminated against the complainant newspaper. The Counselsubmitted that the collective circulation of Royal Bulletin and Shah Times exhibited by the complainant was not taken into consideration for determining advertisements release. The circulation of Royal Bulletin for (1) Muzaffarnagar (2) Dehradun (3) Noida editions and Shah Times for (1) New Delhi (2) Muzaffarnagar (3) Dehradun (4) (5) Muradabad (6) Bareilly (7) Meerut editions were segregated. The respondent counsel submitted that the four years data furnished by the department showed that the complainant newspaper was IIIrd in position. The Counsel submitted that the complaint of discrimination was not tenable. The counsel however sought time to file reply in the matter. Smt. Abhilasha Kulshreshta, Joint Director, I&PRD submitted that the complainant’s advertisement bills were not rejected and only returned to the complainant for filing the bills with original Release Orders, since he had not filed the same. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties directed the respondent to file reply within four weeks and to furnish a copy to the complainant directly. The Inquiry Committee further directed the respondent to verify the authenticity of bills with Release Orders already available on their record. The complainant vide his letter dated 17.8.2009 while forwarding a copy of the reply dated 14.7.2009 filed by the Director, Information, Government of Uttar Pradesh has objected to the statement made therein that it is their discretion to whom the advertisements be released or not. The complainant submitted that advertisements amounting to Rs.11 (eleven) lacs had been released to the Royal Bulletin

122 whereas the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin got advertisement amounting to Rs.41 (forty one) thousand only. According to the complainant by giving the statement in writing that the Director, Information has discretionary power for release of the advertisement, the respondent has admitted that the harassment being made to his newspaper. The complainant informed that out of 32 bills, payment of only 22 bills have made by the respondent and 10 bills amounting to Rs. 25 (twenty five) thousand are still pending. He further submitted that 10% of the bills amount i.e. Rs. 6000/- (six thousand) has been deducted on account of not using website. VIth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.9.2009 at Dehradun. The complainant appeared in person and replying to the developments since last hearing stated that out of 32 bills, 9 were neither accepted nor rejected by the I&PRD. Moreover, the respondent had deducted 10% as non web access charges. Regarding acceptance of higher rate for coloured publication as against black and white, he contended that only display advertisements were published in colour and thus classified advertisements could not be equated with colour display advertisement in considering the colour scheme of one paper or other. The complainant further submitted that the Supreme Court had a ruling on distribution of largesse and the government can not discriminate on the ground of discretion. He reasserted that his newspaper ranked number one in Muzaffarnagar in terms of circulation. The other newspapers had a higher combined circulation of different districts. Shri A.K. Vali, advocate for Government of Uttar Pradesh pointed that the complainant’s newspaper had been given more advertisements as compared to other newspapers during the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and also during the year 2008. Thus, the allegation of reprisal was not true, the counsel added. The counsel submitted that the complainant filed an evasive reply and on the contrary was questioning the respondents intent. He asserted that Royal Bulletin has the largest circulation in Muzaffarnagar as per DAVP records. The respondent counsel requested that the complainant may be asked to file affidavit to this effect so that proper reply could be given. The complainant in reply gave an affirmation before the Council on the correctness of his averments. This was accepted and taken on record and the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file its counter affidavit within three weeks. The matter was adjourned. Reply of the Respondent The Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in his reply dated 16.10.2009 has submitted that the non paid bills referred to by the complainant during the hearing of the case on 8.9.2009, have not been received in the Department. Thus the action could not

123 be initiated to make the payment. Regarding circulation of Royal Bulletin, the respondent clarified that the circulation figure shown during at the time of hearing was only of its Muzaffarnagar edition and not of its combined editions (Muzaffarnagar, Dehradun and Noida). The respondent further submitted that all the grievances of the complainant have already been redressed except payment of some bills. The respondent requested to close the case.

The complainant vide his letter dated 26.10.2009 addressed to the Director Information, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and copy endorsed to the Council for information, has forwarded the nine pending bills along with all the necessary papers to the respondent for making payment.

VIIth Adjournment

The matter came up for hearing on 14.12.2009 at New Delhi. The complainant, appearing in person, reiterated the grievance that the respondents were harassing him for the last two and a half years. The complainant further submitted that he is a member of Press Accreditation Committee (PAC), the term of which is two years but in the last 18 months, no meeting of PAC was convened by the respondents. On the respondents statement of clearing payments the complainant perused the papers and brought to the notice of the Inquiry Committee that the respondent had deducted TDS (tax deducted at source) of Rs. 238/- although no payment of Rs. 22,651/- was made to him. The complainant submitted that there are glaring examples of harassing him in one way or the other. The respondent Shri Ram Dev, Additional Director, Information appearing for the I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the payment of pending eight bills of Pulse Polio Campaign has to be made by the concerned agency. The respondent submitted that they had written to the Family Welfare Department on 24.11.2009 for payment of the eight bills to the complainant. The respondent however intimated that the payment of an outstanding bills of Rs.10,208/- has already been made to the complainant. On being asked by the Inquiry Committee as to how the TDS was deducted for the amount, which was not paid to the complainant, the respondent submitted that he would cause inquiry from the concerned branch.

Directions of the Committee

The Inquiry Committee noted that even though no payment of advertisement bills was made to the complainant, the respondent deducted TDS. The Inquiry Committee took a serious note of the apparent misleading information and deliberate harassment of the complainant by the respondent and imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent government for abortive journey undertaken

124 by the complainant. It directed the respondent to make payment of pending bills immediately and inform the Press Council within a fortnight. Respondent’s reply dated 23.12.2009 The respondent Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh in his letter dated 23.12.2009 has submitted that during the hearing of the case on 14.12.2009 before the Inquiry Committee the complainant had misled the Committee resulting therein the department was not heard fully. According to the respondent payment has already been made by them on the pending advertisement bills on the complainant related to the department and the Income tax had been deducted only on the payment made to the complainant. Regarding the eight pending bills of the complainant relating to the pulse polio campaign, the respondent has submitted that these bills had already been sent to the concerned department vide letter dated 24.11.2009. The respondent has clarified that in publication of advertisement relating to pulse polio the role of the I&PRD was only to get these published as per the media list provided by the State Information and Education Communication Bureau and to attest the rates on the advertisement bills and not to make the payment. Regarding the TDS certificate of Rs. 238/- presented by the complainant at the time of hearing, the respondent has submitted that it was totally misleading as this TDS certificate of Rs. 238/- was related only to the amount paid to the complainant on his five bills amounting to Rs.22,176/- and Rs.475/-. Whereas the TDS amount of the unpaid eight bills will be Rs.194/- at the Rate of 1.05%. Moreover, this payment is not to be made by the I&PRD thus the question of deducting the TDS by the department does not arise. He further submitted that the total payment of Rs.143269/- was made by the department and Rs.1509/- had been deducted as per rules. The respondent has submitted that as all the pending amount has already been paid by the department thus directions of the Inquiry Committee to impose fine on it be reconsidered and the fine be waved. He has also requested to close the matter as no further action is pending on their part. VIIIth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.2.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant in his letter dated 22.2.2010 requesting for adjournment intimated that the respondent had neither paid the advertisement bills nor given the cost of Rs.10000/- as per direction of the Inquiry Committee. Syed Amjad Hussain, Dy. Director, Information, Lucknow appearing for the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. submitted that two payments of Rs.9063/- and Rs.6840/- had been made on 20.1.2010 and

125 22.1.2010 respectively. The respondent submitted that he had no knowledge of payment of any cost to the complainant. The Inquiry committee took serious view of the incorrect written reply dated 25.12.2009 submitting that the cost was imposed without hearing the department. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the respondent was not properly represented. It, thus, directed the respondent to ensure that the Secretary (Information) and Director, I&PRD be present in person at the next hearing. The Secretariat of the Council was directed that on the next date of hearing the notice be issued accordingly. The complainant in his letter dated 1.4.2010 has denied the statement of the Director, Information, Government of U.P. that pending amount had been paid to the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. According to the complainant a Bill No. 336 dated 31.05.2008 amounting to Rupees 2565/- is still pending. Besides the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Inquiry Committee on the respondent government is not paid. The complainant has alleged that harassment is continued. IXth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant, Shri U.C. Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin appeared in person and Smt. Abhilasha Kulshrestha, Joint Director, I&PRD, Govt. of U.P appeared for the respondent. The complainant submitted that the respondent has not yet complied with the directions of the Inquiry Committee regarding payment of cost Smt. Abhilasha Kulshrestha submitted that the Secretary, Information and Director, I&PRD are new incumbents who recently took over the charge and due to financial year closing related actions they were unable to personally appear before it. The Inquiry Committee took note of the fax dated 21.4.2010 of the Director, I&PRD to this effect and directed the respondent to pay the cost to the complainant within a fortnight and ensure presence at next hearing. It decided to adjourn the matter. Xth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 29th July, 2010 at New Delhi. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, complainant appeared in person, Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Director, U.P. State Information Centre, New Delhi represented the respondent authorities. The representative of the respondent filed a letter dated 27.7.2010 of the Director, I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh before the Committee and stated that as the Director was required in a meeting with the Chief Minister, he could not appear before the Committee as directed. In the letter it was submitted that all the directions of the Inquiry Committee had been complied with and, therefore, the matter may be closed.The complainant informed the Committee that on 9th June, 2010 he was called by

126 the Director, I&PRD and advertisements were released to his newspaper which were stopped again after two weeks. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter with directions to the Director, I&PRD, Government of U.P. through his representative that at the next date of hearing the Director should personally remain present before the Committee. Final Hearing The matter came up for hearing on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. Shri Pradeep Gupta, Deputy Director, appeared for the Information and Public Relations Department and at the very outset informed the Committee about the inability of the Director to appear before the Committee due to the cabinet meeting. The complainant submitted that the respondents were still holding biased attitude towards his newspaper and depriving the required advertisements support particularly in the matter of release of classified advertisements. His newspaper suffered for the last three years due to reprisal tactics of the Uttar Pradesh Government after his functioning as Convener of Fact Fining Committee appointed by the Press Council of India in the case of Samiuddin Neelu, Staff reporter/ correspondent, Amar Ujala, Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P. against police authorities of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant inter alia informed the Inquiry Committee that Shri Samiuddin Neelu is learnt to have now approached the court for compliance of the Council’s decision since the Law Ministry of Government of Uttar Pradesh said that the Council’s verdict is not binding. The complainant further submitted that not only his newspaper suffered revenue loss due to less quantum of advertisements as compared to other similar newspapers by the respondent, his two journalists not getting accreditation by the Uttar Pradesh Government from the Press Accreditation Committee headed by the Director, I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The respondent Director, Information & Public Relations Department did not even inform the grounds of rejection of accreditation of his journalists. The complainant submitted that the respondents were acting in arbitrary manner and without any judicious discretion. Shri Pradeep Gupta, Deputy Director, Information & Public Relations Department submitted that the complainant’s newspaper, being a district level newspaper, was being granted district level tender notice and getting display advertisements. The respondent submitted that the roster was being closely monitored to ensure that display advertisements are issued to the complainant newspaper as per roster. As regards accreditation of two journalists of the complainant newspaper, the respondent submitted that after the PAC decides the application, proceedings are prepared by the Director and signed by the Members of Press Accreditation Committee. Then the concerned District Information

127 Officer is informed about the accreditation granted and in case of rejection, the procedure is that the reasons are given and informed to the concerned person. In case, any discrepancy is noted, they are asked to apply again after the discrepancies are removed.

Report

The Inquiry Committee on a careful consideration of the record and proceedings observed that the complainant’s case was that his newspaper was victimized by the State Authorities of the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh for his role as Convener of Fact Finding Committee of the Press Council of India in the matter : Samiuddin Neelu Vs. Police Authorities of Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P. The facts on record indicated that during the relevant period the quantum of advertisements released to the complainant newspaper had fluctuated and general periodical data filed by the government only balanced out the average. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant, being head of the said Fact Finding Committee, had acted in a quasi judicial capacity in summoning the witnesses including the higher officials of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The victimization of the complainant newspaper was beyond any reasonable discharge of the functioning of the State Government officials as public servants. The Inquiry Committee observed that a public authority is expected to function under a fair and balanced policy and the constitutional commitment as a socialist democratic republic. The authorities are expected to abide by these principles in all its action. The Inquiry Committee also records that the advertisements are the life line of the small newspapers and it is essential to maintain their economic viability, unbiased and independent press. The local newspapers cater to the vital section of the public thus the advertisements released to them not only promote the State’s responsibility towards the small and medium newspapers but also help it connect with the public. It has already laid down that issuance of government advertisement was not largesse or personal bounty of anyone and its utilization had to be ensured in a judicious manner within the frame work of clearly laid down policies. Therefore, the respondents should follow a uniform policy for the empanelment for advertisements and ensure the release of advertisement on rotational basis to all empanelled against the set criteria. The Inquiry Committee made this report to the Press Council.

Held

The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and the facts of the case, upholds the complaint observing under Section 15(4) of the Press Council Act, 1978 that it finds the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh guilty of destabilizing the complainant newspaper, financially affecting

128 its freedom. Such action was a direct affront to the statutory discharge of the functions under Press Council Act by the complainant. The charge of bias stands established as no responsible officer came forward to meet the queries of the Inquiry Committee and insufficient corrective steps taken by the respondent government despite protracted proceedings before the Council in restoring the legitimate advertisement support to the complainant. The Council also held that the government needs to review its Advertisements Policy bring it in consonance with the DAVP Advertisement Policy of the Center and the model Policy laid down by the Press Council. It needs to particularly consider and review the decision of deduction of non-web access charges and differentiate between classified and display advertisements on the basis of colour publication. It advises it to act accordingly and review its Advertisement Policy and also ensure correct and justified implementation of the provisions so that no officer is in a position to use the authority at his command to make the press toe its line or refrain from acting against it in due discharge of its mandate.

37) Shri Vijay Jaiswal The Director General Editor Versus DAVP News Tender Bharat New Delhi Dehradun ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 15/9/2008 has been filed by Shri Vijay Jaiswal, Editor, News Tender Bharat, Hindi weekly, Dehradun against the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity regarding alleged non empanelment of his weekly in the approved list of rate contract due to arbitrary and partial attitude. The complainant submitted that after completion of one year regular publication of his newspaper he applied for empanelment of rate contract on 6.7.2005 for the year 2005-06 but the respondent DAVP did not take any action on it. According to him his newspaper is being published regularly for the last four years and he applied again in the duly filled up prescribed proforma on 23/8/07 for empanelment of rate contract but the respondent’s (PAC) Committee did not grant the rate contract in its meeting held in May 2008 due to ‘poor printing’ which was not justified. In response to respondent’s letter dated 30/6/08 he again applied on 28/9/08 for empanelment of rate contract as per DAVP latest Advertisment Policy but received no response. The complainant alleged that the respondent DAVP discriminated and violated its policy for empanelment of newspapers to the detriment of the small and medium newspapers. He requested the Council to take action in the matter.

129 Notice for statement in reply was issued to the respondent, DAVP on 4.5.2009 but despite having received the notice the respondent did not file their written statement in the matter. Ist Adjournment

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.9.2009 at Dehradun. The complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the DAVP. The complainant submitted that he had applied for rate contract in year 2005 and despite his repeated visits to the office of the DAVP his case was not considered. On the contrary the respondent misplaced his file. The complainant stated that his newspaper suffered for long due to arbitratory attitude of the DAVP. The Inquiry Committee noted that the DAVP had neither filed comments nor represented before it. The Inquiry Committee in order to ascertain the present position in respect of empanelment of News Tender Bharat by the DAVP, decided to seek report from the respondent DAVP. It directed the DAVP to file report within three weeks. IInd Adjournment

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.12.2009 at New Delhi when there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Pankaj Nigam, Media Executive, appearing for the DAVP submitted before the Committee that the complainant’s case for empanelment had been scrutinized and cleared by the department. The case for empanelment would now be placed before the Press Accreditation Committee in January 2010 and its outcome would be made known thereafter. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the representative of DAVP decided to adjourn the matter to monitor the report from the DAVP. IIIrd Adjournment

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.2.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant appeared in person and submitted that his case for empanelment was on agenda for DAVP’s Press Accreditation Committee meeting but as per sources his case was not considered probably on the ground that there were no advertisements in his newspaper. The Inquiry Committee decided that the matter may be adjourned to call for the status report from DAVP. Accordingly status report was called from DAVP vide Council’s letter dated 5.4.2010.

130 IVth Adjournement The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi, when nobody appeared for the DAVP. Shri Vijay Jaiswal complainant appearing in person submitted that his case had probably been rejected and he had applied afresh for empanelment. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter in order to enable the DAVP to file report as called for. The Inquiry Committee exempted the complainant from appearance at further hearing. The matter was adjourned. DAVP’s Reply After the meeting of the Inquiry Committee, a letter dated 26.4.2010 was received from the Media Executive, DAVP wherein he informed that the complainant’s case was duly scrutinized and placed before the Panel Advisory Committee (PAC) for their consideration. On scrutiny, it was found that the weekly reproduced editorial from “Nazaria Khabar”, Hindi weekly of Dehradun. As such, the PAC has rejected the case of News Tender Bharat for DAVP empanelment. Vth Adjournment The matter was called out for hearing at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. The complainant, Shri Vijay Jaiswal appeared in person while there was no representation on behalf of respondent, DAVP. The complainant denied that he reproduced editorial from another newspaper and filed written arguments before the Committee reiterating his complaint. He added that he again applied online on 22.9.2009 for rate contract for the year 2009-2010. Even after completing all the formalities no action was taken by DAVP. He further stated that the reply of DAVP dated 26.4.2010 was incorrect and that he had again applied for empanelment in March 2010. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the non-appearance of DAVP on two occasions. The Committee directed that DAVP may be asked to produce documentary evidence in support of their statement that the complainant’s case was rejected by the PAC. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appearing in person as well as Shri Pankaj Nigam, Assistant Media Executive appearing for the DAVP apprised the Committee that the DAVP has since empanelled the newspaper and the complainant wished to withdraw his complaint. The Inquiry Committee, thus, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being withdrawn.

131 Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquriy Committee decided to close the complaint as withdrawn. Curtailment of Press Freedom

38.(i) Shri N.B. Bhandari, President, State Pradesh Congress Committee, INC, Gangtok, Sikkim & others five political parties namely: 1. Sikkim State BJP, 2. CPI(M), Sikkim, 3. Sikkim Himali Rajya Parishad, Sikkim, 4. Sikkim State NCP, Sikkim and 5. Sikkim United Party, Sikkim

Versus

Government of Sikkim Gangtok

(ii) Suo-motu inquiry on the reported attack on the office of Hamro Prajashakti, Gangtok, on the basis of Press Release dated 5.7.2008 of the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee ADJUDICATION Facts S/Shri N.B. Bhandari, President, SPCC, INC, Sikkim, H.R. Pradhan, President, Sikkim State BJP, Sikkim, P.P. Koirala, Committee Member, CPI(M), Sikkim, A.D. Subba, President, Sikkim Himali Rajya Parishad, Ashok Tsong, President, Sikkim State NCP, Sikkim and Jigme N. Kazi, President, Sikkim United Party vide an undated joint memorandum received on May 12, 2008 drew the attention of the Press Council towards alleged attempts of the ruling party of the State to close down the publication “Hamro Prajashakti” for its unbiased coverage of the events in Sikkim. It was stated in the memorandum that Hamro Prajashakti having the largest circulation in Sikkim gave unbiased coverage of news and views of the Government, ruling party and also the opposition political parties. This was not palatable to the government and the ruling party wanted the local papers to only sing its virtues. The government and the ruling SDF party thus wanted this publication to be closed. To achieve this end, the Government of Sikkim stopped issuing advertisements to the Hamro Prajashakti on a flimsy ground that it had reported a wrong information in one of the issues which was immediately corrected by issuing a corrigendum the next day. However, the other papers which also reported wrong information were ignored. This showed that the government and the ruling party were bent

132 upon to close the newspaper. Giving details it was submitted that on 26.4.2008 early morning, someone torched the Pabi Printing Press where the two newspapers Hamro Prajashakti and Himalayam Mirror were printed. All the political parties and the press condemned the incident but SDF Party and Government did not condemned. The complainants further alleged that on 29.4.2008 at night some people entered the office of said two papers and bolted from inside. On 2.5.2008, the copies of the two publications were forcefully removed from the market and the SDF supporters threatened the vendors not to sell these two papers. The complainants submitted that state government failed to discharge its responsibility to provide security to the press and itself involved in suppressing the freedom of press. The complainants requested the Council to intervene so that the freedom of press in Sikkim is not trampled upon. They also requested the Council to send a team to investigate the matter and direct the state government not to suppress the freedom of press. The complainants were requested vide letter dated 19.5.2008 to furnish detailed report of the incident besides to file the declaration regarding non pendency of the matter in any court of law. Since the matter prime facie disclosed an interference with the free functioning of the press the Hon’ble Chairman wrote a letter dated 19.5.2008 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Sikkim, Gangtok to look into the matter and to ensure that the media in Sikkim is able to discharge its functions without any pressure or fear. A report on the facts of the case was called from the Chief Secretary of the Government of Sikkim vide letter dated 19.5.2008. Comments The Joint Secretary (C) Home, Government of Sikkim, Home Department, Gangtok vide his reply dated 12.8.2008 submitted that the complainant had not disclosed the material fact of the matter and the object of the complainant was to create sensation and cause embarrassment for the State Government. According to the respondent, the complainants did not disclose that Shri Anjan Upadyaya, who is the editor, publisher and printer of the newspaper, Hamro Prajashakti and owner of the Himalayan Mirror is a member of the State Committee of the Communist Party of India(Marxist) and the Vice President of the Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), State Branch. The respondent alleged that a report had been received from the Department of Information and Public Relations which indicated that the newspaper apart from publishing false and misleading news items was indulging in wilful non-compliance of the instructions regarding publication of government advertisements by the paper. The suspension of the newspaper was challenged by Shri Upadhyaya by filing a Writ Petition © No. 18 of 2008 in the High Court of Sikkim which was summarily dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- with the contention that Shri Upadhyaya was not a genuine

133 journalist but a politician and the newspapers were the mouthpieces of the political party and the complaint was frivolous. The respondent further stated that on 26.4.2008, the office of Pabi Printing Press, where the complainant’s newspapers were printed was reportedly set on fire and the incident was reported to the police after delay of almost 20 hours, which worked to the disadvantage of the investigation which is underway to trace the culprits. On 3.5.2008 another complaint was received from the editor of the complainant’s newspapers and investigation revealed that the main witness of the case were unable to give details in the matter. The respondent stated a complaint was received from the complainant alleging that copies of the papers were forcibly removed, whereas on enquiry, the vendors denied the charges and stated that copies were sold out to readers and no element of force was involved there. The Deputy Secretary (C), Home, Government of Sikkim vide letter dated 9.4.2009 forwarded a copy of order dated 21.7.2008 of the High Court of Sikkim on writ petition (c) No. 18 of 2008 in the matter of Anjan Upadhyaya (Petitioner/Appellant) Vs. State of Sikkim & Others. In its order, the High Court of Sikkim dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs.5000/- to the editor, Anjan Upadhyaya. Suo-motu Action The Council took note of a press release dated 5.7.2008 received from the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee condemning the alleged criminal attack on the editorial office of the Nepali daily newspaper “Hamro Prajashakti”, Gangtok, Sikkim by unknown miscreants on the night of July 4, 2008. It was stated therein that the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee, Gangtok in an emergency meeting strongly condemned the criminal/planned attack on the publisher and editors and alleged that the hands of the ruling party in the State Government in the involvement of the crime was not ruled out for the fact that the culprits of the last two similar incidents had not been brought to book. Almost entire press faculty of the Sikkim press assembled in the editorial office of the famous Nepali daily “Hamro Prajashakti” at Tagong, being published from Gangtok, Sikkim. It was alleged that the injuries suffered by the journalists clearly depict the criminal intentions of the culprits who were reportedly carrying lethal weapons including iron rods and other sharp weapons. They did not spare the lady publisher of the paper, Ms. Pabitra Bhandari also at that particular moment. The injured persons were lying in hospital but as on this juncture and date, the criminals were not nabbed. The incident was the most heinous of its kind and it was the third successive attempt to destroy the lives and property of the Hamro Prajashakti group of publications owned and managed by Shri Anjan Upadhaya who was not only the editor of the Nepali “Hamro

134 Prajashakti” and “Himalayan Mirror” dailies but also a senior member of the CPI(M) of the Sikkim unit. The President, SPCC Shri Bhandari vehemently condemned such heinous crimes in the capital on the lives and properties of the senior journalists in the State repeatedly being carried out in the last few months without any findings and accountability of the police department of Sikkim Government to nab the culprits. The scenario, therefore was obviously indicative of the fact, that the alleged hands of the ruling party in the involvement of the crime was not ruled out which was proved by the stark fact that the culprits of the last two similar incidents had not been brought to book either. The Council vide its letter dated 3.2.2009 requested the editor, Hamro Prajashakti to file a report on the present status and facts of the case. In response the editor/publisher, Hamro Prajashakti in his letter dated 25.3.2009 while filing a copy of the report of the S.P., Gangtok in the case no. 86(07) 08 informing progress of inquiry, photos of the incident and a copy of the FIR, submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply of S.P., Gangtok and requested the Council to take necessary action. Comments The Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Sikkim, Home Department, Gangtok vide his reply dated 25.6.2009 filed a report on the action taken in the matter. As per the report on 4.7.2008 at around 10.20 p.m. Sadar Police Station had received a written FIR from Shri Bal Krishan Dhungyal, Manager of Hamro Prajashakti Office, Tadong, stating that around 8.30 p.m. on that day, about seven unknown persons wearing masks on their face entered in the office of “Hamro Prakashakti”, a Nepali daily newspaper, and “Himalayan Mirror”, an English daily newspaper, carrying iron rods and hammers, and attacked the editors and the reporters present in the office. On the basis of the above information, Gangtok Sadar Police Station Case No.86(07) 08 under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. All the seven injured persons mentioned in the FIR were immediately evacuated to the State hospital at Gangtok by police personnel. Three of them were subsequently referred to the Central Referral Hospital, but were discharged. As per report they had simple injuries. Three suspected persons who hail from west Sikkim and found in the area of the incident were rounded up on the same night from a restaurant. They were however released on the next day since their complicity could not be ascertained. Two persons, one from Tadong and the other from Soreng, west Sikkim were arrested on 5.7.2008 on being found under suspicious circumstances. Since no complicity could be made out against them, they too were released on the next day. Police checking at Tadong and Ranipol Outposts was intensified and all hotels, restaurants and suspected locations were searched. Four teams had been formed to cover all possible areas geographically. Acting

135 upon source of information, a search was conducted in the house of one Shri Suraj Gurung at Siyari, Gangtok, where four other persons were also found staying and in possession of incriminating materials namely masks, unauthorized weapons (daggers/deadly equipments), controlled substances, cannabis plants etc. Their names were Shri Suraj Gurung, resident of Tadong, Shri Rupesh Gurung, resident of Tadong, Shri Milan Rai, resident of Melli (South Sikkim), Shri Ashish Subba, resident of Sombaria (West Sikkim) and Shri Roshan Gurung, resident of Sonada (Darjeeling district, West Bengal). All of them were arrested, but were released as their complicity could not be established. Though another person namely, Shri B.B. Rai, resident of Assam-Lingsay was taken into custody on 8.7.2008, he was released after interrogation as his involvement in the case could not be made out. One Shri Tinku Prasad of Maharajganj, Bihar, residing at Gangtok, was also arrested after he was labelled as the prime suspect by the victim, but he was released as his alibis were confirmed. An armed guard had been provided at Hamro Prajashakti office, and no untoward incident since then had been reported. The case was under investigation. Despite the best efforts and for want of leads and eye witnesses, the case had not been worked out. He further submitted that the complainant had been informed of the progress of investigation by the S.P., East District vide letter dated 23.2.2009. He also filed a copy of the same. Arguments The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. The following parties were present for the complainant: S/Shri (i) Udai P. Sharma, Advocate (ii) Padam Bhadur Chettri for Sikkim Pradesh BJP (iii) Lalit Sharma for Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee and (iv) Anjan Upadhayay, the editor, Hamro Praja Shakti. He submitted that the police inquired into the incident and the inquiry was a sham as police filed FR stating that there was no such incident. The complainant submitted that they had put their objection to it. The editor further submitted that the miscreant threatened their hawkers in as many as three districts and had been harassing them continuously. Shri Padam Bahadur Chettri, representing BJP submitted that the people of the ruling party were kidnapping the vehicles carrying newspapers and were bashing up newsmen. Shri M.G. Kiran, Secretry, Information Public Relation Department Government of Sikkim submitted that inquiry is still going on and the government will expedite it. Shri M.G.Kiran further stated hat their Minister had condemned the incident and regretted for the same. Report The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the matter under consideration is under investigation and as such it would be expedient to ask the respondent government to expedite the inquiry. The Inquiry Committee

136 directed the Government of Sikkim to complete the inquiry within three months and send the inquiry report to the Council as well as the complainant. It interalia observed that it was the duty of a democratically elected government to ensure that the fundamental right of the Press is not gagged in any manner and the Council accepts that this would be ensured. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts and adopts the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Principles and Publication

39) The Manager The Editor Dhanwantri Pharmaceutical Versus Lok Sewa Chandausi, (U.P.) Ludhiana (Punjab) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 4.9.2008 has been filed by Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Manager, Dhanwantri Pharmaceutical, Chandausi (UP) against the Editor, Lok Sewa published from Ludhiana alleging publication of advertisement without any order/approval from the pharmaceutical company. The complainant has submitted that he had received 4-5 U.P.C. Post Card/bill amounting to Rs.1600/- and then he contacted the respondent on telephone. The respondent threatened him for release of the payment otherwise he will send the court summon. According to the complainant, the respondent had sent fake bill of advertisement with a motive to blackmail him. The complainant stated that he had no interest to extend his business in Punjab and thus there was no reason for giving advertisement to respondent. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent editor, Lok Sewa. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 22.4.2009, but the respondent did not file the written statement. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee while examining the records of the case noted that the lifting

137 of the advertisements of complainant pharmaceutical firm and publishing in his newspaper, namely Lok Sewa, was unethical and thereafter raising bills for payment was illegal. Similar charges had been established against the respondent in the past also. The Inquiry Committee observed that the respondent editor violated the following Norm of Journalistic Conduct: 36(vii) Publication of dummy or lifted advertisements that have neither been paid for, nor authorized by the advertisers, constitute breach of journalistic ethics specially when the paper raises a bill in respect of such advertisements. For repeating the misconduct *and honouring in breach the above norm, the Inquiry Committee opined that this was a fit case to censure the Editor, Lok Sewa. Held The Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to upheld the complaint and censure the editor of Lok Sewa. It also decided to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication along with case papers to the DAVP, RNI and I&PRD, Government of Punjab to investigate the matter for appropriate legal action.

40) Smt. Pooja Saxena The Editor District Horticulture Officer Versus Shah Times Bijnor, U.P. Moradabad, U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts This undated complaint received on 29.7.2008 has been filed by Smt. Pooja Saxena, District Horticulture Officer, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh against Shah Times, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh for publication of allegedly false news item captioned ‘Nahi Chala Dav: Udhyan Niriksak Ko Karna Para Relieve’ in its issue dated 3.7.2008. The complainant has objected to the allegedly false and baseless report that also changed her name in the impugned news item, by suffixing a wrong surname ‘Singh’ and mentioning her as Puja Singh while her real name is Puja Saxena. It was reported in the impugned news item that the complainant had been transferred to Banda, which was untrue. The complainant also objected to the allegation that she had relieved Uddyan Inspector, Shri Malik only on paper and not dispatched the letter which was also untrue. According to the complainant Shri Malik was relieved on 1.7.2008 and not on

Foot Not: *Dr. D.K. Bhandari, Bhandari Hospital, Dehradun Vs. Rana Express and Lok Sewa (F.No. 14/458–459/07-08), the Council had awarded censure to the respondent.

138 26.6.2008 as reported in the impugned news item. The complainant issued a letter dated 29.8.2008 to the respondent but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 8.5.2009, the respondent editor, executive editor and reporter, Shah Times filed a common written statement dated 3.6.2009 and submitted that the news item in question was true and its publication did not tarnish image of the complainant. The respondents also submitted that they have not violated the standards of journalistic ethics by publishing the fact. The respondents stood by what they had published in the news item and alleged that the transfer order of Shri Malik was issued in May 19, 2008 but the complainant, District Horticulture Officer relieved him only on 1.7.2008, after one month and 10 days by deliberately ignoring the government order with vested interest. With regard to the appendage of surname ‘Singh’ to the complainant’s name, the respondent submitted that it was done in order to show respect to the complainant, as her husband, Shri Virender Nath Singh has also ‘Singh’ as his surname. Regarding transfer of the complainant to Banda, the respondent submitted that the information was gathered on telephone from the concerned official and it was published presuming it to be true and the same was not published to defame her but to inform the general public. The respondent denied the service of notices to them and submitted that had any notice was received, they would have responded to it. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when none of the parties appeared before it. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of the material before it. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant’s grievances was two fold; one changing her surname and two, charging her for delay in relieving an officer in the Horticulture Department. The Committee was not satisfied that the allegations were so serious as to attract any cognizance under section 14(1) of the Act. The complainant infact raised issues, which could not be considered offences violating any journalistic norms. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and opined that the matter falls within the definition of “De-minimus non curat lex” meaning thereby the court does not take cognizance of trifle. The Council decided not to take any cognizance of the complaint for insufficient substance for initiating inquiry under the Press Council Act and decided to dismiss the complaint.

139 41) Shri Ved Prakash Pandey The Editor Reporter Versus Swatantra Bharat Samajwadi Pariwar Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated, 11.7.2006 has been filed by Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, reporter, Samajwadi Pariwar, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh against Swatantra Bharat for alleged unprofessional/yellow journalism. According to thecomplainant, the respondent newspaper has been practicing unprofessional tradition of journalism by publication of news items without pre-publication verification. He has alleged that the respondent published a news item and the very next day, a clarification followed. The complainant cited a few examples of the respondent’s bad tradition of journalism as follows:

1. A news item under the caption ‘Bima Office Ke Karamchari Late Latif Ke Aadi’ was published in its issue dated 31.5.2006 and its clarification was published under the caption ‘Munawar Par Lage Aarop Niradhar’ in its issue dated 2.6.2006.

2. A news item under the caption ‘L.I.U. Inspector Bata Kar Aaganwadi Karyakatriyon Se Thagi Karne Pahuncha Pradhanacharya’ was published in its issue dated 11.6.2006 and was followed by a its contradiction under the caption ‘Rajesh Deva Par Lage Aarop Niradhar’ in its issue dated 12.6.2006.

The complainant also objected to the publication of a contradiction under the caption ‘Police Kshetraadhikari Ke Karyon Ki Prashasan’ by the respondent newspaper Swatantra Bharat in response to a news item caption ‘Aarthik Dohan Mein Prahalad Bane Kans’ which was published in his newspaper Samajwadi Pariwar in its issue of 29th May – 4th June 2006.

The complainant vide a further communication dated 15.1.2008 has furnished a copy of the respondent newspaper Swatantra Bharat and objected to the fact that the first and the last pages of the issue dated 15.1.2008 contained neither news item nor any information of public interest but advertisements.

Notice for comments was issued to the respondent on 16.10.2006 and despite of delivery of the notice, no comments were filed. A show cause notice was thus issued to the respondent on 14.12.2007.

140 Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 14.12.2007, the Chief Manager (Marketing & Circulation), Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow in his written statement dated 12.3.2008 has submitted that the publication of news and advertisements in his newspaper were in accordance with the norms laid down by the Council. However, they are regretful over the publication of news in the issue dated 15.1.2008 and they would be more careful in future. The Bureau Chief, Swatantra Bharat, Shahjahanpur in his written statement dated 24.3.2008 has submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and baseless and the complaint was filed only to defame the newspaper. He also stated that when, during the year 2003-04, the complainant acted as an agent for their newspaper Swatantra Bharat at Sindholi, Shahjahanapur, he committed financial irregularities and the agency was stopped on his complaint being the Bureau Chief of the area. Enraged by the action, the complainant filed the instant complaint, alleged the respondent. A copy each of the written statements was forwarded to the complainant on 31.3.2008 and 17.4.2008 for his counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 8.4.2008 and 5.5.2008 to the written statements of the Chief Editor, Swatantra Bharat and its Bureau Chief at Shahjahanpur, reiterated his complaint and expressed his dissatisfaction over the submissions of the respondent. A copy each of the two counter comments were forwarded to the respondents on 29.4.2008 and 3.7.2008 respectively. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.1.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant was not present. Shri Sharvan Kumar, Executive (Marketing) appearing for the respondent stated that the Counsel engaged for the arguments could not come due to bad weather. He, therefore, requested for adjournment. As the complainant was also not represented before the Committee, it decided to adjourn the matter. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. Shri S. Sharma, Bureau Chief represented the respondent newspaper, Swatantra Bharat while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant had, however, vide his letter dated 20.5.2010

141 requested the Committee to either decide the matter on the basis of his submissions in the complaint or adjourn the matter as he was unable to appear due to hot weather. The representative of the respondent submitted that they had stopped publishing unverified news reports and they would not repeat such conduct in future. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral submissions of the representative of the respondent. In view of the assurance held out by him the Committee opined that no further action was needed in the matter. Accordingly, it submitted its report to the Council for disposal. Held Accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee the Press Council closed the complaint in view of the assurance given by the respondent’s representative that the newspaper had stopped publishing unverified news reports.

42) The Commissioner The Editor Municipal Council Versus Dainik Bhaskar Alwar, Rajasthan Alwar, Rajasthan ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 15.4.2009 has been filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Alwar against Dainik Bhaskar, Alwar for publication of allegedly objectionable news items captions of which are as follows:

S.No. Captions Dates 1 Congress Sarkar Par Nishana Sadhate Hoardings 7.4.2009 2 Aachaar Sanhita Ka Khula Ullanghan 14.3.2009 3 Swasth Shasan Nideshak Aaj Ayegi 29.1.2009

It was alleged in the first impugned news item that hoardings/billboards criticising the Congress government, which were installed, during the elections under the order of the Municipal Council’s officials who were sympathizer of a BJP Municipal Councilor. The complainant has submitted that no official of the Municipal Council was involved with any political parties but performed their duties under the rules and regulations and alleged that the way the respondent projected the news item was shameful and dangerous. The complainant has alleged that the second news item was wrong as any political party could put

142 up hoardings with the photographs of their leaders or their candidates during the elections. It was published in the third impugned news item that Health and Sanitation Director would visit Alwar to investigate on a complaint against the Municipal Council’s waste disposal scam in which crores of rupees have reportedly been swindled. The complainant has alleged that the news item was false and baseless as the concerned authorities, on enquiry, has no such information. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent editor and its local correspondent through telephone conversation on 8.4.2009 and 13.4.2009; and vide letter dated 9.4.2009 with a request to publish their contradiction in the matter. However, the respondent has not responded. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar on 24.8.2009, but no written statement has been received in the matter. The acknowledgement card is on record as a proof of the service of the notice. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. In order to afford another chance to the parties for hearing, the Committee adjourned the matter. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Amitesh Mishra, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar who stated that the complainant was not represented before the Committee on last occasion also. He added that the news was published on the basis of facts. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Indore on 1.4.2010 when the complainant was not represented before it. The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010 when the complainant was not represented. It noted that the complainant, despite sufficient opportunity, did not avail of it to pursue the case. The Inquiry Committee had no option but to recommend closure of the case. Held The Council on perusal of the records of the case accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint.

143 43) Shri Dilip T. Mehta The Editor C/o. Hotel Utsav Sandesh Versus Sandesh Vadodara, Gujarat Vadodara, Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 9.6.2008 has been filed by Shri Dilip T.Mehta, Vadodara against Sandesh, a Gujarati daily newspaper, Vadodara for publication of allegedly false news item captioned ‘Municipal Corporation will recover property tax on the basis of “New Jantri” in its issue dated 12.4.2008. It was published in the impugned news item that the Assessment Department wrote a letter to the Commissioner and sought his guidance to amend the rates in assessment. It was published in the impugned news item that ‘as per the amendment made by the State Government. from 1st April in old Jantri – the Assessment Department has written a letter to commissioner and has sought his guidance to amend the rates in assessment also. The value of location factor changes due to new rates of Jantri.’ It was further mentioned in the news item in question that ‘Now that Government has increased the rates in Jantri in a larger way, the Corporation which had fixed the location factor four years ago have also changed in long way. In implementation of New Jantri Rate, approximately 25% income benefit can accrue to the Corporation and for that the Assessment Department has written a letter to Municipal Commissioner Manoj Das seeking guidance for amending the location rates of property according to New Jantri. If the Commissioner gives order to amend the same from the new year than in property tax citizen will have to pay minimum of 25 percent more in property tax for the Assessment year 2008-09.’ According to the complainant, in response to his application for information under the RTI Act, 2005, the PIO & Dy. Assessor and Tax Collector, Assessment Department, Vadodara vide RTI reply dated 25.4.2008 informed him that no letter was addressed by the Commissioner from the Assessment Department seeking guidance as to the Jantri. Taking stand on the information supplied by the Assessment Department, the complainant has alleged that the news item in question published by the respondent turned out to be false. He drew the attention of the respondent vide letter dated 19.5.2008 with a request to take corrective measures but he received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2009, the Managing Editor, Sandesh in his written statement dated 16.11.2009 has denied the allegations

144 levelled by the complainant and submitted that the news report in question was an objective analysis of the details and information collected and gathered from different sources, including from the government record and the same was for the better and reliable news items. The concerned reporter of the Sandesh daily received the information from the reliable sources, submitted the respondent. The possibility of implementation of New Jantri was there, but due to elections, the necessary resolution was not passed in the Board of Corporation and the new Jantri had not come into force, stated the respondent and added that after the election, the Corporation ought to have declared the rate of new Jantri but for the reason best known to the corporation, nothing came out and the issue was pending before it, and added that as per their information, whatever they have published in the news item in question was true. The news item which clearly stated the probability and the possibility of implementation of the new Jantri was misinterpreted by the complainant which resulted into vague and ambiguous complaint before the Council, alleged the respondent. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comment dated 5.12.2009 has submitted that from the very source from where the impugned news item was claimed to be generated, has categorically denied having addressed any letter to the Commissioner, hence, besides the said source, no question arises of the Reporter of Sandesh having received information from reliable sources. The complainant further submitted that the new Jantri is prepared and implemented by the State Government and there is no provision in BPMC Act and the Board of Vadodara Municipal Corporation is not competent authority to implement the new Jantri. It is the respondent’s view of BPMC and suggesting that the Board of Vadodara Municipal Corporation ought to have declared the rates of new Jantri stated the complainant and added that since Vadodara Municipal Corporation is not competent to implement new Jantri, the question did not arise of the said issue pending before it and as such, the information gathered by the respondent on this issue was illegal and otherwise not correct. The question of probability and possibility of implementation of new Jantri does not survive in the light of the fact that the Calendar Year 2009, the Commissioner had already revised the market value of the lands and new revision can be made in the year 2013 as per the provisions contained in rule 8 (B)(1) & (2) added the complainant. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. In order to afford another chance of oral argument, the Committee decided to adjourn the matter. 145 Report of the Inquiry Committee When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010 neither the complainant nor the respondent was represented before it. The Committee perused the letter received from the respondent editor, Sandesh stating therein that the matter has been amicably resolved. In view of the settlement, the Inquiry Committee felt that no further action was needed in the matter and decided to report the matter to the Council for disposal. Held The Council on perusal of the record accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the matter being settled.

44) Smt Tara Lakshmi Joshi Shri Rajesh Trivedi Jodhpur, Rajasthan Versus Correspondent Dainik Bhaskar Jodhpur, Rajasthan ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 2.8.2007 has been filed by Smt. Tara Lakshmi Joshi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan against Shri Rajesh Trivedi, Correspondent, Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur for alleged harassment and denial of her right of reply. According to the complainant, the respondent harassed her and her family by misusing his position as a journalist and denied her right of reply to an allegedly false news item captioned ‘Removed encroachment from government land’ published in Dainik Bhaskar issue dated 16.1.2007. The complainant has alleged that the respondent Shri Rajesh Trivedi had filed a false complaint with the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation charging that she has encroached upon the government land by building her boundary wall on it. By putting pressure upon the Commissioner, the respondent got the Municipal Corporation pull down her boundary wall, alleged the complainant. The complainant further alleged that when the employees of the Municipal Corporation came for pulling down the boundary wall, an altercation broke between them and her husband and the respondent Shri Rajesh Trivedi got her husband thrashed/beaten up, and he reported the matter to the police. The complainant has alleged that the respondent misused his position as journalist along with the power of his wife being the Mayor of the city. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent vide letter dated 5.4.2008 with request to take suitable action against the concerned correspondent, but received no response.

146 Comments Comments of the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar were invited on 27.3.2008 and when no response was received, show cause notices were issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar and its correspondent, Shri Rajesh Trivedi on 9.7.2009. Shri Rajesh Trivedi in his undated reply received on 14.12.2009, has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. He has submitted that the complainant and her husband were habitual to make false complaints against innocent people. The respondent has submitted that there was land dispute between both the parties. He alleged that the complainant had misguided the Council by filing false complaint. The editor, Dainik Bhaskar did not file written statement. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when both the parties were present. Shri Mahesh Chander Joshi, (husband of the complainant) appearing for the complainant submitted that Municipality issued notices under the pressure of the reporter and the wall was also demolished by the Municipal Corporation at the instance of the reporter. The complainant representative further submitted that the reporter was instrumental in taking vengeance against the complainant family and harassing due to his personnel influence as journalist. The complainant representative requested that the reporter should be removed from the job. Shri Rajesh Trivedi, reporter in his oral arguments submitted that the complainant had called a press conference and alleged that the reporter had got the wall demolished. It was reported in all the papers. The respondent reporter submitted that the Nagar Nigam had taken action as per laws but the complainant made a personnel dispute bringing his newspaper Dainik Bhaskar as a party to the case before the Council. He had reported the facts which were not at all denied. The reporter further submitted that he had published the single item after bringing it to the notice of the editor. He pointed out that he had not published any other report except the impugned news item which was factual. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and upon hearing both the sides, prima-facie observed that the parties had conflict of interest and the Press Council was not the appropriate forum to settle personal disputes. In the opinion of the Committee, the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar had made the factual reporting of removal of alleged encroachment of the Municipal Corporation. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the reporter, having personal interest in a matter, ought to have avoided such reporting. The Committee

147 opined that no further action was needed. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the Inquiry Committee’s Report and decided to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits.

45) Shri Syed Mustaq Hussain Rizvi The Editor Baitul Versus Humse Kuchh Chhupaya Madhya Pradesh Nahi Ja Sakta Baitul Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 10.4.2007 has been filed by Shri Syed Mustaq Hussain Rizvi, Baitul, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Humse Kuchh Chhupaya Nahi Ja Sakta, Baitul alleging publication of highly objectionable advertisement in its issue dated 15.3.2007 inviting criminals for the post of correspondent, who do not hold any educational qualification but could collect money by giving threats. The impugned advertisement further stated that preference would be given to those criminals against whom cases have been registered under Section 384 of Cr.P.C. The complainant has alleged that the publication of the advertisement is in violation of the law of the land. Thus, action may be taken against the respondent editor and the newspaper may be blacklisted by the Registrar of Newspapers for India. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 22.10.2007, the respondent, Shri Ramkishore Panwar, Editor, Humse Kuchh Chhupaya Nahi Ja Sakta in his written statement dated 5.11.2007 has submitted that he published the impugned advertisement being annoyed with the criminals. He has stated that the complainant, being a criminal, filed a complaint against such publication. Report of Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material available on record. It took serious note of offending advertisment published by the editor, Humse Kuchch Chhupaya Nahin Ja Sakta inviting persons of criminal background to join the profession of journalism as correspondents who could collect money by giving threats. The Inquiry Committee found the publication very irresponsible

148 and the editor appeared to have made mockery of the entire media. It decided to warn the editor, Humse Kuchch Chhupaya Nahin Ja Sakta, and directed him to publish disclaimer as well as the adjudication of the Council. It further recommended that copy of the adjudication be forwarded to RNI for such action as it may deem fit. The Committee submitted its report to the Council for disposal. Held The Press Council of India of India on consideration of the record accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to warn the respondent editor for publication of an objectionable advertisement and further decided to send a copy of its adjudication to the RNI for such action as they deem fit in the matter.

46) Shri D.P. Singh The Editor National Spokesman/Vice President Versus Amar Ujala Janhit Jagran Meerut Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts Shri D.P. Singh, National Spokesman/Vice President, Janhit Jagran, Meerut, U.P. has filed this complaint dated 3.7.2007 against some leading newspapers and particularly Amar Ujala for non-publication of press release relating to court orders because its own employees were involved in the matter. The complainant has alleged that some employees of Amar Ujala in collusion with his rivals, published defamatory report in Amar Ujala and distributed the same in his constituency. As a result he and his wife faced defeat in the elections. A case no. 2013/06 was filed in the court and taking cognizance in the matter under Section 500 IPC, the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in its order dated 26.5.2007 summoned the opposite party i.e. Amar Ujala to appear before the court on 30.7.2007. The complainant has submitted that a press release of court’s order was issued to many newspapers but no one published the same as it was against the employees of a newspaper. He requested the Council to initiate action particularly against the Amar Ujala for non-publication of the press release or the court orders. Written Statement In response to show cause notice dated 31.8.2007, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 27.9.2007 submitted that selection of the material for publication is within the discretion of the editor and nonpublication

149 of a press note can not become the subject matter of inquiry. According to the respondent editor the impugned press note had never been received in the office of the newspaper for publication and they came to know about it only after receiving the show cause notice from the Press Council. Moreover no certified copy of the order was attached with the press note and its language was highly objectionable and not worth publishing. The respondent has further submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant had failed to state in what manner the non-publication of the matter is objectionable under Section 14 (1) of the Press Council Act. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 30.10.2007. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant was not present. He, however, requested for adjournment. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Legal Advisor, Amar Ujala appeared before it and reiterated the written statement. The Inquiry Committee on perusing the record was inclined to accept the contention that selection of material falls within the discretion of the editor. The Inquiry Committee also accepted that the complainant could not take refuge under alleged malafide for declining his Press Release for publication in the respondent periodical. The Inquiry Committee did not find any merit in the complaint. It reported to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint accepting that the editor of a newspaper enjoys wide discretion insofar selection of material in the form of letter to the editor and press releases. The respondent had staked his claim to such discretion and there was not sufficient basis to accept the charge of malafide. The Council therefore accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.

47) Shri S.C. Kapoor The Editor Wing Commander (Retd.) Versus The Times of India Noida, Uttar Pradesh New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 31.8.2009 has been filed by Shri S.C. Kapoor, Wing Commander (Retd.) Noida (U.P.) against The Times of India for publication, of

150 a photograph with an objectionable title “Blowing their trumpet: The Army band performs at Drass War Memorial to mark ten years of the capture of Tiger Hill by the Indian Army during Kargil War” in its issue dated 6.7.09. According to the complainant, commemoration of an event marking the martyrdom of soldiers for their country was a sad, soul-stirring and serious occasion. The complainant submitted that this was a solemn occasion evocative of the unrivalled bravery, patriotism, professional competence, discipline and comradeship displayed by the Officers and Jawans of the Armed Forces while defending the county’s borders and its integrity and honour. It epitomizes the ultimate in commitment and sense of duty. The complainant alleged that the phrase “Blowing their trumpet” in red block capitals was morbidly derisive and mischievous and use of such a phrase greatly disturbed and anguished the serving military personnel and lakhs of veterans. The publication was ridiculous and run down the Armed Forces. The complainant submitted that the respondent followed neither laid down norms of journalistic ethics and propriety nor made barest of amends by tendering any apology. When the attention of the respondent was drawn towards impugned pulication on 11.7.09, 11.8.09 and 12.8.09, the respondent chose not to respond. The complainant submitted that he felt inconsolably hurt and upset at the insult hurled at the war heroes and martyrs.

Written Statement

In response to show cause notice, the counsel for the respondent in his written statement dated 8.1.2010 refuted the contents and denied having offended or violated professional norms of journalistic conduct. The respondent submitted that they have great deal of respect for the armed forces of the country and couldn’t even think of insulting them in any manner. They always kept the Armed Forces in high esteem and have always highlighted the gallantry work of our soldiers with pride. The respondent averred that it was the complainant’s own imagination that the picture in question and caption greatly disturbed and anguished or disturbed the serving military personnel or veterans. The respondent requested the Council to drop the proceeding.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance on behalf of The Times of India. Shri S.C. Kapoor, the complainant appeared in person and submitted that he has all regards for the Press. It, however, erred in reporting an event marking the martyrdom of soldiers, who laid their lives in fighting and winning the Kargil War. The complainant objected to the phrase “Blowing their Trumpet” which was used for Army band performing at Drass War Memorial to mark 10 years of its capture by Indian Army during the Kargil War. The complainant

151 reiterated that the said phrase greatly disturbed military personnel and caused anguish amongst them who lost their near and dear ones in Kargil War, including the complainant who felt inconsolably hurt at the insult hurled at the war heroes and martyrs. The complainant submitted that The Times of India on earlier occasion also, published reports/cartoons that had hurt the sentiments of armed forces and this was repeated attempt to hurt their sentiments. The complainant submitted that his request to the editor of The Times of India to stop such publications and seeking apology was all in vain.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted that the complainant felt aggrieved with the usage of the phrase that had a tendency to hurt the sentiments of the family members and friends of those who laid their lives. The Inquiry Committee noted that the phrase “Blowing their trumpet” is a phrase normally used to indicate the egoistic attitude of the concerned and was perhaps not a very happy selection for the occasion even though no malice or ill will could be attributed to the newspaper for it. It is however expected that the editorial staff would more carefully weigh the words particularly used in the caption for the impact on the readers. It also expect a leading newspaper like The Times of India to show greater consideration for the sentiments of their readers and take corrective steps post publication, if such oversight is brought to notice. The Inquiry Committee reported to the Council its observations.

Held

The Press Council perused the report of the Inquiry Committee and concurred with observations and findings of the Inquiry Committee even though it could not hold The Times of India guilty of deliberate denigration of the armed forces. It advised the editor, The Times of India to be careful in future.

48) Dr. Jasbir Arya The Editor Director Versus Mail Today Crime Free India Bureau New Delhi New Delhi

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 30.7.2009 has been filed by Dr. Jasbir Arya, Director/Chief Editor, Crime Free India Bureau, New Delhi against the Editor, Mail Today, New Delhi for publication of allegedly false and baseless news item under the caption “A self-styled sidekick of the CVC and CBI? Private bureau

152 claims it ‘helps’ central agencies” in its issue dated 3.1.2009. According to the news item, Crime Free India Bureau, a private organisation claimed that it works in ‘coordination’ with the CVC, the CBI and several other government agencies, and seeks information on behalf of the CBI. The complainant organization promised adequate remuneration to any one who could provide critical information to it. The complainant has alleged that the charges levelled against them are not only false and baseless but are of very serious in nature which caused them a sort of damage and mental trauma that is immeasurable. The complainant has alleged that the respondent did not produce any concrete evidence to substantiate his allegation. The complainant has submitted that attention of the respondent was drawn on 6.1.2009 towards the impugned publication but the respondent had not given any reply. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor Mail Today on 21.10.2009. Written Statement In his written statement dated 12.10.2009 the respondent editor, Mail Today has submitted that the article was factually correct and verified. The complainant was indulging in a manner which was against the standards of the newspaper/agencies and also there has been complete lack of responsible journalism on the complainant’s part. By using words such as ‘Co-ordination with every govt. agency in regard to the internal security and authorized by CVC’ the complainant was misleading the general public. The respondent stated that there was no authorisation by CVC to the complainant’s organization, which was confirmed by Shri Harsh Bahl, CBI spokesperson The respondent submitted that collecting information from the public illegally was a serious crime and it was misleading and cheating the public by asking them for fees of Rs.600/- to 5100/- per year to have its membership. The complainant was also using sign boards with police colour which is certainly illegal. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.12.2009 for information/counter comments but the complainant did not file his counter. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi, when complainant was represented by Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Reporter. He submitted that C F B I is an NGO and was bringing out newspaper “Crime Free India” to eliminate crime. The complainant organization

153 was serving public good. The Inquiry Committee inquired about the validation of mentioned patrons on their letter heads including several Unions Ministers, Chief Ministers and Judges and also inquired as to how it was affiliated to Press Council of India as claimed in their newspaper. The complainant representative submitted that he will file documents in support of it. The respondent counsel submitted that the complainant organization was committing crime rather then eliminating the same. The counsel drew attention of the Committee to the claims etc. and information published in the complainant newspaper and also pointed out that the photograph of the complainant office carried the signboard using colour scheme of Delhi Police. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee prime facie noted that the bonafide of the complainant was doubtful. It, thus, directed the complainant Director to be personally present at the next hearing and produce letters of its patrons. The Inquiry Committee also decided that CBI may be impleaded in the matter and all the case papers be forwarded to the CBI for being represented at the next hearing. The matter was adjourned. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee S/Shri Rajesh Kumar and Arun Kumar, advocates represented the respondent while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant who sent a letter dated 7.7.2010 that following the last hearing they were not expecting a neutral judgement from the Press Council of India and now going to file the case in Delhi High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that the complainant organization was a fraud. He reiterated the submissions made in the written statement. Report of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the records and oral arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, the Committee noted in view the complainant’s letter dated 7.7.2010 no decision was necessary on merits of the case. It was however, of the opinion that in view of the prime facie misuse of the names of the claimed patrons, the issue be referred to Central Bureau of Investigation for making proper investigation/ appropriate action accordingly under intimation to the Press Council. The Inquiry Committee made its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.

154 49) Shri Praful Meghji Joshi The Editor Thane Versus Divya Bhaskar Maharashtra Bhuj, Gujarat

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 18.11.2008 has been filed by Shri Praful Meghji Joshi, Thane, Maharashtra against the editor, Divya Bhaskar, a Gujarati daily, Bhuj, Gujarat for publication of allegedly objectionable news item with a photograph of his mother, a suicide victim, showing her corpse hanging from the ceiling on a rope inside the house, in its issue dated 13.9.2008. The complainant has submitted that his 73 years old mother, committed suicide in unfortunate circumstances on 12.9.2008 and the respondent, with a view to sensationalize, published the sad incident along with her photograph to defame his family. He also alleged that the respondent also offended the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant issued a letter dated 3.10.2008 to the respondent editor at Bhopal who apologised over the phone and the Bhuj based news editor also apologised over the phone but no authentic reply has so far been received from the respondent.

Show cause notices were issued to the respondents at Bhuj, Gujarat and Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh on 5.1.2009 but no written statement was received from Divya Bhaskar.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. There was no appearance before it from either side. The complainant had, however, vide his letter dated 19.7.2010 expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to ill health. He requested the Committee to decide the matter on the basis of his complaint and documents filed.

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record. At the outset it expressed displeasure over the failure of the respondent editor in filing the written statement and for not being represented before the Committee. The Committee noted that the respondent, Divya Bhaskar published news about the suicide of complainant’s aged mother who was suffering from several diseases. Although the news was factual, the photograph published was in bad taste and insensitive as it was bound to hurt the family in the time of grief. The Committee cautioned the respondent to be careful in future. It placed its report before the Council for final decision.

155 Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee observes that the impugned publication pertains to the suicide of an old lady. It was accompanied by the site photograph of her and had caused immense grief to her family members. It therefore, accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to caution to editor, Divya Bhaskar to keep in sight the social sensibilities while publishing reports. The Council further observed that dignity in death was a principle widely observed in civil society and unless the photograph depiction of such event directly impacted the public interest or purpose, the media would be well advised to avoid it. Laying down this principle, the Council decided that the guidelines may be brought to the notice of Journalist Organizations for circulation amongst their members.

50) Ms. Smita Patwardhan The Editor Sangli, Maharashtra Versus Maharashtra Times Mumbai, Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 27.12.2008 has been filed by Ms. Smita Patwardhan, Sangli, Maharashtra against Maharashtra Times, Mumbai for publication of allegedly objectionable news item captioned ‘Failure of Family Planning Surgery, Health Department Rejected the Blame’ in its issue dated 14.11.2008. The complainant has objected to the statements of the impugned news item, that ‘the birth of the baby boy seems to be a gain to the family’ and that ‘the Dixits, who got three daughters, had given up the expectation of a son and now they are happy because they gained a son which will succeed the patrimonial clan’. She has alleged that the respondent newspaper insulted the Indian women by expressing that son as the successor of patrimonial clan and it indirectly tells that women are only meant for giving birth to and work for men. The tendency of the reporting of the news item cause to lowering the dignity of the female populace, added the complainant. In a further communication dated 7.2.2009, the complainant has submitted that it was a very serious matter that not only the journalists of the respondent newspaper but also the editor himself has been engaged in discrimination on the basis of gender. The editorial column dated 31.1.2009 was about the newborn baby’s theft by an outsider at the Lokmanya Tilak Hospital in Mumbai wherein the editor specifically written that the baby boy followed two girls, the description of which was unnecessary and tried to show the preciousness of the male child. The complainant had written a letter dated 15.11.2008 to the respondent editor with a request to tender and publish apology but to no avail.

156 No Written Statement A notice for comments was issued to the respondent editor, Maharashtra Times, Mumbai on 25.3.2009 and inspite of a reminder dated 19.5.2009, no response has been received. The postal authority vide letter dated 17.8.2009 have confirmed that the notice was delivered on 25.5.2009. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 10.8.2009 but no written statement has been filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance before it from either side. However, the complainant vide her letter dated 20.7.2010 expressed her inability to appear before the Committee due to ill health and requested that the matter may be decided on merits. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Committee on consideration of the records of the case noted that the respondent editor neither filed the written statement nor was he represented before it to defend his case. The Committee thus had to proceed on the facts that the respondent had no defence to offer. On merits, the Committee opined that the press could play a vital role in removing the age-old gender biases and even unilateral description as in the news item could contribute to continuation of such bias and retard social balances and development. It cautioned the respondent to keep its social responsibility in mind and also issue an appropriate advisory to its staff. It made this report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee, accepted and adopted the reasons and findings of the committee and decides accordingly.

51) Shri Arun Mahadeo Joshi The Editor Mumbai, Maharashtra Versus The Times of India Mumbai, Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 20.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Arun Mahadeo Joshi, Mumbai against the Times of India, Mumbai for publication of an objectionable headline of a news item which reads; ‘Modi’s Gujarat gets Muslim DGP’ in its issue dated 22.2.2009. The complainant has stated that a responsible newspaper like the Times of India should not carry news or headlines

157 that have the potential of further dividing the society. He has stated that Gujarat is an Indian State and when muslims held the highest constitutional positions in India, what would be the point in highlighting this event, except to cause further bias in the mind of the readers against Shri Modi. In the news item itself, there was an attempt to highlight differences between shia muslims and sunni muslim’s, stated the complainant. He wrote to the respondent on 23rd and 25th February 2009 but received no reply from the respondent. The paper also failed to file any written statement. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment of 24.4.2009, the matter was again taken up on 29.7.2010 in the absence of the parties. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the impugned report noted that the headline, objected to by the complainant, was neither sensational nor defamatory. The impugned report carried an analysis that made reference to communities relevant to the report. It therefore did not find any case for action against the publication. The Committee submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to close the case being devoid of reasons for action against the Times of India under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978.

52) Smt. B. Malini Mallya The Editor D/o Late Sri Umanatha Mallya Udayavani Manasa, Saligrama Village Versus Udupi District Udupi Taluk- Udupi District Karnataka Karnataka

The Editor Deccan Herald Mangalore ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 18.5.2009 have been filed by Smt. B. Malini Mallya, Saligrama village, Udupi, Karnataka against the editors (i) Udayavani, daily, Udupi and (ii) Deccan Herald, Mangalore (Karnataka) for publication of allegedly distorted version of the Supreme Court Judgment under the captions ‘Staging the Ballets of Karanth did not amount to infringement of copyright - Supreme Court’ and ‘Supreme Court Okays Free Show of

158 Yaksha Ranga’ in their issues dated 18.2.2009 and 22.2.2009 respectively. According to the complainant, under a Registered Will dated 18.6.1994 executed by Dr. K. Shivarama Karanth, the complainant inherited the copyrights in respect of all the intellectual properties of Dr. K. Shivarama Karanth. The complainant has alleged that the Academy of General Education and the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College Trust, Udupi staged in public with professional stage performers, one of the ballets namely Yaksha Ranga of Dr. Karanth without bothering to take permission of the complainant and collected huge amount of money. As her copyrights over the said ballets were disputed, the complainant filed a Civil Suit O.S. No. 16 of 2001 before the District Court, Udupi which granted relief of declaration that she held exclusive copyrights over the said ballets and granted permanent injunction restraining the two, the Academy of General Education and the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College Trust, Udupi from staging the ballets. They filed an appeal against the judgment and decree before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in RFA No. 271/2004, which dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower court. They preferred an appeal, Civil Appeal No. 389/2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which dismissed with a clarification that the two institutes can take statutory benefits of the provisions contained in clause (a), (i) and (I) of sub Sec (1) of Sec (1) of Sec 52 of Copyrights Act which provided certain acts that would not constitute an infringement of copyright when a fair dealing is made, interalia, of a literary or dramatic work for the purpose of private use including research and criticism or review, whether of that work or any other work, the right in terms of the provisions of the said Act cannot be blamed. However, the declaration regarding the complainant’s exclusive copyrights over the seven Yaksha Ranga ballets and the consequential injunction restraining the respondents from staging the same remained intact and undisputed. The complainant has stated that on 18.2.2009 and 22.2.2009, the respondent newspapers Udayavani and Deccan Herald published the news items of which the titles themselves were misleading and wrong. As the respondent newspapers published distorted version as substance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, they have committed contempt of court. She issued a letter each dated 31.3.2009 pointing out the gross discrepancies between the news reports and the judgment of the Supreme Court with request to publish a note of correction. However, the respondent newspapers have not published any clarification nor have they sent to her any reply. Written Statement

In response to show cause notice dated 16.7.2009, the respondent editor, Udayavani in his written statement dated 8.8.2009 denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the impugned news item was based on the

159 judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the appeal of The Academy of General Education Manipal Vs. Smt. B. Malini Mallya. He submitted that the Academy of General Education Manipal gave a certified copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India along with its Kannada translation, which was published in his newspaper after conducting pre-publication verification. The respondent has denied the allegation that they published a distorted version of the judgment and committed contempt of court. According to the respondent, he received a letter dated 31.3.2009 from the complainant but it was not published as the contents of the letter was not true. The respondent has submitted that he had not violated the privileges of press and has no intention to do so. Counter Comments Received from the Complainant The complainant in his counter comments dated 19.8.2009 denied the statement of the respondent editor, Udayavani and submitted that had the respondent carefully gone through the certified copy of the judgment and its Kannada translation, stated to be the basis on which the impugned news item was published, he would have found that senior counsel, had fairly conceded that the complainant acquired copyright over seven Yaksha Ranga Ballets under the Will dated 18.6.1994. He also stated that the respondent having received his letter, failed to explain why he did not send any reply. If the said letter did not contain the correct import of the judgment of the Supreme Court, he could have pointed out where exactly the complainant committed the mistake. No Written Statement from the Deccan Herald The respondent editor, the Deccan Herald, Mangalore has not filed his written statement in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. Shri A.P. Gowri Shankar, advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Pratap Patnaik, Supreme Court correspondent, represented the respondent newspaper, Deccan Herald. There was no appearance on behalf of Udayavani. Shri A.P. Gowri Shankar, advocate appearing for the complainant reiterated the submissions in the complaint and added that the distorted version of the Supreme Court judgement have been published thereby defeating the purpose of the judgement. Shri Pratap Patnaik, Supreme Court correspondent and representative of Deccan Herald pleaded that the newspaper had quoted from the Apex Court’s judgement only. He added that they were ready to publish the clarification also.

160 Report of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record of the case and oral arguments put forth before it, the Inquiry Committee noted that in the matter of interpretation of a judgement, a newspaper is expected to act reasonably and not quote selectively. They are also expected to clearly identify the selections so made. In this case, even though the Committee was not satisfied on any malafide on the part of the respondents nor was it inclined to go into the specific issue of copyright, it felt that it was incumbent on the part of the newspapers to clarify before the public, through the relevant portion of the courts order the rights vested in the complainant vis-à-vis the ballet in question. Therefore, the Committee directed the complainant to send her version on the incorrect/disputed facts with reference to relevant portion of the Supreme Court Judgement and the two respondents should publish the same within a fortnight of its receipt and provide copy thereof to the complainant and the Council for record. It made its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee concurred with its findings and directions and decided accordingly.

53) Shri Syed Ali Hashmi The Editor Hyderabad Versus The Hindu Hyderabad ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Syed Ali Hashmi, Hyderabad has filed this complaint dated 25.4.2009 against the editor, The Hindu, Hyderabad alleging publication of an article explaining the causes of rising communalism in India under the caption: “Poisoning minds of children” in its issue dated 15.4.2009. Impugned article analysed the impact of contents of history books in RSS run schools in Gujarat and averred that the nation had to pay heavy cost for poisoning the minds of youth, caused in Gujarat during the mass murders following Godhra and in Orissa recently. According to the complainant the impugned article written by Aditya Mukharjee and Mridula Mukharjee exposed that RSS Schools were spreading communal hatred by teaching such textbooks as are toxic in nature. The complainant wrote in response to the respondent vide letters dated 18.4.2009 and 19.4.2009 via email giving his opinion about the spread of communal virus in the bureaucracy and the security services. The respondent did not publish his letters. On the contrary it published on 20.4.2009 letters which were supportive of teaching

161 such text books in the school. The complainant has alleged that the attitude of the editor tantamount to suppress freedom of expression by denying publication of his letters. He further alleged that the respondent had been promoting the cause of RSS of spreading communal tension by publishing such letters, which were supporting the teaching of toxic textbooks. The complainant again sent a letter dated 21.4.2009 through e-mail to the editor but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent. Written Statement In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 20.8.2009 the Associate editor, The Hindu vide his letter dated 20.4.2010 submitted that every day they receive a large number of letters on various subjects and the responses are evaluated by a panel of senior editors with their relevance, tone and tenor, clarity of expression and language. It is impossible to publish every letter, due to paucity of space, but they accommodate as many as possible, balancing different viewpoints from across the country and abroad. Not accepting the reasons listed by the complainant, the respondent submitted that the selection is left to the discretion of the panel who pick the best responses on a given subject and The Hindu does not discriminate against any reader. The respondent stated that they publish letters from all sections of the society, provided the reaction is sober, constructive and aimed correcting an error. A copy of the reply filed by the respondent editor was forwarded to the complainant on 18.6.2010 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Ramanujam represented the respondent newspaper. The complainant vide his letter dated 13.7.2010 expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to paucity of funds. He reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. The representative of the Hindu in his oral arguments reiterated the defence taken by the Associate Editor in his written statement. He added that it was impossible to publish all letters and therefore the internal panel selects letters based on the criteria set out in letter of 20.4.2010. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Committee considered the record of the case and oral arguments of the representative of the Hindu referred to the guideline on selection of letters to editor. It reads: 162 “i) An editor who decides to open his columns for letters on a controversial subject is not obliged to publish all the letters received in regard to that subject. He is entitled to select and publish only some of them either in entirety or the gist thereof. However, in exercising this discretion, he must make an honest endeavour to ensure that what is published is not one-sided but represents a fair balance between the views for and against with respect to the principal issue in controversy. ii) In the event of rejoinder upon rejoinder being sent by two parties on a controversial subject, the editor has the discretion to decide at which stage to close the continuing column”. The Committee noted that in the instant case, the three letters cited by the complainant in fact gave a counter view to the article in question, thus giving due space to other view point. The Committee was thus satisfied with the defence taken by the Associate Editor of The Hindu that it was impossible to publish every letter due to space constraint and therefore the selection panel chose letters based on the criteria of relevance tone and tenor, clarity of expression and language. It was not satisfied that the non - selection of the complainant’s letter was biased. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee decided not to uphold the complaint.

54) Shri Shreerama Diwana The Editor Udupi Udayavani Karnataka Versus Manipal, Karnataka ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Shreerama Diwana, Udupi has filed this complaint dated 6.2.2009 against Udayavani for publication of allegedly false, baseless and misleading news item captioned “Terrorists in Sabrimala” in its issue dated 14.1.2009. It was stated in the impugned news item that a plan of the terrorists to create havoc in Sabarimala had been diffused at the final moment. An Ayappa pilgrim reported that the police had caught seven terrorists and thereby a major catastrophe was averted. The incident took place at 8O clock on 12.1.2009 when a devotee stumbled on the steps and fell down, a bag in his hand opened

163 from which a bomb emerged. The devotee reportedly consumed cyanide before the police reached there.

The complainant alleged that the impugned report published on the front page was totally baseless and false as no other newspaper of Karnataka and Kerala had reported such incident. Some reports were published later in some other newspapers where the DGP, Kerala clarified that no such incident of terrorists in Sabrimala took place. The complainant alleged that the respondent had not only misinformed, misguided and deceived by publishing the irresponsible report but created a fear psychosis. The complainant submitted that the impugned report mentioned that the news was reported by an Ayappa pilgrim which was ridiculous that a newspaper of Udayavani’s status stoops to the level of reporting in the front page what an ordinary Ayappa pilgrim reports, which is against the ethics of journalism. He stated that the Director General of Kerala State Police and Sabrimala Police Control Room had confirmed that no such incident of terrorists being found, had taken place in Sabrimala. Healso filed report published by another paper, Vartha Bharathi on 15.1.2009 which, quoting the Police Control Room, said that a mock exercise in Sabrimala might have been taken for a real exercise by the pilgrims. The complainant has alleged that the report had evil intentions of destroying the law and order, raking up communal feelings in the already communally sensitive Udupi district, and creating an atmosphere of anxiety among the general public. The complainant sent a letter dated 19.1.2009 to the respondent seeking clarification. However, there was no response from the editor. He requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent editor for irresponsible journalism, raking up the communal feelings.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2009, the respondent editor, Udayvani in his written statement dated 3.11.2009 while denying the allegations submitted that the complaint was vague and untenable both on facts and in law. The respondent submitted that the complainant merely asserted that being a reader of Udayavani he was misinformed. His complaint related to the news report dated 14.1.2009 and there was no misinformation and no fear psychosis had arisen. The complainant’s objection was that the reported comments of Ayappa devotee was not accurate. With PTI news published on 18.1.2009, it would be clear that the report by the devotee was not false. According to the respondent they did not receive any letter dated 19.1.2009 from the complainant. Hence, the question of non-publication of such letter by them did not arise. The respondent clarified that the report did not rake up communal feeling and that there was no violation of ethics of journalism as the incident was clearly mentioned as ‘reported’. He requested to reject the complaint.

164 Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.1.2009 giving parawise reply, submitted that the respondent editor had not only committed mistake but also trying to cover it up by turning the blame on him. The complainant filed a copy of the letter from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta as a proof of his claim that no terrorist was found or arrested in Sabrimala during the Sabarimala festival 2008-09, contrary to the report of Udayavani. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondent. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 12.3.2010 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. Shri Imran Ali, advocate represented the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the newspaper. Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the submissions in the complaint added that the newspaper was habitual of publishing fake reports. The impugned news report was aimed at disturbing the public order. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents and hearing the counsel for the complainant observed that the impugned report regarding was a terrorist in Sabrimala and that the police had arrested seven terrorists tended to create panic among the public. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta had categorically denied having arrested any terrorist in or around Sabrimala temple on 12.1.2009. It had been separately confirmed that a mock exercise had been undertaken. The Committee held the respondent editor guilty of publishing an unverified news report without proper confirmation from authentic source. This was particularly necessary in view of the possible public scare and tension owing to the reverence paid to the Sabrimala. Not having done so, it was incumbent on the Udayavani to have clarified the matter the very next day. It not only failed to do so but even stood by the report in the written statement. It therefore decided to uphold the complaint and warn the editor, Udayavani, Manipal for this infraction and irresponsible conduct. It made its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides as above.

