PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
Compendium of Adjudications (April 1, 2008-March 31, 2009)
New Delhi
Compendium of Adjudications
Contents
Preface Index of Adjudications of the Council for -- 1 the Period April 1, 2008- March 31, 2009 Adjudications of the Council -- 12
PREFACE
The Press Council of India over the last three years has been preparing and publishing its Compendium of Adjudications giving an account of the complaints received from and against the press and the number of complaints adjudicated during the year. These adjudications include matters in which principles of far reaching importance to guide the conduct of the press and the authorities have been laid down. I am confident that all concerned will give the observations of the Council the serious consideration they merit and try to follow the code that develops from these adjudications.
G.N. Ray Chairman Press Council of India
Index of Adjudications of the Council for the Period April 1, 2008 - March 31, 2009
S.No. Parties Date of Decision
Harassment of Newsmen 1. Complaint of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Editor, Reporter’s June 12, Eyes and Shri Sardar Bhupinder Singh, Editor, India 2008 One Day, New Delhi against the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad and the S.D.M. Ballabhgarh, Haryana 2. Complaint of Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Publisher/ ’’ Editor, Bagpat News, New Delhi against Shri O.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector, Pakwara, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh 3. Complaint of Smt. Krishna Shukla, Chief Editor, ’’ Taphtish, Hindi weekly, Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh against local police authorities, Sultanpur 4. Complaint of Shri Rajkishore Gupta, Journalist, Dainik ’’ Navkaramyug, Gandhi Nagar, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh against local police authorities and Railway Police Force, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh 5. Complaint of Shri Gurinder Singh Mehandiratta, Press ’’ Correspondent, Daily Spokesman, Faridkot, Punjab against local police authorities 6. Complaint of the President and other members of October 14, Press Club of Mengalganj, Lakhimpur, Khiri, U.P. 2008 against local police authorities 7. Complaint of Shri H.R. Khan, Editor, Operation, Hindi ’’ weekly, Uttar Pradesh against the District Magistrate, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 8. Complaint of Shri Salman Rizvi, Journalist, Dainik Jagran, ’’ Khiri, Uttar Pradesh against local police authorities, Khiri, Uttar Pradesh
1 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
9. Complaint of Shri Prashant Gaur, District Bureau Chief, October 14, Dainik CNN, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh against local 2008 police authorities 10. Complaint of Shri Pramendra Sirohi, Sub-Editor, ’’ Khuli Kahaniya, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the local police authorities, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 11. Complaint of Shri Imamuddin Khan, Correspondent, ’’ Dainik Jagran, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, against local police authorities 12. Complaint of Shri Ved Gupta, Editor, Doon Ujala, ’’ Dehradun, Uttarakhand against local police authorities 13. Complaint of Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, Freelancer, ’’ Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh against local police authorities 14. Complaint of Shri M.M. Khan, Editor, Indica Times, ’’ Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against local police authorities 15. Complaint of Pt. Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Journalist, March 2, Satyamail, Jhansi, U.P. against Shri Dilip Sarawagi and 2009 local police authorities, U.P. 16. Complaint of Shri Shivakant Pathak, Correspondent, ’’ Dainik Dewan and Dainik Karamyug Prakash, Jalaun, U.P. against police authorities of Jalaun, U.P. 17. Complaint of Shri Jitender Mohan Saxena, Editor, Kalyug ’’ Ki Duniya, Pilibhit, U.P. against the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit, U.P. 18. Complaint of Shri Iliyaskhan, Editor/Publisher, weekly ’’ Barasta Toofan, Badanpur, Maharashtra against local police authorities
Facilities to the Press 19. Complaint of the Editor, Apradh Bodh, Hathras, Uttar June 12, Pradesh against the Additional District Information 2008 Officer, Hathras, Uttar Pradesh
2 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
20. Complaint of the Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler June 12, Khabar, Burdwan, West Bengal against the DAVP, 2008 New Delhi 21. Complaint of Pandit Sanjib Narayan Dass, Chief October 14, Editor, Jugar Sadhan and Jyotishphalak against the 2008 I&PRD, Government of Assam, Guwahati 22. Complaint of Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor-in- ’’ Chief, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Uttar Pradesh against U.P. Power Corporation 23. Complaint of Shri Umashankar Mishra, the Editor, USM ’’ Patrika, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh against the DAVP, New Delhi 24. Complaint of Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, Publisher/ ’’ Owner, Farmer Sandesh, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the DAVP, New Delhi 25. Complaint of Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, March 2, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar against postal 2009 authorities, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. 26. Complaint of Shri Sarvesh Kumar ‘Suyash’, Research ’’ Journalist, Kanpur against the Director, I&PRD, Lucknow 27. Complaint of Shri L.C. Gupt, Editor, Pilibhit Times, ’’ Pilibhit, U.P. against the District Magistrate, Pilibhit and the DIO, Pilibhit, U.P. 28. Complaint of Shri Satish Sharma, Managing Editor, Savera ’’ India Times, Nani-Daman against the Information and Publicity Department, Government of Daman and Diu 29. Complaint of Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain, Chief Editor, ’’ Daily Urdu Action, Bhopal, M.P. against the Commissioner, Public Relations Department, Bhopal, M.P.
Curtailment of Press Freedom 30. Complaint of Shri Sharad Audhichya, Editor, Semaria March 2, Express, Satna, M.P. against anti social elements, Satna, 2009 M.P.
3 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
Principles and Publication 31. Complaint of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, June 12, CBI, New Delhi against Media Force, New Delhi 2008 32. Complaint of Shri Jayanta Deka, Advocate and others, ’’ Mangaldai, Assam against Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati, Assam, October 14, 2008 33. Complaints of Smt. Karabi Dutta, Guwahati against ’’ (i) Dainik Janasadharan, (ii) Asomiya Khabar, (iii) Amar Asom, (iv) Dainik Janambhoomi, (v) Dainik Agradoot, (vi) Aji and (vii) Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati 34. Complaint of Shri Kailash Chand Jain, Nagaland against ’’ the Editor, Jain Gazette, Guwahati 35. Complaint of Shri Alok Kumar Dutta, Advocate, Howrah, ’’ West Bengal against Anand Bazar Patrika, Kolkata 36. Complaint of Shri Konsam Lanngamba, Advocate/Hon. ’’ President, United Committee Manipur (UCM) against The Telegraph, Guwahati 37. Complaint of Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate, New Delhi ’’ against Dalal Street Journal, Mumbai 38. Complaint of Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Ramgarh Cantt., ’’ Jharkhand against Saras Salil, New Delhi 39. Complaint of Smt. Rachana Viswanathan, New Delhi ’’ against The Hindustan Times, New Delhi 40. Complaint of Shri Nadir Khan, Meerut Cantt, Uttar ’’ Pradesh against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 41. Complaint of Ms. Anjali Gopalan, Executive Director, March 2, NAZ Foundation (India) Trust, New Delhi against the 2009 Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi 42. Complaint of Dr. D. Chinniah, Bangaluru against the ’’ Editor, Lankesh Patrike, Bangaluru 43. Complaint of Shri Shivalingaiah, Bangaluru against the ’’ Editor, Lankesh Patrike, Bangaluru
4 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
44. Complaint of Shri M. Prabhakara, Director of Treasuries March 2, and others, Bangaluru, Karnataka against the Editor, 2009 Gauri Lankesh, Bangaluru 45. Complaint of the Director, Programmes Committee, ’’ Catholic Sabha Mangalore Pradesh ® Kandapura, Karnataka against the Editor Udayavani, Manipal, Karnataka
Press and Defamation 46. Complaint of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, June 12, Government of India, New Delhi against the Editor, 2008 Punjab Kesari, New Delhi 47. Complaint of Shri Virender Singh Sachan, Kanpur Dehat, ’’ Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, The Aj, Kanpur 48. Complaint of the Chairman, Geetanjali Public School, ’’ Delhi against the Editor, Nazar-ki-Nazar 49. Complaint of Shri Ashutosh Varshney, Aligarh against the ’’ Editor, Shikhar Ki Gunj, Aligarh 50. Complaint of Shri S.K. Shukla, Lecturer, Vivekanand ’’ National Inter College, Pukhrayan, Kanpur against the Editor, Aj, Kanpur 51. Complaint of Shri Manoj Kumar Trivedi, Assistant Regional ’’ Manager, Uttar Pradesh Transport Corporation, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut, U.P 52. Complaint of Mohd. Fasih Uddin, Advocate, Moradabad, ’’ Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh 53. Complaint of Shri Ved Prakash Saini, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Pradesh Ke Apradh, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh 54. Complaint of Smt. Usha Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh ’’ against the Editor, Dainik Prayan, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
5 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
55. Complaint of Mahatma Jagdishwaranandji, Barabanki, June 12, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Sarita, New Delhi 2008 56. Complaint of Shri Bhagwati Prasad, Chief Executive, ’’ National Cooperative Union of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Mission India 57. Complaint of Shri Dependra Pathak, IPS, A.C.P., Delhi ’’ against the Editor, Metro Now, New Delhi 58. Complaint of Dr. Mangal Das, Senior Medical Officer, ’’ Fatehpur, Himanchal Pradesh against the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar 59. Complaints of Shri M.L. Syal, President, Haryana Civil ’’ Pensioners Welfare Association, Sirsa against Editors, (i) Punjab Kesari; and (ii) Haryana Deep, Haryana 60. Complaint of Shri S.L. Koli, General Secretary, Christian ’’ Solidarity Society, Dehradun against the Editor, Parwat Jan, Dehradun 61. Complaint of Shri Chandrabhan Garg, Chairman, Municipal ’’ Corporation Council, Udhamsingh Nagar against the Editor, Satya Ka Pujari, Udhamsingh Nagar Uttrakhand 62. Complaint of Shri Satish Kumar Jain, HCS, Panchkula, ’’ Haryana against the Editor, Nabh-Chhor, Hissar, Haryana 63. Complaints of Shri Tejinder Singh, Editor, India’s Justice, ’’ Ludhiana, Punjab against Editors, (i) Daily Punjab Kesari and (ii) Daily Jag Bani, Jalandhar, Punjab 64. Complaint of Shri Khyali Ram Morya, President, Municipal ’’ Committee, Haryana against the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Punjab 65. Complaint of Shri Mehar Prasad Yadav, Co-Editor, Dainik ’’ Bhaskar and Editor, Janhit Darshan, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi, U.P. 66. Complaint of Ms. Anita Rahman, M/s Anita Rahman October 14, S.K. Oil, Barpeta, Assam against Aji, Assamese daily, 2008 Guwahati
6 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
67. Complaint of Shri Ranjit Gogoi, Liaison Officer, Chief October 14, Minister’s Public Relations Cell, Government of Assam, 2008 Dispur against Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati, Assam 68. Complaint of Shri Amanullah, Sales Tax Officer, Kolkata ’’ against the Editor, Hamara Kaam, Kolkata 69. Complaints of Dr. Hemendra Kumar Borah, Hony. ’’ Secretary, Indian Medical Association, Tezpur against Dainik Agradoot, Asomiya Pratidin and Asomiya Khabar, Guwahati 70. Complaint of Ms. Nivedita Menon and other members, ’’ Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Delhi against the Editor, The Pioneer, New Delhi 71. Complaint of Shri Shyam Kumar Mandal, Ward ’’ Commissioner, Kahalgaon Nagar Panchayat, Bhagalpur, Bihar against Dainik Jagran, Bhagalpur, Bihar 72. Complaint of Shri Pateshweri Singh, Lecturer, Maharana ’’ Pratap Polytechnic, Gorakhpur against Chetna Vichardhara, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 73. Complaint of Shri D.K. Mittal, IAS, Managing Director, ’’ IL&FS Ltd, New Delhi against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi 74. Complaint of Mrs. Kuldevi Yadav, Principal, Government ’’ Model Sr. Sec. School, Chandigarh against the Editor, The Indian Express Supplement, Chandigarh Newsline, Chandigarh 75. Complaint of Sufi Miyan ji, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh ’’ against the Editor, Shah Times, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 76. Complaint of Shri G.P. Aahirwar, Assistant Commissioner ’’ of Entertainment Tax, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh against Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh 77. Complaint of Prof. Himadri Datta, Regional Institute of ’’ Ophthamology Medical College, Kolkata against Sangbad Pratidin, Kolkata 7 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
78. Complaint of Dr. B.K. Prasad, Nepal against October 14, Dainik Jagran, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 2008 79. Complaint of Father Thomas, Principal, St. Mary’s ’’ School, Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Jan Aukat, Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh 80. Complaint of Mohd. Razi Ahmed Rizvi, Steno, District ’’ Development Office, Badayun, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh 81. Complaint of Shri Dilip Kumar Sarawagi, Secretary, March 2, Society for Human Rights and Justice, Jhansi, U.P. 2009 against the Editor, Saptahik Jhansi Parakh, Jhansi, U.P. 82. Complaint of Shri Babu Lal, Lucknow against the Editor, ’’ Aj, Lucknow 83. Complaint of Ms. Madhurima Barua, Guwahati against ’’ Ajir Asom, Guwahati 84. Complaint of Shri Shah Mahmood, Behat, Saharanpur, ’’ U.P. against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut, U.P. 85. Complaint of Shri Shyam Sunder Gautam, Manager, ’’ Shri Sarveshwar Shiksha Deep Vidyalaya, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Agra, U.P. 86. Complaint of The Secretary, Bhartiya Red Cross Society, ’’ Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Neemuch Prahari, Neemuch, M.P. 87. Complaint of Shri P. S. Pahilwan, Principal, Swamy ’’ Muktanand Vidyalaya, Yeola and the Chief Executive Officer, Shri Gurudev Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yeola, Maharashtra, against the Editor, Dainik Samrat, Maharashtra 88. Complaint of Shri G.C. Rout, Joint General Manager/ ’’ Admn. Ordanance Factory, Nagpur, against the Editor, Deshonnati, Nagpur
8 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
89. Complaint of Shri P. Satyanarayana Raju, Executive March 2, Director, District Backward Classes Service, Hyderabad, 2009 A.P. against the Editor Vaartha daily, Edulapuram, A.P. 90. Complaint of Shri V. Mohan Babu, Lab Technician ’’ Gr.II, Kurnool, A.P. against the Editor, Vaartha, Hyderabad, A.P. 91. Complaint of Ch. Dhananjaya Naidu, Sub-Inspector of ’’ Police, Visakhapatnam, A.P. against the Editor, Vaartha, Hyderabad, A.P. 92. Complaint of the Public Relations Officer, Traffic ’’ Department, Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin against the Editor, The Hindu, Anna Salai, Chennai 93. Complaint of Shri V. Chandrashekhar, Bangaluru against ’’ the Editor, Ahinda Vani, Bangaluru 94. Complaint of Shri V. Chandrashekhar, Bangaluru against ’’ the Editor, Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike, Bangaluru 95. Complaint of Shri Siddu Savadi, MLA, Bangaluru against ’’ the Editor, Gauri Lankesh, Bangaluru 96. Complaint of Kumari Shobha Kerandlaje, Bangaluru ’’ against the Editor, Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike, Bangaluru 97. Complaint of Kumari Shobha Kerandlaje, Bangaluru ’’ against the Editor, Hai Bangalore, Bangaluru 98. Complaint of Kumari Shobha Kerandlaje, Bangaluru ’’ against the Editor, Jaya Kirana, Mangalore 99. Complaint of Kumari Shobha Kerandlaje, Bangaluru ’’ against the Editor, Karavali Ale, Mangalore 100. Complaint of Shri T.V. Shivananda, Koppa, Karnataka ’’ against the Editor, Varada Malnad, Koppa, Karnataka 101. Complaint of Shri K.B. Lokeshappa, Vice-Principal, ’’ Government P.U. College, Chickmanglore, Karnataka against the Editor, Vidhatha weekly, Shimoga, Karnataka
9 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
102 Complaint of Smt. Lakshmi Krishnamurti, Chennai against March 2, the Editor, Tamil Murasu, Chennai 2008 103. Complaint of Shri Bhagwandas Dahyabhai Surti, Surat, ’’ Gujarat against the Editor Gujaratmitra, Surat, Gujarat 104. Complaint of Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, Thane, Maharashtra ’’ against the Editor, Hamara Thane Samachar, Thane, Maharashtra 105. Complaint of Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, Thane, Maharashtra ’’ against the Editor, National Reporter, Thane, Maharashtra 106. Complaint of Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, Thane, Maharashtra ’’ against the Editor, Aj Kal Ka Tahalka, Mumbai 107. Complaint of Shri Permanand T. Gedam, Controller, ’’ Unauthorized Constructions, Thane, Maharashtra against the Editor, Maharashtra Buland Times, Thane, Maharashtra 108. Complaint of Shri Ashok Basappa Udyavar, Vice President, ’’ Nationalist Congress Party against the Editor, Maharashtra Buland Times, Thane, Maharshtra 109. Complaint of Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, ’’ Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane, Maharashtra against the Editor, Mumbai Mitra, Goregaon, Mumbai 110. Complaint of Shri Brajesh Kumar Sharma, Employee, ’’ State Bank of Indore, Mandsaur, M.P. against the Chief Editor, Saptahik Mandsaur Parikarma, Mandsaur, M.P. 111. Complaint of Shri Anand Mendhekar, Chartered Engineer, ’’ Bilaspur against Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, Correspondent, Jansatta, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 112. Complaint of Shri Khilawan Chandrakar, Bureau Chief, ’’ Deshbandhu, Itarasi, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Samaygati, Indore, M.P. 113. Complaint of Smt. Seema Mishra, Lecturer, Government ’’ Boys Senior Secondary School, Dhar, M.P. against the Editor, Samaygati, Dhar, M.P.
10 S.No. Parties Date of Decision
114. Complaint of Shri Rajender Kumar Bariya, Assistant, March 2, Grade II, District Trade and Industry Centre, Gwalior, 2008 M.P. against the Editor, Saptahik Chambal Chetna, Gwalior, M.P.
Press and Morality 115. Complaint of Shri Chandrahas Shukla, Leader, Shiv Sena, June 12, Delhi against the Editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi 2008 116. Complaints of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate, ’’ Moradabad against Editors, (i) Amar Ujala, Meerut and (ii) Punjab Kesari, New Delhi 117. Complaint of Shri V.P. Goel, Lucknow against October 14, The Times of India 2008 118. Complaint of Shri Mayurkumar Shah, Ex-Chief of Shiv March 2, Sena, Bhavnagar, Gujarat against the Editor, Sanjh 2009 Samachar, Rajkot, Gujarat 119. Complaint of Shri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, Advocate, ’’ Hyderabad, A.P. against the Editor, Deccan Chronicle, Vijayawada, A.P. 120. Complaint of Shri N. Raveendran, Chennai against the ’’ Editor, Deccan Chronicle, Chennai edition
Communal, Casteist and Anti-Religious Writings 121. Complaints of Shri Shree Gopal Pandit, Noida, Uttar June 12, Pradesh against the Editor, Nav Bharat Times, 2008 New Delhi 122. Complaint of Shri Bal Patil, General Secretary, All India October 14, Jain Minority Forum (New Delhi), Mumbai against The 2008 Hindu, Chennai 123. Complaint of Shri Vijay Veerla, Nottingham, United March 2, Kingdom against the Editor, Deccan Chronicle, 2009 Hyderabad, A.P.
11 Adjudications of the Council
Harassment of Newsmen
1) S/Shri Rajesh Kumar Versus The Additional Deputy Editor, Reporter Eyes & Commissioner Sardar Bhupinder Singh Faridabad & Editor, India One Day SDM, Ballabgarh Vikaspuri, New Delhi Haryana Complaint This joint complaint dated 22.11.2006 has been filed by S/Shri Rajesh Kumar, Editor, Reporter Eyes and Sardar Bhupinder Singh, Editor, India One Day, New Delhi against the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad and SDM, Ballabgarh (Haryana) alleging threats issued to them. The complainants stated that they had highlighted the all-prevailing corruption in the SDM Office. According the complainants, on receipt of information of getting bribe for making the driving licence and property papers found correct after investigations by their correspondent, Shri Rajkumar in January 2006, they wanted to meet the SDM and the Tehsildar, Ballabgarh to take their view on charges before publishing the news item, but the SDM threatened them with dire consequences, which was an attack on freedom of the press. The complainants have further submitted that they published a news in “Reporter Eyes” in its issue dated January 19-25, 2006 under the caption “Ballabgarh SDM Karyalaya Bana Bhrastachar Ka Adda” (Ballabhgarh SDM Office, a den of corruption) disclosing the misdeeds of office of SDM, Hon’ble Governor, Chief Minister and Commissioner of Haryana Police were also apprised about the corrupt activities of the office of SDM. On 30.9.2006 a letter was received from Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad asking them to appear before him on 6.10.2006 at 11.30 a.m. in his office to confirm the letter No.21 RC dated 23.1.2006 of Tehsildar of Ballabhagarh. The complainants sent their reporter Shri Rajkumar to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Shri Sanjay Joon but his presence was refused by the Additional Commissioner, Faridabad. The Additional Deputy Commissioner issued another letter dated 15.11.2006 asking the complainants to appear on 20.11.2006. The complainants with some other journalists appeared before the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 20.11.2006. The respondent Additional Deputy Commissioner threatened to implicate them in false cases and snatched the original documents substantiating their complaint against the Tehsildar, Ballabhgarh. The complainants alleged that due to the atrocities of the respondent, they could not perform their duty efficiently. The complainant alleged that the action of the respondent tantamounts to curtailment of freedom of press.