165 55) Shri Rigzian Samphle The Editor District Magistrate Amar Ujala Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh Versus Kanpur Uttar Pradesh Shri Pramod Kumar Superintendent of Police Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This joint complaint dated 21.3.2008 has been filed by S/Shri Rigzian Samphle and Pramod Kumar, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun Uttar Pradesh against Amar Ujala, Kanpur for publication of allegedly false and baseless news item under the caption ‘Behmai NarsanharDohrane Ki Chetavani, Log Dahshadjada, Dacoit Mohar Singh Ki Dhamki Se Igui Gaon Khali’ in its issue dated 19.3.2008. It was published in the impugned news item that dacoit Mohar Singh announced that he would reestablish a reign of terror parellel to the period of Phoolan Devi and would eliminate people of Igui village. The news item further reported that 800 villagers had already fled the village in fear for their lives. The complainants have alleged that the publication of the impugned news item created fear and insecurity amongst the people. The fact of the matter was that following a policy administrative decision had been taken to shift the inhabitants of the village to a higher plane as the low-lying area was susceptible to being sub merged during rains every year. The administration had written to the respondent on 19.3.2008 apprising the situation but the respondent did not care to publish any contradiction nor responded to their letter. The complainants have requested the Council to take suitable action against the respondent newspaper.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 18.6.2008, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement, dated 7.7.2008 while denying the allegation submitted that the complainants filed the instant complaint by concealing the material facts and misled the Council. They received a letter dated 19.3.2008 from the complainants for publication of a corrigendum and the very next day the same was published promptly under the caption ‘Igui Se Palayan Nahi Shifting’ in its issue dated 20.3.2008 which proved that the complainants did not come before the Council with clean hands. The respondent admitted the publication of the news item in question and stated that they were not the only newspaper

166 which published it but other newspapers of the region such as Dainik Jagran, Dainik Aaj etc. had also published similar news item but the complainants filed complaint against them only.

The respondent editor submitted that the impugned news item was objective and fair reporting made in good faith in discharge of public duty, devoid of any malice and based upon interview with villagers and facts as seen by the reporter on the spot. The respondent narrated the story of the incident that led to the publication of the impugned news item. One Lalji, a resident of Igui village was kidnapped by the dacoits who demanded a handsome amount of ransom from his family, which they refused and sought the help of police for rescue. When the dacoits came to know that the matter was reported to the police, they eliminated their hostage on 22.2.2008 and sent a threatening message to the family of the deceased, which caused panic situation amongst the entire villagers. Neither any help nor any protection was provided to these villages by the administration. Due to threats of dacoits, the entire village was vacated by villagers by the 10th of March, 2008 and this fact was well known to the complainants which are clear from the application given to him by Shri Vipin, the son of the deceased Lalji. The respondent has alleged that fleeing of the entire people from the village showed the problem was mishandled by the district administration and the present complaint is an attempt to distract from reality.

Counter Comments

The complainants in their counter comments dated 5.9.2009 denied the contention made in the written statement and reiterated that people did not flee from the village but only evacuated. They also stated that the respondent did not contradict the report but carried their press conference with heading which read ‘Officers say: “Shifting from Igui, not fleeing”. This did not mitigate the damage caused to the trust of the public.

Arguments

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.8.2010 at Varanasi. S/Shri Mohammad Gaffar, District Magistrate and Hari Ram, C.O., Kalpi, District Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh appeared on behalf of the Superintendent of Police while S/Shri Sunil Awasthi and Sachin Kumar represented the respondent newspaper.

The complainant’s representative reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. He added that the villagers shifted from the village to a land which was allotted to them earlier. He further stated that after kidnapping of Lalji,

167 Police vigilance was raised in the village but the incident was totally unrelated to the issue of shifting and combining the two had created a fear psychosis amongst the people and their faith in the administration.

Shri Awasthi, appearing for respondent, submitted that all the newspapers published similar news but the complainants filed complaint against Amar Ujala only. He added that news was published after proper verification and it was factual reporting. To substantiate the threat of the dacoits, he referred to the letter received by the son of Shri Lalji. He further submitted that on the next day of the publication of the news the version of the complainant was also published. The complainants pointed out that the so called letter from the dacoit Mohar Singh could not be verified and the letter of the son of Shri Lalji was dated June, 2008, whereas the impugned report was of March, 2008.

Report

The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the arguments put forth before it. The Committee noted that the impugned news report with sensational headlines gave an impression that the village was evacuated due to threat of a decoit. The complainants plea was that the villagers were as a policy decision shifted to a new place allotted to them. Juxtaposed against this fact, the impugned report was highly irresponsible as it could affect not only the locals but even shake the faith of the citizens in general through the reference to the return of the days of period of dreaded dacoit, Phoolan Devi. The absence of pre-verification from the authorities was compounded by mere publication of the information gathered interaction of the authority with the press instead of contradicting the impugned report and the basis thereof. For these infractions the Committee felt that the complaint warranted being upheld. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee. It upheld the complaint on the charge of incorrect reporting, based on assumptions and presumptions, with highly sensational and provocative headlines and contents. It decides to warn the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Kanpur, therefore in exercise of its authority under Sections 14 (1) of the Press Council Act 1978. The adjudication may be sent not only to the complainant administration but also the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

168 56) Shri V.K. Goyal, IPS The Editor Deputy Commissioner of Police Versus The Telegraph Kolkata Kolkata

ADJUDICATION

Facts

Shri V.K. Goyal, IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kolkata filed this complaint dated 27.2.2008 against the Telegraph, Kolkata for publication of allegedly false, fabricated and malicious news report captioned ‘Elderly couple kept dialing 100 for help against burglars: Probe on’ – “Lalbazar Lets Down Aged in Need’ in its issue dated 25.1.2008. According to the complainant, an inquiry was conducted and it was revealed that neither there was any street namely, Madhab Deb Lane within the jurisdiction of Ballygaunge police station, Kolkata nor any incident of such crime was reported within the fortnight or before as published in the news item.

The Company Secretary & Head of Legal, ABP Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata filed written statement dated 15.7.2008 and stated that they had carried the letter issued by complainant with an apology in the Telegraph issue dated 4.6.2008 under the caption ‘Corrigendum’.

The complainant in his counter comments dated 14.7.2008 submitted that the corrigendum published by the respondent immensely diluted the magnitude and inner dimension of wide ramification of the reporting. However, the belated act on the part of the respondent acknowledging its follies and apologizing have been partially satisfying in delivering the truth and restoration of faith of the people of the city.

Report

The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata. Shri Rajarshi Dutta, Senior Executive Legal appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter dated 22.9.2010 requested to treat the matter as closed as they did not want to proceed being satisfied with the action taken by the ABP Pvt. Ltd. In view of it, the Inquiry Committee reported the matter to the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Held

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

169 57) Ms. Sunita Goswami & Others The Editors Silchar, Assam Versus Samayik Prasanga Silchar, Assam

Dainik Nababarta Prasanga Karimganj, Assam

Dainik Jugasankha Silchar, Assam ADJUDICATION Facts Complaint – 1 This joint complaint has been filed by Ms. Sunita Goswami, Shri Uday Shankar Goswami and Ms. Pramila Goswami, Silchar, Assam against Samayik Prasanga, a Bengali newspaper from Silchar, Assam for publication of allegedly false news item captioned ‘Petrol Pump of BJP District President and Brother of Trailokya Sealed - Adulterated Oil Episode’ in its issue dated 20.10.2008. According to the complainant, it was alleged in the impugned news item that ‘Hindustan Petroleum Authority has sealed Goswami Filling Station owned by the family of Uday Sankar Goswami, President, Cachar District Committee and Bishwanath Filling Station of younger brother of the other BJP leader Trailakya Bhushan Nath on the suspicion of sale of adulterated oil………’ Smt. Pramila Goswami, wife of the District President of BJP and Head of Goswami Filling Station did not allow conducting test of quality of the article of trade…….’ No pre-publication verification was conducted by the respondent, alleged the complainants and stated that a letter dated 11.11.2008 was issued to the respondent editor requesting him to publish rejoinder but received no response nor a rejoinder was published. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 20.3.2009, the respondent editor, Samayik Prasanga in his written statement dated 5.5.2009 has submitted that the news item in question was true and published on the basis of factual incident and they have documentary evidence with them in support of their stand. The respondent stated that the meetings of the Barak Valley Petroleum Dealers Association were held on 17.6.2008 and 29.7.2008 under the presidentship of Mr. Amalendu Roy, which resolute, among other, that unless and until instruments such as Marker Test Kit it provided to check the tanker samples, no member of the Association will let the Marker Test Company i.e. S.G.S India

170 Limited to carry out test. The President of the Barak Valley Petroleum Dealers Association in a Press Release dated 25.10.2008 stated that the closure of the Goswami Filling Station was not for the allegation of adulteration but due to following the resolution of the Association not to co-operate with SGS India Ltd. in undertaking sample test etc. for non providing Marker Test Kit to the members, stated the respondent and added that it is therefore, clear that the Goswami Filling Station was closed (suspended) by the authority for not allowing the SGS India Ltd. to check the filling station. They did not receive the rejoinder of the complainant otherwise there would have been no inconvenience on their part to publish the rejoinder, stated the respondent. He added that the news item in question was published in public interest and there was no malafide in the publication. Complaint - 2 In another joint complaint filed by Ms. Sunita Goswami and Shri Uday Shankar Goswami, Silchar, Assam against Dainik Nababarta Prasanga, Karimganj, Assam, the complainants alleged publication of a false news item captioned ‘Goswami Filing Station of Meherpur has been closed’ in its issue dated 20.10.2008. It was stated in impugned news item that ‘Guwahati office of Hindustan Petroleum has closed Goswami Filling Station of Meherpur. For the last few days there was a news that sale of adulterated oil being conducted in the said petrol pump owned by Uday Shankar Goswami Memo Gosai), President, Cachar District Committee of Bharatya Janata Party. In this respect, a notice was issued to Goswami Filling Station by Hindustan Petroleum……………’ The complainant alleged that no pre-publication verification was done by the respondent and the rejoinder dated 11.11.2008 was not published. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 20.3.2009, the respondent editor, Dainik Nababarta Prasanga in his written statement dated 11.5.2009 submitted that they had not received any rejoinders from the complainants, Ms. Sunita Goswami and Shri Uday Sanker Goswami. However when the respondent received it along with the Council’s show cause notice, they have published the rejoinder in their newspaper issue dated 10.5.2009. The respondent editor submitted that before publication of the news item in question, the concerned correspondent tried to contact Shri Uday Sankar Goswami of Goswami Filling Station, Meherpur, Silchar over the phone but he was not available. However, the local people confirmed to him that the filling pump had not been closed. This fact was also mentioned in the newspaper’s issue dated 20.10.2008, stated the respondent who added that with the publication of the rejoinders, their position is clear that there was no motive to malign any individual.

171 Complaint – 3 In her third complaint dated 17.12.2008 filed by Smt. Sunita Goswami, Goswami Filling Station, Silchar, Assam against Dainik Jugasankha, an Assamese daily, Silchar, the complainant alleged publication of false news item under the caption ‘Adulterated Oil - Goswami Filling Station has been closed’ in the issue dated 20.10.2008. It was alleged in the impugned news item that ‘Goswami Filling Station of Meherpur has been closed for complaint of keeping stock of Adulterated Oil. The ownership of the said pump under Hindustan Petroleum is of the family of Uday Shankar Goswami, President …’ The complainant submitted that the allegation that she did not allow the officials to conduct test in the filling station was absolutely false and added that the respondent published the news item in question without obtaining any comments from Goswami Filling Station and it was published with malafide intention. The complainant issued a rejoinder dated 11.11.2008 to the respondent but no rejoinder was published. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jugasankha on 20.3.2009. The respondent filed written statement at the time of hearing and submitted that they had since published the rejoinder. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matters for hearing on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when it noted that the complainants prayer to the Inquiry Committee to decide the matters on the basis of record. S/Shri Arup Dasgupta, Advocate, Muzibur Rahman Choudhary, Publisher Daily Nababarta Prasanga, Karimganj, Assam, Ranjan Pal appeared for (i) Samayik Prasanga, Silchar, Assam, (ii) Dainik Nababarta Prasanga, Karimganj, Assam, (iii) Dainik Jugasankha, Silchar, Assam respectively. In their oral argument the representatives of the respondent newspapers submitted that the report about closure of petrol pump was factual and the fact remained that the petrol pump was shut down by the Hindustan Petroleum. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the impugned publications had some basis and the same were not intended to malign the complainants or their firm. The Inquiry Committee also noted that the newspapers had carried the rejoinder and yet ready to publish the same. However, in view of the fact that the respondent newspapers reported the incident in public interest, it felt no action was warranted. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee agreed with the observations of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dispose off the complaints in view of the public interest of the matter and the publication of the rejoinder subsequently.

172 58) Shri Raj Kishor Sahu The Editor Advocate Versus The New Indian Express Sambalpur, Orissa Sambalpur, Orissa ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 12.7.2008 has been filed by Shri Raj Kishor Sahu, Advocate, Sambalpur, Orissa against the New Indian Express for publishing an exclusive news report titled “In Bhushan, death gets a quite burial” in its issue dated 28.10.2007, which according to the complainant is baseless. It was stated therein that 200 workers died and more than 500 were critically injured in the past three years at the Bhushan Power and Steel Limited. The people who died in accident were buried on the spot which was very shocking for the people of the locality. The complainant has submitted that the respondent published the impugned news report quoting the UNDP report but it was nowhere mentioned in UNDP report that 200 persons died and 500 were critically injured and dead persons were buried on the spot. Rather the report said that “the Working environment inside the factory is risky as the safety measures in work place are not adequate, people employed in the company’s factory said. In the past three years a number of accidents have occurred and some people have died and many have received injuries, expressed the workers. The district administration has furnished a list of 29 people who died and 10 people injured in the factory. However, the project authority has given a list of 21 people who died and 10 people injured.” Later the company’s rejoinder was also published. The complainant submitted that he had written to editor asking for the UNDP report carrying such charges when this was not provided, he himself obtained a copy thereof and found no mention therein of the charge of death of 200 person or burial of workers on the spot. He wrote to the Managing Editor, the New Indian Express vide letters dated 3.12.2007, 28.12.2007 and 1.6.2008 and requested to inquire into the matter and also to take necessary steps so that such baseless news reports are not published but received no reply. With reference to the locus in filing the complaint, the complainant vide his letter dated 2.5.2009 to the Council clarified that as per procedure for filing the complaint it is open for any person to lodge a complaint with the Press Council against a newspaper for a breach of ethics in public interest. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 17.9.2009, the respondent

173 editor, The New Indian Express, Bhubaneshwar denied having published the news report without verifying the facts and relevant documents. The respondent also denied any ulterior motive in publication of the impugned report. He submitted that the various averments contained in the impugned publication did not constitute the view and opinions of the respondent but were the contents of an interim report of UNDP on Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd., Sambalpur, which he filed. They had published the version of the Company’s Executive Director.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata when Shri Ambar Mukherjee, Special Correspondent appearing for respondent submitted that the preliminary report of UNDP provided to them, carried the facts as reported. While publishing the impugned news, the respondent also carried the version of the company that the figure of death was inflated and the casualty was barely 19 to 20. The newspaper also contacted the Executive Director of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd, and his statement dismissing the UNDP report and calling it a completely vague and baseless report was also carried in the impugned news item.

Report

The Inquiry Committee on perusal of record, noted that the respondent New Indian Express had quoted from UNDP report filed with the written statement. However the complainant had filed a completely different report which contained different facts and figures. The Inquiry Committee noted that the New Indian Express’s document was in ‘interim report’ and the complainants was titled ‘Final Report’ and perhaps herein lay the cause for variation seen thus, the New Indian Express could not be held guilty of carrying incorrect news item. However the gravity of charges i.e. the inflated death figure and burial of the death on the spot warranted that the public be apprised of the correct facts by the newspaper which could, as a public utility service, could have no prejudice in favour of either. The Inquiry Committee thus held that it would be a just and proper for the respondent to publish the Final Report of UNDP giving due reference to the impugned report.

Held

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides to direct the New Indian Express to publish a follow up on this impugned report as advised herein above.

174 59) Smt. Smitarani Mohanty The Editor Gopinathpur, Puri Versus Dharitri Orissa Orissa

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 12.12.2007 has been filed by Smt. Smitarani Mohanty, Village, Gopinathpur, Puri, Orissa against the local reporter of Oriya daily “Dharitri” stating that on 17 .11.2007 a false news item was published by the respondent against her son alleging that he attempted to rape one lady lecturer. But on verification at police station it was ascertained that the lecturer never reported attempt of rape at police station. The complainant submitted that she made a complaint to Kumbharpada police station and after she was threatened by the reporter a case No.231 under Sections 354/294/506 IPC was registered against the respondent reporter on 21.11.2007 but the respondent managed to surrender himself in the Court of SDJM, Puri and was released on bail. The complainant vide her letter received on 4.8.2008 informed that the reporter was granted bail by the SDJM, Puri as per directions of the High Court.of Orissa, Cuttack.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 8.7.2008 the respondent editor, Dharitri vide letter dated 4.8.2008 has informed that the complainant had made a false declaration before the Council as the matter was sub-judice and pending in the Court of SDJM, Puri in Case No.1642/07 and 1 cc No.475/07.

Report

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata when Shri Nanda Nandan Satpathy, Advocate appearing for Dharitri submitted that the matter is sub-judice. There was no appearance on behalf of complainant. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the Court was seized of the complaint against the reporter. It therefore decided to drop the proceedings and recommended to the Council to close the case being sub-judice.

Held

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

175 60) Shri R.K. Choudhary The Editor Project Director Orissa State AIDS Control Versus Bhubaneshwar Society (OSACS) Department of Health & The Editor Family Welfare Hindustan Times Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) New Delhi

The Editor Asian Age Kolkata

The Editor Indo-Asian News Service New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts Shri R.K. Choudhary, Project Director, Orissa State AIDS Control Society, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa has filed these complaints dated 26.3.2007 against the newspapers Samaya, The Hindustan Times, The Asian Age, New Zealand Herald and the News agencies-Reuter and Indo Asian News Service for publishing non factual reports on HIV/AIDS relating to killing of a woman in Puri district of Orissa over AIDS suspicion. The complainant has objected to the following news reports:

S.No. Captions Issues/Newspaper 1 “Widow in-law killed over AIDS-suspicious: 25.2.2007/The 2 detained” SAMAYA 2 “AIDS kills, so does bias” “Woman 25.2.2007/Hindustan suspected to be HIV+ killed” Times 3 “In-laws killed widow over AIDS belief, 26.2.2007/Asian Age says police” 4 “Indian woman killed by in-laws over AIDS 27.2.2007/New suspicion” Zealand Herald 5 “Suspected AIDS patient allegedly killed by 25.2.2007/Indo-Asian in-laws” News Services 6 “Suspected AIDS patient beaten to death in 25.2.2007/Reuters/dps India” German Press Agency

176 According to the complainant, news report published in the Oriya daily, the Samaya dated 25.2.2007 depicted that a widow named “Sabita Behera” was beaten to death by her in laws in the village, Keutunga of Gop police station of Puri district. It further mentioned that she had been tortured suspected to have contracted HIV and that her father had lodged an FIR with the police alleging his daughter had been killed over “AIDS suspicion”. Basing the said story; English dailies like the Times of India, The Asian Age, The Hindustan Times, New Zealand Herald quoting the source of the ‘Reuter’, many news portal like www.indiaenews.com carried the news item. The complainant has pointed out that on the same issue, two other important Oriya dailies namely, the Dharitri and have reported that: ‘the woman was killed as she refused to sign the documents relating to transfer of land ownership. The complainant submitted that on 27.2.2007, the Deputy Director (IEC) along with the Addl. CDMO, Puri MO i/c of GOP CHC and the male counselor of VCCTC, Puri (who had attended the deceased twice after she was tested HIV+ve) conducted a joint inquiry into the matter and found that the deceased Sabita Behera was HIV positive. The Inquiry members felt that she was beaten to death not due to suspicion of contacting HIV to others but due to, probably, malafide of the in-laws to own property which the deceased inherited after the death of her husband. The Inquiry team opined that the news items published in many newspapers with the headline like ‘suspected AIDS patient allegedly killed by in-laws’ had been made over-sensational without having proper investigation at the field. The report got international attraction, the base of which was not factual, which was creating panic among people living with HIV/ AIDS stigmatizing them further and hence leading to hesitation among them to come forward and test for HIV and to avail the services available on HIV/ AIDS. This would cause serious problems in the successful implementation of the prevention and treatment programme being undertaken by the Government. As this kind of reporting was getting international attention, the image of the State and the nation was tarnished, alleged the complainant. The complainant submitted that he had issued letters to the respondent news agencies and the Samaya, the Hindustan Times and the Asian Age on 12.3.2007 but received no response. Out of the six respondents the two respondents i.e. the New Zealand Herald and the Reuters –www.intoday.reuter.com fell outside the jurisdiction of the Council and the show cause notices dated 7.6.2007 were issued to the four respondent newspapers.

177 Written Statement of Samaya In response to the show cause notice dated 7.6.2007 the Editor, the Samaya in his written statement dated 5.7.2007 submitted that the news item in question was based on the reporting of the local reporter on the spot who reported the version of the local people as widely discussed. The respondent submitted that the complainant, who claimed to have conducted inquiry into the incident, neither contacted the local people of both the villages of the deceased’s father and of her in-laws nor the respondent themselves. He denied the allegations that other media including electronic media carried the news item from them and stated that the media houses have their own network and collect news through their own representatives. The respondent denied having received the complainant’s letter No.1363 dated 12.3.2007 at the office of the Samaya and expressed his profound regret for setback caused to the AIDS Control Programme by the publication of the impugned news item and informed that the concerned reporter has been removed from the service. Written Statement of The Hindustan Times The Assistant General Manager, Legal, Hindustan Times Media Ltd., in his written statement dated 11.7.2007 submitted that the complainant unfairly and improperly suppressed material facts and particulars from the Council as after publication of the initial news report, they had also published a follow up article captioned “murdered Orissa Women was HIV+ve” on 4.3.2007 which extensively quoted the Deputy Director of OSACS who had conducted an inquiry into the death of Sabita Behera and had also quoted the findings of the inquiry conducted by the complainant together with the district medical authorities of Puri district, Orissa. According to the respondent the complaints was factually incorrect and totally misplaced the allegations regarding objectionable publication, were false and contradicted by the complainant’s own inquiry report. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint. Arguments The Inquiry Committee took up the matters for hearing on 29.9.2010 at Kolkata. Dr Tripati Mishra, Orissa State AIDS Control Society appearing for the complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper had over sensitized the matter and created problem for the government agency working in the State. He requested for direction for careful reporting on the issue. Shri Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, Special Correspondent appearing for the Asian Age submitted that he visited the village and the police station to find out the truth, so as to follow up the story. But despite his all efforts, he could not get the information. He also informed that The Asian Age would be happy to associate with such social issues to create awareness. 178 Report The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted that almost all the newspapers had reported the incident believing it to be a killing out of fear psychosis. The newspaper at the time of the incident were having similar information and thus no malafide in publication of impugned news could be the attributed. Since the matter reported had been later investigated, the newspapers, in the opinion of the Committee did not practice any unethical conduct in reporting the incident. The Inquiry Committee however before parting with the complaints observed that the media should bear in mind the guidelines framed by the Council on HIV/AIDS reporting. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and reiterated its guidelines on HIV: HIV/AIDS and the Media – DO’S and DON’TS DO’S • Media must inform and educate the people, not alarm or scare them • Be objective, factual and sensitive • Keep abreast with changing realities of fast-evolving infection • Use appropriate language and terminology that is non-stigmatising • Ensure headlines are accurate and balanced • Be responsible; give all sides of the picture, using voices of people living with HIV and AIDS (PLHIVs) • Dispel misconceptions about prevention and transmission • Debunk myths about miracle cures and unscientific claims of protection from infection • Highlight positive stories without underplaying seriousness of the issue • Uphold confidentiality of infected people, their families and associates • Ensure photographs do not breach their confidentiality • Ensure photo captions are accurate • Ensure gender sensitive reporting and avoid stereotyping • Obtain data from authorized sources as inaccurate reports have adverse impact on morale and increase stigma

179 • Journalists are responsible for ensuring interviewees understand repercussions of revelations/identification • Ensure informed consent, in written form wherever possible • Balance coverage of a negative story like HIV-related suicide or incidence of discrimination by including contacts of helplines / counseling centres • Broaden reportage to examine impact of infection on economic, business, political and development issues • When in doubt contact the local network of positive people or state aids control society or existing terminology guidelines for clarification • Ensure questions are not deeply personal or accusatory • Show PLHIVs in a positive light by portraying them as individuals instead of ‘victims’ DON’TS • Don’t sensationalise the story • Don’t make value judgments that seek to blame PLHIVs • Don’t use terms like ‘scourge’ to describe the infection or describe PLHIVs as AIDS carrier, prostitute, drug addict, AIDS patient/victim/ sufferer • Don’t focus needlessly on how a PLHIV was infected • Don’t identify children infected and affected by HIV and AIDS by name or through a photograph even with consent • Don’t use hidden cameras • Avoid alarmist reports and images of the sick and dying that convey a sense of gloom, helplessness and isolation • Don’t use skull, crossbones, snakes or such visuals as graphics • Avoid references to caste, gender or sexual orientation • Don’t reinforce stereotypes about sexual minorites including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) • Don’t portray infected persons as victims, culprits or objects of pity • Don’t promote misleading advertisements related to HIV, STIs, skin diseases, tuberculosis and other opportunistic infections • Don’t breach the confidentiality of those opting for voluntary testing

180 The Council reiterated its stress on the norms drawn up through consensus with major stakeholders and observed that the media can be a major catalyst creating awareness much beyond official programmes and it must work to the call of the society on the issue.

61) Shri Binod Kumar Sinha The Editor Dhanbad Awaz Jharkhand Versus Dhanbad, Jharkhand

The Editor Bihar Observer Dhanbad, Jharkhand ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 30.1.2008 has been filed by Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Dhanbad, Jharkhand against Awaz and Bihar Observer, Dhanbad, Jharkhand for alleged plagiarism and professional misconduct. The complainant has submitted that both the newspapers carried the same editorial on its editorial columns for months and has alleged that sharing a common editorial is not only unethical but a reprehensible fraud played on the profession of journalism and to its readers. He particularly cited the edition published on the occasion of Republic Day captioned : “Gantantra Ko Sarthak Banaye”. The complainant has submitted that the editorial, which carries comments of the editor on issues of topical and public importance, is supposed to have primal originality of thought and expression as a newspaper is distinguished by vibrancy, originality, thoughtfulness and style of its editorial comments. The two respondent newspapers have been indulging in this nefarious activities with unfailing regularity for months together possibly for a period stretching more than a year added the complainant. The complainant further stated that the two respondents not only published identical editorials but even middles and other article sometime suppressing the credits (name of authors) and at times deceitfully varying the names of the contributors at will. The complainant further alleged that the two respondent newspapers are given to suppressing the names of the news agencies and not to disclosing the names of the correspondents just to manage a wider platform for plagiarism. The complainant sent copies of his complaint filed before the Press Council, to both the respondent editors but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notices dated 19.6.2008, the editor, Awaz Prakashan Private Limited, Dhanbad in his written statement dated 27.6.2008

181 has submitted that his newspaper Awaz is a customer/subscriber of Express Media News Services, Bhopal and there were not only two but in reality, many newspapers published the same articles and news sent by the news agency. He has admitted error by stating that it was the mistake of the D.T.P. Department or human error is obvious. The respondent expressed his concern over the matter and assured that in future such mistake and carelessness would not be repeated. He also expressed his gratitude to the complainant for pointing out the fault and urged his guidance in times to come. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.10.2008 has submitted that the respondent newspaper Awaz, being a customer of Express Media News Services has absolutely nothing to do with his complaint, as the subject was basically about series of plagiarized editorials published by the newspaper. Unlike news item which can be purchased from a news agency, an editorial consists of original comments, reactions and thoughts of the editor on an issue of topical importance and has nothing to do with the fact the newspaper is catered by a news agency because a news agency disseminates news and does not produce editorials. One fails to comprehend as to what respondent editor wanted to convey by saying that ‘by the mistake of DTP department or human error a mistake is obvious’ stated the complainant and added that plagiarized editorials that too appearing regularly day after day, has absolutely no connection with the DTP department or human error as is being made out by the respondent editor. A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to respondent editor, Awaz on 24.10.2008 for information. No written statement was filed by the other respondent editor, Bihar Observer. An acknowledgement card, testifying the service of notice, is on record. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, complainant submitted that on innumerable occasions both the newspapers were publishing similar material with slight changes in the headings. The complainant submitted that it appears that the newspapers were sourcing the editorial from same source. Shri Uday Shankar Sahay, Advocate, appeared for Awaz and submitted that management of both the publications are different and the editorial might have been prepared when the editor was on tour. Shri Ganesh Mishra, appeared for the Bihar Observer submitted that the addresses by Prime Minister/President are of the same nature and the editorial based on them could have been printed incidently.

182 Report The Inquiry Committee upon careful perusal of the record and hearing the parties noted that the instance cited by the complainant were as follows:

Sl. No. Particulars Particulars 1- x.kra= dks lkFkZd cuk, x.kra= dks lkFkZd cuk,a &vkokt] fnukad 26 tuojh 2008 &fcgkj vkWctoZj] fnukad 26 tuojh 2008 2- ltk iIiw ;kn dks iIiw ;kn dks ltk &vkokt] fnukad 16 Qjojh 2008 &fcgkj vkWctoZj] fnukad 16 Qjojh 2008 3- uDlfy;ksa ij “k[rh cgqr t:jh ,slh gh dkjZokbZ t:jh &vkokt] fnukad 19 Qjojh 2008 &fcgkj vkWctoZj] fnukad 19 Qjojh 2008 4- foi{kh fo/kk;dksa dh gjdr jktuhfrd “kkS;Z ugha] xhnMksa &vkokt] fnukad 23 tuojh 2008 lk “ksj &fcgkj vkWctoZj] fnukad 23 Qjojh 2008

The Inquiry Committee noted that both the respondents carried similar editorial with jugglery of word in their headlines and the editorials. The Inquiry Committee, in fact, was astonished and surprised at denial of charges with no answers as to how two different editors had similar spontaneous opinion and expressed their views through an exclusive column which is meant for editor to speak. The Inquiry Committee held the editors of both the newspapers namely, Awaj and Bihar Observer guilty of unethical conduct when they indulged in plagiarism and mislead the public while bringing out the newspapers. The Inquiry Committee felt that act warranted censure the editors of Awaj and Bihar Observer for violating journalistic ethics and norms and recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted the same and decided to Censure the editors, Awaz and Bihar Observer. It also decided to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication to the DAVP, the RNI and the I&PRD, Government of Jharkhand for such action as they deem fit in the matter.

183 62) Shri Prakash Panjumal Kukreja The Editor Ulhasnagar Versus Sindhi Maharaan Maharashtra Ulhasnagar Maharashtra ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 21.1.2008 has been filed by Shri Prakash Panjumal Kukreja, Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra against Sindhi Mahraan, a weekly newspaper from Ulhasnagar for publication of allegedly objectionable news item captioned “Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner challenged the very authority of Vilasrao Government” in its issue dated 1.1.2008. The impugned news item was about the suspension, stay and vacation by the Court, of the complainant from service as the Municipality Secretary in the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. The complainant wrote to the respondent on 4.1.2008 with a request to tender apology and to publish a rejoinder. He received a reply dated 10.1.2008 from the respondent refusing to oblige his demand for apology and publication of rejoinder on the plea that instead of reply on merits, the complainant’s letter contained a number of allegations which have no relevance at all to the impugned news item. According to the complainant, the respondent bore a personal grudge against him and is thus prone to making false and frivolous complaints to various statutory authorities. He filed a Crime No. 115/2005 with the Central Police Station against the respondent for prosecution of offences under Sections 384, 385, 504, 500 and 506 of IPC for which the respondent has to face trial in Ulhasnagar Criminal Court with reference to Criminal Case No. 740/2005. The respondent pressurised him to withdrew the cases against him and as he had not obliged, the respondent started writing false reports in his weekly newspaper. Written Statement

In response to show cause notice dated 27.3.2008, the respondent Shri Hari H. Tanwani “Ninamo”, Accredited Editor, Mahraan weekly in his written statement dated 12.4.2008 denied the allegations of false reporting or that he was pressurising the complainant to withdraw the prosecution of offences against him under Criminal Case No. 740/2005. The respondent has submitted that he had filed a PIL No. 105 of 2003 in the High Court of Judicature, Bombay against the Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (UMC), the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra and the State of Maharashtra seeking appropriate direction for taking action against the illegal constructions, for implementation of Report of

184 Nandlal Committee, for registration of offences against concerned individuals and also for taking action against the erring UMC Officers who had encouraged the illegal constructions in collusion with builders/ developers/land grabbers and consequential relieves thereof. The complainant Shri Prakash Panjumal Kukreja, (by his designation then as a Law Officer of UMC) was found guilty by the Nandlal Committee Report submitted to the State Government on 3.7.1999 along with the then UMC Chief & the Chief Executive Officer in the spate of illegal constructions of Ulhasnagar, and it specifically directed the State government to verify their properties and assets and also to punish them severally as per the provisions of the law. Considering the merits of the order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay, owing to the recommendation of the Nandlal Committee and its consequences, the complainant filed a false and fabricated Criminal Case No. 740/2005 of extortion and defamation under Sections 380, 500, 504 and 506 of IPC in the Court of Learned JMFC, Ulhasnagar and by obtaining orders of the Court under it, he registered an FIR with the Central Police Station of Ulhasnagar on 8.7.2005 against him, stated the respondent. The purpose of filing such a false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious criminal case against him by the complainant was to prevent him from prosecuting his PIL, to exercise pressure upon him so that he should not pursue action against the complainant as per the recommendations of Nandlal Committee Report and to prevent him from publishing even true and correct news items or articles in his newspapers as free and fearless journalist. The respondent denied that he has any personal grudge against the complainant or that he was making any false and frivolous complaints to various statutory authorities against the complainant. He added that the contents of the news item in question were based upon authentic official documents and the comments/observation/remarks made therein were only a fair and reasonable criticism of a public servant involved in the corruptive practices and they had been resorted as part and parcel of a professional journalism and there was no personal vendetta involved in it as alleged by the complainant. Complainant’s Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.5.2010 submitted that the respondent could neither disprove the contentions of his allegations nor produce on record any material to show that the matter published in the impugned news item was based on record. The Hon’ble High Court Orders dated 2.7.2008 and 14.8.2008 vindicated his point that the respondent was habitual of casting aspersions on others including judiciary for malafide purpose. The complainant further submitted that the respondent despite having true facts giving in the notice dated 15.12.2007 refused to tender apology or publish rejoinder.

185 Arguments Following one adjournment of 31.5.2010, the matter again came up for hearing on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. He had however, at previous hearing filed a prayer for deciding the case on the basis of his written statement. Shri Prakash Panjumal Kukreja, complainant appeared in person and submitted that the tone and tenor of the impugned report was in bad taste. The complainant submitted that immediately after his suspension he was reinstated and when he sent his rejoinder, the respondent editor flatly refused by stating that he was not obliged to publish it. The complainant reiterated his complaint and stated that the respondent editor, had personal vengeance and he did not want him to be reinstated. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and prima-facie noted that while every journalist has a duty and freedom of critical evaluation of the functioning of public department/personnel, such evaluation has to be based on proper documents and verification. In the instant case, not only was there no evidence of pre verification from the complainant, the respondent violated the norms of journalistic ethic by denying the complainant his right to place his version before the public as the ultimate judge of an issue. The Inquiry Committee thus found the respondent editor guilty of violating the norms of journalistic ethics and recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent for violating the norms of right of reply by refusing to publish rejoinder despite having the version of the complainant. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and record of the case decided to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent editor, Sindhi Mahraan, for violating the norms of journalistic ethics and conduct.

63) Shri Benjamin G. Macwan The Editor Vapi Versus Gujarat Samachar Gujarat Surat, Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 21.12.2008 has been filed by Shri Benjamin G.Macwan, Vapi, Gujarat against Gujarat Samachar, Surat for publication of allegedly misleading/bogus advertisement under the caption ‘Waiter & Staff Jobs

186 in UK, Golden Opportunity/Good Pay’ in its issue dated 11.1.2007. The complainant has objected to the publication of the advertisement in question, which was issued by Laura Carol Neve Ruth Caterers, U.K. mentioning e-mail and website addresses, and alleged that the respondent failed to ascertain the legal status of the impugned advertisement through the sources of internet from their counterpart in the USA or the UK where such facilities are readily available. The complainant has alleged that due to the publication of the bogus advertisement, many candidates were cheated and huge amount of money was collected illegally. He has furnished details of the collected amount and requested the same to be freezed and get it refunded with the help of appropriate authorities in the U.K. The complainant also requested that the Council may direct the respondent to compensate the loss suffered by the unemployed candidates including his son, who lost Rs.30,574/- each in the matter. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent vide letters dated 4.6.2007, 30.11.2007 and 11.8.2008 but received no response. However, in reply dated 7.10.2008, to an RTI application dated 12.9.2008, the respondent informed the complainant that the impugned advertisement was directly given by M/s. Laura Carol Neve Ruth Caterers of United Kingdom, which was an open invitation to the concerned persons and the newspaper had nothing to do with the contents of the advertisement. He also alleged that the complainant’s letter dated 11.8.2008 contained unwarranted wild remarks and false allegations. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 15.4.2009 but despite a time bound reminder dated 7.10.2009, no written statement has been filed by the respondent. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the respondent had not yet filed written statement. The matter was adjourned to allow completion of records. Directions of the Inquiry Committee were communicated to the parties on 5.5.2010. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant was not present and Shri Inder Sawhney, Bureau Chief, Gujarat Samachar appeared for the respondent and filed written reply dated 29.5.2010 of their Managing Editor. It was stated in the written statement of the Managing Editor, Gujarat Samachar that the complaint

187 was misleading and made with an ulterior motive to abuse the process of law. The issue raised by the complainant on the impugned advertisement published in Gujarat Samachar on 11.1.2007 was a commercial advertisement given by M/s Laura Carol Neve Ruth Caterers, United Kingdom as per the order given by the company. It was a lawful act and not covered under the guidelines of PCI. Any advertisement published in the newspaper is an open invitation to the concerned persons and newspaper has nothing to do with any action taken by any party on those invitations of advertisement. The contents of the advertisement were in the nature of invitation to candidates of different categories of post for recruitments and candidate has to apply their due diligence in taking any action on the basis of an invitation or proposal. It was also stated in the written reply that a letter was written to the complainant on 7.10.2008 about the said advertisement and clarified therein that they were nowhere responsible for the action taken by the parties. The entire transactions covered under the Law of Contract between the parties and not for the publication of advertisement by the newspaper. The matter was adjourned for complainant’s counter. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the complainant on 30.7.2010. Complainant’s Counter Comments The complainant submitted in his counter dated 25.6.2010 that in the eyes of the respondent, his complaint may be false, and baseless, but the fact remained that many Indian candidates including his son, Samir B. Macwan have been duped due to the publication of the impugned advertisement. He also stated that the advertisement in question was claimed to have been directly given by M/s Laura Carol Neve Ruth Caterers of United Kingdom whereas it appeared from documents submitted by the respondent that the name of Mr. Vikas, an Indian whose full name and address are not known, is found mentioned. The complainant denied the allegation that his complaint was misleading and stated that on inquiry, Syna Hydes from United Kingdom informed through email that the catering company cheated them by denying payment for their advertisement. The statement of the respondent speaks about his benefit of Rs.1,02,000/- at the cost of loss to many people including Samir B. Macwan who lost financially, physically and mentally. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Inderjit K. Sawhney appeared for Gujarat Samachar and submitted that the said advertisement was handled by Shri Vikas, Manager, who is no more on the rolls of the newspaper. The respondent submitted that the advertisement had been published due to oversight. He assured the Committee that it will not be repeated in future.

188 The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the impugned publication caused losses and harassment to the complainant as well as his son, who relying upon the said advertisement acted in bonafide manner and got duped. The Inquiry Committee recalled that the press has already been advised by the government and the Press Council about the law regarding advertisements for jobs in overseas market. These may be reproduced here to advantage:- “Acceding to the request of the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, the Council reiterates the guidelines that makes mandatory for the Registered Recruiting Agents to display their registration certificate number while inserting advertisements for recruitment. Similarly, Foreign Employers and Project Exporters also have to indicate permit number while inserting advertisements, a copy of the registration certificate in case of recruiting agents and permit letter in case of foreign employers and project exporters should be attached with the advertisements form as proof of their being persons. The periodicals are thus specifically advised to ensure that advertisements should be accompanied by the following particulars: a) Registration Certificate Number/Permit Number of the Advertised/ recruiting agents; b) Full address with Telephone Number, Post Box Number, e-mail address (these could be given in addition to the full address but not as the mode of communication); c) Statement that no fee towards processing application or for any other purpose shall be charged from the applicant; d) Name of the posts/jobs; e) Number of position/vacancies in each category; and f) The salary offered to each category of job. In case of any doubt, the publisher may also ask for copies of Demand Letter and Power of Attorney supposed to have been given by the foreign employers or sponsor to an agent, on the basis of which the said advertisement is being released. Also clarifications may be sought from the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs or from Offices of the Projector General of Emigrants located at New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin, Chandigarh and Hyderabad. A list of registered recruiting agents can also be seen at the website of Ministry of Overseas Affairs/Protector General of Emigrants.”

189 These are in keeping under the provisions of Emigration Act 1983. The Inquiry Committee found that the impugned advertisement was violation of these guidelines as well as laws. The newspaper had accepted this error and judgment and assured greater care in future. Such contain was necessary by all media. It thus reported to the Council. Held The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee noted the admission of error and observed that no monetary compensation was possible under the Press Council Act. It decided to dispose off the complaint with a word of caution to the newspapers and periodicals to strictly scrutinize the advertisement inputs from legal angles in view of the editor’s responsibility for all contents including advertisement, under Section 1 of PRB Act, 1867. Revenue generating cannot and should not be the sole aim of the Press juxtaposed much larger public responsibility. It also decided that the government may be advised to launch public awareness campaign about the provisions of Emigration Act to save the gullible from the tentacles of fraudsters seeking to satisfy private interest through fake job advertisements. It allowed the case to rest with this.

64) The Centre for Environment The Hindustan Times and Agrochemicals Versus New Delhi (CENTEGRO) Mumbai ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 9.1.2008 has been filed by the Centre for Environment and Agrochemicals (CENTEGRO), Mumbai against The Hindustan Times alleging publication of fictitious news item captioned “Breath Uneasy: Delhi Air Heavy with Pesticides” in its issue dated 2.11.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that usage of pesticides containing pollutant like “Endosulfan” by farmers in Northern India was affecting human health and food chain. The news item bye lined Chetan Chauhan quoted from a study allegedly carried by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and relied on the opinion given by one Dr. S K Sinha. According to the complainant the impugned expose carried mythical allegations against a proven molecule viz. “Endosulfan”. The respondent failed to give factual details of the study and credentials of Dr. Sinha and thus harmed the interests of manufacturers, formulators and user of Endosulfan–a popular pesticide. Moreover a common man/reader will not be able to understand its insignificance as alleged in the impugned news item that

190 presence pictogram levels of Endosulfan in the air. One pictogram is one trillionth of a gram. An example to illustrate its trivia is that if an aspirin tablet is dissolved in 365000000 liters of water, the result will be an aspirin solution of about 1 part per trillion (ppt). If you drink daily 1 liter of this water containing 1 ppt of aspirin, it will take 1000000 years for you to drink all the water and ingest just one tablet equivalent of aspirin. At this concentration, will aspirin be functional and biologically active? The same is applicable to pesticides. Besides the international agency for Research on Cancer IARC, WHO, US-EPA etc have not classified endosulfan as a carcinogen, as claimed by the complainant. According to the complainant whereabouts of the professor who provided inputs to the respondent remained untraceable and not contained in the exhaustive database of the scientists maintained by their institute. The complainant alleged that their investigations showed that the impugned news report was prima facie fictitious and engineered sans facts. The complainant further submitted that repeated requests to provide access to the concerned professor had been turned down by The Hindustan Times and according to the complainant the reporter should be aware that atmospheric scientific studies by international agencies are not released anonymously or clandestinely by the Press. The complainant alleged that the respondent might have unwillingly provided ammunition to the green brigade who intended to arm itself for the meeting scheduled in the EU and was likely to hurt the interests of manufacturers, formulators and users of “Endosulfan”. The complainant submitted that a letter written on 14.11.2007 to the respondent editor seeking factual details of the alleged study and credentials of Dr. S K Sinha and repeated efforts including personal meetings with the journalist concerned and his superior did not bring positive results. The complainant’s representative submitted that they made several attempts to meet the concerned reporter with regard to the source of the information but in vain and then approached the Press Council. The slight delay of about one week was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman. A copy of the complaint was forwarded to the respondent editor The Hindustan Times on 11.2.2008 with an advice for right of reply. In the absence of any response to the Council’s letter dated 11.2.2008 a show cause notice dated 27.3.2008 was issued to the respondent editor, Hindustan times followed by reminder dated 8.5.2009. The respondent Assistant Manager (Legal), Hindustan Times Media Ltd., vide letter dated 6.6. 2009 requested for a copy of the complaint to file the reply/written statement which was provided on 18.6.2009 but it failed to reply. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.10. 2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Vijay Kumar,

191 Advocate appeared for the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times and submitted that the news report was published in public interest. He offered to publish the rejoinder. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the impugned report captioned “Breath Uneasy: Delhi air heavy with pesticides” noted the complainant contention that mythical allegations had been levelled against a registered and safe proven molecule like Endosulfan relying on the opinion of a scientist who was coordinating the study in India and said that statistics clearly demonstrated that Endosulfanrich pesticides were being extensively used in Delhi’s neighbouring states of Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and Eastern Uttar Pradesh, that the high concentration of Endosulfan was noticed as a phenomenon peculiar in northern India because there the farmers cannot afford this high cost pesticide. The complainant contended that the report was fictitious and engineered sans facts. The Inquiry Committee, upon perusing the record noted that the respondent had not filed any written statement nor had it came forward to establish the credentials of the study and therefore the allegation made in complaint remained unrebutted. Having failed to establish the bonafide existence of the study, the newspaper was liable for the damaging effects of the publication with alarming/sensational headline. The Inquiry Committee was further satisfied that the respondent compounded this negligence by failing to carry the complainant’s version. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and directed the respondent newspaper to publish the rejoinder/clarification of the complainant and to forward a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the complainant as well as to the Council for record. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted and adopted the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint with recorded observations and directions.

65) Shri S.V. Mani The Editor Journalist Versus Kumudam Karnataka/Tamil Nadu Chennai Tamil Nadu ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 10.9.2007, received from the President’s Secretariat through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, has been filed by Shri S.V. Mani, Journalist, Bangalore/Chennai against Kumudam, a Tamil journal for

192 publication of allegedly objectionable material news articles and cartoons. The complainant has objected to publication of news articles on general comments on national politics and some satirical comments on high dignitaries, some of them are reproduced as follows:

Name Prathiba Patil Age For all the Presidents age limit New job To keep quite Side job To NOD head Previous experience Worked as Governor Friends All Sonia’s friends Enemies Those kindles old stories Place liked Rashtrapati Bhavan Eagerly like job To sign wherever shown Present hobby To read greetings Future hobby Foreign travels Enjoyed Joke of Jayalalitha about 3rd front Not Enjoyed BJP;s propaganda Only one achievement India’s first woman President

According to the complainant, the ‘Bio-Data’ with a caricature of Hon’ble President is uncultured, false, far and far away from decency, delivered with a sense of arrogance and above all immature thinking and hatred for no reasons. The complainant has alleged that he had written many letters to the respondent objecting to the publication of such materials but received no response. A notice for comments dated 16.10.2008 was issued to the respondent and on request a copy of the complaint was forwarded on 5.2.2009 to the respondent. Despite reminders dated 20.12.2009 and 7.6.2010, the respondent did not file any reply. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 7.6.2010, but received no response. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.10.2010 at new Delhi when the parties were not present. On perusal of the materials on record the Inquiry Committee noted that in a democracy the citizen,

193 including the press enjoyed full freedom of speech and expression particularly in critical evaluation of the functioning of those holding public office. However, such freedom was subject to the constitutional and legal restriction as well social restriction. The satirical comments ridiculing and denigrating the first citizen of the country was uncalled for and beyond the call of journalistic comment. It felt that the impugned publication disclosed sufficient grounds for censuring the publication ‘Kumudam’ and recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decided to censure the editor, Kumudam and further decided that a copy of the decision be sent to the DAVP, the RNI and the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and the District Magistrate, Chennai for such action, as they deem fit in the matter.

66) Shri K. Ramasubramanian The Editor State Secretary, BSP (T.N.) Dinakaran Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu Versus Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

The Editor Tamizh Murasu Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

The Editor Maalai Malar Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

The Editor The Daily Thanthi Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu ADJUDICATION Facts Shri K. Ramasubramanian, State Secretary, (Tamil Nadu) who contested election from Coimbatore Parliamentary constituency in May 2009 has filed these complaints dated 20.1.2010 against media particularly newspapers namely (i) Dinakaran, (ii) Tamizh Murasu, (iii) Maalai Malar and (iv) The Daily Thanthi, published from Coimbatore for malpractices during elections and thereby publishing election/campaign related news according to their whims and fancies without giving a fair chance to candidates from other smaller parties.

194 The complainant has alleged that during the general elections held in May 2009 the respondents unleashed ‘Power of extraction’ on selective basis to few underprivileged candidates like him. The complainant submitted that traditionally money power and muscle power have been held responsible and fearful factors of Indian elections, but in these parliamentary elections, the media, considered as the fourth estate and watchdog of the democracy, have been partial in covering the elections and giving good news coverage to parties that favoured them. According to the complainant much early to the onset of elections, various newspapers have been publishing the news of his contesting for Coimbatore Lok Sabha Constituency. However, ever since the Election Commission notified the general elections and process of filing of nomination papers began, a section of vernacular print media started adopting a deferent attitude and published news about the filing of nomination papers by candidates belonging to rich and powerful political parties on a selective basis. As far as the filing of nomination papers was concerned they published the news of candidates belonging to selective political parties giving them a good and prominent position and display in their dailies thus blocking out other candidates. The complainant alleged that when he took up the matter with the respondent newspapers, he was assured due publicity provided he shelled out a bulk sum of money in the range of Rs.4-5 lakhs for a period of 15-20 days under a special scheme framed by their newspaper management. He was also enlightened by a publications management that if the released advertisements soliciting votes in newspaper he was accountable to the Election Commission which was monitoring the election expenses of candidates contesting in elections. Whereas when the message appeared as an editorial piece, it would help the candidate conceal the expenses incurred. Strongly objecting to this scheme the complainant submitted that this scheme offered immunity to the candidates who paid lump-sum money and also assured them good publicity, whether he/she carried out the campaign or not. If the candidate insisted on receipt, it was issued on any third party’s name not necessarily in the name of the contestant. The complainant alleged that this was totally opposed to democratic principles and media ethics. According to the complainant as he was against the principle of buying editorial space by availing “Special packages” offered by most of the regional newspaper he failed in garnering adequate visibility in the mass media. The complainant further submitted that the practice of this scheme apart from encouraging unfair means, also shakes the very foundation of the democracy making it a mockery. Besides it also constitutes serious breach of journalistic ethics. The complainant has requested the Elections Commission of India and Press Council of India to take a serious view of this scheme and initiate stringent measures to stem the root before it becomes a trendsetter too late to be punished.

195 Written Statement – Dinakaran and Tamizh Murasu In response to the show cause notices dated 21.4.2010 the authorized signatory of the Dinakaran and Tamizh Murasu in their separate written statements dated 11.5.2010 while raising objections on the technicalities of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979, denied the allegations made in the complaint that money was demanded for carrying news items of the complainant or from any other person. According to the respondents the allegation was totally vague, false and baseless. The complaint was bereft of particulars and no material evidence had been given by the complainant to substantiate the claim. The respondents submitted that the Dinakaran Newspaper is the highest and largest widely circulated Tamil Newspaper which has maximum number of readers and as per the latest ABC certificate the total number of copies sold per day is 12,35,220. This clearly show that Dinakaran Newspaper is well respected and reputed newspaper and the allegations made by the complainant were far from truth. Tamizh Murasu Newspaper is a well respected and reputed newspaper and the allegations made by the complainant were far from truth. They stated that their news reporting was done in an unbiased and impartial manner. Enclosing press cuttings relating to the complainant, the respondents submitted that it showed that they had carried the news items about Bahujan Samaj Party which proved that the allegation made by the complainant was totally false. They requested to close the case. Written statement – Maalai Malar and Daily Thanthi The respondent editors Maalai Malar and Daily Thanthi in their separate written statements dated 18.5.2010 denying the allegations submitted that the complaint was false, frivolous, baseless, vague and defamatory. The respondents stated that though the complainant was seeking an inquiry against four newspapers but he had not mentioned as to which newspaper made the assurance that if he would shell out a bulk sum of money in the range of 4-5 lakhs of rupees for a period of 15-20 days under a special scheme framed by the newspaper management, he was assured of the publicity. Denying all the allegations as false, baseless and vexatious the respondents submitted that the complainant had come forward with an incredible story which sounds stranger than fiction. They alleged that this was a deliberate omission made with a view to mislead the Council. The respondents pointed out that the complainant had never drawn their attention to the non-publication of any matter. Regarding various press releases in support of his complaint i.e. non-publication, the respondents stated that the management did not receive any such press release sent by him. Moreover the press releases supposed to have been sent by him to various newspapers and filed as documents along with the complaint were all with reference to his contesting in the elections only and not with regard to his party and were in the nature of advance publication of an event which will take effect on a later date.

196 The grievance of the complainant was that they did not work for him as his election agents and canvass votes for him. The results of the parliamentary election, showed that the complainant lost his deposit and polled only a meager 2937 votes as against the winning candidate who secured 2,93,165 votes and the next candidate who polled 2,54,501 votes. All the 37 Bahujan Samaj Party candidates contested in the elections lost their deposits. It was obvious that the complainant came forward with a frivolous, baseless and vexatious complaint, throwing the blame on the newspapers with ulterior motives in an attempt to escape from BSP central office, probating for the reasons for the defeat of their candidate in Tamil Nadu, all of them losing their deposits. The respondent Daily Thanthi submitted that Daily Thanthi Newspaper is the largest circulated/widely read No.1 Tamil Newspaper, being published from 14 centers including one in Puducherry and one in Bangalore. The fair and unbiased and impartial reporting of news in the country and abroad in all these more than 65 years, has earned this remarkable readership of more than a crore of people through the nation. The complainant out of frustration and jealousy was trying to throw mud against the reputed newspapers making false, vexatious and defamatory allegations, added the respondents. The respondents further clarified that non-publication of election campaign related news of the complainant’s party did not offend against the standards of journalist ethics or public taste, within the scope and ambit of the Act. They requested to dismiss the complaint. A copy of all the written statements was forwarded to the complainant for counter comments vide letters dated 17.5.2010, 18.5.2010 and 3.6.2010 but he failed to file any counters thereto. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not represented. Shri Indira G, Advocate appeared for the editors (i) Dinakaran and (ii) Tamizh Murasu, and Shri K. Balakrishnan, Senior Executive, appeared for the (iii) Maalai Malar and (iv) The Daily Thanthi. They reiterated the submissions made in written statements. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the complainant had alleged malpractice by respondents during election in May 2009 however, he filed complaints before Press Council of India in January 2010 after his defeat with considerable margin. The non publication of news in respect of the complainant could not in itself establish evidence of ‘Paid News’. The Inquiry Committee, thus did not find any substance in the complaints and recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaints. It submitted its report to the Council.

197 Held The Press Council of India perused the report and noted that the issue brought its notice related to Paid News Syndrome and the Council had considered this general issue in 30th July 2010 meeting at New Delhi and had made following recommendations:- MAJOR OBSERVATIONS 1. The election time paid news phenomenon has three dimensions. One, the reader or the viewer does not get a correct picture of the personality or performance of the candidate in whose favour or against he decides to cast his vote. This destroys the very essence of the democracy. Two, contesting candidates perhaps do not show it in their election expense account thereby violating the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, framed by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Third, those newspapers and television channels which received money in cash but did not disclose it in their official statements of accounts have violated the Companies Act, 1956, as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961, besides other laws. 2. It was felt that there should be a clear distinction drawn between the managements and editorial staff in media companies and that the independence of the editor should be maintained and safeguarded. 3. The Election Commission of India should set up a special cell to receive complaints about ‘paid news’ in the run-up to the conduct of elections and initiate a process through which expeditious action could be taken on the basis of such complaints. 4. There should be a debate among all concerned stakeholders on whether a directive of the Supreme Court of India that enjoins television channels to stop broadcasting campaign-related information on candidates and political parties 48 hours before elections take place should be extended to the print medium since such a restriction does not apply to this section of the media at present. 5. The Council suggests that efforts should be made to educate the voters to differentiate between the doctored reporting and the balanced and just reporting. 6. The Union Information & Broadcasting Ministry should conduct awarenessgenerating campaigns involving all stakeholders to deliberate on the issue and arrive at workable solutions to curb the ‘paid news’ phenomenon in particular.

198 7. A small Committee of Members of Parliament from both Houses should hold a hearing for suggesting changes in Representation of the People Act, 1951. RECOMMENDATIONS i) Representation of the People Act, 1951, be amended to make incidence of paid news a punishable electoral malpractice. ii) The Press Council of India must be fully empowered to adjudicate the complaints of ‘paid news’ and give final judgment in the matter. iii) Press Council Act be amended to make its recommendations binding and electronic media be brought under its purview, and iv) Press Council of India should be reconstituted to include representatives from electronic and other media. While reiterating these observation and recommendations the Council felt that in the instant case the complainant had not been able to establish the charge that he had levelled against the respondent. It decided accordingly.

67) Shri S.S. Chamak The Editor New Delhi Versus The Times of India New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts The Council has received a copy of this complaint of Shri S.S. Chamak, New Delhi dated 5.6.2009, addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Communication against The Times of India for publication of allegedly false and misleading news item in its issue dated 23.5.2009. Shri Chamak in his formal complaint dated 5.8.2009 has alleged that by publishing the impugned news item captioned “For now, fly abroad at rock-bottom fares”, the respondent had given wrong information, misguided the people which amounted to professional misconduct. It was published in the impugned news item that Air India too is offering low fares like Rs.21,000/- return fare (all inclusive) to London or Rs.42,000/- to New York. According to the complainant, after reading the news item he reached at the office of Air India on 25.5.2009 for booking his ticket under the scheme but the booking officials of Air India informed him that no such scheme was available. However, he requested the booking officials to book his to and fro ticket for London conditionally under the said scheme if made available later. On 26.5.2009 the official of Air India informed the complainant over telephone that no such scheme is available and the actual fare of ticket was Rs.34,200/- and complainant cancelled his reservation over telephone. The complainant drew the attention of

199 the respondent, The Times of India vide his letter dated 12.10.2009 but failed to receive any response. He requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent editor for misleading/misguiding the people by publishing false news item. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 18.1.2010, the respondent editor, The Times of India filed the written statement dated 10.2.2010 through his advocate. Denying the allegations in toto the respondent editor submitted that show cause notice issued to them was uncalled for and was unwarranted as all due care was taken in filing each and every news item to ensure that no factual error creeps into it. Regarding information about fares, the respondent submitted that the information was collected from the various leading travel agencies, portals and airlines and such indicative fares as provided by them was published. According to the respondent the news in question was based on the information collected from the various sources and was published for the benefit of the readers. It was not the intention to give wrong information to the readers, neither they got any benefit by giving this information. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had not read the report in the spirit in which it was intended. The story referred to the low fares during the holiday season and the same was connected with another report – “Air fares set to increase by June-end” wherein it was mentioned that the fares will witness growth by June end. The fares mentioned in the news report were always indicative which may not include any tax, cess or any other charges. The story also mentioned of the scheme of Lufthansa as just ended. Thus, there were the schemes offered by individual airlines and as such the story did not find its inception from scheme of one airline only. The respondent further stated that the current market scenario, current season and the mind of the readers at that relevant time is taken into account before publication of any story. The readers of the newspaper are very valuable to them and in case any unintentional inconvenience was caused to the esteemed reader the same was regretted. He requested to drop the proceedings against them. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 15.3.2010 while denying the reply filed by the respondent, submitted that the publication was not based on any such information issued by AIR India. The complainant submitted that the reply was absurd and not maintainable as it was not justified. He requested to take necessary action against the respondent. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

200 29.10.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, The Times of India. The complainant reiterated his complaint and stated that being a frequent flyer, by taking the news item in goodfaith, he went to the Airlines Office. But when he reached there, the news items turned out to be false and wrong information, thus misleading the public. Report The Inquiry Committee, upon hearing the complainant and perusing the records noted that the respondent The Times of India had categorically mentioned all inclusive fare to London by Air India and the complainant, a bonafide traveller relying on the same visited to the Airlines Office but found no such scheme as reported in the newspaper available. The Inquiry Committee felt that the report had not been carefully prepared even though no malafide could be attributed to either the editor or reporter in question. All the same it would be advisable to ensure correctness of facts in matters directly affecting the public for protection of a newspaper’s own credentials amongst its readers. It submitted this report to the Council. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted the findings including the absence of any malafides in the matter and decided to close the matter with a caution advice to the Times of India.

68) The Employment Promotion Council The Editor of Indian Personnel, Mumbai Mid-Day through the Ministry of Overseas Versus Mumbai Indian Affairs Government of India New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts The Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, New Delhi vide its letter dated 30.4.2007 forwarded a complaint dated 31.3.2007 of the Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personnel, Mumbai against Mid-Day, Mumbai regarding publication of advertisements of overseas jobs of the H.R. Consultancy Firm based in Dubai in its issue dated 30.3.2007. According to the Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personnel the following can recruit or can carry on the business of recruiting personnel from India (as per the provisions of Emigration Act 1983).

201 1. Person holding valid Registration Certificate issued in that behalf by Registering Authority in India under Section 10 of the Act. 2. Foreign Employer having been issued permit by the competent authority authorized by Central Government for the purpose of recruiting personnel from India under Sections 16 and 17 read with Section 19 of the Act. 3. In some cases, relatives/friends of candidate residing in country of employment arranging employment/visit visas for the company they work. The Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personnel also referred to the decision rendered by the Council in a similar case on 12.7.2006 against the same respondent and The Times of India and submitted that as per mandatory guidelines issued by then Ministry of Labour, foreign recruitment agents cannot advertise in India for their clients abroad unless they have recruitment license issued by the concerned authority. Thus the advertisement has been released in contravention of Sections 16/17 and 19 of Emigration Act 1983 by unregistered Recruiting Agents/directly by foreign employers attracts penalty under section 24(4) of the said Act. The Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs has stated that the respondent newspaper by publishing the impugned advertisement violated the Guidelines laid down by the Council. The Ministry while furnishing a copy of the Press Release issued earlier on the subject has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments In response to the notice for comments dated 20.8.2007, the respondent, Mid Day through their Counsel, filed their written statement dated 5.10.2007 and submitted that the complaint is baseless and lacks substance. There is nothing mentioned in the said complaint, which requires any action to be taken by the Press Council, and there is no sufficient grounds for enquiring in the matter. The respondent denied any violation of the provision of the Act or Section 16 or any of the rules. According to the respondent in some cases friends or relatives of a candidate residing in the country of employment can arrange employment or visit for the company they work and this is recognized under the Emigrants Act and therefore only having a valid permit or through a recognized recruiting agent are not the only criteria. Moreover, the entire publication in question does not fall within the ambit of the provision of Sections 16, 17, 19 of the Emigrants Act or violation to attract a penalty under Section 24(4) of the Act. The respondent submitted that the complaint was filed with malafide and without verifying the correct facts, hence liable to be dismissed. Counter Comments The complainant, Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personel vide

202 letter dated 25.3.2008 furnished a copy of the Council’s decision in a similar case on 12.7.2006 and submitted that despite recommendations of the Council, some sections of the media carrying advertisements in violation of the Emigration Act, 1983. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide letter dated 16.4.2008 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. Shri Mahan Singh Nagra, Under Secretary appeared for the complainant while Shri Shiv Kumar Suri and Ms. Junaira Rehman, advocates represented the respondent newspaper, Mid-Day. Learned counsel requested for adjournment on the ground that his papers pertaining to the case were not complete. As the representative of the complainant had no objection, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter. Arguments The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. Both the parties were present. S/Shri Deepak Chhabaria, Chairman, O.P. Bhardwaj, Vice Chairman and Dinesh Kumar, Member appeared for the complainant and submitted that the Mid Day was repeatedly publishing the impugned advertisements in violation of Sections 16, 17 and 19 of the Emmigration Act. The complainant submitted that the Council had adjudicated a similar complaint against this particular newspaper but they were continuously publishing despite the Council’s guidelines. The complainant apprised the Committee that a cheat operating from Dubai was engaging sub-agents to trap the workers from India and the workers are getting cheated. Shri Shiva Kumar Suri and Ms. Juniata Rehman, Advocates appeared for the respondent Mid Day and relied on the written statement filed by the respondent newspaper on 5.10.2007 and submitted that the newspaper had not violated any provisions of the Emmigration Act. The respondent counsel further submitted that the Press Council may not enquire into the matter as other forums are open for the complainant. On pointing out the guidelines on the subject framed by the Press Council of India in 2006 reiterated in the year 2009, the respondent counsel submitted that the newspaper shall be extra careful in future and shall abide by the guidelines. Report The Inquiry Committee perused the records of the case and oral arguments put forth by the parties and at the very outset noted that despite adjudicated in

203 complaint no 14/129 and 209/04-05 the respondent newspaper Mid Day willfully defied the guidelines already framed in coordination with the Government of India by the Press Council of India in the matter of employment advertisements of outside India. It is worth quoting them herein below for the benefit of the parties: The Press has to ensure that the advertisement on the issue be inserted incorporating the following particulars:- a) Registration Certificate Number/Permit Number of the advertiser/recruiting agents; b) Full address with Telephone Number, Post Box Number, e-mail address (these could be given in addition to the full address but not as the mode of communication); c) Statement that no fee towards processing application or for any other purpose shall be charged from the Applicant; d) Name of the posts/jobs; e) Number of position/vacancies in each category; and f) The salary offered to each category of job. The Press has to realize that the above compliance is not only for the protection of the publication but also in its own benefits for compliance with Emigration Act. The Inquiry Committee thus found that the Mid Day acted irresponsibly in repeating the conduct and violating the guidelines framed in 2006. The Inquiry Committee further opined that the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs ought to suitably amend the Emigration Act to provide against the publication of advertisement without the mandatory details. Insofar as the assurance tendered on behalf of the Mid Day by the learned counsel that they will be careful in future, the Inquiry Committee was not inclined to accept the assurance as the respondent breached in honour the guidelines that were within the knowledge of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee recommended that the respondent Mid Day be awarded highest penalty under the Press Council Act, 1978. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to censure Mid Day for advertisement in non complaince with the guidelines and rules. The Council recommended to the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs to amend the rules and incorporate these guidelines under intimation to the Council. A copy of the adjudication be sent to the DAVP, RNI, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Maharashtra for suitable action as they deem fit in the matter.

204 69) Shri Radhey Shyam Paliwal The Editor Chartered Accountant Versus Sales Tax Review Nagpur Mumbai Maharashtra Maharashtra

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 30.6.2008 has been filed by Shri Radhey Shyam Paliwal, Chartered Accountant, Somalwada, Nagpur against the Editor, Sales Tax Review, a monthly magazine published by Sales Tax Practitioners Association, Mumbai for alleged violation of journalistic code of conduct. According to the complainant, the government of Maharashtra introduced the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2005 which inter alia made a provision for compulsory audit by the assesses whose turnover exceed Rs. 40 lakh in a financial year. Such audit is mandated to be conducted by Chartered and Cost Accountants. The Advocates and Sales Tax Practitioners felt aggrieved by this legal provision and dubbed it as discriminatory and jeopardizing their interest. On their insistence, stated the complainant, the Association had taken up the matter initially before the Bombay High Court and on losing the case took up before the Supreme Court, which rejected the petition in limine. The complainant has submitted that during the entire period of around three years of unsuccessful contest of their petition before the Honourable Courts, the magazine ‘Sales Tax Review’ continued publishing totally partisan editorials, presidential communications and news and views promoting the cause of the aggrieved Advocates and Sales Tax Practitioners. Since the matter is sub-judice, the complainant further stated that the Chartered Accountants preferred a dignified wait for the court decision and never once objected or protested against the grossly partisan stand adopted by the respondent though much of what was published was biased and was an attempt to project the Chartered Accountants in bad light. He has further stated that after the verdict of the High Court and before the decision of the Apex Court, the complainant sent an article, on 12.05.2008 to the respondent magazine in an attempt to put up the side of the Chartered Accountants vis-a-vis the whole issue. The complainant is aggrieved over the fact that the respondent editor, an advocate denied publication of the article on the ground that so far as the magazine is concerned, the issue stood closed and they would not publish any more views on the issue. The complainant has alleged that denial of such opportunity is grossly unjustified and is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The acts of the respondent are in gross violation of code of ethics of impartial journalism and conduct of responsible periodical, added the complainant.

205 No Comments/No Written Statement In response to notice for comments dated 16.10.2008, the respondent editor, Sales Tax Review, vide letter dated 14.11.2008 requested the Council, as he is pre-occupied with his professional assignment, to grant some more time, to file a detailed reply in the matter. Reminder issued to the respondent on 5.03.2009 also evoked no response. A show cause notice was thus issued to the respondent on 12.8.2009 but no response was received. After a reminder dated 26.10.2009, the respondent vide letter dated 18.11.2009 submitted that they would send their reply within a short period of time but he failed to file written statement. Matter Adjourned The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Ashvin A. Acharya, Editor along with Dattatraya H. Joshi represented the respondent. The respondent editor filed the written statement. In his oral arguments the respondent submitted that as the articles of the complainant contained allegations against judiciary, the same could not be published. He added that if that reference was removed he would have no objection to publish the same. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that though no journal can be compelled to publish a particular article yet the ethics demand that view of other side must be published. The matter was adjourned with directions to the complainant to send his article without scandalous remarks against judiciary or advocates or anyone and the respondent to publish the same. The complainant in his letter dated 8.10.2010 has submitted that he had requested the respondent to point out the objectionable part of the article or else publish it in the magazine. However, the respondent in his reply dated 29.7.2010 informed him that “after the receipt of notice from the Council, the editorial board was of the unanimous opinion that such an article cannot be and should not be printed which may in all probability harm the peaceful working of the august body.” The complainant therefore requested the Council to decide the matter on merits on the basis of records and documents available with it and averments made by him. The directions of the Inquriy Committee were conveyed to the parties vide letter dated 10.11.2010. Arguments The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. However, in his letter dated 11.11.2010 and stated that he approached the respondent to explore the possibility of a settlement as advised by the Inquiry Committee on the last

206 hearing, but the respondent was in no mood for an amicable solution of the complaint. The complainant requested the Inquiry Committee to decide the matter on the basis of the documents available. The respondent editor submitted before the Committee that their Association consisted of Chartered Accountants and Advocates and in case he publishes the complainant’s article there will be a split in the Association. The respondent further submitted that the article submitted by the complainant was nothing but mudslinging and in case he tone down his article, removing objectionable paragraphs, the same may be considered. The editor further submitted that the complainant had sent a 132 pages articles maintaining the allegations against the judiciary and the advocates and it was not worth publishing. In case it is published, there will be a rift between Chartered Accountants and Advocates. The editor apprised the Committee that after the hearing on the last occasion was over, the complainant told the editor that he will not submit or resubmit his revised article. Report The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the records and the proceedings, noted that the complainant was given an opportunity to recast his article without aspersions but he had chosen not to submit the revised draft. The Inquiry Committee concurred with the respondent that the lengthy article carrying allegations would certainly cause rift between Chartered Accountants and Advocates. The Inquiry Committee thus directed the complainant to delete the allegations and recast the article without aspersions and send a concise article for publication by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the decision rendered by the Inquiry Committee and decides accordingly.

70) Shri Ramnath G. Naik The Editor Chairman Versus Gomantak Gomantak Marathi Bhasha Parishad Panaji, Goa Ponda, Goa ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 20.2.2009 has been filed by Shri Ramnath G. Naik Chairman, Goamantak Marathi Bhasha Parishad, Ponda, Goa against the

207 Gomantak, a Marathi daily newspaper from Panaji, Goa for publication of an allegedly objectionable news item under the caption ‘15 Lakh to Dalgodo Konkani Academy – Chief Minister’s statement; Tiatrist Academy to be established in the State. Encouragement to Roman Konkani literature’ in its issue dated 21.12.2008. The complainant has objected to the statement in the news item that ‘Dr. Pratap Naik stated that if Marathi is granted the status of Official Language, then there is every possibility of Goa state being merged with Maharashtra’ and stated that he was present at the event that took place in the literary meet of Romi lovers on 20.12.2008 at Margao, Goa. Dr. Pratap Naik, in the capacity of main speaker delivered a talk which was in written form and was distributed among the people present at the meet where Dr. Pratap Naik had not spoken a single word apart from what was written in his written speech. However, the respondent intentionally attributed words to Dr. Pratap Naik, which he had not uttered, alleged the complainant. He also alleged that the respondent newspaper Gomantak while siding with Devanagari Konkani published news and articles which were patently erroneous and false. The news item in question was an instance of this perversion and partisanship and had been done with an intention of drawing a wedge between Marathi protagonists and Romi Konkani protagonists, alleged the complainant and added that it was to create fear among Goan people that adoption of Marathi as official language of the State of Goa will lead to its merger with neighbouring State of Maharashtra.

The matter was brought to the notice of the respondent newspaper by notice dated 10.1.2009 for rectification of error by giving due publicity. However, the respondent did not bother to show readiness to admit the error and rectify it, stated the complainant.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 1.7.2009, the respondent, Resident Editor, Gomantak in his written statement dated 14.7.2009 admitted that there was a factual error in one line of the report, which he clarified that was not published intentionally as it was an error committed by the concerned reporter. On being brought to their notice by the complainant, the respondent tried to rectify the error but due to the fact that the topic was related to the speech of Dr. Pratap Naik who was out of country, the said error could not be corrected. After receiving the show cause notice from the Council, the respondent personally met Dr. Pratap Naik, clarified the factual position of the topic and promptly made appropriate corrections with an apology in their newspaper issue dated 14.7.2009. The respondent further stated that the error was unintentional and he had sincerely made efforts to rectify the same.

208 Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.8.2009 submitted that they were not satisfied with the course of action the respondent editor, Gomantak had adopted because none of the questions they raised in their complaint had been answered. The respondent had not made any reference to the complainant, Gomantak Marathi Bhasha Parishad and instead he published an apology in his newspaper to give the impression to its readers that Dr. Pratap Naik was the complainant. This clearly shows the tendency of the respondent editor to distort the facts and mislead its readers which in itself is a transgression of standards of journalistic ethics alleged the complainant and added that Dr. Pratap Naik cannot be considered as aggrieved as he was not at all concerned with Marathi Readers nor he himself is a reader of Marathi newspapers in Goa. Report The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 and 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance before it from either side on both the occasions, though the respondent via letter dated 18.11.2010 requested for an adjournment. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the newspaper had clarified the issue by way of their subsequent report and no complaint had been filed by the concerned person. In view of these facts, the Inquiry Committee did not find any reason to proceed further in the matter. It recommended to the Council to close the matter. Held The Press Council perused the records and the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint.

71) Shri Prafulla Samantara The Editor President Samaj Lok Shakti Abhijan Versus Cuttack , Orissa Orissa ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 12.11.2008 has been filed by Shri Prafulla Samantara, President, Lok Shakti Abhijan, Bhubaneswar against the Samaj, Cuttack, Orissa for alleged objectionable and indecent reporting of a rape case under the caption ‘The Nun Rape Case a Blatant Lie! published in its issue dated 24.10.2008. It was reported therein that gradually, the mystery surrounding the nun rape case was getting unfolded. The changing circumstances and the medical examination

209 report etc. are helping to expose the mystery and according to a senior government officer, it just remained to be seen what a blatant lie it was. In the impugned news item, it was further alleged that the lady doctors examining her did find evidence, which suggested that the Nun used to regular sex. According to the complainant, the news item in question seemed to be a manufactured one as there has been no proper mention of the sources of information presented in the news, which claimed that the rape incidence was a blatant lie. It was written and published with a purpose to influence the process of investigation in favour of the people who allegedly have committed the crime and no investigation officer had so far given any press statement on the incident, alleged the complainant and added that the way the news item was written, it would only help people loose their faith in the press and this was indeed a clear instance where one sees press itself violate the freedom, self respect and dignity of woman in distress. The complainant further alleged that on the basis of the impugned news report, many articles and write-ups have come out in other Oriya dailies making it their source of material, thus the respondent succeeded in creating a hate campaign against the minority community by making such irresponsible reporting. He sent his rejoinder dated 24.10.2008 to the respondent but it was not published. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice, the respondent editor, the Samaj has filed his written statement dated 15.5.2009 and submitted that the news item in question was published on the basis of materials available such as the Medical Report of the examining doctors, the FIR and statements of witnesses and the opinion and views collected from different sources. The heading of the news item with an exclamatory mark ‘!’ denoted that the contents of the news was not conclusive rather the rape case of the nun was mysterious, stated the respondent. He also submitted that the allegation levelled by the complainant was not sustainable since he is in no way concerned with the news item and added that they do not have any intention to disrepute and defame the nun in public but the news item was published basing mainly on medical examination reports of the victim and the accused and many other records. The respondent also refuted that the news item in question was published with a purpose to influence the investigation in favour of the accused as alleged. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 31.7.2009 denied the statement of the respondent and submitted that nowhere in the medical examination report of the doctors, the FIR and statements of the witnesses established the false, fabricated, derogatory news that he complaint against.