12 The comments of the State Government of Haryana through Chief Secretary, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, S.D.M., Ballabhgarh and Tehsildar, Ballabhgarh, Haryana were invited on 18.12.2006. Statement in Reply Shri Sanjay Joon, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad vide his comments dated 29.12.2006 submitted that the allegation levelled by the complainants were not only false and baseless but both the complainants were misusing the freedom enjoyed by the press. Shri Harish Chander Jain, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballabhgarh in his comments dated 3.1.2007, while denying all the statements made in the complaint, submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainants were false, fabricated, baseless and far from truth. The respondent submitted that both the complainants came to the office of Tehsildar and requested time for 15-20 minutes but due to pre-schedule of his field duty, the Tehsildar requested them to come some other day. When Tehsildar came back after his field duty, the Patwari told that the complainants asked to deposit some money in their patrakarita fund and when he refused to give money, the complainants threatened him that they would publish news in their newspaper against Patwari and his other Revenue Officers. The Patwari under coercion and threat had given Rs.500/- each to the complainants. Thereafter these complainants went to the Registration Clerk and asked him that how he was working without the presence of Sub Registrar and threatened him to deposit Rs.10,000/- per month in their alleged newspaper funds otherwise they would publish the news against their working. The respondent further submitted that allegations of alleged corruption have been made with an intention to blackmail and defame him in the estimation of his higher Officers, public-at-large and society. He stated that no other national and local newspaper have published such news of alleged corruption against the office of SDM, Ballabgarh and its officials. He further informed that when the complainants were called by the ADC, Faridabad for inquiry in the matter and asked to produce the proof about the news published by them against Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Ballabgarh, they did not produce any proof. This shows that the complainants came to Tehsildar’s Office, Ballabgarh only with the intention to blackmail the Tehsildar, Ballabgarh, and its Officials. He requested the Council to take necessary legal action against the complainants so that in future they may not dare to blackmail any other government servant to extort money. A copy each of the comments dated 29.12.2006 and 3.1.2007 was forwarded to the complainants on 10.1.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New
13 Delhi on 11.03.2008. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side. S/Shri Harish C. Jain, SDM, Ballabgarh, Narender Singh, Nayab Tehsildar, Faridabad and Kumar Virender Singh Bhatia, Advocate, appeared for the respondent.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
Shri Harish C. Jain, submitted that he came to know from Tehsildar that the complainants had demanded Rs. 10, 000/- on regular basis for their Patrakar Fund. The said Tehsildar also told that on the last visit of the complainants, the Patwari had given Rs. 500/- to them. The respondent further submitted that as soon as he came to know that the complainants were demanding money for their Patrakar Fund, the respondent called both of them and verified their credentials from the other journalists of the Ballabhgarh who denied that the complainants had any stake in their Patrakar Sangh. At that juncture, the complainants tendered apology and therefore they were allowed to let off. The respondent submitted that the complainant, to their surprise published false news item under the caption “Ballabhgarh SDM Karyalaya Bana, Bhrastachar Ka Adda” making allegations of corruption and bribery in the office of the SDM, Ballabhgarh. The respondent stated that the working of his department was transparent and there was no iota of truth in the allegations made in the news item published by the complainants. The respondent further submitted that the District Magistrate had been appointed by the Government of Haryana to inquire into the allegations made in the news item but the complainants never cooperated or entered appearance in that inquiry. On the contrary the complainants came out with fresh allegations of snatching away of the proof of their reports by the District Magistrate. The respondent submitted that due to blackmailing tactics, filing frivolous complaints with the Haryana Government, publishing baseless news items, the career of the respondent (SDM) had been ruined and non appearance of the complainant either before District Magistrate in respect of inquiry into the allegations made in the news item or non appearance before the Hon’ble Council was nothing but a delaying tactics to harass the respondent. It was infact other way round that the respondents were the aggrieved party and having grievance against the complainants. The respondents requested that the Council may grant justice to the respondents.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the submissions made by the respondents. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainants, despite service of Notices for Hearing, did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee felt that in the absence of any evidence it was a matter of allegations and counter allegations between the parties. The complainants as per the respondent were also not cooperating in the inquiry before the District Magistrate, Faridabad. It appeared to the Inquiry Committee that the complaint
14 had been filed with not very clear hands. The Inquiry Committee therefore did not find force in the statement of the complainants that the Additional Deputy Commissioner threatened them to implicate them in false cases or snatched original documents in support of their allegations against the Tehsildar, Ballabhgarh. The Inquiry Committee opined that no action was warranted in the complaint as no case of harassment had been established by the complainants. At the same time the Inquiry committee has a word of caution for the authorities to desist from any payment to journalists for their so-called funds. It only encourages misuse of the position and responsibility attached with the discharge of the journalistic functions and brings discredit to the whole profession. With this advise, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merit. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
2) Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava Versus Shri Om Prakash Singh Publisher/Editor Sub-Inspector Bagpat News Police Station Pakwara New Delhi Moradabad, (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 3.10.2006 has been filed by Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Publisher/Editor, Bagpat News, New Delhi against Shri Om Prakash Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Pakwara, Moradabad for harassing and threatening him and implicating him in false cases due to coverage of the story of a stolen car. According to the complainant, when he went to his home town Dadiyal, district Rampur on 18.4.2006, he came to know that the SHO, Dadiyal Police Station had been using a car stolen from Delhi. He went to the police station and found the car with blank number plate. He found Registration No. DL 2C AF- 4931 engraved on the windowpane/glass of the car. On enquiring, he came to know that the car belonged to one Puja Sharma of Delhi, which was reportedly missing from 14.2.2006. The complainant stated that he, along with a team of journalists went to the police station and video-graphed the car and the next day they had the SHO, Shri Om Prakash Singh on video camera when he admitted that he had been driving the stolen car for the last two months. The complainant alleged that they were offered money for not publishing the story, but on declining to accept the offer, the respondent SHO demanded the
15 video record of the interview be handed over to him. When they refused to oblige, the respondent filed false cases against the complainant by cooking up story that the complainant demanded money from the police officials and sent them to jail where he spent about four months from 23.4.2006 to 7.8.2006, before he was granted bail. The complainant alleged that the respondent had been threatening him and his aged father and their lives were in danger. He had written letters to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the CBI and the National Human Rights Commission on 16.8.2006 and also to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad on 25.4.2006 about his grievances but to no avail. According to the complainant he covered the story in public interest but bore the brunt for discharge of his journalistic duties. Notices for Statement in Reply Notices for statement in reply were issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh through the Chief Secretary, Lucknow, the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Lucknow, Superintendent of Police, District Rampur and Shri Om Prakash Singh, the Sub-Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Pakwara on 6.12.2006. Comments The Superintendent of Police, Rampur in his comments dated 23.12.2006 denied the allegations and submitted that on 23.4.2006 at around 1:45 pm, the complainant and his four friends visited the respondent SHO, at the Police Station and introduced themselves as correspondents and crew members of Zee TV, sent by Shri Anurag Chadda from Delhi for taking interview with him. Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, the complainant told him that they had come to the Police Station on 18.4.2006 in connection with the stolen car which the respondent had been keeping with him instead of keeping at the police station, and that he had been video-graphing all the ongoing interview. The complainant added that his team have incurred Rs. 40-50 thousand for travelling charges and due to repeated telephoning him on his mobile phone on 19.4.2006, the respondent had to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-to them otherwise he would face dire consequences. If he wanted to be safe, he should just give them, lest his job and career be in danger. Ever since then, the complainant repeatedly threatened the respondent on his mobile phone demanding money. On 21.4.2006, the respondent, through the S.P. Rampur, found out that the complainant and his team had no connection with Zee TV in any manner. On coming to know the fact, the complainant and his team were charged with Criminal Case No. 296/06 under Sections 419/420/468/471/186/120 of IPC. The respondent further stated that the complainant then revealed that they wanted to start publishing a newspaper under the name of Bagpat News and were in need of Rs. 50,000/- and had tried to extort money from the respondent.
16 According to the respondent it was revealed from the inquiry that the allegation levelled by the complainant were totally false and baseless.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.1.2007 for information.
Ist Adjournment
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Editor, Bagpat News, Delhi appeared in person. Shri Om Prakash, CO, Rampur appeared for the respondent police authorities.
The complainant submitted that he is a bonafide journalist of Bagpat News. On 18.4.2006 when he visited his village at Rampur he learnt that the respondent Station House Officer, Shri Om Prakash Singh Rana was misusing a brand new Alto car without number plate. The window glass of the car had a Delhi number engraved that was said to have been stolen. The Police Officer after recovering the said stolen car from the thieves instead of depositing the car into Malkhana was using the same. The complainant submitted that for his own safety, he videographed the interview with SI who admitted using it, and reported it. The complainant further submitted that the respondent police authorities annoyed with his sting operation falsely implicated him and arrested him on 23.4.2006 and sent him to jail. The complainant submitted that the respondent police had no basis to arrest him alleging that he was posing as a representative of Zee News since the police had not recovered any document or identity card showing him as a representative of Zee News. The complainant further submitted that the police had threatened to kill him after his bail and release from the jail. They caused him a lot of mental agony.
The respondent submitted before the Inquiry Committee that the police had recovered an unknown car on 24.2.2006 and the said car was deposited in the Dadiyal Police Chowki on 25.2.2006. They were however unable to inform what action had been taken vis-à-vis the Police Officer following the sting regarding the use of the car by him.
Directions of the Inquiry Committee
On consideration of the record and oral arguments put forth before it by the parties the Inquiry Committee noted from the defence taken by the respondent Superintendent of Police as in his comments dated 23.12.2006 that there was no mention about the action taken against the Police Officer who was using the car nor was any clarification forthcoming during oral submissions, adding weight to the complainant’s charge that he had been framed to cover up the exposure of the
17 said Police Officer. Thus, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the case with the directions to the police authorities to let the Council know as to what action was taken against the identified Officer and what was the status of the case regarding the said car. The respondents were directed to file the reply within three weeks from the date of hearing with a copy to the complainant.
In the absence of any response, the respondents were reminded to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee vide letter dated 21.4.2008.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava appeared in person while Shri Om Prakash, Deputy S.P., Rampur appeared for the respondent police authorities.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant reiterated the submissions made earlier. When the Inquiry Committee questioned the absence of reply from the authorities, Shri Om Prakash, DSP filed a copy of the letter stated to have been sent dated 1.5.2008 of Superintendent of Police, Rampur addressed to Deputy Secretary, Confidential Branch-2, Government of Uttar Pradesh intimating that case no.296/2006 under Sections 419/420/468/471/186/506/120-B IPC against the complainant were pending in the Court of Law. The letter was not found to have been received by the Council.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record expressed unhappiness over the Government failure to give timely response but noted that the matter of fake identity was pending in the Court and therefore any decision by the Council in this case would affect the sub-judice matter. The Inquiry Committee, thus, decided to drop the proceedings with the liberty to the complainant to approach the Press Council again after the court case was over. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
18 3) Smt. Krishna Shukla Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Government of U.P. Taphtish, Hindi Weekly Lucknow Sultanpur 2. The Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow
3. The Superintendent of Police Sultanpur
4. The S.H.O. Munshiganj Police Station Janpad, Sultanpur Complaint This complaint dated 13.6.06 has been filed by the Chief Editor, Taphtish, Hindi weekly Sultanpur against the local police for allegedly manhandling and harassing her and her family due to publication of critical news items relating to sex scandal. According to the complainant the police and the criminal involved in the sex scandal wanted to get the contradiction of the news items published by her on the basis of facts in their newspaper “Taphtish” issues dated 21.4.06- 27.4.06 and 28.4.06 - 4.5.06 but she did not pay heed to their request. Annoyed with this the police in connivance with ‘sex mafia’ entangled her husband Shri Swaminath Shukla who is also the editor of the weekly newspapers namely “Taphtish” and “Naya Aakash” and registered false criminal case no.243/06 dated 7/7/06 in Munshiganj Police Station. The complainant alleged that every attempt was made to involve her and her family in fabricated cases. She submitted that on 19.5.06 her husband was abducted by the so-called sex mafia and on 7.7.06 an attempt was made to kill him but the police did not even register the FIR of the incidents. The complainant further submitted that Smt. Subhadra Verma, S.O, Munshiganj Police Station and the Inspector of Kotwali Police Station along with dozen constables had forcibly entered her house/newspaper office on 17-18/2/07 and besides misbehaving with her, snatched her belongings and also seized all the documents relating to her newspapers. Her husband made a complaint of the said incident to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who ordered high-level inquiry and the Additional Superintendent of Police had taken her statement along with her husband, her father-in-law and some other people of the village on 11.6.06. The complainant alleged that after giving the report by the Additional Superintendent of Police of the incident the S.O. of Munshiganj Police Station continuously threatened her of dire consequences. The complainant submitted that she still has an apprehension
19 that there were grave chances of encounter to eliminate her family. She has requested the Council to protect the life of her family and property besides enabling her to perform her journalistic duties freely. Comments of the Respondent Comments of the respondent police authorities were invited on 20.12.06. In response, the respondent Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur in his comments dated 16.1.07 submitted the an inquiry into the matter was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police who in his report stated that the allegations levelled in the complaint by Smt. Krishna Shukla against the police authorities remained unestablished. In the said report it was also stated that many people of the village informed that Shri Swaminath Shukla is a blackmailer and is habitual of threatening the people in the guise of journalism. Allegation of fraud has also been levelled against Shri Swaminath Shukla by the people who were interrogated. It has also been stated in the said report that a case of defamation against “Taphtish” is pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. The incident of abduction mentioned by the complainant in the complaint has been stated as false in the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police. The complaint regarding abduction was given to CJM, Sultanpur and the same was dismissed by the Court. A case no.410/06 dated 18.2.06 was also registered regarding fraud in the Kotwali Police Station against Shri Swaminath Shukla under Sections 420/504/506 IPC in which Shri Shukla surrendered himself in the Court on 27.2.06. The conclusion of the report is that due to the criminal act of the complainant’s husband, Shri Swaminath Shukla, the local police sent a report to the D.M., recommending cancellation of Shri Shukla’s arm licence and Shri Rajiv Mishra so called “sex mafia” and others had filed a defamation case against complainant’s husband for publishing false and defamatory news items. Annoyed with this and to escape from being investigated, this complaint has been filed by the complainant by levelling false allegations which have not been proved. The respondent in his further communication dated 27.2.07 submitted that they were open to inquiry into the matter outside the Janpad. A copy of the comments of the respondent police authorities was forwarded to the complainant on 24.1.07 for information. Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant in her counter comments dated 7.2.07 submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur has filed totally false and concocted report with the sole intention to save the other respondents who were involved in the sex scandal. The complainant denied the fact that any inquiry had been conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police. Only the statements of the peoplewere taken. She also denied having any information or notice regarding the defamation
20 case filed against her husband by Shri Rajiv Kumar. The complainant submitted that her husband has no criminal history as alleged. She submitted that an inquiry is being conducted against S.O., Smt. Subhadra Verma and Inspector Shri Moin Khan for looting the houses of hundreds of people of the district and also for lodging false cases against them. The complainant alleged that some cases have also been registered against the duo officers. She further alleged that the Additional Superintendent of Police prepared report to protect police officials and the sex mafia and he recorded the statements of only those persons against whom many cases registered in various police stations and have old animosity with her family. The complainant reiterated that the police has been harassing them since 2004. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 20.2.07 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 16.5.2008. Shri Swaminath Shukla, appeared for the complainant. S/Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, Shri S.C. Mishra, Special Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, appeared for the respondents. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that the police registered false cases due to publication of critical news items in Taptish. The police on the contrary did not register cases of misbehaviour and lootings against the respondents when it was brought to the notice of the police by the complainant. The complainant further submitted that independent inquiry had not been conducted despite directions of the Chief Minister for holding inquiry. The respondent submitted that the criminal case/defamation cases against the complainant were pending in the Court. Further the criminal case filed by the complainant had been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur and the complainant was trying to take shelter behind Council to influence the sub-judice matters. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the present complaint has a bearing in the matters pending in the Court of Law. It therefore decided to drop proceedings in the matter being sub-judice and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report
21 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
4) Shri Rajkishore Gupta Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Correspondent Govt. of U.P, Lucknow Dainik Navkaramyug 2. The Secretary Chitrakoot (U.P.) Home (Police) Department Govt. of U.P., Lucknow 3. The Director General Railway Police Force (RPF) New Delhi 4. The Superintendent of Police Chitrakoot (U.P.) 5. Dr. Sanjay Singh Station House Officer PS-Kalinjer, Banda (U.P.) 6. Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari Inspector, Railway Police Force Manikpur Junction Chitrakoot 7. Shri Anil Kumar Mishra Sub-Inspector Railway Police Force Chitrakoot Dham (Karvi), U.P. 8. Shri J.P. Soni Sub-Inspector Railway Police Force Manikpur Junction, Chitrakoot
Complaint
This complaint dated 21.1.2007 has been filed by Shri Rajkishore Gupta, Manikpur Region Correspondent of Chitrakoot based newspaper “Dainik Navkaramyug”, who is also running a Utensil Shop in Manikpur Town against Shri N.K. Tiwari, Station Incharge, Railway Police Force, Manikpur Junction and Shri Sanjay Singh, then SHO of Manikpur Police Station, Chitrakoot alleging harassment by implicating him in false case due to publication of critical writings/news items under the captions “]ÅäxÉ àÉå SÉÉä®Éå BÉEÉ ÉÊMÉ®Éäc ºÉÉÊμÉEªÉ, ®äãÉ´Éä {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ xÉBÉEÉ®É ºÉÉÉʤÉiÉ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè’’, “{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ xÉä ®É<{ÉEãÉÉå ºÉÉÊciÉ ¤ÉÉäMÉÉÒ àÉå PÉÖºÉBÉE® ªÉÉÉÊjɪÉÉå BÉEÉä ãÉÚ]É-ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ VÉiÉÉxÉä {É® àÉÉ®É {ÉÉÒ]É’’ and “BÉEº¤Éä àÉå SÉÉäÉÊ®ªÉÉå BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉAÆ ¤ÉfÃÉÒ’’ in his newspaper issues dated 14.7.2005, 27.11.2006 and 13.1.2007 respectively. The complainant alleged that
22 Shri N.K. Tiwari and Shri Sanjay Singh getting enraged due to said publications registered a false case under Section 3(a) of Railway Act and 174/C of the Railway Property and Encroachment Act on 16.1.2007 on the charge of purchase of stolen items (copper wire) and sent him and three other persons to jail. According to the complainant, no stolen item was recovered from him and Shri Anish Kumar Mishra and Shri J.P. Soni, Sub-Inspector of RPF were also present there at that time. The complainant submitted that the respondent-Railway Police after the inquiry, filed the charge-sheet before the Court of CJM (Railway) on 14.6.2007 and the case is still pending. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondents with the direction to the Government to ensure to save his life and property.
Notices for statement in reply were issued to the respondents on 5.9.2007.
Comments
Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Inspector, RPF, Manikpur; Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Sub-Inspector, RPF, Chitrakoot Dham; and Shri G.P. Soni, Sub-Inspector, RPF, Manikpur filed their comments dated 22.9.2007 separately and submitted that the complainant was arrested on 16.1.2007 under Section 3(a) of Railway Police Act and 174/C of the Railway Property and Encroachment Act and the case no.1697/07 was pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway). According to them, the matter has nothing to do with the freedom of the press but his action in purchase of stolen railway property and whatever action was taken against the complainant was according to law. They submitted that the statement of the complainant that the case was registered against him due to publication of news items in question was totally false.
Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, at present SHO, Industrial Area, Allahabad in his comments dated 18.11.2007 while denying the allegations of the complainant submitted that on 16.1.2007 the Inspector, RPF, Manikpur telephonically informed him that they had arrested copper wire thieves and on disclosure by the thieves, the Railway Police traced and recovered stolen copper wire from the complainant’s shop. Since the RPF registered a case against the complainant and others and he only assisted the RPF in maintaining law and order, the said case had no relevance with the local police.
Counter Comments
The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.12.2007 submitted that the comments filed by the respondents were false and far from truth. He reiterated that he had been implicated in false case. To substantiate his allegation, the complainant also filed letters of many local journalists stating that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in fabricated case.
23 Vide another letter dated 25.1.2008 the complainant informed that the false case filed by the Railway Police Force, Manikpur is still pending before the Court of Law and his photograph has been displayed along with other hardened criminals in the office of the Railway Police Force, which has damaged his reputation. He has requested the Council to give directions to the respondent to remove his photograph.
A copy each of the complainant’s letters was forwarded to the respondent on 13.2.2008 and 7.4.2008 for information.
Comments – Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh
The Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in his comments dated 24.4.2008 has submitted that the matter had been inquired by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Jhansi and he informed vide his letter dated 21.1.2008 that the matter is related to District Police, Chitrakoot and Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Police Force, Jhansi. He submitted that on 16.1.2007 the complainant was arrested under Sections 3 R P (U.P.) Act and 174 Railway Act along with two other persons on the charge of purchase of stolen cable wire of Railway Signal. The stolen items were recovered from the complainant. The charge sheet has been filed in the Court of ACJM, Railway, Banda and the matter is pending before the Court.
Further Comments - Inspector, RPF, Manikpur
The Inspector, Railway Police Force, Manikpur in his comments has submitted that the complainant is habitual of filing false/baseless complaints being prejudiced as the matter is pending before the Court of law. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s photograph has been displayed in the Office of the Railway Police Force, Manikpur as per Standing Order no. 35 dated 31.7.1997 of the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India which reads as follows:-
“All the criminals arrested under the R.P. (UP) Act should be photographed. Two photographs of each criminal – one front pose and one side pose be taken. These photographs will be needed for preparing the Dossiers of such criminals as provided in S.O. No.30. Photograph of the offenders arrested under certain specified sections of the Railway Act as given in the S.O. no.31 should also be taken. In respect of S.O. no.31, only front pose photograph is to be taken. Extra copies of the photographs of criminals of both categories mentioned above should be got printed in postcard size for being displayed in the Rogue’s Gallery at the Railway Station.”
24 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Rajkishore Gupta, the complainant appeared in person along with Shri Rampal Tripathi, journalist, Manikpur (Chitrakoot). Shri R.P. Maurya, S.I. Manikpur (Chitrakoot) U.P. appeared for the respondent police authorities while S/Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Sr. D.SC./RPF/JHS (representative D.G. RPF, New Delhi), Anil Kumar Mishra, S.I./RPF, Chitrakoot, Narender Kumar Tiwari, Inspector RPF and G.P. Soni, S.I./RPF, Manikpur appeared for respondent Railway Police Force, U.P. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he was falsely implicated due to publication of critical reports in his newspaper. The complainant further submitted that display of his photograph along with photographs of the criminals in the police station was a matter of embarrassment for him. The respondent submitted that as a journalist the complainant had cordial relations with RPF and the Railway Police Force was providing all the information relating to any incident in the area. However, in the capacity of utensil dealer, the complainant was caught red handed in wire theft case on disclosure by the thief that the stolen wire were sold at the shop of the complainant. The respondent denied any misbehaviour with the complainant in the Police Station. However, the respondent stated that the complainant was treated as an accused and not journalist when he was arrested. The respondent further submitted that the photo of the complainant was displayed in a normal course as per standing orders issued by the Director General, RPF. Denying any motivation, he added that the critical report cited pertained to CRPF and not RPF. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the matter of arrest of the complainant in theft case was pending before the Court, the falsity or otherwise of which was to be decided by the competent Court. On the contention that the action was motivated by critical reports, the Inquiry Committee took note of the defence statement that those reports did not pertain to RPF but refrained from any further consideration of the matter for the reason that its observation would tantamount to pre-judging the issue before the law Courts. It therefore decided to recommend to the Council to close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
25 5) Shri Gurinder Singh Mehndiratta 1. The Chief Secretary Press Correspondent Govt. of Punjab Daily Spokesman Versus Chandigarh Faridkot (Punjab) 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Govt. of Punjab Chandigarh. 3. The Superintendent of Police Faridkot (Punjab) Complaint This complaint dated 24.5.2006 has been filed by Shri Gurinder Singh Mehndiratta, Press Correspondent, Daily Spokesman, Faridkot (Punjab) against anti-social elements for harassment and inaction of police authorities thereon due to publication of critical report published by him in his newspaper. According to the complainant, he published a news item in his newspaper “Daily Spokesman” (Punjabi) issue dated 13.3.2006 captioned “VÉÉÒ{É ´ÉÉãÉä ¶É®É®iÉÉÒ iÉi´ÉÉå BÉEÉÒ SÉSÉÉÇ” based on true facts in which some local persons of Kotkapura namely S/Shri Raj Kumar, Deepak Kumar and others were exposed. Annoyed with the said critical news item, the respondents started harassing and threatening him. He alleged that Shri Raj Kumar filed a false complaint to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Faridkot levelling false and baseless allegations against him which were found baseless during investigation but despite this the police did not take any action against the accused persons. Rather, the Deputy Superintendent of Police P(D), Faridkot, Shri Bakshish Singh and ASI, Shri Nachhattar Singh of Police Station City Kotkapura began harassing and pressurizing him to compromise with the accused or face dire consequences. He has further alleged that the police officials were hand in glove with accused and they helped and sheltered them when victims of these accused raised voice against their misdeeds. He had also alleged that his life was in danger due to the constant threats from the accused. He had written a letter dated 20.5.2006 to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Faridkot but no action was taken in the matter. He requested the Council to initiate action against the accused as well as police officials for helping them. Notices for statement in reply dated 14.8.2006 were issued to the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh and Superintendent of Police, Faridkot (Punjab). Complainants’ Further Letter The complainant in his further letter dated 19.3.2007 informed the Council that after issuance of the notices to the Punjab Government, the Faridkot police
26 under influence of the accused, started his harassment as he was called at least four times by different police officers at their offices and each time instead of taking any action against the accused they harassed him. Even he was forced to furnish bail under Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of the accused without any fault on his part. This was done by the police to pressurize him to compromise with the accused but he refused in clear terms. The complainant stated that he has no faith in the local police which could not be expected to be impartial as they were under the influence of the accused. Written Statement The respondent Superintendent of Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Press-1 Branch), Government of Punjab, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 6.9.2007 forwarded a copy of the inquiry report conducted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Faridkot. The inquiry report dated 12.1.2007 stated that the dispute between Shri Deepak Kumar and the resident of Kotkapura had been resolved. But due to publication of news and filing of complaint by the complainant against Shri Deepak Kumar, a controversy had arisen again and they began lodging complaints against each other before the police. The inquiry report further stated that the dispute concerned the relationship of Shri Deepak Kumar with Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, daughter of Shri Harminder Singh. The inquiry report further stated that a case no.104 dated 2.7.2005 under Section 308/323/34 IPC Kotkapura Police Station State versus Kala Singh and others was registered on the statement of Shri Deepak Kumar. The cancellation report was prepared on 28.1.2005 in this case as the offence under Section 308 IPC was not made out and the offence under Section 323/34 IPC was not cognizable offence. Again an inquiry was held and cancellation has been prepared on 16.11.2006. The respondent stated that the preventive action had already been initiated against the parties due to continued dispute between both the parties. Both the parties had been filing complaints against each other levelling false allegations without any reason hence the complaint could be consigned to record. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 23.11.2007 alleged that the inquiry report was biased and vague as his complaint was regarding harassment and threat and had no concern with the dispute between parents of the boy and girl. The inquiry officer intermingled his complaint with the dispute of love affairs. The complainant stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective), Faridkot, Shri Bakhashish Singh and ASI, Shri Nachhattar Singh were openly helping the accused persons but the Inquiry Officer did not touch this aspect of the matter in his report which showed his biased attitude. According to the complainant the Deputy S.P., Shri Bakshish Singh, a notorious Police Officer was involved in many criminal cases and recently a case under the provisions of
27 Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him at Faridkot Police Station and since then he was absconding as the Punjab and Haryana High Court had rejected his bail application. The complainant alleged that the Inquiry Officer had misled the Council. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Gurinder Singh Mehndiratta, Press Reporter, Daily Spokesman appeared in person. S/Shri P.S. Umranangal, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, Punjab and Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he had reported a news encaptioned: “Bad elements in Jeep, talk of the town” on 13.3.2006 in Punjabi Daily Spokesman exposing nuisance created by Shri Deepak Kumar and his other friends in Mohalla Harnampura. Due to publication of this news item they started harassing the complainant and made a false complaint dated 11.4.2006 to the SSP, Faridkot against the complainant alleging harassment in various ways. The complainant further submitted that the said complaint of Shri Raj Kumar was totally false. But the DSP (Detective), Faridkot and ASI, Police Station, Kotkapura were helping the accused. This according to the complainant was causing him humiliation and restricting his press freedom. The Counsel for the Punjab Government submitted that the inquiry into the matter was conducted by the DSP and it was revealed that the parties had made complaint and counter complaints due to personal disputes. The DSP did not find any truth in the complaint of threats due to reporting. Giving background of the matter and dispute between them, the Counsel submitted that Shri Deepak Kumar was having love affair with Gagandeep Kaur related to the complainant resulting in complaints/counter compaints between families of both the sides. A case under Section 308/323/34-IPC was registered against Kala Singh on the complaint of Shri Deepak Singh. In the meantime, the complainant published the impugned report against the misconduct of Shri Deepak and friends alleging nuisance in the said Mohalla in an open Jeep. The brother ofShri Deepak Singh namely Shri Raj Kumar filed a complaint against the complainant regarding harassment of the family members by the complainant. As the parties were making the allegations and counter allegations, the Counsel, submitted that the police took preventive action under Section 107/151- Cr.P.C. The complainant was annoyed over the preventive action taken by the police and thus filed complaint with the Press Council of India. The Counsel further stated that on receipt of a letter from the Council another inquiry into the matter was conducted in December 2006. Again no truth was found in the complaint.