210 Putting an exclamatory mark on the headline of a news item and making a false and motivated news which was against ethics of journalism and truth, was a deliberate intention to create a disbelief in the mind of its readers on the rape case of victimized Nun, alleged the complainant. He has stated that nowhere the medical report said that victim was not raped and it also did not state that nun was habitual with regular sex with many people as reported by the respondent newspaper. The State Government of Orissa published a white paper in the matter wherein it was stated that the nun was raped and molested and also forced to walk half naked in the street, submitted the complainant and requested the Council to examine the matter whether the news item was based on the medical report, in the interest of natural justice. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. Shri Subrat Sengupta, Sub Editor appeared for the Samaj and requested for adjournment. Since there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter. The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi when Shri Kishore Chandra Dwivedi, Chief of News Delhi Bureau and New Delhi representative, appeared for the respondent newspaper and submitted that the Samaj was an oldest paper (91 years) and it never crossed laxman rekha. The newspaper had carried the news item in the interest of the society. Subsequently, the white paper brought out by the government was also published. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the respondent newspaper had nowhere identified the victim and it appeared to the Inquiry Committee that the newspaper was reporting the developments at various stages and did not violate any basic principle of journalism. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council not to take cognizance of the matter. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint.

72) Shri Binod Kumar Sinha The Editor Dhanbad Versus Dainik Jagran Jharkhand Ranchi Jharkhand ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 30.1.2008 has been filed by Shri Binod Kumar

211 Sinha, Dhanbad, Jharkhand against Dainik Jagran, Ranchi for publication of allegedly objectionable news item under the caption ‘Dainik Jagran Vishwa Ka Subse Achha Akhbaar: Baba Ramdev’ dated 17.3.2008. The complainant has alleged that the headline ‘Dainik Jagran is the best newspaper in the world; Baba Ramdev’ has not at all reflected and justified the matter printed under it as the news report did not contain any discussion of or reference to such statement having been made by Baba Ramdev and added that even otherwise, assuming Baba Ramdev did comment like that it was thoroughly unbecoming on the part of the newspaper to design the headline for self-promotion, as it did. He also stated it was unbecoming on the part of the respondent to design the caption as it did for the reason that Baba Ramdev lacks competence to make such comment as he must not have seen, read and understood various newspapers published all over the world. He added that there is neither established nor recognized technique nor forum to judge a newspaper for its overall quality and to give it a definitive and credible rating. The complainant further alleged that various editions of the respondent newspaper usually gave out-of-proportion coverage to anything connected with Yoga Guru and in return, Baba Ramdev showered praises on the newspaper and the respondent is exploiting this symbiosis while lowering journalistic standard in the process. It was noted that the news clipping shows a photograph of Baba Ramdev reading a newspaper with a caption underneath which reads ‘Baba Ramdev reads Dainik Jagran on arrival at Muzaffarpur’. The complainant also objected to the publication of the following advertisements by the respondent newspaper in its Hazaribagh edition dated 18.3.2008, which were as deviously packaged as news items: 1. Manish Ki Jeet Tay, Shrif Opcharik Ghosna Baki 2. Har Varg Ka Mil Raha Samtharn Manish Jaiswal Ko 3. Vikas Ka Shandar Vijan Hai Mere Pas – Manish 4. Khatam Ho Jayeti Palikakaramchriyon Ki Ssamasya 5. Vote Se Bhar Jayegi Manish Ki Tokri 6. Shaher Ke Soundaryakaran Ka Meine Dekha Hai Sapna The complainant has alleged that the impugned advertisement was ingeniously packaged in a box as a set of six news item and that it was actually a piece of an advertisement written purposely in fine print as ‘ADVT’ in a small font size 08 in a remote corner of the box. He has alleged that such devious packaging of the advertisement was done to influence the voters and the newspaper by siding with a particular candidate in the elections. The packaging such an advertisement as news items, collaborating with a particular candidate

212 to influence voters, was an act of partisan journalism and surrogate canvassing, alleged the complainant. The complainant forwarded a copy of his complaint to the respondent but received no response. No Written Statement Show cause notice dated 8.7.2008 was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagaran, Ranchi but no written statement has been filed. Reminders dated 26.10.2009 and 6.9.2010 have not evoked response from the respondent. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata. Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Jay Krishna Bajpayee appeared for the respondent and submitted that they had not received the notices and they could not file written statement. The respondent representative requested for adjournment and also a copy of the complaint for filing written statement. A copy of the complaint was handed over to the respondent during the hearing. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file written statement within 15 days with copy to the complainant. The matter was adjourned. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties vide letter dated 3.11.2010. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had objected to publication of news item dated 17.3.2008 without justified body writing as compared to heading and the advertisements in 18.3.2008 issue in the garb of news items. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was not present nor the respondent filed written statement. In the absence of the parties, the Inquiry Committee noted that while the first impugned report was not a major violations warranting cognizance under Section 14 (1) of the Press Council Act. The second impugned publication of advertisement guised as news reports was accompanied by its identification as ‘ADVT’ though in very fine print. The Inquiry Committee thus was not inclined to proceed with the matter. It recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the matter.

213 73) Dr. (Smt.) Shamala Reddy The Editor Chairperson/Director Malayala Manorama S.G.R. Technical & Educational Kottayam Society, Kerala Bangaluru, Karnataka Versus The President Indian Newspaper Society New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 15.6.2007 has been filed by Dr. (Smt.) Shamala Reddy, Chairperson/Director, S.G.R. Technical & Educational Society, Bangaluru (Karnataka) against “Malayala Manorama” for non-publication of their advertisements in his newspaper. According to the complainant, the SGR Technical and Educational Society is a highly reputed society having established several reputed educational institutions. The institutions are being administered by the society and in connection with its activities and affairs, it has to take out advertisements periodically in various newspapers. The complainant further submitted that at the time of the admission in their various institutions she requested the respondent on 4.6.2007 and 5.6.2007 to publish advertisements of the institutions in Kottayam edition of the newspaper on 8.6.2007. The complainant alleged that the respondent orally rejected to publish their advertisements both the times. The complainant submitted that since the respondent refused and rejected to accept the copy of the proposed advertisements, they had no other way, except to send the advertisements to the respondent through registered post on 6.6.2007 along with a demand draft of Rs,6,864/- but the respondent did not bother to reply. The complainant stated that it was the peak time for admissions and they were dependent solely upon the advertisements in the newspaper for its admissions related activities and affairs and if she was not allowed to take advertisements in newspaper, she will be put to irreparable loss and great hardship and reputation of the institutions will be very badly affected in the society. The complainant alleged that the rejection by the respondent to publish the advertisements sought by them amounts to professional misconduct and also does not adhere to the standards of journalistic ethics. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.6.2007 through his advocate for publication of ads but received no reply. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 30.7.2007, the respondenteditor,

214 Malayala Manorama in his written statement dated 21.8.2007 while denying the allegations levelled in the complaint submitted that the complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts and the complainant also suppressed the material facts from the notice of the Press Council. The respondent submitted that the Indian Newspaper Society, (the organization of publication of newspapers that inter-alia laid down norms governing advertisement) vide its communication dated 22.3.2004, 2.6.2004 and 3.10.2005 informed all the member publications, including newspaper, that the complainant’s society did not clear the dues of the Advertising Agency-M/s. S.D. Enterprises, Bangalore, and directing the member publications not to release any advertisement of the complainant’s society. It is only in accordance with the INS direction that he had not effected advertisement of the complainant. The respondent further submitted that he had not received any further communication from the INS and accordingly it presumed that the complainant continues to be in the list of defaulting advertisers. According to the respondent, the complainant was apprised of all aspects when they tendered advertisement. The respondent stated that the complainant did not give him sufficient time to reply their legal notice dated 12.6.2007 as they filed the present complaint before the Press Council on 15.6.2007. The respondent denied having committed any professional misconduct and stated that he has not done anything against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste.

The respondent also submitted that the complainant had already preferred Writ Petition No.10484/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore against the Press Council and Malayala Manorama and in view of Section 14(3) of Press Council Act, 1978, the Press Council is not empowered to hold an inquiry in the matter.

As the complainant filed a writ petition No.10484/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka against the Press Council, Malayala Manorma and others, the matter (F.No.14/164/07-08) was closed being sub-judice vide order dated 11.9.2007.

Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka while disposing off the writ petition directed the Press Council to consider the grievance put forth by the petitioner. The Court further directed the “ Manorama” and “The Times of India” to publish the advertisements as sought by the petitioner.

The matter was then placed before the Council’s meeting held on 2.3.2009 (F.No.23/6/07-08-PCI) with the observations/directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Since the Court disposed off the matter with directions that the Press Council may consider the matter against the INS and Malayala Manorma, the Council decided to re-open the case as case No. (14/14/09-10). Accordingly, comments of the INS were invited in the matter on 7.8.2009.

215 Comments of INS Shri Hormusji N. Cama, President, INS in his comments dated 19.8.2009 submitted that the INS after a stringent process of checks grants an advertising agency accreditation. This accreditation enables the advertising agency to enjoy unlimited credit for 60 days from their member publications. There are times, and this case is one example, when the advertising agency makes payment to the publications and fails to recover the money from their clients. Having made payment to the publications, INS has a responsibility to the advertising agency to help it to recover its dues from errant clients. The respondent further submitted that in this case, the complainant had not paid the agency, therefore, the agency requested the INS to issue advisory to all members asking them to not to accept advertising business from the complainant. The respondent stated that Malayala Manorama correctly acted upon the INS advisory. Before issuing the advisory, the INS offers an opportunity to the advertising agency’s client to make payment or to present its side of the story. Only after this step, is an informed decision taken. If the agency has not been paid, the agency in turn will not be able to pay publications and it makes no sense to publish advertisements and therefore be unable to recover the dues, asserted the respondent. He further stated that in an case, a newspaper has complete freedom to decide without offering any explanation, whether to publish an advertisement or not and there could be no case of compulsion for carrying any material in the form of an advertisement or otherwise. This is of paramount importance to the freedom of press and any violation would be deemed to be a violation of constitutional right to do business, added the respondent. Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 19.1.2010 submitted that they had never released and never authorized anybody to release advertisements in the concerned newspapers or dailies. Therefore, the question of their being any dues towards the said newspapers does not arise. No details of any authorization had been produced for the release of advertisements, regarding which the alleged amounts are being stated to be recoverable from them. The complainant reiterated that they had not authorized anybody to release advertisements of their instructions and non-submission of details of the person, who had instructed release of such advertisements, shows beyond iota of doubt that the claim of the concerned newspaper is false. The complainant stated that in any event they could not be burdened for the mistake of the advertisement if any, on the part of the advertising agent. He has requested to give him a “personal hearing” before disposal of their complaint. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

216 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. Shri Anil Kumar Batra, Advocate along with Smt. Shamala Reddy, complainant appeared before the Committee and requested for lifting the embargo (the advisory) issued by the INS. The complainant, in her oral arguments, submitted that without giving them opportunity to file the representation, the INS decided to put the embargo. Shri Mittu Dandapani, Advocate appearing for the Malayala Manorama submitted that the allegations made by the complainant were not maintainable as they had acted upon the advisory of the Indian Newspaper Society. Upon hearing the parties, the Inquiry Committee noted that the issue had arisen out of embargo put by the INS. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had denied having routed any advertisement through the said advertising agency. It was therefore, desirable for the Indian Newspaper Society to establish correct facts and then decide the matter. It reported to the Council thus. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee and in view of the directions of the High Court of Karnataka, decided to dispose off the complaint with directions to the complainant file a fresh representation before INS for lifting the embargo giving all facts/ details. The INS is directed to decide the complainant’s case within four months.

Press and Defamation

74) Dr. M. Vijaykumar The Editor Retired Chemistry Reader Eenadu Red Cross & Lok Satta Activist Versus Vijayawada, A.P Gannavaram, District-Krishna Andhra Pradesh The Editor Vaartha Vijayawada, A.P. ADJUDICATION Facts Complaint Against Eenadu Dr. M. Vijaykumar, a retired Chemistry Reader and Red Cross and Lok Satta Activist, Gannavaram, district-Krishna, A.P. filed this complaint dated 4.11.2008 against Eenadu, Vijayawada for publication of an allegedly objectionable news item captioned “Cheating through trust – Dacoity in ex-Principal’s house, assaulting by sedating and Rs.1 lakh jewellery looted” in its issue dated 10.9.2008. The publication insinuated that the complainant had been taken for a ride due

217 to their greed. Impugned statements attributed to the accused and the newspapers comment there on:- “Our income (the culprit’s) is upto 400 crores. We have big companies in Bombay. You are our near-ones. We will allot some transactions of our company to you. It is enough if you can spare 3-4 days in a month. We will bear your flight expenses also. You can earn in thousands. The retired couple was overjoyed on hearing this from an unknown. They were very happy as he was more loving than their own children staying abroad.” It was also alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant, who worked as a Chemistry lecturer and his wife, Swarnkumari as a Principal, stood retired and now running a play school. Their three sons were settled in America. On the arrival of their elder son, they went to Tirupati. A young man introduced himself as Srikant while waiting in queue for the darsanam and enhanced the acquaintance by telling that he could arrange prasadam and RTC tickets. They gave their phone numbers and he used to call them frequently and once they invited him casually while talking with him. On 8.9.2008 Srikant came and stayed for two days. The complainant’s objections were primarily to the insinuation that the culprits looted them because they provided them stay, out of greed to earn easymoney. The complainant has submitted that on 8.9.2008 around 11 p.m. there was a robbery in the complainant’s house and his wife (retired college Principal) was severely assaulted strangulated with rope, her mouth stuffed with sponge, legs and hand tied-up and then robbed of the jewellery on her body. The culprits then absconded. According to the complainant, his wife, son and daughter- in-law only visited Tirupati on 8.7.2008. He being an atheist did not accompany them. There one of the culprits namely, Srikant enhanced acquaintance with the complainant’s family members at Tirupati while they were standing in the queue for darshanam/prasadam, later frequently talked over telephone and managed to stay at their house for two-three days and finally came to stay at their house on 8.9.2008. The culprit, Srikant and his accomplice, Suresh severely injured the complainant’s wife and robbed her of jewellery. The complainant has submitted that the impugned publication sensationalised the incident of robbery and humiliated them as well as damaged their reputation by portraying them as someone who were very greedy to earn thousands and thousands by transacting with the culprits. According to the complainant, on 8.9.2008 at night the police visited his wife who was severely wounded with teeth broken, blood oozing from her mouth and she was in an unconscious state. Initially, the theft case was booked under Section 380 IPC. Later, on 9.9.2008 after collecting the clues the case was changed to 392 IPC(robbery). The Eenadu news item was like rubbing salt on the physical and mental wounds caused by robbery on 8.9.2008. The complainant submitted that he did not visit Tirupathi being an atheist and did not

218 meet the culprit, Srikant till he came to his house on 8.9.2008 nor did he talk to the culprit. The complainant alleged that the respondent newspaper made him entirely responsible for this incident by falsely making him accountable for Srikant’s visit and maligning him as greedy. The complainant gave a press statement on 15.9.2008 but the Eenadu did not mention his objections in its follow up reporting dated 17.4.2008 on the same issue under the caption “Victims anguish over investigation of robbery”. The complainant alleged that despite his letters dated 16.9.2008, 30.9.2008 and 3.10.2008 to the respondent editor and registering his objections by personal visit, the respondent did not respond. The complainant alleged that the action of the respondent was immoral and criminal in nature. Complaint Against Vaartha The complainant, Dr. M. Vijaykumar in his separate complaint dated 10.11.2008 against Vaartha, Vijayawada alleged publication of misleading, unverified, unconfirmed, distorted, twisted and objectionable news items captioned “Thirukshavaram” and “Postmortem” in its issues dated 10.9.2008 and 14.9.2008. It was stated in the first news item that the retired Principal of V.K.R. College, Gannavaram, Mrs. Vuppuluri Swarna Kumari, her husband Dr. Maddukuri Vijaya Kumar along with their son and daughter-in-law travelled to Tirupati two months back to have the Lord’s darshan. While waiting in queue for darshnam, two youths introduced themselves as Srikant and Suresh Kumar. They lured the old couple by mentioning that the M.L.A of Addanki, Mr. Karanam Balaram, M.L.A., Mr. Pathuru Rama Rao and a cinema hero, Gopichand were well known to them. Thereafter they kept calling them on telephone every two or three days to Vijaykumar’s spouse to further strengthen their acquaintance. The respondent newspaper further reported that the said culprits had shown a colour cinema to the old couple saying that they had granite quarries worth 400 crores at Chimakurthi and business office in Mumbai. They added that they would like to offer some share in their business for which they have to spare just three/ four days in a month. They further added that all the expenses including the flight charges to Mumbai will be borne by them. The old couple was overjoyed and felt that they could amass lakhs by associating with Srikant and Suresh Kumar. The respondent further reported that on the night of 8.9.2008 the two culprits, after dinner carried out their robbery. Srikant requested and took Mrs. Swarna Kumari to the first floor to show the photo of his fiancée on the Internet. While Suresh Kumar engaged Mr. Vijaykumar in a chit chat downstairs, Srikant assaulted Mrs. V. Swarna Kumari and used chloroform to rob her jewellery upstairs. After robbing the jewellery, Srikant came downstairs. Then Suresh Kumar concluded the chitchat and went away saying that he had some work outside. The respondent newspaper further added that it was a clear case

219 of Hi-tech cheating and robbery and the police were left with no clues. They were pulling their hair and ramming heads for clues. So it was doubtful whether the case could be solved or add to lot of unsolved cases in the old racks. The complainant reiterated his submission as to how the culprits managed to stay at their house for two-three days and finally on 8.9.2008 robbed complainant’s wife of her jewellery. According to the complainant the title given by respondent, Vaartha to the impugned news item i.e. “Thirukshavaram” was highly offensive and very insulting. It was just rubbing salt on the wounds of the victims. It was nothing but mockery of an aged woman who was severely assaulted for believing in people. The complainant submitted that they believe in people because they serve the people. In this context a person with little acquaintance came to their house stayed for three days and on the third day called his associate and assaulted his wife. The complainant alleged that the respondent had caused severe mental agony and damaged their reputation and dignity in the society. The complainant further submitted that the impugned reports made him the main protagonist though he did not visit Tirupati and had no acquaintance with the said culprits until they were given shelter in their house by his wife as an act of mere trust without any false motive. His only fault was his passive acceptance when strangers were given shelter in his house. Instead of dwelling upon that point the Vaartha report concentrated upon tarnishing his image by reporting that while his wife was assaulted upstairs he was chit chatting with somebody downstairs. The complainant further objected to the statement made in the second news item “Postmortem” that : No clues were found, it is not possible to find the culprits it is sure that this case will not be solved and may join the lot of unsolved files lying in the attic. According to the complainant, this is totally untrue because even Srikant’s cell phone number 9010084052 was published in Vaartha and submitted to the Gannavaram police on the night of the crime itself. With the help of this cell number his complete details were submitted to the Gannavaram police by 11.9.2008. The information was also submitted by the complainant to the Vijayawada Commissioner of Police on 12.9.2008. Both the culprits were later nabbed, the jewellery, camera etc. were recovered from them. Thus, the article dated 14.9.2008 was totally misleading. It was silent on the inaction of the police. This was neither constructive nor positive. The complainant submitted that all the newspapers including Vaartha’s article dated 10.9.2008 mentioned that both the culprits committed the crime but the respondent newspaper changed the facts in their article dated 14.9.2008 and published that Srikant assaulted Swarnakumari upstairs while Suresh engaged him in a chit chat downstairs, which was untrue and shocking to him. The second report seems to have an ulterior motive of condemning police inaction on one side and on the other resorting to his

220 character assassination. Simply, because he lodged a complaint with the Police Commissioner, Vijayawada about the inaction and bungling of the Gannavaram Police. The complainant clarified that they did not know basics of granite business nor they were keen to earn easy money. The complainant intimated that he had written to the respondent, Vaartha on 17.9.2008, 30.9.2008 and 3.10.2008 asking them to tender apology and has also issued a press note of the interview with the press on 15.9.2008. The respondent, Vaartha published the complainant’s version/interview with the press under the caption “They are side tracking a decoity case” in its issue dated 17.9.2008 and again an extract of his first letter dated 17.9.2008 under the caption “Service moto is our goal” in its issue dated 19.9.2008. Written Statement – Eenadu A show cause notice was issued to the Editor, Eenadu on 24.3.2009. In his written statement dated 12.11.2009, the respondent editor, Eenadu, Vijayawada submitted that the impugned news item was true and factual report on an incident of crime committed in residence of the complainant. The news report was based on the information furnished by the complainant and added that the concerned journalist/reporter vouched that except truly reporting, what has been told by the complainant and/or his wife, nothing has been written on their own. The news report in question was published in good faith and in public interest, to disseminate news relating to a crime sourcing information from the complainant and/or his wife and also to caution general public about the modus operandi of criminals in committing such offences. The respondent further submitted that they did not receive the show cause notice dated 24.3.2009 but its reminder dated 30.9.2009, a copy of the notice was received on 10.11.2009. He therefore requested for condonation of the delay which was neither willful nor intentional. No Written Statement of Vaartha The respondent editor, Vaartha, Vijayawada did not file written statement in response to the show cause notice 13.3.2009 despite issue of reminder dated 30.9.2009. Arguments The matters came up for hearing on 17.11.2009 at Hyderabad. The complainant Dr. M. Vijaykumar appeared in person, Shri GVS Jagananda Rao, advocate appeared for Eenadu and Shri Ashok Tankasala, editor appeared for Vaartha. The complainant submitted that he is atheist and did not visit Tirupati. The insinuations of greed were also highly damaging and tended to tarnish their standing in the society. The complainant further submitted that many newspapers

221 covered the incident but nobody except respondents gave the incident business angle. The complainant stated that being social worker he did not work for or act out of greed but was taken advantage of by the robbers. Shri G.V.S.Jagananda Rao, advocate for Eenadu in his oral submissions stated that the complainant had called a Press Meet and the newspaper quoted it as the modus operandi of thugs/conmen. The newspaper, Eenadu had not depicted through its reporting or intent the complainant as greedy person. The counsel asked for time to find out whether it was a part of briefing by the complainant or reporter’s point of view. The counsel offered to publish the version of the complainant. Shri Ashok Tankasala, the respondent editor of Vaartha, in his oral submissions stated that the rejoinder of the complainant had been published and since the complainant was not satisfied, the Vaartha again published another rejoinder. The representative of Vaartha sought time to file written statement and offered the Vaartha to publish yet another rejoinder of the complainant. Matter to Pend till Compliance The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the parties. The Inquiry Committee did not appreciate the belated filing of written statement by Eenadu and non-filing of written statement by the editor, Vaartha. The Inquiry Committee however, proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of the oral submissions and felt that it would be in fitness of things if the version of the complainant is published in keeping with high standards of journalism, to mitigate the grievance and set the record straight. The Inquiry Committee directed the parties present that the complainant should send his rejoinder within two weeks, which shall be forwarded to the respondents for publication duly vetted by the Press Council of India. The Inquiry Committee decided to keep the matter pending till compliance. Accordingly parties were informed vide letter dated 2.2.2010 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. In response the complainant vide his letter dated 10.2.2010 forwarded his letters dated 23.11.2009 written to the cditors, Eenadu and Vaartha to publish his version/clarification as per directions of Inquiry Committee. One of the respondent, Eenadu vide his letter dated 20.3.2010 sought vetted version of the clarification. The complainant vide his letter dated 20.4.2010 forwarded a clipping of the clarification published by one of the respondent editors, Vaartha in its issue dated 28.3.2010 expressing regrets in detail on the impugned publication. While accepting the papers explanation, the complainant pointed out that the other respondent editor, Eenadu has not published any explanation. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action.

222 Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at its meeting held at New Delhi on 1.6.2010 considered the letter dated 20.3.2010 of the Assistant Manager, Legal of the Eenadu wherein it was submitted that the clarification of the complainant was very lengthy and covered various aspects not related to the dispute. He requested the Council to send the rejoinder duly vetted. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the rejoinder may be vetted by the editor without omitting its substantive portion. It decided to direct the editor accordingly. The Committee further directed the editor, Eenadu to forward a copy of the issue of the newspaper carrying the rejoinder to the complainant as well as the Council for record. The Committee referred its report to the Council for disposal. Held The Council considered the record and report of the Inquiry Committee. It decided to dispose off the complaints with directions to the editor, Eenadu to publish the rejoinder of the complainant, duly vetted at their end without leaving its substantive portion and to send a copy of the issue of the newspaper carrying the rejoinder to the complainant as well as Council for record.

75) Shri Indrajeet S. Khanna The Editor General Manager Telecom Versus Sabhar Darshan Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Ratlam, M.P. Ratlam, M.P. ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Indrajeet S. Khanna, General Manager Telecom, Ratlam (M.P.) against the Editor, Sabhar Darshan, Ratlam for publication of allegedly false, distorted, fabricated and baseless news item under the caption “Anterrashtriya U.S.O Fund Ke Duroupyug Ke Chalte Deshbhar Main Sarvadhik Garmin Telephone Defaulter Ki Suchi Main Ratalam Ka Naam Shamil, Khanna Ne GM, BSNL Ki Indore Posting Ke Liye Congress Ko Chunav Fund Ke Naam Par 5 Crores Sindhia Ko Diye” in its issue dated 22.2.2009. According to the complainant, news item has indicated his personal telephone number and of his family members. The respondent continuously published false, fabricated news against the company and its officials and sent the news clipping to higher offices and many others to fulfil his malicious game plan. According to the complainant, the respondent (Shri Ramesh Mishra ‘Chhanchal’) is in the habit of playing yellow journalism, groupism, misled the society/citizens at large and involved in wrong practice of ill motive.

223 The complainant submitted that the content of the news item have crossed all limits, and has adversely disturbed him and his family member too by the respondent. The complainant further submitted that the respondent has involved Hon’ble Minister of State for Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, Hon’ble Minister of State for Communication and the OSD to MOS (Agriculture) and C.M.D. and many others without any basis and facts. The respondent has given this type of distorted news items and sent them to higher level, as well as the officers’ level to tarnish the image of individual and organisation. According to the complainant, the BSNL has contributed from last two and half years tremendously to the development of the district and rural area, citizens at large from various segments of society, communal, trade, educational institutes, common people, political and industrialists have been aware of BSNL work. The organisation have continuously won national award for two years. It is learnt emphatically that the said respondent owner of ‘Sabhar Darshan’ is publishing only 50-70 copies and using his papers only for blackmailing the officers for personal gain and extortion of money. The complainant approached the respondent on 21.3.2009 but received no response. The complainant has requested to take suitable action against the respondent, so that black mailer – reporter would never be able to misuse sacred platform of press. No Written statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 24.4.2009, but the respondent has not filed his written statement in the matter. The A.D. card, confirming the service of the notice has been received from the postal department. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore. There was no appearance from either side. In order to afford one more opportunity to the parties, it decided to adjourn the matter. Arguments When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010 there was no appearance before it on behalf of the complainant. Shri Tashir Kothari, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Sabhar Darshan. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry committee noted that the notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with postal remarks “Transferred”. It noted that the matter was adjourned on last occasion at Indore on 31.3.10 when the notice of hearing could not be served due to the same reason. The Committee opined

224 that it was the duty of the complainant to have informed his new address. The Committee had no option but to submit its report to the Council for disposal. Held On consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee, the Press Council dismissed the complaint for lack of correct address of the complainant.

76) Shri Indrajeet S. Khanna The Editor General Manager Telecom Raj Express Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus Ratlam, M.P. Ratlam, M.P.

Shri Rajesh Moonat Correspondent Raj Express Ratlam, M.P. ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 25.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Indrajeet S. Khanna, General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ratlam against Shri Rajesh Moonat, Correspondent, Raj Express, Ratlam for allegedly publishing false, baseless and distorted news items under the caption “Doorsanchar Mahaprabhandhak Phir Nishane par” and “G.M. Par Sanhita Ke Ullanghan Ka Aarop” in its issues dated 4.3.2009 and 5.4.2009 respectively. The complainant has alleged that the said correspondent has been demanding undue financial favour from his Public Relations Officer and the General Manager Telecom District Office and on refusal, the respondent threatened to malign their image and that of the organization, its top officers and tried to extort money from the organization. The complainant further submitted that the said correspondent conspired with one or two officials of the department who were either suspended or transferred. The respondent, Shri Rajesh Moonat, correspondent of Raj Express challenged and threatened him in his chamber on 18.7.2008 by stating that ‘that he would see” the complainant and added that the respondent then published this news in very negative manner to mislead the public. The respondent had published much more distorted news even on officer’s personal matter, and cutting of which were sent to the senior officers and various other agencies to fulfill his malicious ego and game plan. The complainant further alleged that the respondent caused complained through one, Sanjay Mossle in connivance with one or two officials, to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, without any basis and with no documentary support. As soon as

225 he received the acknowledgement from CVC, he termed it as “Big News” stated the complainant and added that the respondent had telephoned him before publishing the news item however, published that ‘G .M. was not available for reply’. The complainant further submitted that after publication of the news, the respondent again rang up his officers to fulfill his illegal demands and threatened that he would continue to do the same. The respondent also carried an image of blackmailer and strong alliance with local political people, added the complainant. According to the complainant, the second news item was exaggeratedly published regarding demonstration by only two officials of BSNL, which was totally unauthorised whereas, as per “Industrial Act of Company’s policy” they were not authorised to do so, neither they represented mass official. For the purpose with meeting/demonstration only representative Union/LJCM are authorized. Only Raj Express published the said news in totally distorted manner. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent editor, ‘Raj Express’ vide letter dated 6.4.2009 and requested to publish the contradiction, but received no response. Written Statement In response to show cause notice dated 7.8.2009 the respondent, Bureau Chief, “Raj Express” in his written statement dated 29.8.2009 submitted parawise denial of the allegations levelled by the complainant and informed the Council that the news items were published on the basis of facts and the contents of the news items were true. The respondent alleged that the complainant by filing this complaint before the PCI, tried to degrade him as well as his journalistic work of past two decades. The respondent straight away denied any threat to the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the complainant in his complaint had indicated one name i.e. Sanjay Mossle, stated to have filed complaint against the complainant with the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and on contrary to that, he himself published the news items. The respondent further submitted that the news items were intended to bring to the notice of the public and to improve work and conduct with subordinate employees of the General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Ratlam. The respondent produced documentary evidence in support of the news items. According to the respondent, similar type of news items were also published in other newspapers of Ratlam, but the complainant did not raise any objection. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore. The complainant was not present. S/Shri K.C. Nahar and Arjun Singh Raghuwanshi, Advocates appearing for the respondent, Raj Express

226 submitted that the reporter who filed the news report was no more on their rolls. After hearing of the case Shri Rajesh Moonat, reporter appeared before the Committee along with his Advocate, Shri Tushar Kothari who reiterated the averments made in the written statement. As the complainant was not represented before the Inquiry Committee, in order to afford an opportunity to the complainant to contest his case it decided to adjourn the matter. Arguments When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010 there was no appearance before it on behalf of the complainant. Shri Rajesh Bhusan, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Raj Express, Ratlam. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry committee noted that the notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with postal remarks “Transferred”. It further noted that the matter was adjourned on last occasion at Indore on 31.3.10 when the notice of hearing could not be served due to the same reason. The Committee opined that it was the duty of the complainant to have informed his new address. The Committee had no option but to submit its report to the Council for disposal. Held On consideration of the record of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee, the Press Council dismissed the complaint for non-pursuance.

77) Shri B.L. Chauhan Shri Jitender Bhandari Principal Correspondent Shri Surender Suri Govt. College Raj Express Sardarpur, Madhya Pradesh Versus Indore, Madhya Pradesh

The Editor Raj Express Indore, M.P. ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 8.4.2009 has been filed by Shri B.L. Chauhan, Principal, Shri Surender Suri Government College, Sardarpur, Madhya Pradesh against Shri Jitender Bhandari, Correspondent, Raj Express, Indore, Madhya

227 Pradesh for publication of a series of allegedly baseless, misleading, fabricated and defamatory news items with malafide intention to tarnish the image of the college and its officials. Captions of the impugned news items are as follows:

No. Captions Dates 1 Bhavishya Se Khilvad 15.2.2009 2 Samiti Ka Nirnaya Samajh Se Pare 15.2.2009 3 Seminar Tau Bas Ek Bahana Tha 19.2.2009 4 Hum Sabhi Mein Desh Ke Prati Shradha Va Samarpan Bhav Hona Chahiye 17.2.2009 5 Rashtriya Sangoshthi Mein Anadiyon Ke Shodh 22.2.2009 6 Pariksha Hall Mein laparvahi/ Duty Ke Dauran Gapshap 2.4.2009 7 Chunav Aayog Ne Diye Jaanch Ke Aadesh 6.4.2009

The complainant has alleged that a two-day long national research seminar was organized by the college on 16th & 17th of February, 2009 with a grant sanctioned by the government. When the respondent reporter came to know about the programme, he went to the college and threatened the officials of the college with a motive to blackmail them in the absence of the college principal. The respondent entered the examination hall where some students were giving exams and took photographs of the students without permission and threatened the officials that he would publish it in his newspaper. The respondent subsequently published the news items with names of the college officials and without taking their views in the matter. The respondent also filed a false a complaint with the Election Commission charging that the college officials were indulging in politics. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent vide letters dated 24.2.2009 and 5.3.2009 and requested not to publish false and one sided news items against the college but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notices dated 7.7.2009, the respondent correspondent of Raj Express, in his written statement dated 5.8.2009 submitted that the allegations of the complainant were totally false and baseless, and also stated that no personal comments against the complainant were published but only the problems of the college were published. The respondent refuted any blackmailing threat alleged by complainant. According to the respondent, the impugned news items were published on the basis of allegations made by the students of college, which were also published by other newspapers. The respondent alleged that the complainant filed this complaint with malice and ill

228 motive. The news items were published in public interest without any malice towards the complainant. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.9.2009 denied the allegations levelled by the respondent, and reiterated the contents of his complaint, and stated that the main allegations levelled were against the college management and the seminar organizing committee but the respondent did not take the version of any concerned officer and without any proof or evidence published the news with incomplete information. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore. Smt. Shobhna Choukse appearing for the complainant submitted that the correspondent carried a series of news items to tarnish the image of the college. The correspondent was bent upon harassing the staff and continuously sitting in the premises of the college and interfering in its functioning desiring that his suggested projects be assigned to students and on not being agreed to, published the impugned series out of malafide. Shri Arjun Singh Raghuwanshi, Advocate, appeared for the respondent Raj Express, submitted that though he had been engaged in another listed case and had not been briefed about the facts of this case. On prima facie to him all the news items appeared to have been published on the basis of on the spot information made available to the correspondent. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that grievance of the complainant college was against the correspondent for causing hindrance in the college functioning. The Inquiry Committee noted that the correspondent had been unable to establish any cogent reason for the reports that appeared to scandalize the institution and malign its officials. In the opinion of the Committee, the respondent took undue advantage of his position and unauthorisedly entered the examination hall and had gone to the extent of maligning the teachers and grounds for other reports had also not been established. The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances held the impugned reports to be an example of irresponsible reporting and misuse of press freedom. The Inquiry Committee disapproved the conduct of the correspondent, Shri Jitender Bhandari and cautioned him against such practices, in future. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

229 Held The Press Council perused the record and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted the findings against the correspondent. It upheld the complaint and directed the editor, Raj Express to carefully scrutinize the reports filed by its correspondent.

78) Dr. P.S. Ajmani The Editor Ratlam Versus Dainik Bhaskar Madhya Pradesh Ratlam Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 23.9.2009 has been filed by Dr. P.S. Ajmani, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, “Dainik Bhaskar” Bhopal edition for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items in its issue dated 26.8.2009 under the caption “Suraksha Karmi Ne Lagaya Rishwat Ka Aarop : Doctor Va Surakshakarmi Main Vivad”. It was stated in the news item that a villager namely, Shri Kailash Chander Pawar, a Railway Security Guard, went to the District Hospital for attestation of sterilization certificate. When the doctor refused for attestation, a dispute arose between the two resulting in blows. A case was registered by the complainant against Shri Kailash Chander Pawar a resident of Dhoswas PS Namli charging him of hindrance to administration work at Station Road, police station. It was also alleged that the guard, Shri Kailash charged the complainant doctor with demanding bribe of Rs.300/- and that when he refused to pay, the complainant abused him and pushed him out from his chamber. The reporter also stated that the doctor declined to give his version to the newspaper. Denying the charges, the complainant submitted that when he was examining serious patients in the district hospital, Shri Kailash came to his chamber in the presence of police and other patients, their relatives, and hospital workers, it was impossible that a doctor could demand bribe for attestation of documents. The complainant admitted that he received a telephonic call from respondent regarding the incident, but the allegation that he did not want to discuss about the issue was totally false and baseless. Further the complainant submitted that when he received a telephonic call, he informed the respondent that he was travelling in a train and the mobile voice was interrupted and if he was interested in taking his view, he may contact him again on 27.8.2009. The complainant further submitted that two other newspapers also reported the incident after proper verification from him, but none of them indicated demand

230 of bribe. The complainant further alleged that respondent in collusion with Shri Kailash published the impugned news item to defame him and disrepute his image in the hospital and in the society. The complainant further submitted that he had approached the respondent on 28.8.2009 and despite a reminder dated 8.9.2009 he received no response. The complainant requested to take action in the matter. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 27.10.2009. The respondent editor did not file his written statement despite reminder. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant, appearing in person, submitted that the respondent, in order to take undue favour were indulging in blackmailing particularly targeting the doctors. As regard merits of the case, the complainant submitted that he was attending to a serious patient and the said villager, namely, Shri Kailash Chander Pawar, a Railway Security Guard was causing hindrance in his duties. The complainant denied the allegations of asking bribe of petty amount and submitted that due to this degradation and harassment by journalists, he resigned and shifted from Ratlam to Indore. The complainant submitted that he sent rejoinder to the respondent but to no avail. He averred that the respondent had acted like a prosecuting agency and particularly pointed out that no other paper had reported the alleged charge of bribery. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the complainant. At very outset, it noted that the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar neither filed written statement nor entered appearance and therefore it indicated that the respondent had no defence to offer. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material on record and opined that the incident of scuffle was based on facts but the respondent acted irresponsibly in levelling serious allegation of bribe, against the complainant without proper preverification and then denying him the right to reply. The tainted news report carried by the respondent tended to tarnish the image of the complainant and the charge in the complaint was established. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on perusal of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint, warn the editor, Dainik Bhaskar,

231 Ratlam and direct the editor to publish the gist of adjudication of the Council and send evidence thereof to the complainant as well as the Council for record.

79) Shri D.K. Patel The Editor Jabalpur (M.P.) Versus Nav Bharat Jabalpur (M.P.)

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 31.5.2007 has been filed by Shri D.K.Patel, Jabalpur against Nav Bharat, Hindi daily, Jabalpur (M.P.) for publication of allegedly false and misleading news item under the caption “Railway Mein Lakhon Ka PF Ghotala” in its issue dated 17.4.2007 alleging that a fraud was committed on computer records by increasing PF amount of railway employees. In the last para it was stated that a fraud was also committed in earlier occasion by referring to the name of the complainant “Patel”, stated to be dismissed from the services.

According to the complainant there was a case against him, but it was closed and he joined his duties in the normal course. He served the Railway with all dignity and later took voluntary retirement from the service for pursuing his personal affairs. The complainant further submitted that he had sent corrigendum to the respondent editor, “Nav Bharat” Jabalpur, but received no reply. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 31.3.2010 at Indore when it noted that a show cause notice dated 9.8.2007 was issued to the respondent editor, Nav Bharat, Jabalpur, but no reply was filed. There was no appearance before it from either side to argue the matter. The Inquiry Committee perused the records and noted that the complainant had sought source of information and publication of corrigendum. In the opinion of the Committee the complainant did not give factual rejoinder for publication and no case for action against the respondent was made out. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for lack of grounds for inquiry.

Held

The Press Council perused the records and report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merit.

232 80) Mohd. Karim The Editor Chhattarpur Versus Chhattarpur Bhraman (M.P.) Chhattarpur Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 5.2.2009 has been filed by Mohd. Karim, Chhattarpur (M.P.) against “Chhattarpur Bhraman”, Hindi daily for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory box news item under the caption “Jab Manvta Cheenkh Uthi” (When humanity cried- English translation) in its issue dated 29.12.2008. It was stated in the impugned news item that on 29.12.2008 a man died in a road accident on Chhattarpur-Panna Road and when the mobile police asked for a recovery van (crane) from the complainant, a social worker, despite knowing about the incident, he declined stating that he had not opened any charitable institute and the crane could be provided only after depositing the requisite amount. Denying the allegation, the complainant submitted that no policeman asked him to provide a crane and the respondent never contacted him. He alleged that the respondent deliberately published the news item to damage his reputation in the society. The complainant sent his clarification for its publication on 1.1.2009 and 21.1.2009 through his counsel to the respondent through Registered Post but the respondent neither published his contradiction nor gave any reply. He requested to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement In response to show cause notice dated 23.6.2009 the respondent, editor “Chhartarpur Bhraman” in his written statement dated 30.6.2009 denied the allegation of the complainant and submitted that news item in question was true and based on the police record. In support of his claim he filed a copy of the daily report of T.I. City Inspector recorded report No.1460 dated 28.12.2008 in the Civil Line police station record and submitted that the complainant was habitual of filing complaints and used to harass the people. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.7.2009 while reiterating his original complaint submitted that in the impugned news item his name Karim had been published whereas as per the report filed in the police station Civil Line, traffic police contacted the Manager, Akram of Bundelkhand Transport’. The complainant further submitted that the said transporter’s office was three

233 kilometers away from his place and on 28.12.2008 no one came to him. According to him, the respondent on his own volition published the news item to tarnish his image. The complainant further submitted that the respondent by filing the false written statement tried to mislead the Council. The complainant further submitted that the respondent is habitual of publishing defamatory newsitems and create tension among the people of the society. Respondent’s Counter Reply The respondent in his further reply dated 24.8.2009 submitted that the impugned news item in question was correct and it was based on the daily record No.2041 filed by the Trafffic Inspector at 8.15 a.m. on 28.12.2008 in the Civil Line police station wherein it was clearly mentioned that Karim refused to provide the crane. The respondent clarified that the copy of the report at the daily record No.1460 of the police station Civil Line enclosed alongwith their reply was filed by the Traffic Inspector at 10.p.m.on 28.12.2008 wherein name of ‘Akram’ was mentioned and the complainant is trying to take advantage of this mistake. The respondent clarified that the impugned news item was not published having malice towards anyone. The respondent further submitted that the complainant, Karim took care of the small crane, which belonged to Bundelkhand Transport Company of the Chhattarpur. He does not have any other crane. Complainant’s Counter Reply The complainant in his counter reply dated 16.9.2009 denied the allegations of the respondent and reiterated his complaint. The complainant further submitted that the place of accident does not fall within the jurisdiction of that police station. The complainant further submitted that he was not working under the Bundelkhand Transport and has nothing to do with this company but owned a small crane. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore when both the sides were present. Shri Mahendra Sharma, Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a businessman and a social worker and asserted that nobody contacted him for help and support for crane and if anyone had come, he would have certainly extended cooperation. Shri Hari Prakash Aggarwal, editor, Chhattarpur Bhraman, in his arguments submitted that during the course of filing FIR, the name of the complainant, Shri Karim, was repeatedly mentioned but at night, the name of one Shri Akram was finally reported in the FIR. The editor submitted that if there was any discrepancy, he was ready to publish the rejoinder.

234 Report of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the records and hearing the parties noted that the final FIR related the charge to one Akram. In view of the offer of the respondent editor, to publish the complainant’s rejoinder, the Inquiry Committee decided to direct the complainant to accept the offer of the editor, Chhattarpur Bhraman to publish the rejoinder within a fortnight and send evidence thereof to the complainant and to the Council for record. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to direct the respondent editor to publish the rejoinder of the complainant, as assured by the editor.

81) Shri Sunil Kumar Hirani The Editor Chartered Accountant Versus Aaj Ki Halchal Betul, Madhya Pradesh Betul Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This undated complaint, received on 3.10.2007 has been filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Hirani, Chartered Accountant, Betul, Madhya Pradesh against Aaj Ki Halchal, a Hindi daily newspaper from Betul for publication of an allegedly objectionable news items captioned ‘Sunil Kumar Hirani, C.A. Dwara Mahila Ke Sath Dhokhadhari Ka Arop’ in three parts in its issue dated 1st, 2nd and 6th of August 2007. The complainant has submitted that the amount of Rs.3000/- was transferred on the basis of a bill against payment for the work he had done for Smt. Pushpa Mishra, and he had committed no fraud in the matter. He sent a rejoinder dated 13.9.2007 to the respondent but it was returned undelivered. The complainant has alleged that the respondent editor published the series when he did not succumb to his blackmailing tactics. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 31.3.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. It noted that the complainant despite service of the notice did not come forward to assist the Committee to put forth his case. The Inquiry Committee opined that the complainant might not be interested to pursue the complaint. It submitted its report to the Council for closure. 235 Held The Press Council perused the record and the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint for non-pursuance.

82) Shri M.L. Jain Versus The Editor Councillor & Chairman Dainik Neemuch Prahari Legal & General Administration Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation & Other Councillors Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This joint complaint dated 26.7.2007 has been filed by Shri M.L. Jain, Councillor and Chairman, Legal and General Administration, Municipal Corporation and other Councillors, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh against Dainik Neemuch Prahari, Neemuch for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption ‘Sahar Mein Charcha Hai Mahila – Purush Parshad Ke Prem Prasang Ki’ in its issue dated 19.7.2007. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that by publishing the defamatory news item, the respondent violated the norms of journalistic conduct. The tone and tenor of the impugned news item and its language was very offensive, barbed and divisive. The complainant drew attention of the editor on 22.8.2007 and asked to reveal the source of the information but no response. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Neemuch Prahari on 22.10.2007 but no written statement was filed. Report of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 31.3.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. It noted that the complainant despite receiving notice of hearing did not appear before it. It appeared to the Committee that the complainant was not interested to pursue his complaint and the Inquiry Committee was unable to take any decision in the absence of the complainant coming forward to assist the Committee to put forth his case. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council for further decision. Held The Press Council perused the record and report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dismiss this complaint for want of pursuation by the complainant.

236 83) Shri Ashok Dongre Versus The Editor President Nirantar Chakra East Neemad District Cooperative Khandwa Employees Union Madhya Pradesh Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 10.12.2008 has been filed by Shri Ashok Dongre, President, East Neemad District Cooperative Employees Union, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh against Nirantar Chakra, a Hindi daily newspaper, Khandwa for publication of a series of allegedly false and defamatory news items, captions of which are as follows: No. Captions Dates 1 ºÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ 19.9.2008 2 ºÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ 21.9.2008 3 º]ä¶ÉxÉ®ÉÒ JÉ®ÉÒnÉÒ §É-]ÉSÉÉ® ºÉä ¤ÉéBÉE BÉEä +ÉvªÉFÉ ´É àÉÖJªÉ 23.11.2008 BÉEɪÉÇ{ÉÉãÉxÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ ÉÊãÉ{iÉ {ÉɪÉä MɪÉä *

4 nÖMÉxÉä £ÉÉ´É àÉå bÅàÉ JÉ®ÉÒnBÉE® §É-]ÉSÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ * 24.11.2008 5 BÉEàÉÇSÉÉ®ÉÒ ºÉä {ÉèºÉÉ ãÉäBÉE® {ÉnÉäxxÉÉÊiÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ ÉʶÉBÉEɪÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ 25.11.2008 VÉÉÄSÉ àÉå £ÉÉ®ÉÒ +ÉÉÊxɪÉÉÊàÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç, {ÉnÉäxxÉÉÊiÉ ÉÊxÉ®ºiÉ cÉåMÉÉÒ*

6 jÉ@hÉ ÉÊ´ÉiÉ®hÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ BÉE<Ç PÉÉä]ÉãÉä VÉÉÄSÉ àÉå =VÉÉMÉ® * 29.11.2008 7 ÉÊVÉãÉÉ ºÉcBÉEÉ®ÉÒ BÉEäxpÉÒªÉ ¤ÉéBÉE JÉhb´ÉÉ BÉEä BÉEàÉÇSÉÉ®ÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉéBÉE 6.12.2008 BÉEÉä bÚ¤ÉÉxÉä àÉå ãÉMÉä cé *

It was reported by the respondent newspaper, apart from allegations of corruption, in the form of cautionary notices that the District Cooperative Bank did not obtain license from the Reserve Bank of India and in case of collapse, customer will not get a single rupee refund. It also warned the public to be cautious in securing their future safety. According to the complainant, the impugned publications were per-se defamatory, which had damaged the reputation of the Co-operative Bank in the eyes of the public. He has alleged that the respondent has been indulging in blackmailing tactics and by publishing the impugned news reports; the respondent violated the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant being the president of the employees union representing the employees of the bank, whose activities had been commented upon, claimed

237 that the Reserve Bank of India does not make it mandatory to obtain license for running cooperative bank, in the matter and stated that it was fully legal. He has alleged that the respondent published the misleading news items without verifying the facts with an intention to mislead the general public. The complainant has stated that they had drawn the attention of the respondent vide letters dated 23rd and 29th September 2008 and 2nd and 6th December, 2008 towards the impugned publications requesting him to publish the factual positions but received no response. Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 9.6.2009, the respondent editor, Dainik Nirantar Chakra has filed his written statement dated 2.7.2009 and denied the allegations levelled by the complainant in the matter. He stated that the publications in question were within the limit of the rules and they have never indulged in false publications. He also denied the allegation of not responding to the complainant’s letter and submitted that they had replied to the complainant’s letter on 4.10.2008 under registered post. He has stated that whatever was published about the corruption prevalent in the bank was true and therefore the allegations of the complainant that the news items were false and defamatory are denied. The respondent further submitted that he sought three points information from the respondent bank but received no reply. Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of respondent. The complainant Shri Ashok Dongre, appeared in person and submitted that the newspaper was indulging in blackmailing and defaming 100 year’s old Bank. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication harmed the position and credibility of the Bank and they were concerned as the employees had to suffer in case the Bank looses credit. Report of Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records and heard the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted the concern of the employees union that a century old institution was targeted by the newspaper, but in the opinion of the Committee, the Press has a right to comment upon the functioning of an institution in public interest. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the public money was involved and the credibility of the Bank could not be solely rest on one newspaper reports. The Inquiry Committee however, observed that the management of the Bank could have rebutted the charges and the newspaper would have in expected fair play published the version of the Bank but no

238 rebuttal was issued by the management of the bank whose functioning was being criticized. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on perusal of the record and the report of the Inquiry Committee noted that the impugned reports primarily related to the management of the bank but no clarification was issued by it. The instant complaint had been filed by the President of the Employees Union of the Bank whose letter had been responded to. The Council opined that no action was warranted in the matter under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978, against the respondent newspaper Nirantar Chakra, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh.

84) Shri Sukhdev Sharma The Editor State President (M.P.) Versus Vishwakarma Sansar Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Nagra Junction Brahman Mahasabha Ujjain District Indore, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 7.4.2009 has been filed by Shri Sukhdev Sharma, State President (M.P.), Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Brahman Mahasabha, Indore, Madhya Pradesh against Shri Mahesh Baraniya, editor, Vishwakarma Sansar, a Hindi monthly magazine from Ujjain for publication of series of allegedly false, baseless, motivated and defamatory news items in its issues from September 2005 to March 2009. Captions of some of the objectionable news items are as follows:

Barwani Ke Shri Hiralal Ji Sharma (Herobhai) Akhil Bhartiya September Jangid Brahman Samaj Ke Naye Pradesh Adhyaksh 2005 Adhyaksh Pad Ke Davedar Sukhdev Sharma Ko Dundhna Pade Samarthak Va Prastavak, Namankan Bhara Phir Vapas Liya Samajik Patrakaron Par Aarop Lagane Wale Swayam Ke September Gireban Mein Jhank Le 2007 Indore Ke Milan Garden Mein Yuvak Yuvati Parichay Dewali Sammelan Sampann Special 2007 A.Bh. J. Brahman Mahasabha Pradesh Adhyaksh M.P. November Ke Liye Matadan 4 January 2009 Ko – Pita-Putra Ne 2008 Bhara Namankan, Putra Ne Liya Nam Vapis

239 Jangid Brahman Topkhana Panchayat Ke Panch–Premsukh December Panwar ki Apeal. 2008 Sukhdev Sharma Ka Patr Rameshji Ke Nam. Vinamr AppealJitne Mhuh Utni Batein, Kya Such Kya Jhooth? Wah Bhai Wah ! Kashmkash Mein Huwa Akhil Bharatiya Jangid Brahman January Pradesh Sabha M.P. Ke Pradesh Adhyaksh Ka Nirvachan 2009 Jago Bandhu Jago Ek Jangid Bandhu Ke Vichar-Navnirvachit Pradeshadhyaksh Ke LiyeJago Bandhu Jago Jangid Samaj Bandhugan Jangid Brahman Samaj Ka Milan Evan Samman Samaroh February SampannImandar Vyakti Ke Hathao Mein Samaj Ki Bagdor 2009 Hona Jaruri Pradhan Ke Star Paracharak Sukdev Sharma, Nyayalay Ke March Faisle Ke Anusar Aadtan Aparadhi, Pradesh Adhyaksh Bane 2009 Navnirvachit jangid Brahman Pradesh Adhyaksh Ke Sambandh Mein A.b.j.b. Pradesh Sabha M.Pr. Ki karyakarini Shapath – August Samaroh Mein Sanrakshak Evam Sadharan Sadasyaon ki 2009 Avhelna – Pradesh Pradhan Ko Akbar Ki Upadhi: Manchasin Athithi 9 Ratn: Birbal Kauon?Khula Patra

According to the complainant, he was elected as President of the Mahasabha and rendered his services to the society. The respondent, having animosity, had defamed him and his family members in the society by publishing false, baseless and defamatory news items. The respondent sent copies of his news magazines to his relatives free of cost with the sole motive to defame him, alleged the complainant. The complainant stated that when the respondent published a news item on September 2005, a legal notice was issued to him and its contradiction was published. However, when he was elected as President of the Mahasabha, the respondent started a series of news items against him. He drew the editor’s attention vide letter dated 16.4.2009 and legal notice dated 5.5.2009, but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 4.9.2009, the respondent editor, Vishwakarma Sansar in its written statement dated 24.9.2009 has submitted that with regard to the news item published in the year 2005, the rejoinder of the complainant had already been published and therefore, the matter be dismissed.

240 The complainant has submitted that the news items in question were published on the basis of information received from sources and therefore the allegations of the complainant were false and baseless. When the complainant was elected to the post of President of the Mahasabha, the news along with photographs were published in the magazine issue of January 2009 in public interest and there was no ill-will against anyone in publishing the same. The respondent further submitted that he is ready, if the complainant is willing, to settle the grievance amicably and requested to dismiss the complaint. Counter Comments In response to the Council’s letter dated 7.10.2009, the complainant filed his counter comment dated 11.11.2009 and reiterated his complaint and stated that publication of some good news about him does not give the respondent the liberty to publish objectionable news item against him. The complainant in a further communication dated 1.10.2009 furnished some more clippings of objectionable news items published by the respondent in its August 2009 issue. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore when both the sides were present. The complainant submitted that the respondent was illegally bringing out the newspaper with different names just to publish defamatory news against him and sending copies to him and his daughter’s family free of cost although they were not subscriber of the newspaper. The complainant submitted that the editor deliberately caused mental agony to him by publishing series of defamatory news items. Shri Mahesh Baraniya, respondent editor submitted that he did not carry the version of the complainant as it contained offending words such as ‘donkey’ used for editor and many other such offending words were used in the letter to the editor. The Inquiry Committee cross-examined the respondent as to how he published the newspaper without RNI Registration, the respondent replied that he had published dummy issues. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had not given proper rejoinder nor he talked to him when contacted over the phone though the complainant and the respondent were of the same community. Report of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the submission made by the parties. It noted that the respondent was bringing out newspaper without approval of RNI and settling personal scores to bring disrepute to the complainant in the society. The Inquiry Committee further opined that the norms of journalistic ethics requiring the newspaper to exercise caution against any defamatory and libellous allegations and due care and

241 verification were not followed by the respondent, who appeared to be publishing the newspapers under the names ‘Vishwakarma’ as well as ‘Vishwakarma Sansar’. In the issues examined by the Committee, the issue number and issue dates mismatched. The Inquiry Committee while deprecating the editor for using the publication to settle personal scores, decided that the matter be reported to RNI for appropriate action against the respondent editor for publishing the newspaper, Vishwakarma Sansar in contravention of the PRB Act, 1867. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and while upholding the complaint, decided to forward the case papers and the adjudication to the RNI for such action as they may deem fit in the matter falling within their jurisdiction.

85) Smt. Vimla Sanadaya The Editor Principal Versus Marwar Tehalka Weekly Govt. Girls Higher Sec. Jalore, Rajasthan School Jalore, Rajasthan ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.4.2007 has been filed by Smt. Vimla Sanadaya, Principal, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Jalore, Rajasthan against Marwar Tehalka Weekly, Jalore for publication of false and misleading news items captions of which are as follows:

Captions Dates 1 Deh Vyapaar Mein Lipt Hai Sarkaari Vidhyalaya Ki 14.3.2007 Mahila Karmi 2 Sau Chuhe Khaa Ke Billi Haj Ko Chali 28.3.2007

It was alleged in the impugned news items that a Class IV employee of the school was involved in prostitution with some students within the knowledge of the Principal. The complainant has submitted that the allegations in impugned news items were false and baseless and published without pre-publication verification of the fact. She added that she had never received any complaint against the said Class IV employee and was satisfied with her services. She also alleged that the news items in question were published with a motive to tarnish the image of her school. The complainant had drawn the attention of the

242 respondent to the impugned news item vide letter dated 21.3.2007 with a request to provide her the authentic reasons for the publication of the news item in question but received no response.

No Written Statement

A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 9.8.2007 but inspite of reminder dated 27.2.2009 no written statement was received.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant was represented by Shri Jagjit Singh Nishat, who reiterated the charges and submitted that the impugned news items badly tarnished the image of the School, its Principal and girl students. The complainant’s representative submitted that the respondent editor was not afraid of anybody and even not scared of censure by the Council. He requested to take strict action against the respondent and send decision to the SP, Jalore/Collector, Jalore and District Education Officer(DEO), Jalore.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee perused the records and at the very outset expressed displeasure over non-filing of written statement and non-appearance before it by the editor, Marwar Tehlka weekly. The absence of response established that the respondent editor had no defence to offer and therefore it proceeded to consider the complaint on merits. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor in the first instance published most defamatory news item dated 14.3.2007 making reckless and defamatory allegations against the character of the staff and girl students, thereby maligning the entire school. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the editor came out with another objectionable and defamatory editorial on 28.3.2007 when his attention was drawn by the School to the impugned publication. The Inquiry Committee also noted that absence of any registration number on the respondent newspaper which led to doubts whether it was being published with due authority of laws. On merits of the case, it found that the editor, Marwar Tehlka weekly, guilty of indulging in reckless and manifestly defamatory allegations. The violation of public interest in the absence of any evidence by publishing scurrilous and derogatory comments against character of the female staff and students of the school. The Inquiry Committee while recommending to the Council to uphold the complaint and severly reprimand the editor for not caring to respond to the Council’s communications decided to submit its report to the Council observing that this was a fit case for censure.

243 Held

The Press Council of India on perusal of the record of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and to censure the editor, Marwar Tehalka weekly, Jalore. A copy of adjudication be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, the Director, I&PRD, Government of Rajasthan, the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, the Collector, Jalore, The District Education Officer and the DAVP for stern action against the Editor, Marwar Tehalka weekly, Jalore. It also decided that the case be referred to the RNI for checking whether the newspaper was registered and being published under due authority of the PRB Act, 1867.

86) Shri Lokesh Gupta The Editor District Manager Telecommunications Sajag Pratinidhi BSNL, Swaimadhopur Versus Jaipur Rajasthan Rajasthan

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 4.7.2009 has been filed by Shri Lokesh Gupta, District Manager Telecommunication, BSNL, Swaimadhopur against Sajag Pratinidhi, a Hindi weekly from Jaipur for publication of allegedly false, baseless, motivated and defamatory news item captioned ‘BSNL Swaimadhopur Ke Doorsanchar Zila Prabandhak Lokesh Gupta Ke Bhrashtacharon Ka Khulla Chittha’ in its issue dated 14.6.2009. The impugned news item alleged rampant corruption prevalent in the BSNL, Swaimadhopur due to connivance of its officials with the contractors. The complainant, District Manager Telecommunication, BSNL, Swaimadhopur was stated to have direct link with contractors who had been paid contrary to the terms of contract. He was also alleged to have made fake payments of AMC of computers etc.

The complainant has alleged that the respondent, who is habitual of publishing news items against the officials of the department, had published the news item without verifying the facts and without his version in the matter with a motive to defame him in the society. He has alleged that the impugned news item was published transgressing all norms and principles of fair journalism and misusing liberty of the press. The complainant further stated that the respondent editor’s husband being a retired employee of the BSNL used it as a tool to pressurize the officials for illegal works. The complainant vide letter dated 24.6.2009 had drawn the attention of the respondent with a request to publish his contradiction but received no response.

244 Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 14.9.2009, the respondent chief editor, Sajag Pratinidhi, Smt.Amar Devi Arya, in her written statement dated 5.10.2009 has submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant are false and baseless. She has submitted that the news item in question was published in public interest on the basis of documentary evidence received in the form of letter dated 9.6.2009 informing about the rampant corruption prevalent in the BSNL, Swaimadhapur from Shri Giriraj Singh, District President, SC/ST/ OBC & Employees Welfare Council (Regd.), Hindon City to its State President, Shri K.L.Arya who is also chief reporter of Sajag Pratinidhi. The respondent further submitted that the CBI/CVC had initiated investigation against the complainant and result is awaited. The respondent further submitted that they had given their reply to the notice of the respondent but in their complaint, the complainant falsely stated that their notice was not responded to. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.10.2009 has reiterated his complaint and submitted that the impugned news item was published without pre-publication verification. The news item in question was claimed to have based on a letter, without any documentary evidence to prove the charges alleged the complainant and added that the respondent denied him right of reply by ignoring his letters and legal notices. The complainant vide letter dated 19.1.2010 has furnished some more news clippings captioned ‘BSNL Ke Zilla Prabhandak Lokesh Gupta Va Mandal Abhiyanta R.L.Gupta Ke Khilaf FIR Darge, Donon Ko Shighr Giraftar Karne Ki Mang’ and ‘Vishes Jati Ki Officer Lobby Par Bachane Ka Aarop’ published in the respondent newspaper Sajag Pratinidhi in its issues dated 25.10.2009 and 17.01.2010 respectively. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when both the parties were present. Shri R.A.Gupta, Divisional Engineer (Rural), Shri O.P. Gupta, SDE(plg) appeared for the complainant submitted that the respondent published unverified news items levelling allegations which were far from facts. The complainant submitted that they were doing their job honestly and BSNL was leading in the matter of development in the area, yet the respondent alleged in their news report that the BSNL was lagging behind. The complainant further submitted that there was no CBI/CVC inquiry pending, as alleged by the respondent. The complainant submitted that the respondent gave misleading reply and did not care to publish contradiction despite reminder. The respondent was asking for proof to rebut allegations made by them. The complainant alleged that the respondent in order to get the illegal

245 work had been levelling false allegations to pressurize the department. According to the complainant, one employee was chargesheeted, who in turn filed a case under SC/ST Act and added/Section 420-IPC into it. The complainant has submitted that they have got stay from High Court in respect of that case. Shri Brijesh Arya, Editor appearing for the respondent submitted that the news was published on the basis of a letter dated 9.6.2007 of Shri Gajraj Singh Meena, Distt. President, SC/ST & OBC Welfare Parishad, Swaimadhopur, Hindon city. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records and heard the parties and observed that the newspaper Sajag Pratinidhi had vested interest in publishing the impugned news item and the editor was siding with the employees against whom the department had taken disciplinary action. As per its own admission, the letter of complainant was received by the person who doubled up as their reporter. This strengthen the complainant’s charge that the report attempted to settle personal scores. This was violation of principles of fair journalism. It however, noted that the complainant had also not given factual details in the rejoinder to the allegations made in the impugned report. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send factual rejoinder and further directed the editor, Sajag Pratinidhi to publish the same within a fortnight and send clipping to the Council as well as complainant for record. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council of India on perusal of the record of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint in terms of the observations of the Inquiry Committee.

87) Shri A.K. Pathak The Editor Director Versus Samajvaad Prahari Takshila Business School Jaipur, Rajasthan Jaipur, Rajasthan ADJUDICATION Facts This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 15.5.2009, has been filed by Shri A.K.Pathak, Director, Takshila Business School, Jaipur against Samajvaad Prahari, a Hindi fortnightly from Jaipur for publication of allegedly false, baseless, motivated and defamatory news item under the caption ‘Chhatron Ke Bhavishya Se Khilvaad kar Raha Hai

246 Takshila’ in its issue dated 5.3.2009. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant institute was playing with the future of the students and indulging in fraudulent practice. The Institute was charging two lakh rupees for Ph.D./MBA per year instead of fee of rupees 10-20 thousand per semester in the university. At the time of admission, if any students ask for AICTE affiliation, the institute claims that it has recognition of university. The complainant has alleged that the respondent editor tried to extort money by demanding some amount over the phone and threatened that he would defame the institute. When the complainant declined to meet the demand, annoyed with refusal, the respondent published the motivated, baseless and defamatory news item, which is far away from the truth, stated the complainant. The complainant further alleged that when he objected to the publication of the impugned news item, the respondent demanded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to avoid adverse news item against the institution but he bluntly refused to pay up and the respondent again threatened the complainant of defamation. He has stated that after the publication of the impugned news item, many students back off from taking admission in their institute; they thus suffered a huge loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant had tried to draw the attention of the respondent through a legal notice dated 30.3.2009, but the same was received back undelivered with postal remark ‘receiver was not found after repeated visits.’ No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.1.2010 but no written statement has been received from the respondent. Arguments The matter came up before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Shri Virendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate appearing for the complainant stated that the respondent occasionally brings out the newspaper to blackmail and extort money by writing defamatory news against individuals. He added that their institute suffered huge loss due to false news item. The complainant submitted that he would trace the address of the respondent and inform the Council accordingly for taking further steps. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records and at the very outset noted that the editor neither filed the written statement nor was represented before the Committee to counter the charges of extortion and defamatory publication and thus it opined that the editor had no defence to offer. It further noted that the respondent editor was deliberately avoiding the notices, of the Council. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of record and

247 observed that the editor made no efforts to cross check the facts at pre- publication stage and made serious allegations against the complainant’s institution of charging heavy fee from the students at the time of admission. The Committee was of the view that the respondent editor violated norms of journalistic ethics regarding pre-publication verification and defamatory writings. It, opined that this was a fit case, which warranted censure. The Committee accordingly submitted its report to the Council for disposal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on perusal of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to censure editor, Samajvaad Prahari, Jaipur for publishing unverified defamatory reports. It further decided to send a copy of its adjudication to the Government of Rajasthan, the DAVP and thr RNI for such necessary action as they deem fit in the matter.

88) Shri G.R. Gahlot The Editor Labour Inspector Versus Dainik Bhaskar Labour Department Bhaskar Parisar Byawar, (Rajasthan) Jaipur, (Rajasthan) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 11.5.2009 has been filed by Shri G.R.Gahlot, Labour Inspector, Labour Deparment, Byawar, Ajmer (Rajasthan) against “Dainik Bhaskar” Jaipur for publication of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items along with his photographs under the captions “Mahila Ka Hangama, Afsar Bhagey” and “Sharam Nirikshak Ka Gheravo” in its issued dated 17.3.2009 and 26.3.2009 respectively. In the first impugned news item, it was published that approximately two dozens women have been terminated from their job by M/s. Madhu Munnaka Factory and when they went to the Labour Office, the complainant instead of listening to their grievance allegedly misbehaved with them. Due to which the labourers uproared in the office and showed slippers to the complainant. Later, the complainant apologized and gave verbal assurance to them which he did not fulfill. Denying the allegation, the complainant alleged that the impugned news items were false, misleading and published with the motive to ruin his image in the office as well as in the society. The complainant further submitted that the respondent included his name in the incident while the factory and women workers do not fall within his jurisdiction. The complainant alleged that despite contacting the respondent over telephone on 25.3.2009 regarding the incident, he published the second news item on 26.3.2009 ignoring his views. The complainant

248 has submitted that the photographs were irrelevant and shows the ill will of the respondent. No Written statement Show cause notice dated 16.9.2009 was issued to the respondent through Registered Post and subsequent reminder dated 1.2.2010 was sent by Speed Post, but no response was received. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when both the sides were present. The complainant appearing in person submitted that he had nothing to do with the adjudicatory process of that area and was also not Conciliatory Officer dealing with labour disputes. The respondent Dainik Bhaskar published his photograph while he was moving out of the office but he was not aware whether a lady was showing a slipper on his back. The complainant submitted that the news unnecessarily reported his name in the first news item and published photo in another to malign him in the society. The complainant submitted that the reporter had done it deliberately to derive benefit in favour of terminated employees. The representative of Dainik Bhaskar did not make any submission as no written statement was filed. He however agreed that the newspaper may make amends as per journalistic propriety. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the parties. The Committee, at the very outset expressed deep displeasure over nonfiling of written statement by Dainik Bhaskar and deputing a representative to appear before the Committee who was not aware of the case. It proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material available and noted that the respondent Dainik Bhaskar had made manifestly defamatory publication to cast aspersions on the integrity of the complainant as Labour Inspector. The Inquiry Committee in order to mitigate the grievance of the complainant directed him to send a factual rejoinder to the respondent and further directed the editor, Dainik Bhaskar to publish with same prominence as the original news report within a fortnight of the receipt and send clippings to the complainant as well as Press Council of India for record. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council perused the records and report of the Inquiry Committee. It decided to dispose off the complaint with directions to the complainant to send factual version and the respondent to publish the same with prominence and to forward a copy of the issue carrying the same to the complainant as well as the Council for record.

249 89) Shri Kanubhai Jethabai Desai The Editor Editor, Hello Khelaru Weekly Versus Divya Bhaskar Mahsana, Gujarat Ahmedabad, Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 19.12.2008 has been filed by Shri Kanubhai Jethabai Desai, editor, Hello Khelaru weekly, Mahsana, Gujarat against Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad for publication of allegedly false news item. He has objected to the news item captioned ‘A kidnapped girl of Satlasana turned hostile against the Superintendent of Police as in a climax scene in cinema’, ‘A kidnapped girl married her kidnapper within 15 days’ and in a box item ‘Reporter of Khelaru is suspected to be the kidnapper’ published in Divya Bhaskar in its issue dated 29.7.2008. It was published in the news item that a girl, named Payal, daughter of Bhikhabhai Patel of Satlasana, who dropped study after class 10th met Chetan Patel in a social function and both fell in love at first-sight. When her parents opposed her proposal to get married with Chetan Patel, she eloped with him. After that the girl, Payal along with her lover/husband came to the Mehsana Police Headquarters and told the Superintendent of Police that she married her lover with her consent and was not kidnapped. When the SP told them to report to Satlasana Police Station, they disappeared. It was also published in a box item that a grey coloured car with registration No. NH 04 AX 198 found by the Bilimora police was likely to be the car of Chetan Patel and was also believed to be used in kidnapping the girl, Payal and in this connection, the police was about to interrogate Shri Kanubhai Jethabhai Desai, the editor of Hello Kheralu. The complainant has objected to the dragging of his name into the alleged kidnapping-eloping of the girl and stated that after reading the news item in question, he had contacted the concerned police authority but they denied having information about investigation against the complainant. He had issued a letter dated 3.2.2009 to the respondent drawing their attention into the matter with request to publish a rejoinder, but to no avail. No Written Statement A show cause notice dated 23.3.2009 was issued to the respondent editor, Divya Bhaskar but the respondent did not file its written statement in the matter despite service of the notice. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when both the parties were present. The complainant appearing

250 in person submitted that he was not involved with the matter at all. He sent his rejoinder for being published but all his efforts were in vain. The respondent did not publish his version. The complainant requested for action against the editor. Shri Alindra Sathe, Advocate appearing for Divya Bhaskar informed the Committee that the counsel engaged from Ahmedabad could not come. The respondent thus requested for adjournment. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records. It noted that the respondent had failed to file written statement and was even now not ready with any defence. It therefore, declined the request for adjournment and proceeded to consider the complaint on merit. It prima-facie noted that the respondent had failed to produce any evidence to establish complainant’s links with the episode and thus the impugned publication had caused great harm to the reputation of the complainant. So far as journalistic norms was concerned, the respondent editor, Divya Bhaskar failed to verify the facts at pre-publication stage from the concerned. The respondent compounded the offence by not publishing the denial of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee opined that the Editor, Divya Bhaskar appeared to have made deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the complainant in the society. It therefore found it a fit case for censuring editor, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Council upon perusing the record and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to censure, editor, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad for violating norms of journalistic conduct regarding accuracy, defamatory writings, pre- publication verification and right to reply. The Council further decided to send a copy of the adjudication to Government of Gujarat, the Director, I&PRD, the DAVP and the RNI and the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad for appropriate action in the matter.

90) Mrs. Devi Ahuja, Office Incharge The Editor and Others Versus Kutch Uday Gandhidham Cancer Society Gandhidham, Kutch Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 5.1.2009 has been filed by Mrs. Devi Ahuja, Office Incharge and others, Gandhidham Cancer Society, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat against Kutch Uday, Gandhidham for publication of allegedly false and defamatory

251 news item in its issue dated 4.1.2009. The portion of news item objected to by the complainant is reproduced below:

‘In the name of Cancer Society at Gandhidham, the doctor has collected lakhs of rupees from the grants of Rajya Sabha members and the MLAs and has acquired very big lands and not done any cancer related work, moreover, the collector should investigate the misuse of the land and money and who is the doctor of Gandhidham, who collects the funds in the name of cancer?’

The complainant issued a letter dated 5.1.2009 drawing the attention of the respondent editor with a request for publication of clarification but received back the same due to incorrect address, which was reportedly printed at the bottom on the last page of the newspaper. Then they wrote to the concerned authorities about the address of the respondent but received no response. The complainant, President of the Gandhidham Cancer Society has submitted that the society, run by Devsmriti Trust consists of doctors from various fields dedicated to cancer prevention and comprehensive care, by giving honourary service without taking any charges and whenever the need arises, they give donations to the society.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 20.8.2009, the respondent editor, Kutch Uday in its written statement dated 11.9.2009 has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and submitted that the complainants had furnished only a part translation of the impugned news item. The news item in question pertains to a cancer hospital managed by the Gujarat Cancer Society at Ahmedabad, stated the respondent and added that the complainant have translated the box material only of the news item but suppressed the rest of the news to misguide the Press Council. The news item in question contained no defamatory contents against the Gandhidham Cancer Society or its doctors, reiterated the respondent.

The respondent further submitted that the complainant, President of Gandhidham Cancer Society, Dr. Dinesh Hirani is the owner of a plot of land, which he rented to the son of the respondent. The complainant tried to force the tenant to vacate the plot and in the process, litigations proceedings were going on in the courts of law and, in order to pressurize the respondent, the complainant filed the instant complaint, alleged the respondent. With regard to the incorrect address, the respondent stated that the complainant had addressed their letter at the printing press, which was obviously, returned undelivered by the authorities.

252 Counter Comments In response to the Council’s letter dated 18.9.2009 forwarding a copy of the written statement, the Project Incharge of Cancer Diagnostic Centre, Gandhidham Cancer Society has filed their counter comments dated 1.10.2009 and submitted that they had never alleged that the respondent newspaper directly published defamatory news against the Gandhidham Cancer Society or its doctor in the box material published among the news regarding Gujarat Cancer Society. They had only asked for specific and authentic name of cancer society or the doctor in Gandhidham against whom the news had been published, stated the complainant and added that they did not send a lengthy translation of all the contents, but sent only the translation of the material highlighted in the box that was related to Gandhidham Cancer Society, its doctor etc. for which they needed explanation, as the news reflected high level corruption and malpractice by some cancer society and its doctor at Gandhidham. They have asked for the clarification of the news and that has not been clarified by the respondent alleged the complainant and added that the respondent is playing gimmicks and pranks by using newspaper to terrorize and blackmail people for his personal gains, which is against the norms and ethics of the media. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of respondent. Shri Rajesh Nawal, Advocate appeared for the complainant who submitted that the respondent started the newspaper when he was terminated from the services. The respondent had been changing his addresses frequently and his declared address was not authentic. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the complaint and requested for action. Report of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records and prima facie noted that the impugned publication had seriously affected the reputation of the complainant society. So far as journalistic norms were concerned, the respondent editor, Kutch Uday threw all norms of journalistic ethics to wind in the matter of making any prior verification. He charged the Society to have collected huge funds out of the grants of Rajya Sabha members and MLAs. The Inquiry Committee opined that the Editor, Kutch Uday made deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the complainant in the society setting aside all norms of journalistic conduct. The Inquiry Committee therefore opined that it was a fit case for censure. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council upon perusing the record and report of the Inquiry

253 Committee decided to censure, Editor, Kutch Uday, Gandhidham for publishing defamatory writings. It further decided to send a copy of the adjudication to The Government of Gujarat, the Director, I&PRD, the DAVP and the RNI and the District Magistrate, Gandhidham, Kutch for necessary action in the matter.

91) The Director The Editor Padma Pulse Processors (P) Ltd. Versus Gujarat Mitra Surat, Gujarat Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint da.ted 24.4.2009 has been filed by the Director, Padma Pulse Processors (P) Limited, Surat, Gujarat against Gujarat Mitra, Bardoli, Gujarat for publication of alleged false, misleading and defamatory news items under the following captions:

No. Captions Papers & Dates 1 Obstructing an officer while on duty; a case filed Gujarat Mitra against the director of Padma Pulse Processors 19.3.2009 Pvt. Ltd. by the P.F. Inspector 2 Arrest of 3 Directors of Rayam Company on Gujarat Mitra obstructing a PF Officer & misbehaving with him. 27.3.2009 (with Photographs with nameplates)

According to the complainant, on 18.3.2009, Provident Fund Inspector, Shri Pramod N.Gandhi visited their factory named Padma Pulse Processors Pvt. Ltd. at 1 P.M. and enquired about the work and asked several questions regarding the salaries given to their employees etc. whereas the Provident Fund Rules apply to a factory which employed more than 20 workers, they have only 16 workers but the PF Inspector demanded Rs.10,000/- and when the complainant refused to pay, charged them of corruption. The PF Inspector then filed a case against them in the police station at 7 P.M. with alleged charges of obstructing a government servant from doing his official duty and misbehaviour. They were arrested on 26.3.2009, stated the complainant. The complainant has submitted that the PF Inspector in connivance with the Police Inspector and press reporter, Shri Digvijay Singh Parmer got the news items published on 19.3.2009 and again on 27.3.2009 along with their photographs with police station with their name showing as if they were hardcore criminals. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 7.8.2009 the respondent

254 Gujarat Mitra in written statement dated 10.9.2009 has submitted that a careful perusal of the matter would clearly indicate that the Bardoli police acted on the basis of a complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer of the Provident Fund Organisation, Shri Pramod Gandhi on March 18, 2009 by arresting the three top functionaries of a private firm, Padma Pulse Processors under Cr. P.C. 186 and the newspaper reported the police action which was taken in full public view. The news report in question pertained to the police action and was also based on the version given by the police, stated the respondent and added that the complainants sought court order to set aside the First Information Report against them and the paper was ready to publish its outcome as the complainants levelled charges against the Provident Fund Inspector of demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- which they claimed to have refused to oblige. The respondent, Gujarat Mitra in a further communication dated 26.12.2009 informed that they have published in their newspaper dated 23.12.2009, the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat quashing the FIR against the complainant. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 15.9.2009 and a further communication dated 6.2.2010 submitted that the respondent newspaper, Gujarat Mitra took the entire matter very lightly whereas it was a matter of their reputation. The respondent made no mention about their photographs published with nameplates depicting as if they were big criminals, which was their main grievance, alleged the complainant. The complainant requested that the respondent newspaper should take action against the concerned reporter who had given the photographs with slates/nameplates for publication in the paper. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Shri Pradeep H. Agarwal, appeared for the complainant and submitted that their company is not covered under PF Act as they employed only 15-16 people for which no PF rule is applicable. On their refusal to oblige the P.F. Officer a false complaint was lodged against them and this was reported by the journalists at the behest of the officers. Though Gujarat Mitra had published their version, their objection to the publication of their photograph taken by their reporter inside the police station could not be rectified. It was published as if they were terrorist or hard core criminals. The complainant submitted that in fact the police allowed the reporter inside the police station and asked them to stand before the Reporter/Photographers. The complainant requested for stern action against the respondent, Gujarat Mitra.

255 Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the complainant. It noted that the prime grievance of the complainant remained was regarding publication of his photograph invading his privacy as well as violation of established procedure of law. The Inquiry Committee upheld the contention of the complainant in the circumstances placed before it and expressed concern over adversely harming the dignity and also the privacy of the complainant. It also noted that the permission accorded by the police allowing the press reporter to take Photograph inside the police station was in violation of established law and practice. The Inquiry Committee noted that the subsequent publication of rebuttal and court orders could not sufficiently mitigate the damage. It noted that the action of the reporter as well as the editor was in violation of journalistic ethics as well as law of the land. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the cause of action had arisen due to failure of the police to prevent the press reporters from entering into police station and photographing inside the police station. The Inquiry Committee felt that this would be appropriate case for being brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, Gujarat for appropriate directions and action on this act of omission and commission on the part of concerned police officials who allowed the reporter to take photographs of the accused inside the police station.It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of Inquiry Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and to warn the concerned reporter and editor, Gujarat Mitra for the violations. It also decided to write to the Director General of Police, Gujarat to take appropriate advisory and action against the erring police officials as per the observations in the report of the Inquiry Committee.

92) Shri Suprabhat Das The Editor Public Relations Officer Versus Navbharat BSNL, Raipur, Chattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 19.7.2008 has been filed by Shri Suprabhat Das, Public Relations Officer, Chhattisgarh Telecommunication Division, BSNL, Raipur against Navbharat, a Hindi daily newspaper for publications of allegedly misleading and defamatory news items under the captions ‘Sarkari Par Bhari Niji Companies’, ‘Pratikriya Dene Se DGM Ka Inkar’ ‘Landline Connection Mein Prativarsh Giravat’ a cartoon with sub-title ‘BSNL Cheating Indians’ and some

256 other related cartoons in its editions of Raipur, Bilaspur and Jagdalpur editions dated 14.7.2008. According to the complainant, the news items in question along with the cartoons were published on the basis of false information and wrong figures and it was also alleged that the same were published with the motive to award indirect benefit to some multinational companies. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent and requested him to publish contradiction but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2008, the respondent editor, Navbharat, Raipur in his undated written statement received on 19.11.2008 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. He also denied the allegations that the impugned news materials were published with a motive to denigrate the name of BSNL with an intention to indirectly benefit multinational companies. The respondent further submitted that the news items in question were published to highlight the working of the government run company in the interest of the public at large and added that they have published the version of the complainant on the matter in the newspaper, Navbharat under the caption ‘Hamari Sevaye Aaj Bhi Lokpriya’ in issue of dated 20.7.2008 and furnished its clipping. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when the respondent was not represented. Shri S.D. Bind, General Manager BSNL appearing for the complainant submitted that the cartoon and news reports taunting the working of BSNL was defamatory. The complainant representative further submitted that the contradiction published was not to their satisfaction. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the respondent newspaper had made critical comments in its various publications highlighting the poor services of the complainant department, which was a public department and thus expected to be more open to critical evalution of its functioning. The Inquiry Committee in view of publication of version of the complainant department opined that while no further action was warranted, the newspaper should take care in future to verify all facts while publishing any report that undermines the prestige of the BSNL. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council that no action was warranted. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided that no further action was necessary in the matter as the respondent had carried the version of the complainant also.

257 93) Prof. (Dr.) Smt. Mridula Shukl The Editor Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidhayala Chhattisgarh Khairgarh, Rajnadgaon Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Versus The Editor Navbharat Raipur, Chhattisgarh ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 16.3.2009 have been filed by Prof. (Dr.) Smt. Mridula Shukl, Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidhayala, Khairgarh, Chhattisgarh against two Hindi daily newspapers namely (i) Chhattisgarh and (ii) Navbharat, Raipur for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items as follows:

S. No. Particulars Newspaper 1- pgsrks dks ukSdjh nsus cquk tkrk gS rkuk & ckuk NÙkhlx<+ 25-01-2009 2- fu;qfDr esa i{kikr dk vkjksi & Nk=ksa us nh NÙkhlx<+ vkanksyu dh psrkouh 29-01-2009 3- laLÑr foHkkx esa O;k[;krk dh fu;qfDr ls epk uoHkkjr coky 29-01-2009 4- NÙkhlx<+] dh mis{kk cnkZLr ugha & foØkar uoHkkjr 2-02-2009

It was stated in the impugned news items that the complainant approached the Selection Committee of the University to select Dr. Pradeep Shukl for the post of lecturer/reader in History and Department. It was further alleged that the complainant favoured Dr. Pradeep Shukl belonging to her caste and when the students came to know that the complainant deliberately did not invite other qualified candidates for the interview, they warned the University that they would protest. Denying the allegations levelled against her, the complainant has submitted that the impugned news items were false, baseless and published with a view to tarnish her reputation. According to the complainant, an interview was conducted for the post of Lecturership/Readers in History and Sanskrit Department and she was working as officiating member of the Selection Committee and her role was merely of inspection. She has submitted that the

258 Selection Committee appointed one Dr. Pradeep Shukl, whose surname was coincidentally similar to her surname. She has alleged that the correspondent of the respondent newspaper, Chhattisgarh, Smt. Rekha Jha, who happened to be the wife of one of the unsuccessful candidates, Shri Manglanand Jha got published the news items in question with malafide intention to tarnish her reputation. The complainant has denied any relationship with Dr. Pradeep Shukl and any bungling in selections for the post of lectureship/readership. She has stated that due to the publication of the news items in question, she has suffered mental agony and irreparable loss. She had drawn the attention of the respondents and requested to publish clarification but to no avail. The denial issued by the Vice Chancellor was also published by Chattisgarh in a very insignificant manner.

Written Statement

In response to show cause notice dated 11.8.2009, the respondent editor, Navbharat, Raipur in his written statement dated 19.8.2009 has submitted that news items in question were published on the basis of information gathered from complaint of students of Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidhayala, Kharigarh, filed before the Vice Chancellor, the Governor, the Chief Minister, the Higher Education Minister requesting the government to conduct inquiry into the selection/ appointment of lecturer/reader in History and Sanskrit Departments of the University. The respondent also stated that they had published the news items in question in public interest and made no comments on their own against the complainant as they have no ill will against her. He further stated that almost all the newspapers of the area published the matter.

The respondent editor, Chhattisgarh failed to file his written statement in the matter.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 10.10.2009 while reiterating the complaint submitted that it is not enough for the print media to rely upon a single evidence and to publish such a serious allegation. She has stated that public agitation of the student, as the respondent claimed to have their source of information, did happen but as a matter of the fact, this was after the publication of the first news item.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the respondents appeared before it. Shri Virendra Mohan, appearing for the complainant submitted that the students had

259 agitated on many issues and the selection was one of the issues. The selection was made by a Committee and not by a single member and thus the allegations were false. The complainant’s representative requested that action may be taken against the respondent newspapers.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and upon hearing the complainant’s representative opined that the newspapers had some basis for the publication. It however, noted that the correspondent of Chattisgarh, Smt. Rekha Jha appeared to be instrumental in getting the news published with certain vested interest in favour of one of the unsuccessful candidate. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, opined that the impugned reports although having some basis, were motivated by personal interest against the complainant, who had been singled out in the impugned publications. The Inquiry Committee also found absence of prepublication-verification from the concerned and denial of right of reply. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council in terms of above observations.

Held

The Press Council on perusal of the report of the Inquiry Committee held the respondent editor of Chattisgarh guilty of using the columns of the newspaper to ventilate personal interest. It, therefore, decided to warn the editor of Chattisgarh. It decided that since impugned reports in Navbharat had been carried only after the student’s agitation, a word of caution for it, to ensure that version of the concerned are taken prior to publication and then extend due right of reply, would meet the ends of justice in the case. It decided accordingly.

94) Dr. R.N. Das The Editor Additional Director Versus The Times of India Press & Public Relations Wing New Delhi Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 29.4.2009 filed by Dr. R.N. Das, Additional Director, Press & Public Relations Wing, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi against The Times of India, New Delhi pertains to publication of an allegedly misleading, fabricated, defamatory and scurrilous news item under the caption “Somnath wants copies of 57 years of LS debates” in its issue dated 22.4.2009. It was reported therein that this would not only entail a huge amount to the exchequer

260 but also entail tedious effort. The complainant averred that the news item in question was based on assumption and inferences, as the Speaker’s Principal Secretary had in the course of official purposes sought a printed sets of the debates. Contrary to the professional ethics of journalism, the low prominence given to the rejoinder allegedly smacked of malafide intention and mischievous nature of the news item, tarnished the image of the august office of the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 4.5.2009, the respondent in his written statement dated 21.5.2009 submitted that the news item in question was carried in public interest for the information of public without any malafide intention. However, the letter of the Deputy Director, Lok Sabha was carried in the newspaper on 26.4.2009 along with the comments of the correspondent who had written the story, which is considered to be a fair practice, stated the respondent.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee took up the matter and adjourned it on 15.12.2009 and 23.2.2010 on the request of the complainant.

When the matter came up for final hearing on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi the complainant appeared in person and filed a letter dated 26.4.2010 informing that Lok Sabha Secretariat does not want to pursue the matter further. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council of India on perusal of the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the case as withdrawn.

95) Shri Khuman Singh The Editor Agra, U.P. Versus Amar Ujala Agra, U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Khuman Singh, Agra has filed this complaint dated 13.5.2008 against Amar Ujala, Agra for publishing allegedly wrong, misleading and defamatory news item captioned: “Arthik Tangi Ke Chalte Aatmhatya” in its issue dated 16.5.2007. It was stated in the impugned news item that the complainant’s

261 teenaged son committed suicide by consuming poison. As per the relatives, the deceased was upset due to financial crunch. The complainant has alleged that it was wrongly mentioned in the impugned publication that his son had consumed poison. The complainant vide his letter dated 21.5.2007 requested the respondent editor to intimate the basis of the news item. In response, the respondent editor published the contradiction captioned “Kunwar Ne Zahar Nahin Khaya” in its issue dated 24.5.2007 wherein it was stated that Kunwar Singh s/o Khuman Singh did not consume poison and it was published by mistake that he died after consuming poison. The complainant, being not satisfied with the publication of the contradiction/clarification has alleged that the respondent editor neither disclosed the identity of the reporter nor the relative who gave the wrong information of committing suicide by his son. The complainant has submitted that his son was only 19 years old, a regular student and appeared for the U.P. Board Exams. Before declaration of the result he died on 14.5.2007. The complainant has alleged that by publishing the wrong and misleading news item, the respondent had defamed him and his family. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 16.7.2008, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Agra in his written statement dated 8.8.2008 while denying the allegations submitted that the news item in question was based on the medical report as well as the local information and the same was published in good faith and in public interest after verifying the truth. According to the editor consuming of poison was reported in the report of doctors of S.N. Medical College and Hospital, Agra after examining Kunwar Singh who was brought by the complainant himself to the hospital. The respondent editor has also filed a copy of the said report in support of his statement. Regarding the allegation of poor financial position, the respondent submitted that the complainant himself admitted that he was suffering from illness and unable to do any work. This itself shows that the complainant’s family was facing financial crunch. Moreover, a contradiction had also been published by the newspaper in its issue dated 24.5.2007 after receiving request from the complainant. The respondent submitted that the complaint is baseless and liable to be rejected. Counter Comments Reiterating his complaint, the complainant in his counter dated 8.9.2008, submitted that it was true that he was suffering from illness but it did not mean that his family was facing financial crunch. His son was the youngest in the family and was studying. The doctors report indicated only the condition of a patient it did not mention that his son committed suicide or was upset due to financial crunch, which was added only by the respondent editor. Moreover, no good faith or public interest was involved in publishing the impugned news item.

262 Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. Shri Khuman Singh, complainant submitted that the impugned news item dated 16.5.2008 levelled five allegations viz- (1) poison was taken (2) suicide committed (3) financial hardship (4) upset for long time and (5) his name was Kunwar Singh. The complainant submitted that he issued a letter dated 21.5.2008 asking the editor to disclose source of information but the newspaper published a contradiction on 24.5.2008 “No Poison was taken”.

Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Legal Advisor appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala and submitted that the newspaper had no intention to malign the deceased or the grieved family members and the newspapers had not publishanything defamatory. As regards reasons for suicide the respondent submitted that poisonous substance was found in the medical report. To a query of the Inquiry Committee as to how the financial crises were mentioned in the impugned report, the respondent replied that the source of this information could not be traced now. It was not mentioned in the letter to editor and if asked at that particular time they could have done it. The newspaper clarified and pleaded on whatever it had in its possesion and could not go beyond that. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record of the case and hearing the parties observed that the complainant’s main grievance was that the newspaper while publishing the news report about demise of his son made reckless allegations about the deceased. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent had immediately carried a rejoinder though it was not to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was clear, the newspaper had no evidence to prove the allegations that the young boy committed suicide upset over financial hardship. The Inquiry Committee observed that the newspaper had drawn over surmises and passed conjecture, speculations and comments, as statements of fact. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that editor, Amar Ujala was guilty of transgressing the ethics in this matter and disregarded due care. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held

The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and noted that the impugned publication tended to hurt the sentiments of the family members of the deceased. The Press Council held that the editor Amar Ujala had published the news without necessary care. It decided to uphold the complaint and caution the newspaper against publishing such violation in future.

263 96) Smt. Rashida Begum The Editor W/o Shri Iqbal Ahmed Versus Amar Ujala Rampur, (U.P.) Moradabad U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 6.11.2007 has been filed by Smt. Rashida Begum of Tanda, District Rampur (U.P) against Hindi Daily “Amar Ujala” for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Chikitsak Ne Injection Lagakar Kiya Behosh - Dost Ki Bibi Ki Uttari Nagan Tasviren” (Doctor rendered her unconscious by administering injection – Took nude pictures of friend’s wife– English Translation) in its issue dated 15.7.2007. According to the impugned news item, a doctor along with his wife took the nude photographs of the complainant after administering her injection in connivance with the friend of her husband, and on regaining consciousness, she found herself naked and the doctor was taking her photographs in the presence of his wife and friends. The complainant was clearly identified in the impugned news item as she was mentioned the daughter of late Anwar Ali, Rashida Begum who was married to Iqbal Ahmed of Mohad Bargad in 1994. The complainant has alleged that due to publication of the impugned news item her image had been lowered in the society, she was compelled to leave her hometown and reside at Pithorahgarh for some time and later came back in November 2007, hence the delay in filing the complaint. The complainant served a legal notice dated 20.7.2007 followed by a reminder dated 26.8.2008 to the respondent with the request to publish the contradiction but received no reply. The complainant requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 28.4.2009, the respondent in his written statement dated 14.11.2009 has admitted that a news item was published in Amar Ujala, Moradabad edition and denied the rest of all the allegations made in the complaint. He further submitted that the news item in question was neither objectionable nor the newspaper or editor had offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste. He argued that the news item was objective and fair and in discharge of duty without any malice, and specifically denied that the news item was defamatory or damaged reputation of the complainant and her family members. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had already accepted the fact by lodging an FIR against the accused persons. So far as publication of nude photograph is concerned, it was symbolic and it was not the real picture of the complainant. The motive was to highlight the illegal acts of white collar criminals who took undue

264 advantage of their position and exploited the women, stated the respondent and added that sexual exploitation by a doctor of his lady patient was a serious matter and it was the duty of the newspaper to expose such person in the society so that others may not become victims of such person. The respondent further pointed out that Sahara TV and Etv news channels had also broadcast the said news on 16.7.2007 along with the interview of the complainant, showing her face. Thus the allegation of the complainant that she was defamed by publishing the news item is baseless, as it was not published with an intention to defame the complainant. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint and show cause notice issued to him be withdrawn. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 10.2.2010 reiterated her complaint and submitted that the impugned news item was defamatory and an example of yellow journalism. The respondent offended the standards of journalistic ethics and also committed professional misconduct. The complainant submitted that identifying her name and family and publishing her nude photographs by the respondent newspaper is actionable under Sections 228 A and 500-501 of IPC as well as the articles (4) and (6) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986. The complainant requested the Council to direct the respondent to compensate her. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the sides were represented. Shri Iqbal Ahmed, Husband/Representative, appearing for the complainant, reiterated the complaint and submitted that impugned news item clearly identified the victim and it had caused defamation to her. It was against the standards set out by the Press Council and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, legal consultant appearing for Amar Ujala submitted that the complainant in her interview to TV Channels had admitted the incident. Shri Awasthi however, accepted that the newspaper should not have disclosed her identity. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and was prime facie satisfied that the respondent newspaper Amar Ujala had violated the established guidelines on caution against identification of women in issues touching their chastity, personal character and privacy. The Inquiry Committee noted that the newspaper Amar Ujala had defended that the report was also telecast on Sahara TV, Etv news channel, which was not sustainable in view of the fact

265 the interview to news channel was given day after the publication of the impugned news item by Amar Ujala. The Inquiry Committee accepted that the aggrieved lady took the option to clear her side of matter through news channels after publication of the impugned news item by Amar Ujala. The Inquiry Committee appreciated the courage shown by the representative of Amar Ujala in admitting the lapse in identification, and cautioned the newspaper to be careful in future against any such lapse. It found no further action necessary in the matter. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to reiterate its Guidelines on “Caution against Identification” : “While reporting crime involving rape, abduction or kidnap of women/females or sexual assault on children, or raising doubts and questions touching the chastity, personal character and privacy of women, the names, photographs of the victims or other particulars leading to their identity shall not be published.” It upheld the complaint and decided that the respondent newspaper be directed to circulate norms encapsuled by the Council in its compendium amongst the journalists on its rolls.

97) Shri Balraj Singh The Editor Gautambudh Nagar Versus Dainik Hindustan Uttar Pradesh Lucknow ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 19.5.2009 has been filed by Shri Balraj Singh, Gautambudh Nagar (U.P.) against the editor, Hindustan, Hindi daily, Lucknow for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the catption “Soochna Kanoon Ke Beja Istemal Par Ayog Sakht” in its issue dated 6.2.2009. It was stated in the impugned news item that the complainant sought some information about the Workers Consumers Cooperative Society from the National Capital Thermal Power Project under the RTI Act, 2005. On some points the information was provided to the complainant, and on others he was asked to deposit fees to provide him permissible documents. The complainant got furious and approached the State Chief Information Commissioner, who reprimanded the complainant and warned him that no such act will be tolerated in future. The complainant has alleged that no action was taken against him but the respondent had deliberately published it in the impugned news item to defame him. The complainant also filed a copy of the order issued by the State

266 Information Commission. The complainant has alleged that the respondent circulated the said news item in his office and his residing place with a motive to defame him in the society. The complainant has submitted that he approached the respondent editor vide letter dated 21.6.2009 and requested him to publish his contradiction but received no response. Written Statement In response to show cause notice dated 13.7.2009, the respondent, Editor Hindustan in his written statement dated 20.8.2009 denying the allegation, averments and contentions raised by the complainant, submitted that the news item was published in public interest. According to the respondent, the Commission or any Judicial authority give many statements during the hearing, but these are not included in the orders. The news item was published on the basis of hearing without having any malice. The respondent submitted that the news item was published to make aware the public not to misuse the RTI Act. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.9.2009 reiterated his complaint and submitted that after publishing the impugned news item, the respondent circulated it in his office and resident area which shows deliberate misuse of the freedom of press and malafide intention. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the sides were present. The complainant appearing in person submitted that the respondent deliberately publish totally wrong news and circulated in the NTPC complex at Gautambudha Nagar to defame him. The complainant further submitted that no journalist was present in the State Information Commission. The complainant further submitted that the RTI State Commission in the same matter had imposed fine of Rs.25000/- against the department but the newspaper did not carry it, which ought to be published in public interest. The complainant requested that the reporter was responsible for impugned publication and action should be initiated against him. Shri Vijay Kumar, legal consultant appearing for the respondent submitted that they have already filed reply and they stand by the written statement that certain comments were not written in the Court Order and were said orally during the hearing of the case. The respondent counsel submitted that their reporter was present in the State Commission. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and upon hearing the parties noted that the complainant has attributed motives for causing publication of

267 impugned news item and distributing the said newspaper in his office, and residential area as a mischivous act on the part of the reporter deliberately at the behest of his relative. The Inquiry Committee noted that the Hindustan was a widely circulated daily on its own strength and this charge could not be substantiated on assumption. On merits of the case the Committee was satisfied that the Court may have some observations but these are often an attempt to solicit information, and not a part of records. Thus, there is need for a reporter to understand the difference and report correctly. To this end the respondent erred. In the opinion of the Committee the grievane of the complainant could be mitigated if his version is published by the newspaper. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and directed the editor, Hindustan to publish the contradiction of the complainant and file copies thereof for record.

98) Shri Riazuddin The Editor Students Print Media Agency Versus Dainik Jagran Firozabad (U.P.) Agra (U.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 1.7.2007 has been filed by Shri Riazuddin, Students Print Media Agency and District Correspondent of , CNN, Shah Times, Amar Bharti and North India Times, Firozabad against Dainik Jagran for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Putron Ke Alava Koi Anya Pratinidhi Nahin-Vidhayak” in its issue dated 19.5.2007. It was stated in the news item that Shri Naseeruddin Siddqui, MLA, BSP has appointed his own sons as his representatives during elections. The impugned publication further stated that some anti-social element had given in writing that he was appointed by the local MLA as his representative. The impugned news item further stated that one person namely, Shri Riazuddin, claiming himself to be a representative of MLA had issued a press release for publication. The complainant submitted that he had not issued any press release to any newspaper for publication to the effect that he was authorised by the MLA as his representative. The complainant submitted that the MLA after wining the election had authorised him to thank the voters for which a press release was issued. The complainant vide letter dated 22.8.2007 drew attention of the

268 respondent editor but received no response. He requested the Council to take action in the matter.

Written Statement

In his written statement dated 6.12.2007 the respondent, Resident Editor, Dainik Jagran has submitted that a person namely Riazuddin had come to their office and gave two press releases on the letter head of the MLA for publication. The respondent has submitted that on verification of the press release, the MLA denied having issued it and he issued another press release for publication. The third press release was published as it is.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.1.2008 for information/counter comments but complainant did not file counter comments.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The complainant submitted that the MLA after winning the election proceeded to Lucknow. Since the MLA was his relative, the MLA gave him blank letter head to issue a press release to thank the public. Thus he did signing as ÉÊ´ÉvÉɪÉBÉE |ÉÉÊiÉÉÊxÉÉÊvÉ and never did he claim to have been appointed as such. The complainant submitted that the MLA later nominated his two sons as authorised representatives and a news to this effect was also released and published by Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala carrying MLA’s statement that his sons were his representative. But the Amar Ujala did not report it in a manner in which the respondent Dainik Jagran did describing the complainant as an anti-social element. The complainant submitted that he is not an anti social element but a freelance journalist. The complainant submitted that Amar Ujala did not make any personal comment on him but the Dainik Jagran called him anti-social element.

Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appearing for the respondent Dainik Jagran reiterated the submissions made in the written statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the parties. The complainant’s case was that he was authorised by MLA to thank the public by way of Press Release using his letter head. Thus he did on 16.5.2007. The respondent subsequently carried another press release of the MLA intimating that his sons were authorised representatives and none-else. The Inquiry Committee noted that the said MLA in his subsequent Press

269 Release had used word “anti-social element” for the person who had not been authorized by the MLA. The Committee observed that the respondent was justified in reporting the matter. The complainant’s grievance could not be directed against it. It was, therefore, not satisfied that any case for action subsisted against the respondent, Dainik Jagran. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to reject the complaint.

99) Shri Kunwar Pal Singh The Editor Bureau Chief Versus Dainik Jagran Dainik CNN Cum News Network Meerut Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 24.9.2007 has been filed by Shri Kunwar Pal Singh, Bureau Chief, Dainik CNN Cum News Network, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut edition for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 20.9.2007 under the caption “Mobile Se Photo Khichne Par Hua Hungama” along with the complainant’s photograph titled ‘Yeh Hain Vo Mahodaya Jinhoney Khud Ko Channel Ka Patrakar Bataya Aur Phans Gaye’. The impugned news item cast aspersion on the complainant’s credibility as a journalist.

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 27.3.2008 but despite reminder dated 30.4.2009 no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi, when Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent Dainik Jagran. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter dated 13.4.2010 requested for closure of the complaint as he had amicably settled the issue. It, thus, submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on perusal of the report decided to close the complaint as settled and withdrawn. 270 100) Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma The Editor Meerut Versus Pratigya Uttar Pradesh Meerut Cantt Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 16.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against Pratigya, a Hindi daily newspaper from Meerut Cantonment, Uttar Pradesh for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items captions of which are as follows:

No. Captions Dates 1 Lakhon Rupye Rajsav ki Hani Bharat Sarkar Ko 8.3.2009 Pahuncha Rahe Hain Gupta Aur Sharma 2 Do Aur Panch Ki Jagha Panch Aur Dus Rupye Le 13.3.2009 Rahe Hain Company Bagh Ke Stand Ke Thekedar 3 Bharat Sarkar Rajsav Ki Hani Prakashit Hone Par 20.3.2009 Bokhla Gaye Cantt. Board Ke Thekedar Santosh Sharma

The complainant has objected to the publication of the impugned news items along with his photographs, levelling allegations that as a parking contractor at Company Bagh, he has been charging parking fees at the rate of rupees five (Rs.5/-) and rupees ten (Rs.10/-) instead of the sanctioned amount at the rate of rupees three (Rs.3/-) and rupees five (Rs.5/-) respectively. While he has nothing to do with the parking contract, the respondent newspaper published his name, photograph in such a tone and tenor as if he has been the contractor. Thus he has been defamed in the society alleged the complainant and added that inspite of a notice dated 16.3.2009, issued to the respondent, neither the rejoinder was published nor a reply was received in the matter. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 24.8.2009, the respondent Smt. Ranjana Thakur, owner, printer, publisher and editor, Pratigya in her written statement dated 9.9.2009 has submitted that with regard to the news items in question, she has been performing her duties with truthfulness and responsibility with the objectives of the newspaper that the government policies reaches the public and the grievances/complaints of the public reaches the government authorities. The respondent further stated that while she has been seeking the interest of the nation by publishing government advertisements such as Pulse

271 Polio Immunization campaigns at free of cost, the complainant has been acting to fulfill only his selfish ends. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.9.2009 for information and counter comments if any. Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item was totally false as he was not a contractor. The respondent had levelled baseless allegations of over-charging of parking fees. The complainant denied all the allegations levelled in the respondent newspaper and requested that action may be taken against the respondent. The complainant also alleged that the newspaper carried his photograph along with impugned news items to identify him and defame him in the area. The complainant further alleged that the respondent who was present before the Committee was a history sheeter. The complainant produced a list of 19 cases registered against the respondent and submitted that the respondent was habitual of blackmailing and threatening the people. Shri Ganesh Thakur, Chief Editor, Pratigya appearing for the respondent submitted that the parking contract was in favour of the complainant and he was overcharging, almost double of the parking fee. The respondent further submitted that he has sought information about awarding the contract to the complainant and the information is awaited. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted that the newspaper published a series of defamatory news item along with the photograph of the complainant making reckless allegations of illegal extortion in the name of parking of vehicles. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the newspaper made these allegations without any proof even as to whether the complainant was awarded parking contract. He had only now sought this information under RTI and was yet to get it. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent in her written statement had given evasive reply and the representative who appeared for the newspaper also made unsubstantiated arguments. The Inquiry Committee finds that the newspaper had levelled baseless allegations and not even attempted to verify the truth after publication. The Inquiry Committee held the newspaper guilty of defamation in a deliberate and calculated manner without any sufficient reason or evidence. It decided to recommend to the Council to Censure the editor, Pratigya, Meerut for gross violation of journalistic ethics.

272 Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee and censured the editor, Pratigya, Meerut. It further decided that a copy of the adjudication may also be sent to the DAVP, RNI, District Magistrate, Meerut and the I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for action as they deem fit in the matter.

101) Shri Rakesh Kumar Arya, IPS The Editor Deputy Commissioner of Police Versus New Bright Star Magazine West Gurgaon, Haryana Palwal, Haryana ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Rakesh Kumar Arya, IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Gurgaon, Haryana has filed this complaint dated 5.5.2008 against the Editor, New Bright Star Magazine, Palwal, Haryana for publishing allegedly false, misleading and defamatory article captioned “CM Haryana Ke Dhyanarth” in its issue dated 1.2.2008. The impugned article published on completion of three years of the “Hudda Government” in Haryana, pointed out that the State Government was being governed by the State Officials/Bureaucrats. Giving example/evidence it was stated in the impugned article that Shri Rakesh Kumar Arya, IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, did not know even Shri Shadi Lal Kapoor, the Senior Secretary posted in the Chief Minister’s Office. Shri Kapoor telephonically requested him for some genuine work and when the concerned person met Shri Rakesh giving reference of Shri Kapoor, he refused to recognise Shri Kapoor. The person who went to meet Shri Rakesh was not an ordinary person, he was senior officer of one of the national media group. There were many such incidents which occured daily. Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that no such person visited his office as alleged in the impugned publication. In fact it was published only to tarnish his image. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor vide letter dated 19.3.2008 and requested to publish the contradiction. But instead of filing any reply or publishing the contradiction, he published another news item captioned “Kanoon Ka Bahut Samman Karte Hai D.C.P. Saheb” in its issue dated May, 2008, which was cheap/glaring example of yellow journalism. The complainant alleged that the respondent had misused his post, position and freedom of press to blackmail him and to get cheap popularity. No Written Statement No written statement was filed by the respondent editor in response to the show cause notice dated 16.6.2008.

273 Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2009 at New Delhi. Shri Mahender Singh, Sub-Inspector, Haryana Police, appeared for the complainant. Shri Madan Lal, Advocate appeared for the respondent who filed a letter on behalf of the respondent requesting for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request and directed the respondent to file written statement in the matter within a fortnight. There was no response from the respondent despite requesting him to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee vide Council’s letter dated 8.10.2009. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.1.2010 at New Delhi when Shri Nahar Singh, ASI, Office of D.C. (West), Gurgaon (Haryana), appearing for the complainant, reiterated the averments made in the complaint. After the complainant left, Shri Madan Lal, Advocate appeared for the respondent and apologised for reaching late due to breakdown of his motorcycle. He pleaded for time for filing written statement and assured the Committee that he would file written statement within two weeks. The Inquiry Committee on considering the request of the respondent counsel decided to adjourn the matter and directed the respondent to file written statement within a fortnight with a copy to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee also directed that the proceedings and developments be intimated to both the parties. Accordingly the parties were informed vide letter dated 15.3.2010. Written Statement The respondent editor in its undated written statement, received on 1.2.2010, submitted that all the averments made in the impugned article were correct and based on the conversation held between his senior officer, Shri Devendra Gadoli and the complainant, Shri Rakesh Arya. According to the respondent, Shri Gadoli visited the complainant’s office w.r.t. licence for arm, as the related file was under his possession for the last one year. Shri Gadoli gave reference of Shri Shadi Lal Kapoor, the Senior Secretary posted in the Chief Minister’s office, but Shri Rakesh refused to recognise the reference made. When the respondent published this conversation, Shri Rakesh Arya declined that he had ever told that he did not know Shri Kapoor. The respondent alleged that the statement of Shri Rakesh Arya was blatant lie and wrong. Regarding the statement of Shri Arya that he was having clean image and helping nature, the respondent submitted that the Judicial Magistrate of Hissar Court had issued

274 a bailable warrant against Shri Rakesh Arya. He was directed to appear on 20th March for illegal confinement of a minor child and torturing him. According to the respondent he was duty bound to expose the erring police official and performed his duty by publishing the same. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. Shri Shripal appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. The representative of the complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the news carefully and opined that the impugned report was a routine reporting which charged the complainant of not knowing the senior Secretary posted in the office of the Chief Minister of Haryana. It did not contain any defamatory remarks against the complainant. The Committee opined that the complaint lacked merit. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report for disposal of the case to the Council. Held The Press Council considered the impugned report and the report of the Inquiry Committee. The Council dismissed the complaint being devoid of merit.

102) Shri Y. Naveen The Editor Tumkur, Karnataka Versus Gouri Lankesh Bengaluru ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Y. Naveen, Tumkur, Karnataka has filed this complaint dated 1.7.2008 against Gouri Lankesh, Bengaluru for publishing allegedly false, concocted, defamatory and objectionable news item captioned “Virgin women harasser; reporter of TV9 Naveena” in its issue dated 13.2.2008. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant, Y. Naveen is a real villain, a roadside Romeo, who lifted the mobile numbers of women who came to the TV9 office for interview and then sent vulgar indecent messages. He was alleged to have a love affair with a woman, keeping his wife in the dark, beating her for seeking divorce. The names of his parents were also dragged in the impugned news item assassinating their character. According to the complainant, his in-laws, who were against the love marriage in collusion with the respondent editor caused publication of impugned

275 news item to tarnish his image in the eyes of his wife, who subsequently left and filed a dowry case against him. The complainant submitted that in the impugned news item malicious allegations of extra marital affairs and harassment of women were carried targeting him with an intention to separate husband and wife. The complainant further submitted that due to publication of this news item his wife started hating him and deserted him after listening to bad voices, forcibly signed complaint against him alleging false dowry case. People around his residence started hating him and friends and relatives threw him out of the society. Consequently, he lost his job and suffered mental agony. Being the only son of aged parents he suffered much due to publication of the impugned news item. The complainant submitted that he issued a legal notice dated 15.5.2008 to the respondent editor, Gouri Lankesh, Bengaluru but received no response. The respondent editor, Gouri Lankesh, Bengaluru filed written statement to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2008 at the time of hearing. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before Inquiry Committee on 17.11.2009 at Hyderabad when both sides were represented. The complainant in his oral arguments submitted that as he received the written statement very late he was unable to reply to the averments made in the written statement. In order to afford an opportunity to the complainant to counter the written statement of the respondent editor, the Committee while adjourning the matter directed the complainant to file written comments thereon with a copy to the respondent editor. Written Statement Shri Suresh Kumar, Counsel represented the respondent newspaper, Gauri Lankesh and filed the written statement. The respondent editor, Gauri Lankesh in his written statement dated 2.11.2009 filed certificates and documents in support of his averments. He submitted that the marriage between the complainant, Shri Y.Naveen and might have been a love marriage, but it also had the approval and support of parents on both sides. The witnesses of the wedding registration are father and mother of the bride and father of the bridegroom, which itself is a proof that the complainant’s claims had no base that his was a love marriage and his in-laws were trying to separate his wife from him. The certificate of registration of marriage shows that they married on 13.5.2006. The crucial points is that the letter to Shri Y. Naveen by Bharat Matrimony was dated 14.7.2007 which means that though Shri Y. Naveen had been married to Deepika for more than a year and two months, he had listed his name with Bharat Matrimony to look for a new spouse and he claims that someone else was trying to break his love marriage with Deepika. Deepika wife of

276 Shri Y. Naveen had written a letter dated 1.9.2007 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch, Bangalore stating therein that since the day she married Naveen she had experienced turmoil and decided to end this marriage with Naveen. According to the respondent their report was based on facts and the main focus of the story was how a person who cheated his own wife, harassing her mentally and physically, was working as a crime reporter. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.1.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Vipin Mathew Benjamin, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and informed the Committee that the respondent had filed written statement in the matter. The Inquiry Committee noted that complainant could not be served the notice of hearing. It therefore, adjourned the matter to afford an opportunity to the complainant to putforth his counter reply and argument. In the absence of any reply, the complainant was reminded vide letter dated 26.4.2010 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. The complainant was not represented before it. Shri Vipin M. Benjamin, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Gauri Lankesh. The Counsel submitted that the news report was factually correct. He added that the complainant was not appearing before the Committee. Report of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record, the Inquiry Committee observed that despite sufficient opportunity afforded to the complainant he was not represented before the Committee to pursue the case. On merits, the Committee noted that the respondent editor in the written statement defended the publication on the ground that it was published on the basis of documents in his possession. A copy of the written statement was handed over to the complainant by the Committee on 17.11.2009 at Hyderabad during the course of hearing. The complainant neither filed any counter to the written statement nor was he represented before the Committee to pursue the matter. The Committee, thus, decided to report the matter to the Council for disposal. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint for non-pursuance.

277 103) Shri Surender @ Sweta The Editors President, Eunuch Community Versus Amar Ujala Mau, (U.P.) Aaj ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Surender @ Sweta, President, Eunuch Community, Mau (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 20.1.2009 against the editor Amar Ujala for publication of allegedly false, fabricated and defamatory news items captioned “Dholak Ki Thap Sunkar Chonk Gaye Log” in its issue dated 10.12.2008. It was published in the impugned news item that Eunuch earned Rs.2000/- on a child birth, that was later turned out to be false. The complainant has stated that no such incident happened and the news item was false. The complainant personally visited the office of the respondent editor and requested to publish contradiction of the impugned news item. Despite assurance by the editor, the contradiction was not published. The complainant also brought to the notice of the Council that another newspaper namely ‘Aaj’ had published a news item captioned “Kinnoron NeKiya Press Ki Swatantrata Par Hamla” in its issue dated 11.12.2008 alleging that annoyed with the publication, the eunuch reached the office of the Amar Ujala and manhandled the office bearer. The complainant however, chosen not to initiate any action against the second respondent ‘Aaj’ thus the case against it was dropped being withdrawn. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 5.6.2009, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 20.6.2009 denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was misconceived and legally not maintainable as complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has concealed the material fact that a corrigendum was published the very next day on 11.12.2008 under the caption “Hizdon Ne Kiya Rupey Lene Se Inkar” at the request of the complainant. The respondent also denied the allegations that the impugned news item was published with the motive to defame the complainant community. According to the respondent no specific allegations were levelled against the complainant individually or even as a member of eunuch community. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Counter Comments The complainant filed counter comments dated 17.7.2009 and submitted that they are not satisfied with the contradiction published by the respondent

278 Amar Ujala. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item was totally false as no such incident had happened. The complainant further submitted that the contradiction published on 11.12.2008 under the caption “Hizron Ne Kiya Paise Lene Se Inkaar” was false as no such statement was given by the complainant or their community to Amar Ujala. The publication of news item had hurt the community. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent Amar Ujala on 24.8.2009 for information. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Chief Legal Manager and Amit Choudhari, Senior Officer represented the respondent newspaper Amar Ujala. The complainant vide his letter dated 19.5.2010 expressed inability to appear before the Committee and requested to take stern action against the editor, Amar Ujala. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the record noted that the complaint against Aaj was closed on the request of the complainant. As regards Amar Ujala, the Committee observed that a corrigendum was published by them on the very next day of the publication of the impugned news report. Thus, no further action was warranted in the matter. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the matter since the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala carried a corrigendum to the impugned news report promptly.

104) Shri Ramshankar Gupta The Editor Agra Versus Akinchan Bharat Uttar Pradesh Agra, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This undated complaint received in the Council on 13.8.2008 has been filed by Shri Ramshakar Gupta, Agra against Akinchan Bharat, Agra for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption ‘Congress candidate bought stall/camp of BJP’ in its issue dated 2.5.2008. It was reported in the impugned news item that BJP agents and workers were moving

279 to the Congress camp in greed of money and the Congress candidate was reported to have given to the agent of the BJP candidate an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant, who was a BJP agent at ‘Bah’, has alleged that by publishing the false news item, the respondent tarnished his social and political image in the society. He claimed that he had worked with full enthusiasm in setting up Camp and catering for BJP candidate on the election day. On the said day, worker of the other parties also kept visiting their camp as water was available only with them but this did not mean that they switched sides. He served a notice dated 2.6.2008 on the respondent who, in his reply dated 17.6.2008, stated that the news item was published on the basis of information received from a BJP worker, and they have no ill motive to hurt anyone. The respondent had published a contradiction to the news item in its issue dated 8.5.2008. The complainant in his further communication dated 9.5.2009 informed that he was not satisfied with the contradiction published by the respondent as it was given by the BJP District President, Shri Ramshankar Kathoriya and the Organising Secretary, Shri Ram Pratap Singh. He requested to take appropriate action against the respondent newspaper. No Written Statement Despite the issuance of show cause notice dated 3.7.2009 and subsequent reminders dated 4.1.2010 and 29.4.2010, no written statement was filed by the respondent. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.10. The Complainant, Shri Ramshanker Gupta appeared in person while the respondent editor, Akinchan Bharat remained unrepresented. The complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. He added that false news had deeply hurt his social and political image and clarification did not undo the damage. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments of the complainant put forth before it. At the outset the Committee noted that the respondent editor despite receiving the show-cause notice and notice of hearing neither filed the written statement nor was he represented before it. Thus, the averments of the complainant that the respondent published false and unverified news remained unrebutted. On merits, the Committee noted that allegation of BJP workers and agents moving to Congress Camp for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was attributed to an agent of BJP itself. Given the possibility of political rivalry respondent did not take sufficient care to verify the facts at pre-publication stage. The clarification published was on the basis of a

280 press-release of BJP District President only stated that all worker worked with full enthusiasm and did not rebut the charge of bribe. The Inquiry Committee, upholding the complaint, opined that this was a fit case for Censure. It referred its report to the Council for final adjudication. Held The Council on consideration of the record of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee concurred with it and decided to Censure the respondent, Akinchan Bharat published from Agra for publication of unverified false information and absence of necessary remedial measures. It directed the Secretariat of the Council to send copies of the adjudication to the RNI and the I&PRD of Govt. of Uttar Pradesh for such action as they deem fit in the matter.

105) The Forest Conservator The Editor Van Vihar Rashtriya Udhyan Versus Raj Express Bhopal, M.P. Bhopal (M.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.4.2007 has been filed by the Forest Conservator, Van Vihar Rashtriya Udhyan, Bhopal against” Raj Express” Bhopal for publication of allegedly false, misleading and baseless news item under the caption “Chhital ki Jan Par Sankat, Udyan Mein Bhendki, Chhosinga Ek Bhi Nai” in its issue dated 28.3.2007. The impugned news item stated that species of deer has disappeared from the park. It has been also alleged that the employees of the park supplied the deer to selected hotels. According to the impugned news item eight theft incidents occurred in the past. Only one case has been registered with the police for missing of cable wire. Denying the allegation levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was false, misleading and baseless and published with the motive to tarnish the image of the Forest Conservator and the Manager of National Park of Bhopal. The complainant further submitted that he approached the respondent editor “Raj Express” through Registered Post letter dated 2.4.2007 but the same was received back with the Postal remarks “Lene Se Inkar” returned. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Raj Express, Bhopal on 20.8.2007 but received back remarks “Lene Se Inkar, Vapis”. Again the show cause notice was forwarded to the D.M. on 18.9.2007 & 23.11.2007

281 requesting them to serve it to the respondent “Raj Express” through his process– serving agency, despite receiving acknowledgement card from postal department as a proof of having received the notice by the respondent no written statement has been filed in the matter. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore. The complainant was not present. S/Shri K.C. Nahar and Arjun Singh Raghuwanshi, Advocates appeared for the respondent Raj Express. As the complainant was not represented before the Inquiry Committee, it in order to afford one more opportunity to the complainant to contest his case decided to adjourn the matter. The respondent editor, through his counsel was directed to file the written statement. Vide letter dated 6.5.2010 the respondent editor was requested to comply with the directions of Inquiry Committee. Arguments When the matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010 there was no appearance before it from either side. The complainant, however, vide his letter dated 20.5.2010 requested the Committee to decide the matter on the basis of averments made in the complaint. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the outset expressed its displeasure over the attitude of the respondent editor in not filling the written statement despite the directions of the Committee given on 31.3.2010 during the course of hearing at Indore. In the absence of any defence from the respondent the averments in the complaint that the news report was false and misleading remained unrebutted. The Committee noted that the Forest Department was charged of selling deer to hotels, which was denied by the complainant. The news report had the tendency to defame the complainant. In the opinion of the Committee the impugned news report was published without pre-publication verification. Thus, the Inquiry Committee held the respondent editor guilty of breach of norms of journalistic conduct regarding pre-publication verification. It recommended to reprimand the respondent editor, Raj Express, Bhopal and submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to reprimand the editor, Raj Express, Bhopal for publication of unverified news report.

282 106) Shri Jogesh Dhanda The Editor Indore Versus Dainik Bhaskar Madhya Pradesh Indore, Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 1.10.2008 has been filed by Shri Jogesh Dhanda, Indore, through his lawyer, against Dainik Bhaskar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh for publication of allegedly scurrilous and defamatory news items under the captions ‘Kaid Mein Croreon Ka Malik Ishan’ and ‘Bahar Nikalo Ishan Ko’ in its issues dated 6.9.2008 and 10.9.2008 respectively. It was alleged in the first impugned news item that Ishan son of (late) Barrister Harish Chandra Dhanda was kept under detention in the house of Sarvsampan Nagar by the complainant, his brother and ill treated him. It was stated in the second news item that the doctors informed on phone that the mental illness of Shri Ishan was curable but he had to be evacuated from the place where he was detained. The atmosphere in which Shri Ishan was living, instead of curing his illness aggravated it and if he was allowed to meet the people, then he could lead a normal life. According to the complainant, the impugned news reports contained unverified facts and untruths, which were published by the respondent in a defamatory manner and to malign his reputation. The complainant further alleged that the observations of the two practicing doctors about the medical condition of Shri Ishan were not only unwarranted but also defamatory and actuated by the respondent to vilify his family and violated the right of privacy of Shri Ishan, the complainant’s younger brother and that of his family. The complainant informed that their father late Shri Harish Chandra Dhanda, was a Minister in the then Government of H.E.Y.R Holkar at Indore and owned vast properties and hotels of which he had been appointed the Managing Trustee under the will of his father. One of them was the unfunctional Lantern Hotel where Shri Ishan Dhanda stayed and was being exploited by the employees due to his health condition. He has alleged that the impugned news reports were not in conformity with good taste and were directly violative of norms of journalistic ethics which required preverification of facts from the concerned persons before publication of the news items. The complainant had drawn the attention of the editor vide letter dated 10.9.2008 requesting the respondent to publish his rejoinder but evoked no response. Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 9.1.2009, the respondent

283 Dainik Bhaskar, Indore filed his written statement dated 7.8.2009 and denied the allegations levelled by the complainant as wrong, baseless and vague. He stated that whatever had been reported in the news story, there was not even an iota of doubt which could be stated to be an imagination of the reporter. He added that on the contrary, the news story contained all the information received from some sources and to be very cautious and being responsible and sensible media group, even an expert opinion (doctor’s suggestions/opinion) in support of the subject matter of the news story was also published on 10.9.2009 edition. The report in question published on 6.9.2008 contained nothing but all the verified facts received from various sources and containing the excerpts conversation/ interview of Mr. Uday Singh Jadhav and Mr. Harish Verma stated the respondent and added that, similarly in the 10.9.2008 edition, whatever facts were published in the news report were the excerpts of the talk with Mr. Uday Singh Jadhav, Ishan’s doctor, bank manager and other members of the Trust created by Shri Harish Chander Dhanda and there was nothing defamatory in it.

The respondent also denied the allegation of the complainant of receiving no response to their legal notice dated 10.9.2008 as they issued a reply notice dated 1.10.2008 to the complainant. He also denied the allegations that the nonpublication of rejoinder was violative of Norms of Journalistic Conduct since they had given their reply to the notice of the complainant and added that the question of publishing the rejoinder only arises when it is proved beyond doubt that there was any discrepancy in the news report which in the present case was not applicable as whatever published in the news reports in question were based totally on information gathered from various sources and excerpts of the talks with different concerned people.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant and his counsel on 8.2.2010 for filing his counter if any.

Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore when Shri Alindra Sathe, Advocate appearing for respondent newspaper requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the complainant and acceded to the request of the respondent.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010. Shri V.K. Goel, advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Amitesh Chandra Mishra, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar. 284 Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that without verification the news reports were published which were sensational and defamatory to the reputation of the highly respected family, the complainant and their family members. He added that one of the ex-employees, out of vengence went to the newspaper and the newspaper without verifying the facts published the news report. He added that after publication of the reports a clarification was sent which was not published. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the reports were published with good intention that after reading the reports the authorities might get the person released from captivity. He added that earlier also news reports were published taking social cause into consideration. He further argued that in the reports itself the opinion of the doctors have been carried.

On being asked by the Committee whether the doctors referred to in the news reports were regular doctors of Ishant or did they examine Ishant, the counsel replied that this fact was not verified. He concluded that since the brother of Ishant was out of India, his version could not be obtained. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and oral arguments put forth before it on behalf of the complainant and the respondent. It observed that there might be a reasonable basis for publication of the impugned reports as the matter reflected on the reputation of an established family. The paper should have made efforts to obtain the version of the complainant not withstanding, when the clarification came from the affected person it was the duty of the editor to have published the same to allow him to place his version before the public. Further, the Committee opined publication of opinion of the doctors who were not the regular doctors of Ishant was not justifiable. The Committee accepted that the publication was scurrilous and defamatory of the complainant and an example of irresponsible journalism. For all the reasons aforesaid, the Committee recommended in its report to the Council to direct the editor, Dainik Bhaskar to publish the gist of the Council’s decision with prominence. Held

On perusal of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee the Council held the publication of news report to be irresponsible and defamatory. The Council further decided to uphold the complaint and to direct the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Indore to publish within four weeks, the gist of the adjudication of the Council. It should send a copy of the issue carrying the same to the complainant as well as Press Council for record.

285 107) Shri M.P. Mansinghka The Editor Chairman Versus Pratahkaal Murlidharkripa Hospital & Mumbai Research Centre Maharashtra Maksi, (M.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Mahavir Prasad Mansinghka, Chairman, Murlidharkripa Hospital and Research Centre, Maksi, M.P. has filed this complaint dated 28.6.2009 against the editor Pratahkaal, Hindi daily, Mumbai for publication of allegedly false, frivolous, baseless, objectionable and defamatory news item captioned : “àÉxÉÉϺÉPÉÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊxÉMÉ®ÉxÉÉÒ ªÉÉÉÊSÉBÉEÉ JÉÉÉÊ®VÉ : BÉE®ÉäbÉå BÉEÉÒ vÉÉäJÉÉvÉbÉÒ” along with his photograph in the form of an advertisement by writing a word advertisement at the end of the left bottom of the news item. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant misappropriated the funds and cheated the farmers from whom he had purchased musturd and soyabean worth crores of rupees. It was further stated in the impugned publication that the complainant had filed an application on 21.1.1998 before the BIFR, New Delhi in the matter of Mansinghka Oil Products Limited (MOPL). The Court confiscated his passport, freezed his bank accounts at Indore and ordered attachment of his another factory Tri Star Soya Products Limited, Maksi, M.P. Denying the allegations the complainant has submitted that the impugned publication was false, baseless and fabricated as he had never dealt with any farmer and hence the question of cheating the farmers does not arise. Moreover, he was not holding any position nor was shareholder of the MOPL at the time of filing of the application on 21.1.1998 before the BIFR, New Delhi and thus was not party to the said application. According to the complainant no court in the country had ever debarred him from leaving the country. No Court had ever seized his bank accounts or attached any of his properties at any time. The complainant has further alleged that the illegal and malafide act of the respondent was compounded with the conduct of publication of the impugned news item along with his photograph and mailing copies of the said issues to various persons belonging to trade, industry and social work. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news/advertisement was published with ulterior motive to defame him. The complainant issued a notice dated 12.6.2009 through his advocate to the respondent editor and requested to publish the contradiction. In response, the respondent in his reply claimed that the impugned advertisement was published on the directions of Shri S.S. Aggarwal, Mumbai and based on the facts and documentary evidence.

286 Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 4.9.2009 the respondent editor, Pratahkaal in his written statement dated 24.9.2009 denied that any objectionable advertisement had been published by them. According to the respondent the impugned material was published in the form of an advertisement and it was based on the documentary evidence and the similar contents were published by the other newspapers/magazines. Filing documents in support of his claim, the respondent submitted that the news item in question was based on an FIR No.215/2000 dated 19.8.2000 filed in the police station Taleda, District Bundi, Rajasthan. On the basis of the FIR court case no. 21/2002 was filed in the Judicial Magistrate-I, Taleda, Bundi under Section 420 and 406 IPC. Being absent before the court, arrest warrant were issued against the complainant, M.P. Mansinghka. On 13.12.2004, he surrendered before the Court and later he was released on bail on the same day. On 8.3.2008 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi took cognizance of the charges under Sections 420/406 IPC against the complainant. The complainant filed his appeal before the Session Court, which was transferred to the Additional Session Judge (fast track), Bundi, and in its order dated 19.3.2009 the Court rejected the complainant’s appeal.

The respondent further emphasized that the impugned material was in the form of an advertisement and it was not a news item. By doing so, they have not violated any code of conduct. The respondent submitted that the complaint was false and the newspaper harbored no malice towards the complainant.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.10.2009 and 9.1.2010 while reiterating his original complaint denied the allegations of the respondent and submitted that the impugned publication was highly defamatory and it could influence Court proceedings. According to the complainant, there are certain limits/ethics/constraints for publishing news item or an advertisement with regard to the matter pending before the court of law. Newspaper through an advertisement or published material could not declare a person guilty unless it is so decided by the Court of Law. The complainant submitted that the respondent had never verified the facts from him before publishing the impugned material and thereby violated the norms relating to fair journalism. The complainant further clarified that the papers submitted by the respondent were related to a small commercial transaction and the matter was dismissed by the court at a preliminary stage without adjudicating anything regarding the merits of the case and the same is yet to be decided by the trial court. The complainant has requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent for publishing misleading, unverified and defamatory facts in the form of an advertisement.

287 A copy of the counter comments was furnished to the respondent on 25.2.2010 for information. Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing on 31.3.2010 at Indore. The complainant’s Advocate Shri Veer Kumar Jain appeared before the Inquiry Committee and submitted that newspaper published factually incorrect news. It was a civil transaction of Rs. three Lacs between two traders but the respondent projected the news publishing it as an advertisement: “àÉxÉÉϺÉPÉÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊxÉMÉ®ÉxÉÉÒ ªÉÉÉÊSÉBÉEÉ JÉÉÉÊ®VÉ : BÉE®ÉäbÉå BÉEÉÒ vÉÉäJÉÉvÉbÉÒ”. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the Counsel noted that the respondent editor in a letter dated 22.3.2010 requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request and decided to adjourn the matter.

Arguments

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi. Shri Sanjay Bhatt, advocate and Shri Jatinder Nagar appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments in the complaint. He added that respondent was not represented before the Inquiry Committee on last occasion also.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the learned counsel for the complainant. The Committee noted that the respondent despite receiving the notice of hearing did not care to be represented before the Committee to defend the publication. The respondent remained unrepresented on last occasion also when the matter was heard at Indore on 31.3.2010.

On merits, the Committee observed that the respondent published the report in the form of advertisements alleging misappropriation of funds and cheating the farmers from whom he had purchased land. The Committee did not find force in defence taken by the respondent that the impugned publication was in the form of an advertisement and not a news report. In view of the gravity of the charges and the editor’s responsibility for selection of all contents of a newspaper, including an advertisement, the respondent could not absolve himself. The impugned material had the tendency to harm the reputation of the complainant in the society, and required pre-publication verification. The respondent compounded the offence by not publishing the clarification of the complainant denying him his

288 right to reply. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, opined that the editor ‘Pratahkaal’ did not discharge his function correctly by carrying the impugned advertisement. The Inquiry Committee thus in its report to the Council recommended to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent editor of Pratahkaal, Mumbai. It further recommended that the Council’s adjudication may be forwarded to the DAVP, the RNI and the I&PRD of Government of Maharashtra for necessary action as they deem fit in the matter.

Held

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

108) Shri Sandeep Godika The Editor Jaipur, Rajasthan Versus Current Jwala Jaipur, Rajasthan

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This undated complaint received on 12.08.2009 has been filed by Shri Sandeep Godika, Jaipur, Rajasthan against the editor, Current Jwala, an evening daily, Jaipur for publication of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory public notice in a box column under the caption “Avashyak Soochna” in its issue dated 26.6.2009. By means of this public notice, the respondent editor, Current Jwala informed readers that Shri Sandeep Godika, the complainant worked with the newspaper for seventeen days only i.e. (14.04.2009-30.04.2009) and issued the Press Card. Since he had allegedly misbehaved with some higher rank of Jaipur Development Authority the respondent editor had therefore cancelled his Press Card. In case he misbehaves, with anyone they may file a police complaint against him.

The complainant denied the allegation levelled in the impugned publication and submitted that the contents of the notice, except his name, were false and baseless. After publication of the impugned notice, no newspaper was willing to give job nor the respondent has been paying for the work he had done, instead they were giving threats, alleged the complainant. He had drawn the attention of the respondent, vide letter dated 20.10.2009.

Written Statement

In response to show cause notice dated 1.1.2010, the respondent editor

289 Smt. Manju Jain in her written statement dated 15.1.2010 has denied the complaint as false non maintainable and submitted that the notice in question published in their newspaper was true and based on facts because the complainant has been misusing the Press Card issued by them. It was not their intention to defame the complainant stated the respondent, but to caution readers, that the Press Card issued in the name of the Sandeep Godika being cancelled as there were complaints against him of misusing the card. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was employed on trial basis for seventeen days and got published news items under his by lines. On gaining confidence, a Press Card was issued to him, stated the respondent, and added that once he was issued a Press Card the complainant begun misusing it and stopped to report to the office/newspaper. They have all the freedom to publish a public notice to cancel the Press Card when its holder started misusing it, retorted the respondent. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 19.2.2010 to counter comments. However, no response has been received from the complainant. Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. In order to afford another chance for hearing to the parties the Committee adjourned the matter. Arguments

The matter come up for hearing before the Inquiry Committe at New Delhi on 1.6.10. The complaint, Shri Sandeep Godika was present in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Evening Dainik Current Jawala. The complainant reiterated the arguments made in the complaint. He added that the language of the notice was defamatory. Report of the Inquiry Committee

On consideration of the impugned notice and oral arguments of the complainant the Committee observed that the notice did not contain any derogatory language rather it was aimed to inform the public that the complainant, Sandeep Godika was no more on the roll of the newspaper, Current Jawala. Accordingly, it submitted its report to the Council for disposal. Held

The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint being without substance.

290 109) The Commissioner The Editor Municipal Council Versus Rajasthan Patrika Alwar, Rajasthan Alwar, Rajasthan

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 29.7.2009 has been filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Alwar against Rajasthan Patrika, Alwar for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned ‘Woh Mast To Hum Kyon Pust’ and ‘Samman Kaisa Dakaar Gaye Paisa’ in its issue dated 22.7.2008 and 25.7.2008 respectively. The complainant has submitted that the deliberate distortion quoting the Municipal Council, has tarnished his image in the public and that not only the statistics were totally wrong but also general impression that the Municipal Council was working in negative manner, was totally false. The complainant further alleged that the Alwar based representative of the respondent newspaper was habitual of publishing baseless news items. The complainant vide letters dated 29.7.2008 and 5.8.2008 had drawn the attention of the respondent editor, pointing out the inaccuracies in the impugned news report with a request to reveal the source of information upon which it was published. He, however, has received no response.

The complainant in a further communication dated 31.12.2008 submitted that the respondent had again published yet another news item captioned ‘Kamai Mein Parishad Ki Sendh’ in its issue dated 8.11.2008 and had alleged that the same was false and baseless, and published with the motive to defame him in the society.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 25.11.2008, the respondent Deputy Editor, Rajasthan Patrika in his written statement dated 16.1.2009 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. He has stated that the contents of the news items in question were true and were published on the basis on fact with supporting evidentiary documents. The respondent has stated that they have no malafide motive behind the publication of the impugned news items, but were published on the basis of information available with them in the interest of public at large. He also stated that since the complainant was unable to furnish supporting evidence to substantiate their stand, the allegations levelled in the

291 complaint were false and baseless. The respondent further submitted that they have been doing pre-publication verification on the information even at the cost of delaying its publication for a day or two for the sake of accuracy.

Counter Comments

The complainant Commissioner, Municipal Council in his counter comments dated 13.3.2009 reiterated his complaint and denied the statements filed by the respondent. He has alleged that the allegations levelled by the respondent in the impugned news items were far away from facts.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 15.4.2009.

Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. The respondent vide his letter dated 18.3.2010 requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request decided to adjourn the matter.

Arguments

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Indresh Sharma, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika stated that the complainant was not represented before the Committee on last occasion also and added that the news was published on the basis of facts.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Indore on 1.4.2010 when the complainant was not represented before it. The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010 when the complainant was not represented. It noted that the complainant despite sufficient opportunity did not avail of it to pursue the case. The Inquiry Committee had no option but to recommend closure of the case.

Held

The Council on perusal of the records of the case accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint.

292 110) Smt. & Shri Vijay Rawat The Editors Dehradun The Hindu The Times of India Versus The Hindustan Times

Smt. Anuradha Bhattacharya The Indian Express Noida, U.P. Dainik Jagran Nav Bharat Times The Mid Day

ADJUDICATION

Facts

These complaints dated 9.9.2008 have been filed by Smt. and Shri Vijay Rawat, parents of the deceased Anirudh Rawat, Noida now shifted to Dehradun and Smt. Anuradha Bahttacharya, mother of the deceased girl Sneha, Noida against seven national daily newspapers (i) The Hindu, (ii) The Times of India (iii) The Hindustan Times (iv) The Indian Express (v) Dainik Jagran (vi) Nav Bharat Times and (vii) The Mid Day for publication of defamatory, sensational and inhuman reporting of an accident of their children in the issues dated 25.2.2008. The reporting objected to in the impugned news items are as follows:-

1. The Hindu-dated 25.2.2008 ‘A weekend outing ended in a tragedy for the three young men and their woman friend when their Skoda Laura car careened of the road.’ ‘Police said medical examination of the occupants revealed that they were under the influence of alcohol at the time of incident.’

2. The Times of India – dated 25.2.2008 ‘Medical report of all four shows that they were under heavy influence of alcohol……….said investigating officer.’ ‘Doctor who conducted the Post Mortem confirmed that the alcohol level in her body was high.’

3. Times City of The Times of India – dated 25.2.2008 ‘The police said all four occupants of the car were under heavy influence of alcohol.’

4. The Times of India – dated 25.2.2008 (i) Photograph of Sneha is the focus of the entire report so as to glamorize and sensationalise the tragedy (ii) ‘Among a group of four returning from a drinking binge at the five star hotel’ (iii) ‘According to Police all were drunk.’

5. The Hindustan Times (Metro NOIDA) – dated 25.2.2008 ‘Death of two teenagers in an accident due to drunken driving.’

293 6. The Hindustan Times – dated 24.2.2008 (i) ‘Drunk and driving; Car Crash kills two students.’ (ii) ‘Do not drink and drive. A group of youngsters gave this terse message from the Delhi Police a go-by early on Sunday and paid for it dearly: Two of them lost their lives.’ (iii) ‘ “All of them were drunk” said Anand Mohan, DCP (New Delhi)’ 7. The Indian Express – dated 25.2.2008 (i) ‘All four in Skoda Laura were inebriated, though under age (Headline) (ii) ‘All occupants were under the influence of liquor.’ (iii) ‘The doctors have indicated that alcohol level in her body was high.’ 8. Express News line (The Indian Express) – dated 25.2.2008 (i) ‘All four Skoda were inebriated though under age (Headline) (ii) ‘According to the Police, the car was travelling at the speed of over 150 km/hr and all occupants were under the influence of liquor.’ (iii) ‘The doctors have indicated that alcohol level in body was high.’ 9. The Indian Express – dated 27.3.2008 ‘All four were coming from a party in Delhi and were inebriated, police said.’ 10. Dainik Jagran – dated 25.2.2008 ‘According to the police, investigation is going on. But from the preliminary investigation it seems that all the four people travelling in the car were drunk.’ 11. Nav Bharat Times – dated 25.2.2008 ‘The medical report of the injured confirmed that they were completely drunk.’ 12. Mid Day – dated 25.2.2008 ‘According to the police, the four were returning from a late night party and were in an inebriated condition.’ According to the complainants, on 23.2.2008, a get together was organized by the Red Bull Company where their son, Anirudh Rawat had worked and after the party was over, he was coming home in a car of his friend Satyajit Singh who was totally drunk and drove the car. The complainants stated that Satyajit was driving in an extremely rash, reckless and negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle at India Gate circle and met an accident where two of the co-passenger namely Anirudh Rawat and Sneha Kapoor died on the spot and another co-passenger Gaurav Sabikhi was seriously injured. The incident was widely reported in various newspapers by making statements that all were drunk, in order to sensationalize the news though the post mortem report confirmed that Anirudh Rawat, their son was not drunk, alleged the complainants. They further stated that the post mortem report of Anirudh Rawat confirmed that there were no traces of liquor from his body, then on what basis, the police officials and the mediapersons wrote that the children were drunk or were in an inebriated condition or the alcohol content in their body was high.

294 The complainants alleged that the respondent newspapers defamed their son even after his death by stating or insinuating that he was a product of the new generation that believed in drinking, over speeding, going to late night parties and wasting away their youth in a culture of ‘eat, drink and be merry.’ He was portrayed as an irresponsible, filthy rich drunkard, a symbol of GenNext. Though they had approached two of the seven respondents namely The Times of India and Hindustan Times, they were reluctant to publicly acknowledge the wrong they have committed but they rather put words in their mouth that the complainants were victims of trial by media. The complainants drew attention of the respondents on 24.1.2009. Only Dainik Jagran responded and admitted its mistake but not tendered any apology although published a rejoinder under the caption ‘Anirudh Ne Nahin Pi Thi Sharab’ in its Delhi edition dated 12.2.2009. The complainants requested the Council to take necessary action. Show Cause Notices Show cause notices were issued to all the six respondents except Dainik Jagran, namely; (i) The Hindu (ii) The Times of India (iii) The Hindustan Times (iv) The Indian Express (v) Nav Bharat Times and (vi) Mid Day on 16.4.2009. Written Statements 1. The Indian Express The Indian Express in its written statements dated 6.5.2009 submitted that the newspaper had carried the report in good faith and in public interest, based on information received from reliable sources, i.e. police authorities, believing it to be true and correct. The police authorities, who informed the press stated that the occupants of the ill fated car were inebriated and the newspaper did not have the post mortem report of the victims at the time when the report went to press. The respondent further stated that there was considerable delay in the complainant’s letter dated 24.1.2009 reaching them. However as soon as they received the same the newspaper carried prominently at page 2 as a box item the statement of the complainant as well as an unconditional apology. The correction and apology were carried not only by the respondent newspaper, but also in other editions of The Indian Express in Delhi and Mumbai as desired by the complainants, stated the respondent and added that therefore there exists no circumstances to take any action against the newspaper. 2. The Hindustan Times The Hindustan Times in its written statement dated 15.5.2009 submitted that they had published the news report as disclosed in a press conference

295 conducted by Shri Anand Mohan, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The newspaper had no reason to disbelieve the story which was told by the Senior Police Authorities to various journalists. Thus the factual reporting of any press report addressed by senior police authorities could not be said to be violative of the Press Council Act. The respondent further submitted that the impugned news item was published in usual and ordinary course and denied that it was false, baseless, sensational and inhuman reporting as it was totally based on the press conference/release of senior police authorities, which is evident from the fact of being same reporting on the same day by various newspapers in order to perform their primary responsibility of press to keep the public at large informed. In response to the contention of the complainant about the post mortem report handed over to the Police after three months stating that there was no trace of alcohol in their son’s body, the respondent, The Hindustan Times submitted that as an evidence of fair journalism and reporting, they had a news article under the heading ‘Parents fights ‘drunk’ tag on dead kids’ in its issue dated 8.7.2008 reporting about the autopsy reports as well as the reaction of both the complainants on such reports and on earlier view given by senior police authorities. At no point of time they have published their own interpretation or ideas in the matter but it was solely in usual and ordinary course of discharge of their primary duties as responsible journalists to keep the public at large informed about the incident. 3 & 4. The Times of India & Nav Bharat Times The Times of India and Nav Bharat Times in joint written statement dated 15.5.2009 submitted that the news reports in question were published basically in respect of the accident which led to the unfortunate and sad demise of two young lives. After publication of the impugned news reports, another news report captioned ‘Crash victims kin set record straight’ was published by them on 19.6.2008 as the complainants’ version. The respondent also duly published that the autopsy reports had infact shown the falsity of the police’s initial version of all the four youths having been drunk, the police briefing had infact been basis of news article published by the media. It was the police version which was carried in media and it is for that reason that generally every media covered this news item in the same way. They also expressed regrets for some comments of the parents published in the article in its issue dated 29.2.2008 under the caption ‘Shock and Emotion Run High’ wherein the victim children were unintentionally portrayed as Gen X spoilt brats and also clarified that the disparaging remarks count not have been directed in that article against the deceased youths. The respondents further submitted that their intention were bonafide and they did not intend to evade responsibility in anyway, and since, as was usual in such cases, the information had been given by the police they set the record straight as soon as the parents approached them.

296 Counter Comments of the Complainant

1. The Indian Express

The complainants in their counter comments dated 10.6.2009 to the written statements of The Indian Express stated that the respondent had issued a correction and apology not only in Delhi edition but also in other editions of the Indian Express and had also informed the Press Council officially of the action taken in the matter. They were satisfied with the amends made by the respondent and did not wish to pursue the complaint further.

2. The Hindustan Times

The complainants in their counter comments dated 10.6.2009 submitted that they first approached The Hindustan Times sometimes in June 2008 and it was on that basis that the article titled ‘Parents fight “drunk” tag on dead kids’ was published in 8.7.2008. While they were grateful to the respondent that such an article to redeem the reputation of the dead children had indeed been published, the complainants were of the view that rather than apologizing, the respondent Hindustan Times’ article was cleverly putting words into their mouths that they had become ‘victims of trial by media.’ Since the post-mortem report of the dead children did not mention there was alcohol in their bodies, then clearly the impugned news article was defamatory, derogatory, sensational and inhuman reporting of the accident retorted the complainants and added that rather than focusing on the tragedy of two young lives lost, the tenor of the news report in question was such that it almost insinuated that they deserved the death they got. They were not satisfied with the response given by the respondent and urged the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

3. The Times of India and Nav Bharat Times

The complainants in their counter comments dated 2.7.2009 to the written statements of The Times of India and Nav Bharat Times submitted that no mention has been made by the Nav Bharat Times of any corrective measure being taken in the matter. With regard to the clarification provided by The Times of India, the complainants while appreciating the two reports that were written in order to assuage their feelings, the fact reminds that the newspaper, like other tends to give credence to the police version in reporting the accidents. While agreeing that the two subsequent articles were well written and provided their side of the story, the complainants submitted that the fact remains that no public apology was given by the respondent for the damage that had been done to them and to the two dead children by the earlier news articles. They are not satisfied with the response of the respondents and urged the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

297 The Hindu and Mid Day did not file written statements.

Directions of the Inquiry Committee

The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.8.2009 at New Delhi. Shri Vijay Rawat, Smt. Anita Dighe and Smt. Anuradha Bhattacharya, the complainants appeared in person while S/Shri Ashok Kalkur (City Editor), The Hindu; Anil Kumar, Senior Assistant, Legal Department, The Indian Express; B.K. Mishra, Advocate, Dainik Jagran and Parwesh Lama, Principal Correspondent and Soumya Mukerji, Features Editor appeared for the respondent newspapers respectively.