28 Shri P.S. Umranangal, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, submitted that the police department is committed to preservation of the freedom of the press. If the complainant desires the inquiry would be conducted again. The Senior Superintendent of Police gave assurance to the Inquiry Committee that the department being concerned with the issue shall ensure that the press freedom is maintained. He further assured that as far as the journalistic duties of the complainant were concerned, the police shall take action. The complainant accepted that he was getting cooperation from the present SSP but prayed that ‘Gunda’ elements should be restrained. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the parties noted that though the complainant claimed this after reporting the news item on 13.3.2006 in Daily Spokesman, he faced humiliation from the persons reported in the said news item. It appeared that the matter had arisen out of a personal dispute rather than journalistic duties of the complainant. Still the police had promptly conducted inquiry into the matter and taken necessary preventive action involving both the parties. The Inquiry Committee took on record the assurance of the SSP, to the effect that all measures are being taken for preserving the press freedom. He has also assured that the complainant will not face any hindrance in discharge of his duties as a reporter. Thus taking the assurance given by the respondent on record, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to allow the matter to rest. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
6) The President and others Versus 1. Chief Secretary, Press Club of Mengalganj Govt. of U.P, Lucknow Mengalganj 2. Secretary Distt. Khiri (U.P.) Home (Police) Department Govt. of U.P., Lucknow 3. Superintendent of Police Khiri (U.P.) 4. Shri Amit Singh Station House Officer PS-Marjhala Hardoi (U.P.) Complaint Shri Akhilesh Pandey, President and other members of Press Club of
29 Mengalganj, District Khiri (U.P.) filed this joint complaint dated 19.5.2007 against SHO, Shri Amit Singh and Constables, S/Shri Sanjay Singh and Manoj Singh alleging threats due to publication of critical news items regarding thefts in various newspapers. The complainants submitted that the incidents of theft, snatching and dacoity were occurring in the area and police were unable to stop the crimes and when they highlighted their inefficiency and inability, the respondents pressurized them to stop publishing such news. The complainants stated that the respondents, with the motive to deter them, also sent some hooligans behind them. They alleged that the respondent-SHO also threatened to implicate them in false cases. The complainants alleged that the action of the respondent tantamounts to curtailment of freedom of press. The complainants had written a letter dated 23.5.2007 to police authorities, but no action had been taken in the matter. The complainants vide their further letter dated 14.6.2007 informed the Council that the respondent SHO was transferred to District Hardoi and stated that no correspondence had been made between them. Notices for statement in reply dated 26.10.2007 issued to the respondent Government of U.P. Written Statement of The S.P., Khiri The Superintendent of Police, Khiri in his comments dated 27.10.2007 submitted that the matter was inquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khiri. The inquiry report dated 2.8.2007 submitted after investigation in the matter and statements of the SHO and some local persons, concluded that no sensational incident had occurred during the tenure of the SHO. The complainants had relations with a criminal named Abrar @ Bhaijan. On 12.4.2007, the Sub-Inspector, Shri Shamsher Singh seized the motorcycle of Shri Akhilesh Pandey (complainant) due to which the complainants were annoyed with the SHO. The report further stated that the allegations of threatening and incident of quarrel between the persons of SHO and journalists on 25.5.2007 in Press Club could not be proved. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant-Convener, Mengalganj Press Club on 26.10.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. Written Statement of Shri Amit Singh, SHO The respondent SHO, Shri Amit Singh subsequently posted in Police Station Marjhala, Hardoi in his written statement dated 14.11.2007 while denying the allegations stated that an inquiry had been conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khiri in the matter. The respondent informed that the complainants were not regular journalists and submitted that Shri Akhilesh Pandey and other journalists had demanded money from him and on his refusal they had started to publish the
30 baseless news items against him. He further stated that there was no Press Club or any press organization in Mengalganj and all the complainants were member of U.P. Gramin Kalyan Samiti. A copy of the written statement of respondent SHO was forwarded to the complainant-Convener, Mengalganj Press Club on 6.12.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. The District Magistrate, Khiri vide his letter dated 15.11.2007 had also furnished the copy of the Inquiry Report of the Superintendent of Police, Khiri and requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant did not appear before the Committee. Shri Dhirender Kumar Tiwari, Sub-Inspector appeared for the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Dhirender Kumar Tiwari appearing for the respondent authorities filed a copy of the report dated 2.8.2007 of Additional Superintendent of Police, Khiri forwarded by Superintendent of Police, Khiri vide his letter dated October 25, 2007 to District Magistrate, Khiri saying that the allegations levelled in the complaint were not proved. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the complainant had made allegations which were not corroborated by any evidence. The complainant had also neither conferred the reply of the authorities nor appeared before the Committee to contest his case despite service of notice of hearing. It, thus, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merit. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
7) Shri H.R. Khan Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor, Operation, Government of U.P. Hindi Weekly Lucknow Kanpur (U.P.) 2. The District Magistrate Kanpur (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 10.10.05 has been filed by Shri A.R. Khan, Editor,
31 Operation, Hindi Weekly, Kanpur, U.P. against sandalwood mafia for threatening to kill him due to publication of critical news items relating to smuggling of sandalwood. The complainant has submitted that on 10.10.05 smuggler of sandalwood/owner of Guest House, Kachnar Tola stopped him on his way and threatened to kill him. He had also warned not to publish news item relating to smuggling of sandalwood. According to the complainant, District Magistrate, Kannoj has been patronizing the mafia group, which was working under the people working in white collar job. The complainant termed the threats and inaction of the local authorities as a threat to freedom of the press. The complainant alleged that his written request dated 30.11.05 to District Magistrate for providing him security had been set aside because of the District Magistrate’s link with the mafia. Therefore, he requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments of the Respondent Notices for statement in reply dated 3.4.06 were issued to the Government of U.P. The Under Secretary to the Government of U.P. in his comments dated 5.3.07 submitted that inquiry into the matter was conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur who in his report dated 3.2.07 submitted that there was some quarrel between the complainant and the respondent about some money and the opponent filed a complaint against the complainant with the local police station but the police did not find any offence against the complainant. The report further stated that in view of the facts that there was no offence established against the complainant, no further action was warranted in the matter. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 29.5.07. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri H.R. Khan, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Sarvesh Kumar Dixit, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kannoj appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he had published generalized news about sandalwood smuggling prevailing in various parts of the country and such a big group of sandalwood was also working in Kannoj. The complainant submitted that he had not mentioned name of any person in the news reports. The complainant submitted that he was getting threats from the mafia and therefore the police should have provided protection to him so that he could perform his journalistic duties fearlessly. Shri Sarvesh Kumar Dixit, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kannoj, the respondent submitted that the matter was inquired into and it was found that the complainant
32 had published the advertisement without approval of his opponent Md. Imran, owner of a Guest House and the complainant was demanding Rs.2500/- for unauthorized advertisement. The complainant was annoyed since Md. Imran did not oblige to pay the complainant the amount. Md. Imran had given a complaint to the police to this effect. The dispute between them was on account of money transaction and it had nothing to do with sandalwood smuggling. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the transaction accruing out of publication of advertisement. Yet the complainant had expressed apprehension that his life could be endangered because of publication of critical reports about sandalwood smugglers. The Inquiry Committee also noted that the news items about sandalwood smuggling had no specific mention of any particular person and thus the threat perception from mafia could be looked into by the police authorities, if such an activity was prevalent in the area. The Inquiry Committee felt that the complainant being a journalist, should not be deterred from writing fearlessly on illegal activities, at the same time the role of a journalist should not be used for settling other scores. The Inquiry Committee in view of claimed threats to the life of the complainant directed the respondent police authorities to ensure that he is not harassed in discharge of his duties as journalist. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these directions and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
8) Shri Salman Rizvi Versus The Station House Officer Journalist Khiri Town Police Station Dainik Jagran Khiri (U.P.) Khiri, (U.P.) Complaint Shri Salman Rizvi, Journalist, Dainik Jagran, Khiri, Uttar Pradesh filed a complaint dated 11.7.2006 against the Station House Officer, Khiri Police Station alleging that Shri Jainander Kumar Singh, Station House Officer, Khiri and Shri Dharm Raj Upadhayaya, Sub-Inspector, Khiri Police Station harassed and threatened him due to publication of critical news items in his newspaper. The respondents also debarred the complainant from entering the police station.
33 Comments Notices for statements in reply were issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Superintendent of Police, District Khiri and the S.H.O. Police Station, Khiri on 6.12.2006. The Superintendent of Police, Shri Deepak Ratan in his comments dated 4.1.2007 submitted that on an inquiry it was revealed that five cases have been registered against the complainant between the years 1992 to 2005 and in the year 2006, another case has been filed against him. The respondent denied prohibition of the complainant’s entry to the Police Station, Khiri. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Dhirender Kumar Tiwari appearing for the respondent authorities filed the documents reiterating the comments made earlier. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter/affidavit dated 22.7.2008 intimated that he wished to withdraw the complaint since both the respondent officers had been transferred. The Inquiry Committee therefore recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint as withdrawn. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
9) Shri Prashant Gaur Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Bureau Chief Govt. of U.P, Lucknow CNN 2. The Secretary Bulandshahar (U.P.) Home (Police) Department Govt. of U.P., Lucknow 3. The Superintendent of Police Bulandshahar (U.P.) 4. The District Magistrate Bulandshahar (U.P.) Complaint Shri Devendra Manjhi, Executive Editor, CNN, New Delhi vide his fax letter dated 1.1.2007 addressed to the Sr. S.P., Bulandshahar alleged that some anti-social elements attacked Shri Prashant Gaur, Bulandshahar, Bureau Chief, CNN on 2.5.2006 due to the publication of critical news items and also snatched office stationary from him. The complainant had also submitted a copy of the letter of Shri Anil Sharma, MLA, Khurja Region, Bulandshahar addressed to DIG, U.P., Lucknow in 34 which it was alleged that some oil dealer threatened and attacked Shri Prashant Gaur, Bureau Chief of CNN daily newspaper on 2.5.2006 and again on 12.8.2006 due to publication of some critical news items regarding black marketing of illegal diesel. Shri Sharma submitted that an FIR had been registered by Shri Prashant on 20.5.2006 after the direction of the Hon’ble Court but no action had been taken by the police as yet. Shri Sharma demanded the safety and security of Shri Prashant.Shri Devendra Manjhi, Executive Editor, CNN, a Hindi daily vide letter dated 7.2.2007 while complying with the basic requirements of Inquiry Regulations alleged that the reason for the attack on Shri Prashant Gaur was the critical news report in question, exposing the black marketing of illegal diesel. According to the complainant, the action of the accused was an attack on the freedom of the press for publishing following critical news items published in his newspaper CNN- 1. “JÉÖVÉÉÇ àÉå +É´ÉèvÉ iÉÉ®BÉEÉäãÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ £ÉÆbÉ{ÉEÉäb” (2.2.2006) 2. “+É´ÉèvÉ iÉäãÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE |ÉÉlÉÉÊàÉBÉEÉÒ nVÉÇ” (3.2.2006) 3. “{ÉjÉBÉEÉ® {É® càÉãÉä BÉEÉÒ ÉËxÉnÉ” (9.5.2006) 4. “JÉÖãÉä+ÉÉàÉ PÉÚàÉ ®cä cé ¶Éc® àÉå +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ” (20.5.2006) 5. “ºÉÆ´ÉÉnÂÂnÉiÉÉ ºÉä ãÉÚ]É àÉÉä¤ÉÉ<ãÉ ¤É®ÉàÉn” (27.9.2006) 6. “ºÉÉäiÉä cÖA {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ ={ÉÉvÉÉÒFÉBÉE BÉEÉä ºÉÆ´ÉÉnÂÂnÉiÉÉ xÉä BÉEèàÉ®ä àÉå BÉEèn ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ” (21.12.2006). 7. “{ÉjÉBÉEÉ®Éå BÉEÉ =i{ÉÉÒbxÉà ®ÉäBÉEÉ VÉÉA-ºÉÖãÉäJÉ SÉÆn” (3.1.2007) Shri Devendra Manjhi submitted that Shri Prashant Gaur brought the matter to the notice of the local authority about the illegal activities of some anti-social elements such as black-marketing of diesel by publication of news items. Annoyed with these, the diesel mafia kidnapped and beat him badly and also snatched his mobile and some official documents. But, instead of taking action in the matter Shri Umesh Pratap Singh, Deputy District Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar registered a case against Shri Prashant Gaur under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. Later on, the police had recovered his mobile but did not return to Shri Gaur. The complainant submitted that he had written a number of letters to the higher police authorities about this grievance but nothing has been done so far. According to Shri Manjhi, the other newspapers like “Shah Times”, “Rashtriya Aina”, “Rashtriya Sahara”, “Dainik Jagran” also published the news of the incident. He further submitted that on many requests of Shri Prashant Gaur the Court lodged a case No.24/2006 under Sections 147/148/323/504/342/506/394 of IPC against the diesel mafia. Regarding the delay in filing the complaint, Shri Devendra Manjhi submitted that they had sent their complaint within the time limit, on 5.5.2006 and again on
35 9.6.2006 but received it back undelivered due to incorrect address. On knowing the correct address, they sent the instant complaint again on 12.1.2007 and requested the Council to condone the delay. He requested the Council to take action in the matter to deliver justice to Shri Prashant Gaur, Bureau Chief of CNN, Bulandshahar. The affected person, Shri Prashant Gaur, Bureau Chief of CNN vide his letter dated 9.5.2007 while reiterating the complaint requested the Council to take appropriate action against the guilty. Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Government of U.P. on 30.3.2007. Comments The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar in his comments dated 26.5.2007 submitted that an inquiry in the matter was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khurja, Bulandshahar, who, in his report dated 23.5.2007 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that the complainant had relation with one diesel businessman, Shri Babu Singh’s daughter named Miss Punam @ Nirupama. The Inquiry Report further revealed that Shri Babu Singh fixed his daughter’s marriage with one Shri Sanjay Rana. After that the complainant met Shri Rana and informed about their love affair due to which a dispute occurred between them and Ghaziabad police arrested both the parties. Annoyed with these, the complainant made a false complaint before the Press Council. The respondent submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant had not been proved. The respondent stated that the complainant was also terminated from CNN newspaper. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahar vide his letter dated 4.6.2007 forwarded a copy of the inquiry report of Sr. Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, wherein it was stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be substantiated. A copy each of the comments received from the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Bulandshahar was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2007 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 21.8.2007 while denying all the allegations levelled against him submitted that the report was totally false, misleading and baseless. The complainant alleged that the respondent made false allegations of love affairs and there was no dispute with Shri Sanjay Rana as stated in the report. The complainant also alleged that the respondent police authorities were trying to protect the guilty. He also denied that the CNN newspaper terminated his job. He alleged that the act of the respondent police authorities against him was by way of reprisal measure due to publication of critical writings.
36 A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondents on 29.8.2007 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 24.4.2008. Shri Prashant Kumar Gaur, Reporter and Shri Gautam Bhardwarj and Ms. Usha Sharma, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri R.K. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.O. Khurja, appeared for the respondent police authorities. The complainant’s Counsel submitted that the complainant had published critical news items about the illegal manufacturing of oil and some of the offenders indulging in illegal activities had been booked by the police and sent to jail. He further submitted that the attack on the complainant was made after publication of the critical news reports. The grievance of the complainant was that the police had not made a fair report in the matter and thereby jeopardised the freedom of the journalist, his safety and security. The police officer appearing for the police department submitted that the raids were conducted by the Supply Officer and Tehsildar on 1.2.2006 on the public complaint on Tehsil Diwas. Therefore, the news report appearing on 2.2.2006 could not be the basis of the raid of the concerned department as the action had already been taken on 1.2.2006. The police officer further submitted that the complainant had been found indulging in eve-teasing case and the concerned girl and her brother in law had given statement to that effect. He reiterated that the complainant was no more working for CNN. The complainant disputed the statement. The Inquiry Committee inquired from the respondent police officer whether he could produce the letter of the editor CNN intimating about the termination of the complainant from service. The respondent was unable to produce the letter of the editor. The Inquiry Committee was not convinced with the arguments and reply filed by the police authorities. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent police authorities through its representative to file a comprehensive report after a thorough investigation through an impartial and reliable investigating officer. The Inquiry Committee in order to afford opportunity to the police authorities to file the requisite documents adjourned the matter to its next hearing. In the absence of any reply the respondents were reminded vide letter dated 10.7.2008 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008
37 at New Delhi. Shri Prashant Gaur, the complainant along with Shri Gautam Bhardwaj and Ms. Usha Sharma, Advocates appeared for the complainant while Shri Surendra Kumar Verma, Superintendent of Police, Khurja, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh appeared for the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he at present was not working with CNN. However, when the police report was written he was working with CNN and the police recorded falsely that he was removed from CNN. The complainant submitted that he was closely associated with electronic media in addition to his job in print media. The complainant submitted that the act of the police in calling him again and again in the police station was a matter of highhandedness and police excessive. Regarding eve teasing, the complainant further submitted that the school authorities had also given denial that no one by name Prashant was working in the school. These all go to show that the police concocted the story to implicate him in false case. The complainant cited latest instance of police harassment that the police called him to give statement and after taking his statement, the respondents added of their own that the complainant assured that he would come after Raksha Bandhan festival for further statement. The respondent police officer filed before the Committee an inquiry report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Khurja, Bulandshahar reiterating the allegations that the complainant was instrumental in attempt of breaking marriage. The bridegroom side did not pursue the case due to public image and the FR was filed on the statement of the relatives of the girl. The respondent submitted that as per inquiry report, the complainant was removed from the CNN and there was nothing wrong if the complainant was being called for inquiry and recording his statement. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the grievance of the complainant was that the police had not made a fair report in the matter and thereby jeopardised the freedom of the journalist, his safety and security and that he was time and again called to the police station to record his statement. The Inquiry Committee observed that the prime issue was interference by the police in the free functioning of the journalist. The Inquiry Committee finds that the complainant was harassed by the police authorities and the reports/comments adduced by the respondent were not convincing. The Inquiry Committee strongly condemned the action of the police authorities and directed that impartial detailed inquiry be made and the officers, if found guilty, be proceeded against as per law/ rules. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the
38 complaint and direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to order fresh detailed and impartial inquiry into the matter. It may advise to the police authorities to strictly abide the instructions to refrain from putting any direct or indirect pressure on journalists writing reports critical of the authorities and if aggrieved by any false report, take recourse to the due process of law. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
10) Shri Parmender Sirohi Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Sub Editor, Khuli Kahaniya Government of U.P. Hindi Monthly Magazine Lucknow Meerut (U.P.) 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow 3. The S.S.P, Meerut 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Meerut 5. Shri Ashok Kumar Sisodiya S.O. T.P. Nagar P.S. Meerut 6. Shri Vijay Kumar S.O. Sadar Bazar Police Station Meerut
Complaint This complaint dated 18.8.06 has been filed by Shri Parmender Sirohi, Sub- Editor, Meerut based Hindi monthly magazine, Khuli Kahaniya against the local police authorities alleging harassment due to publication of critical news item in its March and May, 2006 issues under the caption “Crime Sheet” and “Jaikaran Ka Hatyara Kaun” respectively – exposing activities of the police authorities. The complainant alleged that annoyed by these articles, the respondent police authorities on 10.6.06 by way of reprisal measure, threatened to implicate him in fabricated and false cases and also directed him to carry the corrigendum of the published articles at his own instance but he did not agree and asked for a clarification from their side. He further alleged that the respondent pressurized the district administration not to take any action on his complaint. The complainant also
39 alleged that he was assaulted alongwith other persons deliberately during a rally at Vikas Enclave area on 8.8.06 where the people were demonstrating in protest regarding irregularity in electricity supply. The police registered a case No.283/ 06 against him alongwith other persons under Sections 147, 141, 353/352 IPC in T.P. Nagar Police Station and he came out on bail after remaining in lock up for two days. The complainant submitted that the act of the respondent police authorities amounted to curtailment of freedom of press as he was not able to perform his journalistic duties. Notices for statement in reply were issued to the respondents on 4.10.2006. Statement in Reply of the Respondent The SSP, Meerut in his comments dated 11.12.06 submitted that on the direction of the DIG, Meerut region, inquiry has been conducted in the matter through the S.P. (Rural) Ghaziabad, and inquiry has been going on in case No.283/ 06 which was registered under Sections 147, 148/353 IPC. Separate inquiry is being conducted on the police officials who were found guilty. The respondent prayed that no other action is required in the matter. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 25.4.07 for information/counter comments, if any. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.4.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Parmender Sirohi, Editor, Khuli Kahaniya, appeared in person. Shri Mansha Ram Gautam, Deputy S.P.(Meerut), Shri Vijay Kumar, Inspector and Shri Ashok Kumar Sisodiya, Sub-Inspector represented the respondent police authority, Meerut. The complainant submitted that he had gone to the site of the incident where the dharna was staged and the public was protesting by blocking the roads. The complainant further submitted that two police officers rushed towards him and caught hold of him on the direction of another senior police officer. He was taken to the police station. The complainant submitted that in the lathi charge he sustained injuries and while the police kept him in the lock-up for two days, he was not medically examined. The complainant further submitted that he had asked for being medically examined, but the police refused to do so. He was, however provided medicine in the lock-up. The complainant submitted that he was harassed by the police on account of critical article in his magazine against the police. He had brought it to the notice of the SSP, the NHRC and also the Governor. The complainant filed a clipping dated 9.8.2006 published in Amar Ujala in which the photograph of lathi charge by the police was published. The respondent submitted before the Committee that the complainant was present at the site of agitation which caused three hours traffic jam. The police
40 had arrested five persons. The respondent denied lathi charge on the protesters. The respondent further submitted that the matter was inquired into by the Additional S.P., Ghaziabad and it was revealed in inquiry report that the complainant did not sustain injuries. However, warning had been recorded in the service book of the concerned police officer for not completing the medical examination procedure which was mandatory in every arrest. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the record felt that the police denial of lathi charge was not borne out by the photographic records produced and that for arriving at a conclusion whether the police arrested the complainant while performing his journalistic duties, more documentary evidences were needed. Thus while adjourning the matter it directed the complainant to file all relevant clippings and documents in support of his contention that the police resorted to lathi charge and he was harassed and arrested by the police while he was covering the incident of dharna, on account of his critical reports. It also directed the police authorities to intimate the Council as to what action was taken by the department on the directions of the DIG in the complaint given by the complainant. Both the parties were directed to file the requisite documents within three weeks from the date of hearing. Both the parties were asked vide letter dated 10.7.2008 to comply with the directions of Inquiry Committee. Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut in a letter dated 18.7.2008 submitted that the inquiry in the matter had been made by the Superintendent of Police, Rural, Ghaziabad. In the inquiry report it was confirmed that medical examination had not been made with regard to the injuries sustained by the complainant and that minimum force used at the time of demonstration. The then SHO, T.P. Nagar, Meerut, Shri Ashok Kumar Sisodiya was found guilty and warning had been issued to him. Besides in the case No. 283/06 registered under Sections 147/341/ 353/332 of the IPC against the complainant and other persons was under trial as charge sheet had been filed. Therefore, comments thereon cannot be made. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Parmender Sirohi, Sub-editor, Khuli Kahaniyan appeared in person. S/Shri Vimal Kumar Agarwal, Additional City Magistrate, Meerut and Mansha Ram Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.O. City-II, Meerut appeared for the respondents. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant filed clippings from Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran covering the incident of protest by the residents of Meerut when the police resorted to lathi
41 charge. The complainant submitted that the police wrongly inferred that he was the person responsible for jam and protest. He added that he was performing his journalistic duties to cover the incident and had tendered on motorbike. If he was participating in chakka jam, he would have been on foot. He was picked up due to reprisal as he had published critical report in 5th May, 2006 issue of Khuli Kahaniyan about murder of Jaikaran. The police had taken him to Kankarkhed police station while the case was registered at T.P. Nagar, police station to refresh his memories to the incident of 12th May, 2006 when he was called to explain about the reporting on Jaikaran murder case and threatened by the police to face consequences.