Smt. Dighe, the complainant, while reiterating the averments made in the complaint and counter comments to the written statements of the respondents, submitted that they were deeply hurt by the reporting of the incident of an accident by the respondent newspapers. The caption carried innuendos and insinuation regarding the character and conduct of their children. Not even a single reporter of any newspaper contacted them before publishing the news reports. The news reports were published sensationalising the issue through incomplete or incorrect facts. The vital fact as to who was driving the car was left out. The news was carried on the first page very prominently which gave the impression that the parents of the children were irresponsible. She added that they met the editor of The Times of India who agreed to send a reporter to take their version but no one came to them. When the post mortem reports came, it confirmed what they believed that no alcohol was taken by the deceased, i.e. their son and the daughter of Smt. Bhattacharya. Without ascertaining the fact that who was driving the car the newspapers rushed to publish false, defamatory and derogatory news reports stating therein that all were heavily drunk whereas their children had only taken up the offer of being dropped home after their assignment was over. After the post mortem report the Times of India took corrective action by publishing an article but no apology was tendered. She further stated that they also met the Senior Correspondent of The Hindustan Times. The Hindustan Times also published a positive report about the children but did not publish the apology. The Hindu also published their letter but without apology. She stated that the damage to their reputation was so phenomenal that on the publication of news by National papers, the regional papers picked up the report and published the same. The electronic media also reported the incident widely. Later, the media channels have apologised. She concluded that the respondents published the news reports ignoring the facts and without prepublication verification. She contended that damage to their reputation was done but at least the newspaper could publish their regrets for the damage to the reputation of their children.

298 Smt. Bhattacharya, the second complainant stated that her daughter never took alcohol and she was a teetotaller. She added that one reporter came to her house and took the photograph of her daughter which was passed on to all the newspapers. She was shocked to see the photographs of her daughter alongwith false and defamatory news reports. The respondents owed an apology not to them but to the deceased who had been defamed. The representatives of the respondent newspapers took the stand that the reporters do not investigate the matter but such incidents were reported on the briefing and version of the police. The reports were published on that basis. The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the news reports and the arguments put forth before it felt that wrong reports had deeply affected the psyche of the already traumatised parents. It appeared that without verifying the facts the respondent newspapers had rushed to publicise the incident of accident alleging that all the occupants of the car were drunkard. They passed on their own judgement without waiting for the post mortem report. However, the Committee observed that the respondents had no intention to harm the reputation of the deceased or complainants, i.e. the parents of the deceased. Yet after the post-mortem report, it was expected that the newspapers of their own should have published apology at a prominent place as a corrective measure to the harm already done. It, therefore, urged and directed all the respondent newspapers, through their representatives to publish apology on a conspicuous space and send a copy of the issue carrying apology to the complainants as well as Press Council of India for record. The Inquiry Committee decided to keep the matter pending till the compliance report from the newspapers. Accordingly all the respondents were informed vide letter dated 8.10.2009 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Response from The Indian Express The respondent editor, Indian Express, New Delhi vide his letter dated 21.10.2009 informed that unconditional apology had already been carried in all editions of the paper and it was intimated to the Press Council of India vide letter dated 6.5.2009. The complainants had also informed the Press Council of India vide letter dated 10.6.2009 that they were satisfied with the reply of the respondent and do not wish to pursue the complaint further. Response from The Hindu The respondent editor, The Hindu reiterated in his letter dated 23.10.2009 that an apology had already been carried on May 5, 2009. Response from The Times of India and Navbharat Times The counsel for the Times of India and Navbharat Times, New Delhi

299 vide letter dated 29.10.2009 has informed that they have already published the clarification and version of the complainants on the said incident. They also carried a sympathetic and sensitive piece on complainant’s son. It is thus evident that their intentions were bonafide and did not intend to evade responsibility in anyway. They requested to drop the proceedings. Response from The Hindustan Times The Deputy General Manager, Legal, Hindustan Times, New Delhi vide his letter dated 10.11.2009 forwarded a copy of the apology published in The Hindustan Times dated 1.11.2009 in compliance with the Inquiry Committee’s directions. All the replies received from the respondent editors have been forwarded to the complainants vide letter dated 7.12.2009 with a request to intimate whether they are satisfied with the reply/action taken by the respondents or desire to pursue the cases against them. No reply was received. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matters were placed before the Inquiry Committee for consideration at New Delhi on 1.6.2010. The Committee noted that these matters came up for hearing before it on 11.8.2009 when the Committee after hearing the parties present had urged and directed all the respondents to publish apology on a conspicuous space and forward the issue carrying apology to the complainants and Council for record. This was kept pending till the compliance report was received from the newspapers. The Committee noted from the record that the newspapers have complied with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. It,therefore, felt that no further action was required in the matter. It made its report to the Council to dispose off the complaints. Held The Press Council on perusal of the records of the case accepted the opinion of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaints as the respondent newspapers complying with the directions of the Committee published the apology.

111) Mr. Y.P. Vadhara The Editor Woodlands Versus The Times of India United Kingdom Mumbai ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated, 18.9.2006 has been filed by Mr. Y.P. Vedhara, Woodlands, United Kingdom against The Times of India, Mumbai for publication

300 of allegedly false news item captioned ‘Don’s property worth Rs.3,000 Cr.’ In its issue dated 22.11.2005. It was published in the impugned news item that ‘then, one Kamal Vadhera, a UK passport-holder and resident of Woodlands, Woolsington, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE 13 8 BL, UK was supposed to have paid for the accommodation and expensed of Usman Khan dna Fauzia Usman (among the many aliases of Salem and Monica) in the UK. Who is Mr. Vadhera?’ The complainant has objected that by mentioning his full name and complete address he had been accused of paying for the accommodation and expenses of the notorious don Abu Salem during his visit to the United Kingdom. He has produced documentary evidence obtained from the British High Commissioner, New Delhi stating that the UK Visa Services in India have not found any record having being sponsored by the complainant’s name, address. The complainant has provided a copy of the respondent’s reply dated 17.5.2006 to his notice, wherein the newspaper stood firm on their stand and denied each and every allegation and averment made by the complainant. The respondent however published the complainant’s clarification in their newspaper issue dated 28.4.2006 stating that ‘one Kamal Vadhara, who claims to be living at the same address as Kamal Vadhera (as mentioned in the article), has informed that there was no truth in the allegations contained in the report.’ The respondent, The Times of India also appended their clarification by stating that ‘the report was published on the basis of information provided to us by our usual reliable sources in the government’ and that ‘there was no intention to defame Kamal Vadhara alias Kamal Vadhera.’ Comments In response to the notice for comments in reply dated 5.9.2007, the respondent, The Times of India in its comments dated 20.9.2007 has submitted that the news article in question was based on documents available with them, which was provided by the usually reliable sources. The fact that the complainant’s name appeared in one of the documents with complete and correct details of his address, lent credence to the authenticity of the information, asserted the respondent and added that in any case, the article stated that Kamal Vedhara is ‘supposed to have paid’ and was not direct statement of the fact. The respondent further submitted that they have published a clarification in their newspaper dated 28.4.2006 along with the denial of the complainant in respect to the statements made in the impugned article. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 23.10.2007 has submitted that he was horrified and dismayed by the fact that the respondent could publish an article of this nature without seeking to verify the accuracy of the facts as

301 they have the full postal address, and failed to deal properly with justifiable concerns. Show Cause Notice On a careful consideration of the comments and counter comments, a show cause notice was issued the respondent on 9.2.2009. Written Statement The respondent editor, The Times of India, Mumbai Market, Mr. Derick D’sa in his written statement dated 26.3.2009 reiterated that the article in question was based on documents available with them, which were provided by their usually reliable sources and also denied that the impugned article has cause damage to the complainant’s otherwise untarnished reputation. Since the article was based on documentary evidence provided by reliable sources, there was no question of issuing a public apology, however in the interest of fairness, they did publish a clarification on 28.4.2009 submitted the respondent. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 13.4.2009 for information and counter comments, if any. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.1.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant’s son Shri Kamal Vadhara in a fax dated 11.1.2010 intimated that due to weather conditions, the UK has caused airports to close the flights and cancellations. British Airways have rescheduled all flights from Heathrow and he was expecting that he would arrive in New Delhi on the evening of Wednesday 13th January, 2010 (One day after the hearing date). Therefore, he requested to grant adjournment. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had requested for short adjournment, which was not feasible. The Inquiry Committee decided that the parties might file their written arguments in the matter. The Inquiry Committee also authorized Hon’ble Chairman to hear the parties, if they so desire. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for consideration by the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi. The parties to the complaint were not called to appear before it as on the last date of hearing, i.e. on 12.1.2010 the Inquiry Committee had authorized Hon’ble Chairman to hear the parties but neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared before Hon’ble Chairman. However, the Editor, Times of India in his written statement dated 18.5.2010 submitted that the

302 impugned article was based on documents in their possession. It was added that a clarification along with the denial of Shri Kamal Vedhara in respect of the statement made in the article was published on April 28, 2006. The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the record opined that the respondent The Times of India had carried the clarification and had taken sufficient care while publishing the impugned article. Thus, the Committee observed that no further action was needed in the matter. It submitted its report to the Council for disposal of the complaint. Held The Press Council accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint, in view of the fact that a clarification was carried by The Times of India.

112) Shri Rajpal Malik The Editor Assistant City Commissioner Versus News Prahari Municipal Corporation Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (U.P.) Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 16.4.2007 has been filed by Shri Rajpal Malik, Assistant City Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad against ‘News Prahari’ for publication of allegedly false misleading and defamatory news item under the caption ‘Nagar Nigam Ke Do Chor Amne-Samne’ in its issue dated 12.2.2007. It was reported therein that one could witness fighting between two thieves at the Municipal Corporation. Instead of working for development, two Assistant City Commissioners were hurling wild allegations at each other. The Second thief is a Zonal Commissioner, Shri Rajpal Malik, posted at posh area like Vasundhra, is not a small time thief and was once suspended by the authority on charges of corruption. It was further stated that while his suspension order was stayed by the High Court, the Commissioner was alleged to have been bungling in taxes in the Municipal Corporation. The complainant has charged that the impugned news item was false, baseless and defamatory and also objected to the use of word ‘thief’ in the news report. He had drawn the attention of the respondent vide letter dated 16.4.2007 but received no reply and has alleged that the respondent violated the norms of journalistic conduct by denying his right of reply. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, News Prahari’ on 12.4.2007 but no written statement was filed despite issuance of reminder.

303 Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.2.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Mukesh Kumar, Reporter appearing for the respondent requested for a copy of the complaint to enable him to file written statement. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request and decided to adjourn the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi, when Shri Mukesh Kumar, representative, News Prahari appeared for the respondent and filed written statement stating therein that the impugned news item was based on the information gathered from reliable sources. He filed a copy of the order dated 1.6.2007 of the Commissioner, Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation stating that as per orders dated 7.5.2007 of the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Shri Rajpal Singh Malik, Assistant City Commissioner, Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation is relieved from the post with immediate effect and ordered to report to Nazibabad (Bijnor) City Municipal Corporation. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had requested to adjourn the matter due to his ill health. It decided to adjourn the matter to enable the complainant to counter the written statement. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.7.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance before it from either side. It noted that the notices of hearing sent to the complainant had been received back with postal remarks “Left”. The complainant did not intimate his new address nor did he file any counter to the written statement. The Inquiry Committee was left with no option but to close the complaint. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint.

113) Shri Sudeep Garg The Editor M/s Tapan Milk Products Versus Amar Ujala Agra, U.P. Agra, U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Sudeep Garg, M/s Tapan Milk Products, Agra has filed this complaint

304 dated 21.10.2008 against the editor, Amar Ujala, Agra for publication of allegedly baseless and defamatory news items under the captions as follows:

Sl. No. Caption Dated Edition 1. Milavati Karobariyon Par Chhape 30.5.2008 Agra 2. Sub Nakli Ban Raha 30.5.2008 Agra 3. Na Act Na Ankush, Kya Kha Rahen 23.9.2008 Agra Pata Nahin 4. Pakda 1675 Liter Desi Ghee-Sehat 17.10.2008 Jalandhar Vibhag Ne Ghee Ke Sample Jaanch Ke Liye Chandigarh Bheje

It was stated in the impugned news items that on 29th May, 2008 the district administration and Nagar Nigam, Agra jointly conducted a raid in the different places of Agra City in connection with suspected adulteration in edible and other items. Tapan Milk Products was also one of the factories where raid of the Nagar Nigam & SOG was conducted. During the raid/search the Raiding Officials found several irregularities and recovered huge quantity of refined oil, milk powder and milk powder of expiry date and some packets of Desi Ghee of some other companies from the factory. According to the officials, these objectionable items should not be found in such type of firm.

Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the impugned news items were misleading and published with a motive to tarnish the image of their firm, which caused heavy financial losses. The complainant has submitted that their firm Tapan Milk Products manufactures premium mild fat (proprietary food) which means a food which has not been standardized under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. On 29.5.2008 Food Inspector along with some officials of Municipal Corporation and police visited the firm for inspection, which was not within their jurisdiction. Some reporters and photographers were also with the team. The complainant apprised them about the products of proprietary food which their firm manufactures. Later the complainant visited the respondent editor and also apprised him about the facts. He assured that no misleading or baseless news item will be published. Despite the assurance, the respondent editor published impugned report on 30.5.2008. The complainant called a press meet and explained them about their products and clarified that they manufacture only products of mild fat, but the respondent did not publish the contradiction and pressurized them to issue advertisement in the newspaper.

305 On refusal, the respondent editor published another news item captioned : “Na Act Na Aankush Kya Kha Rahen Pata Nahin” in its issue dated 23.9.2008 and tried to defame their firm. The complainant vide letter dated 15.10.2008 issued a clarification/contradiction to the respondent editor but to no avail. On the contrary the respondent editor again published a news item captioned : “Pakda 1675 Liter Desi Ghee” on 17.10.2008 in its Jalandhar edition. Later the complainant himself released and got published a clarification on 23.10.2008 in Jalandhar edition of the respondent newspaper. The complainant has requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent editor for continuously publishing misleading news items and defaming their firm besides pressurizing and blackmailing them. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 22.12.2008 the respondent editor Amar Ujala, denying the allegations, submitted in the written statement dated 23.1.2009 that publication of the news items in question were neither objectionable nor the editor had offended against the standard of journalistic ethics or committed any professional misconduct. In fact the impugned news items were objective and fair reporting was made in good faith in discharge of public duty devoid of any malice and based upon the facts. Denying the allegations that the complainant was pressurized to release the advertisements to the Amar Ujala, the respondent has submitted that the complainant himself released and got published an advertisement in the newspaper. The respondent has submitted that on 29.5.2008 after getting the information about the said raid, the reporter was sent on the spot to cover the same. The published news items were based on the search and the information given by the officials and the same were published in public interest without any intention to lower the business reputation of the complainant. According to the respondent editor the adulteration in any form specially in edible items is a serious matter which attracts the attention of the media. Accordingly the news was published in broader interest of the society in good faith. In the news item dated 30.5.2008 the version of all the concerned were given prominently. The news item dated 23.9.2008 was general in nature and in the said news not even a single allegation was made against the complainant or his firm. It was published only to create consumers awareness. Regarding the news item 17.10.2008 published in the Jalandhar edition of the newspaper, the respondent editor has submitted that it was based on the search and seizure conducted by the administrative authority of the Jalandhar district. Whatever, facts were given by them, same were published without any addition or omission. On the basis of the information received the administrative authority of Jalandhar seized the product which belongs to the complainant. In the said news item even the name of the complainant or the identity of his firm was not disclosed. The version of the

306 complainant was also given. Thus, by publishing the impugned news items the newspaper had performed its obligation and role with fullest sense of responsibility. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 30.1.2009. No reply is received despite issuance of reminder dated 25.2.2009. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment on 26.4.2010 on complainant’s request, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. Shri Anil Kumar Arya, advocate appeared for the complainant. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Amit Kumar Choudhary represented the respondent newspaper. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the news report was incorrect to the effect that adulterated Desi Ghee was recovered from the firm. It was simple collection of the sample of the ghee. Same day the proprietor of the firm met the editor, Amar Ujala and explained the factual position. He added that instead of publication of the clarification again critical news was published. He further stated that no other newspaper published such news. The counsel pleaded that the report of the sample was received. No action was taken by the Administration. Representative of the respondent submitted that Nagar Nigam and District Administration conducted raid on the firm and sent samples for verification. The newspaper had simply reported these actions. The version of the complainant was published in the news of 30.5.2008 itself. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the records of the case and oral arguments put forth before it by the parties. The Committee noted that admittedly a joint operation was conducted by Nagar Nigam and Administration Authorities on the complainant’s factory at Agra where samples had been collected. It further noted that the impugned news report contained the version of the complainant also. The other reports did not mention the complainant firm. Thus keeping in mind the public interest involved, the Committee was not convinced that the impugned reports were in violation of journalistic norms. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided to reject the complaint.

307 114) Dr. Hariom The Editor District Magistrate Versus Amar Ujala Mirzapur Varanasi (U.P.)

The Editor Dainik Hindustan H.T. Media Limited Varanasi

ADJUDICATION

Facts

These complaints dated 7.12.2007 have been filed by Dr. Hariom, District Magistrate, Mirzapur (U.P.) against the editors (i) Dainik Hindustan and (ii) Amar Ujala, Varanasi, U.P. for publication of allegedly false and baseless news items under the captions ‘Mirzapur Mein: Mid-Day Meal Mein Milaya Zahar, Badi Anhoni Tali’ and “Mid-Day Meal Mein Zahar Milaya - School Par Dhava” respectively in their issues dated 29.11.2007. According to the news items on 27.11.2007 at Prathmik Avam Purv- Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dhobahi situated under Adalhat Police Station, Vikas Khand- Jamalpur, mid day meal was prepared by Smt. Madhuri Devi. When she returned to the kitchen from wash room she noticed that a lady namely Banwasi Devi, an Angan Wadi worker, who came to the kitchen in her absence, run away in most suspicious manner on seeing her. The lady cook apprised the Principal of the school and raised doubt that the said lady might have laced poison in the meal. For testing, the meal was served to a dog, which eventually died on the spot. The whole meal was thrown in a pit and the meal was prepared afresh and served to the schoolchildren. In the evening when the children returned home, they apprised their parents. After hearing the entire incident, the villagers became furious and next morning they surrounded the school premises and raised their protest. The Pradhan of village had informed the police which investigated the matter and arrested the suspect.

The complainant submitted that the respondents concocted a false story to malign the local administration and sensationalize the public. He alleged that the said news items not only caused panic in the administrative channels but also adversely affected the psyche of school going children and their parents. The complainant (D.M. of Mirzapur) immediately sent the S.D.M., Circle Officer, Tehsildar, Chunar and B.D.O, Jamalpur, Mirzapur for on the spot inquiry and found that no such incident had taken place as indicated in news items. The complainant further submitted that the respondent newspapers cooked up the

308 story with the sole intention to malign the image and reputation of the district administration. The complainant further alleged that these news items were published without verifying the facts from the school principal, Gram Pradhan or other villagers.

The complainant in his further communication dated 17.1.2008 submitted that he had called a press conference on 29.11.2007 and apprised the factual position to the Bureau Chief of both the newspapers and requested them to publish the contradiction. But the respondents did not publish the factual version, but again published the follow-up of the false and baseless story on 30.11.2007 under the caption “Moke Par Nahin Mila Saksha, Bayan Darz Kar Luate Adhikari” (Hindustan) and “Dhobahin Gaon: Ab Bhi Aankhon Mein Khauf” - Bhaiya Javan Bhayal Chhod Aage Se Na Hoye Aasain”. The complainant requested the Council to take action against both the respondent newspapers.

Written Statement

In response to show cause notice dated 15.2.2008, the respondent editor ‘Amar Ujala’ in his written statement dated 5.3.2008 submitted that news items published in Amar Ujala in its issues dated 29.11.2007 and 30.11.2007 were true and all the allegations made in the complaint were false. The news items were objective and fair reporting, made in good faith in discharge of public duty. Since the matter was highly sensitive and there was a serious lapse on the part of local administration hence the district administration coloured the incident in a different way to hide their lapses, negligence and failure, alleged the respondent. When the previously mentioned facts came to the notice of the reporter he visited the spot and inquired and verified the incident from the villagers who supported the facts of news items. The respondent furnished a photocopy of the statements of a few villagers and photo of the dead dog as supporting documents. It is admitted fact that the mid day meal was prepared but was not distributed and was thrown away. The basic questions arise if the food was genuine why it was not distributed to the children and why it was thrown and if it was thrown under some suspicion of poison, how the suspicion was developed? What was the entire procedure of preparation of mid day meal and what requisite precaution is being observed by the person responsible for the preparation and distribution of the meal. All these questions required detailed answers but were not touched by the local administration, alleged the respondent and requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

The respondent further submitted that the complainant has submitted the report alleged to be made by Khand Vikas Adhikari, Jamalpur, Tehsildar Chunar, CO, Chunar and SDM, Chunar in support of his complaint, which was concocted and not fair and self-contradictory.

309 The respondent further submitted that similar news were also published by various other prominent Hindi dailies viz Hindustan, Dainik Jagran, Dainik Gandiv, which itself show that the news item was substantially true.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 29.5.2008 reiterated his complaint, and submitted that the statement of the respondent editor, Amar Ujala showed his causal attitude towards baseless reporting and indirectly maligned the local administration by sensational reporting.

No written statement was received from the other respondent Dainik Hindustan.

Matters Adjourned

The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi, when Shri Vijay Kumar, Legal Consultant appeared for the respondent, Hindustan and Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Legal Advisor appeared for Amar Ujala. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant as the notice was received back with postal remark “No such person of this name Returned”.

The Inquiry Committee noted that the postal authority had not taken care to check the credentials of highest authority in the district. It directed the Secretariat to send the notice by designation to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur. The matter was adjourned.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matters were called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.7.10 at New Delhi. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthy, Legal Advisor along with Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary appeared for Amar Ujala. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Awasthy appearing for Amar Ujala submitted that the impugned report was in public interest and bonafide. The Committee noted the absence of the complainant authorities despite service of notice which showed their lack of seriousness in the matter. It made this report to the Council.

Held

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

310 115) Shri Prem Kumar Aggarwal The Editor Founder, Prem Courier Service Versus Aaj, Hindi Dainik Moradabad (U.P.) Bareilly (U.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 12.6.2008 has been filed by Shri Prem Kumar Aggarwal, Founder, Prem Courier Service, Moradabad against the editor, “Aaj”, Bareilly alleging publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Courier Service Ki Aad Mein Deh Vyapar” in its issue dated 29.5.2008 charging the complainant of running prostitute racket in his own house under the grab of courier service. Shri Vinit Kumar, neighbour of Shri Prem Kumar had filed a complaint with the S.S.P. of the area regarding illegal activities of Prem Courier Service. The complainant has alleged that Shri Sandeep Verma, Correspondent of Aaj deliberately published the impugned news to defame him in the society. The complainant has submitted that he inquired from Shri Vinit Kumar about the said letter written to the S.S.P. who denied having written such letter as alleged in the impugned news item. The complainant filed an affidavit of Shri Vinit Kumar denying it. The complainant has alleged that respondent correspondent created a fake letter and sent to the SSP and published the false and baseless news itemto defame him. The complainant vide letter dated 7.6.2008 drew the attention of respondent editor, Aaj and requested to publish contradiction and apology but received no response. The complainant has requested the Council to take action in the matter. Written Statement In his written statement dated 17.2.2009 the respondent editor, Aaj has submitted that the news item was published on facts and evidence. The editor submitted that annexure 3 & 4 sent by the complainant were having different signatures. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when Shri Prem Kumar Aggarwal, the complainant appeared in person and alleged that he was working as Munshi with Shri Omkar Singh, Advocate, who was a legal advisor in Prathma Bank and journalist in Aaj. The respondent journalist-cum-counsel wanted the complainant to continue to work with him but the complainant had started Courier Services.

311 Shri Omkar Singh had caused publication of impugned news item and he made deadly attack through his henchmen. Shri Omkar Singh, Advocate/journalist appearing for Aaj submitted that the news was based on complaint of Vinit Kumar and there was no malice in it. The respondent alleged that one minor girl working in Prem Courier Service was kidnapped and later married to kidnapper. The respondent requested for time to produce documents and order of High Court.

The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the counsel for the respondent entered appearance without any authorisation. The Inquiry Committee directed the editor to depute at next hearing a person properly authorised in writing along with documents in support of their submissions. The matter was adjourned.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. The complainant was present in person. S/Shri Divakar Gupta and Omkar Sharma, advocate represented the respondent newspaper. The complainant submitted that the derogatory news was published against him. No case in any police station had been filed against him.

Counsel for the respondent argued that the news was based on facts. He added that representative of the newspaper was sent to the area and after verification the news was published.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

On consideration of the records and oral arguments advanced before the Inquiry Committee, it observed that serious allegations of running a prostitution racket in the house has been levelled against the complainant with a sensational headline. The Committee noted that on the last date of hearing the representative of the respondent had sought time to file documents to substantiate the allegations in the impugned news report but he failed to do so. The Committee on examination of the records held that the respondent had no document in possession to support the impugned news and appeared to have been prompted by personal consideration of one of its reporters. The news report tended to defame the complainant among the public in general and family members in particular by attacking his character. The respondent compounded the offence by not publishing the clarification of the complainant. For the reasons aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint against the respondent newspaper, Aaj, Bareilly. It made its report to the Council for final decision. 312 Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to Censure the Aaj, Bareilly through its advocate/reporter, Shri Omkar Sharma and its editor. It further decided to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication to DAVP, RNI and Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh for such action as they deem fit in the matter.

116) Shri Shailender Kumar The Editor General Manager Versus Aaj, Hindi Dainik Prathama Bank Bareilly (U.P.) Moradabad (U.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Shailender Kumar, General Manager, Prathama Bank, Moradabad has filed this complaint dated 14.8.2008 against the editor “Aaj”, Hindi Daily, Bareilly edition for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item captioned “Prabandhak Prathama Bank Billaari: Abhadrata Charam Per” (Manager of Prathama Bank’s Billari -Misbehaviour at its peak) in its issuedated 14.8.2008. It was alleged in the news item that the Manager of Prathama Bank, Billaari, Shri N.P. Singh was busy in making illegal recoveries and taking bribe from the customers. As per sources, some part of the bribe was being paid to the Chairman of the bank. The news item also highlighted the alleged irregularities and inefficiency of the bank. The complainant has alleged that the impugnned news item was published with a motive to defame the bank in the eyes of public. The whole story published in the impugned news item was false, baseless and concocted. The complainant vide his letter dated 14.8.2008 drew the attention of respondent editor and requested to publish his contradiction with regret but received no response. Written Statement In his written statement dated 24.10.2008 the respondent editor, Aaj while denying the allegation levelled by the complainant, submitted that the news item was published on the basis of information and facts. The respondent has submitted that he had reported the irregularities about opening of accounts of the customers by taking bribe. The respondent further submitted that the instant complaint is filed by the complainant to pressurise the press so that the irregularities are not published in future against the bank. The respondent has submitted that many poor villagers complained to the District Magistrate regarding the irregularities of the bank. The District Magistrate vide letter dated 22.7.2008

313 directed the Chairman of the bank to transfer the Manager. The respondent alleged that the Cashier of the bank was indulging in irregular activities and had given fake currency to the villagers and he was arrested by the police and put behind the bars. To support his case the respondent filed the documents. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint and take action against the complainant for filing false complaint. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 17.12.2008 the complainant denied the allegations levelled by the respondent and submitted that documents submitted by the respondent were after the date of the publication i.e. 14.8.2008. The complainant has submitted that the incidence of fake currency was related to Sahaspur. The complainant added that the written statement of the respondent was far from the fact and baseless. He has submitted that there was no irregularities in opening of accounts of villagers and accounts were opened after fulfilling the requirements of the bank. He has stated that the news item was published only to defame the bank in the eyes of public and requested to take action against the respondent. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant was unrepresented. Shri Omkar Singh, Advocate, entered appearance before it for respondent editor, Aaj. Since he did not carry any authorization from the Aaj, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. The complainant appeared in person while Shri Omkar Sharma represented the respondent newspaper. The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the averments in the complaint. He added that he was transferred in normal course. He further added that the language used in the news was not proper. The representative of the respondent pleaded that there were number of complaints from villagers about opening of account in the bank on the basis of which, the District Magistrate wrote to the Chairman of the Bank to transfer the complainant. He showed documents to establish that the news was based on facts pertaining to pre-publication stage. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material available on

314 record and the oral arguments put-forth before it observed that it was obligatory on the part of an institution rendering public service to be open to bonafide critical examination of its functioning. It was also an admitted fact that on receiving complaints from the villagers the District Magistrate, Billari wrote a letter advising the Chairman, Prathama Bank to transfer the complainant out of the District. The Committee was convinced that the reports were in public interest and there was no malafide in the matter. The Committee thus did not find fault with the publication. It opined that no action was needed on the complaint. The Committee, however, observed that the respondent be cautioned to use proper language. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case decided to dismiss the complaint for lack of substance, however, with a word of caution to the editor, Aaj, Bareilly to ensure that its reports are couched in a manner that is non-abusive and dignified.

117) Shri Hari Kishan Verma The Editor Meerut City (U.P.) Versus Mazmoon, Hindi Monthly Meerut City (U.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 25.6.2007 has been filed by Shri Hari Kishan Verma, Meerut City, Uttar Pradesh against the Chief Editor, “Mazmoon”, Hindi monthly magazine for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item in its June 2007 issue under the caption “Haar Ka Record :Zamanat Zabt”. The impugned news item related to Shri Tarachand Shastri of Meerut who contested many election despite facing defeat. It was stated in the impugned news item that wife of the advisor of the Tarachand Shastri, was working as a maid servant at Tarachand’s residence. This poor and helpless women had no other source and Tarachand had no other yes-man (Chamcha) who could obey his orders (Chilam dho sake). The complainant has objected to the language used in the impugned news item. The complainant submitted that he was a social and political worker and his wife was working as a Class IV employee in the Meerut Public School, working under the management of Shri Tarachand Shastri. The complainant, working as a political advisor to Tarachand Shastri for the last two months, has submitted that the respondent editor had published defamatory new items against Shri Tarachand Shastri in April and May, 2007 issues under the captions

315 “Tarachand Haarne Ka Record Banayenge” and “Lal Bahadur Shastri Ke Naam Par Awaidh Nirman” respectively. According to the complainant, the respondent editor visited his house and demanded Rupees One lakh for not publishing defamatory articles about Shri Tarachand Shastri. The respondent was very well aware that he was working as his Political Advisor. On his denial, the respondent warned the complainant to be ready to face the consequences and hence the impugned news item was published. The complainant vide his another undated letter submitted that he once personally met the respondent and drew his attention to the impugned news and later, on the advise of the Council, he wrote to respondent vide his letter dated 22.7.2007 and requested him to publish the rejoinder but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 11.9.2007, the respondent Chief Editor of ‘Mazmoon’, in his written statement dated 25.9.2007 submitted that he did not receive any letter dated 22.7.2007 from the complainant. The respondent stated that he never met the complainant. Had the complainant met him, he would have published his clarification. If the complainant could prove that he was an advisor of Shri Tarachand Shastri then he would publish the rejoinder without any delay. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment of 27.4.2010 the matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. The complainant appeared in person while there was no representation on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Mazmoon. The complainant in his oral arguments reiterated the objection to the reference to him as a sycophant and his wife as a maid servant in the complaint. He also established his credentials. He added that he sent his clarification by ordinary post which was not published. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and oral submissions of the complainant. The Committee noted that the respondent editor in his written statement submitted that he did not receive letter of the complainant, otherwise he would have published it. The Committee observed that the language employed in reference to the complainant and his wife in the report was objectionable and deserved to be condemned particularly the statement that the political advisor’s wife did the cleaning work at the house of Shri Shastri. It directed the respondent editor Mazmoon, Hindi monthly, Meerut to publish the rejoinder and send a copy of the issue containing the same to the complainant and Press Council for record. The Committee placed its report before the Council. 316 Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.

118) Shri Pramod Pachouri Shri Sunil Agarwal Ex – District President Versus Editor, Aakinchan Bharat Rashtrawadi Congress Party Agra, U.P. Mathura, U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 12.3.2008 has been filed by Shri Pramod Pachouri, Ex – District President, Rashtrawadi Congress Party, Mathura against the Editor, Aakinchan Bharat, Agra, Uttar Pradesh for publication of allegedly false, baseless, defamatory and contemptuous news item in its issues dated 31.1.2008 and 1.2.2008 under the captions “Bakri Anusandhan Kendra: Gale Tak Bhrastachar” and “Bakri Anusandhan Sansthan Mein Aarop-Pratyarop Ka Dour Jari” respectively. The first news item was about the corruption prevalent in Goat Research Centre. The news mainly highlighted three points, the first is about cutting of trees in the name of ‘Vilayati Babool’ which is harmful to goats; secondly selling of logs at very cheap rate to fill own pockets out of its income and thirdly corruption in the department in every sector from recruitment to buying and selling of goat fodder, pendrives etc. The second news item was a counter from the Director of the Goat Research Centre and direct assault on the complainant alleging that he was pressurizing and fulfilling his own desires and he was frustrated because his demand for promotion of a person of his interest was not accepted. The second news item also mentioned that the Senior Animals Husbandry Officer (VarishtPashudhan Adhikari) Shri Hari Oudh Tiwari had said that the buying, selling and cutting of trees was being done as per the regulations set by the government and Shri Pramod Pauchouri had for long been levelling false allegations against the department. The complainant objected to the charge and stated that this was done to defame and tarnish his social image. He further stated that the respondent did not carry his version but vide reply dated 21.6.2008, the respondent editor informed him that the reports were sent to him by Shri C.K.Upmanyu who was no longer working with them and they had no intention to defame the complainant. He also offered to publish a short contradiction.

317 Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 3.9.2008, the respondent editor of ‘Aakinchan Bharat’, in his written statement dated 28.9.2008 submitted that as the complainant is Ex – District President of Rashtrawadi Congress, Mathura, time to time, statements were issued by him for publication. Those which are relevant and evident are published by his newspaper. The facts placed by Shri Pachouri about the matter related to Goat Research Centre were already published by them. If he feels any irregularity then he can file a complaint before the Forest Department and ask for redressal of his grievance. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 3.6.2009 stated that he had never given any statement to the respondent newspaper for publication. The said corruption charges were against the ex-Director and the impugned news item was published only to defame him. He requested the Council to take appropriate action. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment on 27.4.2010 on complainant’s request the matter was again called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. There was no appearance before it from either side. On perusal of the record the Committee noted that the matter was adjourned on the last occasion on request of the complainant. Again, despite receiving the notice of hearing the complainant was not represented before the Committee to contest the case. The Inquiry Committee therefore submitted its report to the Council to close the complaint. Held The Council accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the matter for non pursuance.

119) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi The Editor National President Versus Sanmarg Anti-Corruption Committee Kolkata Thane, Maharashtra West Bengal ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 20.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane, Maharashtra against SANMARG, Kolkata for publication of allegedly baseless and defamatory news

318 item under the caption ‘Gairsarkari Sangthan Par Lage Thagi Ke Aarop’ in its issue dated 2.2.2009 to defame his Association. According to the impugned news item, some members of the NGO lured the unemployed youth promising loan for their employment/business and extorted heavy amount from them and they maintained no account of the amount collected. The members were arrested on the complaint of the youth when they were unable to recover their money from them. And now to bring awareness amongst the society about corruption, the association planned to organise a rally, but the same was cancelled. The complainant has submitted that the impugned news item was published in connivance with the Superintendent of Police, Midnapur and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kharagpur with a motive to defame the association. He has submitted that the rally was not cancelled as alleged in the impugned news item, but conducted peacefully from Arjuni to Kolkata and a press conference was held at Kolkata Press Club, which was not carried by the respondent newspaper, Sanmarg. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent vide letter dated 4.4.2009 with request to publish a contradiction but received no response. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondent in the matter. The respondent failed to file its written statement before the Council. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. Shri Ramashankar represented the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. He, accepted that the name of their organisation was not mentioned in the news but could be identified because the march had been organized by them. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral submissions of the representative of the complainant. The Committee noted that the impugned news report was general in nature referring to an NGO without mentioning the name of any individual or any institution. It, therefore, did not find the report actionable. The Committee did not find merit in the complaint and decided to close the matter. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held On consideration of the material on record and the report of the Inquiry Committee the Press Council concurred with the views of the Committee. It decided to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merit.

319 120) Shri Shambhu Sharan Saxena The Editor The Editor Versus Dopahar Ka Saamna Mumbai Saathi Mumbai, Maharashtra Mumbai, Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 7.10.2008 has been filed by Shri Shambhu Sharan Saxena, Editor, Mumbai Saathi, Mumbai against the editor, Dopahar Ka Saamna, Mumbai for publication of an allegedly false, baseless, motivated and defamatory news item captioned “Taskar Bana Samajsevak-Sambhu Sharan Saxena Ka Kala Karnama” (Smuggler turn social worker-Black deeds of Shambhu Sharan Saxena) in its issue dated 21.8.2008 with a motive to defame in the society. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant was arrested by the Mumbai Police under the Arms Act and sent to jail for three months for carrying a pistol with him at the Railway station while he was coming from Munger, Bihar. It was also alleged that being a social worker, the complainant had given shelter to the drug mafia and some cases were registered against him by the Narcotics Department. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that there was no criminal case registered and no case was pending in any court of law. The complainant submitted that he was never sent to jail and the impugned news item was false. The complainant further submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent editor and asked him to provide the evidence of the said news report but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent. Written Statement In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 5.1.2009 the respondent editor “Dopahar Ka Saamna” in his written statement dated 5.2.2010 submitted that the complaint is false, frivolous and the contents in the complaint as well as in the said affidavit were totally incorrect and against the facts on record. According to the respondent, the article published in his newspaper was true, correct and based on the documentary evidence held by them showing that the complainant having various criminal complaints registered against him with various police stations in Mumbai and other places. The respondent submitted that the article was based on the true and correct facts and the complainant with malafide intention filed the present false complaint against him and furnished a copy of a letter dated 2.9.2008 issued by the Senior Inspector of Police, Sewree Police Station, Mumbai M.E. Cr. No.3/2007 registered against the complainant under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 388 read with 34 of IPC with

320 the Sewree Police Station, Mumbai. The respondent further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Narcotic Division, Mumbai in his letter dated 18.9.2009 showed that an offence vide C.R. No.175/2000 was registered under Sections 323, 462, 506 (2) of IPC was registered with the Chembur Police Station and offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 418, 420 of IPC were also registered with the Sewree Police station vide C.R. No.60/2002 against the complainant. The respondent requested the Council to drop further proceeding in the matter. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 5.2.2010 stated that he had filed affidavit in support of his complaint against the false allegation under the heading “Taskar Bana Samajsewak” dated 21.8.2009. The complainant, while reiterating his original complaint, submitted that the respondent editor published such kind of articles, intentionally to ruin his reputation and for extorting money from a reputed social worker fighting with notorious drug smugglers since last 10 years. Regarding allegation of case No. MECR No. 3/ 2007 under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387 of 2007 in Sewree Police Station, the complainant submitted that the said case was based upon false allegation and deliberately lodged by one Shri Jaheed Alo Shabbir Shaikh against him due to personal enmity. The complainant further submitted that he has no knowledge of any case being registered against him till date and the copy of the same was also not furnished to him by the respondent and therefore, he was unable to reply on the issue. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent editor. The complainant filed written arguments wherein he reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. In his oral arguments, he submitted that he was never arrested for possessing a pistol and no case was registered against him on this date in Tilak Nagar, or any other police station. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Committee considered the records of the case and oral arguments of the complainant. The Committee noted that the respondent published the news report with sensational headlines, namely “Smuggler became Social Worker– Black deeds of Shambhu Sharan Saxena” which had the tendency to affect the reputation of the complainant among the public in general and his family members in particular. Mere filing of cases did not render a person guilty. Further more, there was no proof of case at Tilak Nagar Police Station. The

321 report was thus ill founded and make more objectionable by glaring and sensational headline. The Inquiry Committee, thus, noted that the complaint warranted being upheld. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to uphold the complaint on the ground of unsubstantiated reporting with sensational headline. It also warned the Dopahar Ka Saamna for such infraction under Section 14(1 )of the Press Council Act, 1978.

121) Shri Shekhar Narayan Gaikwad The Editor Additional Collector Versus Lokmat Nasik, Maharashtra Nasik, Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.4.2009 has been filed by Shri Shekhar Narayan Gaikwad, Additional Collector, Nasik against Lokmat, a Marathi daily from Nasik for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items under the following captions:

No. Captions Dates 1 Shekhar Gaikwad in trouble because of illegal publication 27.2.2009 of books 2 Giving misleading information – Divisional 28.2.2009 Commissionerate’s working suspicious 3 Indiscriminate violation of conduct rules by government 4.3.2009 bureaucrats 4 What is wrong in this? 30.3.2009

With regard to the first news item, the complainant has alleged that its very title was highly misleading, as he has never published any book. The news item in question further stated none of the books written by the complainant had the approval of the State Government. The complainant submitted that no such permission or approval was required from the State Government though he was a government employee because of the provision of Rule No. 16 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1979 which said that for any literally work or artistic impression no such permission is needed. He has alleged that the respondent had not bothered to read the law nor did they understand

322 that civil servants are very much the citizens of the country had have a fundamental duty as per Article 51 (a) of the Constitution to develop scientific temper and reform and strive for excellence in life. It was alleged in the second news item that the income tax details of the complainant who is publishing and selling books illegally, has not been disclosed by the Divisional Commissioner Office. The complainant has submitted that the respondent did not bother to verify the simple legal provision that royalty income of an author is always shown in Income Tax Return and does not come under ‘Salary Head’ and the respondent has been charging that the common citizens were misled by Commissionarate. The third news item captioned ‘Regular violation of conduct rules by government servants’ is a general remark on the conduct of government servant but it mentioned the name of the complainant by specifically stating that not even show cause notice was issued to him. The complainant has alleged that the news item in question was highly objectionable and based on false allegations. Thus, the respondent newspaper has crossed all limits of journalistic ethics and sense of responsibility and even tried to take action against government officers through the news item, alleged the complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 14.3.2009 had drawn the attention of the respondent editor with a request to publish his rejoinder at the same place in the same highlighted manner. He however was not satisfied with the publication of his rejoinder in a cryptic manner under the column ‘letter of readers’ and stated that he was not merely a reader, but the entire news series was ran to defame him. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 6.7.2009, the respondent editor, Lokmat, Nasik in his undated written statement received on 20.10.2009 has submitted that the motive behind publishing those news items in question were simple, straight forward and transparent and the social behaviour of the complainant, being a public servant, is subject to scrutiny through the media. One citizen, under the RTI Act 2005 sought information about the complainant Shri Gaikwad as to whether he took permission of the government while writing books and also whether he had shown his income from selling books in his Income Tax Returns submitted the respondent. He has added that it is essential to disclose the information with regard to the publication of the books and the news items were only the reporting of the facts. The respondent further submitted that they had published the rejoinder of the complainant on 30.3.2009 at its prime editorial page and inspite of that the complainant is not satisfied and indulged in making complaint before the Council. As a responsible press, they have not done any act with malafide intention or personal enmity and whatever was done is in good faith and in the interest of the society.

323 Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comment dated 11.12.2009 has stated that the respondents are claiming to oppose illegal things happening in the society but still are unable to prove as to what was illegal in writing books by civil servant.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. Shri Shishir K Hiray, advocate appeared for the complainant. The respondent editor vide his letter dated 26.7.2010 requested that the written statement, already filed, may be treated as written notes of arguments.

The counsel for the complainant submitted that the series of articles published were wrong and derogatory. The respondent did not care to seek the views of the complainant. He added that the respondent tried to mislead the general police that the complainant was violating rules. The complainant wrote to the editor explaining the exact position. The clarification was published but in the letter to the editor column that did not do justice to it.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and oral arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. The Committee noted that the respondent published a series of news reports with glaring headlines accusing the complainant of publishing books without prior approval of the Government and questioning the tax payments thereon. The Committee felt that even if the report was based on an RTI query, it was necessary for the respondent to check facts and rules instead of outrightly giving an impression of violation of rules by the complainant. Further, the Committee noted that the respondent had mixed the views with its comments. The positioning of the series also did not give due prominence to the rejoinder. For all the reasons aforesaid the Committee decided to uphold the complaint and warn the respondent newspaper, Lokmat, Marathi daily, Nasik. It made its report to the Council for final decision.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of record and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided to warn the respondent, Lokmat, Nasik for the recorded infractions.

324 122) Mohd. Nadeem The Editor S/o. Mohd. Hussain Versus Aurangabad Times Aurangabad,Maharashtra Aurangabad, Maharashtra

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 25.5.2009 has been filed by Mohd. Nadeem, Aurangabad, Maharashtra against Aurangabad Times, an Urdu morning newspaper from Aurangabad for allegedly defaming his father with regard to litigations pending before the law courts by publishing an objectionable news item under the caption ‘Times Colony Ki Zamin Harapne Ki Chaalbazi Nakaam Baba Mastan Ko Lagatar Sharmanak Kanuni Shikast’ in its issue dated 8.12.2008. According to the complainant, the news item was about property dispute between Shivnagar Co-op. Housing Society Limited where the complainant’s father was one of the eleven members Versus the respondent editor of Aurangabad Times, Shri Shoeb Khusro and others. The complainant has alleged that while the respondent was publishing the decisions taken by the law court in respect of the property dispute, to attack his father personally by using bad language and also threatened that they would publish a series of news items to defame him. He also alleged that the respondent editor was using his newspaper as a weapon to settle his personal scores.

The complainant served notice dated 26.5.2009 to the respo ndents but received no response in the matter.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 28.8.2009, the respondent editor, Aurangabad Times, in his written statement dated 12.9.2009 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant that bad languages were used against the father of the complainant.

He also denied that they had threatened to publish further defamatory news against the complainant’s father. The respondent further stated that the news item in question contained no defamatory remarks but factual record of events. He also denied the allegation that the newspaper was used as a weapon to settle personal scores against their opponents. The respondent submitted that there were property disputes pending in the Civil Court, the Superintendent of Land Record (SLR), the Deputy Director of Land Record (DLR) as well as Hon’ble High Court Aurangabad, which were all initiated by the complainant’s father. He has alleged that on the issuance of process in the criminal case, the father of the complainant caused publication of defamatory advertisements/news

325 items against the respondent and his brother in their rival newspapers such as ‘Aurangabad Express’, ‘Hindustan’, ‘Samana, Vishvmitra’ etc. After the judgement of District and Session Judge in the Criminal Revision 204/2008, they have published the impugned news item to clarify the real facts as it was necessary to bring to the notice of the general public the correct and real facts without any intention to use their newspaper for their personal interest.

The respondent further submitted that the modus operandi of the complainant and his father could be judged from the fact that they also filed cases against the respondent and their newspaper before the Income Tax Department, Sale Tax Department, Publicity Department, Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad and the DAVP, New Delhi to harass and coerce them to compromise in the matters pending before the Superintendent of Land Records, Aurangabad.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 24.11.2009 has denied the allegations made by the respondent and also objected to the statement of the respondent that the ‘author behind this complaint is no one but the nuisance element and the person known by his unwanted activities and uncalled for activities named Mohammed Hussain @ Baba Mastan’ and alleged that the approach of the respondent editor goes to show that he is bent upon to insult his father to lower down his dignity in the society. He has reiterated his complaints and requested the Council to take action in the matter.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 5.1.2010 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. The complainant appeared in person while Shri S.H.Shams represented the respondent editor. The representative of the respondent submitted that first the complainant got the news published against them. The complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

On consideration of the records of the case and oral submissions of the parties, the Committee noted that both the complainant and the respondent were using the columns of the newspapers to settle their personal scores by publishing news against each other about their property dispute. The Committee expressed its dismay over such unethical use of a public service vehicle. The Committee

326 warned the complainant as well as the respondent to refrain from such action in future. Insofar as the impugned report was concerned, the Committee was satisfied that the respondent had deliberately used objectionable adjectives for complainant’s father and the complaint warranted being upheld. It made its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council considered the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee. Concurring with the observations of the Committee, the Council decided to warn the complainant as well as the respondent editor, Aurangabad Times, Aurangabad to refrain from using the columns of the newspaper to settle personal scores. It also decided to warn the respondent for use of intemperate language in the impugned reports against the complainant.

123) Mr. S. Ramanathan The Editor Bengaluru, Karnataka Versus The Times of India Bengaluru, Karnataka ADJUDICATION Facts Shri S. Ramanathan of Bengaluru in his complaint dated 21.12.2009 has objected to the allegedly unverified and defamatory front paged news item published in The Times of India, Bangalore edition on 17.11.2009 under the caption “Swami sleeps on fire: an illusion or hoax?” regarding the Agni Yoga practiced by Shri Ram Bhavu Swamiji of Srinivasapuram, Thanajavur in Tamil Nadu along with a photograph captioned: “Smokescreen? The Swami places himself over the burning fire-bed at a temple”. It was stated in the impugned news item that Ramababu Swamiji, 80, from Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu slept on a homa fire and his devotees claimed that he prayed for the well-being of the society. The Swami, who incidentally survives on a diet of bananas and water, told local villagers that he would talk to Lord Ganesh about the ills “affecting” society and pray for their welfare. The visiting swami came to the Dattatreya temple at Ghanagapur village in Afzalpur taluk of Gulbarga district and on hearing of the special homa organized at the temple, expressed his intention of lying on the lit homa kund. The Swami in his orange robes, did precisely that, shut his eyes and apparently slept for the next four hours. His followers told The Times of India that the swamiji had done this four or five times earlier in Tamil Nadu, claiming he had spiritual powers. Page 9 of issue carried another story captioned “Skeptics scoff at TN seer’s stunts”, reporting that Doctors, psychologists and rationalists were dismissive of the incident, believing it to be an ‘illusion’. They quoted as : “He may be wearing a fire-proof suit inside his dress or he may be sleeping outside the home kunda. The photograph

327 may give an illusion that he is on it. It is not possible that someone can spend four hours on fire. The only logical explanation is that the person trying such feat might have covered himself with a protective non-inflammable chemical, before sitting on fire. It is possible to convince a large crowd of anything irrational by using mass hypnosis techniques. It is stupid thing to do. Some swamjis do it just for publicity. There are ways to touch fire without getting injured, some creams and lotions can prevent the body from getting burnt”.

The complainant further objected that in the photographic presentation of an incident, a smokescreen had been related to hide the truth of the ritual over blazing fire and it was accompanied by a caption “Smokescreen? The Swami places himself over the burning fire-bed at a temple”.

The complainant, a disciple of the Swamiji, who was distressed over scurrilous writings, alleged that the article was written without ascertaining the facts and without witnessing the feat. Moreover, the picture with a misleading caption was an effective way of communicating falsehood and propagate ones views. Other papers reported blazing fire and the fire ritual of Swamiji. But the tendentious report of The Times of India showed a smokescreen.

The complainant submitted that the Swamiji does not take water at all and he has done the fire ritual (lying down on fire) hundreds of times earlier not only in Tamil Nadu but also in Bengaluru, Mumbai, Malaysia, Singapore, Pinang and other places. Swamiji never told anybody that he would talk to God. In fact announcement was made during his fire ritual that it was prayer time and devotees may pray to Lord Ganapati for relieving their difficulties etc. The complainant submitted that other journalists had also published the news item relating to Swamiji and these were based on what they saw, honest analysis etc. but The Times of India reported the event without seeing it.

Regarding the theory of creating illusion by mass hypnotization the complainant submitted that mass hypnotism has been tried by many people without success. This is too weak an explanation for the feat. Illusion is inapplicable to camera. In any case, the camera cannot be hypnotized. The videos and cameras were in the hands of media-men. Theory of illusion points to lack of scientific fervor to ferret out the truth. Mass hypnotism is an insult to the collective intelligence of humans assembled and it negated by a rationalistic mind. The complainant submitted that for a clear video of the procedures adopted during his yagnas including fire ritual, reference may be made to the website www.indiadivine.org/articles/464. Filing copies of news clippings and other extracts from the cassette, the complainant submitted that the cassettes may be produced at the time of inquiry. The entire article was based on

328 conjectures, beliefs and preconceived notions with scant regard to truth. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor vide letters dated 19.11.2009 and 1.12.2009 with the request to publish the rejoinder but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 9.2.2010 the respondent editor, The Times of India filed his written statement dated 29.3.2010 through the advocate wherein denying the allegations levelled in the complaint submitted that no journalistic conduct had been offended or violated. According to the respondent the said article/news was a balanced article written after having the information from the followers of the swamiji and was published with the comments of rationalists, psychologist, doctors etc for the information of the general public in public interest without any ill will or any grudge or disrespect for swamiji or anyone else. According to the respondent they are duty bound to bring to the knowledge of its readers the news/views in a balanced way without any bias or favour to anyone. To make the news/article balanced the comments of the rationalist and other people were published along the said article/news. The respondent emphasized that the article/news should be read in totality and not in isolated manner or in a motivated manner. In fact the newspaper had carried the both the versions as the followers may think it was a miracle performed by their gurus/swamiji etc. and others would like to test this with scientific reasoning. Denying the allegation that the article was carried to defame swamiji, the respondent submitted that the said article was published on the basis of information received from the followers of the swamiji. In fact, a question was put to the readers what they think “an illusion or hoax”. The article contained the views of believers as well that of the doctors, psychologists and rationalists, and nowhere emphasized what the reader should believe or what should not believe. He vehemently denied that article was scurrilous and they have limited knowledge. The respondent denied that the article was carried in distorted form to serve certain vested interests and to decry religious practices as unscientific and hoax. Questioning the complainant’s locus standi, the respondent submitted that the complaint was filed to curtail his right of freedom of speech. Denying the allegation that any journalistic ethics had been violated, the respondent submitted that it is editor’s prerogative to decide what is to be published in his newspaper. He requested to drop the proceedings in the matter. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 9.4.2010 while reiterating his complaint submitted that the right of freedom of expression guaranteed in the constitution does not cover subjective or dishonest reporting, calumny and character assassination or scurrilous and defamatory articles. Having violated

329 journalistic ethics with impunity, the bogey of the fundamental right of expression cannot be allowed to be raised by the editor who is guilty of outright dishonesty in reporting. The freedom conferred by the constitution should not be converted into license. Moreover, the word hoax as understood in the common parlance means a trick played to deceive people, joke, fraud, con, deception or practical joke. Without seeking, without analyzing, without understanding, an incident has been dubbed “Hoax”. This was per se defamatory and dishonest. The editor termed the feat as a hoax. It was disrespect shown to the swamiji. Moreover, editor’s prerogative to decide what is to be published in his paper does not grant him immunity from proceedings for defamation, or violation of journalistic ethics. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor, The Times of India vide Council’s letter dated 21.4.2010. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. The complainant, Shri R.Ramanathan filed a DVD in support of the theory of fire ritual and also the tests carried out on swamiji and also comments of some experts from U.S.A. He averred that impugned reports denigrated Swamiji as a prankster and were biased. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Committee carefully considered the impugned articles and material on record. It noted the defence taken by the respondent editor in the written statement that the news carried the views of the belivers of the Swamiji as well as doctors and rationalists. To that extent the respondent acted correctly in discharge of his journalistic duties. However, whether the putting of a question mark alongside the caption: “Illusion or Hoax?” mitigated the challenge to the genuineness of the action of the Swamiji is a moot question. There are certainly two schools of thought or the issue of ‘belivers’ and “non believers” and the impugned reports covered both. In view of this the Committee held that no malafide could be attributed to The Times of India. Thus, the Committee was of the view that no case against The Times of India for violating of any norm of journalistic conduct was made out. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee noted that even though the choice of words like “Hoax”, “Stunt” and “Smokescreen” were inappropriate, the Committee was not satisfied of any malafide on the part of The Times of India in the matter. It, therefore, held that the complaint was not liable to be upheld and decided accordingly.

330 124) Shri Pradeep Kumar C.M. Versus The Editor Assistant Commissioner of Police (North) Malayala Manorama Kozhikode City Kozhikode (Kerala) Kerala ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Pradeep Kumar C.M., Assistant Commissioner of Police(North), Kozhikode City, Kerala has filed this complaint dated 9.1.2009 against Malayala Manorama daily, Kozhikode for publishing allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news item in its issue dated 17.11.2008. It was stated in the impugned news item that three gangs of gamblers had become active near Aragadath Palam and Moffusil stand over the last few days. Their modus operandi was to attract travellers and cheat them after taking their money. It was said that the gang had nexus with a top police officer of the city North Sub-Division. These gangs were untouchable because they operated with the blessings of a senior officer. It also stated that even though the gang were once apprehended they were let off because of their connection with a senior officer of the North Sub-Division and they reportedly pass on information about pickpockets, and other anti-social elements operating from the State Transport Bus Station and Private Bus Station located on Mavoor Road to the police. The complainant has submitted that though his name was not mentioned but stating “Top police officer of the North Sub-Division” in the impugned news item referred to him as it was well known that he was the Assistant Commissioner of Police (North), Kozhikode City. The allegations of “Nexus of the gambler gang with the top police officer of the North Sub-Division” appeared as if the gambler gang paid him bribe and was thus saved from police action. This was made on the basis of alleged statement of one of the gang members when questioned by the newspaper’s man. Though the impugned report did not openly say but it implies the involvement of the special squad headed by him who had been operating in the areas mentioned in their war against narcotic crimes. According to the complainant, the impugned publication was per se defamatory and published rashly and recklessly with the intent to defame him in public. The complainant alleged that the incident was just imaginary and cooked up by the concerned reporter and the newspaper illegally shielded him. Moreover, the claim of the respondent that after publication of the news item, gambling in Mavoor Road had almost ceased was another hoax. He was one of the few officers selected to constitute the Securities Cell of the CBI at Mumbai, immediately after the highly publicized and sensitive securities scam. The complainant also referred other incidents to stress upon the fact that he

331 was undeterred by muscle power and money power in the dispensation of his duties.The complainant wrote a letter dated 18.11.2008 to the respondent editor requesting him to furnish details of the policemen and senior police officer involved, the exact location where the gambling took place and also evidence for the same so as to enable him as the head of the Sub-Division, to take corrective and punitive actions, if so warranted. He also wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Calicut city, requesting him to institute an inquiry in order to ascertain the veracity of the news report and to initiate action against him if there was glimmer of suspicion against him. The respondent in his reply dated 3.12.2008 did not furnish any detail. The reply was flippant and dismissive. Since the report was more a story intended to malign his reputation then a news story, there was no evidence to substantiate allegations. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 29.6.2009, the respondent editor, Malayalam Manorama filed written statement dated 27.7.2009 through his advocate. Denying the allegation, the respondent submitted that the impugned report was sequel to a responsible inquiry conducted by their reporter. This public nuisance issue was followed up closely by the reporter, prior to the publishing of the same that the reporter noticed that police squads that pass by, pretend not seeing these petty gamblers, that they in turn fearlessly continued with their cheating operation, causing obstructions on foot paths and that the police was deliberately avoiding them. The reporter came to know from close sources that it was one of the higher officials of the North Sub-Division who intervened on their behalf and ordered them to release those culprits immediately. According to the respondent, the news report was published for the benefit of the common public and in good faith. No police officer was named in the news item published. In fact, they had no intention of tarnishing anybody by publishing the news item. The news item that appeared in the paper was intended only to raise an issue of grave public concern and not intended to tarnish anybody. The respondent clarified that Malayala Manorama newspaper and Manorama News TV Channel are two separate entities. They work independently with separate reporters and staff. The respondent submitted that when the complainant was elected for the President’s Medal, it was Malayala Manorama Daily, which reported in page No. 1 news with his coloured photographs. This shows that the respondent has no personal vendetta against the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper did not say that anybody had been caught by the newspaper man. A police squad team caught the gambler and the gang man revealed their modus operandi to the squad. But the squad members were forced to set him free as pressure came from above, as admitted by the squad members. The allegation of the complainant that the news item that appeared in the Malayala Manorama daily was imaginary and cooked up was totally

332 incorrect. The city Police Commissioner formed a Ghost Patrol team to fight this menace, the very next day of publication of the report. The respondent further informed that the news editor of the Malayala Manorama had sent a reply to the letter dated 20.11.2008 stating that there was no intention to tarnish anybody but to see that the unwanted elements remain away from the public place. Moreover, the news item was in pursuance of responsible inquiry by the reporter and the same was published in good faith and for public good. No police officer was named in the news. There was no intention, malice or ill will towards the complainant. It was intended to raise an issue of grave public concern. After the report and the Ghost Patrol swung into action, the gamblers were away from the road. Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 11.11.2009 while denying the written statement of the respondent, had alleged that the respondent was trying to create a smoke screen by citing legalities and technicalities which in itself was a display of their delinquency. According to the complainant the damage had already been done by the respondent and still arrogantly reasserting their allegations and repeating the falsehoods and twisting the facts. Reiterating his original complaint, the complainant submitted that the reply filed by the respondent was highly flippant and dismissive and amounted to ridiculing the issue as well as him. The complainant further submitted that as a police officer, he had several restraints. It was not easy to get support from any concern against this newspaper group since it dominates various social segments in Kerala and has immeasurable political, social, religious and financial clout.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 7.12.2009 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The complainant reiterated the averments in the complaint. He added that though the news did not mention any name yet he could be clearly identified as it was stated in the report that a top officer of the city-North Sub- Division had a nexus with gambling gang and he was the top officer in the division. He submitted that his version was not taken before publication of the news. He further stated that he sent a letter to the editor asking for details but to no response. When he again wrote to the editor, the editor expressed regrets in a letter but no clarification was published.

333 Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and oral arguments of the complaint. On perusal of the impugned report the Committee noted that the report highlighted the social and civic problem of gambling in the streets with the possible knowledge of the top police officer without mentioning the name. The editor had defended the publication on the plea that it was for the benefit of the common public and was published in good faith. The Committee was not satisfied that mentioning of “top officer” in the report, specifically referred to the complainant. However, having received a protest from the complainant the respondent should have given due space it in the column of the newspaper. To this extent it erred. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held On consideration of the record of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee, the Press Council concurred with the findings of the Committee. It however, held that the non publication of the version, though advisable in the instant case, was not a violation gross enough to warrant action under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978. It decided to allow the matter to rest at this.

125) Shri Vinod Pratap Singh Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastava Sant Kabir Nagar Versus District Correspondent Uttar Pradesh Rashtriya Sahara Sant Kabir Nagar Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 13.2.2008 has been filed by Shri Vinod Pratap Singh, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, District Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for publication of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news item under the caption ‘Utpidan Se Kshubdh Kotedar Lamband’ in its issue dated 2.2.2008 along with photograph with a motive to tarnish his image. The complainant aggrieved over the publication submitted that the shopkeepers dealing with ration items led a delegation to the local authorities to complain against his alleged attempts to blackmail through false complaints. They reportedly agreed to pick up the quota only after assurance of the authorities. He has alleged that respondent defamed him while he was campaigning against corrupt practices of

334 the ration dealers. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was false, baseless and misleading and the respondent, district correspondent of Rashtriya Sahara published it without verifying the facts or any evidence and maligned his position in the society. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent by writing to the Managing Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Lucknow but received no response.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 25.4.2008, the respondent in his written statement dated 5.5.2008 has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. He has stated that on receiving the complaint, they conducted investigation into the matter and found that the complainant himself was a notorious person and many criminal cases had been lodged against him at various police stations.

The respondent furnished a copy of letter of the District Magistrate addressed to all the district civil and police officials including the Superintendent of Police, the Additional District Magistrate etc. cautioning them not to entertain any complaint of Shri Vinod Pratap Singh, the complainant without prior order of the court or himself.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 24.5.2008 has submitted that the so-called inquiry conducted by the respondent has no concern with his version of the matter thus its finding is not acceptable to him. He also submitted that being a social worker he was campaigning against corruptions in the society; and in order to stop him from exposing the corruptions in the society, some corrupt officials and workers were applying various tactics to malign him. The complainant has submitted that as per the inquiry report dated 24.2.2008, the respondent Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastava admitted that the ration shop, which was reserved for women quota, was transferred, on the advice of his brother, in the name of his wife. This is against the rule that stated that the ration shop should be run by the one on whose name it was registered, alleged the complainant. While denying the charges levelled by the respondent in his written statement, the complainant has requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.8.2010 at Varanasi. The complainant appeared in person while the respondent Pawan Kumar Srivastava, District Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara remained

335 unrepresented. The complainant filed written submission dated 20.8.2010 reiterating his complaint. In his oral arguments he submitted that the Rashtriya Sahara’s internal report had accepted the reporter’s personal interest in the matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

On consideration of the record and oral arguments of the complainant, the Committee noted that the District Magistrate, on receiving protests against allegedly innumerable baseless complaints by the complainant herein had issued a confidential letter on 15.2.2008 to the different authorities that except from action to be taken under Court’s orders, no complaint of Shri Vinod Pratap Singh be entertained without prior orders from him. The Committee was not satisfied of the legality of such orders. It observed that Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, correspondent of Rashtriya Sahara who had a ration shop enjoyed a personal stake in the issue establishing his bias in the matter. The Inquiry Committee thus held that the complaint against the respondent correspondent warranted to be upheld. It submitted its report to the Council.

Held

Concurring with the report of the Inquiry Committee, the Press Council decided accordingly.

126) Shri Santosh Kumar Shri Shyam Bihari Verma Advocate Versus @ Shyam Kumar Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Editor, Jansansad Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 1.3.2008 has been filed by Shri Santosh Kumar, Advocate, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Shyam Bihari Verma @ Shyam Kumar, editor, Jansansad, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh for alleged harassment for misusing his professional position as a journalist. The complainant has alleged that Shri Shyam Bihari Verma defamed him by lodging false complaints accusing him of electricity theft. According to the complainant, the respondent also got published defamatory news item in another Hindi daily newspaper namely ‘Nyayadish’ under the caption ‘Vakil Ke Yahan Bijli Chori Pakdi Gayi’ in its issue dated 31.3.2008 and refused to carry any contradiction/clarification. The complainant also alleged that the respondent, Shri Shyam Bihari Verma, with the help of some police personnel and anti-social elements, tried to get him vacate the house, where he has been residing on rent, with his family for the last many

336 years. He has no grievance against the newspaper, which published a report about electricity theft, but requested to take action against the respondent, Shri Shyam Bihari Verma for harassing him by misusing his position as a journalist.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 3.7.2009, the respondent in his written statement dated 8.12.2009 submitted that the complaint of Shri Santosh Kumar was a bundle of lies. The respondent also levelled counter allegation against the complainant of misusing his position as an advocate and alleged that the complainant threatened to file false cases by bragging that being an advocate, ‘nothing could go wrong with him, he would make his life a living hell by false cases’ etc. The respondent has submitted that he had known the complainant since so long and helped him out on a desperate situation by allowing him to reside in a room of his house, but by taking advantage of his benevolence, the complainant harassed him by misusing his position as a lawyer.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.12.2009 for information and counter comments, if any.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 20.8.2010 at Varanasi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Notice of hearing sent to him had been received back with postal remarks “left”. Shri Shyam Kumar appeared for the respondent newspaper. He submitted that he rendered financial assistance to the complainant but he tried to take forcible possession of his house.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

On consideration of the material available on record the Committee noted that the respondent editor in his written statement denied the allegations of the complainant. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for counter. The complainant did not rebut the averments in the written statement. The Committee noted that the matter was a personal dispute between the complainant and the respondent rather then violation of norms of journalistic conduct. It, therefore, decided to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merit. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision.

Held

The Press Council on perusal of the record and the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the matter. 337 127) Shri Nand Gopal Gupta (Nandi) The Editor Cabinet Minister Versus Daily News Activist In-charge of Department of Institutional Lucknow, U.P. Finance, Stamp, Court Fees and Registration Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Nand Gopal Gupta(Nandi), Cabinet Minister, In-charge of the Department of Institutional Finance, Stamp, Court Fees and Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed this undated complaint (received in the Secretariat on 5.11.2008) through his advocate against Daily News Activist, Allahabad for publication of allegedly false, frivolous malicious and defamatory news items under the captions as follows: 1. “Rakshak Hi Bane Bhakshak-Mantri Chhin Rahe Vyaparion Ka Niwala” dated 12.9.2008. 2. “Mantri Ke Khilaf Chhatra Netaon, Vyaparon Ne Khole Morche” dated 14.9.2008. 3. “Mantri Par Bhari S.T.F. Ka Sipahi” dated 23.9.2008 4. “Daroga Bana Mantri Ka Goonda” dated 14.10.2008. In the impugned news item, the complainant was charged of many accusations and it was alleged that he was misusing his power and harassed the traders on one account or other and forced them to demonstrate dharna. It was also stated in the impugned publications that the complaintant was intending to grab a large area of land being occupied by the traders in civil lines and force them to pressure and sell the land to him at throw away prices. Denying the allegations the complainant has submitted that he has been in the politics for more than two decades and never indulged in any criminal or other notorious activity i.e. land grabing and misuse of powers and has maintained impeccable integrity. According to the complainant, there is a student leader namely Mohd. Khalid, who for certain reasons, bore grudge and ill will against him and carried on campaign of calumny and vilification against him. He has alleged that Mohd. Khalid found a close ally in Shri Anil Kumar, the Managing Director of the respondent newspaper ‘Daily News Activist’. The complainant has submitted that from September 2008 onwards a number of critical articles/ news items have been published by the respondent newspaper which were not only highly defamatory, questioning his honesty and integrity and therefore

338 caused severe dent on his stature as the defamatory articles comprised of false and frivolous allegations. The complainant has submitted that it was reported that various student leaders including one Ram Babu had participated in Dharna at Subhash Chowk, Civil Lines, Allahabad, however, when he contacted the Ram Babu he flatly declined to have participated in the said Dharna. On further enquiry the complainant also found that the persons who have participated in dharna were simply ex-students and students of Allahabad University and who had nothing to do with the business community. According to the complainant, the respondents in collusion with a so called ‘Chhatra Neta’ namely Mohd. Khalid repeatedly published the impugned news item in order to tarnish and harm his image. The complainant alleged that the respondents deliberately with malafide intention published the news articles in the news paper without contacting him or seeking any clarification from him. The series of publication of articles in the newspapers are nothing but instances of yellow journalism practiced by the respondent newspaper. The complainant further alleged that the respondent had falsely implicated him with oblique motive to harass and humiliate him with a view to malign his reputation in the public at large. The complainant has submitted that he had issued a legal notice dated 26.9.2008 to the respondent denying all the allegations and demanded to publish unqualified and unconditional apology in any national daily newspaper and local Newspaper published and distributed within the vicinity of Allahabad and pay an amount of five crore rupees for loss of reputation. The respondent in its reply notice dated 19.10.2008 had denied the allegations levelled by the complainant that the news items in question were defamatory nor were meant to intentionally defame or cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. Written Statement In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 14.1.2009 the respondent, resident editor, Daily News Activists, Allahabad in its written statement dated 5.2.2009 submitted that the allegations of the complainant were totally misconceived, misplaced and malicious based upon total non-existent, nonintentional. Imputation inasmuch as there was no cause of complaint as the impugned reporting had been done in true spirit of journalism and based upon the facts as existent on the day of the report. He has added that the reporting had been done after the receipt of the copy of the representation and after conducting spot assessment, and on the version of the signatories of the aforesaid representation. The respondent further pointed out that the Daily News Activist had been singled out for malafide reasons, even though the same or virtually similar news items had been published in other newspapers also. The respondent further submitted that Smt. Hema Jaiswal had also written a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad in respect of the said complaint. A letter was also forwarded to their newspaper. The respondent

339 alleged that the complaint has been made only with a view to malign the image of press and to mount a pressure on the Chief Editor and Editor so that they may not discharge their duties freely without any fear and act on the dictates of complainant. The respondent further informed that the complainant has already approached Hon’ble High Court by way of C.M.W.P.No.564 of 2009, arraying the Press Council of India as well as regional editor and chief editor as respondent Nos. 4 & 5, and therefore, seeking two remedies for the same cause of action and even when the High Court has already issued notice to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is totally uncalled for. The respondent clarified that there was no ill-intention, collusion, malice or malafide to defame the complainant. No action is at all warranted against them under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.8.2010 at Varanasi. The complainant was not represented before it while Shri Jai Parkash Singh, Resident Editor appeared on behalf of the respondent. The respondent editor submitted that the complainant had already filed a case in the Hon’ble High Court and the High Court has issued notice. Report of the Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the matter pending in the High Court had direct bearing on the matter pending before the Council. It, therefore, decided to drop further proceedings in the matter being sub-judice. Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to drop further proceedings in the matter being sub-judice.

128) Shri Bhaskar Ghosh The Editor Library & Information Assistant Versus The Telegraph National Library, Kolkata Kolkata, West Bengal West Bengal ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 7.9.2007 has been filed by Shri Bhaskar Ghosh, Library & Information Assistant, National Library, Kolkata against the Telegraph for publication of an allegedly false and fabricated news report captioned

340 ‘Library staff smuggles out books, get photocopies made and sell them:Priceless periodicals pilfered’ in its issue dated 31.8.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that a racket involving pilferage of rare periodicals from the National Library has come to light. As per an FIR lodged at the Alipore Police Station, a section of employees smuggled out copies of the rare Bengali periodical, namely, Kallol, made its photocopies and then sold them and many of the original copies had gone missing. Shri Saibal Chakraborty, Secretary of the National Library Staff Association was reported to have said that a section of the employee were involved in the racket and even after alerting the authorities, their lackadaisical approach made things getting worse at the library. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has submitted that his main objection was the story of a racket involved in the pilferage of rare periodicals from the library, which was nothing but a ‘cock and bull’ story. He has alleged that the impugned news item was published only to shield the real culprits who had committed the ghastly act by intimidating him when he was performing his official duties. With regard to the allegation of smuggling of the rare Bengali periodical ‘Kallol’, photocopied and sold in the market, the complainant has submitted that he himself had made printout of the CD’s of the periodical as per the instruction given by his superior, for a Canadian national, who was holding a requisite Card No. J5432 of the National Library and added that he had followed the due procedure by depositing the requisite amount of money in the cash counter of the library for receiving the photocopies. The complainant has alleged that when he was making print outs of the document, as per the order, some employees under the leadership of Shri Saibal Chakraborty, forcibly entered the computer centre in the absence of the Assistant Librarian and snatched away the official documents from him. The complainant immediately lodged a complaint before the National Library Authority, the Secretary to the Ministry of Culture, New Delhi, the local police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ), Lalbazar, Kolkata. He further submitted that a meeting was convened in the Chamber of the Director on 31.8.2007 and it was concluded that there was no procedural lapse in the manner in which the work was performed and added that on that day itself, the Joint Secretary to the Ministry of Culture visited the library and he met and narrated the whole incident before him in the presence of the senior officials and the Canadian scholar. The complainant has alleged that the respondent not only violated the code of journalistic conduct but it was a deliberate attempt to gain cheap publicity through frustrating, disgusting, outlandish and outrageous reporting. Written Statement In response to the notice for comments dated 3.1.2008, the respondent Legal Executive, the Telegraph, Kolkata in his comments dated 13.3.2008 has

341 submitted that the news report in question was published in keeping with journalistic ethics and as a responsible publishing house, discharging the responsibility of serious concern over pilferage and smuggling of old, rare and valuable periodicals, which form part of our heritage. He has stated that as would appeared from the report itself, the same was published on the basis of FIR registered with the Alipore police station and the same was mentioned in the very first line of the second paragraph of the news report in question. The National Library Staff Association, in their FIR alleged pilferage of some old, rare and priced collection of National Library and that Shri Bhaskar Ghosh engaged himself in printing out huge pages of rare documents on the basis of a requisition given by one Kirs Manjara under Card No. J-5432, which was alleged to be false as the card number reportedly belonged to Miss Arpita Das of Barrackpore, being a resident of the same locality where Shri Ghosh resides. It was also reported in the FIR that the complainant, Shri Ghosh himself prepared the estimate and recommended deposition of Rs.555/- for printout of 111 pages of a rare journal titled ‘KALLOL’ and that on inquiry, other officers of the Bhasha Bhawan Reading Room, Reprography Unit and the Principal Library and Information Officer had denied any knowledge about the permission granted in the instant case, stated the respondent. He has stated that in the light of the FIR and the seriousness of the matter, they have reported the same unbiasedly without mentioning the name of the complainant and or without divulging the particulars of the allegations in the FIR. He further stated that before publishing the news report in question, the concerned correspondent checked the prima facie veracity of the allegations made in the FIR and had in his possession a photocopy of the requisition given to the Director, National Library, Kolkata by the applicant having the Card No. J-5432 and the endorsement of Sri Bhaskar Ghosh directing the cashier to accept Rs.555/- towards service charges of printed copies. The newspaper by publishing the news report in question, upheld the standards of journalistic ethics and public taste thus the question of any alleged violation of the provisions of the Press Council Act, 1978 does not and cannot arise, submitted the respondent. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 7.4.2008 has submitted that the explanation of the respondent in his comment, was an attempt to establish the impugned news report as a ‘sauce’ which is actually not but a crude attempt to defame him. He has stated that the requisition form filled up by Dr. Manjapra, holder of Card No. J-5432 is an ‘official document’ of the National Library, which was snatched away from him by Shri Saibal Chakraborty and his four associates against whom the complainant lodged specific complaint to the concerned authorities. The respondent obtained a copy of the snatched official documents and published the news report on that basis to gain cheap

342 publicity, alleged the complainant. The story was published with the objective to divert the attention of the Library authority from disciplinary perspective and to provide shield to Shri Saibal Chakraborty and his associates and in the process ‘defamed’ him unduly and tarnished the image of the National Library, alleged the complainant. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata. Both the parties were presents. Shri Bhaskar Ghosh, complainant appeared in person and submitted that the Telegraph gave weightage to the FIR of the opponent and published untrue and fabricated material. The complainant submitted that the incident was not truly reflected as contained in his three complaints to the police as well as Director of National Library alleging that some miscreants forcibly entered the computer center and snatched away the official documents from him. It was done around 12.30 p.m. on 28.8.2007, when the complainant was discharging his official duties by taking printing of some scanned documents for a reader namely, Kris Manjara having card no. J5432 from a book of the cell no. 182 QC 923.1 (1-7). They threatened, harassed and physically assaulted the complainant. The complainant submitted that the respondent deliberately did not publish his version as they were colliding with other side. Although his name was not mentioned in the impugned report, the complainant stated that he was easily recognized in the office being a technical person dealing with it. The complainant submitted that he was defamed by impugned publication. Shri Rajarshi Dutta, Senior Executive (Legal) appearing for the Telegraph submitted that the report was published in pubic interest. Around 500 duplicate cards were circulated by some people/employees of the National Library without due authority and were leading to pilferage of rare books and periodicals. In the news item, complainant’s name was nowhere mentioned but the complainant assumed that he was targeted. The respondent further submitted that the reporter had published the report after he spoke to investigating officer and library authority. The respondent concluded that the complainant had no locus and there was no point of publishing his rejoinder at this stage. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the record and heard the parties. The Inquiry Committee at the very outset noted that the Telegraph had taken all care in not naming or accusing anybody for pilferage of documents from the National Library. However, the complainant had taken onus on himself and wanted his version to be carried in the Telegraph. The Inquiry Committee accepted the locus of the complainant, who claims to have been handling computer section of the National Library responsible for scanning of any

343 documents. The Inquiry Committee felt that while it accepted the bonafide interest involved in safety of the publication in the library which were public asset, it would be in fitness of the things if the complainant’s version is published even at this belated stage. The Inquiry Committee directed the editor, The Telegraph to publish the version of the complainant with liberty to append a note of their comments thereto as codified under Norms of Journalistic Conduct quoted below:- However, where the reply/contradiction or rejoinder is being published in compliance with the directions of the Press Council, it is permissible to append a brief editorial note to that effect. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the matter in terms of the observations and direction of the Inquiry Committee supra.