The respondent, Shri Mansa Ram Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CO, City-II, Meerut filed reply and submitted that the complainant was with the protesters and booked accordingly. The respondent, however, stated that the Director General of Police had issued instructions to give respect to the journalists performing their duties.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the documents and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee observed that the prime issue before it was interference by the police in the free functioning of the journalist, the complainant herein, who although was not a part of the demonstration was maltreated by the police as a reprisal for critical reports. The Inquiry Committee noted that the police deviated from the prime issue and shifted the onus of inquiry to the police official responsible for dereliction of duty in not getting the complainant medically examined. The action taken by the respondent authorities in recording adverse action in the service book of the erring official was a subservient issue. It noted that the police registered a case No. 283/06 against the protesters under Sections 147/241/353/332 in T.P. Nagar, police station including the complainant Shri Parmender Sirohi, Sub-editor, Khuli Kahaniyan even though his participation had not been established looking from his averments that the action was due to exposure of police by the complainant in his Hindi monthly Khuli Kahaniyan in March and May, 2006 issues of the magazine. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied about the covert action of the police authorities and directed that impartial detailed inquiry be conducted in the matter and officers found guilty be punished for threat to free functioning of the media. Since the matter is already under trial in the court of law, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to clarify his position before the court and advised the police authorities to strictly abide the instructions issued by the Press Council of India from time to time to refrain from use of their powers to make the journalists to toe their line. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
42 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
11) Shri Imamuddin Khan Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of U.P. Dainik Jagran Lucknow Meerut Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow
3. Sr. Supritendent of Police Meerut (U.P.)
4. The S.H.O. Mundali District Meerut (U.P.)
Complaint This complaint dated 21.4.07 has been filed by Shri Imammuddin Khan, Correspondent, Dainik Jagran, Meerut against police authorities alleging harassment as a reprisal measure as he had published critical news items in the issues dated 17.1.07 and 10.2.07 captioned “Police ne ki mahila se abhadarta, todhphod”, “Bachhra kaat rahe logon ko gramino ne ghera” and “Moti vyapariyon ko goli maari” exposing misbehaviour and inactivity of the police authorities. The complainant submitted that annoyed with the publication of the critical news items, the respondents registered a false case against him under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment. The respondents pressurized him to contradict the news published by him in his newspaper, but according to the complainant the news items published by him in his newspaper were based on true facts. The complainant further stated that the respondent sent a false report on the basis of false case registered against him to the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Meerut for action under U.P. Goons Control Act 1970. He submitted that whatever had been published in his newspaper was in accordance with guidelines of healthy journalism. Yet the respondents were threatening to lodge more false cases against him. The complainant submitted that the act of the respondent was an attack on the freedom of press.
43 No Reply to Notices for Statement Notices for statement in reply were issued in the matter to the respondents, Chief Secretary and Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and police authorities, Meerut on 11.6.07 but none of them filed reply. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.4.2008. Shri Imamuddin Khan, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from respondent’s side. The complainant submitted that he is on the pay roll of Dainik Jagran and he had been regularly covering reports on crime related matters. The complainant submitted that on February 9, 2007 he had gone to the police station to take photographs of two persons who were injured by bullets. The complainant was stopped by the sub-inspector and head constable and prevented him from taking photographs and threatened with dire consequences. The complainant further submitted that the S.O., Shri V.S. Sainger of Mundali police station threatened to implicate him in a false case due to publication of a news item on 17.1.2007 in Dainik Jagran. The complainant submitted that he has in his possession the affidavits of two witnesses denying any kind of involvement in the incident of attack. He added that the news item related to the incident which was published in the issue dated February 10, 2007 of the Dainik Jagran. On March 30, 2007 the SHO filed a false report before the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Meerut and registered a false case against him under U.P. Goons Control Act, 1970 and under Sections 147/148/149/332/353/423/504 and 506 of IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment. The matter came up for hearing on April 10, 2007 before the Additional District Magistrate, Meerut and the complainant presented his case/clarification. The complainant submitted that the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.,) Meerut in his order dated 29.8.2007 in case No. 335/07 under Section 3/4 of Goonda Act against the complainant found that no case was made out against the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent police authorities had neither filed comments in the matter nor deputed any responsible officer to refute the allegations of the complainant that false case was registered against him due to publication of critical reports against the police. The Inquiry Committee took serious note of non representation of the respondent State Government and decided that a final opportunity be provided to the State Government to file comments in the matter. Further, the Inquiry Committee observed that non representation of State Government before the Inquiry Committee in the next meeting will attract action under the powers conferred on the Council under section 15(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978. The matter was accordingly adjourned.
44 The respondent State Government of Uttar Pradesh was apprised about the directions of the Inquiry Committee vide letter dated 14.7.2008 for compliance. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Imamuddin Khan, correspondent, Dainik Jagran, Meerut appeared in person. S/Shri Vimal Kumar Agarwal, Additional City Magistrate, Meerut and Mansha Ram Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Co. City-II, Meerut appeared for the State Government as well as police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he had made elaborate submissions at the last hearing and given complete facts of his complaint. The complainant reiterated the submissions and stated that the report prepared by the police was their own report which was nothing but all manipulation. Shri Mansa Ram Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meerut appearing for respondent police authorities filed reply dated 19.8.2008 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut stating therein that the sub-inspector, police station, Mundali was found negligent for lapses in conducting inquiry and the action against him has already been initiated. The respondent further submitted that directions have been issued for impartial inquiry and finalization of the case on merits at the earliest. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents carefully and at the outset expressed displeasure over the attitude of the respondent police authorities for filing the reply at a very belated stage and prolonging the matter on the pretext of inquiry being conducted. It prima facie appeared that the complainant was subjected to harassment by the police due to publication of critical reports in his periodical. The Inquiry Committee opined that the proper course for the respondent authorities, if they were aggrieved by the reports, was to resort to legal remedies and getting the rejoinder published, if any material found to be objectionable. The police instead indulged in pressure tactics that amounted to interference with the freedom of the press. The Inquiry Committee strongly deprecated the conduct of the police authorities for curtailment of freedom of the press and expected the higher authorities to ensure that the journalists were allowed to perform their duties without any hindrance. It further advised the police authorities to strictly follow the instructions issued by the Press Council of India from time to time as well as the Director General of Police. However, taking note of the submission that fresh inquiry was being initiated in the matter, it recommended to the Council to direct the respondent to expeditiously complete the inquiry under intimation to the Council. The matter may be allowed to rest with this. 45 Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
12) Shri Ved Gupta Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Uttarakhand Doon Ujala Dehradoon (Uttarakhand) Dehradoon (Uttarakhand) 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of (Uttarakhand) Dehradoon (Uttarakhand)
3. The Superintendent of Police Dehradoon (Uttarakhand)
4. The S.H.O. Prem Nagar Dehradoon (Uttarakhand)
Complaint
This complaint dated 7.2.2007 has been filed by Shri Ved Gupta, Editor, Doon Ujala, Dehradoon against anti-social elements and local police for threats. The complainant has alleged that due to publication of a news item captioned “Smithnagar Mein Gundagardi Ka Nanga Naach” in his newspaper dated 6.9.2007, some people of the area namely S/Shri Jai Prakash, Rajesh, Sonu and Arjun and many other attacked on his house, assaulted him and his family and threatened him not to publish news item against them.
The complainant has submitted that he had published news items against corrupt police officers and other ministers and due to which police registered his name in the police record as a history sheeter. When he approached the police no action was taken in the matter. He has submitted that the respondent anti-social elements were causing public nuisance in their locality and when he published about the matter, they assaulted him and his wife, and broke into his residence as well as his office. He added that the local police filed challan against him under Section 151 Cr.P.C.
Notice for statement in reply was issued to the respondent Government of Uttarakhand on 26.11.2007.
46 Statement in Reply
The Under Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand in his comments dated 11.12.2007 has stated that the inquiry was conducted in the matter by the Superintendent of Police, Dehradoon. It was revealed in the inquiry that some people namely Dilip, Jaiprakash, Sonu and others were causing disturbance and abusing the complainant and threatening not to publish news item against them. The police went to the complainant’s residence and arrested all three under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. and produced them before the relevant court. No one entered or attacked his residence/office.
The respondent has alleged that the complainant is of quarrelsome nature and seven cases are pending against the complainant in various courts. The respondent further added that a history sheet no. 4A was opened on the basis of complainant’s criminal record. A case has also been registered against the complainant at Ludhiana court. He has also been pointed out that the complainant was habitual of filing fake complaints to divert the attention of the police.
Comments of Senior Superintendent of Police
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradoon in his separate comments dated 8.1.2008 reiterated what had already been submitted in the comments of the Under Secretary, Government of Uttrakhand.
A copy each of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 31.12.2007 and 28.1.2007 for counter comments.
Counter Comments
In his counter comments dated 12.1.2008 the complainant submitted that the inquiry report sent by the respondent was misleading and meant to save the respondent police officials. He has asserted that he and his family was attacked and got injured on 7.9.2007, not on 1.9.2007 as stated by the respondent. He has submitted that the police registered fabricated cases against him. He has submitted that some corrupt police officials have opened a false history sheet to stop his critical writing and damaged his image in the society. He has requested to close his history sheet and punish the concerned police officials.
The complainant in his undated letter has submitted that the comments of SSP were false, fabricated and wrong. He further submitted that the respondent had tried to mislead the Council by furnishing wrong statement.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New
47 Delhi on 22.8.2008. Shri Ved Gupta, Editor, Doon Ujala, appeared in person. Shri D.P. Juyal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, represented the respondent police authorities.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant submitted that he was a freelance journalist and started his paper in 1993 and was writing articles/reports from time to time and faced the consequences too. He further submitted that the police had opened his false history sheet in 2003 being annoyed with his critical publications and also threatened that the history sheet will not be closed. He added that the history sheet reflected on his image in this society. He requested the Committee to direct the police authorities to close his history sheet and punish the erring officials.
The respondent submitted that the police had taken all the steps in his complaint with regard to assault on his family. They added that the history sheet against the complainant by the police was pending. The respondent however assured that grievance of the complainant be looked into.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the parties noted that the complainant had earlier approached the Council in the year 1995 for police atrocities and the Council in its adjudication dated 28.6.1996 had take on record the assurance by respondent to protect life and property of the complainant and directed the respondent to stop all false propaganda against the complainant.
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record was of the opinion that the respondent had taken necessary action in respect of the threats by anti-social elements to the complainant. Insofar the issue of history sheet is concerned action has to be taken as per law and the respondents have assured to review the matter within two months. It therefore recommends to the Council to close the matter with directions to the respondent to ensure that the decision of the Council was implemented and the complainant was able to perform his journalistic duties freely and fearlessly. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
48 13) Shri Ved Prakash Pandey Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Freelancer, Government of U.P. Shahjahanpur (U.P.) Lucknow (U.P.)
2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow. (U.P.)
3. The Station House Officer Police Station, Banda Shahjahanpur (U.P.)
4. Shri Ram Prakash Verma Police Constable Police Station Banda Shahjahanpur (U.P.) Complaint Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, Freelancer, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) filed this complaint dated 16.11.2005 against Shri Ram Prakash Verma, Police Constable, police station Banda, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) alleging harassment and threats to implicate him in false/fabricated case following critical reports. The complainant submitted that he had published a critical news item captioned “ÉʺÉ{ÉÉcÉÒ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É-ÉªÉ ¤ÉxÉä” in the issue dated 28.9.2004 of “Swatantra Bharat” highlighting misdeeds of the police constable and his illicit relations with his female friend, Smt. Urmila Bhatnagar. Aggrieved over the critical publication, the respondent not only threatened him and endangered his life but also conspired with the lady, who filed a false case under Sections 496/04, 294 and 506 IPC against him on 12.10.2004, added the complainant. The complainant submitted that he published the news item in public interest without disclosing name of the constable or his female friend, Smt. Urmila Bhatnagar, a social worker in Aanganwadi but the action of the respondent and his friend was intentional and deliberate. The complainant further submitted that Smt. Bhatnagar had illegally acquired some land, and the District Court, vide its order dated 4.2.2005, declared the subject occupation null and void. Since action of the Court was the result of the complaint filed by the complainant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puwayan in 1999, Smt. Bhatnagar after the judgement of the District Collector, Finance and Revenue, Shahjahanpur, visited his house on 16.2.2005 along with her goons and not only abused him but also threatened to kill him. A case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division Puwayan on 23.3.2005 by the complainant. After getting information about the
49 case, the constable also abused and threatened him on his mobile phone to kill him, added the complainant. He filed a complaint before the higher police officials and the Human Rights Commission but failed to get any relief. The complainant submitted that he then approached many officials of district police authorities and wrote to the higher police and administrative authorities but nothing was done and he failed to get any relief. The complainant alleged that the respondent police constable had been misusing his post to maintain relations with his female friend. According to the complainant, the highhandedness of the respondent interference in his professional duty. Notices of statement in reply dated 12.12.2005 was issued to the Chief Secretary, Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and Shri Ram Prakash Verma, Police Constable, police station Banda, Shahjahanpur (U.P.) for their comments in the matter. Notice issued to the respondent constable, Ram Prakash Verma was received back undelivered with the postal remarks ‘Refused’ which was sent for service to the Station House Officer, police station Banda, Shahjahanpur (U.P.). Comments Shri Ram Prakash Verma, Police Constable, police station Banda in his comments (received in the Secretariat on 2.2.2006) while outrightly denying the allegation submitted that the complainant was not a correspondent of the “Swatantra Bharat” and to substantiate his averment he filed a copy of the letter of the Bureau Chief. According to the respondent, the news item in question was published by Puwayan Correspondent, Shri Ram L. Tiwary. The respondent clarified that he was not aware of any such incident before getting the instant complaint. Regarding the reference made in the news item about his female friend, Smt. Urmila Bhatnagar, the respondent submitted that she was a married lady of about 40 years of age and the statement of the complainant was defamatory for both of them which reflected his malicious intention. According to the respondent, he had no relations with Smt. Bhatnagar and the incident of filing FIR against the complainant by her was an independent action on her part about which he had no intimation. According to the respondent all allegations filed by the complainant were false, baseless and far from the truth. He stated that filing of an FIR and after evaluating the same, presenting the Challan before the Court of Law was a legal procedure and it would not be legally and morally proper to comment on it. He further denied the allegation that he had ever thrown any threatening letter of Smt. Bhatnagar before the complainant on 17.10.2004 and ever threatened him on his mobile or otherwise. The respondent clarified that he was not aware of any case filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., thus question of threatening him doesn’t arise. The respondent alleged that the complainant fraudulently received loan from the bank by illegally mortgaging the land of the poor farmers. Repayment
50 of the loan was made by the farmers without receiving any benefit from the loan amount. The respondent claimed that the matter was inquired by him and he filed a point-wise report. The point-wise allegations were found true but no action had been initiated against the complaint in the absence of any witness. Aggrieved by the incident the complainant was in a habit of filing false complaints against him. The respondent stated that being devoted employee of the Government he believes in the democratic institution and not only respects the press but never suppressed freedom of expression. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 7.2.2006. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.2.2006 alleged that the letter of the Bureau Chief of the “Swatantra Bharat’ filed by the respondent was forged as the Bureau Chief had never given such letter to him. He stated that by producing the forged papers the respondent had indulged in criminal offence. Denying the allegations of the respondent and reiterating his original complaint, the complainant submitted that the respondent’s friend had filed fabricated report with his connivance only against him. To establish his averment that he works for “Swatantra Bharat”, the complainant furnished the clippings of the news items under his name and the letters issued by the Bureau Chief to him. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 1.3.2006 for information. Comments of the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur vide his letter dated 19.4.2006 forwarded a copy of the Inquiry Report conducted by the Area Officer, Puwayan, Shahjahanpur who in his report dated 12.4.2007 submitted that he investigated the matter from the Bureau Chief of Swatantra Bharat, Shri Sardar Sharma, who admitted before S/Shri Jogendra Singh, Rajbahadur and others that the complainant had no connection with the “Swatantra Bharat” newspaper. Shri Sardar Singh also admitted that the letter-pad and his signature given to Shri Ram Prakash Verma, Police Constable were not forged. The inquiry report further revealed that the complaint filed before the court by the complainant was also false and concocted. Hence the allegations levelled by the complainant had not been proved. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 5.5.2006 for information. The complainant in his letters dated 15.5.2006 and 22.5.2006 while reiterating allegations levelled in his complaint submitted that the inquiry report of the respondent was one sided and partial. He requested the Council to conduct the inquiry by another officer and also asked for a list of the working journalists in the area.
51 A copy each of the complainant’s letters was forwarded to the respondents on 9.6.2006 for information. The DIG of Police, Lucknow vide his letter dated 8.11.2006 informed that the allegations levelled by the complainant against Shri Ram Prakash Verma, police constable and Smt. Urmila Bhatnagar had not been proved. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the complainant on 21.11.2006 for information. The complainant vide his further letter dated 7.12.2006 denied the comments of the DIG of Police, Lucknow and requested the Council to take strict action against the respondents. A copy of the complainant’s letter was forwarded to the respondents on 29.5.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, Journalist, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Jawahar Lal appeared for the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent police constable had lodged false FIR in connivance with his lady friend to take revenge as he had published critical report against them. The complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the FIR was lodged on the complaint of the lady and it was incumbent on the part of the police to register a case which brought to its notice. It was also averred that the issue had its roots in a personal grievance between the prime parties and no issue of journalistic practice was involved in it. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties observed that the complainant’s grievance was against lodging of an FIR against him by an aggrieved lady who was allegedly supported by the constable. The complainant has not been able to establish how the impugned report impacted the legal dispute. It is also worth noting that the critical report cited by the complainant does not appear to exhibit good journalistic practice and gave the impression of an attempt to settle some personal scores. This strengthens the Inquiry Committees’ conviction that the issue in hand was a matter of personal dispute and not actionable under the Press Council Act. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
52 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
14) Shri M.M. Khan Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Uttar Pradesh Indica Times Lucknow (U.P.) Lucknow 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow (U.P.)
3. The Superintendent of Police District Sonebhadra Uttar Pradesh
4. Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj Sonebhadra (U.P.)
5. Shri Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi President, Press Club Sonebhadra (U.P.)
6. Shri Pradeep Raja Sonebhadra (U.P.) Complaint Shri M.M. Khan, Editor, Indica Times, Lucknow has filed this complaint dated 7.2.2007 against Shri Raghubir Lal, Superintendent of Police, Sonebhadra and his friends Shri Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi, (Freelancer), President, Press Club, Sonebhadra and Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj for threatening to kill him due to publication of the critical writings against them under the following captions:
1 +É{ÉxÉÉÒ cÉÒ MÉãÉiÉÉÒ ÉÊU{ÉÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ JÉÉÉÊiÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ 6-12 àÉ<Ç, 2006 {ÉjÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉä ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® 2 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ +ÉvÉÉÒFÉBÉE BÉEä ÉÊxÉãÉà¤ÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉÄMÉ 13-19 àÉ<Ç, 2006 3 ®ÉVÉäxp ÉÊu´ÉänÉÒ {ÉjÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®ÉÒ {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 20-26 àÉ<Ç, 2006 +ÉvÉÉÒFÉBÉE +ÉÉè® ABÉE {ÉjÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ ºÉÉÉÊVɶÉ
53 4 {É]ÅÉäãÉ {Éà{É ãÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉä BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® ºÉÉiÉ ãÉÉJÉ cb{Éä 27 àÉ<Ç ºÉä 2 VÉÚxÉ, 2006 5 BÉEÉÉÊiÉÇBÉEäªÉ BÉEäÉÊàÉBÉEãºÉ <ÉÊhbªÉÉ |ÉÉ.ÉÊãÉ. àÉå ãÉÉJÉÉå BÉEÉ 3-9 VÉÚxÉ, 2006 PÉÉä]ÉãÉÉ àÉÖJªÉ ºÉÉÉÊVɶÉBÉEiÉÉÇ ABÉE º´ÉiÉÆjÉ {ÉjÉBÉEÉ® 6 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ +ÉvÉÉÒFÉBÉE ®PÉÖ¤ÉÉÒ® ãÉÉãÉ uÉ®É ºÉ®BÉEÉ®ÉÒ 16-22 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®, 2006 ºÉÖÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ+ÉÉå BÉEÉ nÖ°ô{ɪÉÉäMÉ
The complainant submitted that he highlighted the misdeeds and illegal activities of the respondents by publishing the critical news items in his paper in public interest. Being annoyed with the publications the respondent S.P.’s friend Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj came to his office on 30.12.2006 and threatened him to stop such publications failing which he has to face dire consequences. Later he received threatening calls. The complainant submitted that he wrote letters to the higher authorities requesting them to take action against the respondents but failed to receive any response. Notices for statement in reply dated 11.9.2007 were issued to the respondents. Statements in Reply In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply, the respondent Shri Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi, (Freelancer), President, Press Club, Sonebhadra in his comments dated 6.11.2007 denied the allegations made by the complainant that he had threatened to kill the complainant. The respondent submitted that complainant filed false declaration with the Press Council. He alleged that seven cases are pending in the court of law against the complainant. The respondent further alleged that complainant is habitual of publishing baseless news items to blackmail and defame him. He had filed a complaint bearing No.14/9/07-08 against the complainant (The matter was closed on 4.10.2007 for non prosecution). The respondent counter alleged that being prejudiced the complainant had deliberately filed this complaint levelling allegations which were far from the facts and misleading. The respondent, Shri Raghuvir Lal, Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh in his comments dated 14.11.2007 denied the allegations made by the complainant and submitted that he was posted as S.P. Sonebhadra till 14.5.2007 and the complainant never met him nor filed any complaint. He further stated that he has not known any Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj, as alleged by the complainant, he was only known about Shri Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi being as President of the Press Club of Sonebhadra. The respondent submitted that he never gave shelter to any one, as alleged by the complainant. He further added that many cases were pending in the court of law against the complainant but the complainant had filed false
54 declaration with Press Council. The respondent counter alleged that being prejudiced the complainant had made false and baseless allegation to defame him. A copy each of the reply was forwarded to the complainant on 3.12.2007 by Registered A/D post but the same has been received back undelivered with postal remarks “After repeated visit, the office found closed-hence returned”. On 13.3.2008 the replies were again forwarded to the complainant. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. Shri M.M. Khan, Editor, Indica Times, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Shesh Narayan Dixit, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Sonebhadra and Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi appeared for the respondents. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that two cases were filed against him due to the conspiracy of Shri Raghubir Lal, Superintendent of Police and Shri Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi, journalist. He sumbmitted that he had published news of Kartikay Chemical Factory and auction of the property which annoyed the respondent. The complainant further submitted that he had published news about illegal mining and he was given threats by Shri Raghubir Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sonebhadra. He requested for action against the respondents for preventing him from performing his duties as a journalist. While the respondent police authorities reiterated the written statement, the respondent Shri Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi, President, Press Club, Sonebhadra filed written submissions dated 22.8.2008 before the Committee wherein it was stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and baseless. The respondent alleged that the complainant had misled the Council by filing a false declaration regarding non pendency of any matter in the Court of law. The respondent further submitted that he was President of Press Club, Sonebhadra and the journalists had given complaints against the complainant. The dispute between the complainant and Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj was on account of money transaction of auction of property. The respondent further submitted that the complainant also filed complaints against him in the Court to blackmail him which were rejected. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the record and oral arguments of the parties present before it noted that the complainant was not able to produce evidence to substantiate his charge of harassment accruing out of critical reports. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for lack of sufficient grounds for action under the Press Council Act, 1978.