129) Shri Santanu Bhowmick The Editor Secretary Versus The Indian Express National Library Employees Kolkata Association West Bengal Kolkata, West Bengal ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 20.1.2009 has been filed by Shri Santanu Bhowmick, Secretary, National Library Employees’ Association, Kolkata against The Indian Express, Kolkata for publication of allegedly false, and fabricated news item captioned ‘CPM-backed union on backfoot over fake air tickets, travel bills’ in its issue dated 14.1.2009. It was reported in the impugned news item that about 60 members of the CPM affiliated National Library Employees’ Union, who decided to fly to Assam to spend their holidays, have been caught in a controversy after the Pay and Accounts Department rejected their reimbursement bills, saying the air tickets submitted by them are not authentic. The complainant has alleged that the impugned report was concocted, false and a deliberateattempt to malign the Association and its President. According to the complainant the Association had nothing to do with the said travel and the respondent reporter had tried to undermine the prestige of their Association by falsely implicating it. The complainant has submitted that attention of the respondent editor had been drawn vide letter dated 21.1.2009 but received no reply.

344 No Written Statement A show cause notice dated 6.7.2009 was issued to the respondent editor, The Indian Express, Kolkata but no written statement has been filed despite reminder dated 9.3.2010. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when Shri Santanu Bhowmick, complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant submitted that The Indian Express had published a completely fabricated news and the newspaper had made no verification before publication. The complainant submitted that their Association is not an Union and it is against conduct rules to associate with any political party. Yet the newspaper dubbed them as CPMbacked Union. The complainant further submitted that their Association has 60 members and its 12 members availed LTC by Air to Assam as admissible and the Jet Airways confirmed that air tickets in question were genuine. The complainant submitted that initially P&A department had not cleared the bill but after seeking certain information passed the bills. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication contained untrue information due to which the Association was defamed. The newspaper despite their request did not publish the corrigendum, concluded the complainant. Report The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the complainant noted that the respondent, The Indian Express neither filed written statement nor appeared before it to defend the matter. The Inquiry Committee, thus had to proceed on the basis that the respondent had no defense to offer and it proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of the material on record. The Inquiry Committee noted that staff members of National Library, who availed admissible LTC did not fly to Assam as members of the complainant association, since the association was not vested with the privilege of providing LTC. It accepted that The Indian Express published manifestly wrong facts, describing the complainant association as a Union, backed by a political party, namely, CPM. The Inquiry Committee finds The Indian Express guilty of incorrect and unverified reporting and recommended to the Council to warn the newspaper, The Indian Express. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and to warn the respondent newspaper, The Indian Express, in terms of observations recorded therein for inaccurate reporting.

345 130) Dr. N.C. Das The Editor Principal Versus Nababarta Prasanga Rabindra Sadan Girls’ College Karimganj, Assam Karimganj, Assam ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 9.11.2009 has been filed by Dr. N.C.Das, Principal, Rabindra Sadan Girls’ College, Karimganj, Assam against ‘Nababarta Prasanga’, a Bengali daily newspaper for publication of alleged false and defamatory news items under the captions ‘Local candidate deprived, Grievance against the Principal’ and ‘Appointment of a lecturer in Rabindra Sadan Girls College discontentment everywhere’ in its 22nd and 28th August, 2009 issues respectively. According to the complainant, there was requirement of teacher in their college and hence they called applications through advertisement in various newspapers. Based on merits, one person was selected in the department of history. The sister-in-law of the respondent editor, who also applied for the post, could not be selected. The respondent being annoyed thus came out with false, biased and distorted reporting against the teacher’s council and the principal of the institute. It was alleged in the impugned news items that the selected teacher was an outsider who did not apply for the post in time and her selection was questionable. The institute was also alleged of being biased with no concern for the unemployment of the local area. The respondent also published satirical poem against the principal in his newspaper issues dated 24th and 27th August, 2009. The complainant submitted that the college issued two rejoinders but the respondent published only one rejoinder in 25.9.2009 issue with wrong information. He has alleged that an overall scrutiny of the news item during the entire episode revealed that the respondent newspaper (a) is not averse to biased reporting to pressurize certain quarters for narrow personal gain, (b) would resort to the use of crude and vulgar cartoons and ditties to settle personal scores, (c) is not averse to inciting local passions over a simple recruitment process and (d) has totally abjured its moral and ethical responsibility. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 19.4.2010, the respondent editor, ‘Dainik Nababarta Prasanga’ in his written statement dated 28.5.2010 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant as untrue and incorrect. The facts which was published in their newspaper were true in all respect, asserted the respondent and added that one of the unsuccessful candidates who appeared before the interview board for the selection of the lecturership in the department of History, Rabindra Sadan Girls’ College had preferred a writ petition before

346 the Guwahati High Court under WP (c) No. 5940 of 2009 which is pending for adjudication. The complainant suppressed the true facts in lodging the alleged complaint, stated the respondent and concluded that considering the facts, he may be exempted from the liability of the alleged charges. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata. Both the parties were present. Shri Manoj Kumar Dutta appearing for the complainant submitted that the first rejoinder was not published. However, the second rejoinder published was full of wrong information. He submitted that the respondent editor had made serious charges by calling the principal a dacoit and extortionist. He further submitted that another newspaper, namely Samayika Prasanga had published his version prominently. But the respondent editor of Nababarta Prasanga carried yet another report tempering the pamphlet issued by Shilpy Sansthan, an organization of Karimganj and targeted the principal to create doubts about his bonafide. The complainant alleged that the respondent newspaper published damaging poem which reads:- Keeping thousands of local unemployed aside And bringing a candidate from outside the State Her perhaps wish to fill The vacant post in silence Destroying the protocol And shattering the expectations into dust The principal Nibaran Das has Dishearten the female candidate at last Shri Muzibur Rahman Choudhary appearing for Nababarta Prasanga submitted that the rejoinder of the complainant had been published on 25th September, 2009 and the matter of appointment was pending in the Guwahati High Court. The respondent denied the allegation of having any motive to defame the complainant. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted the submission made by the parties. At the outset it reported the contention of the matter being sub-judice as the courts were seiged only of the grievance of the non selection of a candidate. In the opinion of the Committee, a systematic tirade was launched by the editor, Nababarta Prasanga, Karimganj against the school authorities and its Principal (the complainant herein) out of vengeance for not appointing one of the candidates who was a relative of the respondent in the Rabindra Sadan Girls’ College, Karimganj. The Inquiry Committee held that the editor had no reasonable basis for publication of impugned material, which

347 was prompted by malafide due to personal interest in the process of appointment of lecturer in the complainant’s college. The Inquiry Committee observed that the editor transgressed the norms of journalistic ethics in publishing the impugned news item and satirical poem and publishing half – heartedly rejoinder with more misinformation. The Inquiry Committee finds the editor guilty of violating all norms of journalistic ethics e.g. accuracy and fairness, prepublication verification, caution against defamatory writings and right of reply. The Inquiry Committee felt that the violation warranted award of censure to the editor Nababarta Prasanga, Karimganj for gross violation of journalistic ethics and norms. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides to censure the editor, Nababarta Prasanga and further decides that a copy of the decision be sent to the DAVP, the RNI and the Government of Assam and the District Magistrate, Karimganj for such action, as they deem fit in the matter.

131) Dr. Ramen Talukdar The Editor Principal Versus Dainik Agradoot Suren Das College Guwahati Hajo, Kamrup, Assam Assam ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 5.10.2009 has been filed by Dr. Ramen Talukdar, Principal, Suren Das College, District Kamrup, Assam against the editor, Dainik Agradoot, Dispur, Assam for publishing defamatory news item under the caption “UGC money grabbed, fund goes to principal’s pocket” in its issue dated 10.9.2009. It was reported in the impugned news item that the State Information Commission exposed irregularity of lakhs of rupees at Suren Das College. The funds allocated for the development of infrastructure of the college has been grabbed under the leadership of the Principal of the college. It was also alleged that to get the share of commission, the Principal, Ramen Talukdar bought books for library which were old, out of date and not required by the students. The complainant has alleged that by publication of the defamatory news item, the respondent shattered his public, family and academic lives and above all, encouraged un-academic elements in the college campus. The complainant sent clarification to the respondent editor on 5.10.2009 but it was not published. He has alleged that it was a clear case of breach of

348 recognised ethical canons of journalistic propriety and taste. He requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter.

Written Statement

In response to show cause notice dated 6.1.2010 the respondent editor, Dainik Agradoot in his written statement dated 5.3.2010 while denying the allegation levelled in the complaint, submitted that the impugned news item was based on facts. According to the respondent, the complainant purchased some electrical items in the name of the college and obtained receipts against the purchase wherein it was evident that instead of total bill amount of Rs.260/-, payment made was shown as Rs. 12,319/-. Similarly in another bill instead of Rs. 1,360/- payment made was shown Rs. 13,599/-. The respondent has produced photocopies of the receipts. Further the complainant disbursed the fund sanctioned for remedial course without following the norms of payment @ Rs. 200/- per class. In the acquaintance roll in the college, there is no record of number of classes attended by each lecturer but payment had been made. The respondent has stated that hence it is clear that the complainant has misappropriated the fund sanctioned for the said purpose. With regard to misuse of fund granted by the University Grants Commission for infrastructure development of the college, the respondent has submitted that for construction of the girls hostel no tender was called for and an amount of Rs. 15,95,525/- was spent for construction of the building without calling for tender. The respondent has alleged that the complainant also failed to refute the allegation regarding misappropriation of fund allocated for development of SC/ST and submitted that out of Rs. 7,96,000/- and amount of Rs. 2,23,240/- was spent for the said purpose, there was no account of the balance amount. The respondent had stated that they had enough documents to prove the financial irregularities, which were disclosed at a press meet by the office bearers of some social organisations of the locality. The respondent had further stated that he had not received any clarification made in the impugned news item in any other newspaper.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.4.2010 submitted that the statement of the respondent are absolutely false and baseless. He denied that mislead of a total bill amount of Rs. 260/-and Rs. 1,360/-, Rs. 12,199/- and Rs. 13,599/- were shown respectively. The statement regarding payment of honorarium for remedial class was misinterpreted and norm was not followed in payment of honorarium. The column 15 of the photocopy of quittance roll submitted by Dainik Agradoot itself clearly indicates the number of classes attended by the teachers.

349 The complainant further stated that the allegation of tender being not called for the construction of Girls’ Hostel is also wrong. The tender was called for labour work. The governing body of the college constituted a Committee and purchased the construction materials directly from the market to tide over the time constraint; hence, no tender was invited for purchase of materials. He stated that Rs. 9,96,000/- was allocated for SC/ST development and the same grant was allotted for remedial class and not a separate fund. The editor Dainik Agradoot once again misinterpreted the documents. The balance amount of the fund was spent for computer lab and purchase of computer as per the direction of the governing body. The complainant further stated that if the editor Dainik Agradoot has misled the public and arguments totally lie that he has no proof of financial irregularities. It is not understood that Dainik Agradoot observed silence for giving clarification with regard to purchase of old and irrelevant books for students in the library and purchase of plastic chairs. The Complainant challenged the editor Dainik Agradoot to come to the college library and identify the old and irrelevant books and to examine the quality of plastic chairs costing more than Rs. 1500/- per chair. The complainant and Governing Body of the college were anguished and condemned the Dainik Agradoot for publishing a self motivated news item before ensuring its authenticity. Respondent’s Reply The respondent in his further reply dated 18.6.2010 submitted that the submissions of the complainant were misleading, suppression of facts and the complaint is liable to be rejected. He stated that the socio-cultural organization of the area, namely Nava Prerana where the college is situated, obtained information under the provisions of the RTI Act, regarding misuse and misappropriation of UGC fund by the college. The President of the organization approached the reporter of the newspaper by a letter for publication with a view to highlight the misdeeds of the college authority, where the interest of the people of the locality was involved. The news item in question was published on the basis of the documents furnished by the authority of the college to the President of Nava Prerana and the newspaper had nothing to do with outcome. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when both the parties were present. Shri Nityananda Kalita, the complainant’s representative submitted that the newspaper published totally false news alleging excessive expenditure but failed to publish rejoinder. The complainant submitted that the rejoinder was issued through peon book and it was received by the respondent staff on 21.9.2009. Despite having served the rejoinder personally by hand and with acknowledgement on the peon book, the respondent declined to publish his rejoinder.

350 Shri Kanaksen Deka appeared for Agradoot submitted that the matter published in the newspaper was based on facts. The respondent denied having received the rejoinder from the complainant. The respondent however stated that the newspaper was ready to publish the rejoinder, if provided. During the course of hearing a copy of the rejoinder was handed over to the respondent for necessary action. Report The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the respondent had agreed to publish the rejoinder which in the facts of the case was sufficient for complying with the norms of reporting on Public Institution. The Inquiry Committee, therefore directed the editor, Agradoot to publish the rejoinder within a fortnight and send clipping to the Council as well as complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and the report of the Inquiry Committee adopted the same and decided accordingly.

132) Smt. Atashi Dutta The Editor Assam Versus Dainik Nababarta Prasanga Assam ADJUDICATION Facts Smt. Atashi Dutta, Silchar, Assam has filed this complaint dated 18.8.2009 through her advocate against Nababarta Prasanga, Bengali daily, Karimganj for publishing allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news item in its issue dated 5.8.2009. By means of a notice dated 18.8.2009 addressed to the respondent editor with a copy endorsed to the Press Council, the complainant submitted that she was working as an Upper Division Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Cachar for the last 19 years with honesty, integrity sincerity and efficiency with unblemished track record last few years she had been looking after the affairs of Land Acquisition for public purposes in the Land Acquisition Branch of the office of Collector, Cachar, as an Assistant. On 5.8.2009 the respondent newspaper published a news report alleging that the complainant being Office Assistant in the Land Acquisition with the help of brokers namely Makaddas Ali and Akaddas Ali, pressurized one Shri Barun Sharma to manipulate zirat list for entering names of 60-70 persons, who allegedly did it out of fear. Later on 7.8.2009 another news item was published stating that Makaddas Ali was engaged in various land acquisition scams with Ms. Atashi Dutta for last few years. On 25.8.2009, Shri Barun Sharma gave a rejoinder to the respondent

351 newspaper stating that he had not submitted any complaint against anybody for manipulating zirat list pertaining to land acquisition compensation as published in the edition dated 5.8.2009. The said news item was false and objectionable Being aggrieved by the impugned news item she sent a notice dated 18.8.2009 through her advocate seeking unconditional apology or she would file a case against the respondent for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. This notice was sent to the Editor, Dainik Nababarta Prasanga” and Printer, Proprietor and Publisher of Dainik Nababarta Prasanga, but to no avail. However, again on 26.8.2009 another report was published mentioning inter alia that Atashi Dutta in other words, admitted that she had personal relations with Makaddas Ali. With all the aforesaid news items she was defamed and humiliated and her reputation was damaged in the eyes of general people, the complainant alleged. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 4.1.2010 the respondent editor, Nababarta Prasanga vide his written statement dated 24.2.2010 while denying the allegations levelled in the complaint submitted that the impugned publications were in pursuance of the report collected by their reporter from his relevant sources. The respondent submitted that the impugned news item was based on the petition dated 6.11.2008 submitted by Shri Barun Sharma Patwari, Silchar addressed to Land Acquisition Officer, Sadar, Silchar and the report in connection of the said petition in reference to the note of Land Acquisition Officer, Sadar Silchar vide dated 6.11.2008 submitted by S.K. vide dated 17.11.2008 addressed to Land Acquisition Officer, Silchar. The respondent further submitted that the President and General Secretary of Indraghar Grant and Block, Mouza, Pattadar and Khatiandar Development Committee submitted detailed facts in writing with a copy to the reporter of the newspaper. The respondent further submitted that as per request of Shri Barun Sharma Patwari, Silchar, they published his letter in the newspaper on 25.8.2009. He requested the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when both the parties appeared before the Committee. Shri B. K. Purkayastha, Advocate, complainant’s representative reiterated the complaint and submitted that the allegation made against the complainant caused great mental agony. Shri Muzibur Rehman Choudhary, Publisher Daily Nababarta Prasanga, submitted that the news was based on documents and the letter of Shri Barun Sharma Patwari, Silchar had been carried on 25.8.2009 and thus no further action was needed. He accepted before the Committee that the impugned charges regarding complainant’s admission of her relation with Makaddas Ali was based on information received by them.

352 Report The Inquiry Committee on a carefull perusal of the record and on hearing the parties noted that the first two impugned reports commented on the functioning of the complainant as a public official, the third report affected her character personally. The impugned news report attempted to undermine the prestige of the lady official and assassinate her character in the eyes of the society in general and family and friends in particular. The editor admitted that the publication was based on their assessment of the information received by them and they had not attempted to verify it from her. The Inquiry Committee thus found the publication of rejoinder of Shri Barun Sharma Patwari, Silchar denying having any grievance against the Land Acquisition Department was not a sufficient factor to drop the proceedings. The Inquiry Committee was of view that the editor in his zeal to report, assassinated the character of the complainant and had thrown all applicable norms to wind. The Inquiry Committee severly castigated the respondent editor for his irresponsible act in manifestly false reporting about the lady officer and denigrating the image of women in workplace. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the editor, Nababarta Prasanga, Karimganj for damaging reports against the complainant. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides to censure the editor, Nababarta Prasanga. It also decided that a copy of the decision be sent to (i) the DAVP, (ii) the RNI, (iii) the Government of Assam and (iv) the Collector, Silchar, Assam for necessary action as they deem fit in the matter.

133) Shri Abu Sadeque Ishtiaque The Editor Ahmed Choudhury Versus Samayik Prasanga Managing Director Silchar, Cachar Daffodils Insurance Agency Pvt. Ltd. Assam Guwahati, Assam ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 6.10.2009 filed by Shri Abu Sadeque Ishtiaque Ahmed Chaudhury, Managing Director, Daffodils Insurance Agency Private Limited, Guwahati, Assam against Samayik Prasanga, pertains to publication of a defamatory news item in its issue dated 3.8.2009 wherein it was alleged that recently, 70 to 80 lakhs of rupees were transferred to the personal account by

353 one of the Directors of the complainant’s company from the company’s business account. The complainant further submitted that the respondent editor is facing Criminal Suit No. 3156/09 and Civil Suit No. 181/09 for publishing distorted and misleading news against a particular community. In response to the show cause notice dated 12.4.2010, the respondent editor, Samayik Prasanga in his written statement dated 27.5.2010 denied the allegations and submitted that the Criminal Case No. 3156/09 and Civil Case No. 181/09 were not false. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when Shri Tuhina Sarma, Advocate appeared for the complainant and Shri Arup Dasgupta, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Both the parties informed the Committee that they have filed cases in the law courts against each other and thus the matter was sub-judice. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the parties decided to drop the proceedings being subjudice. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Council on perusal of the records of the case and report accepted the opinion of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the case being sub- judice.

134) The Deputy Director (Admn.) The Editor O/o Principal Director of Audit Versus Voice of Andaman Central, Kolkata Port Blair ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Atoorva Sinha, Deputy Director (Admn.), O/o the Principal Director of Audit, Central, Kolkata has filed this complaint dated 7.2.2008 against the Voice of Andaman, English weekly, Port Blair for publication of allegedly false, baseless, unverified and defamatory news item captioned “Senior Audit Officer subjected to victimization for being honest” in its issue dated 3.10.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Shri Sanjay Dhar, a Senior Audit Officer posted in the Office of the Director of Audit, Port Blair and who was placed under suspension for indiscipline, was trying to expose some foul play and the Deputy Director of the same office was trying to prevent him from doing so by abusing his official position. The complainant submitted that immediately after publication of the impugned report, the Principal Director of Audit had ordered an inquiry and sent another officer who found the allegation completely baseless.

354 The matter was taken up with the editor, Voice of Andaman under letter dated 26.11.2007 requesting for any evidence or documents in support of the news item which was completely baseless and had caused incalculable damage to the reputation of their office but the editor in his reply dated 11.12.2007 refused to share any other information on this, as being contrary to the professional ethics. The complainant further submitted that disciplinary proceedings were going on against the said Shri Sanjay Dhar and publication of the impugned news report tantamount to pre-judging matters and to prejudice opinions. He requested to initiate appropriate action against the respondent weekly for publishing the baseless allegations without verification and to direct him to publish a suitable apology on the first page of his newspaper. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 9.7.2008, the respondent editor, the Voice of Andaman in his written statement dated 4.8.2008 submitted that the news item in question was published after careful investigation with due diligence and in good faith and was not at all intended to defame any individual or a public office but in larger public interest. Giving details of the incidents, the respondent submitted that the news item was published to attract the attention of higher officials so that the truth could be unveiled. He requested to dismiss the complaint. The editor submitted that he received information that some wood was illegally transported by truck and off loaded at DAG Colony and the truck No was either 8241 or 6421 but the editor immediately could not take steps due to his pre-occupation. However the editor subsequently gathered information that an OAP party consisting of Shri B.S.Rao, Senior A.O. and Shri Supriya Kumar, Section Officer headed by Shri Sanjay Dhar, Senior Audit Officer, was carrying out the audit of the DFO, Wildlife, Port Blair with effect from 14.09.2007 and on 20.09.2007 both Shri B.S.Rao and Shri Supriya Kumar were absent during the first half of 20.09.2007 and in this regard the editor came to know that Shri Sanjay Dhar had sought explanation from both the absentees for being absent from the place of duty. Further investigation revealed that on 22.9.2007 at around 11.00 p.m. Shri Sanjay Dhar, Senior Audit Officer was allegedly attacked by Mrs. Rao W/o Shri B.S.Rao, Senior Audit Officer and his sons, which led to the filing of a case under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate at Port Blair on 24.9.2007. On 25.9.2007 an FIR was lodged by Shri Sanjay Dhar against Mrs. Rao W/o Shri B.S. Rao and their sons under Sections 323/504/34 of IPC at Police Station, Aberdeen, Port Blair. The editor submitted that the probable reason for

355 the altercation was likely the allegedly illegal transporting of wood that was off loaded on 14.9.2007 were brought to the notice of the then Deputy Director, In- charge (ANI), O/o the Principal Director of Audit, Central Branch, UT of ANI, Port Blair with the hope and expectation that proper investigations shall be made. However, the editor was shocked to note that Shri Sanjay Dhar was placed under suspension on 28.09.2007 and at the same time Deputy Director (ANI), O/o the Principal Directory of Audit, Central Branch, UT of ANI, Port Blair cancelled the Government accommodation being quarter No. 2, Type IV duly allotted to him with the direction that Shri Sanjay Dhar may not enter the DAG Colony, Port Blair without obtaining written permission and any deviation in this shall be treated as unauthorized tresspass. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.9.2008 submitted that the so called careful investigation with due diligence before publishing the news as claimed by the editor was completely baseless and unacceptable. The news item along with the clarification furnished subsequently was neither based on any evidence nor supported by any witness. The aim of the news was to tarnish the reputation of their office and to mislead the public. The complainant alleged that the news was published with malafide and smacks of yellow journalism. According to the complainant the news item was a fabricated story only intended to serve vested interests and tarnish the credentials of a reputed office. Further Reply of the Respondent The respondent in his further reply dated 13.10.2008 objected to the language of the counter comments filed by the complainant. Reiterating the written statement, the respondent submitted that the news item was published only after thorough probe and due diligence and as such the allegation of malafide intention and of yellow journalism was totally baseless and liable to be set aside. He requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when Shri Soumya Chattopadhyay, Senior Audit Officer appeared for the complainant and Shri Tapan Kumar Das, editor appeared for the respondent. Both the parties reiterated their submissions already filed and which are on record. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the parties noted that the editor Voice of Andaman tendered his subjective opinion about alleged victimization of an officer who was subjected to disciplinary action by the complainant department. The respondent editor hurriedly drew

356 conclusion based on hearsay that an honest officer was being victimized although the disciplinary proceedings were still pending. The Inquiry Committee observed that it is the duty of the press to report matters of public importance and comment there on and the newspaper should draw a distinction between news, views and comments. The respondent editor by mixing his opinion with news content transgressed the most basic journalistic ethics and by stressing such opinion pre-judged the issue. The Inquiry Committee desired that the editor Voice of Andaman abide by the norms of journalistic ethics and conduct and not repeat such conduct drawing conclusion and surmises not supported by facts and mixing news with views. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint with these observations and recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides to uphold the complaint with advises recorded above.

135) Prof. Dr. Gandhraba Ray The Editor Department of Medicine Versus Samaj Aina SCB Medical College and Hospital Bhubaneswar Cuttack, Orissa Orissa ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 29.4.2010 has been filed by Prof. Dr. Gandhraba Ray, Department of Medicine, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Orissa against Samaj Aina, an Oriya fortnightly, from Bhubaneswar for publication of allegedly vague, false, defamatory and imaginary news item under the caption ‘Demand to retrench Doctor from Medicine Department’ (English rendering) in its April 1-15, 2010 issue. It was reported in the impugned news item that while the State Government has taken many steps to provide health services to the patients in the SCB Medical College, there were complaints against some senior doctors such as professors for dictatorial behaviour toward their patients. The complainant was alleged to have been mentally torturing his juniors and associates and also sexually harassing them. He was alleged to have persuaded his patients to go to his private clinic for treatment thus collecting fees from his patient and the public was demanding action against him. The publication of such false news defamed him, his family members and relatives in public, stated the complainant and added that from the date of publication of the news item, he was not in a position to face his collegues, family members, relatives and the

357 public. He has alleged that all the contents of the news item in question were false, baseless, ill motivated and was published without any evidence, which is defamatory in nature. He has added that the respondents have circulated copy of the newspaper to his neighbourhood, with the intention to defame him and mental agony and as a result he lost prestige, image and reputation. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 29.4.2010 to the respondent but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 11.6.2010, the respondent editor, Samaj Aina in his undated written statements, received in the Council on 2.7.2010 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that the news item in question was based on facts collected from the public. He has stated that the news item was published with an intention to make the public aware of the problems, the society was facing with medical treatments in the medical college. The respondent also stated that the matter was also published by two other Oriya dailies such as the Samaj and Surya Prava. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 29.7.2010 submitted that the clarification made by the respondent is totally baseless and has no legal sanctity. The averment made by the respondent expressing his views that the objective of the newspaper to publish problem of the society, does not mean that a newspaper is empowered to publish news damaging someone’s character and credibility for which the press should have sufficient proof of the same. The complainant also objected to the publication, on the basis of public statement, of such type of frivolous and vexatious news harming someone’s name, character and social respect. He also alleged that the respondent directly criticized him by name and position which violated the basic norms and guidelines of the Press Council which envisage the nature of professional misconduct. Concerning the two other newspapers referred by the respondent, the complainant has submitted that the news items published by them were general in nature on the system of functioning of the SCB Medical College and Hospital rather than blaming any individual. The complainant has requested the Council to take action against the respondent newspaper. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. Shri Kamala Kanta Mohanty, Advocate appearing for the complainant submitted that the impugned news item had been published with a view to tarnish his reputation and prestige. The complainant objected to reckless

358 allegation of harassing the associates. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee perused the record and was satisfied that the respondent Samaj Aina published the impugned news item captioned: ‘Demand to retrench Doctor from Medicine Department’ in the April 1-15, 2010 issue to malign the complainant. The editor made manifestly defamatory allegation to harm the reputation of the complainant in the public eye in general and family, friends and colleague in particular. In the opinion of the Committee, the respondent editor by publishing the impugned news item offended against the standard of Journalistic ethics and public taste. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee. It condemned the impugned publication and decided to censure the editor, Samaj Aina, Bhubaneshwar for publishing baseless and graceless material. It futher decided that a copy of the decision be sent to the DAVP, the RNI and the Government of Orissa for such action, as they deem fit in the matter.

136) Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh The Editor Bokaro Versus Dainik Jagran Jharkhand Dhanbad, Jharkhand

The Editor Hindustan Ranchi, Jharkhand ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 12.12.2007 have been filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Bokaro, Jharkhand, Ranchi against two Hindi Daily newspapers namely, Dainik Jagran and Hindustan for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items captioned ‘Maharashtra Police Lapta Yuvti Ki Talash Mein Pahunchi Bokaro Thermal’ (Maharashtra police reached Bokaro Thermal in search of missing lady) and ‘Yuvti Ki Talash Mein Bokaro Thermal Pahunchi Mumbai Police’ (Mumbai police reached Bokaro Thermal in search of missing lady) in their issues dated 21.11.2007 and 22.11.2007 respectively. According to the complainant, the two news items published the details of his daughter, who went to Mumbai for study purpose. It was stated in the impugned news item that a five member police team from Mumbai reached Bokaro

359 Thermal and inquired from Shri Pradeep Singh about his daughter, Ms. Rajni Singh who was studying in Mumbai. The Inquiry team informed the journalist that the inquiry was being made on the complaint case no. 5/05 filed by the husband of Rajni in the police station, Alibagh. The complainant has objected to the news item as his daughter was unmarried and residing with him and thus the impugned news item was highly defamatory and far from truth. Quoting the norms relating to privacy and identification of names, the complainant alleged that the respondents failed to verify the facts before publication. Comments Comments of the two respondents were invited on 9.7.2008 and in response, the Resident Editor, Hindustan, Ranchi in his comments dated 21.7.2008 stated that the news item in question was based on information gathered from the complaint filed before the police station, Alibagh which they got confirmed from the complainant over the phone. He also submitted that the complainant issued his clarification/rejoinder dated 19.12.2007 and it was published the very next day on 20.12.2007. He also stated that the Alibagh police arrested the complainant’s wife and daughter on 5.7.2008 in connection with the case which was pending in the Bombay High Court. The other respondent, Dainik Jagran, Dhanbad in his comments dated 23.7.2008 submitted that the impugned news item was published after due verification on the basis of information from the Maharashtra Police and the versions of the parents of the lady in question were taken. Based on the arrest warrant in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 591/07 of the Bombay High Court, another news item was published. Counter Comments Smt. Meena Singh, wife of the complainant in her counter comments dated 11.8.2008 denied the allegations and submitted that the news item published by the respondent Dainik Jagran in its issue dated 5.7.2008 alleging that she and her daughter being arrested and taken to Mumbai was absolutely false as it was only a warrant to be present before the Mumbai High Court and they went there of their own will. As the complainant was not satisfied with the comments of the two respondents, show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 25.11.2008. Written Statements The News Editor, Dainik Jagran in his written statement dated 10.12.2008 submitted that the allegations as made by the complainant and his family were absolutely false and imaginary rather they wanted to gag the voice of national newspapers in the matter of publication of accurate news. He has stated that the new item in question published on 21.11.2007 was neither derogatory nor

360 defamatory. It was published after going through the actual facts without any malice towards the complainant and his daughter and no imputation was made against them. From the documents, it would be evident that the complainant admitted the factual aspects of the news item but was irked and hence the complainant made the frivolous complaint against the newspaper which is not at all tenable, stated the respondent. Senior Resident Editor, Hindustan in his written statement dated 4.12.2008 has submitted that the news item in question was published on the basis of a letter of the Assistant Police Inspector, Thane, Maharashtra issued to the Station House Officer, Thermal Police Station, Bokaro. The respondent further stated that the impugned news item was published after taking the views of the complainant in the matter. Arguments The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. Smt. Meena Singh, alongwith Shri P.K.Singh, appeared before the Committee and submitted that the respondent Dainik Jagran in 2005 had also published defamatory news against her daughter. The respondent in the present reports disclosed identity of the family that had caused great mental agony. She further submitted that the police did not arrest her, and as per their information the police never visited their house. Shri Jay Krishna Bajpayee, Senior Sub Editor, appearing for Dainik Jagran submitted that warrant of arrest were issued by the Bombay High Court. The Alibagh Police came to Bokaro to arrest the complainant and his wife. The respondent further submitted that they had published their version also and had no malafide in the matter. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the record and after hearing the parties noted that the documents showed that the Bombay High Court had issued arrest warrant but according to the complainant no arrest was made. Facts of the case notwithstanding in the impugned news item were violation of the internationally accepted norms as also Press Council’s guidelines cautioning against identification while reporting crime matter involving women/females and that their names or other particulars leading to their identity shall not be published. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the newspaper erred in disclosing the identity of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee further observed that the incident in question was a personal matter that affected the prestige and privacy of the family in the society. It involved no public interest warranting identification of the persons involved. The Committee also observed that while gossip reaches a localized few, a newspaper report reaches lakhs and therefore

361 a more onerous responsibility devolves on the Press towards the society. Thus, it opined that the respondents violated the established norms of journalistic ethics warranting action against the editors of Dainik Jagran and Hindustan for disclosing the identity of the complainants. However, direction for remedial action was not warranted at this stage as this would only serve to refresh public memory. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records and the report of the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and warn the respondent editors, Dainik Jagran, Dhanbad and Hindustan, Ranchi, Jharkhand in exercise of Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978.

137) Shri Arvind Chandra The Editor Managing Director Versus Hindustan M/s. Vanachal Builders Pvt. Ltd. Ranchi Ranchi, Jharkhand Jharkhand ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 28.12.2007 has been filed by Shri Arvind Chandra, Managing Director, M/s. Vanachal Builders Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand against Hindustan, a Hindi daily newspaper of Ranchi edition for publication of a series of allegedly objectionable news items in 23 to 28 December, 2007 issues. In response to the show cause notice dated 1.5.2008, the respondent editor, Hindustan in his written statement dated 10.5.2008 denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the impugned news items were based on facts. Report When the Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 20.9.2010 at Kolkata, Shri Chandan Kumar Mishra, Bureau Chief appeared for the respondent and filed a letter dated 25.9.2010 of the complainant withdrawing the complaint in view of publication of rejoinder. The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and decided to dismiss the complaint as withdrawn. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the record and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint.

362 138) Shri K.P. Singh, Ex-IGP The Editor Patna Versus Rashtriya Sahara Bihar Patna, Bihar ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 23.6.2008 has been filed by Shri K.P.Singh, Ex- Inspector General of Police, Patna against Rashtriya Sahara, Patna for publication of allegedly false and fabricated news item under the caption ‘Chhedkhani Mein Bure Fansey Retired IG Sahib’ (Retired I.G. got badly entangled in eveteasing) in its issue dated 18.6.2008. According to the complainant, when he went to the Old Secretariat to meet a peon named Smt. Usha Devi asking her to return the money which she borrowed from him in March, 2007 for her medical treatment, the lady reacted provocatively which instigated other employees. The secretariat police reached there in time and dispersed the shouting and disgruntled crowd. When the police recorded the statement of Smt. Usha Devi, she did not make any allegation of misdemeanor/misconduct/ obscene act or utterance against him. However the respondent newspaper published libelous and scathing false news report against him which tarnished his image, reputation and character. He had drawn the attention of the respondent editor vide letter dated 21.7.2008 and requested to take action in the matter but received no response. Written Statement In response the show cause notice dated 18.5.2009, the respondent editor, Rashtriya Sahara in his undated written statement, received in the Council on 16.6.2009 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant, stated that the news item in question was published on the basis of an FIR registered by the victim, Smt. Usha Devi in the secretariat police station. The respondent also submitted that the news item was also published by some other newspapers and telecast by television channels. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 10.7.2009 submitted that he had already filed complaints against various newspapers and television channels, before the Press Council although not later perused. According to the complainant, the alleged victim filed a complaint with her Departmental Secretary on 26.3.2008 and a copy of which was also made available to him, and there was much difference between the allegation of the victim lady in her complaints and what the respondent had published in the newspaper, Rashtriya Sahara. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

363 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Krishna Nanda De, Counsel appeared for the Rashtriyta Sahara and submitted that the said lady employee was weeping after the misbehaviour by the complainant and the crowd of employees gathered there was asking the complainant to tender apology. He however admitted that FIR did not mention the charge of misbehaviour. Report The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the learned counsel. It noted that the respondent newspaper appears to have inferred the information from its own assessment and published distorted statement making reckless allegation of eve-teasing against the complainant. It is evident on a perusal of the FIR that there was no mention of eve-teasing in the FIR. However, the unsubstantiated sensational headline was nothing but figment of their own imagination and concoction to malign the complainant. The Inquiry Committee reminds the media that the reputation is a precious treasure, which should not be destroyed with a stroke of pen. The Inquiry Committee expects that newspaper and periodicals shall bear in mind the norms laid down in respect of caution against libelous and defamatory writings that even truth cannot be a defence for publishing derogatory scurrilous and defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved. The Inquiry Committee finds the editor, Rashtriya Sahara guilty of publishing damaging news item with sensational headline against the complainant which was not in keeping with journalistic ethics or good public taste. The editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Patna overstepped the norms and therefore the Committee decided to recommend to the Council to warn the editor, Rashtriya Sahara. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and the report of the Inquiry Committee, accepted the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee, and decided to warn the respondent editor Rashtriya Sahara, Patna, Bihar, for false and defamatory reporting.

139) Shri Saifuddin Chaudhary The Editor President Versus Sambad Pratidin Party for Democratic Socialism Kolkata, West Bengal Kolkata, West Bengal ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Saifuddin Chaudhary,

364 President, Party for Democracy Socialism (PDS), Kolkata against Sambad Pratidin, Kolkata for publication of allegedly malicious news item captioned ‘Pranab virtually snubs Safi’ in its issue dated 23.3.2009. According to the complainant, he had a meeting with Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Congress leader and the then Foreign Minister on 22.3.2009 at his Kolkata residence in a very cordial atmosphere. Though the PDS, the complainant’s party is not a part of the seat sharing arrangement of the Congress and Trinamul Congress for the Lok Sabha polls, it did not spoil their frank and sincere discussion on some important issues concerning the poll, stated the complainant. A correspondent of the respondent newspaper talked to him on 22.3.2009 when he told the newsman about the discussion in the meeting. However what appeared in the respondent’s newspaper the next day was totally baseless, malicious and filled with ulterior motive designed to lower his image in the society. The impugned reports dated 23.3.2009 stated that “Shri Pranab Mukherjee, President, Pradesh Congress has virtually snubbed Saifuddin Choudhaury for contesting again the alliance opposed to the CPI (M). Saifuddin has stood from Jadavpore after failing to get a ticket from Trinomul. He went to the house of Pranabbabu on Sunday. But did not get much time to talk to him. Shri Pranabbabu made Saifuddin understand that he was unhappy with his decision to contest the election outside the alliance”. The complainant did not issue any separate letter/rejoinder to the respondent, but forwarded a copy of his complaint before the Council.

The respondent thereafter published a small excerpt with a caption ‘Safi Protest’ wherein it was stated that the complainant protested against the impugned news report about his meeting with the PCC President, Shri Pranab Mukherjee on their support to him in Jangipur constituency. The report of the meeting as appeared in the respondent newspaper was totally false. The complainant being not satisfied with the publication since the respondent newspaper had neither tendered any apology nor expressed any regret over the deliberate misreporting, requested the Council to take exemplary action for maligning him and supporting a particular political formation which was not ethical.

A show cause notice dated 16.9.2009, was issued to the respondent editor, Sambad Pratidin but no written statement has been filed despite service of the notice.

Report

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata when the complainant appearing in person submitted before the Committee that the media was gradually loosing ethics and his case is an example of trivialization of media.

365 The Inquiry Committee on perusing the record noted that the respondent Sambad Pratidin neither filed written statement nor deputed any representative to defend the case. The Inquiry Committee at the very outset deprecated the respondent’s irresponsible conduct in not filing reply to the allegations which remained unrebutted. It found that the impugned report tantamount to complete trivialization, likely to bring disrepute to the complainant despite being briefed by him about his meeting with the Cabinet Minister. The report was irrelevant and without any public purpose except of gossip. The Inquiry Committee advised the media to overcome the tendency of trivialization of information and build credibility in the society so as to win the confidence of the readers. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to uphold the complaint and caution the newspaper Sambad Pratidin to refrain from trivialization of the information and news in media.

Held

The Press Council on perusal of the report of the Inquiry Committee observed that the media should bear in mind the very first point of code of ethics framed by the Press Council of India on accuracy and fairness and eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material and that remarks unjustified and surmises should not be set forth as facts. The Council while upholding the complaint and cautioning the respondent newspaper directed the editor to issue advisory to the correspondents bringing to their notice these guideliness. The Council decided to dispose off the complaint with these observations and directions.

140) Ms. Smitarani Samal The Editor Secretary Versus Dharitri Beautician Association Bhubaneswar Dhenkanal, Orissa Orissa

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This undated complaint, received by the Council on 29.12.2008 has been filed by Ms. Smitarani Samal, Secretary, Beautician’s Association, Soundarya Beauty Parlour, Dhenkanal, Orissa against Dharitri, an Oriya daily newspaper from Bhubaneswar for publication of allegedly objectionable news item captioned ‘Talk in the town about a raid at a beauty parlour’ in its issue dated 7.12.2008. It was reported in the impugned news item that there was discussion/ rumour in the nooks and corner of the town about a raid by the police in

366 a beauty parlour. It was also being talked about that the police authority from top to bottom in Dhenkanal town Thanna avoided the issue when enquired. The public was asking why the police had brought three girls, working in the beauty parlour and taken them to an undisclosed location. IIC, Dhenkanal town Thana says he was ignorant of any such incident but would inquire and clarify the issue on Sunday. Now, the question is that when all the police raid to be in the knowledge of IIC, how come he is ignorant about such an incident? It shows that he neither has communication with his colleagues nor he relies on them.

The complainant submitted that the police authorities of the town, Thana, have clearly refuted the occurrence of such a raid but unfortunately, the journalist went on to publishing a vague news which became detrimental for the entire beautician community. She has stated that the news spread like a wildfire and the beauticians are at the receiving end, as people started questioning them,anonymous telephone calls poured in as if every beautician was involved in flesh trade and queries had been made about their price. The complainant protested the impugned news item through a letter to the respondent editor with a copy to the concerned journalist, but they neither tried to understand their plight nor responded to their letter. The complainant further stated that when contacted, the journalist, arrogantly told that ‘he would not swallow the spit’ by publishing a counter, whereas the editor, who is an MP, replied on phone that there would be no smoke unless there is fire. The complainant urged the respondent that if there is proof, the news should be published once again with full details featuring all relevant information, which would at least salvage the lost pride of the community.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 13.4.2009, the respondent District Correspondent, Shri Ratan Kumar Nair in his written statement dated 29.10.2009 has denied the allegations and submitted that at the time of publication of the news item, there was no Beautician Association at Dhenkanal nor any association was registered in the name of Beautician Association. Hence the existence of association was after the episode to suit their evil intention and malice alleged the respondent and added that when the news item did not indicate the name of any beauty parlour, then why the complainant dragged herself voluntarily into the episode. The contention of the complainant, Ms. Smitarani Samal itself proved that the news item in question was published on the basis of rumour and roadside gossip. He further submitted that some incident must have occurred for which the people were discussing about it and added

367 that hearsay evidence may not be accepted as evidence, but can not be thrown out. When he had not specifically mentioned the name of any beauty parlour, then the news item in question could not cause any imputation to anybody, stated the respondent. He had only expressed his opinion in good faith relating to the public gossip and in public interest, relying on some credible information so that the enforcement agency may take suitable action in the matter. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Nanda Nandan Satpathy, Advocate appeared for the respondent and submitted that they had nowhere mentioned the Beautician Association’s name in the news item. According to the respondent in such cases the police suppress the identity of the girls. Report The Inquiry Committee perused the record. It noted that the complainant’s grievance was publication of rumour making sweeping statement about raid in an unknown beauty parlour, which according to the complainant, was detrimental to their profession. The respondent claimed to have heard the rumour prompting the report and claimed protection by the reason of not having identified anyone. The Inquiry Committee was totally aghast at such defence of irresponsible reporting, the basic canon of which is not to report news on hearsay. It would have been understandable if the report had concrete legs to stand upon and the reporter in his wisdom had decided to protect the identity of those involved. This was not the case and such loose defence coming from a newspaper of long standing like Dharitri was astonishing. The Inquiry Committee noted that the unethical act of reporting so-called gossip was compounded by the audacity to decline to clarify the matter. The Inquiry Committee found the publication to be beyond doubt in violation of all ethics and warranting action under the Press Council Act. It made this report to the Council. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts and adopts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decided to warn the editor, Dharitri and its concerned correspondent, Shri Ratan Kumar Nair in exercise of its power under Section 14 (1) of the Press Council Act 1978. It further decided that while no fruitfull remedial publication would be advisable at this stage, a copy of this adjudication be sent to the State Government for its record.

368 141) Shri Deepak Raghunath Dhere The Editor Ichalkaranji Versus Dainik Pudhari Kolhapur, Maharashtra Kolhapur, Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 29.2.2008 has been filed by Shri Deepak Raghunath Dhere, Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur, Maharashtra against the editor, Dainik Pudhari, Kolhapur, Maharashtra alleging publication of objectionable news items captioned ‘Prowess of Ex-Municipal Councillor’ and ‘Make my wife Chairman’ in its issues dated 12th and 26th December, 2007 respectively. It was alleged in the first impugned news item that some of the municipal councillors were doing the business of issuing notices through advocates to government officers and to get financial benefits by giving threats. It was alleged in the second news item that an Ex-Municipal Councillor, along with his wife, a sitting Municipal Councillor, went to the door of an industrialist Municipal Councillor and requested him to make his wife the Chairperson. It was further alleged that the Industrialist Councillor reportedly abused the Ex-Councillor and turned down his request for making his wife Chairperson and various other Councillors were also reportedly to have expressed that the plan of the Ex-Councillors to extort money in the name of his wife had been foiled. The complainant has alleged that the respondents were unabashedly continuing with their vilification campaign causing grave mental torture and trauma to him and his family. He had issued notices to the respondent on 1.1.2008 demanding public apology and clarification but the respondent neither tendered any apology nor gave any reply. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 30.8.2008 has submitted that both the news items in question made certain observations without mentioning anybody’s name and it was in public interest that such news items were published, which was rightly covered by the exceptions under Section 499 (Defamation) of IPC. The respondent further stated that the newspaper Dainik Pudhari, being the largest circulated Marathi daily, is bound to expose misconduct of public servants like the Municipal Councillors, MLAs, MPs, etc. and they published in the news items that one ex-Municipal Councillor was trying to get the post of ‘Sabhapati’ for his wife who was a sitting Councillor, while there were a number of sitting lady Councillors whose husbands happened to be ex- Municipal Councillor, he failed to understand as to why the complainant took upon himself the onus of the misconducts of Councillor while his name has not been mentioned. 369 It may be noted that since the year 2003 the complainant and the respondent were having court cases over publication of news items under the caption (i) ‘Telephone Nos. of Municipal Councillor Deepak Dhere, Rajpute found in Manchekar’s diary, huge sensation’ ‘Telephone numbers of Municipal Councillor Deepak Dhere and Rajpute in the Diary of Manchekar’ and (ii) ‘Demand to initiate action against six Municipal Councillors running Kard Bhishi’ by the respondent newspaper in its issues dated 19.8.2003 and 20.8.2003 respectively. It was published in the first news item that telephone number of three people including Chairman of the Health Committee of the ruling National Congress Party of the Municipal Corporation were found in the diary of extortionist Suresh Manchekar who died in police encounter in Kolhapur. The second news item reported that after mafia don Suresh Manchekar was killed in the police shooting at Kolhapur in the investigation of the Thane police, it was found that two Municipal Councillor of Ichalkaranji, Deepak Dheere and Rave Saheb Rajpute were having relation with the criminal world of Mumbai. A case No. 1889/03 has been pending at Ichalkaranji Court since 2003 in regard to the two news items mentioned above and the respondent has argued that instant complaint should have been included in the said Court case. He has also been writing to the Council repeatedly informing the case is adjourned for a next date and also insisted that the instant matter is sub-judice. However, the respondent in his letter dated 30.8.2008 has admitted the fact that the instant complaint are not part of the court case No 1889/03 by stating that ‘Shri Dheere has already filed two complaints in the Magistrate Court in connection with the news previously published. He also added that ‘it is not understood what prevented him from filing similar complaints in respect of news items published dated 12.12.2007 and 26.12.2007 if at all he felt that the news pertains to him individually, although his name is not mentioned.’ The respondent in a subsequent letter dated 6.8.2009 informed the Council that Mumbai High Court and the District Judge, Kolhapur have held in similar other matter that the Chief Editor (in this case Padmashree Pratapsingh Jadhav) could be made party, in view of clear cut press line published fixing the responsibility on editor, other than Padmashree P.G., Jadhav, as required under PRB Act, 1867. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 28.8.2008, the complainant Shri Deepak R. Dhere has submitted that the statement of respondent was unsigned and also invalid for another reason that Vasant Sapre who has signed below the letter does not enjoy any locus standi to file statement in absence of any vakalatnama. The complainant stated that the complaint which was lodged by him before the said forum is based on consecutive news which has been published against his

370 dignity. He further stated that with regard to the instant news items dated 12.12.2007 and 26.12.2007 he has not filed any complaint against respondent either at police station or magistrate court and the respondent only tried to delay the matter without any proper reason. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.5.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance from either side. The complainant vide his fax dated 29.5.2010 informed that due to critical condition of his mother he was unable to appear before the Inquiry Committee. He requested to adjourn the matter. The respondent editor, Pudhari vide his letter dated 11.5.2010 informed that the complainant had filed a case No. 1889/2003 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Ichalkaranji on the same issue and the next date for hearing of the case was fixed 19.5.2010, thus, the matter was sub-judice. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the complainant and adjourned the matter directing inquiry from the complainant about the status of the case filed in the Court. The complainant vide letter dated 21.8.2010 intimated that the complaint in JMFC Court regarding news items dated 19.8.2003 and 20.8.2003 and complaint before the Press Council regarding news items published on 12.12.2007 and 26.12.2007 are different altogether. He reiterated that he had not lodged complaint against the respondent for the news items of 12.12.2007 and 26.12.2007 except the Press Council. He therefore, requested that the matter may be decided on merits. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi and the Inquiry Committee noted that the Counsel for Pudhari in a fax dated 25.10.2010 reiterated that a case bearing No. 1889/2003 filed by the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate was pending and therefore the Council cannot deal with the complaint. The complainant’s counsel S/Shri Jayant A. Balugade and Mehbub L. Banadar both from Ichalkaranji district, Maharashtra submitted that the impugned news item was aimed at defaming the lady Councillor as well as the complainant since the impugned news item quoted him as allegedly campaigning privately to make his wife a Chairperson. Insofar as identification was concerned, the complainant’s counsel submitted that only two Councillors have their wives as Councillors and the impugned news item was intended against the complainant and his wife and the respondent had been regularly trying to defame him. He clarified that the matter in respect of news reports dated 19.8.2003 and 20.8.2003 pending in the Court had nothing to do with the present complaint.

371 The complainant’s counsel requested for stern action against the respondent for publishing defamatory material. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record. At the very outset it noted that the respondents had made misleading statement about pending of the matter in the court of law. It noted that fresh allegations made in the news items dated 12th and 26th December, 2007 which were not subject matter of inquiry in any court of law. The preliminary objection was thus disposed off. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material available. The respondent had denied having defamed the complainant who he said had taken upon himself the onus of the misconduct of Councillors although his name was not mentioned. Even though the Committee did not accept the submissions of the respondent regarding linking of the reports of 2003 with the impugned reports, it felt that such submissions itself indicated that the impugned publications under inquiry before it were aimed at the complainant. Since no justification for the impugned charges had been produced by the respondent, the Inquiry Committee was of the view that the impugned news items were false and defamatory of the complainant and his wife. The ethics of journalism requires that a proper verification of facts is necessary and in the event of failure to do so, it is obligatory under the norms of journalistic ethics to issue a clarification, as sought by the aggrieved party. In the instant case the respondent editor, Pudhari violated norms laid down by the Council for which the Inquiry Committee recommends that the complaint be upheld and conduct of the editor be deprecated. It made its report to the Council. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case decided to uphold the complaint and deprecate the editor, Pudhari for violating the norms of journalistic ethics and conduct.

142) Smt. Mamta Ramesh Dubey The Editor Editor Versus Khabar - Dar - Khabar Subah Samna Crime Times Bhiwandi Mumbai Thane, Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 14.5.2008 has been filed by Smt. Mamta Ramesh Dubey, editor, Subah Samna Crime Times, Mumbai against Khabar - Dar - Khabar, Bhiwandi, Thane, Maharashtra for publication of allegedly false, frivolous,

372 baseless and defamatory news item captioned “Cheater Mahila Patrakar Ne Imam Ko Fansa” and “Mamta Dubey Ne Goondon Se Thukvaya” in its issues dated 1-15 and 15-31, May 2008 respectively. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant Smt. Mamta Dubey had cheated an Imam of Rs.25, 000/- on a false promise of making him a correspondent for her newspaper Subah Samna Crime Times. She was also alleged to have cheated people by extracting money on a pretext of reporting their news in the national channels. A photograph of a man, who was reported to have connection with the Crime Branch Department, was also published along with news item in question alleging him to be the bogus husband of the complainant. She was also reported to have no identity card of her own as an editor of a newspaper. The complainant has alleged that the news item in question defamed her in the eyes of her husband and the society. Upon seeing the impugned news item, she telephonically asked the respondent to furnish documentary evidence of the source of the news item and when received no response, served a legal notice dated 9.05.2008 on the respondent and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as damages. According to the complainant, the respondent being annoyed with the legal notices published the second news item wherein she was alleged to had gangsters threaten and beat up the Imam to withdraw the court case filed against her. The respondent editor, Khaber - Dar - Khabar, Bhiwandi who was served with show cause notice dated 8.7.2008 did not file written statement. Report Following one adjournment of 31.5.2010 the Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi when none of the parties entered appearance. Shri Kapil Dev Mukti Narayan Mishra, editor, Khaber - Dar - Khaber in his belated written statement filed on 20.10.2010 submitted that the impugned publication was based on FIR and the case under Sections 406, 465, 470, 471-IPC between Shri Maulanan Ishtiyaque Ahmed Jalaluddi Vs. Smt. Mamta Dubey is pending before JMFC, Bhiwandi. The respondent editor filed copies of documents in support of his contention and requested to dismiss the complaint. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted the absence of the complainant, decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case including the written statement decided to dismiss the complaint.

373 143) Shri M.B. Thakur The Editor Senior Journalist Versus Sachcha Vijay Do Baje Dopahar Mumbai Thane, Maharashtra Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 2.11.2008 has been filed by Shri M.B. Thakur, Senior Journalist of an evening daily, Do Baje Dopahar, Thane, Maharashtra against Sachcha Vijay, Mumbai for publication of allegedly false, fabricated and defamatory news item along with his photograph, under the caption ‘Police Ki Petai Se Napunsak Huua M.B. Thakur Sadme Mein’ in its October 2008 issue. The respondent editor, Sachcha Vijay, Mumbai who was served with a show cause notice dated 5.6.2009 did not file written statement. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.5.2010 and 28.10.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the parties on both the occasions which indicated that the complainant was not interested to pursue the complaint. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case decided to dismiss the complaint for non pursuance.

144) Shri Mahavir Prasad Mansinghka The Editor Chairman Kranti Bharat Samachar Murlidhar Kripa Hospital & Versus Monthly Magazine Research Centre Lucknow Maksi, Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Mahavir Prasad Mansinghka , Chairman, Murlidhar Kripa Hospital and Research Centre, Maksi, Madhya Pradesh has filed this complaint dated 10.7.2009 against the editor, Kranti Bharat Samachar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh for publishing allegedly false, baseless, motivated and defamatory article with his photograph as cover story under the caption:- “Mahavir Prasad Mansinghka Jaalsaji Ka Mayajaal” in its issue of May, 2009. The impugned article highlighted

374 the complainant’s alleged misconducts, his involvement in several criminal and civil cases, his modus operandi in order to obtain loan from different banks on cheaper rates, and regarding the closure of Industrial units after having misused the loans provided to him and tax holidays granted by government exempting new industrial units from being taxed. Denying the allegations in toto, the complainant objected to the remarks made in the impugned publication i.e. “Organizer of “Network of Fraud”, Kingpin of Fraud, dracula, Committing/Creating new line of fraud daily, dining and drinking with leaders of underworld, a man of nominal means became billionaire by sucking the blood of poor people, corrupted Wolf, crook, For Selfish ends spoiled lives of his brothers and kicked out his own sons, went on floating the companies with the aim/object of getting the government loan, public money and the material from farmers and transferring the entire money through foul means to charities, Created contacts/network in the banks by greasing the palms and supplying call girls, MOPL is entered in the fraud list of corporate crooks, MP Mansinghka Charities is a showpiece/front as a charity but it is infact a place where black money is transferred and kept, having two passports and two ration cards, having two fathers”. The complainant alleged that the respondent made fabricated, wild, reckless, and baseless allegations in abusive language against him and published his photo on the front (cover) page. The complainant has submitted that he is a philanthropist and highly reputed person in the field of oil seed trades, industry and social services, and now totally devoted to social services. The complainant has alleged that the respondent having animosity defamed him and his family members in the society by publishing defamatory news items using vulgar and unparliamentary language against him. The complainant denied the charges of having two ration cards/passports and on the point of two fathers that as he had been adopted, the oblique reference to two fathers was slur on both sets of his parents. The complainant submitted that the impugned article was against all norms and principles of fair journalism and a clear case of misuse of freedom of press. According to the complainant the respondent had threatened that he would publish more in the next issue. The complainant issued a notice dated 23.6.2009 through his advocate for publication of clarification but received no response. The complainant vide another letter dated 12.8.2009 submitted that the respondent editor, Kranti Bharat Samachar again published a defamatory, baseless, concocted and motivated story under the caption “Jaalsaji Ka Mayajaal-Part-II” in its issue of July, 2009 in which false allegations were made about acquiring

375 of land. In the impugned article it was alleged that he donated 50 lakh in charity and took Rs. five crore from the Vishva Jagriti Mission. Many cases against him were pending in the Courts and Income Tax Department. The complainant requested to take action against he respondent editor, Kranti Bharat to stop continuous publication of defamatory and false allegations against him. Written Statement In response to show cause notice dated 4.9.2009 the respondent editor, submitted that the complaint was malafide, baseless, ill conceived and filed with ulterior motives and evil designs in order to harass and prosecute the bonafide publisher, who published a right, correct and bonafide article in his magazine. According to the respondent he published the correct, truthful and informative articles after a considerable investigations and information provided to him by the aggrieved persons to bring truth into the notice of public at large. There was no malafide intention behind it. The respondent clarified that there was some typographical mistake in the name of companies but number and description of the companies were correct, the list of corpus crooks is available on internet from which it will be crystal clear as name of the company owned by the complainant is included therein. According to the respondent that the Hospital owned by the complainant is charging exorbitant fee from the patients in the name of charity was reported to him by several people hailing from the area concerned, besides the Revenue Department of area concerned has specifically opined/observed in its proceedings that the hospital of the complainant is a profit making concern. The respondent further submitted that the complainant made wrong declaration that there was only one case pending against him but fact is that the complainant is facing one another criminal case at Kota and is on bail in the same in which he is avoiding to appear on one pretext or another. The content/details of FIR pending against the complainant are self explanatory. The respondent submitted that he shall submit the relevant documents at the time of hearing of the case. He requested to dismiss the complaint being false and baseless. Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant vide letter dated 9.2.2010 submitted that the respondent editor, Kranti Bharat has again published yet another motivated, fabricated, false and defamatory news item under the caption “Satya Ki Jang” in its issue of February, 2010 even while this inquiry was pending. The complainant requested the Council take action in the matter. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi. S/Shri Jitendra Nagar and Sanjay Bhatt (Advocate)

376 appeared for the complainant and Shri Abhishek Agarwal represented the respondent, Kranti Bharat, Lucknow. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the respondent’s representative, decided to adjourn the matter. The matter again came up for hearing on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. Shri Mudit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Rajesh Chandre Pandey for the respondent appeared before the Inquiry Committee. The complainant’s advocate submitted that the respondent in his article of May 2009 issue had made derogatory allegations with malafide intention to bring disrepute to the complainant. The language used in the article was not upto the standards of journalism. The complainants counsel submitted that the respondent published yet another article as part - II levelling 32 allegations against the complainant, who is a respectable citizen. The complainant counsel requested for stern action. Shri Rajesh Chandre Pandey appearing for the respondent requested for time to file documents in support of the articles published by them. The respondent admitted use of words in the article that the complainant has two fathers and submitted that he can also file documents in support of it. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the parties. At the very outset the Committee declined the request of respondent for adjournment as the sufficient time already available had not been availed to produce the documents sought to be relied upon prima-facie, the Inquiry Committee opined that the respondent magazine had published manifestly defamatory derogatory remarks against the complainant together with his photograph while it is the duty of the press to bring all deeds to light, such reports have to be based on impeccable evidence and established through proper verification from all sources. This includes affording the affected person the right to place his version before the public at pre as well as post publication stage. Not only was this not done, the respondent continued to carry a series of similar reports. The Inquiry Committee also finds that the concluding remarks in the impugned article two passports, two ration cards and two fathers with oblique slur on the parentage of the complainant exceeded the limits of ethical caution. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the derogatory, defamatory and scurrilous material against the complainant was against the public norms and tended to malign the complainant in the eyes of the society. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and severally castigate the respondent for violation of ethics laid down by the Council. It further recommended to the Council to Censure the editor, Kranti Bharat Samachar, Lucknow for breach of ethics. The respondent editor of Kranti Bharat Samachar, Shri Rajesh Chander Pandey, has filed an affidavit through advocate and furnished documents vide

377 letter dated 10.12.2010 and submitted that the complaint is a brazen tool of harassment being caused to him by the complainant and he got sufficient documents to substantiate his averment whatsoever had been averred in the magazine regarding the complainant. He added that he would suffer irreparable loss and undue hardship in case all those documents are not considered by the Council while disposing off the case. The respondent further submitted that the entire documents were sent to his counsel at his Delhi address with a request to attend the hearing. However, due to sudden illness, the counsel could not attend the hearing and the respondent himself attended the hearing on 28.10.2010 and due to the non-availability of his counsel, he requested for adjournment but was declined. It is a well settled law that party should not suffer due to technicality and some bonafide and inadvertent mistakes of his counsel as the achieving the ends of justice is the paramount purpose stated the respondent and added that in the present case, he has always remained very vigilant and sincere while pursuing the case before the Council since its inception of the case, and he therefore should not be made to suffer for the inadvertent act of his counsel. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and the report of the Inquiry Committee uphold the complaint and decided to Censure the editor, Kranti Bharat Samachar. It also decided to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication to the DAVP, the RNI, and the Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Government of Uttar Pradesh for the actions as they deem fit in the matter.

145) Shri Alibhai Nathani The Editor Chairman Versus Gujarat Sansani Samachar M/s Ruby Macons Ltd. Ahmedabad, Gujarat Vapi, Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 23.2.2008 has been filed by Shri Alibhai Nathani, Chairman, M/s. Ruby Macons Limited, Vapi, Gujarat against ‘Gujarat Sansani Samachar’ Ahmedabad for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item captioned ‘Police Arrest Accomplice of Alibhai Nathani, Director, of Ruby Macons for embezzlement of Lakhs of Rupees of Provident Funds of Employees’ in its issue dated 24.10.2007. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the averments in the news report were false and baseless as not a single litigation was pending before the authority nor he was convicted. The allegations affected his stature in the society and business circle to a great

378 extent. The complainant objected to the averment of the respondent of his involvement in manipulating the Provident Fund amounts and submitted that there was no proceeding initiated against him. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 24.6.2008, the respondent in his written statement dated 8.9.2008 denied the allegations and submitted that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, inquired into the matter of misappropriation of money of the Provident Fund and the opening of bogus bank accounts of 92 workers and withdrawal of funds through fraudulent means. The Investigating Officer, Police Inspector, Shri K.U.Upadhyay filed Criminal Complaint No. 227/2005 under Sections 468/471/420/114 IPC in Vapi Town Police Station against the four accused including the complainant. The respondent submitted that the news was true on the date of publication. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. The complainant in his letter dated 29.3.2010 requested for adjournment. The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. However, the complainant vide his letter dated 28.05.2010 informed his inability to appear before the Inquiry Committee and filed an affidavit stating therein that the impugned news item captioned ‘Police Arrest Accomplice of Alibhai Nathani, Director of Ruby Macons for embezzlement of Lakhs of Rupees of Provident Funds of Employees’ published in the respondent’s weekly issue dated 24.10.2007 was totally false and far from truth. It was defamatory to him and the company and the Officer/Directors of the company never indulged in evasion of any tax, as alleged. The complainant further stated in the affidavit that he did not indulge in any activity and was never arrested by police and no criminal proceeding was ever initiated against him by any Police Officer of the State. The Inquiry Committee took on record the affidavit filed by the complainant and a copy of the same was forwarded to the respondent editor, Gujarat Sansani Samachar for his information and counter comments, if any, but no response. The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted the continued absence of the complainant and the submissions of the respondent in the written statement that the impugned publication was correct as on date of publication. It thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.

379 Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case decided to dismiss the complaint.

146) The Director The Editor Padma Pulse Processors (P) Ltd. Versus Gujarat Samachar Surat, Gujarat Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.4.2009 has been filed by the Director, Padma Pulse Processors (P) Limited, Surat, Gujarat against Gujarat Samachar, Gujarat for publication of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items under the following captions:

S. No. Captions Papers & Dates 1 Obstructing an officer on duty; a case filed Gujarat Samachar against the Director of Padma Pulse 19.3.2009 Processors Pvt. Ltd. by the P.F. Inspector 2 Arrest of Rayam Padma Pulse Processor’s Gujarat Samachar Director who are the President & Vice- 27.3.2009 President of Bardoli Chamber of Commerce. (With photographs in colourful box)

According to the complainant, on 18.3.2009, Provident Fund Inspector, Shri Pramod N.Gandhi visited their factory named Padma Pulse Processors Pvt. Ltd. at 1 P.M. and enquired about the work and asked several questions regarding the salaries given to their employees etc. While the Provident Fund Rules apply to factory which employed more than 20 workers, they have only 16 workers but the PF Inspector demanded Rs.10,000/- and when the complainant refused to pay, charged them of corruption. The PF Inspector then filed a case against them in the police station at 7 p.m. on alleged charges of obstructing a government servant from doing his official duty and misbehaviour, and were arrested on 26.3.2009, stated the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the PF Inspector in connivance with the police inspector and press reporter, Shri Digvijay Singh Parmer got published the news item on 19.3.2009 and again on 27.3.2009 published their photographs with name plates showing as if they were hardcore criminals. A show cause notice was issue to the editor, Gujarat Samachar on 7.8.2009. 380 Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Shri Pradeep H. Agarwal, appearing for the complainant submitted that their company was not covered under PF Act as they employed only 15-16 people for which no PF rule was applicable. As the respondent was neither present nor represented before it, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter and directed the editor, Gujarat Samachar to file written statement within a fortnight. The respondent editor was directed to comply with directions of the Inquiry Committee vide letter dated 18.5.2010 IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant had intimated his inability to be present due to non-availability of train reservation. Shri Inder Sawhney, Bureau Chief, Gujarat Samachar appeared for the respondent and filed written reply dated 29.5.2010 of their Managing Editor, submitting that the impugned news item published in the Gujarat Samachar on 27.3.2009 was based on true facts mentioned in the FIR lodged by Shri Pramodbhai Nanubhai Gandhi, an Enforcement Officer of Employees Provident Fund Department, Surat with Bardoli Police Station of Surat district on 18.3.2009 under Section 186 of IPC against the Directors of Padma Pulse Processors Pvt. Ltd., Surat. After investigation police authorities took cognizance against the accused persons and were arrested and produced before the Magistrate. The news item in question published on 27.3.2009, was only a true report of the entire proceedings of event conducted by lawful authorities. The Inquiry Committee while taking on record the written reply filed by the representative of the respondent directed the Secretariat of the Council to forward a copy of the written statement to the complainant for his counter. The matter accordingly was adjourned. Report The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Inder Kumar Sawhney appeared for the respondent and reiterated that the news was based on FIR. Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and submission of the respondent noted that the absence of counter from the complainant which indicated his acceptance of the clarification. It, thus, recommended to the Council to close the complaint.

381 Held The Council considered the report and decided to dismiss the complaint.

The Editors 147) Mohd. Zainul Abdeen (i) Satta Swarajya Secretary Versus (ii) Dainik Jagran Roshni National Gramodyog Sansthan (iii) Hindustan District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh (iv) Pratipal Sanwad Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 9.4.2008 have been filed by Mohd. Zainul Abdeen, Secretary, Roshni National Gramodyog Sansthan, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh against the editors (i) Satta Swarajaya, (ii) Dainik Jagran (iii) Hindustan (iv) Pratipal Sanwad, Uttar Pradesh alleging publication of false, concocted, misleading and defamatory news items. The caption and date of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S. Caption Newspapers Name & No. Dates 1. mUuhl eqnkZ yksx fudys ftUnk ij dSls? lÙkk LokjkT; (Satta Swarajya) How did 19 dead turn alive? 31.1.2008 ls 6.2.2008 2. ftUnk c”khjk dks e`r fn[kkdj fudky nSfud tkxj.k (Dainik Jagran) fy, #i;s 28.2.2008 Money withdrawn showing alive Bashira dead. 3. e`r n`”kkZdj chek jkf”k fudkyus dk çfriy laokn (Hindustan) vkjksi 29.2.2008 Allegation of withdrawing insurance money by declaring dead. 4. iqfyl çeq[k ds le{k eqnkZ gq;h ftUnk& çfriy loakn (Pratipal Sanwad) tSuqy vkCnhu us ftUnk dks eqnkZ fn[kkdj 29.02.2008 ches dh /kujkf”k gMihA Dead came alive before police chief: Zainul Abdeen grabbed insurance money by showing alive dead.

382 It was alleged in the impugned news items that the complainant misappropriated lakhs of rupees from Life Insurance Company by declaring death of 19 living employees of Roshni National Gramodyog Sansthan and that no action was taken by the police against the complainant in this regard. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news items were totally false, baseless, fabricated and published with the motive to tarnish the image of his family in the society. The complainant alleged that the respondent editors used vulgar language in the impugned news items and the facts were far from the truth. According to the complainant, the respondents did not bother to verify facts from him before publishing the impugned news items. The complainant further submitted that when he sent notices to Satta Swarajya, Dainik Hindustan and Pratipal Sanwad they neither published his clarification nor gave him any reply and on the contrary the respondents (except Dainik Jagran) threatened him on telephone that they would damage his image in the society. Written Statement of Hindustan In response to show-cause notice, dated 14.7.2008, the respondent editor, Hindustan, Lucknow in his written statement dated 14.8.2008 denied allegations made by the complainant and stated that he published the news item based on facts. The respondent further stated that all news items published in the newspaper were based on FIR report dated 14.9.2007, 1.3.2008, 29.3.2008 and was in accordance with bonafide documents. He requested to dismiss the complaint. Written Statement of Dainik Jagran The respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Lucknow in his written statement dated 1.9.2008 denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that the news item was published with relevant facts and based on the FIR In police station Khairabad, District Sitapur dated 1.3.2008 No. 145/2008 Under Sections 467/468/419/420/504/506 of IPC in a complaint lodged against Mohd. Zainul Abdeen by Smt. Bashira. The respondent further stated that the Superintendent of Police ordered inquiry into the case. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint. Written Statement of Dainik Pratipal Sanwad The respondent editor, Dainik Pratipal Sanwad, Sitapur in his written statement dated 6.8.2008/6.9.2008 denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that the news item was based on facts. They published the news item in question on the basis of FIR lodged by Smt. Basira w/o Late Shri Mansur Ali before the police station of Khairabad, District, Sitapur on 1.3.2008. By showing some employees of his organization as dead, the complainant fraudulently pocketed a huge amount of money, alleged the respondent.

383 Counter Comments

In response to the written statements of the three respondents, Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Jagran and Pratipal Sanwad, the complainant in his counter comments dated 15.10.2008, denied the allegations of the respondents. The complainant stated that though the news items were based on the FIR and even cases were lodged in the Judicial Court, he has not been proved guilty thus the publications of the same indicating him as a cheater was false and defamatory and was published by the respondent newspapers to damage his reputation in the society.

No written statement was received from the respondent Satta Swarajaya despite reminder dated 30.3.2009.

Matters Adjourned

The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 20.8.2010. S/Shri B.K. Mishra, advocate along with Manoj Dubey appeared for Dainik Jagran while Shri Loknath represented Hindustan and Shri Sharif Ansari appeared for Pratipal Sanwad. The complainant vide letter dated 16.8.2010 requested for adjournment due to Ramzan. Acceding to the request of the complainant the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matters.

Arguments

The matters again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. Mohd. Zainul Abdeen, complainant appeared in person along with Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. Shri Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate represented Dainik Jagran and Shri Sharif Ahmed Ansari appeared for Partipal Sanwad. There was no appearance on behalf of the Hindustan. Shri Kamrujma of Satta Swarajya in a letter dated 30.9.2010 requested for adjournment of the case.

The complainant submitted that the FIR was lodged on 1.3.2008 whereas the respondent newspapers carried the impugned news items on 28th of February, 2008. They published the news and exaggerated the offence. Further, when he requested them to publish his version, the respondents threatened him. The complainant submitted that his grievance was that the newspapers published news with information substantially beyond the F.I.R. without obtaining his version and only Dainik Jagran carried his version. The complainant Counsel submitted that the F.I.R of Smt. Bashira was investigated and no offence was found and therefore, the police submitted final report in the Court. Thus, the matter technically stands closed as no charges were proved against the complainant.