55 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
15) Pt. Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi 1. The Chief Secretary Journalist Govt. of U.P., Lucknow Satya Mail, Hindi weekly Versus 2. The Secretary, Home Mauranipur, Jhansi (U.P.) (Police) Deptt., Govt. of U.P., Lucknow 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jhansi 4. Shri Dilip Sarawagi Mauranipur, Jhansi Complaint This complaint dated 21.7.06 has been preferred by Pt. Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi against Shri Dilip Sarawagi and the local police alleging harassment for having published some news items in his weekly newspaper “Satya Mail” issues dated 11th and 18th July 2006 exposing black-marketing, sale of illegal land and sale of duplicate medicines by Shri Dilip Sarawagi and others. Annoyed with this the respondents beat him up on 16.7.2006 and also threatened him. The complainant alleged that on the night of 17.7.06 his son was also beaten up by the respondents. Threatening to kill his son the respondents damaged his son’s two-wheeler scooter. The complainant submitted that when he went to the police station to lodge his complaint, the accused were already sitting there and the police was giving them undue respect. When he requested to lodge his complaint, the Station House Officer got angry with him and abused him. The complainant further submitted that he also made a complaint of this incident to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had passed order on the complaint itself to take necessary action but the police did not take any action. He submitted that a complaint of this incident was also sent to the Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police, the IG and the DIG and the Superintendent of Police, Government of Uttar Pradesh but no action was taken. He alleged that due to the atrocities of the respondents, he could not perform his duty efficiently. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments of the Respondents Comments of the respondents police authorities and Shri Dilip Sarawagi were invited in the matter on 17.10.2006. Shri Dilip Sarawagi in his comments dated 30.10.2006 submitted that earlier Shri Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi who was the correspondent of “Janata Ki Guhar”
56 newspaper published false news items against him with a view to extort money from him. He lodged a complaint with the Press Council of India and the Council in its decision dated 7.10.2005 upheld his complaint and warned the respondent to refrain from publishing unverified malicious reports against him. The respondent alleged that the complainant, to take revenge of the defeat made his nephew a correspondent of weekly “Parakh” who started publication of obscene and false news items and Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta made a complaint on 26.3.06 to the Press Council of India. The respondent further stated that he also filed a complaint on behalf of Secretary, Society for Human Rights & Justice, Jhansi against the above said weekly for publication of false news items. The respondent denied having threatened the complainant. He stated that the complainant is a habitual drunkard who under the influence of alcohol quarrels with the people and there were many complaints against him. The respondent stated that all the allegations levelled against him by the complainant were without substance. The Under Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow in his comments dated 31.1.2007 submitted that the inquiry was conducted in the matter by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mauranipur, Jhansi who in their separate report stated that there was rift between the respondent and the complainant on account of publication of contradiction to the news items and the complainant made complaints to this effect. Necessary effective action was taken against both sides. Presently there is no complaint from either side. However, the police was keeping a watch on their activities. A copy each of the comments received from Shri Dilip Sarawagi and the Government of Uttar Pradesh was forwarded to the complainant on 14.11.06 and 4.4.07 for information/counter comments. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 16.05.2008. The complainant’s nephew, Shri Devender Chaturvedi, journalist vide letter dated 6.5.2008 intimated that the complainant was seriously ill and therefore another date may be given. Shri Rajneesh Chandra, Deputy Collector, Jhansi appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee upon considering the request from the complainant’s side decided to adjourn the matter. The parties were informed about the adjournment of the case vide letter dated 23.06.2008. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Dilip Sarawagi, respondent editor and Shri Saudan Singh, Inspector appeared for the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi while Shri Bhagwan Devi, Deputy Collector appeared for the District Magistrate, Jhansi.
57 The representative of the respondent authorities submitted that the complainant was in the habit of publishing obscene and defamatory news and the public had filed cases before the Council and before Courts against the complainant for his writings in the paper. He added that the complainant filed the present complaint to save himself from the cases pending against him. It was further submitted that the complainant had made baseless allegations that he was beaten up. The Inquiry Committee noted that a cross complaint has been filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Sarawagi, the respondent editor in this case. As the respondent in co- related case sought adjournment, the Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter decided to hear both the cases simultaneously. The complainant vide his undated letter received in the secretariat of the Council on 5.8.2008, informed that he was called to the police station, Mauranipur on July 15, 2008. The respondent, Shri Dilip Sarawagi was also present there. According to the complainant the police authorities present there insulted him and took the respondent’s side. The complainant apprehended that the respondent could make an attempt to attack him and his family members any time. The complainant submitted that he has full faith in the Council’s justice. He requested to decide the case on merit. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/Shri Rajneesh Chandra, ACM/Deputy Collector, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh and Saudan Singh, Inspector appeared for the respondent. Shri Dilip Sarawagi was not present. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Rajneesh Chandra, ACM/Deputy Collector, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh submitted that the complainant was not present on the last occasion also. He stated that dispute between the parties was on account of publication of certain false news items The police had called both the parties and they were asked to compromise, binding them under Section 107 Cr. P.C. There was no further incident of dispute between them. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents. The Committee noted the complainant’s continuous absence at the hearings. On consideration of the material on record including the police inquiry report, the Inquiry Committee noted that following dispute between the two parties and lodging of counter complaint, the police had taken all due action including action under Section 107 Cr. P.C. and the complainant had been unable to establish that the issue had affected his freedom
58 to discharge his journalistic functions. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to reject the complaint. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
16) Shri Shivakant Pathak Versus 1. The Chief Secretary, Correspondent Govt. of U.P, Lucknow Dainik Dewan; and 2. The Secretary Dainik Karamyug Prakash Home (Police) Department Jalaun (U.P.) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow 3. TheSuperintendentof Police Jalaun (U.P.) Complaint In a complaint dated 18.4.2006 addressed inter-alia to the Press Council, Shri Shivakant Pathak, Correspondent, “Dainik Dewan” and “Dainik Karamyug Prakash” published from Jalaun alleged extreme harassment by the local police. The complainant has submitted that on 17.11.2005 at 9:00 p.m. he went to police station for lodging a complaint with regard to the removal of mud near his house. According to him, Munshi, Shri Surendra Singh demanded Rs.200/- and when he refused then Shri Satyabir Singh Chauhan, Sub-Inspector abused him and also threatened him to leave the State of U.P. The complainant alleged that the Sub- Inspector was in intoxicated condition. The complainant submitted that he published a critical report captioned “BÉEnÉè®É lÉÉxÉÉ BÉEÉä ´É-ÉÉç ºÉä VÉàÉå §É-] àÉÖƶÉÉÒ ´É n®ÉäMÉÉ SÉãÉÉ ®cä cè” in “Dainik Dewan” issue dated 26.11.2005. According to the complainant annoyed with this and due to his inter-caste marriage with a scheduled caste girl, the Sub-Inspector, Shri Satyaveer Singh Chauhan and Munshi, Shri Surendra Singh, who belongs to the same caste threatened one Shri Jahir Ahmed @ Raju to complain against him and Shri Ahmed with the help of Shri Kapil Gupt filed a fake complaint which was registered under Sections 323/504/506 IPC on 26.11.2005. The complainant further alleged that the action of the respondents was an attack on freedom of press and also suffered irreparable mental agony. He has submitted that he had written to the concerned authorities but no action was taken in the matter. He has requested the Council to provide him security and also take necessary action against the respondents. Notices for statement in reply were issued to the respondent-Government of U.P. on 31.7.2006.
59 Comments The Superintendent of Police, Jalaun in his comments dated 10.9.2006 submitted that the inquiry in the matter was conducted by the Circle Officer, Kalpi, Janpad, Jalaun who in his report while denying the allegations, submitted that the complainant had eloped with a girl, named Kalpana and the father of the girl, Shri Rajaram Khatik had filed a criminal case No.66/2005 under Sections 363/366 and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act in Kadora police station. The Inquiry Report further revealed that in order to evade arrest and conceal his act, the complainant married the girl at Arya Samaj Mandir, Kanpur City on 30.4.2005. According to the report of the respondent, in the past also in criminal case No.97/92 under Sections 363/366/376 the complainant was arrested and sent to jail. In the said report, it has been further stated that on the complaint of Shri Jahir Ahmed @ Raju a case No.42/2005 under Sections 323/504/506 IPC was registered on 26.11.2005 and after investigation a challan had been filed on 25.12.2005 in the Court. The report stated that the complainant has been publishing false and baseless news items against the police authorities from time to time. It was also stated that no false case had been registered by the local police against the complainant till date. The respondent submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant have not been proved. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 2.11.2006 for information/counter comments. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Region, Jhansi in his comments dated 12.3.2007 submitted that the inquiry into the matter was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jalaun. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Jalaun in his report dated 26.2.2007 submitted that he recorded the statement of the complainant, who stated that Shri Jahir resident of Kadora had filed a fake complaint against him and the police registered a false case No.42/ 05 under Sections 323/504/506 IPC on 26.11.2005 which is under consideration of the Court. In the said report the complainant stated that he had filed a complaint before the Press Council of India a long time back and that time he was in difficulty but presently neither he feels any difficulty nor intends to pursue his complaint further with the Press Council. The respondent submitted that in view of the statement of the complainant it seems that there was no need to proceed further in the matter. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2007 for information. Counter Comments In his undated counter comments received in the Secretariat of the Council on 29.12.2006 while denying the allegations made in the report filed by Superintendent of Police of Jalaun, the complainant submitted that he had married
60 Kalpana with her own consent without exerting any pressure and as the allegation of the respondent was false that he had abducted the girl and the said girl after marrying him is living with him. He submitted that the statement of the respondent that he had married the girl to conceal his act is totally false and baseless. He alleged that the act of the respondent police authorities against him is a reprisal measure due to publication of critical writings. The complainant in his counter dated 1.9.2007 to the comments of the respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi while reiterating his complaint that he was harassed mentally, financially and physically by the local police submitted that the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaluan was totally false and baseless as he never given any such statement expressing his unwillingness to pursue the complaint. The complainant further submitted that the respondent Shri Surendra Singh Yadav, Munshi who had been transferred last year constantly visited Kadora two-three times in a week whereas presently he is posted at Nandigaon police station. The complainant alleged that in his absence the respondent showed his house to the criminals of the area. He apprehended that the respondent himself or through other persons may cause any untoward incident. He has requested an early action in the matter. The complainant vide his letter dated 17.3.2008 informed that the Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, District Jalaun in his Order dated 28.2.2008 held that he was not found guilty in the cases filed against him under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Filing a copy of the order, the complainant has requested the Council to take action against the erring officials. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant in a fax dated 23.7.2008 prayed for exemption from appearance before the Inquiry Committee due to financial constraints. The complainant submitted that the documents provided by him in support of his complaint were authentic. He apprehended that the respondent could force him to sign on some papers and these could be misused. The respondent superintendent of police, Jalaun in a fax dated 23.7.2008 stated that the matter had been inquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the district and in his inquiry report it was found that the complainant was not interested in pursuing his complaint. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the communication from the parties noted that the contradictory statements had been made by the parties. It therefore, decided to adjourn the matter to hear both sides at next hearing. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008
61 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Shri Pramod Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh in a fax dated 10.10.2008 sought adjournment due to law and order problem in the district. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record. It noted that the complainant had levelled general allegations against the police authorities. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the case no.42/2005 under Sections 323/504/ 506-IPC was pending in the court of law. Further the complainant was not present despite two opportunities afforded to him to prosecute his case, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
17) Shri Jitender Mohan Saxena The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Uttar Pradesh Kalyug Ki Duniya Versus Lucknow Hindi Weekly Pilibhit (U.P.) The Chief Medical Officer Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 29.5.2006 has been filed by Shri Jitender Mohan Saxena, Editor, “Kalyug Ki Duniya”, Hindi weekly, Pilibhit (U.P.) against the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit alleging harassment due to publication of critical news. The complainant has submitted that his wife was working as ANM in Community Health Centre, which was under the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit. Annoyed with the publication of critical news items, the CMO and his subordinates started harassing his wife and stopped her salary. The respondent threatened his wife that her salary will be released only when her husband publishes apology with regrets. The complainant has also alleged that he had been receiving threat to his life from the respondent, Chief Medical Officer for having exposed him and his subordinates. Irregularities in managing public funds in connection with Pulse Polio Campaign and deficiencies in medical services irked the authorities of the State Government exulting in stopping of payment of salary to his wife. The complainant submitted that he had written a number of letters to the various authorities about his grievance but nothing has been done so far. Notice
62 for statement in reply dated 13.10.2006 was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit followed by a reminder dated 17.5.2007. The Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit vide his letter dated 25.9.2007 addressed to the Under Secretary, Medical Section, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and copy endorsed to PCI, has requested to send a copy of the complaint made by the complainant. A copy of the complaint was again forwarded to the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit on 18.3.2008. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. S/Shri Jitender Mohan Saxena, the complainant appeared in person along with P.S. Khare, Advocate. Shri Raghunath Singh Parihar, Under Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Medical Health and Dr. K.S. Gupta, Superintendent, Public Health Centre, Veesalpur, Pilibhit appeared for the respondent Chief Medical Officer. The complainant submitted that the respondent was annoyed because of the news published by him in his newspaper Kalyug Ki Duniya highlighting misdeeds and illegal activities in the Community Primary Health Centre, Pilibhit. Similar news were also published in Dainik Jagran. Therefore, to pressurize him, the respondent took revenge through his wife, who was working in the Community Primary Health Centre, Pilibhit as a clerk by treating her leave without pay although she had suffered foot injury and had applied for medical leave. The complainant submitted that his wife was sincere to her duties and she had done 20 cases of Pulse Polio Campaign. The respondent filed his written statement and submitted that the complainant’s wife was negligent in her duties and on six occasions of Polio Programme she proceeded on leave. Her sterilization cases were zero, while the other staff members had done 21 cases. The respondent submitted that her pay was stopped by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer as she had proceeded on leave without sanction. It was subsequently released after the leave was regularized. The respondent further submitted the complainant journalist being the husband of the above said lady staff member in their office, filed this false complaint to pressurize them. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties directed the complainant to file counter comments on the reply filed by the respondent at the time of hearing within a fortnight. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter accordingly. The complainant in his counter comments dated 2.9.2008 reiterated his original complaint and submitted that the respondent has filed false documents only to malign his and his wife’s image in the society and to save himself. 63 A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 10.10.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on November 17, 2008. The complainant, Shri J.M. Saxena alongwith Shri P.S. Khare, advocate appeared before the Committee while Dr. Lokesh Sharma, Medical Officer represented the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant submitted that he had not given notice to the respondent authorities. His wife had served the legal notice. He added that pay of his wife was unnecessarily stopped to pressurize him. She was subsequently promoted.
Dr. Sharma appearing for the respondent submitted that the pay was not stopped due to publication of reports by the complainant but as an administrative action by the department, as the lady tended to proceed on leave during campaigns. He further stated that the ex-Chief Medical Officer and the present CMO had recommended that the complainant’s wife may be promoted on the basis of complete service record that was unrelated to the action taken on that occasion. The complainant was using his status as a journalist to protect his wife. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
On consideration of the record and oral arguments of the parties the Inquiry Committee held that the complainant was not able to establish his case that the action regarding stoppage of salary against his wife who was working as a ANM in Community Health Centre, was due to publication of critical news reports about the Centre by him, rather the salary was stopped as a punishment for dereliction of duties and proceeding on leave without sanction during pulse polio programme on different occasions. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that the complainant was trying to use his position as a journalist to unduly pressurize the respondent authorities. Rather the Inquiry Committee feels that the complainant’s action warrants a censure for filing this frivolous complaint to put pressure on the Chief Medical Officer of the Community Health Centre and also misusing the forum of the Press Council of India to put pressure on the respondent authorities. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly. Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
64 18) Shri Iliyaskhan Versus The Police Authorities Editor/Publisher Badnapur Weekly Barasta Toofan District Jalna Badnapur, District Jalna Maharashtra Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 21.4.2007 has been filed by Shri Iliyaskhan, ditor/ Publisher, Barasta Toofan, Badnapur, District Jalna, Maharashtra against local police officials alleging physical and mental harassment by having registered false and concocted criminal cases against him and for curbing the freedom of the Press, by way of reprisal measure due to publication of critical news items. According to the complainant, a rally was organized by the Scheduled Caste people in Badnapur on 10.4.2007, in protest against the desecration of the statue of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and later, it turned into a communal riot between Muslims and Scheduled Caste people. The complainant was doing his duty as a journalist and was taking photographs/shooting video of the rally which turned violent. While the police, including the Inspector and S.P. Jalna were lurking, he and some other social workers/ leaders/social activists tried to cool down the furious mob. He has alleged that on 14.4.2007, Deputy Police Inspector, Shri Chandan B. Imale, called him to the police station and issued an arrest warrant and locked him in a room and detained him for three days from 14.4.2007 to 16.4.2007 starving, without even a glass of water during the period. He was released on bail on 20.4.2007. He has been falsely involved in criminal case under Public Property Damage Act, alleged the complainant. The complainant has alleged that while he was in magisterial custody, the Deputy Inspector of Police, Shri Chandan B. Imale, Head Constable, Shri Jadhav and Head Constable, Shri Rathod beat him up. He has listed the captions of 62 news items he had published ranging from 16.5.2003 to 6.4.2007, regarding events and unauthorized activities which took place in various police stations in District Jalna. The complainant has narrated incidents of police high handedness and stated that on 29.12.2005, an Assistant Police Inspector, Shri Parasram Bhasu Rathod, impounded his vehicle carrying parcel on concocted crime case under Essential Commodity Act. With intervention of law court he got back his vehicle and the concerned police officials were caught red-handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau for accepting bribe money of Rs. 50,000/- on the complaint of the complainant. When the Departmental Inquiry was conducted against the police officials, the complainant was threatened to withdraw his complaint. He has also stated that he had written to the police authorities about his grievance but nothing has been done so far.
65 The complainant vide letter dated 10.8.2007 has stated that the police had arrested him in a criminal case Nos. 1-63/2007, 3151/2005 and 3112/2006 and released him on bail and now no matter in respect of the arrest is pending. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Statement in Reply A notice for statement in reply was issued to the respondent police officials on 22.11.2007. The respondent, Shri Chandan B. Imale, Police Sub-Inspector, police station Badnapur, Jalna District in his reply dated 15.12.2007 has submitted that when he was on duty at Badnapur police station, a mob of about 400 to 500 persons gathered in front of Badnapur police station near masjid in protest against the desecration of the statue of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar which occurred at Jalna city. The mob started pelting stones at the police and some police personnel were injured and a vehicle was also damaged. According to the respondent when the mob was proceeding in front of the masjid, there were exchange of heated words between persons belonging to muslim community and the people of the rally. And they started pelting stones at each other and when the police tried to disperse them, all the mob including the muslim community turned against the police. The respondent Sub Inspector, who had investigated the incident has submitted that the present complainant was not named in the FIR but in the statement recorded from the witnesses and police personnel’s accounts, the complainant’s presence at the place of the incident was confirmed. The respondent has listed eight numbers of cases pending against the complainant in various offences and added that the complainant has been involved in various crimes and is having criminal record. He has further stated that so far as the complainant is concerned, he was arrested on 16.4.2007 at 10.50 a.m. by preparing an arrest warrant and was produced before the Learned Magistrate on the same date. Police custody was granted till 18.4.2007 and was extended upto 20.4.2007 and when they were produced before the magistrate, no complaint of ill treatments was made by any of them against the police and they were released on bail on 3.5.2007. A copy of the statement in reply was forwarded to the complainant on 8.1.2008 for information. Statement in reply filed by Shri Parasram Bhasu Rathod In response to the notice for statement in reply dated 22.11.2007, respondent No. (8), Shri Parasram Bhasu Rathod, Assistant Police Inspector @ Incharge, police station Taluka Jalna, Maharashtra filed his parawise comments dated 8.1.2008 and denied all the allegation made by the complainant in his complaint. The respondent has submitted that the complaint is challenged on various grounds. One
66 of them being that the complainant was registered in false and concocted crime and thereby was physically harassed and misbehaved with in insulting manner and mental harassment to the complainant was also caused. While denying all the allegations, the respondent Assistant Police Inspector has denied that right of freedom of expression has been suppressed by him. The respondent further submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant for acquitting him from the crime No. 63/2007, 3151/2005 and 3112/2006 is beyond the jurisdiction of the Press Council of India. The respondent admits as true that the complainant is resident of Badnapur and a reporter of “Barasta Toofan” and that a rally was arranged on 10.4.2007 at Kanhaiya Nagar, Jalna, that there was some dispute between the Scheduled Caste people and Muslims but the complainant was not doing his journalistic duty. The respondent further submitted that a case No. 63/2007 was registered against the complainant by police at police station Badnapur, which is legal in the eye of law. The respondent further submitted that two other cases were registered against the complainant vide crime No. 3151/2005 under the Essential Commodities Act at police station Taluka Jalna and crime No. 3112/2006 at police station Sadar Bazar, Jalna. The complainant was taking banned kerosene in his vehicle. The respondent denied that the complainant was involved in crime no 63/2006 under some conspiracy. The respondent submitted that no illegal demand was raised by him. The respondent further submitted that the complainant is offender and accused in various cases. He is running a newspaper, “weekly Barasta Toofan” from Badnapur. He always used to publish imaginary and false news against the police department, to sheild his illegal activities. Moreover in the garb of the newspaper, he always used to blackmail various persons including the police machinery. The respondent further submitted that all false and concocted news were tolerated by the police department, it shows that, no police authority had made any obstacle for the publication of news. Therefore, the complainant’s submission before the Council that, right of peaceful publication had been killed is denied. The respondent further submitted that the complainant is regular offender and a person who is accused of many offences. The police have to register the crime against the said person, whoever he may be. The respondent has submitted a list of crime registered against the complainant in various police stations at Badnapur and Taluka Jalna. The respondent further informed the Council that the complainant is convicted person in Crime No. 176/2002 of police station Badnapur and has been convicted by the J.M.F.C., Jalna on 23.9.2005. The punishment awarded to the complainant is one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. The respondent further submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna has declared the complainant as habitual offender and had initiated proceeding under section 56 of Bombay Police Act, and complainant was in exile for some period
67 from Jalna District. The illegal activities of the complainant also had been noticed by the RTO Jalna, who initiated suspension of his vehicle No. MH-21-3656. The respondent further submitted that in all offences, whenever the complainant had been arrested by the police and brought before the Judicial Magistrate, the complainant had not made any complaint of ill-treatment before the Magistrate. The respondent has requested the Council to cancel his registration number title and dismiss the complaint. Comments filed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalna In response to the notice for statement in reply dated 22.11.2007, Shri Charanjeev Prasad, Superintendent of Police, Jalna, respondent No. (6) Maharashtra has filed his parawise reply dated 28.1.2008, with a detailed report on the complainant, Iliyaskhan Abdul Majidkhan. The respondent submitted that the complainant is Editor/Publisher of weekly Barasta Toofan and resident of Jalna. On account of desecration of a statue of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a riot on 10.4.2006 at Kanhaiya Nagar, Jalna is also not disputed. However the contention that the police did not intervene in time and hence people became furious is not correct. After sensing the gravity of the situation, police staff was deployed at all sensitive points. The situation however, went out of control as the number of people increased enormously and the complainant was also amongst them. Shri Abhey Deshpande, PSO, Badnapur police station was present on that date. The complainant has alleged that Shri Chandan B. Imale registered case No. 63/07 under Sections 143, 147, 149, 353, 332, 427-IPC and other relevant Section, and illegality was committed by Shri Chandan B. Imale by investigating the matter. All these contentions are not sustainable for the reason that any police officer of the rank of PSI can register and investigate serious offence and most of the police officers and staff got injured due to the riots and Shri Deshpande also received injuries and so Shri Chandan B. Imale who is competent Officer lodged the FIR and carried out investigation. Hence there is no illegality as such as alleged by the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the complainant being a member of unlawful assembly was found to be active in the riots, he was identified. Thereafter attempt was made to apprehend him immediately. When he was seen, he was arrested along with other accused and entry to that effect was duly made in the station diary on 16.4.2007 and all the accused person were produced before the Hon’ble Court on the same day and PCR was granted up to 18.4.2007. Again on 18.4.2007 all the accused were produced before Court and the PCR was extended up to 20.4.2007. Again on 20.4.2007 on production before court, all the accused were taken in MCR till 3.5.2007. There was no beating at the hands of API Bhosale, as alleged by the complainant. All allegations are false, baseless and afterthought for the reason that when all the accused were produced before the court on
68 20.4.2007 they were asked by the court about ill-treatment, if any, occurred by the police. None of the accused made a complaint before the Hon’ble Court. No complaint of ill-treatment taken in MCR till 3.5.2007, hence the allegation made by the complainant about beating on 19.4.2007 is not sustainable. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s allegations about getting beaten at hands of Chandan B. Imale and other staff on 20.4.2007 are utterly false and concocted for the reason that once MCR is granted the accused persons are to be shifted from the court to magisterial custody. Therefore at no point of time there was any occasion to beat the complainant as alleged. After shifting to jail there is medical checkup. However there is no complaint of beating neither to the doctor nor jail authority. The respondent further submitted that after lapse of five months such baseless allegations to be levelled by the complainant are mischievous and false as no medical report regarding his admission to care hospital Jalna regarding hypertension has been annexed/submitted by the complainant. The respondent further pointed out that crime cases No. 3151/05 and 3112/ 06 were in respect of crimes registered in 2005 and 2006 are in fact beyond the period of taking cognizance in view of Section 36 of PCR Act. The respondent has submitted a report on the basis of record in Crime No 3151/2005 on the basis of record. On 29.12.2005 Parasram Bhasu Rathod, API, traffic branch, Jalna received information that one vehicle (Taxi, Jeep) bearing no MH-21-3656 is being run on blue kerosene and such type of kerosene is meant only for domestic use and not for commercial or any other use. On receipt of such information the concerned officer accompanied by staff and two independent witnesses intercepted the said vehicle near Bajaj Nagar. On enquiry the driver informed his name as Sayyed Jamil Sagar baba and informed that vehicle belongs to Iliyaskhan Majidkhan, a journalist by occupation/resident of Badnapur. The said driver was informed about the purpose of enquiry and in presence of panchas sample of kerosene was collected and it was found to be the blue kerosene on appearance itself. A bystander was also interrogated about the ownership of vehicle and he also informed that the vehicle belonged to Iliyaskhan Majidkhan, a journalist of Badnapur. Therefore after following the due procedure of law and on satisfaction that there was contravention of legal provision, crime was registered. The respondent further submitted that on 26.7.2006 while he, the Superintendent of Police, Jalna was taking city check and patrolling at that time at Mutha building corner, one white Jeep was asked to be halted. Without stopping the jeep the driver proceeded towards bus-stand in a very high speed. The vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner thereby endangering the life of people on the road. The said jeep was intercepted near Plulambriker Natyagarh. On enquiry about the license and papers the person sitting behind informed his name to be Iliyaskhan Majidhkan and the vehicle bore the number MH-14-B-5488
69 TATA Sumo Jeep. The said person also failed to produce the license and necessary papers of the vehicle; therefore the crime was duly registered. Hence, the contention of complainant about false case and conspiracy are false and far from the truth/ ill-founded. The respondent further submitted that he is not subscriber or reader of the said newspaper and also not aware of such newspaper being published and circulated and hence restrains from making any comment thereon. In crime No. 3151/05 under Motor Vehicle Act and Essential Commodities. Act registered against the complainant and accordingly complainant was produced before the Hon’ble Judge at his residence due to non availability of competent court and appropriate proceedings were initiated. Regarding illegal demand of Rs. 5000/- can’t be commented as it appears to be a discussion between the concerned persons and there is no record as such to prove/corroborate/ deny the allegations to that effect. Regarding return of his vehicle and there is no record or complaint in writing about the demand by the Police Inspector Pawar. As regard allegation about physical torturing, oppression in cruel and brutal manner, at the hands of the concerned police officer in collusion, the respondent has submitted that the alleged captivation is also not specific regarding the date, time and place and hence it cannot be verified. With regard to issues relating to accepting bribe and being caught by the anti Corruption Bureau – and departmental inquiry ordered by competent authority and the entrustment of conducting departmental inquiry is the domain of another competent authority and the respondent submits that he is not aware of objection raised by the complainant to the higher authorities. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant Shri Illiyashkhan appeared in person.Shri Ashok Ramchandra Jadhav, Police Sub-Inspector appeared for the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant narrated the charges of harassment and torture by the police authorities. The complainant submitted that he had published critical news against the police authorities and as reprisal he was booked under Public Property Damage Act. His name is Sheikh Iliyas Sheikh Aziz but the police named him in the FIR as Illiyaskhan Abdul Majid Khan. The police while making FIR against unknown 400 to 450 miscreants on account of desecration of Dr. Ambedkar’s statue at Jalna had named three persons including the complainant. The complainant submitted that he was illegally detained by the police on 14.4.2007 and produced in the court on 16.4.2007. He however got bail on 20.4.2007. The complainant stated that he was asked during detention to sign on the blank papers at gunpoint,
70 which he did. The complainant denied any role in the communal riots that took place on 10.4.2007, but the Sub-Inspector Shri C.B. Imale sided with one community and entangled the complainant. The complainant further submitted that Assistant Police Inspector, Shri P.B. Rathod had made a case under Essential Commodity Act to put pressure to withdraw the anti-corruption case against him. The complainant submitted that he was acquitted in family case against him, and other cases viz. diesel/kerosene, theft and disturbance of religious feeling etc. were pending. The complainant submitted that the police was bent upon to harass him in one case or other. The complainant requested for suitable action against the respondents. The representative of the police authorities submitted that the FIR in r/o PPD Act was prepared on 15th April and the complainant was produced before the court on 16th April, 2007. The respondent denied any illegal detention of the complainant by the police. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s passenger vehicle was checked by the traffic personnel and it was found that the vehicle was overloaded and instead of using diesel, the vehicle was run by kerosene. Thus, the case of misuse of Essential Commodities was registered. The respondent stated that the complainant was convicted in a family case. The respondent contented that cases were registered prior to publication of critical reports that commenced from the year 2005 whereas, the cases were registered in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The complainant denied conviction in a family case and stated that he was acquitted. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On examination of the records and hearing the parties at length, the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had published reports critical of the police authorities in his newspaper Barasta Toofan issues dated 30.3.2007 and 6.4.2007 encaptioned: “Talks of filling up Pockets By Unfair Deal By Badnapur Police” and “By Showing Bogus Auction And Sale On Paper Of 5.75 Ton Iron Bars Worth Rs.59,800/-”. These were preceded by similar critical appraisals that a communal disturbance took place on 10.4.2007 involving hundred of the miscreants; the police picked up three persons including the complainant. While the name varied in the FIR in the case under PPD Act, the complainant was identified and detained and later produced before the court. The Inquiry Committee observed that the police authorities in its reply had admitted that the complainant used to write imaginary and false news to shield his illegal activities. This according to the Committee goes to exhibit that the police had become biased and inimical and implicated the complainant falsely in a case where large number of people were involved. The Inquiry Committee also, finds that the complainant was booked on various occasions the fate of which will depend on the outcome of the judgments
71 by the Court, but the Inquiry Committee is inclined to accept that the complainant was harassed and illegally detained in violation of human rights. The critical reports appear to have played a major role in it and the retaliatory action taken by the police authorities disclosed an attempt at curtailing the freedom of the Press. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to uphold the complaint and direct the respondent police authorities to ensure that the complainant is not harassed while performing his journalistic duties. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
Facilities to the Press
19) The Editor Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Apradh Bodh Government of U.P. Hathras Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow
3. Shri Surjit Singh Additional District Information Officer Hathras Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 22.5.07 has been filed by Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Executive Editor, Apradh Bodh, Hathras against Additional District Information Officer, Hathras for denying various information and facilities. He alleged that the Information Department was neither issuing to journalists their Identity Cards nor any Press note/press pass to the editors of local newspapers regarding programmes of VVIPs. The complainant further alleged that Information Department did not issue Press Passes during the elections which tantamount to curtailment of freedom of press. Allegation of corruption and drawing of money
72 from the Department by submitting fake bill has also been levelled against the respondent. The complainant submitted that the respondent is involved in many cases and an inquiry has been going on against him. The complainant submitted that the respondent had adopted a discriminatory attitude in issuing advertisements to the newspapers. He requested the Council to take action against the respondent Additional District Information Officer, Hathras. Comments of the Additional District Information Officer A Notice for statement in reply was issued to the respondent on 23.10.07. In his comments dated 17.11.07 the then Additional District Information Officer, Hathras, Shri Surjit Singh, since posted at Agra stated that all the allegations against him were totally false and baseless. He stated that the complainant has not been accredited as a journalist and also his newspaper Apradh Bodh was not accredited from DAVP and the Government of U.P. The respondent has enclosed a letter from Shri Ajay Agarwal, District Magistrate, Hathras in which Shri Agarwal stated that Shri Surjit Singh, Additional District Information Officer, is a soft speaking officer and has a very good image in journalist community and the department has no complaint against him. He has requested the Council to take action against the complainant. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 6.12.07. Comments of Director, I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow The Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in his comments dated 11.12.2007 submitted that on complaint of the Editor, Apradh Bodh, Hathras inquiry has already been initiated against the then Additional District Information Officer, Hathras, Shri Surjit Singh. He submitted that the complainant had raised following allegations against the then ADIO, Hathras:- 1. Not acknowledging the receipt of the newspapers. 2. On this ground newspapers have been shown irregular. 3. Not issuing Press notes on public welfare plans of the Government. 4. Denying information of arrival of VIPs and non issuance of press passes. 5. Non issuance of identity cards and providing of facilities after taking money. Besides, Shri Rajesh Singh, District President, Hathras, Shri Mahesh Chandel, U.P. Grameen Patrakar Association, Hathras, Shri Leeladhar Pippal, Editor, Hathras Gaurav, Editor, Dainik Rajpath, Aligarh, Dainik Praman, Aligarh, Hathras Samachar, Hathras had also filed complaints against Shri Surjit Singh, the then ADIO. The Director, I&PRD submitted that to inquire into the matter the Departmental Inquiry
73 has already been initiated. Shri Sarvesh Dubey, Assistant Director, Mathura has been appointed as Inquiry Officer and the inquiry report is awaited. Action will be initiated after getting the inquiry report. He informed that w.r.t. the memorandum issued to the then ADIO, Shri Surjit Singh, the District Magistrate, Hathras has informed that Shri Surjit Singh, ADIO is a soft speaking officer and has a good image in journalist community and the department has no complaint against him. The Director, I&PRD further informed that Shri Surjit Singh, ADIO has been transferred to Agra from District Hathras on 26.6.2007. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 12.2.2008. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 24.12.2007 submitted that the comments filed by the respondent the then ADIO, Shri Surjit Singh were totally false and misleading. On complaints of the journalists, Shri Avdesh Kumar, the then Information Officer, Aligarh who was also incharge of Hathras issued him a memorandum and asked him to file the clarification on the allegations. Since he indulged in corrupt activities, and misled the District Magistrate, the inquiry could not be completed. The complainant submitted that during the inquiry he was also called by the Assistant Deputy Director, I&PRD, Mathura and was asked to file the affidavit. He alleged that the respondent is a corrupt official who harassed the journalists and adopted a discriminatory attitude by issuing advertisements and identity cards to many fraud/non accreditated newspapers. He requested the Council to initiate action against the erring official. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 12.2.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 11.3.2008. Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Executive Editor, Apradh Bodh, Hathras, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Surjit Singh, Additional District Information Officer, Agra represented the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he has applied for accreditation. He submitted that his grievance was against the Additional District Information Officer, Hathras for not acknowledging the receipt of the newspapers on which ground the newspaper had been shown irregular. He added that he was not being issued press notes on public welfare plans of the Government. He was also denied information of arrival of VIPs and press pass was not issued to him. He further stated that Inquiry Report was also not issued to him.
74 The respondent submitted that the allegation of the complainant of showing his newspaper irregular was totally baseless because his newspaper had been certified regular. That is why the advertisement had been issued to his newspaper by the Information Department. The respondent further submitted that the Press Notes and information regarding arrival of VIPs were not being issued since the complainant was not eligible for accreditation. Therefore, the question of issuance of I-card did not arise at all. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and oral submissions advanced before it by the parties, the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was not an accredited journalist and thus the facility of issuance of Press Releases and Identity Card was not extended to him as per rules prevalent in Uttar Pradesh. It observed that the application for grant of accreditation to complainant was pending for disposal. Till the accreditation is granted to him the complainant can not claim the facilities available to an accredited journalist. The Inquiry Committee did not find merits in the case. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint being devoid of merit. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
20) Ms. Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee Versus D.A.V.P. Publisher New Delhi Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar Burdwan (West Bengal) Complaint This Complaint dated 12.2.2007 has been filed by Ms. Bijoy Lakshmi Chatterjee, Publisher, Gramanchal Shilpanchaler Khabar, a Bengali weekly, Burdwan, West Bengal against the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, New Delhi alleging non-renewal of rate-contract to her weekly newspaper for the year 2007. According to the complainant as per guidelines issued by the DAVP, they applied on 28.8.2006 for renewal of rate contract for the year 2007, furnishing all the relevant supporting documents to the DAVP. She has alleged that they came to know from the respondent-DAVP website on 12.2.2007 that the respondent denied having received their application and added she faxed a message on 1.2.2007 to the respondent requesting for guidelines for renewal of the rate contract but
75 received no response. The complainant has stated that due to non-renewal of the rate contract, the newspaper incurred a huge financial loss. The complainant vide letter dated 17.4.2007 informed that they received a response from the respondent-DAVP, rejecting their application for renewal of rate contract on the plea that her application was incomplete at annexure xii (Particulars regarding ink purchase was not given). The complainant stated that she did not own the printing press and got her newspaper printed on contract basis from their printers, thus no purchase of printing ink was needed. The complainant vide letter dated 1.7.2007 submitted that on receiving correspondence from the DAVP on 16.5.2007 demanding certificate from the printing press or from a CA regarding the ink details, they sent a certificate issued by the owner of the Printing press which was authenticated by a Notary Public vide letter dated 29.5.2007, and despite that the case has not been cleared and as such they were facing hardship. No Statement in Reply Despite reminders dated 25.7.2007 and 7.9.2007, the respondent DAVP failed to file their statement in reply to the Notice dated 13.3.2007 Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 11.3.2008. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and noted that the complainant newspaper denied renewal of rate contract by the DAVP on the ground that the complainant had not given complete particulars of ink purchased/used for printing the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the ink consumption for printing of a newspaper depended on various other factors and may not be a definite guide for establishing circulation. Therefore, it also required the response of the DAVP to ascertain the rationale for this criteria. The Committee took a serious note that the DAVP, despite service of notices, had neither filed any reply statement nor deputed any officer to represent it in these quasi-judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Committee, however, decided to afford an opportunity to the DAVP to explain the matter and emphasized that any further evasion would be viewed seriously leading to action in exercise of the powers under section 15(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978. Accordingly a letter dated 1.5.2008 was issued to the respondent DAVP for its reply in the matter. No Appearance The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2008 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.
76 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter dated 28.4.2008 intimated her inability to attend the hearing and stated that the DAVP had intimated telephonically that the Rate Contract for the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 had been issued on 11.3.2008. The complainant further stated that the DAVP telephonically assured to arrange extra advertisements to compensate for the period the rate contract was not renewed. The complainant submitted that her complaint may be treated as withdrawn with condition that the DAVP compensate it for the non-renewed period.
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the DAVP despite repeated directions had failed to file reply or depute any officer to represent before it. The Inquiry Committee while expressing strong displeasure over the callous attitude of the respondent DAVP in not responding to Council’s communications decided to dispose of the complaint in view of the letter dated 28.4.2008 withdrawing the complaint. It recommended to the Council accordingly to close the matter with these observations.
The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on two counts (1) the application of the complainant for withdrawal and (2) the lack of response from DAVP. On the first count the Inquiry Committee allowed the complaint to be withdrawn. However, so far the conditional request was concerned, the Inquiry Committee did not express any views since the offer had not been made through the Inquiry Committee/ Council. On the second count of the failure of DAVP to file its written explanation to the charges against it or enter appearance to personally explain the matter, the Inquiry Committee expressed its serious displeasure and concern over the inaction on the part of this unit of Central Government in Ministry of I & B despite being referred that its failure could compel the Council to invoke authority to exercise the power vested in a Civil Court under CPC 1908. The Inquiry Committee was inclined to proceed in the matter accordingly, but then decided that the lapse on the part on DAVP to be brought to notice of the Secretary of I & B Ministry under which the DAVP functions, for appropriate direction to it so that the Council may not need to invoke its authority under Section 15(1) or 15(4) of the Press Council Act 1978. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
77 21) Pandit Sanjib Narayan Dass The Chief Secretary, Chief Editor Government of Assam Jyotish Phalak and Versus Guwahati, Assam Jugar Sandhan Guwahati, Assam The Commissioner & Secretary Department of Information & Public Relations Government of Assam Guwahati, Assam
The Director Department of Information & Public Relations Government of Assam Guwahati, Assam Complaint Pandit Sanjib Narayan Dass, Chief Editor, Jyotish Phalak and Jugar Sandhan, Guwahati has filed this complaint dated 11.7.2006 against Director, Department of Information & Public Relations, Government of Assam for non renewal of his Press Identity Card and not providing press releases etc. The complainant has submitted that he applied for renewal of his Identity Card for the year 2006 but neither his card nor the staff reporter’s card had been renewed. The complainant stated that they published regularly two newspapers namely “Jyotish Phalak” and “Jugar Sandhan” to serve the society for the betterment of the public at large but due to stepmotherly treatment of the Government of Assam these two newspapers are being neglected by them. The complainant has alleged that the respondent government was not providing them any press release and was also depriving them in every manner. The complainant alleged that the respondent Director, Department of Information & Public Relations, Government of Assam has not renewed their identity card without citing any valid reason due to which they were not in a position to discharge their duties. He further alleged that the Assam Legislative Assembly Press Committee has not included their names for reporting of Assembly matters and did not allow them to sit in the press gallery. According to the complainant, the respondents have violated Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The complainant further submitted that he had approached to Hon’ble Governor and Chief Minister of Assam. The Chief Minister’s office vide letter no.CMO 4/2006/1803 dated 10.7.2006 has forwarded the complainant’s request to the Director, I&PR for renewal of identity card under the rules. He has also informed that despite direction of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Assam, the respondent authorities did not take any action. The complainant has submitted that the Council in his earlier complaint No.13/98/97 had directed the State Government of Assam on 4.8.1998 to re-issue the identity card and to restore the advertisements.