384 Shri Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate appearing for Dainik Jagran submitted that the news report was based on complaint dated 25.2.2008 by Smt. Bashira to police authorities and DCP had conducted preliminary inquiry before reproducing F.I.R on 1.3.2008 wherein four persons were made accused and the complainant and his son were the main accused apart from insurance company employees. The counsel further submitted that the reporter had made its own enquiries and found that the complainant had targeted 32 people and their money was withdrawn. Shri Sharif Ahmed Ansari appearing for Partipal Sanwad submitted that they have already filed all relevant documents and in case the Inquiry Committee needs any other information, the same can be provided. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the record and heard the parites and was satisfied that the news items were based on the complaint filed by Smt. Bashira in the police station that was later turned into an F.I.R. Therefore, the newspapers had sufficient basis to carry the report in public interest. Regarding the complainant’s averment that the matter technically stands closed, as no charges had been proved against him and the police had since submitted Final Report in the Court, the Inquiry Committee observed that the police had only submitted the Final Report and no final decision has been taken by the Court so far. The Inquiry Committee noted that the two respondents namely, Dainik Jagran and Hindustan confined their reports to the complaint and Dainik Jagran also carried the complainant’s version. However, except Dainik Jagran, the respondents failed to carry the complainant’s version. It decided to recommend to the Council to dispose off the cases against them. In the opinion of the Committee, remaining two respondent newspapers namely, Partipal Sanwad and Satta Swarajya had gone much beyond the facts on record and also threatened the complainant, as contended by the complainant. Moreover, the Satta Swarajya failed to file the written statement. The Inquiry Committee thus found the respondent newspapers Pratipal Sanwad and Satta Swarajya guilty of violating the norms of journalistic ethics by publishing one sided story. The Inquiry Committee decided to warn the editors of ‘Pratipal Sanwad’ and Satta Swarajya’. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to dispose off the complaints against the Dainik Jagran and Hindustan and upholding the complaints against the remaining two, warn the respondent editors of Pratipal Sanwad and the Satta Swarajya.

385 148) Shri Lallan Prasad The Editors Allahabad Versus Aaj Uttar Pradesh Amar Ujala Northern India Patrika Dainik Jagran ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 1.2.2008 have been filed by Shri Lallan Prasad, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh against four daily newspapers namely (i) Aaj, (ii) Amar Ujala, (iii) Northern India Patrika and (iv) Dainik Jagran for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items in their issues dated 20.1.2008, captions of which are as follows:

Captions Newspapers Chhatrao ne Hostel Prabhandak Par Lagaya Aaj Utpiran ka Aarop Girls pressurized by private Hostel owner to Northern India Patrika join flesh trade. Hostel Ki Chhatryon Ka Hangama Amar Ujala Larkiyon Ne Lodge Mein Kiya Hangama. Dainik Jagran

As per the complainant, a retired Principal of an Inter-College, he rented out a few rooms of his house to some girl students with a condition that guardians can meet them only on sundays and public holidays. According to the complainant, on 19.1.2008, a group of boys turned up to meet the girls under the pretext of teaching them. When the complainant objected their move, the boys misbehaved with him and the matter was reported to the police. He has alleged that the news items of the incident published by the respondents were objectionable, attacking the character of the complainant and his son. The complainant has alleged that the news item in Northern India Patrika, which charged them of pressurizing the girls to join flesh trade, was highly objectionable and aimed at character assassination. The complainant met some of the concerned respondents, the next day but no satisfactory action was taken. Although he had already drawn the attention of the respondents, the very night when the impugned news items were published. He once again on the direction of the Council, approached the respondents but to no avail except Dainik Jagran, which published a small note with manipulation.

386 Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 5.5.2008, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 22.5.2008 has admitted that the news item in question was carried in their newspaper issue dated 20.1.2008 and submitted that, it was published on the basis of information received from the concerned police officer. The respondent denied the allegation that the news item was an attack on the character of the complainant and his son. The resident editor, Aaj, Allahabad in his written statement dated 15.5.2008 has submitted that the impugned news item did not mention the name of the complainant or his family members, thus it has no concern with the complainant and his hostel. The respondent also stated that they replied to the complainanton 30.4.2008 by registered post. The other two respondents namely Northern India Patrika and Dainik Jagran failed to file their written statement in the matter. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 13.6.2008, the complainant Shri Lallan Prasad has submitted that the respondent Amar Ujala accepted that the news item was prepared under the pressure of an unidentified C.O., and if such a trend was not curbed, influential people would get easy access to use the media at their whims and fancies. The complainant pointed out that though the respondent had denied the charges of yellow journalism but they had published the news item along with the photograph of his building which itself showed that they had deliberately published the same to vindicate him and his family. He submitted that the denial of giving any rejoinder being issued was false as he wrote to the respondent on two occasions, first 20.1.2008 and 11.3.2008 but received no response. With regard to the written statement of the Aaj, the complainant has alleged that the respondent newspaper had lost its major share in the Allahabad market and they were trying to regain it through such erroneous and spicy news articles. Matter Adjourned The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 20.8.2010. Shri Pankaj Jaiswal appeared on behalf of the complainant while S/Shri Sachin Kumar and B.K. Mishra, advocate represented the respondent newspapers Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran respectively. The other respondents, namely Dainik Aaj and Northern India Patrika remained unrepresented. The complainant’s representative filed before the Committee a letter dated 20.8.2010 of the complainant with some documents. It was submitted therein that defamatory news articles were a result of nexus between the

387 newspapers and some influential officers which turned the victims into culprit. He added that articles were based on a fake complaint which could be the product of the mind of these newspapers in order to substantiate the news articles. It was further submitted that a group of hooligans had attacked the girls lodge run by him as a result of which police was informed for help which was contrary to the version of the news articles. The representative of the complainant submitted that the news reports were published without pre-publication verification. He added that the clarification sent was not published. The representative of Amar Ujala, submitted that the news report was based on the police report. It was simply reproduction of the incident. Learned counsel for Dainik Jagran stated that he was not aware of the facts of the case. As the complainant had filed further documents to substantiate the averments in the complaint and one of the respondents laid claim to police report as the substantive document, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matters with directions to forward copies of the documents filed by the complainant to all the respondents. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties on 12.10.2010 for compliance. IInd Hearing The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi. Shri Pankaj Jaiswal represented the complainant. Shri Zaigham Khan, appeared for Aaj and Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi appeared for the Amaj Ujala. The complainant representative submitted that the complainant is a retired Principal and the respondent newspapers published defamatory news items on the basis of the complaint with false signatures. He submitted that as per rules, these boys were not allowed in girls’ hostel and in fact, the complainant had called the police but the newspapers made the victim as culprit. The complainant representative further submitted that the Northern India Patrika made offensive charges reporting the complainant of running flesh trade. The complainant representative submitted that the version published by one of the newspaper was an eyewash. Shri Zaigham Khan, appearing for Aaj, submitted that the newspaper had published a short report and nowhere in the impugned news item of Aaj, the name of the complainant was mentioned The respondent representative denied any intention to defame the complainant and submitted that the news was published as it had some news value. Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi appearing for Amar Ujala submitted that the version of the complaint has duly been published, as per norms.

388 Report The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the records and submissions made by the parties was of the view that even while the complainant was not named, the news items were based on an actual incident, even though the nature of dispute was disputed and after the commotion between the complainant, the girls and visiting group of boys, the police was also called to intervene in the matter. The Inquiry Committee did not find any substance in the complaint that the three respondents Aaj, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran violated norms of journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee felt that no action was called for against these three respondents. In so far as Northern India Patrika is concerned, the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent, Northern India Patrika exceeded the facts on record by insinuating its link with flesh trade. The Inquiry Committee noted that the Northern India Patrika had also failed to reply to the charges that it made unsubstantiated reckless allegations against the complainant and therefore the respondent Northern India Patriaka deserved maximum penalty under Press Council Act. It recommended to the Council to censure the editor, Northern India Patrika for transgression of norms of journalistic ethics. Held The Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided that no action is warranted against three respondents Aaj, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran. It further decided to censure the editor, Northern India Patrika. It also decided to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication to the DAVP, the RNI, and I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh for necessary action as they deem fit.

149) Shri Shaham Siddiqui The Editor Kanpur, U.P. Versus Hindustan Kanpur, U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Shaham Siddiqui, Kanpur in his undated legal notice issued to the Hindustan, Kanpur through his advocate, (received in the Secretariat on 15.6.2007) objected to the news item captioned ‘Sam Kanpuria Khilari to Nahin’ published by the respondent newspaper Hindustan, Kanpsur in its issue dated 26.5.2007. According to the complainant, on 25th/26th May, 2007 a video footage was released by NDTV News channel exhibiting that famous cricketer Maninder Singh got arrested with a Nigerian national named, Sam with some psychotropic substance/contraband drug. The complainant has alleged that next day on 26th May, 2007, the respondent published the impugned news item with all

389 fictitious identity trying to co-relate the complainant with the drug peddler. A purported interview with the Kanpur Cricket Association, trying to establish the news was also published to clear authenticity of the same. The complainant, a well known cricketer of Kanpur who played for his State in categories under age of 15, 17 and 19, has submitted that he belongs to respectable family of the city. According to the complainant in the aforesaid video footage the Police Commissioner gave a statement that cocaine was recovered from the cricket gloves from the possession of S. Maninder Singh and was supplied by a Nigerian named Sam, who was also exhibited in the aforesaid video footage. Later the matter was brought into the notice of judicial system and S. Maninder Singh and the drug peddler Sam was produced before a Judicial Officer. S. Maninder Singh was released on bail but the drug peddler Sam was remanded to judicial/police custody. This matter was again reported by all print media and TV Channels. On 26th May, 2007 a news item was published in Hindustan, Kanpur edition at page No.15 captioned ‘Sam Kanpuria Khilari To Nahin’, where in his name was exhibited as a drug peddler without any pith and substance. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that he had no concern with S. Maninder Singh or the drug peddler. The complainant has further submitted that many interviews of respectable persons like Mr. Ram Gopal Sharma, President, Kanpur Cricket Association and others were published in the impugned news item only to cause pressure as well as to create impression of genuineness of the news in the public at large. The complainant submitted that the impugned news wrongly tried to establish that he has great and wide relations with so many drug peddlers. The complainant alleged that all the contents of the news item were frivolous, fictitious and a bundle of lies. It was nothing else but misuse of the power of press. The impugned story was self designed by the respondent and has no concern with him. The complainant submitted that he and his father visited the Office of the respondent and put their protest against the defaming and libelous news but nothing had been done by the respondent. The complainant alleged that by publishing false, frivolous and fictitious news the respondent had tarnished his as well as his family status in the society. The complainant alleged that it was not a usual mistake but voluntarily a sinful act of the respondent to defame him and his family. The complainant issued a legal notice to the respondent but received no response. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Hindustan on 16.11.2007 but no response. Report Following one adjournment on 20.8.2010 on the request of the complainant,

390 the Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant remained unrepresented but Shri Vijay Kumar appeared for the respondent. On perusal of the record, the Inquiry Committee noted that issue had since died down and the real accused identified. It, therefore, decided to close the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

150) Mohd. Tayyab Palki The Editor Chairman Versus Hindustan Nagar Palika Parishad Varanasi Mau, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 21.5.2008 has been filed by Mohd. Tayyab Palki, Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau, Uttar Pradesh against Hindustan, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh for publication of allegedly false and misleading news items under the following captions:-

S. No. Captions Dates 1 Inquiry order against the Chairman, Nagar Palika 8.5.08 2 Misappropriated Rs. 5 lacs in cleaning six drains of the 20.5.08 city 3 Contract for destruction of garden was given to relative 27.11.08 4 Give no false witness to the administration: Palika 29.11.08 Chairman

It was reported in the first impugned news item that financial irregularities and corruption were prevalent in the City Municipal Council, Mau and its Chairman was indulging in illegal activities. It was alleged that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh conducted inquiry through the Divisional Commissioner, into the matter. The complainant has stated that the impugned news items were false and defamatory, published with a motive to defame him in the eyes of the society. He issued a legal notice in May, 2008 but received

391 no response. Annoyed with the notice, the respondent published subsequent news items, alleged the complainant. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 8.7.2009, the respondent, HT Media Ltd., Varanasi in his written statement dated 21.2.2009, while denying the allegations, has submitted that he had given a reply dated 23.12.2008 to the notice of the complainant. He has stated that the news items in question, published on various dates against the complainant were fully supported with evidence and information gathered from the government departments and representations made by members of the public either to the district administration or the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India. The respondent further submitted that they had no personal enmity with the complainant and the impugned news items were not imaginary but published on the basis of concrete evidence. Being a representative of the people, instead of appreciating their effort to keep every action transparent, the complainant started threatening the concerned correspondent with dire consequences. Arguments The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 20.8.2010 at Varanasi. Shri Vinod Kumar, advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Lok Nath Singh represented the respondent newspaper, Dainik Hindustan. Learned counsel for the complainant filed written submissions along with some documents before the Committee reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint. He added that all the allegations in the news report were baseless. The representative of the respondent submitted that they had relied on the copy of the complaint made to Chief Justice of India on 25.11.2008. He requested that time be granted to counter the written submissions of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, acceding to the request of the representative of the respondent, adjourned the matter with directions to file the counter within a fortnight with a copy to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi, when both the parties were present. Shri Vinod Kumar Rai, Advocate, appearing for the complainant submitted that the impugned news items were published with malafide intention. The news items were highly defamatory. The complainant counsel denied the allegations that the contracts were awarded to any of the relatives of the complainant. He submitted that the complainant is a public person enjoying faith amongst the public. The allegations of alleged irregularities were inquired into and the complainant was given clean chit. The complainant’s counsel submitted that the respondent published the series of defamatory news when not obliged by the complainant. He added that

392 on 8.5.2008, no such inquiry had been ordered. He also objected to non- publication of his version. Shri Vinod Kumar Rai, advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the newspaper had no enmity with complainant and the publication was based on documents including complaints to the Chief Justice of India. Defending the publication of first news item about orders for inquiry against the complainant, the counsel submitted that the newspaper had bonafide reliable information about such inquiry ordered by Chief Minister, although the formal orders issued two days later. Report The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the records and hearing the learned counsels noted that the inquiry was conducted against the complainant although he was given clean chit later. The respondent newspaper, Hindustan thus had reasonable basis for publication of the impugned news items. The Inquiry Committee further noted that as ruled by the Courts and the Council, the complainant being a public official could not bring charge of defamation for reports critical of his act and conduct in regard to his official duties. He however enjoyed the right to reply. It therefore, opined that he may, if so advised give his version and the newspaper under the norms of right of reply is obliged to give due space to it. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send his version to the respondent, in case he wished to avail right of reply and it further directed the editor, Hindustan to publish the same in the columns of the newspaper and send clippings to the complainant as well as the Council for information and record. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides the case accordingly.

151) Shri Khuda Baksh The Editor Safai Nayak (Head Cleaner) Versus Hindustan Municipal Corporation and Basti, U.P. The Editor Dainik Bhartiya Basti Basti, U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 22.11.2008 have been filed by Shri Khuda Baksh,

393 Safai Nayak (Head Cleaner) and others, Municipal Council, Basti (U.P.) against Dainik Hindustan and Dainik Bhartiya Basti for publication of allegedly false, fabricated and defamatory news items under the captions “O;oLFkk ij Hkkjh gSa lQkbZ uk;d” and “lHkklnksa ij Hkkjh iM jgk gS lQkbZ uk;d” in their respective issue dated 20.11.2008. Allegations of illegal appointment on contract basis of their relatives in the Municipal Council and promotion by ignoring the seniority list have been levelled in the impugned news items. It has been further alleged that the complainant passed absurd comments against the Municipal Councillors.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant has submitted that the impugned news items are false, baseless and defamatory and have been published with a view to tarnish his and his family’s image in the society. He has further submitted that the respondents have published the impugned publication without knowing his side. The complainant has stated that due to the publications he suffered mental agony. The complainant has submitted that attention of the respondent were drawn by him on 22.11.2008 towards the impugned publications with the request to publish the true facts but received no reply.

Written Statement of Dainik Hindustan

In response to the show cause notice dated 1.5.2009 the respondent editor, Hindustan in his written statement dated 9.7.2009 while denying the allegations has submitted that the news item in question was published on the basis of the facts disclosed in the recommendations in writing by the members of the Municipal Corporation of Basti and there was no reason to disbelieve the contents which were available to various journalists in form of the documents. According to the respondent mere publication of any news article based on the recommendations of the members of the Municipal Corporation of Basti, as well as the findings of the Committee appointed by the Municipal Corporation of Basti, (which is evident from the fact that not only the respondent but newspapers ‘Dainik Bhartiya Basti’ had also carried the same news article) cannot be said to be violative of tests laid down in Sec. 14(1) of Press Council Act, 1979. It is the primary responsibility of the Press to inform the public at large about the happenings in the society. Accordingly, it was the factual reporting of the proceedings of the Municipal Corporation. The news article was based on the authentic resources and had been published after due and adequate verification. The respondent further denied the allegations that he had threatened the complainant in any manner even the complainant never approached him as wrongly stated by him. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint.

394 Written Statement of Dainik Bhartiya Basti The other respondent editor, Dainik Bhartiya Basti in his written statement dated 31.7.2009 also denied the allegations and submitted that the news item was based on the documentary evidence without being prejudice to anyone. According to the respondent the very base of the news article was the recommendations of the members of the Municipal Corporation of Basti as well as the findings of the Committee appointed by the Municipal Corporation Basti, hence the complaint is false, frivolous and has no merit in the eyes of law. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 24.8.2009 denied the averments made by the respondents and submitted that these were misleading and not accepted. According to the complainant the respondents could not claim that the publications were based on the documentary evidence as he had got only the photocopy wherein serious allegations were made only on one person and his family. The complainant submitted that as per the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1916, an M.P. can neither be member of the Municipal Corporation nor he has any right to present a complaint before it. The complainant submitted that the respondents did not bother to obtain his versionas such the impugned publications cannot be treated as balanced/ethical. Giving parawise reply, the complainant requested the Council to initiate action against the respondents for highlighting one sided, misleading and defamatory publications. A copy of the counter comments were forwarded to the respondents on 2.9.2009. Report The matters called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 20.8.2010 at Varanasi. S/Shri Loknath Singh and Dinesh Chander Pandey appeared for respondent newspapers Dainik Hindustan and Dainik Bhartiya Basti respectively. The complainant vide his letter dated 10.8.2010 requested for adjournment on the plea that the written statement of the Hindustan received by him on July 9, 2010 was in English, and for understanding the same he was to get it translated into Hindi. The representative of Hindustan also prayed for adjournment. The editor Bhartiya Basti filed the written arguments stating therein that news item was published on the basis of letter forwarded by Hon’ble Members of Nagar Palika Parishad Basti to the President & Executive Engineer. After the publication of news item in Bhartiya Basti, it was confirmed by the inquiry report dated 17.12.2008 submitted by three members Inquiry Committee consisting of City Health Officer, Assistant Engineer & Cleaning Inspector. Though a copy of these documents was sought on 31.7.2009 through the RTI, they had probably

395 not been received due to influence of Safai Nayak (Head Cleaner). The editor submitted that he had nothing more to add, he may be exempted from appearing before the Committee at the time of next hearing. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the parties decided to adjourn the matter. It exempted the editor, Dainik Bhartiya, Basti from appearing before the Inquiry Committee at the next hearing. The Inquiry Committee took up the matter again for hearing on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. However, in a letter dated 14.10.2010 he submitted that respondent Dainik Hindustan had not given Hindi version of their written statement even after one year and without which he was unable to represent before the Inquiry Committee. Shri Vijay Kumar, advocate appeared for the editor, Hindustan and submitted that all the evidences filed by them were in Hindi. The Counsel submitted that the publication was based on the proceedings of the meeting of the Municipal Council and it was a factual reporting. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the complainant was given due opportunity of hearing which he did not avail on the ground of awaiting translation even though major documents were already in Hindi. The Inquiry Committee did not appreciate the attitude of the complainant in prolonging the issue. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint for not being seriously pursued. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and reports of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint.

152) Shri Devender Prasad Joshi The Editors Sub-Divisional Officer Versus Amar Ujala Electricity Department Kanpur Hardoi, U.P. and Dainik Jagran Kanpur ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Devender Prasad Joshi, Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrcity Department, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh has filed these complaints dated 4.12.2008 through his Advocate against the Editors, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran for publishing allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items captioned as follows:

396 S.No Caption Dated Newspaper 1 jaxjfy;k¡ eukrs /kjs x;s vf/kdkjhA 27.8.2008 Dainik Jagran 2 fctyh foHkkx ds ,lMhvks ds f[kykQ 29.8.2008 Dainik Jagran tk¡p ds vkns”kA

3. ftLe Qjks”kh ds /ka/ks ij dlk f”kdatkA 27.8.2008 Amar Ujala 4 vf/kdkjh dh tk¡p gksxhA 29.8.2008 Amar Ujala

It was alleged in the impugned news items that the Sub-Divisional Officer of Electricity Department was caught red handed by the local people when he was in joyous mood with a call girl but he any how escaped from there. The Superintendent Engineer of the Electricity Department took cognizance of the impugned publication and ordered a departmental inquiry against the complainant in the matter. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant submitted that the impugned news items were false, baseless and published without any basis and evidence. The complainant alleged that by publishing the impugned news items, the respondents damaged his reputation in the society as well as in the department. The complainant submitted that after publication of the impugned news items he was not only insulted by the landlord but also forced to vacate the house. Even in the Office/Department he was forced to fall into disgrace. The complainant alleged that it was a conspiracy to defame him by levelling false allegations. The complainant further alleged that by publishing one sided and unverified news items, the respondents had violated the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that vide registered notices dated 23.10.2008 he had drawn the attention of the respondents but received no reply. No Written Statement Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors on 9.3.2009. No reply had been received despite issuance of reminder dated 28.7.2009. Matters Adjourned The matters came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 20.8.2010 at Varanasi. Shri Girish Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate appeared for the complainant. S/Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate and Sachin Kumar represented respondent newspapers, Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala respectively. The complainant submitted that no incident as reported by the newspapers ever took place. The counsel for the Amar Ujala submitted that they did not have a copy of the

397 complaint. The representative of Dainik Jagran asserted the truth of the report and sought time to file evidence. The complainant’s advocate filed the written submissions of the complainant. The Committee noted that both the respondent newspapers had not filed written statements. While adjourning the matters the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent newspapers through their representatives to file written statement with a copy to the complainant for his counter. The learned counsel for the complainant was also directed to send all relevant documents to Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran. Written Statement of Amar Ujala The respondent Chief Manager (Legal), Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 4.9.2010 admitted that the news items were published in Amar Ujala in its issue dated 27.7.2008 and 29.7.2008 but all allegations as made in the complaint were not admitted and denied. He submitted that neither the newspaper had offended against the journalistic ethics or public taste nor had the editor committed any professional misconduct. According to the respondent the publication of the news item was neither objectionable nor made with a view to defame the complainant. It was published in ordinary course and in objective manner on the basis of information received from the local resident of the area. The respondent stated that no FIR of the incident was lodged and the news was published in objective manner with due care and caution. Besides a reasonable precaution was taken before publication as the identity of the complainant was changed. His real name was not published in the news item and instead of real name fake name was published. In the same news item the version of the complainant was also published at the bottom of the news in the following manner “bl laca/k esa tc ,l-Mh-vks- Jh tks”kh ls iwNk x;k gS rks mUgksaus crk;k fd mUgsa dbZ yksxksa }kjk bl ckjs esa iwNk x;k gSaA ysfdu ftrus Hkh vkjksi yx jgs gSa lHkh cscqfu;kn gSA mudks cnuke djus dh lkft”k gSA’’ The respondent stated that the newspaper had neither any motive nor any interest in the affairs of the complainant except than that of inquisitive urge of journalist to know some matter concerning public importance and report the same in free and fair manner. He further submitted that the similar news was also published by various other prominent Hindi dailies viz. Dainik Jagran which itself showed that the news item was substantially true. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement dated 4.9.2010 was forwarded to the complainant on 4.10.2010. Arguments The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi when both the sides were represented. Shri Girish Kumar Dwivedi, 398 Advocate appeared for the complainant and submitted that the reporters of both the publications had deliberately published the news in a pre-planned manner even-though no such incident took place. The complainant reiterated the complaint and requested for stern action against the reporters. Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate along with Shri R K Dubey appeared for Dainik Jagran submitted that the reporters had visited the spot and reported the incident based on allegation made by the people of the locality. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Sachin Kumar appeared for Amar Ujala submitted that their reporter relied on information gathered from local people but could not produce and documentary evidence. The representatives of Amar Ujala also submitted that they had taken action against the erring reporter. Report The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the impugned reports were primarily based on hearsay and the respondents were unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their report. The Committee recorded its extreme displeasure over the reports on this nature being based on hearsay when there was no evidence of either any police raid or an FIR. The Amar Ujala had taken some corrective measure by disciplinary action against the Reporter and Jagran will be well advised to take similar action. On merits the Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and caution the Editors and the Reporters for their irresponsible journalism. It submitted its report to the Council. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.

153) Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal The Editor Lucknow Versus Daily News Activist Lucknow

The Editor Hindustan Lucknow ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Lucknow has filed these complaints dated 3.1.2008 and 14.3.2009 against the editors, Daily News Activist and Hindustan, Hindi dailies, Lucknow for publishing allegedly one sided and defamatory news

399 items captioned “lwpuk vk;qDrksa dks Hkh /kksal esa ys jgs gSa f”kdk;rdrkZ vkSj lwpuk dkuwu ds cstk bLrseky ij vk;ksx l[r” in their issues dated 14.12.2008 and 8.2.2009 concerning misuse of Right to Information by filing frivolous applications. It was stated in the impugned publications that Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal was trying to pressurize Revenue Council by filing many frivolous applications to have favourable decisions and thereby misusing Right to Information and harassing the officers. The complainant has alleged that by publishing one sided story and calling him “Information Activist”, the respondents had not only misused the freedom of press but defamed him. The complainant drew the attention of the respondents vide letters dated 16.12.2008 and 7.2.2009 but did not receive any reply. Written Statement-Hindustan In response to the show cause notice dated 5.6.2009 the respondent editor, Hindustan, Lucknow vide his reply dated 20.8.2009 while denying the allegations, averments and contentions raised by the complainant, submitted that the news item in question was published in public interest, on the basis of observations made during hearing without any malice. The respondent submitted that the news item was published to make the public aware regarding misuse of the RTI Act. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.9.2009 by reiterating his complaint urged the Council to take action against the respondent editor for publishing one sided and defamatory news item. The complainant vide his letter dated 18.6.2010 clarified that to verify the facts relating to his ancestral property, he had filed application under RTI for information on different issues/points. The Information Commission tried to collaborate all the information and opined that different applications had been filed on the same issue and thereby deprived him from his right to reply. According to the complainant, his rivals conspired to occupy his ancestral land and it was essential to have the information which he sought under RTI. The complainant denied the statement of the respondent that his correspondent was present at the time of hearing. The complainant submitted that during the hearing only the applicant and respondent remained present. In fact the impugned news item had been published in favour of the Information Commission and as a result the respondent got the benefit to appoint his brother in the Commission. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondents. No Written Statement from the Daily News Activist No written statement was filed by the other respondent Daily News

400 Activist despite issuance of show cause notice dated 5.6.2009 and reminder dated 5.2.2010. Report

When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 20.8.2010 Shri Loknath Singh appeared for the Hindustan while there was no appearance on behalf of Daily News Activist. Representative of the respondent newspaper, Hindustan requested for adjournment. As the complainant was also not present, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter. The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi when Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate appeared for the respondent and reiterated the written statement. The Inquiry Committee noted the silence andabsence of the complainant on two hearings and felt that he did not appear to be keen to pursue the complaint. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaints. Held

The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of case decided to dismiss the complaints.

154) Dr. A.N. Singh The Editor Proctor Versus Daily News Activist University of Lucknow Lucknow Lucknow (U.P.) U.P.

ADJUDICATION

Facts

Dr. A.N. Singh, Proctor, University of Lucknow vide his letter dated 2.4.2008 addressed to the editor, Daily News Activist, Lucknow with a copy to the Press Council of India has objected for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and misleading news item captioned “i

401 A show cause notice dated 26.6.2008 was issued to the respondent editor, Daily News Activist, Lucknow but written statement was not filed. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 20.8.2010 and at New Delhi on 29.10.2010 when there was no appearance from either side. However, Dr. A.N. Singh, on 12.10.2010 informed that he had demitted office and further correspondence in the matter may be made with Shri U.D. Mishra, Proctor, Lucknow University. The Inquiry Committee upon perusal of record noted that the complainant had demitted the office and was not keen to pursue the matter. It, therefore, decided to close the complaint. But before parting with complaint, the Inquiry Committee observed that the tone and tenor of the reports criticizing the University was needlessly caustic and the language ill-comported with the public good taste. It submitted its report to the Council. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report to the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to close the complaint with an advise to the respondent to exercise due care in eschewing objectionable words from its reports.

155) Dr. A.N. Singh The Editor Proctor Versus The Times of India Lucknow University Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 24.7.2008 has been filed by Dr. A.N. Singh, Proctor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against The Times of India, Lucknow for publication of allegedly false and misleading news item under the caption ‘All’s not fair at LU’ with a graphical illustration depicting eve-teasing in its issue dated 24.7.2008. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the Lucknow University session began with a bad note of eve-teasing. The university is just not safe for girls, forget the problems of no-checking at the entrance, there’s no one to hear the problems even when one’s in trouble, quoted a student as rueing. It was further stated in the impugned news item that while students may be complaining, authorities seem to turn a blind eye to such cases and getting defensive on the recent eve-teasing case, the complainant Proctor, Dr. A.N. Singh was reported to have said that nothing has happened and the

402 media was making news out of nowhere. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item along with its graphical representation was highly objectionable as it was not related to the university and the same was published with the intention to defame him and to damage the reputation of the university. The complainant vide letter dated 29.9.2008 had drawn the attention of the respondent Editor, The Times of India, Lucknow but received no response. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 22.4.2009, the respondent, editor, Lucknow Times in his written statement dated 20.7.2009 has clarified that the news item in question was published, not in The Times of India but in the Lucknow Times, which is a separate newspaper having its own editor and editorial staff. He denied that impugned news item was published to impair the reputation of the university as alleged by the complainant and submitted that it was carried to draw public attention, honestly and sincerely, to the matter of great public importance concerning the incident that was alleged to have happened in the Lucknow University. The news item in question was a fair comment, which also contained the comments and views of the students and officials of the university. As a responsible newspaper, they are duty bound to bring to the public knowledge the news, which are unbiased, unfiltered, and without any malice towards anyone, stated the respondent and added that it is their moral responsibility to provide the readers information, which is of public importance. The respondent denied that the news item was objectionable and the accompanying graphic representation obscene or offensive to public taste. The complainant did not file any counter to the written statement. Report The matter came up for hearing befor the Inquiry Committee at Varanasi on 20.8.2010 and at New Delhi on 29.10.2010, when there was no appearance from either side. However, Dr. A.N. Singh, on 12.10.2010 informed that he had demitted office and correspondence in the matter may be made with Shri U.D.Mishra, Protector, Lucknow University. The Inquiry Committee upon perusal of record noting that the complainant had demitted the office and was not keen to pursue the matter. It observed that the impugned report constituted fair comments on issue of public interest and the paper had taken due care incorporating the version of the authorities in the report. It made thus report to the Council. Held The Press Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.

403 156) Shri Atul Kapur The Editor District President Versus Nispaksh Pratidin Gramin Patrakar Association Lucknow Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 24.12.2007 has been filed by Shri Atul Kapur, District President, Gramin Patrakar Assoication, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh against Nispaksh Pradidin, Lucknow for publication of allegedly false and baseless news item captioned ‘Patrakar Ke Nam Par Kamai? In its issue dated 22.11.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the Gramin Patrakar Association was not recognized by the Government and members were angry over non clarity of their status. It was also alleged that they were being given identity card @ Rs.100/- and the complainant who was the “Kartadharta” (all in all) in the Association organized a function of great magnitude honoring Ministers and senior officers which left the members wondering as to the source of this money. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was false, defamatory and caused grave damage to his image and reputation in the society. The complainant issued a notice dated 14.12.2007 to the respondent but neither received any response nor the rejoinder was published.

A show cause notice dated 10.7.2008 was issued to the respondent but no written statement was filed.

Report

The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and deprecated the non filing of the written statement and the prima facie trivialization of the report and in the absence of the complainant, it decided to recommend to the Council to dispose off the complaint accordingly.

Held

The Press Council accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee advised the press to eschew intra rivalry and maintain congenial atmosphere in the interest of press fraternity. It decided to dispose off the complaint with this.

404 157) Dr. R.L. Singh (Retd.) The Editor Principal Chief Conservator Versus The Hitvada of Forest, Lucknow Jabalpur Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 14.6.2007 filed by Dr. R.L. Singh, (Retd.) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Lucknow against , an English daily newspaper from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh pertains to publication of allegedly objectionable news article captioned ‘Crack officails - poachers’ nexus with vigour’ in its issue dated 23.10.2006. The complainant objected to the impugned news article written by Ms. Menaka Gandhi under the column ‘Heads and Tails’ which alleged that after becoming Minister for Environment and Forest in the year 1989, she removed the complainant from the Ministry. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor the Hitavada on 22.8.2007 but no written statement was filed. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance from either side. The complainant, however, in a letter dated 13.10.2010 submitted that the respondent editor, the Hatavada, Jabalpur had published his contradiction and requested that the matter be treated as withdrawn. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the record reported the case to the Council to close the complaint as withdrawn. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case decided to allow the complaint to be withdrawn as settled.

158) Shri Desh Deepak Verma, IAS The Editor Addl. Secretary & Financial Adviser Versus Nav Ratri Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Lucknow Distribution, Govt. of India Uttar Pradesh New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 18.3.2010 has been filed by Shri Desh Deepak

405 Verma, IAS, the then Principal Secretary, Taxation, Government of Uttar Pradesh and now posted as Additional Secretary & Financial Adviser, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India, New Delhi against Nav Ratri, a Hindi weekly newspaper from Lucknow for publication of allegedly defamatory news items, the captions of which are as follows: 1. Pramukh Sachiv Kar Evam Nibabandhan Desh Deepak Verma Ki Kartootein Kab Tak Jimedaron Ki Fajihat Karati Rahengi? – Dated 11.01.2010. 2. ‘Kudrat Ke Foladi Panjo Ki Giraft Se: Arthik Aparadhi Tikram Ke Bete Kab Tak Bach Payenge?’ – Dated 25.1.2010. The first news item alleged that the complainant was involved in illegal extraction of money from the Gold Club while the second news item charged him of being a thief and demanded punishment. The complainant issued letter dated 21.1.2010 to the respondent refuting the allegations and clarifying the facts but he refused to acknowledge the receipt of the same and instead published the second news item. He again sent another letter dated 5.2.2010 contradicting the facts given in the impugned news item and also redirected his earlier letter on 8.2.2010 to the respondent but they have neither responded nor any denial or clarification was published by the newspaper. The inaction of the respondent clearly showed the malicious intention to the editor and disclosed his scant regard for the facts, alleged the complainant. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 6.4.2010, the respondent Shri M P Singh, Editor, Nav Ratri has filed his written statement dated 20.4.2010. He has submitted that he had already filed a complaint before the Press Council against the complainant Shri Desh Deepak Verma which was processed under file No.13/122/9-10-PCI and after a period of about two months, the complainant lodged the instant complaint before the Council on 18.3.2010. The respondent also submitted that a case is pending in a court of law and requested that proceeding in the instant case may be dropped to avoid parallel inquiry. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.4.2010 for information and with a request to clarify whether the matter is pending in a court of law. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 7.6.2010 submitted that he had filed no court case in respect of the instant complaint in any court whatsoever. The complainant has submitted that he sent his first letter dated 21.1.2010 to the respondent editor, refuting the allegations and clarifying the

406 facts mentioned in the news items. On receiving the letter and knowing the facts that he was about to approach the Press Council, the respondent filed a complaint dated 23.1.2010 before the Press Council as an alibi, alleged the complainant. He came to know, from the copy of the written statement that the respondent has filed a court case but the complainant has not so far received any communication or summons from any court. It is quite evident from the conduct of the respondent that he became defensive on realizing that the news items in question were totally baseless and malicious; and is now trying to avoid proceedings before the Council, alleged the complainant. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 19.5.2010 for information. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.10.2010 at New Delhi. Shri Anil Kumar Goel, Advocate appeared for the complainant and reiterated the complaint adding that the respondent continued with false publication. He urged that the newspaper should carry the version of the complainant as per journalistic practice. The Inquiry Committee on careful perusal of the record noted that the impugned report commented on the acts and conduct of the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, thus bringing the report within the ambit of norm 4(1) which reads : “So far as the government, local authority and other organs/ institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot bring charge of defamation for reports critical of their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties unless the official establishes that the publication was made with reckless disregard for the truth.” While it is not for the Press Council to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the charges in the impugned report it is undesirable that the respondent has grossly violated the most basic tenet of not just journalism but even the universal social practice i.e. “Judge no one unheard”. The respondent has not only denied him the right of reply but continued with publication critical of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to upheld the complaint and direct the editor, Nav Ratri to publish the version of the complainant as per the norms on right of reply. It submitted its report to the Council. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records and report of the Inquiry Committee notes that subsequent to the Inquiry Committee hearing the complainant vide letter dated 13.12.2010 has submitted that the respondent, peeved by the action of complainant awaiting for the Council’s Order, has started publishing malicious, scandalous and vindictive news items, some of

407 which were personal in nature, in his newspaper. He has forwarded clippings of the news items captioned ‘v”yhy u`R; esa “kkfey gksdj% ns”k nhid oekZ vius in dh xfjek&e;kZnk dks /kwy pVkus ij vkeknk D;ksa gS’ and ‘ns”k nhid oekZ] vij lfpo] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj% drZO;ikyu ds ctk; euksjatu esa e”kxwy gS?’ dated 26 .7.2010 and 16.8.2010 respectively and alleged that some of the news items were based on events said to have been taken place a year or two back to which the respondent suddenly awakened. The complainant has submitted that this act of the respondent is contemptuous of the Council and shows his scant regard for journalistic ethics. In view of all the facts on the record and the continued deliberate attack on the prestige of the complainant warranting censure for this personal vendetta, the Council decides to uphold the complaint accepting the reasons and findings of the Committee. It directs that the complainant should sent a self contained rejoinder to the respondent within a fortnight of the receipt of this adjudication and the respondent should publish the same within next fortnight and send copies thereof to the complainant and the Council for record. Further copies of these adjudication be sent to the DAVP at the Centre and State Information Department for action found fit at their end as per their policy.

159) Shri D.K. Bose The Editor Hony. General Secretary Versus The Times of India Hindustan Football Club New Delhi New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 25.11.2008 has been filed by Shri D.K.Bose, Hony. General Secretary, Hindustan Football Club, New Delhi against The Times of India, New Delhi for publication of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items as follows: S.No. Captions Date of issue 1 Club official threatens referees 17.2.2009 2 DSA decision of Rangers raises eyebrows 19.2.2009 3 DSA ruling leaves league in a tizzy 20.2.2009 4 Hindustan in final, clubs cry foul 21.2.2009 5 Heroes pull out of playoff 25.2.2009 6 Tibetan or Indian footballers? DSA goofs up yet again 9.3.2009

408 It was alleged in the first impugned news item that the Delhi Soccer Association (DSA) after receiving a written complaint from Satyendu Saha, who is also a national referee, handed out a show cause notice to Hindustan Club Official D.K. Bose for ‘using abusive language and later threatening Saha’ after their Super League match against Simla Youngs. It was alleged in the impugned news item dated 19.2.2009 that DSA took more than two weeks to decide on the fate of Royal Rangers. It could not take a decision on its own Vice- President, D.K.Bose who abused and threatened match referee during a match. The impugned news item dated 20.2.2009 has alleged that it was a deliberate move to favour Hindustan, whose Secretary also happens to be a DSA Vice President. The news item dated 21.2.2009 reported that the season saw matters go from bad to worse with a majority of clubs alleging that DSA was blatantly favouring Hindustan Club in their quest to win the league. Denying all the charges levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant has alleged that the news items in question deliberately targeted him and the Hindustan Club with the motive to malign their reputation and defame them in the society. These were distorted material and published without verifying the facts from him or from other authentic sources. He issued a representation to the respondent and requested to publish unconditional apology and take action against the concerned reporter, but no action was taken in the matter. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 5.6.2009, the respondent, The Times of India vide written statement dated 30.7.2009 has submitted that the news items in question were entirely based on facts and constituted fair comments on a matter concerning the interests of the general public at large. He has denied that the impugned news items were written to target the Hindustan Football Club and/or its officials and/or Mr. D.K.Bose and further denied that the said news items were published to malign their reputation and defame them in the society. The picture published with the news item on 21.2.2009 has a caption that a fan of Hindustan Club was arguing with the officials, which is evident from the said picture, stated the respondent. Regarding rejoinder, it was contended that the editor of a newspaper gets large number of letters and it is practically not possible to send reply to each and every letter received and due to constrains on account of space in the newspapers, it is not possible to carry all such letters. The respondent also cited the prerogative of an editor in the matter. Counter Comments In response to the Council’s letter dated 7.8.2009 forwarding a copy of the written statement, the complainant vide counter comments dated 19.8.2009 has reiterated the charge of violation of norms of journalistic conduct as the

409 articles in questions were published to defame the office bearers of their Club and malign its reputation. From the reading of the news items in question it was apparent that the same were published to malign the reputation of the officials of the club and defame them in society, stated the complainant and added that it is wrong to say that the said news items constituted fair comments on a matter concerning the interest of general public at large. He also reiterated that the article dated 21.2.2009 was targeted against the Club’s Secretary by alleging that ‘the DSA Vice President was playing critical role in ensuring his Club’s success.’ By not giving any response to the grievance put forth by them vide their representation went to show that as if the respondent have admitted the fault of their reporter, stated the complainant. Hearing by the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2009 at New Delhi. Shri D.K. Bose, Hindustan Football Club, the complainant along with his advocate appeared before the committee. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent editor, The Times of India. The complainant’s counsel at the outset drew the attention of the Inquiry Committee to point 10 of the written statement of The Times of India wherein the respondent had taken refuge under the plea that in view of the large number of letters received by the newspaper it was not practically possible to reply to each and every letter or carry them due to space constraint. The complainant, submitted that the reporter of The Times of India, Md. Amin-ul Islam had personal interest in the matter and was persistently defaming the Hindustan Football Club to promote the club in which his brother had interest. The complainant submitted that he requested the Assistant Editor of The Times of India to advise the reporter to write ethically but no corrective steps appeared to be taken. The complainant further submitted that due to negative reporting, the club’s sponsors had walked out and clientele decreased and he suffered a huge loss. The complainant submitted that the impugned series were carried with vested interest. The complainant cited an instance of backing out of two players who were contracted for rupees twenty thousand each but they played for Indian National and the news report was carried that the Hindustan Football Club was wrongly pulling them up. Whereas, the fact was that the complainant had gone to Court for breach of contract by these players and the High Court ordered the Hindustan Football Club could recover the amount with 18% interest. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication badly tarnished his image as well as Hindustan Football Club and action ought to be taken against the reporter. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the complainant and his counsel felt that in view of the charges of personal interest of the reporter, an opportunity

410 should be given to the editor as well as the reporter of The Tim s of India to defend the allegations. The Inquiry Committee directed the impleadment of the reporter, Md. Amin-ul Islam, respondent and directed their presence at the next hearing. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.2.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant was present along with his Advocate, Shri Vijay Kumar Verma. There was no appearance on behalf of respondent, The Times of India. The Inquiry Committee noted the charge that Md. Amin-ul-Islam has personal interest in the matter and was persistently defaming Hindustan Football Club, as his brother was the marketing agent of the other Club and was having professional interest in promoting the other club through TOI. The Inquiry Committee directed that summons be issued to the reporter, Md. Amin-ul Islam for personally appearing before the Committee at the next hearing to reply to the charges of the complainant. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant, Shri D.K. Bose along with Advocate, Shri Vijay Kumar Verma appeared before the Committee and reiterated the averments already made and submitted that the reporter was defaming the Club in a systematic manner and was perhaps allergic to the word Hindustan. The complainant asserted that the brother of the reporter was getting salary of Rs. 15,000 in July 2008 from his club. Md. Amin-Ul Islam, reporter appeared in person and at the very outset apologized for not appearing in last hearing. He took objection to the remarks in the complaint that “the reporter had allergy with Hindustan” made in the complaint, which according to him had communal overtones. He submitted that the reports made by him were based on facts and he stood by them. The reporter denied the charge that his brother had any interest in any Club. He said in fact, his brother was working in an IT firm in Hyderabad and had no interest in sports. Thus, the allegation against his brother was baseless. The reporter also denied the claim of his brother being employed by any club at the particular point of time. The reporter further submitted that the news reports were based on information gathered by him and he was committed to protecting the source of information. The respondent reporter submitted that he had cordial professional relations with the complainant and highlighted their achievements from time to time and even contributed his article for their Souvenir. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties directed the reporter to file an affidavit in his defence

411 to the allegation levelled by the complainant that his brother was having interest in the matter by virtue of his association with another club. Giving him time of three weeks with service of copy on the complainant, the matter was adjourned. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties vide letter dated 21.6.2010 for information/compliance. IVth Adjournment When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010, the complainant Shri D.K. Bose appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. As per the directions of the Inquiry Committee given on 26.4.2010 at the time of hearing, the reporter of The Times of India, Amin-Ul-Islam had filed an affidavit dated 27.7.2010 stating therein that : “with regard to the complaint he appeared before the Hon’ble Council on 26.4.2010 to present his case. That, during the proceedings, the complainant Mr. D.K. Bose made certain allegations against him wherein he alleged that he was writing against his Club and in favour of other Club because his brother was associated with the other Club. That, this allegation of the complainant was vague and baseless and was strongly denied that his brother was either involved or associated with any sports marketing company, as alleged by the complainant. His brother was an Information Technology professional who was based in Hyderabad”. The complainant submitted that the report in question pertained to July, 2008 and nowhere in the affidavit was it mentioned that in July, 2008 the reporter’s brother was in Hyderabad. The affidavit was not categorical. He added that he could prove that he had taken a salary of Rs.15,000/- from the rival Club during the period. The matter was adjourned with directions to the complainant to file his counter within 15 days with a copy to the respondent. Complying with the directions of the Inquiry Committee, the complainant vide his letter dated 5.8.2010 filed a counter statement. According to the complainant, the said affidavit is vague as the respondent has not stated where his brother was working during January to July, 2008, which is the material time period of the impugned news report dated 7.7.2008. The complainant stated that the reporter deliberately did not mention when his brother had joined the I.T. Firm at Hyderabad. The complainant submitted that the damage caused to the office bearers and HFC is immense (financially & socially) as the news reporting (mentioned in the original complaint) was not confined to Delhi but covered large part of the country vis-à-vis effects the reputation of the club as well as its office bearers nation wide. A copy of this letter was served on the respondent.

412 Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.11.2010 when the complainant Shri D.K. Bose appeared personally while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant reiterated his complaint that the concerned reporter had damaged his reputation and disreputed his Club in a systematic manner. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the reords of the case and submissions made before it. It noted that a newspaper’s prime function is to report and analyse events and happenings. To this extent there could be no doubt about the respondents right to report and comment on the functioning of the Hindustan Football Club. However, it is expected that in such reporting it will be guided by a fair and balanced assessment and bonafide. In the instant case the reporter of the respondent newspaper has not been able to effectively rebut the charge of personnel interest in the matter. The circumstances in which the reporter reported the impugned publication and the denial of right of reply to the complainant warrant that the complaint be upheld, holding the reporter guilty of absence of total bonafide and the editors of lack of sufficient verification and checks and balances and subsequent wrongful denial of an opportunity to clarify the matter before the readers. It reported to the Council thus. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to accept and adopt the report to uphold the complaint and censure the newspaper The Times of India and its reporter for the above stated violations. The Council also directed to forward a copy of the decision to the the DAVP, the RNI, the Government of NCT of Delhi for the action as they deem fit in the matter.

160) Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal The Editor Meerut. (U.P.) Versus Dainik Hindustan Meerut. (U.P.) ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 1.2.2008 has been filed by Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Meerut against Dainik Hindustan, Meerut for publication of allegedly false, baseless and objectionable news items captioned “Soochna Ka Adhikar Ya Blackmailing” and “Blackmailing Ho To Phoren FIR Darj Karaye” in its issues dated 10.10.2007 and 11.10.2007 respectively. It was stated in the impugned news items that Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal, a resident of Bhawana Market had filed more than 100 applications under RTI in the Meerut Development

413 Authority, caused serious concern in the Authority. A person named Rajesh Sharma of Shastri Nagar had demanded ban of entry of Shri Agarwal in the Authority as he was trying to blackmail the officials of the Authority. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news items were totally false and misleading. The complainant has submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent editor vide letter dated 26.12.2007 and asked him to provide a copy of the complaint filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma but to no avail. Later he personally met the editor and requested to check the authenticity of Shri Rajesh Sharma’s letter but he totally ignored him. According to the complainant he himself tried to find out Shri Rajesh Sharma and when failed to get his where about, requested the respondent editor to file a case in the police station against him for filing a false complaint but he did not listen to him. The complainant requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent editor for publishing misleading and defamatory news item without verifying the facts. Written Statement In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 24.6.2008, the respondent, Editor, Dainik Hindustan in his written statement dated 15.7.2008 has submitted that the impugned news items were published in ordinary course and never intended to hurt the sentiments of any individual. The news items were based on the complaint made by one Shri Rajesh Sharma to the Secretary, Meerut Development Authority and a copy of the same is available with them. The respondent further submitted that his reporter had taken the version of the complainant, which was also included in the news item. According to the respondent editor by publishing the news items, they have not offended against standards of journalistic ethics or committed any professional misconduct. Therefore, no apology was warranted. The impugned news item was well within the ambit of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expressions. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The complainant appeared in person and submitted that he was legally exercising the rights under the RTI Act and there was no complaint of blackmailing against him but the newspaper levelled such allegations on the basis of a forged letter of one Shri Rajesh. According to the complainant no such person as Rajesh exists at the given address. The complainant also expressed his dissatisfaction with the contradiction published. The complainant further submitted that none of the

414 authorities with whom the RTI applications were pending had made any complaint and it was highly objectionable on the part of the newspaper to call him a blackmailer. Shri V.K. Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent submitted that the newspaper had verified that the complainant had filed a large number of RTI applications and some of them were dismissed and some were pending. The respondent counsel further submitted that the impugned news items were based on a complaint of Shri Rajesh Sharma and in case the Inquiry Committee feels that the said letter is required as evidence, time may be given for production of the letter. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file the letter of Shri Rajesh Sharma within a fortnight and the matter was accordingly adjourned. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties vide letter dated 28.6.2010 for information/compliance. IInd Adjournment When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010 there was no appearance before it from either side. The complainant, had however, requested for adjournment on the ground that he was suffering from polio stroke and was advised bed rest. While adjourning the matter Inquiry Committee directed to remind the Respondent editor to file letter of Shri Rajesh Sharma as directed by the Inquiry Committee and assured by the learned counsel for the respondent at the time of hearing on 26.4.2010. The respondent editor, Hindustan vide his letter dated 31.8.2010 forwarded a copy of the letter dated 3.10.2007 of Shri Rajesh Sharma, Meerut addressed to the Secretary, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut wherein it was stated that Shri Naresh Agarwal, Shiv Dairy, Udyog Bhawan Market, near Daily Baikers, Gurudwara Road, Thapar Nagar and Shri Harvinder Singh, R/o 267/7 Thapar Nagar, Meerut were habitual of seeking information under RTI and they had filed more than 500 letters under the Act, which had caused serious concern in the Authority. Thus their entry should be banned in the Authority. Final Hearing The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. Shri Vijay Kuamr, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The complainant submitted that he had exposed corruption in the Meerut Development Authority in the year 2001 and the crime branch was conducting inquiry into the allegations of the corruption in the authority. The complainant admitted that no doubt he had filed

415 applications under RTI Act but these were not intended to blackmail the authority. The complainant submitted that the letter of Shri Rajesh Sharma was fake and was planted to defame him and to prevent him from seeking information and also refraining him from the crime branch inquiry. The complainant submitted that there was no question of blackmailing and the impugned publications had caused immense mental agony. Moreover, the newspaper had neither obtained his version nor published his clarification. Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate appearing for Hindustan drew the attention of the Inquiry Committee to the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee of last meeting in two different matters when he was asked by the Inquiry Committee to produce/file documents in complaint of Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal and in the matter of another complaint namely Shri Balraj Singh, he was asked to produce copy of the clarification published by Hindustan. The respondent counsel submitted that in compliance of the directions he filed a copy of letter dated 3.10.2007 of Shri Rajesh Sharma, Meerut on the basis of which the impugned reports about the complainant was published. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper generally made proper verification and in this particular case, the reporter contacted the authority and also talked to a number of persons. Therefore, the newspaper had no reason to disbelieve the facts mentioned in the letter in question. However, the newspaper was ready to publish the clarification of the complainant, if the Inquiry Committee directs the respondent. Report The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the report and hearing the parties noted that the very basis of the impugned report was an allegedly pseudonymous letter and since it levelled charges against the conduct and actions of private persons it was incumbent on it to have, prior to publication, verified the genuineness of the said letter. The Inquiry Committee noted that the newspaper had verified from the concerned department about pendency of RTI applications of the complainant but there was no such allegations of alleged blackmailing or any complaint was made against the complainant by the Meerut Development Authority. It had in fairness carried the version of the complainant in the report as it was clear that the publication was not malafide. The Inquiry Committee was of the view/opinion that the allegation of blackmailing had caused damage to the reputation of the complainant. It therefore, directed the editor, Hindustan, Meerut to publish the clarification of the complainant and also regrets and send a copy of the clipping to Press Council of India as well as to the complainant for record. It reported thus to the Council. Held The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.

416 161) Shri Hari Om Anand, M.D The Editor Anand Hospital Versus Bhoodev Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Meerut, Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 29.9.2008 has been filed by Shri Hari Om Anand, M.D., Anand Hospital, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, Bhoodev, a Hindi weekly newspaper, Meerut for publication of defamatory news item captioned ‘Bade-Bade Aadarshon Ki Baat Karne Wale Anand Hospital Ke Director Hari Om Anand Nikle Bade Chor’ in its issue dated 4.8.2008. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant illegally took possession of M.D.A. land and also taken a sum of rupees one lakh from a retired military personnel for the purpose of parking on the encroached land. The complainant has alleged that the editor of the said newspaper came to him and demanded money. When he refused, the respondent published defamatory, scandalous, incorrect and false news item against him and his hospital. The complainant further stated that the editor disseminated the said paper to all and sundry including hospitals and nursing homes. The news item affected his business, reputation and integrity in the public. The complainant served a notice dated 12.3.2008 on the respondent editor but received no response. The complainant has requested to take action against the respondent editor, Bhoodev. A show cause notice dated 25.11.2008 was issued to the respondent editor, Bhoodev. The respondent did not file the written statement. The A/D card is on record. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when Shri Munesh Pandit, representative appeared for the complainant. The respondent in a letter dated 21.4.2010 requested for adjournment due to ill health. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request and decided to adjourn the matter with direction to the editor to file written statement within a fortnight. The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. There was no appearance before it from either side. On consideration of the record the Committee while adjourning the matter decided to afford the respondent, the last opportunity of filing the written statement. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 22.11.2010 at

417 New Delhi, when none of the parties appeared before it. However, Dr. Jeetsingh Rana, Editor, Bhoodev in a letter dated 16.11.2010 sought exemption from appearance due to illness. The editor further submitted that the news item was published on the basis of the complaint from the public and the complainant had not given his contradiction. The editor submitted that the newspaper had no malice in publishing the news report. In case the complainant sends his contradiction the newspaper will publish it as it is. The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the newspaper had published the impugned news item with offending headline branding the complainant as a thief and the language used therein was couched in bad taste. The Inquiry Committee while upholding the complaint deprecated the respondents for the manner of presentation of news and directed the complainant to send this contradiction for publication, which the respondent should publish within a month thereof under report to the complainant and the Council. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these observations and directions.

Held

The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and disposed off the complaint with the above directions.

162) Shri Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal The Editor M.L.A., Rohini Versus Jan Pratibimb Delhi Delhi

ADJUDICATION

Facts

Shri Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal, MLA, Delhi has filed this complaint dated 14.7.2009 against Jan Pratibimb, Hindi monthly magazine, Delhi for publishing allegedly false, misleading, baseless and defamatory news article captioned “lkS ifjokjksa ds vkf”k;kus dh tehu ij uktk;t dCtk&fo”ks’k fjiksVZ” (Illegal encroachment on the residential land of a hundred families – A special Report) in its issue dated July, 2009. It was reported in the impugned article that a local MLA encroached upon approx. 1000 Sq. yard land in Rohini area in connivance with MCD and DDA and constructed a temple and 2-3 rooms and was operating his office from there. It further reported that as per the information received from DDA under RTI Act, the encroached land had been acquired by the government and compensation was also paid. The MLA had lost the case at High Court and Supreme Court.

418 Denying the allegations the complainant clarified that he had neither encroached the land nor lost any case in the court. The complainant submitted that the Panchayat Mahajanan (Aggarwal Samaj) filed a case in the High Court in 1982-83 and being Secretary of the Samaj his name was included in the writ. Since 1983 he was not holding any post in the Samaj so he has no connection with any case filed in the Court. The complainant further submitted that the land belongs to the Panchayat Mahajanan and they had constructed a temple and Dharamshala. He also filed a copy of Status Report of Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Kanjhawala, Delhi in support of his averments. Regarding the allegations that he had constructed 2-3 rooms and was operating his office from there, the complainant clarified that he had his office at A 3/89, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-85 for the last many years and the respondent editor/publisher also resided in the area and was very well aware of this fact. According to the complainant as per the official record, the land is in the name of Panchayat Mahajanan and he had not received any compensation, as alleged.

The complainant submitted that Shri Rajesh Garg, Owner and Publisher of the respondent magazine was a congress leader and his wife contested the Corporation Election from his legislative constituency and lost the election. Being agitated he began a campaign against him and his party (BJP) and started publishing baseless and defamatory news items in his magazine. In his magazine of four pages, two pages had been covered with the false and misleading news items on him, which itself prove his malicious intention and misuse of his journalistic power. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent editor vide letter dated 28.7.2009 and in its response dated 7.8.2009 Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal, the then editor clarified that he had objected to the impugned news item before publication but the publisher of the magazine published the same without his consent and due to this he had resigned from the post of the editor. Shri Rajesh Kumar Garg, Publisher, Jan Pratibimb in his reply dated 8.8.2009 admitted that whatsoever had been published in the issue dated July, 2009 the same was published with his consent only. The complainant requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent for maligning his image by publishing the misleading and defamatory news items. No Written Statement

A show cause notice dated 16.9.2009 was issued to the respondent editor, Jan Pratibimb but no response. Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010. Shri Ashok Kumar, advocate appeared for the complainant

419 and submitted that the newspaper had levelled false allegations that he had encroached the public land. The complainant denied that the matter was pending in any court. He added that some pamphlets were distributed about which a case was pending. Shri Rajesh Garg, Editor representing the respondent newspaper argued that the matter was sub-judice and pending trial in Rohini Court and the complainant had given false declaration.

The Committee noted that the respondent editor did not file the written statement. The respondent’s representative asserted having done so. Since this was not on record, the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file written statement with all supporting documents with a copy to the complainant within a fortnight. The matter was accordingly adjourned with directions that on the next date of hearing the parties need not be called for oral submissions and the Committee would consider the matter based on record.

Report

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the records of the case at the very outset noted that the respondent despite sufficient opportunity given had not chosen to file the written statement. The Inquiry Committee expressed displeasure over the failure of the respondent newspaper in filing the written statement indicating that the respondent had no defence to offer. It therefore proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of the material available. The Inquiry Committee noted that in the absence of any defence the respondent admission of unsubstantiated allegations against the complainant established that the publication was motivated by the professional/ political rivalry and carried malafide to target the complainant’s reputation. Having failed in this most basic tenet of journalism that the respondent aggravated the violation by failing to publish the complainant’s rejoinder. In the opinion of the Committee, the impugned publication motivated by personal bias and spite had been caused to malign the complainant with unsubstantiated and undefended allegations. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to upheld the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee uphold under Sections 14 (1) of the Act, the complaint of violation of journalistic ethics by Jan Pratibimb through its publication as well as editor. It castigated and reprimanded the respondent newspaper Jan Pratibimb therefor.

420 163) Shri Vishwas Garg The Editor Bhatinda, Punjab Versus Daily Pilot Bhatinda, Punjab

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 20.9.2007 has been filed by Shri Vishwas Garg, Bhatinda, Punjab against the Daily Pilot, Bhatinda for publication of allegedly false, defamatory, malafide and baseless news item under the caption ‘State Bank of Patiala Officers hired a clever Goonda for their defence’ (English translation) in its issue dated 31.8.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the State Bank of Patiala Officers hired a Goonda Vishwas Kumar to get information under the RTI Act, 2005, as they dared not to obtain the inquiry report of a bank fraud. The complainant objected to the reference as a goonda and submitted that he himself had some interest in the matter and sought the information.

Comments

The respondent filed his comments dated 28.11.2007 and submitted that the allegations were false, baseless and without any basis as no abusive or defamatory language was used against the complainant. The word ‘Goonda’ was never used for the complainant, rather it was the creation of the complainant himself, who by incorrect translation of the news had tried to misguide the Press Council. The complainant was referred to as ‘Gurga’ which should not be misspelled as ‘Goonda’, stated the respondent. The complainant, who had no connection with which he sought the information under the RTI Act, was acting for the bank officials, who were accused of bank fraud, thus the complainant was working as a henchman, added the respondent.

Counter Comments of Complainant

The complainant in his counter comments dated 5.3.2008 has stated that the word, ‘Gurga’ is normally used in newspaper, as henchman of known goonda i.e., in a negative sense and as such the same is defamatory. He also wondered as to why the respondent was so troubled by the exercise of his legal right in seeking information in which he has personal interest and was provided.

Counter Reply of Respondent

The respondent in his reply dated 15.4.2008 has stated that complainant

421 himself admitted that word ‘Gurga’ being normally used in newspapers as henchman and there was nothing wrong in impugned report.

Further Reply of Complainant

The complainant in his further reply dated 23.7.2008 has submitted that the respondent was trying to change the track of the subject by adding up some subjudice matter in his complaint. The complainant had issued a letter dated 5.9.2007 to the respondent for publication of a clarification but it has not been published by the respondent on the plea that the matter become a subject matter of a court of law. However, complainant maintained that his complaint is not part of any proceedings of any court of law.

In response to the Council’s letter dated 18.3.2009, the respondent vide letter dated 30.9.2009 offered to publish the complainant’s version on the condition that the complainant undertake that he would withdraw the complaint as soon as his version is published as it is sub-judice.

The complainant vide a further communication dated 17.11.2009 denied that the matter is sub-judice and requested for punitive action against the respondent.

Matter Adjourned

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.7.2010 when the complainant was present. The respondent editor vide his letter (received on 26.7.2010) had filed his written arguments. To afford an opportunity to the complainant to counter the statement of the respondent, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter with directions to the complainant to file his rejoinder within a fortnight with a copy to the respondent

The complainant in his reply dated 2.8.2010 clarified that subject matter of his complaint was not part of any proceedings in any Court of law. The Civil Suits for recovery for compensation for defamation, permanent injunction restraining the newspaper to publish defamatory news items, case under order 39 rule-2A for contempt of Court & criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC against the respondent, do not concern to the news item published on 31.8.2007. All judicial cases were prior to this period. According to the complainant the respondent was free to prove his version regarding defamatory news item on 31.8.2007. But till date he failed to submit any evidence regarding his so called truth which prove his version regarding news item dated 31.8.2007. The complainant alleged that the respondent who had been charged and convicted

422 for murder and other serious offences and was a registered BAD Character in the police record, had no right to use the derogatory and defamatory adjective against the others. A copy of the reply was forwarded to the respondent on 11.10.2010 for information. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. Both the parties were present. The complainant reiterated his complaint and submitted that the respondent was publishing defamatory news despite injunction by the Court. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item agitated in his present complaint was not subjudice and the use of the word “Gurga” was objectionable and defamatory. The complainant submitted that the respondent had published various defamatory news reports maligning his family. The respondent editor submitted that there were several cases pending in the court and the complainant was inimical towards respondent. At no point of time the complainant had given his contradiction rather, the complainant was asking for publication of apology. The respondent submitted that he had no hesitation in publishing the contradiction. Report The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the records of the case and oral arguments put forth by the parties noted that the parties litigating before it, having certain personal animosity wanted to settle the personal scores against each other. The adjective used for the complainant may except for these circumstances, have been deemed to be trivial. In the instant case however, malafide arrogation of the adjective was offending to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee while cautioning the respondent editor for objectionable writings directed the editor to publish the contradiction of the complainant. On the other hand the Inquiry Committee also noted that the contradiction issued by the complainant was not couched in proper manner. It therefore, directed the complainant to send factual contradiction, omitting intemperate language, enabling the editor to publish the same. It recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint with these observations and directions. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint in terms of the above observations and directions. 423 164) Dr. Ashok Madhavdas Parwani The Edtor Medical Practitioner Village - Goveli Versus Hindu Hit Thane, Maharashtra Ulhasnagar Maharashtra ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 30.11.2008 has been field by Dr.Ashok Madhavdas Parwani, a Medical Practitioner from Goveli Village in Thane district, Maharastra against Hindu Hit, a Hindi weekly from Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 4.11.2008 making defamatory statement therein : ‘Awara Dr. Ashok Parwani being involved in kale karname of Anil Jaisinghani.’ The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was published with an intention to defame and disrepute him. The respondent hatched a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy against him in order to defame him and pressurise him. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 30.11.2008 to the respondent, asking him to tender apology. In reply, the respondent vide letter dated 13.12.2008 denied the allegations of defaming thecomplainant and declined to tender apology. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice, the respondent editor, Hindu Hit in his written statement, dated 12.9.2009 has denied the allegations levelled bythe complainant. The impugned news item itself clearly mentioned that it was published on the basis of a letter found with some officers of Home Minister and other political personalities, stated the respondent and added that he had published whatever the said letter disclosed and nothing was added from their side. When he learnt that the disclosure of the content of the said letter hurt the sentiment of the complainant, the respondent immediately published an apology in his newspaper issue dated 15.12.2008, stating that there was no intention of defaming the complainant. Thus, it was clear that they had no intention to defame the complainant. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 14.10.2009 objected to use of the word ‘Awara’ in front of his name which was highly defamatory and alleged that it was intentionally used to attack his reputation being a well known doctor in the area. The respondent failed to justify the use of the said word before his name. The complainant also denied that the respondent published any

424 apology but a ‘public representation’ in the newspaper issue dated 15.12.2008, which was adding an insult to the injury.

Rejoinder of the Respondent

The respondent editor, Hindu Hit vide letter dated 19.12.2009 submitted that he had never published any defamatory article. He had no intention to defame the complainant and on the contrary, when he came to know that the complainant misunderstood about the publication of the said letter, he immediately published an apology that there was no intention to defame the complainant.

A copy of the rejoinder was forwarded to the complainant on 12.1.2010 for information.

Matter Adjourned

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance before it from either side. The Committee noted that respondent editor vide his letter dated 26.7.2010 requested for adjournment due to ill-health. As the complainant had made a similar request, Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter.

Report

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. However, the complainant in his letter dated 13.11.2010 stated that after receiving notice for hearing the respondent namely Manoj Maheshwari, Editor, Hindu Hit and printer Jagannath Kamat were pressurizing him for signing withdrawal letter otherwise face dire consequences. The complainant further submitted that he was financially unable to incur expenditure and prayed for disposal of case on merits.

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and held the respondent editor guilty of use of unparliamentary language and derogatory epithets against the complainant. The journalistic conduct did not permit usage of such words in the columns of the newspaper. It reported to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and records of the case decided to upheld the complaint and caution the editor, Hindu Hit, Thane, Maharashtra for his writings not in keeping with journalistic standards and directed the editor to ensure that the reports in future are couched in dignified language.

425 165) Shri Chhabbil N. Sangani The Editor Jamnagar Versus Nobat Gujarat Jamnagar, Gujarat ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 13.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Chhabbil N. Sangani of Jamnagar, Gujarat against a local newspaper, Nobat published from Jamnagar for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned ‘Wicked Person Targeting also the Institutions of Service’ in its issue dated 18.8.2008, charging the complainant and his family of blackmailing the hospital authorities where his mother had died. The complainant vide e-mail dated 23.8.2008 requested the respondent to clarify about the impugned publication and also give details of one who filed it. When he received no response, the complainant issued a reminder via email dated 9.10.2008 also informing that he was contemplating to take legal action in the matter. In response to the notice for comments dated 11.9.2009, the respondent editor, Nobat in his comments dated 3.10.2009 has submitted that the complaint was false, frivolous and malafide and stated that the news item in question was published after due inquiry, investigation and interviews with the concerned authorities as well as the Managing Trustee. The concerned doctor of the institute corroborated that the complainant has been harassing the doctors and the trustee by demanding huge money. The complainant countered the charges and averred that as per information gathered by him under RTI, no such complaint had been made. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010 and 22.11.2010. The complainant was not represented while S/Shri Viral Rachh and Nikhil Goel, advocates represented the respondent newspaper. Learned counsels for the respondent filed written arguments at the final hearing justifying the publication of the news report. The complainant in a subsequent e-mail dated 20.7.2010 submitted that he had a meeting with the Management of the Newspapers who explained that the news item/article was published with all their bonafides and due inquiry before publishing the same. They also explained that newspaper had no personal grudge, prejudice or such reasons to publish it. He further submitted that he was convinced by the explanation and he did not want to proceed with the present

426 proceedings and unconditionally withdrew his complaint. He requested that final orders be passed on the basis of his withdrawal of the complaint. The Inquiry Committee in view of the above allowed the matter to be withdrawn. Held The Press Council perused the records and the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to close the complaint as withdrawn.

166) Ms. Ekta Thakur The Editor Mumbai Versus Mumbai Mirror Maharashtra Maharashtra Mumbai ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 15.5.2009 has been filed by Ms. Ekta Thakur, Mumbai against ‘Mumbai Mirror’, published by The Times of India Group, Mumbai. The complainant has alleged publication of an allegedly false, distorted, concocted and defamatory news article on front page under the caption ‘My Sympathies to his family, but justice must be served’ with sub-heading ‘Says the CCI member who lodged a police complaint against the club’s CEO, after he was hospitalised with a bullet wound’ in the issue dated 10.5.2009. The complainant has objected to the statement attributed to her in the news article which reads ‘the alleged victim, who lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against the CEO of the Cricket Club of India (CCI), Kamaljeet Rajpal, hopes that Friday’s shooting incident – involving the accused – does not throw investigation off track’. The impugned news article further published as if quoted the complainant as ‘my sympathies are with his family, but someone who has committed a crime should face the consequences. I hope this incident does not give him any kind of escape route from the case.’ According to the complainant, on 9.5.2009, prior to the publication of the impugned article, the writer / journalist of the impugned news article sent her a text message on her mobile stating ‘ Hi, I am Danish from Mumbai Mirror. Had a word with Kishor Advani and am ascribing the following statement to you: “ My sympathies are with the Rajpal family but someone who has committed a crime should face the consequences. I hope this incident does not give him any kind of escape route from the case. I am sure investigations will continue on my complaint registered with the cops. I know what I had to face in the last few months. I had not thought he would take such a step but he should have the courage to face the consequences for whatever he had done.” ‘She immediately responded

427 by requesting, ‘Please do not quote me. I have not said any such thing. I do not want to comment. Please respect that and keep my name out’ stated the complainant and added that then the journalist again sent her another text message, which read ‘We are not naming you at all. The word used in “Victim”. The complainant again responded by saying ‘still do not attribute this or any quote to me. Please! I wish not to comment so please respect that.’ A clarification was published by the respondent in their issue dated 2.6.2009, which according to the complainant worsened the situation as it suggested that she had authorised somebody to speak on her behalf and made the statements set out in the article in question and thereafter changed her mind once the article was published. The complainant alleged that the clarification had evidently been published only as some sort of sop or defence to her complaint and expressed her displeasure over the publication of the clarification. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 20.7.2009, the respondent editor, Mumbai Mirror in his written statement dated 4.8.2009 has denied each and every allegations made by the complainant regarding the impugned news article. The respondent submitted that they have published a clarification issued by the complainant on June 2, 2009. The clarification reads as : ‘This is with reference to the report “My sympathies to his family, but justice must be served” (mm, May 10) by Danish Khan. The statements attributed to the victim were given by a source close to the victim, and on her behalf. Subsequently, the victim denied making those statements. Hence, this clarification.’ The respondent further submitted that they had also replied to the complainant’s notice dated 11.5.2009 and also forwarded a copy of the clipping of the clarification. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 13.9.2009 submitted that the purported clarification published by the newspaper Mumbai Mirror was not acceptable to her. The clarification in fact, worsened the situation as it suggested that the clarification had authorized somebody to speak on her behalf. The complainant requeted for action against the respondent for enoromous damage to her reputation. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 29.7.2010 and 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance before it on both the occasions. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material on record and on a careful perusal of the records, it noted that the impugned article ‘My Sympathies to his family, but justice must be

428 served’ with sub-heading ‘Says the CCI member who lodged a police complaint against the club’s CEO, after he was hospitalized with a bullet wound’ published by the respondents attributed statement to the complainant, which was clearly in violation of ethics as it willfully attributed the statement to the complainant that she had specifically desired. Prior to the publication, the journalist had sent a text message on the complainant’s mobile seeking to ascribe the impugned statement to the complainant. This, complainant negated and in her e-mail as well as legal notice asked the respondent to publish unconditional apology and retraction as follows: “We refer to the article “My sympathies to his family, but justice must be served” which appeared on the front page of the Sunday Mumbai Mirror dated 10th May 2009. Due to inadvertence were incorrectly ascribed the statements of another member of the club as being those of the complainant referred to in the article. We wish to clarify that the quotes/statements wrongly attributed to that lady were not made by her at all and were the statements of another member. We apologize to the lady and our readers for the error”. However, the respondents had chosen to further aggravate the harm and again published the damaging material twisting the clarification that reads: “This is with reference to the report ‘My sympathies to his family, but justice must be served’ (MM, May 10) by Danish Khan. The statements attributed to the victim were given by a source close to the victim, and on her behalf. Subsequently, the victim denied making those statements. Hence, this clarification – Editor”. The Inquiry Committee, held the journalist and the editor knowingly published distorted material in support of the impugned report thereby violating the norms of accuracy and fairness and right to privacy by putting words in the mouth of the victim in the first instance and compounding the offence by publishing distorted clarification. Here is a case where the respondent, Mumbai Mirror while quoting the victim did not identify her but at the same time unnecessary quoted the untold statement attributing references reflecting on the dignity of the victim lady. The Inquiry Committee in view of foregoing opined that the editor as well journalist carried the impugned matter in total disregard to the norms of journalistic ethics as well as guidelines on Portrayal of Women in Media. It reported to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to accept the report of the Inquiry Committee to uphold the complaint under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act and to reprimand the respondent newspaper as well as its journalist for violation of norms of journalistic conduct.