78 Notices for statement in reply dated 4.10.2006 were issued to the Chief Secretary, Commissioner and Secretary, DIPR and Director, DIPR, Government of Assam. Statement in Reply In response to the Council’s Notice for Statement in Reply dated 4.10.2006, the respondent Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Assam has filed comments dated 3.11.2006 along with a detailed report of the Director of I&PRD, Assam dated 30.10.2006, submitting that the State Government of Assam has framed Accreditation Rules under the title ‘Assam Press Correspondents (Accreditation/Recognition) Rules, 1989’, under which there is a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State Government or a Senior Officer nominated by him. A meeting of the Committee was held on 31.10.2006 in which the petition of Pandit Sanjib Narayan Das was placed for consideration. The Committee, after detailed discussion, found that the complainant had not fulfilled the conditions particularly in respect of continuity of publication of his periodicals besides the reason that through such irregular publication, he had given advertisement for his own palmistry and astrology etc. with photographs which was not permissible as per the rules. The Committee therefore decided not to grant accreditation as per his application, concluded the respondent. Detailed Report of the Director, DIPR According to the report, the Director, DIPR has stated that the magazine “Jyotish Phalak” was approved by the Government of Assam on 31.3.1997 and the same was included in the approved list of newspapers and was eligible of getting advertisements from the Government of Assam. The advertisements were issued to his magazine regularly as per the Advertisement Policy and Rules framed by the government. The DIPR, Assam had also issued Editor’s identity card to Shri Dass and press reporter’s identity card to Smt. Baijayanti Dass (his wife) regularly every year since 1997. The respondent submitted that the publication of monthly magazine ‘Jyotish Phalak’ edited by Shri Dass remained discontinued during the year 2003 and 2004 and he failed to submit the annual return to the DIPR, Assam, in respect of Jyotish Phalak for the year 2003-2004. He has further stated that as per Assam Press (Correspondents Accreditation Recognition) Rules, 1989, newspaper or periodical should be published without a break between one issue to another. According to the DIPR the identity card to the complainant was denied due to non-publication of his magazine. The complainant was asked to submit Annual Return for the years 2003, 2004 and then apply for renewal of identity card. The complainant met DIPR, Shri Jiban Sonowal at his office in the month of January, 2005 and submitted his assurance in writing that he would submit the annual return within three months. After written assurance, the DIPR issued to him a provisional editor’s identity card with validity period of three
79 months w.e.f. 9.1.2005 to 31.3.2005 with the condition that the complainant would submit the annual return within three months but the complainant failed to submit the annual return. The Director, DIPR stated that as per clause 3 of the Assam Press Correspondent (Accreditation/Recognition) Rules 1989, identity card was not issued to the complainant due to the break in continuity of his publication for about two years. They have also informed as per Rule 13, a journalist engaged in profession other then journalist can not be allowed identity card as the complainant is a palmist and astrologer and this is his main profession. The complainant has been publishing the magazine Jyotish Phalak with the sole objective of promoting his business interest and his own image as a reputed astrologer and palmist. Although there is no material worth reading in the magazine Jyotish Phalak, every issue of it is seen to be carrying advertisements projecting himself as a great astrologer, palmist and tantrik etc. with a view to drawing ‘customers’ to him. The respondent further stated that Shri Dass also misbehaved with the concerned officer of the DIPR, on a number of occasions in an undignified and unbecoming manner whenever the officer pointed out his faults and asked him to submit the annual return as a precondition for getting identity card. As per RNI certificate, the languages of the bilingual magazine should have been Assamese and Bengali but the magazine in question has been publishing matters in Hindi and English and for this change of language of publication fresh certificate from RNI has not been received by the DIPR. According to the report the claims for another magazine “Jugar Sandhan” it is stated that no such periodical in the name has been approved by the Government of Assam for inclusion in the list of approved newspaper for issuing advertisements. Due to so many lapses/violations of the Rules by the complainant, the DIPR is not in a position to issue accreditation/identity card to the complainant. The respondent submitted that inspite of good gesture by the DIPR, Shri Dass has lodged false and baseless complaint against the DIPR. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 10.11.2006 for counter comments. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 21.12.2006 the complainant stated that the respondent State Government of Assam had furnished wrong and false information to the Council. He denied the allegations levelled by the respondent. He further stated that he could not submit the annual return for the year 2003 and 2004 due to illness of his parents as well as his financial hardship and also informed that the relevant documents were damaged due to floodwater. He further stated that his paper was regularly published in the year 2003 and 2004, which could be proved by the advertisements, which were released to him and were regularly published in all the issues and the DIPR made the payment of the bills regularly up to 2005. He stated that the Government of Assam has approved his paper to publish astrological, religious and political matter. The Government of Assam was well
80 aware that he is an astrologer apart from being a journalist and the fact was also mentioned in his application form. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent Government of Assam on 19.2.2007 for information. The complainant in a letter dated 7.2.2007 informed that the State Government of Assam has not issued any Government advertisement for publication in his magazine after filing the aforesaid case. Further he stated that State Government has not issued invitation in his name or his Federation to participate in the National Games held at Guwahati. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the respondent State Government on 21.5.2007. Respondent’s Reply on Counter Comments The Director, DIPR, Government of Assam vide his letter dated 11.6.2007 submitted that as per Advertisement Policy of the State Government approved newspapers, periodicals and journals etc. are to submit annual return along with Printers Declaration every year to the DIPR, Assam. The respondent submitted that the editor of Jyotish Phalak did not submit the Printer’s Declaration of the year 2005 and annual return along with Printer’s Declaration for the year 2007, which prove that magazine of Jyotish Phalak, is not in publication. The complainant has also not submitted the annual return for the year 2003 and 2004. According to the respondent, irregular publication and break in continuity was one of the major causes for not issuing Government advertisements. The respondent stated that as per the existing Advertisement Policy, adopted by the Government of Assam a monthly periodical should have a minimum 32 pages and the size should be 1/16 Demy or Crown size which were not fulfilled by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the chartered accountant’s certificate furnished by the complainant in earlier occasion appears to be tampered which needs to be examined by experts. The matter was taken up with the concerned C.A. In his reply the C.A. has requested in writing to the DIPR to treat the certificate issued by him as cancelled till the submission of report of findings by him. But till now the CA has not furnished any report of finding. The respondent further submitted that the ‘Jugar Sandhan’, bi-weekly of the complainant has not been approved by the State Government of Assam, which does not therefore permit to issue advertisements to the said newspaper. The respondent has pointed out that the invitation to the mediapersons to the 33rd National Games held in Guwahati was dealt with by the Media Committee of the 33rd National Games which was not come under the purview of the DIPR, Assam.
81 The Director, DIPR submitted that the complainant has been providing false information to the Council by lodging false, baseless and malicious complaint which itself is an offence committed by the complainant. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the complainant on 6.7.2007. Complainant’s Reply The complainant in his letter dated 5.9.2007 has submitted that the State Government of Assam furnished some wrong and false information to the Press Council of India. He has been regularly submitting his annual return before the DIPR office, Government of Assam, the complainant added. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the respondent state government of Assam on 3.10.2007 Respondent’s Reply on the Complainant’s Letter Dated 5.9.2007 In response to complainant’s letter dated 5.9.2007, the Director of Information and Public Relations, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati vide his letter dated 22.1.2008 submitted that the Department wrote to the C.A. concerned, on 21.11.06, 10.4.2007, 22.8.2007and 24.10.07 to furnish “a report on findings” and authenticity of C.A. certificate. But instead of furnishing the above report, the C.A. has submitted the same certificates, certified in a fresh format to Department without informing anything about the tampered C.A. certificate submitted by the complainant, Editor of Jyotish Phalak. Moreover, he was not only a defaulter in submission of annual returns for the year 2003 and 2004 but also failed to submit the annual returns for the year 2006 which was to be submitted to the DIPR on 28th February, 2007. Regarding financial hardship, DIPR was not accountable. Because the existing Advertisement Policy of the State Government adopted in 1986 Para 9(a) says that “Advertisement are not intended to be a measure of financial assistance and no newspaper can claim advertisement as a matter of right”. Regarding production standards both in get up and context being laid by the complainant is admitted; as such it is evident that he has been publishing the magazine in violation of Government Advertisement Policy. While all other newspapers are accepting the said Government Policy, the complainant was not an exception. With regard to 33rd National Games held on February, 2007, the respondent submitted that the complainant lodged the complaint before the Information Commission of Assam, (RTI) regarding the same allegation; the State Information Commissioner passed judgment after hearing the Government respondent that the complainant could seek information by depositing the requisite fee. The respondent further averred that for his resorting to the principles unbecoming of journalistic ethics, the press personnel in Guwahati do not allow the complainant to attend any press conference.
82 A copy of respondent government’s letter dated 22.1.2008 was forwarded to the complainant on 21.2.2008.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. Pandit Sanjib Narayan Das complainant appeared in person. Ms. Krishna Sarma, advocate appeared for the respondent, Government of Assam.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant submitted that he had applied for press identity card in the year 2005-2006 yet the respondent Directorate had not issued the same till date. The complainant submitted that he had approached the RNI for bringing out his magazine in multilingual and the approval was still awaited. As regards tampered CA certificate, the complainant stated that the Chartered Accountant had issued a fresh certificate.
The counsel for the respondent State Government submitted that the grant of accreditation to journalists in Assam or North Eastern Regions is a very sensitive matter. Further, the complainant had furnished the documents which were found to be tampered. The CA requested that the documents might be treated as cancelled till his report, but he did not file a report despite reminder and only filed fresh documents. The complainant had failed to establish regularity of publication since 2003. The Committee rejected his case as he had not complied with the conditions for issue of press card or advertisement. The counsel contended that the complainant was bringing out astrological magazine and there was no news content in the monthly justifying press card apart from language. The complainant was using his magazine for expanding his astrology business. For all these reasons the case had been rejected by the Press Accreditation Committee.
Recommendations of Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the records and hearing the parties noted that the principal grievance of the complainant was non renewal of identity card. The respondent authorities had justified non-renewal of the card on the ground that the complainant’s magazine was irregular, did not contain news reports and did not conform to the condition for grant of press card or advertisements. Therefore, his application was rejected by the Committee. The Inquiry Committee, thus, did not find substance in the charges and was not inclined to uphold it.
It was, however, open to the complainant to bring out his publication in conformity with the rules and apply afresh which the State Government may consider as per rules. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
83 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
22) Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma 1. The Chief Secretary Editor-in-Chief Government of Uttar Pradesh Muzaffarnagar Bulletin Versus Lucknow Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) 2. The Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-I Shamli, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) 3. The Chief Engineer Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Saharanpur (U.P.) 4. The Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II Shamli, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) 5. The Superintendent Engineer Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Muzaffarnagar, (U.P.) 6. The Managing Director Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Meerut (U.P.) Complaint Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor-in-Chief, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar has filed this complaint dated 28.1.2008 against the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Shamli Division I & II alleging denial of payment of the advertisement bills pending since last three years and resorting to partiality and injustice in releasing the advertisements. The complainant has submitted that his newspaper is accredited since last 30 years by the Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Headquarter, Lucknow. Although his paper was getting advertisements from all Electricity Distribution Divisions, the Shamli Division-I & II of the respondents were not releasing advertisements. The Electricity Distribution Division-I, Shamli had released only one advertisement in the year 2007 to his newspaper while the other newspapers were getting regular advertisements from the respondents. The complainant further alleged that the bills amounting to Rs.56, 694.29 were pending for payment despite the numerous reminders to all the concerned officials. The complainant also alleged that Electricity
84 Distribution Division-II, Shamli had not released even a single advertisement to his newspaper since last six years but they released advertisements to other newspapers continuously. The complainant further alleged that the bills amounting to Rs.36,484.40 for the years 1998-2001 were still pending with them for payment. The complainant alleged that the concerned Divisions-I & II had not only withheld the payment of advertisements but also stopped advertisements to his newspaper without any reason. The action of the respondent amounted to an open partiality and discrimination and the attitude of the respondent was not justified and amounted to curtailment of freedom of the press. The complainant requested the Council to initiate action against the respondents. Comments Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and its subordinate offices on 18.2.2008. The respondents Chief Engineer and Superintendent Engineer Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam filed their comments dated 17.3.2008 and 19.3.2008 and stated that the payment of Rs.51,351/- and Rs.16350.59 had been made to the newspaper on 7.3.2008 by the Executive Engineers, Electricity Distribution Division- I & II and balance payment will be made by them after receiving of duplicate bills as the original bills were not available. The respondent also assured that the advertisements will be released to complainant newspaper in future. The respondents had forwarded the copies of the comments to the complainant. In response, the complainant vide his letters dated 23.3.2008 and 27.3.2008 addressed to the Executive Engineers, Electricity Distribution Division- I & II, Shamli and copy endorsed to PCI, while accepting the payment pointed out that the remaining payment of 33 bills was still pending and sent copies of 33 bills to respondents for payment. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, Court Clerk, EDD-II, Shamli, Shabbir Ahmed, E.E. (Electricity), EDD-II, Shamli, Pawan Kumar Jain, Accountant (Work), EDD-I, Shamli appeared for the respondent, Electricity Distribution Department. The complainant submitted that delay in payment by the respondent was an act of harassment and he was asked again and again to submit the duplicate bills. The complainant further submitted that despite empanelment for release of advertisements to Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, the respondents were not inclined to issue advertisement to his newspaper.
85 The respondent submitted that the department had since cleared the bills of Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. As regards issue of advertisement, the respondent submitted that the circulation of the newspaper Muzaffarnagar Bulletin in rural areas in Shamli was not good. The respondent further submitted that the advertisements are issued on the orders of the higher officers. The Inquiry Committee noted that the advertisements constituted a strong revenue base for a newspaper and biased denial could affect the viability of the paper. The Inquiry Committee took serious note on the delay tactics adopted by the respondents in making payment of the advertisement bills to the complainant’s newspaper and later denying issuance of advertisements to it without giving any reason. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondents to furnish data/details of advertisements issued to the daily newspapers of the District Shamli along with their circulation for the last two years within a month. The Committee further directed the respondent to furnish a copy of the policy/order relating to releasing of advertisements, issued by the Vidyut Vibhag, Meerut District. The respondents were reminded vide letter dated 27.05.2008 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. In the meantime the complainant, Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin vide his letter dated 27.5.2008 addressed to the Managing Director, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Meerut with a copy to the Press Council, pointed that the balance payment amounting to Rs. 2,29,307.12/- is yet to be made by the respondents authority in different divisions. Giving details of the balance amount the complainant, submitted that as per the concerned officials the payment had not been made due to non availability of the fund. The complainant requested the Managing Director, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam to issue appropriate directions to the concerned officials. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Munish Kumar, Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Department, Jagadish Kumar, Court Clerk, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Shamli, Vijay Kumar Jain, Court Clerk, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar represented the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that his newspaper enjoyed good circulation in distant rural as well as in urban areas. The respondent’s statement that the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin had no circulation in rural area was baseless and was respondent’s own imagination. The complainant further submitted that his newspaper tops the panel for the issue of local advertisements and out of three papers on the
86 panel, only his newspaper Muzaffarnagar Bulletin was sidelined and rest of the two papers were getting advertisements. The complainant added that the Managing Director of the respondent department in a letter dated 17.3.2008 had maintained that the advertisements shall be duly issued in future. But the subordinates were not following the directions of the Managing Director. The complainant submitted that the act of the respondent in depriving his newspaper of the advertisement support was deliberate and aimed at favouring only two newspapers, namely, Amar Ujala/Dainik Jagran, as was evident from their letter dated 26.6.2008, asking the Deputy Information Officer, Muzaffarnagar for circulation in respect of only three dailies. He added that circulation could only be verified from the RNI. He added that the information called by the Inquiry Committee at the last hearing had been handed over to him only now and thus he was unable to reply to it. Shri Munish Kumar, Superintendent Engineer, EDE filed the department’s reply dated 23.7.2008 carrying the data directed at the last hearing. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the delay but took the document on record allowing the respondent to make oral submissions. He submitted that the entire payment of advertisement bills had been made to the complainant in two parts. The respondent averred that Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam is a commercial department and it would seek maximum use of its advertisement fund for publicity and to reach to the consumer for its schemes/programmes. Advertisements were distributed in three tier - national regional and local. For local the respondent submitted that the newspapers like Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran and Rashtriya Sahara were serving their purpose as they were widely circulated in both urban and rural areas while the complainant did not enjoy good circulation in rural areas. The complainant newspaper was however, getting advertisements of urban area. The respondent added that they had written to the DIO regarding circulation of (i) Muzaffarnagar Bulletin (ii) Dainik Jagran, (iii) Amar Ujala and the number of copies being distributed in rural areas viz. Shamli, Kerana, Budhana and Kandhla. The response of the DIO was awaited. The Committee countered the averments stating that if his circulation was not good why were the two advertisements issued after the last hearing and their letter to the DIO only established that they did not have any data to support their statement that Muzaffarnagar Bulletin had less circulation in rural areas. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the material and heard the parties. The Committee noted that the complaint filed by the editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin against the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., was two fold: (a) delay in payment of advertisement bills and (b) denial of advertisements. The Committee noted that while advertisement bills pending with Shamli Division-I and II had been cleared since the matter was taken up for hearing, some other bills were still
87 pending with the department for over last three years. The Committee was of the view that the department should take steps to expeditiously make the payment for using the medium of the complainant newspaper to reach the public. On the second issue of release of advertisements, the Committee noted that there was no doubt that the complainant paper was empaneled for release of advertisement at the local level. It was therefore the duty of the authority to ensure equitable release of advertisement to all empaneled following a laid down criteria and a reasonable policy. The public authorities as custodian of public money have to ensure that even the exercise of the discretionary powers vested in them is backed by bonafide reasonableness and their actions are not subjective but objective based on record/data. Mere inferences and presumption of low circulation cannot be the ground for denial of advertisement to an empaneled newspaper. In the instant case, the authorities have not been able to establish that denial of advertisements to Muzaffarnagar Bulletin as compared to other empaneled newspapers was based on record of circulation or reach. In fact it was after the initiation of the hearing that the officer deemed it fit to seek any information on record, therefore the complaint deserved to be upheld. The Inquiry Committee further directed the respondent department to follow an objective method in releasing advertisements to the empaneled newspaper on a rotational basis to papers similarly placed in a given area. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the above. Further Development The complainant, Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Chief Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar in his letter dated 10.9.2008 has objected to the statement made by the respondent officer that circulation of the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin is limited only to the Muzaffarnagar. The complainant has submitted that the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin is being circulated and read in each village/Tehsil/City of the Muzaffarnagar with respect. He alleged that some officers of Vidyut Nigam are deliberately depriving the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin from the advertisement and thereby harassing him. The complainant has submitted that despite directions of the Inquiry Committee the Vidyut Vibhag has not filed the data relating to the advertisement issued to the newspapers of Muzaffarnagar during one year and their circulation. He has stated that a bill amounting to Rs.2,29,307.12/- was sent to the Managing Director of the Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Meerut on 27.5.2008 but neither payment has been received from the different departments nor any reply. The complainant has pointed out that Shri Munish Kumar, Superintendent Engineer, Meerut had submitted before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 that the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin doesn’t have enough circulation in Muzaffarnagar thus the advertisements couldn’t be issued to it. Filing a certified copy of its circulation
88 issued by the DAVP/RNI, the complainant has submitted that this itself showed that Muzaffarnagar Bulletin is being deprived of the advertisements for the last many years and it has been done deliberately to put financial pressure on the newspaper. He has further stated that the Managing Director, Vidyut Nigam, Meerut in his letter dated 17.3.2008 assured that the advertisements will be released to the complainant newspaper. Thus the statement of the two officials is contradictory and showed malafide intentions of the respondent. The complainant has requested to issue summons to the Managing Director of the Vidyut Nigam. Council’s Adjudication 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. It further decides that since the respondent authorities had been found to have withheld the advertisement without any justified cause, immediate corrective steps as recorded in the report of the Inquiry Committee should be taken by the respondents and all pending bills should be cleared within a period of 45 days from the service of the adjudication under intimation to the Council. The Council may take appropriate steps on the basis of the report of the compliance.
23) Shri Umashankar Mishra Versus The Director General Publisher/Editor, USM Patrika DAVP Hindi Monthly Magazine New Delhi Ghaziabad (U.P.) Complaint Shri Umashankar Mishra, Publisher/Editor, USM Patrika, Hindi magazine, Ghaziabad (U.P.) filed a complaint dated 18.4.2006 alleging that his magazine was not empanelled by the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity, New Delhi for release of Government advertisements although he had filed the requisite documents on 24/5/2004. According to the complainant he wrote many letters to the respondent and also met them personally but received no reply. The complainant stated that due to non inclusion of his magazine in the approved list for release of Government advertisements, he suffered a great financial loss. The complainant further alleged that the respondent DAVP with a view to harass him raised different type of objections on his application as and when he furnished the information sought by them. The complainant submitted that the DAVP also did not renew the rate contract of his other weekly newspaper, namely Sach Ka Saya and no Government advertisement was released to the weekly after 26.1.07. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter and
89 prayed that DAVP be directed to immediately empanel his magazine and compensate him for the financial loss. No Reply Comments of the Director General, DAVP, were invited in the matter on 7/6/2006. The respondent DAVP failed to file a reply till a later stage. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 24.4.2008. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the DAVP had neither filed comments in the matter nor deputed any representative. The Inquiry Committee took strong exception to this attitude but adjourned the matter directing the DAVP to file comments in the matter and also ensure presence of their representative at the next hearing. It also decided that the failure of DAVP to respond to the notices of this statutory authority be brought to the notice of its controlling Ministry through its Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. Accordingly, the respondent DAVP was asked vide letter 10.7.2008 to comply with the directions of Inquiry Committee. The Joint Director (Advtg.), DAVP filed reply dated 28.7.2008 stating that the complainant’s monthly was on the approved panel of DAVP during the year 2002-03 @ Rs. 6.45 Sq. cm. over a circulation of 5270 (sold copies). It was discontinued on 20.5.2003 as its circulation was declared unestablished by the RNI. The publisher of the monthly had applied on 30.8.2006 for DAVP empanelment along with all media particulars and specimen copies. The media particulars submitted by the publisher were duly scrutinized and found in order. The case of the monthly was placed before the Panel Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 24-25 May, 2007 and the monthly was approved by the Panel Advisory Committee over a circulation of 5575 (sold copies). Accordingly, the rate contract was issued for three Years i.e. from 1.7.2007 to 31.12.2009. The respondent also filed a copy of the rate contract dated 21.6.2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2008. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Gopal Ji Rai, Assistant Media Executive appeared for the DAVP. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the DAVP submitted that the rate contract has already been given to the complainant magazine in June, 2007.
90 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and noted that the information of granting rate contract should have been given by the DAVP much earlier. By not doing so, the authority had unnecessarily wasted the time and expenditure on an issue that could have been closed. The Inquiry Committee noted that even now a junior level officer had been sent to represent the organization. The Committee lamented the casual attitude of the DAVP in honouring its statutory duty and recommended to the Council to draw the attention of the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to the matter for appropriate directions to the DAVP.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
24) Shri Prashant Kumar Singh Versus The Director Publisher/Owner DAVP Farmer Sandesh New Delhi Meerut, (U.P.)
Complaint
This complaint dated 18.6.2006 has been filed by the publisher/owner/ printer of Farmer Sandesh, a Hindi daily newspaper from Meerut against the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Government of India, New Delhi for alleged non inclusion of his newspaper in the list of empanelment for government advertisements.
The complainant has alleged that his newspaper was being published for the last sixteen years but not getting advertisements since 2002 due to partial attitude adopted by the respondent. He applied for empanelment for advertisement on 30th May, 2002 along with all relevant documents and 36 issues of his newspaper, but his paper was not included, alleged the complainant and added that he was informed by the respondent that instead of minimum 23 specimen copies only 15 specimen copies were received, and he was again informed by the respondent that only 14 issues from September, 2002 to January, 2003 was filed while 23 issues of the latest six months were required, and was asked to apply afresh after removing the deficiencies. The complainant has alleged that the respondent had deliberately not included his newspaper in the list of empanelment for issuance of advertisement by making unwarranted excuses.
91 No Comment A notice for statement in reply was issued to the respondent on 10.8.2006. The respondent, DAVP failed to file its reply despite issuance of reminder dated 12.3.2007. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.4.2008. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the DAVP had neither filed its comments in the matter nor deputed any representative. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter directed the Secretariat of the Council to write to the DAVP conveying the unhappiness of the Inquiry Committee over the indifferent attitude of the DAVP in responding to the Council. The Committee further directed that if DAVP failed to file comments and ensure presence of their representative at next hearing, summons be issued to the Director General in exercise of the powers under Section 15 (1) of the Press Council Act 1978. The respondent DAVP has been informed vide Council’s letter dated 8.7.2008 to comply with the directions of Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2008. The complainant Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, Publisher, Farmer Sandesh, appeared in person. Shri Gopal Ji Rai, Assistant Media Executive appeared for the DAVP. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he had applied for renewal of empanelment in 2002 and was granted approval in 2007. The complainant submitted that his applications for DAVP rate contract for the years, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 were rejected on the ground that he had not submitted the requisite copies of the issues of his newspapers. But in fact he had deposited the required copies and got computerised receipt. The complainant submitted that although the DAVP has given rate contract for the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2009, his grievance was that his paper was deprived of advertisements support due to highhandedness of the officials in the DAVP. The representative of the DAVP submitted that as per procedure, the acknowledgement receipt is given at the counter and the number of copies are counted later on. Scrutiny revealed that between this period the complainant never deposited the required number of issues and therefore his paper could not be empaneled. In August, 2006 he applied in compliance with requirements and the
92 Press Accreditation Committee approved its empanelment in the meeting held in November, 2006. The complainant reiterated that his application was complete in all respects. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and oral submissions put forth before it. While noting that the DAVP had granted rate contract to the complainant, Farmer Sandesh in 2007 it observed that the complainant newspaper was deprived of empanelment for nearly for five years, due to administrative laxity. This was primarily due to lack of proper mechanism in the DAVP to check the actual filing of requisite documents at the time when a newspaper applies for rate contract. The Inquiry Committee therefore, recommended to the Council that even while the case in hand may be closed, the DAVP and its nodal ministry may take necessary steps to streamline the procedure. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
25) Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma 1. The Sr. Superintendent of Editor Post Offices Muzaffarnagar Bulletin Versus Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) 2. The Sr. Post Master Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) 3. The Post Master General Bareilly Region Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh) Complaint This complaint dated 25.3.2008 has been filed by Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) against Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar alleging cancellation of the pre- paid facility license under Postal Registration of the newspaper. The complainant submitted that the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) informed him that as per the report of the Senior Post Master, Muzaffarnagar, they (the complainants) are sending only 35-36 copies daily whereas as per rules, he was required to send more then 500 copies daily without prepayment of postage. He further stated that the respondent Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar Circle directed him that he should send more than 500 copies daily failing which the pre-paid license facility would be cancelled.