429 167) Smt. Bhanu and Shri Sreechandra The Editor Domlur Layout, Ramareddy Road Versus Ranjane/Bodhane/ Bangalore Prochodhane-Lankesh Basavanagudi Bangalore ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 30.12.2008 has been filed by Shri Sreechandra and his wife Smt. Bhanu, Bangalore against the editor, Ranjane/Bodhane/Prochodhane – Lankesh, Bangalore for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Purchase Scandal of Health Department - 13 Crores to the Feet of Charming Bhanu” in its issue dated 26.11.2008. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant in collusion with the then Health Minister, Mr. Ashok and the Director of Health Department, Dr. Prasad, indulged in a business supplying substandard consignment to the rural based hospitals misappropriated crores of rupees by starting two bogus companies. He was alleged to have indulged in drug business at Hassan up to the year 2005 and after defaulting with various people, came to Bangalore, and became a millionaire within a short span. All the contents in the impugned news item were incorrect and baseless without any truth, stated the complainant. The impugned news item was published without scrutinizing any documents regarding the alleged transaction, to lower their image in the society. The language used by the respondent in the impugned news item was highly objectionable, abusive and insulting to their dignity and prestige. The photographs, which were published along the news item sent a wrong message to the readers about the character of the complainant, alleged the complainant. Shocked by the news item in question, the complainant wrote to the respondent (date not mentioned) requesting to publish their clarification in the matter but received no response. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 3.7.2009. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. Mr. H.S. Anjunatha Murthy, advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Divya Jyothi, advocate represented the respondent newspaper. The counsel for the respondent filed before the Committee the written statement of the respondent editor. In his written statement dated 26.7.2010, the editor, Ranjane/Bodhane/Prochodhane-Lankesh submitted that three MLAs namely, S/Shri Suresh Gowda, H.P. Manjunath, K.B. Chandrashekhar had complained in 2005 against two firms namely, Sri Mayamma Prasanna Enterprises and Sri Venkateshwara Enterprises to the Lokayukt to look into

430 fraud being perpetuated by these people in the health department. The editor filed copies of the documents to show that the news report was based on these facts and the complainants were running benami companies. The Inquiry Committee, in order to afford the opportunity to the complainant to counter the written statement of the respondent, adjourned the matter with directions to file his counter within a fortnight from the date of hearing with a copy to the respondent editor. Counter Comments The complainants, Shri Sreechandra and Smt. Bhanu Sreechandra filed counter comments dated 23.8.2010 and submitted that the objections raised by the respondents were not related to averments of the complaint and documents produced by him were also not connected to their case. He also contended that in the defence filed by the respondent, his wife’s name is not at all shown in any way connecting to the news in any angle, but how the respondent had published such a news to lower the image of his wife in the public. They alleged that by publishing the impugned report the respondent had lowered their image in the society. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 27.10.2010 for information. Arguments The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. Both the sides were represented. The complainants appearing in person along with their counsel (Shri H.S. Mautuvatera Mutrhy) submitted that the impugned news item was highly objectionable and badly tarnished their image in the society and in particular the character of the lady complainant. Shri Divya Jyoti Jaipuria, advocate appearing for respondent submitted that the impugned news item was published on the basis of complaints of three MLAs and it was not intended to tarnish the image of the complainants. The respondent counsel further submitted that wife of the complainant was a partner in the company. He offered to publish their version. Report The Inquiry Committee on a careful examination of the record and hearing the parties noted that the respondent editor relying on old complaints of some MLAs, carried the impugned news item making defamatory allegations against the complainant and his wife, a co-complainant. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned news item held that personal remarks in the headlines “Purchase Scandal of Health Department - 13 Crores to the Feet

431 of Charming Bhanu” was derogatory and defamatory of the second complainant. The documents filed in defence carried nothing to cast aspersions on the character of the lady. The editor by making undesirable and unwarranted remarks against a lady had badly tarnished her image. In the opinion of the Committee, the respondent editor brought up the stale complaints of MLAs to malign the complainants, particularly the wife of the complainant for salacious propaganda. It reminded the media that the character is a precious treasure and the press has no right to damage the reputation of a person in the garb of reporting. The ethics demand that the press should eschew publication of baseless and graceless material and in this particular case the editor, Ranjane/ Bodhane/Prochodhane-Lankesh, willfully violated the norms of Journalistic Ethics by publishing manifestly defamatory and libelous allegations touching upon the character of the lady complainant without any due care and caution. This is not a fit case where the complainant needs to avail right of reply as offered by the respondent counsel. The publication of version of the complainants or further material, the Inquiry Committee opined, would rake up the irreparable harm already done to the reputation of the complainants. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the serious allegations about the character of the co-complainant deserves highest penalty under the Press Council Act, 1978. The Inquiry Committee reported to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to accept and adopt the report to uphold the complaint and to censure the Editor, Ranjane/Bodhane/Prochadhane Lankesh, Bangalore. A copy of the adjudication be sent to the the DAVP/the RNI/the I&PRD, Government of Karnataka for necessary action as they deem fit in the matter. The Council further decided to recommend to the State Government of Karnataka to examine worthiness of the respondent newspaper as well as reporter concerned insofar as State facilities like advertisement/accreditation are concerned. It advised the authorities to initiate appropriate action against the respondents under intimation to the complainant.

168) Shri Pramod Kumar, IPS The Editor Inspector General of Police Versus Naveena Netrikkan West Zone, Coimbatore Chennai Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 29.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Pramod Kumar,

432 IPS, Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu against Naveena Netrikken, a Tamil news magazine, Chennai for publication of objectionable news article captioned “Corruption darbar of Coimbatore Zonal I.G.” and ‘Coimbatore I.G. 25 lakhs - Kattapanchayat’ in its issues dated 27.2.2009 and 13.3.2009 respectively. It was alleged in the first news item that strict orders have been issued by the complainant to all the District Superintendents of Police that one lakh rupees each was needed from them without giving any details. It was stated that the I.G. was very particular in collecting money from the day he joined the service and told his juniors that he acquired the present posting by gifting Rs. two crores to the top people. He further alleged that all the administrative works including transfers of DSPs’ Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors do not take place in the office of the Coimbatore Zonal I.G. but through his junior, an ASP Chitrarasu and through whom all the officers below the level of SPs got their works done and some Inspectors having paid bribe to Chitrarasu are waiting their posting. It was also stated that collection star Pramod Kumar while posting as Police Commissioner at Trichy City, about a crore cash was collected through the officers working under the Commissioner by the special team led by ASP Chitrarasu and the complainant was also alleged to have weakness for women and made many records in the matter of corruption. It was alleged in the second news item that the North Indian IPS swallowed all the lush money of Inspector and others of Thondamuthur Police Stations of Coimbatore for many years and he was alleged to have facilitated illegal settlement of Rs. 25 lakhs. Denying all the allegations the complainant stated that the impugned news items were per se defamatory. The complainant submitted that he has a brilliant academic record and unblemished professional record. He joined Police service in 1990 and worked as Assistant Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet, Jeyakundam and Kovilpatti; Superintendent of Police, Ramnad, Salem and Vellor; Deputy Inspector General of Police at Border Security Force and Railways; Commissioner of Police at Tirchirapally City and Inspector General of Police for Economic Offences Wing. The complainant submitted that he has been awarded United Nations Medal for peace keeping in 1999-2000 and awarded President’s medal for meritorious service in 2007. He has never been subjected to any disciplinary proceeding or vigilance inquiry in his service as public servant. The complainant alleged that the imputations directly lowered his name and fame in the estimation of others, lowered his moral and intellectual character and disgraced him and caused great mental agony. The complainant further alleged that the entire news items are false and frivolous and contrary to the facts and specifically aimed at harming his reputation and professional career.

433 No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 6.8.2009 but no response. Report The following one adjournment of 29.7.2010 the Inquiry Committee again took up the matter on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of respondent newspaper. S/Shri V.Adhimoolam, S.P. Parthasarathu and Sriram J Thalapathu and Mrs. N. Shoba, advocates appeared for the complainant and reiterated the complaint and requested for action. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the impugned news items referred to the parameters defined on the right of the press to comment on the acts and conduct of the public officials. It reads “So far as the government, local authority and other organs/institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot bring charge of defamation for reports critical of their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties unless the official establishes that the publication was made with reckless disregard for the truth”. Judged thus, there is no doubt that the press has not only the right but even the duty to critically evaluate and expose corruption in the system. However, the litmus test for such reporting has to be total regard for truth based on thorough verification and evidence. In the instant case the complete silence of the respondent established beyond doubt the absence of any defence and admission of guilt. The Inquiry Committee therefore records these reasons for accepting the complainant’s averments and reports to the Council thus. Held The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee and decide to uphold the complaint and censure the editor, Naveena Netrikkan. It also decided that a copy of the decision be sent to the (i) the DAVP, (ii) the RNI, (iii) the Government of Tamil Nadu for necessary action as they deem fit in the matter.

169) Shri Kishori Mohan Paul The Editor Headmaster/Member Secretary Versus Asomiya Pratidin Kamalabari Girls’ M.E. School Guwahati Jorhat, Assam Assam ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 14.7.2008 has been filed by Shri Kishori Mohan

434 Paul, Headmaster/Member Secretary, Kamalabari Girls’ M.E. School, Jorhat, Assam against Asomiya Pratidin, an Assamese daily, Guwahati alleging publication of a baseless and fabricated news item captioned “People Stuck Dumb Over Headmaster’s Role” in its issue dated 22.6.2008 of Lakhimpur edition. It was stated in the impugned publication that the people were stuck dumb over the role of headmaster of the Kamalabari Girls Middle English School, when they were invited to form the Managing Committee on June 12, 2008. The headmaster informed in the meeting that due to his failure of holding the meetings, he himself had written the report. The people present there were not satisfied over the matters mentioned in the report and protested against it. The situation gradually turned complex and police was called to maintain law and order. The complainant alleged that the respondent had not presented the real picture of the public meeting held at the school relating to formation of the Managing Committee. The complainant clarified that being Headmaster he was responsible for maintaining law and order in his school campus but defying his authority, a section of purposeful people intruded the public meeting held at the school on 12.6.2008 and assaulted him. He has alleged that following the creation of a tumultuous situation, the intruder called in the police to the spot, who in turned helped him as he was the custodian of law and order in his institution. The complainant alleged that by publishing a fabricated, biased and baseless news item the respondent kept the public in the dark about the real situation in the school and violated the journalistic ethics by refusing to publish his clarification. The complainant alleged that by publishing the distorted facts, the respondent damaged his public image of a true disciplinarian and educationist. The complainant further submitted that he had issued a clarification to the respondent on 23.6.2008 but the same was not published. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati on 14.10.2008 but no reply was filed despite reminder dated 6.9.2010. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 22.9.2010 requested that he may be exempted from attending the proceedings of the case as due to ongoing medical treatment of his wife. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties decided to adjourn the matter. Arguments The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

435 22.11.2010 at New Delhi. Both the parties entered appearance. Shri Kishori Mohan Paul, the complainant submitted before the Committee that impugned publication was a deliberate attempt to harm his reputation and it was followed by more such reports. The complainant further submitted that the newspaper had published only a clarification under the caption “Academic environment of Kamalabari Girls’ M.E. School” in its issue dated 22.6.2005 with reference to the news item published on 29.5.2005 and expressed its regret for two more news items published on 26.6.2008 and 13.7.2008. Thus he withdrew the cases relating to these publications but later the respondent again published baseless and damaging news item on 22.6.2008 and did not publish its clarification. The complainant further submitted that he himself was a correspondent of Asomiya Pratidin for nine years and the respondent newspaper ought to have taken due care and caution in publishing such reports. Shri Asish Gupta, Bureau Chief, New Delhi appearing for Asomiya Pratidin expressed regrets for the publication and submitted that the respondent do not want to defend the matter and ready to publish unconditional apology. Report The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the matter and upon hearing the parties did not feel appropriate to dwell into the matter on merits and rather appreciated the conduct of the newspaper in understanding the plight of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee took on record the assurance given by the respondent and directed the respondent to send clipping of the apology published in the newspaper Asomiya Pratidin. It recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose off the complaint with above directions.

170) Shri Kishori Mohan Paul The Editor Headmaster, Member Secretary Versus Amar Asom Kamalabari Girls M.E. School Guwahati Kamalabari, Distt. Jorhat, Assam Assam ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 06.08.2008 has been filed by Shri Kishori Mohan Paul, Headmaster, Kamalabari Girls’ M.E. School, Kamalabari, District Jorhat, Assam against Amar Asom, Guwahati for publication of allegedly baseless news

436 item under the caption ‘Four girl students victimized by Headmaster’s foolhardiness Internal dissension of school damages education environment’ in its issue dated 13.4.2005 of its Jorhat edition with a view to malign the school. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the situation arising out of the expulsion of four students due to the foolhardiness of the headmaster of Kamalabari Girls’ M.E. School that created sensation. The four students continued to attend the school even after their expulsion and the Headmaster stopped their entry by issuing show cause notices to their guardians. Although the Headmaster was transferred, he was determined not to leave the school at any cause whatsoever. The complainant has stated that the news item was utterly false, baseless, one-sided, purposeful and malicious. Since while discharging his duties as the Headmaster of the school, the complainant expelled four errant students temporarily and had no intention to damage their career. The complainant was attacked perpetrated in his school office on 23.4.2005 by an unruly mob of local students and youths. But the erring students defied his Order in collusion with the errant assistant mistresses, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Majuli Subdivision and got him suspended from his post on 25.4.2005 by the District Elementary Education Officer, Jorhat. On the intervention of the High Court, he was reinstated w.e.f 1.3.2006 but during his suspension period, the expelled students succeeded in getting fake pass certificate from an Assistant Teacher, a selfstyled headmistress whereas he had not handed over his charge to her nor was anybody appointed on his post during his suspension period. In this way not a single day study of the four students was wasted. The complainant submitted that these facts did not find any coverage in the impugned news item and he was humiliated publicly and his reputation was damaged to a great extent through the malicious news item. The complainant sent a clarification of the news item on 6.6.2005 to the resident editor but he did not publish it. He contacted with respondent over the phone at around 7:30 p.m. on 8.6.2005 but he bluntly refused to publish the matter, alleged the complainant who added that due to the non-publication of his clarification, he was deprived of getting any relief whatsoever and the rebuff of the respondent editor was certainly a professional misconduct, alleged the complainant. On consideration of prayer of the complainant for condonation of delay in view of the fact that the impugned publication led to the suspension of the complainant from the post of Headmaster, later revoked by the High Court, the delay stood condoned. A show cause notice dated 8.4.2008 was issued to the respondent editor at its Guwahati office but no written statement was filed. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

437 27.9.2010 at Kolkata. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 22.9.2010 requested that he may be exempted from attending the proceedings of the case due to ongoing medical treatment of his wife. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties decided to adjourn the matter. Arguments The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant appearing in person submitted that the news item under the caption “Four girl students fall victim to foolhardiness of headmaster” was utterly false and published with a malafide. Alleging that it was one of the sting operations launched against him, the complainant submitted that the said students were treated as regular students after his suspension by the higher authorities concerned in collusion with the assistant teachers who were at loggerheads with him. Moreover, the expelled students were provided with fake pass certificates of class VII by the assistant teacher, Nibha Bharali (self styled headmistress), because the complainant did not hand her over charge. This statement was published in “Amar Asom” on 29.8.2008 in response to his clarification published in the paper on 20.6.2007 under the caption “Headmaster’s mental oppression on mistresses of girls’ school”. The complainant further stated that this clarification was published following an agreement between the complainant and the news paper authorities on 27.8.2008 in respect of the CR Case No. 26/2007 filed at the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Majuli, Garammer. The complainant requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent. Report The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted that the respondent editor, Amar Asom, despite sufficient opportunity did not file written statement nor entered appearance to orally defend his case. The Inquiry Committee, thus, was of the view that the editor had no defence to offer. It proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material available on record. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that the Amar Asom had published the impugned news item without proper verification of facts and later when the complainant drew attention of the respondent editor, in writing as well as orally, the respondent failed to afford timely right of reply. It thus opined that the respondent editor of Amar Asom breached the norms of pre-publication verification and Right of Reply. Apart from these two Norms of Journalistic Ethics and Conduct, the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent flouted the Norms on caution against defamatory writings as it indulged in making reckless and libelous allegations against the complainant, who was then heading a girls’ school. The Inquiry Committee deprecated the respondent’s impugned publication and directed

438 the editor to publish clarification with apology to the complainant. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to deprecate the respondent editor, Amar Asom for reckless and defamatory writings and directed the respondents to publish a clarification along with apology and send clipping to the Council as well as the complainant for record.

171) Shri K. Hujuri The Editor Secretary Amar Asom Pub-Rupnagar Ganesh Versus Guwahati, Assam Mandir Committee Guwahati Assam ADJUDICATION Facts Shri K. Hujuri, Secretary, Pub-Rupnagar Ganesh Mandir Committee, Guwahati has filed this undated complaint received on 16.8.2007 against Amar Asom, Assamese Daily, Guwahati for publishing an allegedly baseless, fabricated and defamatory news item captioned “Illegal electric connection in Ganesh Mandir” in its issue dated 28.6.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the Pub-Rupnagar Ganesh Mandir Committee was habitual of electric power theft and for the last 10 years they were lighting the Ganesh Mandir through illegal power connection. It was also stated therein that the Assam State Electricity Board should immediately disconnect the line and impose fine on the Committee. The complainant submitted that the respondent editor’s attention was drawn vide letters dated 29.6.2007 and 5.7.2007 but to no avail. A show cause notice dated 23.10.2007 was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Asom, Guwahati but no written statement is filed despite service of notice on 3.11.2007. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata and on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side on both the occasions. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the complainant had brought a trivial matter before it and not seriously pursued it. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint.

439 Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint.

172) Shri Goodnight Langrin Syemlieh The Editor West Khasi Hills District Versus Mawphor Meghalaya Shillong ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 18.6.2008 has been filed by Shri Goodnight Langrin Syemlieh, West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya against Mawphor, a Khasi daily newspaper from Shillong alleging publication of false and baseless news item captioned “The Chief of Langrin Elaka has been rejected from the village for obstructing the development work in the village” in its issue dated 13.6.2008 lleging therein that the complainant was boycotted by the villagers for obstructing the development work in the village. He sent his rejoinder on 13.6.2008 to the respondent and asked for apology but received no reply. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2008, the respondent editor, Mawphor in his written statement dated 29.10.2008, denied the allegations and submitted that the news item was published after on the spot verification by their reporter, who had taken the interview of the concerned authorities of the local darbar at Pyndengsynnia, to which Syiem is also a resident of the area. Moreover, the reporter also made an effort to contact the complainant but he was not available. The respondent clarified that there was no intention to malign and defame any one while publishing the news item in question. It was published in the interest of general public of Pyndengsynnia who choose to air their grievance through the fourth estate. Regarding clarification sent by the complainant, the respondent submitted that it was not done through proper channel. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 25.11.2008 for information/counter comments but no response. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata and on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side on both the occasions. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the complainant had brought a matter before it and than not seriously pursued. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint.

440 Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint.

173) Shri Ajay K. Pandey@Sidhi Pandey The Editor Dy. Chief Councillor Versus Dainik Jagran Nagar Panchayat, Daudnagar Patna Aurangabad, Bihar

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 23.8.2007 has been filed by Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey @Sidhi Pandey, Deputy Chief Councillor, Nagar Panchayat, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar against correspondent of Dainik Jagran, Patna for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory write up under the caption ‘Voice of Chairman’ or ‘King’ in its issue dated 19.8.2007. The impugned write up was a satirical commenting on the complainant without actually naming him. It states that a Vice Chairman’s first name matches the name of a temple but he has no virtues of it. According to the complainant his name is Sidhi Pandey and the name of Maharashtra Based famous temple is Siddhi Vinayak. It alleged inter alia he leads a luxurious life and after sunset after consuming alcohol he becomes a ‘Maharaja’. It was accompanied by a caricature of two person. One telling the other, ‘Forget the Chairman, hail the King’.

Objecting to the language as well as the statement made in the impugned write up, the complainant alleged that the correspondent had demanded money for supporting him during election when the complainant neither gave Rs.25,000/- nor issued tenders of development work of Nagar Panchayat, the correspondent of Dainik Jagran published the fake write up to defame him and damage his image in the eyes of public. The complainant claimed that although his name was not mentioned in the impugned publication, it was directly pointed out to him, as he was the only Deputy Chief Councillor of Daudnagar in the District. The complainant clarified that being a Brahman by caste, people call him ‘Baba’ and the respondent also used this word in the impugned publication with the sole intention to defame him. The complainant submitted that he met the correspondent and asked him about the write up, but he ignored and demanded money threatening to publish more such fake stories. The complainant forwarded the copy of the complaint to the editor and district correspondent of Dainik Jagran but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the correspondent of Dainik Jagran.

441 No Written Statement A show cause notice dated 3.12.2007 was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Patna but received no response. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.9.2010 at Kolkata when Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Sidhi Pandey appeared in person and reiterated the complaint. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor was neither present nor filed written statement. The Inquiry Committee granted an opportunity to the respondent editor to file written statement within a fortnight. The matter was adjourned accordingly. Report The matter again came up for hearing on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant appearing in person reiterated the complaint and submitted that the impugned write up had caused him a lot of humiliation in the eyes of the society and his family. He claimed that if the allegations made in the news item, were proved, he would resign from his post. He alleged that by publishing the false and defamatory write-ups, the newspaper had ruined his life. The Inquiry Committee noted that in the impugned write up captioned “Voice of Chairman” or “Maharaja” under the column “Baat-v- Baat” though the respondent had not mentioned the name of the complainant but the manner in which the details were elaborated one could recognize him easily. It noted that though satire is an original form of literary writing, defamatory statements could not be carried in this guise. The language used by the respondent was not in good taste and highly objectionable which publicly maligned and made fun of the complainant. Besides the allegations that the respondent correspondent blackmailed the complainant for giving into demands for advertisements during elections and not making payment as demanded have not been rebutted, thus lending credence to the complainant and establishing misuse of the authority and powers of a journalist. The Inquiry Committee recalls norms of journalistic conduct on the issue which reads as follows: “Newspapers cannot claim privilege or licence to malign a person or body claiming special protection or immunity on the plea of having published the item as a satire under special columns such as ‘gossip’, ‘parody’, etc. The Inquiry Committee while recommending the Council to uphold the complaint, observed that it would be desirable for the respondent newspaper to

442 examine the case for retention of the concerned correspondent guilty of such misconduct. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint with the directions recorded in the report of the Inquiry Committee.

174) Miss Surekha Sama The Editor Faridabad Versus Dainik Jagran Haryana New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 6.12.2009 has been filed by Miss Surekha Sama, Faridabad against Dainik Jagran, New Delhi for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item in its Jagran City - West Delhi edition under the caption ‘Pareeksha Pass karaney Ko Maangey 50 Hazar’ in its issue dated 7.11.2010. The complainant who is working as a Sister-Tutor in the School of Nursing, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi has submitted that as part of her duties, she had conducted practical examination of the second year General Nursing Students in the month of March 2009 at IHBAS, Shahdara. When the result was declared in the month of September 2009, thirteen out of 21 students failed in the practical examination. The unsuccessful 13 students complained to the Medical Superintendent charging her of intentionally failing them in the practical examination and the matter is under investigation. The complainant has submitted that she was shocked to read the news which levelled serious allegations against her reputation and also detrimental to her career. She immediately sent a complaint via e-mail to the respondent but received no response. No Written Statement A show cause notice dated 21.4.2010, was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, New Delhi but inspite of a time bound reminder dated 8.10.2010, the respondent failed to file the written statement. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 23.11.2010 at New Delhi. The complainant appearing in person reiterated her complaint. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the editor, Dainik Jagran neither filed written statement nor represented before it to defend the matter. The Inquiry Committee thus held that the editor had no defence to offer on the

443 submissions of the complainant. It proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material available on record. It noted that the respondent newspaper Dainaik Jagran had allegedly carried the impugned news item involving serious allegations at behest of the students without prior verification though it was obligatory under journalistic practice to obtain the version of the charged person before levelling allegations. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the newspaper failed to clarify the matter when the complainant protested against the impugned news item via e-mail. The failure to file the written defence before the Council established that the editor, Dainik Jagran was guilty of violating norms relating to inaccurate reporting, pre-publication verification and right to reply that reads as follows:

Pre -Publication verification:

2 (i) On receipt of a report or article of public interest and benefit containing imputations or comments against a citizen, the editor should check with due care and attention its factual accuracy apart from other authentic sources- with the person or the organisation concerned to elicit his/her or its version, comments or reaction and publish the same alongside with due correction in the report where necessary. In the event of lack or absence of response, a footnote to that effect may be appended to the report.

Right of Reply:

14 (1) The newspaper should promptly and with due prominence, publish either in full or with due editing, free of cost, at the instance of the person affected or feeling aggrieved/or concerned by the impugned publication, a contradiction/ reply/ clarification or rejoinder sent to the editor in the form of a letter or note. If the editor doubts the truth or factual accuracy of the contradiction/ reply/ clarification or rejoinder, he shall be at liberty to add separately at the end, a brief editorial comment doubting its veracity, but only when this doubt is reasonably founded on unimpeachable documentary or other evidential material in his/her possession. This is a concession which has to be availed of sparingly with due discretion and caution in appropriate cases.

The Inquiry Committee in view of foregoing decided to uphold the complaint and warn the editor, Dainik Jagran, New Delhi. It recommended to the Council accordingly.

Held

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

444 175) Shri Lokeshwra The Editor Sub-Inspector Versus Veera Sindhoora Lakshmana Karnataka Police Kannada weekly Bangalore, Karnataka Bangalore, Karnataka

ADJUDICATION

Review Application

A complaint was filed by Shri Lokeshwra, Sub-Inspector, Karnataka Police, Bangalore against Kannada weekly, Veera Sindhoora Lakshmana for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 30.8.1999 captioned “Why Bangalore Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Circle Inspector Sri Ramachandrappa are hesitating to control Town Inspector Lokeshwra, the Council in its decision dated 28.8.2000 upheld the complaint and censured the respondent for gross violation of the norms of pre-publication verification and defamatory writings. (F.No.14/529/99- 00-PCI)

The respondent editor vide his letter dated 23.9.2000 filed Review application against the judgment of the Council. The respondent averred that when the case was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2000 at Hyderabad, he had requested for adjournment of the matter on the ground that he was suffering from typhoid. He had also requested that the matter may be taken up at Bangalore but the Inquiry Committee did not accede to the request for adjournment and proceeded to dispose of the case on its merits. The Inquiry Committee had noted that the respondent editor had in his written statement justified the publication of the impugned news report without giving any explanation on merits. The Council held that the defence of the respondent was not at all convincing and that the news item was per-se defamatory, in as much as it charged the complainant of being a corrupt and rude officer and of earning money by accepting bribes.

Since the case had been decided on merits on the basis of record, the review application was not admitted.

Writ Petition Filed by the Respondent Editor

The respondent editor filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore against Press Council of India under article 226 of the Constitution of India. He challenged the order of Censure dated 28.8.2000 passed by the Council alleging that the Council without any reason had rejected his request for adjournment as sought by him and the order passed by it was illegal and the same was liable to be set aside.

445 The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in its order dated 24.5.2005 set aside the adjudication of Council rendered on 28.8.2000 with direction to the Inquiry Committee to reconsider the matter within six months. The copy of the order was not served on the Council nor did any of the parties approach the Press Council for action. A copy was sent by the Registrar after the Council wrote to them to enquire about the status of the case.(F.No.23/10/2000)

Though the said Inquiry Committee/Council was no longer in existence and the adjudication was a declaratory decision, Hon’ble Chairman vide his order dated 30.12.2009 directed to give notice to the appellant (respondent editor) and the matter be placed before the Inquiry Committee for hearing.

Accordingly the parties were informed vide letter dated 23.1.2010 that the matter is to be placed before the Inquiry Committee for rehearing in compliance of the Court orders and they may file their written submissions/ further responses for being placed before the Inquiry Committee. In the absence of any reply reminder was issued on 18.5.2010.

In response the respondent editor, “Veera Sindhoora Lakshmana” in his letter dated 9.6.2010 submitted that the documents which he had already submitted in the matter be taken into account. He requested to drop further proceedings against him in the matter. The respondent editor further pointed out that the District Magistrate, Bangalore Rural while passing an Order dated 17.12.2007 on his complaint and the IInd Additional District & Session Judge, Bangalore Rural District while granting an injunction order dated 7.11.2002 restrained Smt. Mariyamma W/o Late Ramanjinappa and Shri R. Ramesh, S/o Late Ramanjinappa from publishing their newspaper in the same title as Veera Sindoora Lakshmana. He has requested the Press Council not to allow either Smt. Mariyamma or Shri R. Ramesh to publish newspaper either monthly or weekly in the same title.

The respondent appeared to be aggrieved with publication of a paper similar to the title owned by him. Despite injunction by the Court the opponent was bringing out her paper. The respondent was informed by letter dated 3.11.2010 that this matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the Press Council of India.

Report

The matter came up for hearing on 23.11.2010 before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee considered the matter in the light of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and noted that none of the parties had filed further

446 written submissions despite issuance of reminder. However, the respondent editor, Veera Sindhoora Lakshmana vide his letter dated 9.6.2010 submitted that the documents already filed in the matter be taken into account at the time of rehearing and also requested to drop further proceedings against him in the matter. The Inquiry Committee taking into account all relevant documents opined that the decision of the Council awarding censure to the respondent Editor, Veera Sindoora Lakshmana had been set aside by the High Court of Karanataka and the complainant had not come forward with any challenge. It therefore felt no further action was required in the matter. It decided to dispose off the matter and recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to allow the matter to rest and drop proceedings against the Editor, Veera Sindoora Lakshmana, Karnataka. Press and Morality

176) Shri R.V. Sharada The Editor State President Versus Dainik Navbharat Working Journalists Union Bhopal, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 22.3.2009 has been filed by Shri R.V. Sharada, State President, Working Journalists Union, Bhopal against Dainik Navbharat, Bhopal for publication of allegedly obscene, vulgar pictures and sex related advertisements in its issues dated 10.5.2008 and 18.5.2008. According to the complainant, the respondent by publishing the impugned obscene photographs along with indecent material violated the accepted norms of journalistic ethics and provisions of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954. The complainant expressed his deep concern over the growing trend in the media in publishing such type of obscene materials. He has stated that the youth of the country are being misguided due to the publications of such type of obscene materials and has alleged that the respondent deliberately published the objectionable material and deserved action under the relevant rules and laws of the land. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 10.8.2009, the respondent

447 editor, Nav Bharat has filed his written statement dated 7.9.2009 and submitted that the publications in question could not be termed obscene as alleged. He also stated that the advertisements in question were trade promotions of legally saleable products, which could not be edited by the newspaper and added that it is absolutely incorrect to state that the advertisements in question were misleading the young generations or are creating any wrong atmosphere.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore when both the sides were present. The complainant submitted that he has filed the present complaint, as he was subscriber of this newspaper and noticing the objectionable advertisements in Navbharat, he lodged complaints with the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh and the DGP, Bhopal. The complainant further submitted that the Madhya Pradesh Government in the I&PRD, Bhopal issued press note dated 16.5.2008 prohibiting advertisements that violate Drug and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advt.) Act, 1954 and penalties for such violation. The complainant however informed the Committee that the Navbharat was not the only newspaper that published such objectionable advertisements.

The representative of respondent, Shri Vijay Singh Chauhan, Advocate reiterated the written statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the impugned material published by Navbharat noted that advertisements were in violation of D&MR Act, 1954, the Council has already advised the press on the issue. Yet these advertisements were being routinely published by many newspapers. The Inquiry Committee opined that the Press may be sensitized on the issue and the guidelines framed by the Press Council of India on the subject be reiterated. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee noted that the relevant provisions of D&MR(OADVT) Act, 1954 provided that : (iv) Advertisements which offend the provisions of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, or any other statute should be rejected. (v) Newspapers should not publish an advertisement containing anything, which is unlawful or illegal, or is contrary to public decency, good taste and journalistic ethics or propriety. It thus advised the Press to follow the provisions of law and norm laid down by the Council.

448 177) Shri Sanjay Bansal The Editor President Versus Dainik Jagran Desh Kalyan Samiti Meerut Moradabad Uttar Pradesh U.P. ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 23.5.2008 has been filed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal (Advocate), President of Non Governmental Organisation – “Desh Kalyan Samiti”, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, i-Next newspaper Meerut and Lucknow edition of Dainik Jagran Group for publication of obscene photographs of women, in its issue dated 30.12.2007, 27.2.2008 and the editor of Dainik Jagran, Moradabad edition for publication of advertisements of contraceptive pills, condom, sex; arousal and sex stimulating techniques, pills and treatment as well as obscene pictures in its issue dated 20.6.2007, 3.9.2007, 20.4.2008, 4.5.2008, 13.5.2008 and 14.5.2008. The complaint has alleged that with a cup of tea in the morning in one hand and the newspaper in the other which have such front page advertisements provoke the needy as well as non–needy such as kids, girls and boys to go for such products and fulfill their sexual desire. He sought exception from the requirement to draw the attention of the respondent editor to the objections with reference to his previous complaint bearing File No. 14/620/04-05-PCI, when the respondent organization “Jagran Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.,” had assured of qualitative corrections but the publications of obscene and uncivilized photographs and language was still continuing. He expressed that these publications are violative 193 to Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and punishable under Sections 292, 293 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. The publications are also violative of Indian values and is disturbing social setup which is unpardonable, unethical and is a crime. This is also an assault on an Indian Government’s attempt to curb pornography and is provoking Indian society to go for unprotected, unethical sexual intercourse which resulted into deadly diseases such as HIV infection/AIDS. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 19.6.2008 but he did not file his written statement. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi. Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent

449 Dainik Jagran and submitted that the impugned publications were of 2007 and the newspaper has now stopped publication of such advertisements. The Inquiry Committee, recorded the assurance given by the respondent that they have stopped publication of objectionable advertisements, and decided to give its report to the Council to allow the matter to rest. Held The Press Council while concurring with the report of the Inquiry Committee observes that the assurance of the respondent needs to be duly adherent to and reiterates its guidelines that “the editors should insist on their right to have the final say in the acceptance or rejection of advertisements, specially those which border or cross the line between decency and obscenity.” With these observations it, decided to close the complaint.

178) The President The Editor Pragatisheel Pratakar Association Versus I-Next Agra Agra Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 26.12.2008 has been filed by the President, Pragatisheel Pratakar Association, Agra against the editor, I-Next, a Hindi daily newspaper, Agra alleging publication of obscene, indecent and vulgar photographs in the shape of ‘Calendar 2009’ and ‘I-Candy Collection’ in its issue dated 26.11.2008. The complainant has alleged that these photographs were derogatory to the dignity of women the respondent has published them to increase the sale 194 of his newspaper. The complainant further alleged that the respondent was publishing his newspaper without RNI number and has requested the Council to take action against the respondent editor, I-Next. The complainant furnished clippings of the impugned photographs but did not draw the attention of the respondent editor regarding the photographs. A show cause notice dated 15.4.2009 was issued to the respondent editor, I-Next. Written Statement In his written statement dated 1.5.2009, the respondent editor has submitted that the impugned photographs were not obscene as they were published for the new generation. The Indian women have established themselves in the fields of

450 fashion and beauty and that too at international stage and hence he wanted to make the new generation aware of and informed about these fields, stated the respondent. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.9.2009 for information. Arguments The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when the complainant was represented by Shri Kok Singh Sisodiya, Secretary, Pragatisheel Patrkar Association, Agra and submitted that the respondent had published vulgar calendar in its issue dated 26.11.2008 of I-Next. He further submitted that the respondent was bringing out I-Next without registration number but now he had a RNI number. He requested the Council to direct ban of such publications. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and found the impugned publication of a New Year calendar with nude photographs to be in very bad taste being obscene and vulgar. Holding that the publication crossed the thin borderline of obscenity it found the respondent newspaper guilty of violating the norms of journalistic conduct. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee, deprecated the conduct of the editor, I-Next, reprimanding him, directed the respondent not to repeat such lapse in future.

179) Shri Sukh Deo Singh The Editor Sikar Versus Rajasthan Patrika Rajasthan Jaipur Rajasthan ADJUDICATION Facts This complaint dated 1.4.2009 has been filed by Shri Sukh Deo Singh, Sikar, Rajasthan against Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur alleging publication of objectionable advertisements for commercial gain. He has furnished details of the objectionable advertisements published in different issues of the newspaper, which are as follows:

451 S. No. Items-Drugs Date of issues Claimed in advertisements 1 Vigoura 18.3.2009 Improves capacity of sexual pleasure 2 Vigoura 18.3.2009 Improves capacity of sexual pleasure 3 Vigoura 20.3.2009 Improves capacity of sexual pleasure 4 Breast 21.3.2009 Improves female bust size Cream

The complainant has alleged that the advertisements in question contravened Section 3(b) and 3(d) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable advertisements) Act and Section 31 (iv) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct. He had drawn the attention of the respondent newspaper through e-mail dated 21.3.2009 but instead of giving him a reply, the respondent continued to publish the objectionable advertisements, stated the complainant. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent, Rajasthan Patrika on 28.8.2009 followed by a reminder dated 27.10.2009 but no reply was received in the matter. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when none of the parties entered appearance. The respondent in his letter dated 18.3.2010 requested for the adjournment. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request and decided to adjourn the matter. Arguments The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 1.6.2010. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Indresh Sharma, Advocate appearing for respondent newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika submitted that they had published the advertisement only. A number of PIL’s were pending in the High Court. However, he added that the newspaper had stopped publication of such advertisements. Report of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the statement of the counsel that the newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika, had

452 discontinued publishing such advertisements. The Committee opined that no further action was warranted in the matter.

Held

Accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee, the Press Council decided to close the complaint.

180) Shri Edara Gopi Chand The Editor State General Secretary Andhra Jyoti, Telugu Daily Anti-Obscenity Forum Versus Hyderabad Guntur, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh

The Editor Eenadu, Telugu Daily Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh ADJUDICATION Facts Shri Edara Gopi Chand, State General Secretary, Anti-Obscenity Forum, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh has filed these two complaints dated 30.6.2007 against the editors, Andhra Jyoti and Eenadu of Hyderabad alleging that the newspapers have regularly published obscene, indecent, vulgar photographs of film stars and advertisements almost every day. These photographs are derogatory to the dignity of women, which are violative of the provisions of IPC 292, 293 & IRW (P) Act 1986, The complainant has requested to take action against the respondents, Andhra Jyoti and Eenadu. The complainant has furnished clippings of various vernacular newspapers, magazines etc. and objected to the pictures published by them. The complainant has submitted that the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 1983 and the Cinematograph Act 1952, provides that – “Any person advertising a film granted ‘UA’, ‘A’ or ‘S’ certificate or the exhibition of such film by means of insertions in newspapers, hoardings,posters, handbills or trailers shall, after the date of its certification, indicate in such insertions in newspapers, hoardings, posters, handbills or trailers that the film has been certified for such public exhibition (Such advertising shall indicate only the certified title of a film)”. The complainant alleged that the published pictures did not indicate whether their film certification were such as A/U, A,S, U etc. The complainant has urged the Council that both the respondent editors and publishers should apologise openly in their papers, for the crime they have committed and assurance

453 should be given that they would honour the legal provisions in their future advertisements and also avoid publishing advertisements which contained obscenity and indecency. Show cause notice was issued to both the respondents on 30.6.2008. Written Statement of the Eenadu The respondent editor, Eenadu in his written statement dated 21.8.2008 has submitted that all the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and vexatious. The respondent editor further submitted that the photographs published in the newspaper were related to film functions and released by the producers. The respondent further submitted that the photographs were not obscene as alleged by the complainant by the present standards of film publicity and there has been no violation of norms or ethics by the newspaper. The respondent denied having violated norms or ethics by the journalist or newspaper and neither that the editor nor the journalist concerned have committed any professional misconduct. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Written Statement of Andhra Jyoti The editor, Andhra Jyoti has filed his written statement dated 10.12.2008 and raised preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as the declaration filed by Sri Edara Gopichand (the complainant) herein under Section 14 (3) of the PC ACT, 1978 read with regulation 3 (2) of the Press Council of India (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 was false as the complainant herein having filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopate (CC No.CFR 3079/2007). The respondent submitted that published matter were based on the release orders given by customers who were cinema producers and distributors after obtaining the necessary certificates and permissions from various authorities which includes Censor Board to exhibit their films in public after Censor Board considers the respective films to be suitable for Unrestricted Public Exhibition. The respondent submitted that the test of obscenity can not all together depend on general allegations of the complainant. The test for judging a work whether it is obscene or indecent should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not-of-the ordinary or hypersensitive man. The respondent has submitted that the Censor Board is a body appointed under Section 5-B Cinematograph Act which sanctions films for public exhibition that decides a film when it is satisfied. In the light of above, the respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Counter Reply Filed by the Complainant In response to written statement of the Eenadu, the complainant in his

454 counter comments dated 8.10.2008 submitted that allegations of obscene- vulgarindecent publication were nowhere defended. The respondent editor also failed to give straight forward reply to the pictures that were obscene, vulgar, indecent and in bad taste and requested the Council to give justice so that journalistic ethics are upheld and dignity of women and moral values are protected.

The complainant in his counter comments in respect of written statement of Andhra Jyoti, submitted that allegation made by the respondent regarding CC No.CFR.3079/2007 was false and unwarranted. The complainant submitted that no doubt he had filed a case at Narasaraopate but that was in respect of another issue –i.e. obscene Fantasy Stories-Questions-Answer published by so called doctor Samaram, serially published in the Sunday Supplements of daily Andhra Jyothi, which is a different case and he has not brought before the Council. The respondent so blindly made the allegation against him without referring the details of the said complaint, stated the complainant and added that there was no ‘editing’ process, which means in other words that the editor was not doing his statutory duty. The complainant pointed out that the producers obtained Censor Certificates to screen the film only and not for releasing advertisements in newspapers. The print media is not governed by Cinematograph Act. His grievance was still against the obscene-indecent advertisements in the print media. The complainant submitted that all this shows that the respondent was irresponsible and non-accountable to the customers/ readers like him. The complainant requested the Council to proceed in the matter and take stringent action against the respondents.

Matter Adjourned

The matters came up for hearing on 17.11.2009 at Hyderabad. Shri Edara Gopi Chand, the complainant appeared in person and Shri G.V.S. Jagananda Rao, advocate appeared for Eenadu. There was no appearance on behalf of Andhra Jyothi.

The complainant submitted that the respondents were glorifying crime against women and pointed out publication of a poster of an adult movie ‘Murder-2’ with semi naked photograph of a women with knife in her hand and a couple in compromising position with caption : ‘She is very hot’. The complainant submitted that majority of such photographs of adult cinema are published by these two respondents and no other instances came to his notice in respect of other newspapers. The complainant informed the Committee that he has filed similar mater on different issues before the Courts but the instant matter was not sub-judice. The complainant reiterated his complaint that obscenity must be curbed.

455 The Counsel for Eenadu reiterated the submission made in the written statement and submitted that the problem lies with cinema producers and this could be well sorted out by the Motion Pictures Association. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties, opined that the complaint raises a larger issue, which ought to be considered seriously.

The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the publication of such material in daily newspapers might frustrate the purpose of Censor Board. The Inquiry Committee decided to solicit the considered opinion of the concerned parties as well as Central Board of Film Certification on the issue. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter to be placed before it on receipt of considered opinion.

In the meantime the editor, Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad in its reply dated 25.2.2010 submitted that they had never published any obscene or objectionable photographs. The pictures in question mentioned by the complainant, were given by the film producers as part of their publicity campaign and were published by all Telugu newspapers. Publication of photographs from film under production is a regular practice in print media. According to the respondent, they take every precaution, while publishing anything that it should be within the permissible standards as specified by law.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 1.6.2010 at New Delhi without calling the parties when it noted no response from the Central Board of Film Certification was received despite issuance of reminder. The Inquiry Committee recalled the Council’s decision dated 5.10.1998 in the matter of publication of advertisement of adult movies in newspapers/periodicals when the then Chairman of the Central Board of Film Certification vide her letter dated 4.9.1998 had drawn the Council’s attention towards publication of obscene and vulgar advertisements appearing in print media and particularly film trade magazines and non indication of the category of certificate viz.’A’, ‘UA’, ‘U’. Besides use to titillating translation of titles in the advertisements was objected to by the CBFC. On perusal of the opinion given by the Council earlier, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to reiterate its earlier decision/ guideline on the issue when it decided to impress upon the managements of all newspapers, magazines/weeklies to ensure that:

1. All advertisements relating to a film shall carry the category of certificate ‘UA’, ‘A’, ‘S’ granted by the CBFC; and

2. No obscene or vulgar picture or titillating translation of titles shall be used in the advertisement of films.

456 Held

The Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to re-issue the guidelines to all the newspapers/ periodicals to carry the category of certificate while publishing the advertisement connected with the films. It further decided that the adjudication be circulated to recognized associations of editor and owners for circulation amongst their members.

181) Shri R.S. Saxena The Editor Retired Senior Commercial Officer Versus The Times of India Central Railways Mumbai Kharghar, Navi Mumbai

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 10.1.2009 has been filed by Shri R.S. Saxena, Retired Senior Commercial Officer, Central Railways (through Ministry of Information & Broadcasting) against the editor, The Times of India, Mumbai alleging publication of semi-nude photographs of women. The complainant has furnished clippings of obscene photographs published in the month of September and October, 2008 and alleged that the publications of semi-nude photographs of females in exciting and revealing poses according to him, was objectionable as it has the ulterior motive of drawing the lecherous attention of males. The complainant in his further letter dated 24.5.2009 stated that such photographs cast damaging effect on the teenagers as they search for pornographic material in their tender age. Further, the newspaper is read by all family members, that causes embarrassment in front of the children. The complainant has alleged that the respondent editor is responsible for all the published material in the form of write-ups, photos etc. as he is the final authority to permit publication of material. The complainant has alleged that the publication of nude, semi-nude females in exciting, revealing, postures offended the norms of journalistic conduct. The complainant further submitted that it is worth noting that the published photographs are of foreign ladies and must have been picked up from magazines/ newspapers published in other countries. These photographs have no bearing on the matter published as news and articles and served no social or public purpose except to draw attention of the young generation.

Written Statement

In response to show cause notice dated 11.8.2009 the respondent editor,

457 The Times of India in his written statement dated 25.8.2009 denied that the photographs published in their publication were obscene, provocative or devastating to any person. He also denied that the photographs have been sourced from pornographic magazines and newspapers but taken from various blog sites, fan sites, film site, actresses’ official website etc. and they were not reproduced on a stand alone basis. He also stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in several judgments that obscenity is highly subjective and lies in the eyes of the beholder and therefore, no norms or guidelines can be laid down to define obscenity.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.10.2009 gave a parawise reply to the written statement of the respondent and expressing his disagreement stated that obscenity is subjective and that a photograph or any other material may be vulgar to one and not so to other but when it is put on general trial the majority of readers particularly families consisting members of all ages, it matters. The complainant cited judgment of Bombay High Court that the striptease in a “Hotel Dance Room” was not vulgar, but when it was exposed to the public in indecent way, it was vulgarity. The vulgarity cannot be standardized, but the judgment do confirm that the subject, things, action by a particular/individual may be obscene at a particular time and place when it is open to public at large.

The complainant in a further communication dated 3.11.2009 furnished a news clipping under the captioned “Jack and Jill and Katz and Rehman”along with the photo of Katrina Kaif published by the respondent in the issue dated 27.10.2009 objecting to the photographs and asked whether the exposing pose of the Katrina has direct bearing on the news.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.7.2010 at New Delhi there was no appearance before it. The Chief Manager, Secretarial and Legal for the respondent newspaper vide his letter dated July 23, 2010 submitted that their reply dated 11.8.2009 may be taken on record. The Committee decided to dispose off the complaint on its merits.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee on perusing the record noted that The Times of India had defended the publication of photographs on the plea that these were

458 taken from blog sites, fan sites, film sites etc. and reproduced in the context of reporting events. The Committee also took note of the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter including the fact that the Hon’ble Court had not vide its judgement of October, 2008 (Union of India Vs. Ajay Goswami) permitted per-se publication of information category to adults. It had also observed the need for weighing each case on merits. It observed that the selection of the impugned photographs were borderline cases and required more sensitive care in selection. It submitted its report to the Council for decision.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided to caution The Times of India to observe greater sensitiveness in selection of the material considering the wider range and age group of its readers.

182) Shri N.V. Ramakrishnan The Editor Kottayam Versus Fire Magazine Kerala Thriruvananthapuram

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 16.7.2009 has been lodged through Government of India by Shri N.V. Ramakrishnan, Kottayam, Kerala against ‘Fire’, Malyalam Magazine of Thiruvananthapuram for publishing objectionable material in its issue dated June, 2009, with the request to take appropriate action. The publication claimed on its cover page to be a magazine for exposing attrocities against women, children. The complainant objected to publication of articles on flesh trade and alleged atrocities on women/children along with pornographic material and pictures. According to the complainant, the respondent magazine falsely claimed to be a magazine exposing atrocities against women/children. In fact such magazines were alleged to be fomenting unruly sexual behaviour in children and youth through the photographs, concocted stories etc. The complainant had requested the Government to initiate action on priority to ban the sale of such magazines to stop spoiling the young minds and to protect culture and social security.

459 Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 6.10.2009, the respondent editor, Fire Magazine in his written statement dated 23.10.2009 denied all the allegations contained in the complaint. According to the respondent the Fire Magazine exposes all sorts of atrocities against women and children as stated in the cover of the magazine. It was averred that if the impugned publication is viewed as a whole it could be seen that the 1st article was about women/ flesh trade flourishing in the city of Cochin. This was just to inform the authorities about such menaces happening in the city and also to warn people not to fall victim of this trap. The 2nd article was the narration of a true story wherein a mother, due to abject poverty threw her three children in Periyar River at Aluvai and also attempted to commit suicide. The 3rd article was regarding the punishment imposed by the Court on a fake Swami namely Santosh Madhavan alias Amrithachaithanya for his act of trapping and raping four women. The 4th article was regarding the barbarous rape committed by a father towards his minor daughter who later promoted her to prostitution and also published the details of the culprits involved in the criminal cases. The next story was regarding the video recording of the first night of a couple by the husband and consequently release of the pictures through SMS and registration of cases based on that. The other stories contained in the magazine were also based on actual incidents. The respondent submitted that there was no intention of formenting unruly sexual behaviour in children and youth as alleged in the complaint. None of the photographs or stories can be seen as vulgar or obscene. According to the complainant and as admitted by him, there are several periodicals that are being sold in the shops containing obscene photographs and articles which allegedly are against the morality and decency of the society. Many of the publications carrying similar articles have been circulated throughout Kerala but singling out his magazine without making any one of those publishers liable for publishing reports, showed the malafide intentions of the complainant.

The respondent further submitted that reports contained in the magazine were based on true facts and did not exceed any concept of decency or morality. As ruled by Mr. Justice Hidayuttulah, Chief Justice in the case of K.A. Abbas Vs. the Union of India and reported as AIR 1971 SC 481 “the test of judging a work should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not an out of the ordinary hypersensitive man. If the depraved begins to see in these things more than what an average person would see…it cannot be helped.” Further in the modern day of hi-tech communications and interenet access in every School and College, it cannot be said that the

460 publication has any tint of obscenity. In contemporary standards of judging as to whether a particular work is obscene, regard must be had to the contemporary morals and national standards. The test has became quite outdated in the context of the internet age and the age of SMS and MMS which has broken down traditional barriers and made publication from across the globe available with the click of a mouse or a button of the mobile phone. In the modern age books of various types are also available for any customer on his mobile phones. Most of the articles published in the Fire Magazine are based on factual happenings. The fact that the veracity of the incidents and narrations has not been challenged by the persons who are actually involved with the incidents itself prove the genuineness of the article. In view of his reply, the respondentrequested Council to stop further proceedings and close the case.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.7.2010. Shri H. Vivel Ujjval Bharat, advocate appeared for the respondent while the complainant remained unrepresented.

Counsel for the respondent pleaded that the magazine has a different kind of readership. He added that he was not aware whether written statement has been filed or not. He requested for adjournment for contesting the matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

At the outset the Inquiry Committee declined the request for adjournment as the respondent editor had already filed the written statement and decided to deal with the matter on its merits on the basis of material available on record. The Committee on perusal of the impugned material found the provocative photographs accompanying the stories to be highly objectionable and beyond normal moral values for a magazine that claimed to expose atrocities on women and children. The attempt appeared to be the contrary. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that impugned publications in the respondent, Fire magazine had not passed the litmus test and squarely violated the norm 17(1) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct reproduced below:

“Newspapers/journalists shall not publish anything which is obscene, vulgar or offensive to public good taste.”

For all the reasons aforesaid the Inquiry Committee decided to report to the Council to uphold the complaint and observed that the respondent deserved to be censured. It submitted its report to the Council for final decision.

461 Held

The Council perused the report of the Inquiry Committee and after detailed deliberations was satisfied that the complaint deserves to be upheld. It held the respondent Fire Magazine guilty of gross violation of Norms of Journalistic conduct and decided to censure the respondent editor, Fire Magazine and to send its adjudication to the DAVP, the RNI and the I&PRD, Govt. of Kerela for such action as they deem fit in the matter.

183) Shri Sidheswar Acharya The Editor P.O. Kalna Calcutta Times West Bengal Versus Kolkata

The Editor Boier Desh (Bengali) Kolkata

The Editor The Sunday Indian Bengali edition Saket, New Delhi ADJUDICATION Facts These complaints dated 6.12.2007 received through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have been filed by Shri Sidheswar Acharya, Kalna, West Bengal against the editors (i) Calcutta Times of the Times of India Group, (ii) Boier Desh of the Anand Bazar Patrika, Kolkata and (iii) The Sunday Indian, Bengali edition from New Delhi for publication of allegedly obscene and semi-nude photographs of woman published by the respondents in the following issues:

Clippings Date of issues Calcatta Times 29th April 2008, 1st, 10th and 31st. May, 2008 Boier Desh January – March, 2008 The Sunday India 18th – 22nd February, 2008

According to the complainant, these periodicals are gaining entrance to their family consisting of age group ranging from 7 to 70 years of age and the

462 younger generation and even the old are being lured to sex world seeing these ugly pictures, bikini dressed living body at the public places. The complainant has alleged that publication of advertisements exposing female body in print and electronic media has encouraged sexual crimes in the society. The complainant requested the Council to prohibit or impose ban on these types of ugly, vulgar and nude woman’s photographs or lewd postures, showing them as if women were commercial commodities for sale.

Written Statement of Boier Desh

In response to the show cause notice dated 16.7.2008, one of the respondents, Boier Desh, Kolkata in his written statement dated 22..08.2008 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant, submitted that the pictures in question are of the cover page of their periodical, which is a modern Chinese painting, adapted by them in connection with review of the literary work of Ms. Sangeeta Bandyopadhyay. The respondent further submitted that this is an artistic allegory aptly used in respect of the topic of that particular issue and being a work of art, is open to diverse opinions, interpretations and reactions. Such reactions and or interpretations can vary depending on the nature of the interpretations and or reactor. According to the respondent, the nudity in works of art, especially paintings are interpreted as classics by some and condemned as obscene by others. The respondent has concluded by saying that without prejudice to the aforesaid and in any event, they extend their apology to those whose sentiment they might have hurt by the cover photo, as it was neither their intention nor their objective to hurt anybody’s sentiments. It has always been their endeavor to publish news, views and arts within the norms and guidelines of the Press Council knowing their responsibility and limitation as a publishing house.

Written Statement of Calcutta Times (Times of India)

In response to the show cause notice dated 16.7.2008, the Calcutta Times, in his written statement dated 7.8.2008 denied that the articles and pictures published by them were ugly, sexy and encourage the people towards sex world as alleged by the complainant. The respondent also denied that the pictures are likely to encourage open sex and open sex leads to crime and disease and stated that there is no reason to believe that the Calcutta Times offended against the standard of journalistic ethics or public taste or any professional misconduct. The respondent further stated that a similar allegations were made against them by one Ajay Goswami before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Goswami Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 1 SCC 143 dismissed the said petition. The observations

463 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below: “The pictures that have been published should not be viewed in isolation rather they have to be read with the news reports next to them”.

The third respondent, the Sunday Indian, Bengali edition has not filed its written statement, despite service of the notice and reminder dated 6.9.2010.

Arguments

The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.9.2010 at Kokata. Shri Sanjib Bagchi appearing for the complainant submitted that the impugned publications are in violation of guidelines issued by the Press Council of India on obscenity. The complainant’s representative submitted that adolescent may have access to pornography through other media even mobile but the press must be responsible enough not to indulge in publication of such material in newspapers gaining entrance to family houses on a daily basis for their news value.

S/Shri Saumitra Basu and Dwaipayan Sengupta, Advocate appeared for the respondent The Times of India relied on the Supreme Court Judgment in Ajay Goswami case and denied the charge that the newspaper indulged in obscene publication.

Shri Rajarshi Dutta, Senior Executive Legal appearing for Boier Desh submitted that the impugned piece was an art and literary work and the ABP being a responsible publishing house never published undesirable art or picture to lure customers.

Report

On a careful perusal of the record and after hearing the parties, the Inquiry Committee took note that the matters published by respondents herein were not in good taste. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the impugned publications in Calcutta Times and the Sunday Indian did not serve any public purpose were against the core value and limits of the ethics. It further noted the submissions of the Boier Desh that the impugned publication was relevant to the accompanying article as an art work. The Committee was however convinced that even this ‘art work’ went beyond the normally socially acceptable pictorial presentation. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report to the Council for final consideration.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report

464 of the Inquiry Committee noted the reliance placed by the respondent on the Supreme Court judgment in the Ajay Goswami case and stressed the need for simultaneous reading of the observation of the Hon’ble Court as below:

Para 58 ...... the Constitution of India guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression to every citizen. This right wil lencompass an individuals take on any issue. However, this right is not absolute, if such speech and express is immensely gross and will badly violate the standards of morality of a society. Therefore, any expression is subject to reasonable restriction. Freedom of expression has contributed much to the development and well being of our free society.

Para 59 This right conferred by the Consititution has triggered various issues. One of the most controversial issues is balancing the need to protect society against the potential harm that may flow from obscene material, and the need to ensure respect for freedom of expression and to preserve a free flow of information and idea

Para 56 ..... In the event, that a particular news items or picture offends any person they may avail of the remedies available to them under the present legal framework. Any steps to impose a blanket ban on publishing of such photographs, in our opinion, would amount to prejudging the matter as has been held in the matter of Fraser vs. Evans, 1969 (1) QB 549.

Thus it is clear that each publication has to be judged on individual merit in the circumstances of the accompanying report. It also reiterated Council’s guidelines which reads as follows:

The globalization and liberalization does not give license to the media to misuse freedom of the press and to lower the values of the society. The media performs a distinct role and public purpose which require it to rise above commercial consideration guiding other industries and businesses. So far as that role is concerned, one of the duties of the media is to preserve and promote our cultural heritage and social values.’ Having thus considered the matter the Council finds reason to express its dissatisfaction on the publication and advise the Press to be more sensitive to its responsibility to promote and protect the core values of the society.

465 Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Anti Religious Writings

184) Choudhary Nafees Ahmed & others The Editor Chhattarpur (M.P.) Versus Chhattarpur Bhraman Chhattarpur (M.P.)

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 1.9.2007 has been filed by Choudhary Nafees Ahmed and others, Chhattarpur (M.P.) against “Chhattarpur Bhraman” Hindi daily for publication of allegedly false and misleading news items under the caption :- “Ek Tarpha Charge Ko Rokney Ko Agey Aai Charge Lene Wale Nai Pahuchey” in its issue dated 31.8.2007. According to the complainant, the Wakf Board wanted to remove the newly elected President, Shri Ikram Ullah Khan in an illegal manner, which caused tension between District Wakf Board Committee and Anjuman Islamia Committee but the news item stated that some selfish people of the community assembled at Raza Hall, discussed the issue, and wanted to have re-election for the post of Sadar at the time of Id-ul-Zuha. As per past practice, a community headed by Anjuman wanted to take over the charge of the President’s seat. Had they not practiced restrain, the community would have definitely engaged in blood bath. The complainant alleged that the respondent was prima facie guilty of denying him right of reply, published a false and misleading news item which disturbed communal harmony in the area. The complainant requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent.

Written Statement

In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 1.7.2008, the respondent, Editor “Dainik Chhatarpur Bhraman” in his written statement dated 22.7.2008 denied the allegation of the complainant and stated that they did not misquote evidence nor intend to mislead the readers. The respondent further submitted that they had committed no mistake in publication of the news item in question. The respondent submitted that had the complainant gone through the newsitems published in his newspaper issues dated August 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10, 2007 and September 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 2007 issues then they would have automatically understood that both the parties i.e. District Wakf Board and Anujman Islamia Committee were fighting each other, on failing the Wakf Board filed cases against the Anjuman Sadar. He further submitted that he has not received any version from the complainant and complainant prepared fictitious version and misguided the Council. He added that newspaper aimed at unity of

466 the community and published the news items for peaceful environment in the area.

Counter Comments of the Complainant

The complainant in his counter comments dated 30.5.2009 reiterated his complaint and submitted that the respondent in the impugned news item dated 31.8.2007 divided the Muslims. According to the complainant, the respondent had no authority to publish his view and use words like blood bath, which was objectionable. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent as per Press Council Act.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.3.2010 at Indore, when both the parties appeared. Shri Mahendra Sharma, Advocate for the complainant at the very outset objected to the use of the word ‘bloodshed’ by the respondent in its report. The counsel further submitted that the election was mandatory and the court had granted charge to the Anjuman. The counsel alleged that the impugned publication was caused at the instance of Wakf Board, which was bent upon agitating against the legal action of taking charge.

Shri Hari Prasad Aggarwal, Editor, Chattarpur Bhraman submitted before the Committee that the Wakf Committee and Anjuman Islamic Committee were fighting over elections and the newspaper only for the purpose of maintaining peace cautioned against any kind of bloodshed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records and heard the parties. It observed that the press was expected to use its power to promote and contribute in maintaining communal harmony. In the opinion of the Committee the impugned report truly narrated the conflict between two groups of a community over the matter. The editor however, did not exercise due caution and mixed up his comments with the impugned news report and particularly expected to avoid use of the words like “bloodshed”. The Inquiry Committee deprecated the editor for using inappropriate action and advised that the editor should avoid such errors in future. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly.

467 Held

The Press Council at its meeting held on 30.7.2010 concurred with the report of the Inquiry Committee. It upheld the complaint and cautioned the editor, Chhattarpur Bhraman against using language that could incite groups to combat and against mixing of own comments/views with news.

185) Md. Aadil Jhadodiya The Editor Vice President Nandgaon Times Masjid Committee Versus Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 3.7.2008 has been filed by Md. Aadil Jhadodiya, Vice President, Masjid Committee, Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh against ‘Nandgoan Times’, Rajnandgoan for publication an allegedly provocative editorial under the caption “If you want to live in India you have to say ‘Bharat Zindabad’ in its issue dated 16.3.2008. It was reported therein that till date the city was peaceful and all the communities lived together in harmony, but on 15.3.2008 some Muslim youth came riding on motorcycles shouting slogan “Pakistan Zindabad”. It was also stated that “had this happened in Mumbai, rivers of blood would have flown and the slogan raiser would have cut to pieces and thrown away… “We are against any communal riots through this article but if someone plays with our feelings then we will show that we are not cowards and drive such slogan raises not just from Rajanandgaon but even India.”

The complainant submitted that a delegation of religious people had came from Pakistan, who were scholars of the Muslim Community and of international fame. They mainly recited lyrics of famous and renowned Indian Scholar and religious head Hon’ble Janab Ahmed Raza Saheb Barelawi in praise and honour of the last Messenger of God of Islam- Huzzoor- Pak Sallalaho Wasalam (Peace be upon him). The visiting delegation’s performance on 15.3.1008 was widely attended and appreciated by people of all communities and the Government of Chhattisgarh also honoured them. However, the impugned editorial was provocative and sensational, created tension amongst the people of the society and was against the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant met the respondent editor personally and drew his attention by writing letters twice, but

468 no apology was published. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter and do justice to maintain peace in the society as well as in the nation. In his letter to the editor he objected to the impugned editorial as false and provocative contending that no such incident has taken place, that the Muslim community of Rajnandgaon had been hurt and insulted by the impugned material that tended to disturb the communal peace and harmony of the town. He called upon the editor to publish a denial/pubic apology to the people of Rajnanadgaon. No response was received by him.

No Written Statement

Show cause notice dated 14.10.2008 was issued to the respondent editor, but no written statement was filed.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 1.4.2010 at Indore when there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Shri Jaffery Syed Asifali, Advocate appeared for the complainant and submitted that the newspaper published hightly provocative editorial. He further submitted that no other newspapers had reported such incident. The event was organized on the Prophet Day and none of the assembled youths raised slogans as alleged in the editorial. The counsel for the complainant pointed out that the perusal of the editorial would show that the newspaper had even levelled allegations against the police of being silent spectator like impotents. The complainant also stated that it was a matter of pride to be Indian and prayed for drastic action against the respondent editor Nandgaon Times for publication of provocation editorial and subsequent silence.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee having considered oral and written submission before it noted the failure of the respondent to present any justification on defence of the impugned material. Therefore, any consideration of the complaint has to proceed on the basic premise that the complainant’s first contention that the reported incident did not take place at all was correct. It is an undisputed fact that an editor of a newspaper enjoys great deal of liberty in penning his opinion/analysis in an editorial. However, he has the simultaneous responsibility to ensure that in doing so he does not violate any laws of the land nor transgress the ethical bounds and obligations towards the society and the nation while writing against any institutionalized threat to the country’s integrity and

469 sovereignty. Indeed in larger interest, it is essential to ensure factual accuracy of the incidents being commented on and then comment in a way that would cause an awakening rather than provoke animosity. An editor has to bear in mind that the discretion he enjoys for effective discharge of his duties must be exercised in public interest and for promoting public good and must not under any circumstances encourage division along communal or casteist lines. In a country of persons professing different faiths and religions and castes and creeds, living together in same villages and towns, their susceptibility to religious provocation must not be fanned to crest an explosive situation that could affect adversely the relations between communities living peacefully for long. The Inquiry Committee finds that the respondent editor of Nandgaon Times failed badly in discharging this responsibility. It reports to the Council thus.

Held

The Press Council on perusal of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee adopted the report in toto and decided to censure the Nandgaon Times, Rajnandgaon Chattisgarh, for the above violation. It further decided that a copy of the adjudication be forwarded to the Government of Chhattisgarh, the Collector, Rajnandgaon, the Superintendent of Police, Rajnanadgoan, the DAVP and the RNI for action as they deem fit in the matter.

186) Shri S.C. Kapoor The Editor Wing Commander (Retd.) Versus The Times of India Noida, Uttar Pradesh New Delhi

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 26.3.2009 has been filed by Shri S.C. Kapoor, Wing Commander (Retd.), Noida regarding publication of a news item captioned: “Cong hopes TN allies mollified” and the accompanying cartoon ‘Like That only’ both of which were published as a composite items on February 3, 2009 in the Times of India, New Delhi. The complainant’s objection is to the statement “Another rescue mission in Lanka? No way? The last time I did that I got my tail burnt” attributed to the Hindu god Hanuman standing on the bank of a sea which had Rama pointing out – word. This, according to the complainant, inter-alia referred to the deployment of the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka with the vile insinuation that they had to suffer humiliation in that

470 country. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication was flagrantly irresponsible, malicious and insulting to the gallant military personnel—many of whom had laid down their lives in the operation in Sri Lanka – and the veterans who have since retired and also to the Hindus. The cartoon portrayed the bravest of the brave Hanuman Ji (One of the most revered gods of Hindus pantheon and the most loyal and dedicated follower of Lord Ram) as disobedient weakling afraid and unwilling to undertake the job assigned to him by his master. The complainant has submitted that the cartoonist and the script writer have exceeded the limits of journalistic propriety and ethics in this case. The complainant submitted that he had taken up matter with the editor, but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to direct the respondent ‘Times of India’ to tender an apology on the front page of the newspaper.

Written Statement

In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 5.6.2009, the respondent editor, The Times of India in his written statement dated 25.6.2009 denied and refuted the charges in toto. The respondent further submitted that the highest standards of journalistic ethics, norms and conduct are known to them and they give correct and reliable news to its readers as a secular organization and respects all religions. The respondent further submitted that he has respect for all the forces for the country and always highlighted the gallantry work of soldiers with pride. The respondent further submitted that the said news item was not insulting to the military personnel and Hindus, as alleged by the complainant. It was purely a work of art. The artist inspired by Hinduism made an allegorical use of a mythological story with the article. The impugned picture is just an artist’s expression and was not meant to harm or hurt the religious feelings of anyone or to insult the personnel of armed forces. According to the respondent, it was never their intention nor had they portrayed brave Hanuman ji as disobedient, afraid and unwilling to undertake the job assigned by his master, and/or cast any adversary remarks on the armed forces.

Counter Comments

In response to written statement of the respondent, the complainant in his counter comments dated 30.7.2009 challenged the plea taken by the respondent organization of being secular having respect towards all religions on that the cartoon picture was published “purely as a work of art” besides great deal of respect for the armed forces etc. The complainant submitted that cartoon was an open, mischievous and unabashed ignominy, heaped on a

471 Hindu god that is most objectionable and unacceptable. The complainant submitted that it is proof, to be tangible or credible, has to based on the situation as it obtains on the ground on the hard rock of incontrovertible established facts and certainly cannot be supported by rambling opinion, conjectures or wishful thinking. The complainant requested the Council to direct the respondent to publish apology, and advise it to observe norms of journalistic ethics and propriety in future.

Arguments

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance on behalf of The Times of India. Shri S.C. Kapoor, complainant appeared in person and submitted that he has all regards for the Press. However, in this particular matter, there was lapse on the part of The Times of India and its publication was not fair to the armed forces. The Times of India in 3.2.2009 issue while covering a write up on sending troops to Sri Lanka published the offending cartoon that not only offended the sentiments of Hindus but also hurt the armed forces and its personnel, with reference to the issue whether armed forces should be sent to Sri Lanka.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the submissions made by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the respondent in defending the case at oral hearing. It, however, took note of the written submissions of the Times of India that the newspaper had no intention in portraying the Hindu Gods in adverse manner or insulting the Indian armed forces, thus, denying the charges of hurting the sentiments of Hindus or armed forces. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the impugned publication in the light of its guidelines that places cartoon and caricatures in a category enjoying greater leeway in depicting humour. Further in addition to the guidelines regarding cartoons, it noted the guidelines drawn up based on previous adjudication. Norm No. 22 (iv) —”Newspaper should not publish any fictional literature distorting and portraying the religious characters in an adverse light and offending the religious susceptibilities of large sections of society who hold those characters in high esteem, invested with attributes of the virtuous and lofty.” Thus juxtaposed, the Inquiry Committee shared the concern of the complaint and felt that The Times of India should have exercised greater sensitivity. It reported to the Council thus.

472 Held

The Press Council perused the report of the Inquiry Committee and agreed that despite the liberal attitude enjoyed by cartoons and caricature for artistic depiction of the assessment of the cartoonist, it was essential to simultaneously keep sight of the sensibilities of the readers. Even while it did find it necessary to direct publication of apology, it upheld the complaint with this advise to The Times of India.

187) Shri Farid-Ul-Hasan The Editor Managing Trustee Versus The Hindustan Times Active Intelligent Movement Mumbai Mumbai

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 7.11.2008 has been filed by Shri Farid-Ul-Hasan, Managing Trustee, Active Intelligent Movement, Mumbai against The Hindustan Times, Mumbai for publication of allegedly baseless, objectionable news item captioned “A Haven for Criminals” in its issue dated 25.9.2008. The complainant objected to the statement in the first paragraph describing the Cheeta Camp in Trombay as one of the poorest district which came into limelight after the arrest of Mohammed Afroz, the alleged Al-Quida operative. He also objected to the contents of the article, for the tendency to divide the residents of the area into South Indian Muslim and Hindu Tamil and the communal clashes between them. The complainant also objected to the allegation that the area is known for harbouring criminals, anti-national elements and that in 1996 a group of alleged terrorist were arrested from this area, and this area was raided several times. The newspaper has written that the area was surrounded by hills on three sides and one side facing the Arabian Sea.

While denying all the allegations the complainant submitted that the newspaper has devised a new formula of rating slums. Arrest of Mohammed Afroz, the alleged Al-Quida operative was an individual and the matter was in court. The complainant further submitted that there was no communal clash between South Indian Muslim and Hindu Tamils in the area and asked as to what are the authentic official sources, that described the area as “harbouring criminals”, as alleged in the article. The complainant further submitted that the residents of the area are not aware of the arrest of the

473 terrorists from the Cheeta Camp and also denied that the area has been raided frequently. The complainant added that in a span of ten years the area was checked by the local police just thrice for the safety and security of the people and the claim that the area comprises of three sides hill and one side Arabian Sea is totally incorrect as it is located between a hill and a creek, added the complainant.

According to the complainant, the story was based on little truth and more on baseless imagination. The image of Cheeta Camp and its resident have been ill-represented and maligned before the nation. Being resident of the Cheeta Camp, the complainant had written a letter dated 13.10.2008 to the respondent newspaper objecting to the story but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the scribe for defaming the area.

Written Statement

In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 9.1.2009 the respondent Resident Editor, The Hindustan Times, Mumbai in his written statement stated that the report was a part of a special full page write up on “Indian Mujahideen Men” suspected to have bombed several places across the country. The respondent submitted that in the story, they also mentioned about Azamgarh in U.P. from where the suspected masterminds behind the blasts hailed. The page was focused on the suspect and the place from where they hailed. The report was based on the information provided by the official authorities and they had no intention to malign the Cheeta Camp and their residents. The respondent also stated that the contents of the report are subject matter of police records. The respondent further stated that they had published the viewpoint of the complainant, along with their reply in the reader’s column under the heading “Your Space” on January 22, 2009 and requested the Council to close the case.

Counter Comments

In response to the written statement, the complainant in his counter comments dated 7.3.2009 has submitted that the written statement was not satisfactory. The complainant requested to provide the information on which the news item was based.

The complainant in a further letter dated 12.6.2009 submitted that they sought information under the RTI Act in connection with the article “A Haven

474 for Criminals” from the concerned authorities. These were contradictory to the statements given by the respondents. Therefore, the respondent had published the news with malafide intention. The complainant requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent for violating the standards of journalistic ethics and committing professional misconduct.

Arguments

The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 31.5.2010. The complainant, Shri Farid-Ul-Hasan appeared in person while the respondent newspaper, The Hindustan Times remained unrepresented.

In his oral arguments the complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. He added that there was no animosity between Hindus and Muslims and if a person is arrested, the area could not be accused of harbouring criminals or being a haven for criminals. Their rejoinder had also been cut down by editing some portions.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments of the complainant. It noted that the impugned report was reported to have been based on official sources. But it was not correct to draw the conclusion of the locality harbouring criminals and anti-national elements. The factual inaccuracy about its sorroundings indicated lack of sufficient care on preparing report on such sensitive issue. Though to an extant this had been mitigated when the view point of the complainant was carried by the respondent in its issue dated 22.1.2009, the Inquiry Committee in its report to the Council recommended to reprimand the respondent editor for not taking necessary care in correctly drawing upon the information it had gathered.

Held

The Council on perusal of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accpeted the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee and decided to reprimand the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times, Mumbai.

475 188) Shri Iswar Tudu The Editor Secretary Versus Bartaman All India Scheduled Castes/Tribes Council Kolkata Kolkata

ADJUDICATION

Facts

This complaint dated 4.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Iswar Tudu, Secretary, All India Scheduled Castes/Tribes Council, Kolkata against Bartman for using allegedly abusive words “Churi-Chamari” in the news item captioned “Congress Trinamul Niye CPM Darun Chintay” published in the issue dated 3.3.2009 English translation of the impugned publication provided by the complainant reads as follows:

“CPIM is in anxieties over TMC-Congress Alliance …………..the common people do not like the sudden capture of huge wealth by a section of CPIM Party Comrades. Corruption, Churi-Chamari and delink with the common people have put the party in serious trouble……………………”

The complainant vide his letter dated 1.9.2009 submitted that the impugned news item is objectionable as abusive language has been used against scheduled caste community by stating “Churi-Chamari”. According to the complainant, the Chamar was made equivalent to thief (Churi) and as such it came under the Prevention of Untouchability Act, 1959. The complainant issued a letter dated 6.3.2009 asking the respondent editor to tender apology but no response. The complainant further submitted that the respondent newspaper previously also published objectionable news on Dalits-Hindus-Sangharsh as if Dalits are not Hindus.

Written Statement

In response to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2009, the respondent Coordinator, Reporting Department & Printer and Publisher, Bartaman in his written statement dated 26.10.2009 submitted that the words Churi Chamari is an alliteration that was very frequently used in to indicate stealing or other similar misdeed. Chamari is symphonic and also an alliteration to the word Churi. This group of words can even be found in Bengali dictionary. The article that was published on 3.3.2009 had used that group of words to indicate misdeed of certain political group. Nowhere in the whole article were

476 remotely undermined or even intended to undermine any community. However if the association or the community feels humiliated then they express sincere regret.

Report

The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on 27.9.2010 at Kolkata. The complainant was not present. Shri Ajoy Sankar Sanya, Advocate, High Court, Kolkata appearing for Bartaman submitted that as per Bangla dictionary, the meaning of “Churi -Chamari” was misdeeds of persons (the Hindi language equivalent being ‘Chori-Chakari’) and it was not intended to hurt any caste or community.

The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted the submissions of the respondent that the newspaper had used colloquial Bangla language for politicians amassing huge wealth by corrupt means and it was not intended to undermine or hurt the susceptibility of any community. The Inquiry Committee took on record the sincere regret tendered by the respondent. However, before parting with the complaint, the Inquiry Committee reminds the press in general that the fabric of the community is very delicate. The newspaper and periodicals should be sensitive in use of words with different connotation at different place and in different languages. It decided with this to recommend to the Council to dispose off the complaint.

Held

The Press Council while accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee desired that the press be sensitized that words which have connotation of reference to any particular caste or community should be avoided. The Council decided to dispose off the complaint expecting that the newspapers and periodicals shall adhere to their responsibility of promoting the strength of the social unity and equality.



477