93 The complainant vide his further fax letter dated 27.3.2008 informed that the bundle of his newspapers had been returned by the respondent – Chief Post Master, Patel Nagar, Muzaffarnagar by saying that the pre-paid facility licence has been cancelled. The complainant submitted that he himself contacted the Deputy Post Master and apprised him about the situation who told him that he (complainant) cannot send his newspapers under the existing pre-paid facility licence and they (respondents) have such orders from Senior Officers. The complainant further submitted that when he requested for a copy of the Order, the respondent declined his request and advised him to meet the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices or Senior Post Master. He alleged that his newspaper had been availing the pre-paid facility for the last 20 years and due to its cancellation, the distribution of the newspaper has been stopped which is a clearcut infringement of the freedom of the press. The complainant further submitted that as per Section 144(1) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, “the newspapers which carry stamps of five paise only minimum number of newspapers posted for availing the facility under this clause shall be 100” and when he informed the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices about the said rule, he became angry. The complainant stated that the security fee deposited by him for the pre-paid licence is still with the postal authority. He further stated that his pre-paid licence facility was valid upto 31.12.2009. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments of the Respondents Notices for statement in reply were sent to the postal authority on 28.3.2008. A further letter dated 2.4.2008 was also sent to the respondent Postal Authority directing them to withhold the implementation of the impugned order till consideration of the matter by the Council. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar Division, Muzaffarnagar in his comments dated 4.4.2008 submitted that on 27.3.2008 the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin could not be dispatched because this newspaper is registered under the facility of ‘without pre payment’ and it was dispatching less than the minimum required copies. As per rule atleast 500 copies are required to be dispatched. The rule reads as follows:- 144. Posting of newspapers without prepayment of postage:- Newspapers which post a large number of papers can post their papers without affixing postage stamps in accordance with the following scheme:- 1. The scheme is confined to Registered Newspapers (including Magazines and periodicals) which are published at intervals of
94 not more than 31 days and which post more than 500 copies at a time. “In respect of those newspapers which carry stamps of 5 paise only, minimum number of newspapers posted for availing the facility under this clause shall be 100”. According to the respondent nothing had been said about cancellation of license order to the Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. The respondent stated that after 27.3.2008, Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, the complainant has not dispatched the said newspaper under ‘without pre payment scheme’. No order has been issued by the post office regarding cancellation of the license or non issuance of the newspaper, added the respondent. Rather Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma informed that he was corresponding with the Regional Office, Bareilly on the issue. The Postmaster General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly has informed vide their office letter dated 31.03.2008 about the exact position and for directions in this regard. He also filed a copy of the letter dated 31.03.2008. Giving point wise reply, the respondent, while denying the allegations submitted that the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin has been registered for daily dispatch by the Muzaffarnagar Head Post Office under WPP UP/BR-195/2009 till the year 2009. As per the report of the Senior Post Master, Muzaffarnagar, the complainant editor dispatched only 35 or 36 copies of the newspaper and made payment for it. Thus vide letter dated 13.03.2008 he was informed that as his newspaper is registered under “without payment”, he is required to dispatch more then 500 copies of his newspaper every day. The respondent further stated that there was no planning to cancel the facility being provided to the complainant. If the complainant editor complied with the requirements of departmental rules/conditions, the said facility would continue to be allowed to his paper. But in the event of non compliance, the department will have no option but to discontinue the facility. The respondent has further submitted that this is a case of ‘without pre payment’ registration. As per order dated 27.7.2006 these cases should be either registered or be renewed only through the Regional Office. However, till date it is being renewed by the Senior Post Master, Muzaffarnagar. Regarding the allegation of shortage of the stamps, the respondent submitted that they have enough stock of the stamps and 68 registered newspapers of the Division are using stamps to dispatch their newspapers. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 21.04.2008 for information/counter comments, if any. Further Comments of the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar Division in his letter dated 11.4.2008 has submitted that the Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin was informed vide letter dated 11.3.2008 that postal registration of his newspaper had been done under WPP UP/VR-195/2009. As per rules he is required to dispatch
95 more than 500 copies of his newspaper but under the “without pre payment facility” only 35 or 36 copies are being dispatched by him. No order has been issued by their office to stop the facility being provided to him, added the respondent. Counter Comments of the Complainant In response to the letter dated 11.4.2008 of the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar, the Complainant Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin vide his letter dated 21.4.2008 submitted that statement made by the respondent Senior Superintendent Post Offices that no order had been issued to stop the facility provided to him under “without pre payment” was totally false and misleading. The complainant has clarified that when his representative met the Deputy Post Master on 16.4.2008 along with the above letter, he informed that no such order allowing facility of dispatching copies under “without pre payment facility” has been received by him and he will follow only the orders on file and accordingly refused to accept copies of the newspaper for dispatch. He further informed that the concerned file was with the Sr. Suprintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar. On April 21, 2008 when the representative of the complainant again went there to dispatch the copies of the newspapers, the respondent refused to accept the same and stated that no orders had been received so far. The complainant in his letter addressed to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar with a copy to the Press Council of India, has alleged that by not obeying the orders of the Council to withhold the implementation of the impugned orders till consideration by the Council, the respondent is guilty of contempt of court. The complainant further submitted that the Post Box No. 224 allotted to the Muzaffarnagar Bulletin has not been renewed so far for the year 2008-2009, which should have been done by April 1, 2008 in normal course. Moreover, key of the post box had also not been provided. The complainant alleged that all the actions of the respondent clearly proved the continuous harassment of the newspaper. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar appeared in person. S/Shri K.D. Mishra, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar, U.P., Ramchand Sharma, A.P.M. Mail, Muzaffarnagar, HO and N.C. Pant, Office Assistant, Office of the SSPO’s, Nehru Place, New Delhi appeared for the respondent, Postal Authorities. The complainant submitted that he enjoyed Without Pre Payment (WPP) facilities since 1975, the year when he deposited security and he had been sending 36 copies for the past 10 years. The complainant submitted that the respondent, now under local pressure following his actions as Convenor of the Fact Finding
96 Committee appointed by the Council into the complaint of Shri Samiuddin Neelu, Lakhimpur, Khiri based staff reporter of Amar Ujala against Smt. N. Padmaja, the then Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Khiri, refused to accept the copies of his paper which was the cause of grievance. As regards second grievance regarding P.B. No.224, the complainant stated that he had got the key of the Post Box. The respondent submitted that the Government of India had issued instructions on 30.11.2004 regarding delivery of minimum 500 copies under Without Pre Payment Scheme and it was implemented on the directions of higher ups in the year 2008. The respondent submitted that the complainant had got licence to post originally from PMG, Dehradun later it was renewed by PMG, Bareilly and the license is valid for the period 2007-2009. The respondent submitted that they were not in a position to accept less than 100 copies. In case PMG, Bareilly relaxes this condition, they will accept 36 copies. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties, in order to access the charges, directed the respondents to furnish data of the last two years of the newspapers of the Bareilly zone which were availing the facility of dispatching of newspapers ‘without pre-payment’ detailing number of copies of the newspapers being dispatched by them within two weeks. The Inquiry Committee also directed the respondents to file details of the newspapers availing facility of ‘without pre- payment’ had been withdrawn/cancelled under the order No.RPB/TechI/NP/Ruling/ 04-05 dated 17/22-2-2004. Taking cognizance of the statement of the respondent SSPO, Muzaffarnagar that in the District Muzaffarnagar only complainant’s newspaper is enjoying this facility and if PGM, Bareilly recommends the condition of number of minimum copies could be relaxed, the Inquiry Committee directed to take appropriate action on the issue. The matter was adjourned. The respondents were asked vide letter dated 27.5.2008 to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. In the meantime the ADPC O/o Postmaster General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly in his comments dated 27.5.2008 submitted that the complainant’s newspaper Muzaffarnagar Bulletin is registered under the ‘without pre-payment’ scheme of department of posts and posted on concessional rates. As per rules under this scheme minimum 500 number of copies of newspaper must be posted at one time, which is not being fulfilled by the editor. Only 35-36 copies of newspaper are being produced by the editor for posting under the scheme. The respondent submitted that neither the license to post ‘without pre payment’ has so far been cancelled nor the posting of delivery of the newspaper has so far been stopped. The only question is the number of copies of newspaper being produced for posting under the scheme of ‘without pre payment’. Hence there is no question of discrimination and killing of freedom of the press. According to the respondent, presently the newspaper is being accepted for posting at normal rates from Muzaffarnagar Head Post Office.
97 The complainant Shri U.C Sharma, in his letter dated 5.6.2008 addressed to the Post Master General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly with a copy to the Council, denied the statement made by the respondent that neither the licence to post ‘without pre payment’ has so far been cancelled nor the posting of delivery of the newspaper has so far been stopped. According to the complainant the statement of the respondent is totally false and misleading. The complainant has submitted that on 5.6.2008, the Sr. Post Master, Muzaffarnagar has refused to accept his newspaper under ‘without pre payment’ licence stating that it cannot be accepted till they get the written order in this regard. The complainant has requested the Post Master General, Bareilly region to provide him a copy of the order relating to cancellation of their licence, if any such order had been issued or in the alternate the Sr. Post Master, Muzaffarnagar be directed to accept Muzaffarnagar Bulletin for dispatch under ‘without pre-payment facility’. The complainant has further submitted that as per Section 144(1) of the Indian Post Office Act under the without pre-payment scheme minimum number of copies of a newspaper posted for availing the facility under this clause is 100. At present 72 copies of the newspaper are being sent and was ready to send 100 copies, added the complainant. The Assistant Director, O/o the Post Master General, Bareilly region, Bareilly vide his letter dated 26.6.2008 forwarded details of the two newspapers i.e. Vidhya Megh and Muzaffarnagar Bulletin registered under ‘Post without pre payment’. The respondent Assistant Director further informed that the facility of ‘without pre payment’ enjoyed by any newspaper has not been withdrawn/cancelled. A copy of the reply was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 2.7.2008 for information. IInd Adjournent The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.07.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri K.D. Mishra, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar, R.K. Rana, Deputy Post Master, Muzaffarnagar, K.C. Pant, Assistant, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, South, New Delhi appeared for the respondent. The representative of the Post Master General, Delhi requested for being dropped from the list of parties as the matter lay in the domain of the Post Master General, Bareilly. The complainant submitted that the postal department made deliberate attempt to harass the newspaper by refusing to extend the “without pre-payment postage facility.” The complainant asserted that Section 144 (1) of the Post Office Act provided for 100 copies in “without pre-payment postage facility” but they were insisting for 500 copies. The complainant further submitted that the Post
98 Master General, Bareilly has given details of two papers in his region availing this facility and one of them was his paper Muzaffarnagar Bulletin with about 37 copies per day and another Vidya Megh with average of 57 copies daily. This itself showed that both the papers were similarly placed in the matter of dispatch of copies and his paper was singled out for reasons best known to the respondent. The complainant further submitted that the Senior Post Master, Muzaffarnagar Postal Department has issued a letter on 21.6.2008 allowing 100 copies in “without pre-payment postage facility”. The respondent Shri K.D. Mishra, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar submitted that he had intimated the direction of the Council to Post Master General, Bareilly. He further stated that since the Senior Post Master, Muzaffarnagar, has issued the order allowing 100 copies, he was not aware of such order as he did not receive its copy. He added that it is Senior Post Master who has to receive the copies and if he had issued the order he must be receiving the copies of the newspapers. Mr. Rana, Deputy Post Master, Muzaffarnagar confirmed having issued the letter. Summons Accepting the request of Shri K.C. Pant, Assistant, Post Office (South) Delhi appearing for the Post Master General, Delhi the Inquiry Committee decided to drop their name from the list of respondents. The Inquiry Committee, on consideration of the submissions, noted that the respondents appeared to be giving contradictory statements and taking conflicting actions. The Inquiry Committee therefore, decided to summon Post Master General, Bareilly to personally appear before the Committee to explain the rules and procedures in respect of number of copies allowed under “without pre-payment postage facility” and criteria for relaxation. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Final Hearing 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 Col. Sukhdev Raj, Post Master General, Bareilly, Umrao Singh, ASP, Muzaffarngar, U.P. (on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices) appeared before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that his newspaper suffered loss and agony due to act of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarnagar, in not allowing “without pre-payment postage facility”. The complainant further submitted that the respondent had recently declined to accept the newspaper in poly-pack, whereas other magazines were being allowed dispatch under polythene cover.
99 Col. Sukhdev Raj, submitted that as per clause 144 of PO Guide Part-I the “without pre-payment postage facility” scheme is confined to registered newspapers (including magazines and periodicals) which are published at intervals of not more than 31 days and which post more than 500 copies at a time. And in respect of those newspapers which carry stamps of 25 paisa the condition is that minimum number of newspapers posted for availing this facility should be 100. He said now the complainant was posting the required number of copies and the matter had been sorted out. The respondent Col. Sukhdev Raj, also expressed regrets for the confusion created by the contradictory stands taken by his staff and undertook departmental action and gave assurance against any victimization of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the parties noted that the Postal Officers at Muzaffarnagar had differently construed the provision of the post office guide, causing harassment to the complainant newspaper, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin. The Inquiry Committee is also seized of the complainant’s submission that the issue had arisen only after he, in his capacity as a member of the Press Council of India had been entrusted the task of leading a Fact Finding Committee in a complaint against Senior Police authorities of the State. This submission, it directed, should form a part of its final report/recommendations to ensure against any undue action against the complainant by the State. The Inquiry Committee however, took on record the regrets and assurance given on behalf of the postal department by Post Master General, Bareilly as recorded above and recommended to the Council to dispose off the matter accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
26) Shri Sarvesh Kumar ‘Suyash’ The Chief Secretary Journalist Versus Government of Uttar Pradesh Kanpur Lucknow
The Director Department of Information & Public Relations Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Complaint Shri Sarvesh Kumar ‘Suyash’, Kanpur based freelance journalist has filed
100 this complaint dated 11.9.2007 against the District Information and Public Relations Department, Lucknow for harassment and depriving him of accreditation. The complainant has submitted that he has been working as journalist for last 24 years and as per the accreditation rules of the State Government, the journalists are entitled for card after completion of 20 years. The complainant has submitted that he had applied for the accreditation card with relevant documents to the Director, Information Department but his application has disappeared. The complainant vide his letter dated 14.5.2007 approached the Chief Minister who forwarded his application to the Information Department but he received no response. The complainant has submitted that he had also applied for accreditation card vide letter dated 11.9.2007 at District level and after the inquiry, the Information Department, Kanpur forwarded his application to the State Information Department. The Accreditation Committee was suspended in November 2007 and thereafter no Accreditation Committee had been formed by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, added the complainant. The complainant has further submitted that he is unable to cover important functions without the press card. He requested the Council to direct the State Government to form the Accreditation Committee and issue the accreditation card to the journalists. Notices for statement in reply dated 21.1.2008 were issued to the respondents Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Director, Department of Information and Public Relations. Statement in Reply Shri Madhukar Devedi, Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vide his letter dated 7.3.2008 informed that complainant’s application for grant of accreditation had been forwarded on 19.10.2007 to the Deputy Director, District Information Office, Kanpur for necessary action and complainant had also been informed the position vide letter dated 5.11.2007. The respondent has submitted that no meeting of accreditation committee has been held so far and the matter could not be settled. The respondent has stated that the allegations made by the complainant against the Information Director, Uttar Pradesh were baseless and required to be dropped. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 12.3.2008 the complainant has submitted that he had applied for accreditation card three years back but no information has been received from the Information Department except respondent’s letter dated 5.11.2007. The complainant has alleged that the District Information Office, Kanpur had not granted accreditation to any freelance journalist since last 10 years. He also pointed out that during the suspension of accreditation committee, a temporary Accreditation Committee of three members could issue accreditation card to the journalists.
101 Counter comments were forwarded to the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh on 27.3.2008. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Sarvesh Kumar ‘Suyash’, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Deputy Director, District Information Office, Kanpur appeared for the respondent. The complainant reiterated his grievance and added that the freelance journalists of long standing are deprived of many facilities while the working journalists get facilities like ESI, LIC, Accident Claim, Pension, Family pension. The respondent submitted that the Accreditation Committee has now been constituted and the complainant’s case for accreditation shall be placed before it in August 2008. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter to await the decision of the Accreditation Committee. The Government’s representative was directed to provide the information within two weeks of the meeting. The complainant vide his letter dated 26.8.2008 informed that despite the assurance given by the respondent authority at the time of meeting of the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008, accreditation has still not being granted to him. He requested the Council to give direction to the state government to provide him all the facilities of the working journalist along with the accreditation. Vide Council’s letter dated 15.9.2008 state government was reminded of the directions of the Inquiry Committee and directed to file action report in the matter. Reply of the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of U.P. The respondent Director, I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 6.10.2008 informed that the complainant in his letter dated 29.7.2008 had requested to provide him accreditation as a freelance journalist from the Headquarter of the State. Thus his earlier request to provide him accreditation from the Kanpur City is not relevant any more. According to the respondent the State Government has already issued Press Accreditation Rules/Guidelines 2008 and the papers/certificates enclosed along with the application of the complainant were not complete. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 1.10.2008 to provide the relevant papers/documents. After getting the papers his case will be placed before the Accreditation Committee for consideration.
102 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Sarvesh Kumar ‘Suyash’, the complainant appeared in person. Shri T.S. Rana, Assistant Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that as the advise of the authorities he had applied afresh for accreditation card at I&PRD office at Lucknow on 29.7.2008 and despite the fact that his case was pending before the Council for a long time and the press accreditation Committee of the Government of Uttar Pradesh held its four sittings in the current year, he was not granted press accreditation. The respondent submitted that the Press Accreditation Committee of journalists had been constituted in January 2008. The complainant had applied for accreditation card but he had not filed supporting documents to establish that he fulfilled the following requirements: 1. Working journalist with atleast 15 years experience, out of which five years as accredited journalist in the state or editor or news editor equivalent with editor of a prestigious newspaper. 2. Income should not be below 36000/-p.a. from journalism. 3. Article, editorial, news, photograph regularly published in two reputed newspapers. 4. He has to give in writing that he is not employed elsewhere. The respondent submitted that the complainant’s case shall be placed before the Press Accreditation Committee as soon as he fulfils these requirements. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents and hearing the parties noted that the respondent Government of Uttar Pradesh had brought into process of examining the case of the complainant for grant of accreditation. The respondent in a preliminary scrutiny had asked the complainant to fulfill the requirements. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to comply with the requirements sought by the respondent vide their letter No.2074/I&PRD (Press)-20/98 dated 01.10.2008 whereafter the respondent should place his case before the Press Accreditation Committee for consideration on merits immediately on compliance by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these directions to the parties. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
103 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
27) Dr. L.C. Gupt Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Uttar Pradesh Pilibhit Times Lucknow Pilibhit (U.P.) 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow 3. The District Magistrate Pilibhit (U.P.). 4. The District Information Officer Pilibhit (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 21.11.2006 has been filed by Dr. L.C. Gupt, Editor, Pilibhit Times, Pilibhit (U.P.) against the District Magistrate and the District Information Officer, Pilibhit (U.P.) alleging non-authentication of his declaration filed by him due to change in periodicity of his newspaper from weekly to monthly. According to the complainant, he made a complaint to the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh regarding corrupt activities of Shri B. S. Gangwar, Accountant, District Information Office, Pilibhit. On his complaint an inquiry was conducted which gave ex-parte decision against him and exonerated the Accountant of charges levelled against him. Annoyed with the complaint filed by him, the complainant was deprived of the facilities available to the press persons. The complainant approached the District Magistrate vide his letter dated 1.9.2006 against the decision of the Inquiry Officer but no action was taken by the District Magistrate. The complainant requested the Council to take appropriate action against the concerned authority. No Comments Notice for statement in reply was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Director, I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh District Magistrate and District Information Officer, Pilibhit on 8.6.2007. In response to the Council’s reminder dated 26.11.2007, the Deputy Director, Department of Information and Public Relations, U.P., vide letter dated 14.2.2008 addressed to District Magistrate, Pilibhit and copy endorsed to Press Council asked the District
104 Magistrate to take necessary action in the matter and submit the action taken report to the Council. Matter Adjourned
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2008. Shri P.S. Khare, advocate appeared for the complainant. The respondent District Information Officer, Pilibhit in a letter dated 21.8.2008 requested for adjournment on account of flood, requiring his presence in the district. Acceding to the request of the respondent, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 17.11.2008.The complainant Dr. L.C. Gupt was represented by Shri P.S. Khare, Advocate while Shri B.S. Gangwar appeared for the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The representative of the respondent authorities filed written submission of the District Magistrate before the Inquiry Committee. It was stated therein that the newspaper, Pilibhit Times had suspended publication for past about 18 months. Earlier also, the publication was not regular and was not being published as per requirements. The earlier Declaration had not been authenticated as it did not conform to the size of the paper. It was added that the fresh application for authentication of Declaration was not received in the office. He assured the Committee that on receipt of the application from the complainant needful would be done. The complainant submitted that he had sent the application through courier. He was not able to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the application form was actually submitted. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
Taking on record the assurance held out by the representative of the respondent that on receipt of the application from the complainant, the same would be forwarded to the District Magistrate for authentication, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to submit a fresh application for authentication of Declaration in District Information Officer’s office after taking proper receipt. The respondent authorities were directed to dispose of the matter within 15 days of the receipt of the application from the complainant. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to allow the matter to rest with the above directions to the parties.
105 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
28) Shri Satish Sharma Versus 1. The Administrator Managing Editor Daman & Diu Secretariat Savera India Times Union Territory Moti-Daman Hindi daily, Nani-Daman 2. The Chief Secretary, Daman & Diu Administration Union Territory Daman
3. The Secretary Information & Publicity Department Daman & Diu Administration Union Territory Daman Complaint This complaint dated 5.9.2007 has been filed by Shri Satish Sharma, Managing Editor, Savera India Times, Hindi daily, Nani-Daman against the Information & Publicity Department, Administration of Daman & Diu Union Territory alleging discrimination in the matter of release of Government advertisements due to publication of critical news items against the Administration. According to the complainant, they published in their newspaper issues dated August 9, 10 & 17, 2007 critical news items commenting on the working style of the Administrator due to which the Information & Publicity Department of the Daman & Diu, U.T stopped release of Government advertisements to their newspaper whereas the advertisements were being given to the other newspapers violating the rules. The complainant alleged that the respondent has been releasing advertisements to their favourite newspapers. He further alleged that due to stoppage of the Government advertisements to their newspaper it has been difficult for his paper to survive. He submitted that this attitude of the respondent has been an attack on the freedom of press. He has requested Council to take necessary action in the matter. Notices for statement in reply were issued to the respondents on 3.1.2008. Comments of the Respondent The respondent Special Secretary, Information & Publicity Department, Daman & Diu UT in their comments dated 29.1.2008 submitted that as and when the Information & Publicity Department, Daman received the advertise-ments/ tender notices from various departments of the UT for being published in the
106 newspapers for publicity they were forwarded to the newspapers as requested by the concerned department or through rotation basis among the newspapers published from Daman/Surat/Mumbai with condition that they fulfil the norms as per the orders issued by the Administration. The respondent also submitted that though the UT is very small but large number of registered newspapers had been vying for the government advertisements and sometimes create unhealthy environment leading to such false complaints as referred to in the instant case. Therefore the Administration is in the process of formulating guidelines on a similar pattern of those as followed in bigger States in consultation with the newspapers of UT. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 7.2.2008 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant Shri Satish Sharma, Managing Editor, Savera India Times in his counter comments dated 27.2.2008 submitted that he was not satisfied with the comments of the respondent as that were not based on facts. The complainant alleged that the respondent was trying to mislead the Council in order to save his skin. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 23.4.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant appeared in person. Shri J.B.Singh, IAS, Special Secretary & Director, Information & Publicity, Daman & Diu, appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the bookies had chosen Daman for satta in crores during Janmastmi (16 Aug 2007) and they stayed in a hotel at Daman where the cars carrying the Government of India label were used. The complainant gave this information thrice to the authorities that these people were not government officials. But no action was initiated by the Administrator on the contrary it caused resentment. The complainant submitted that another reason for annoyance was that he had published the story of an aggrieved lady seeker who was kicked out by the authorities when she tried to meet the Administrator. Moreover, the Administrator was never available in the office, as he used to travel every day to Diu, Silvassa or Delhi etc. The complainant submitted that since he was now getting advertisement regularly, his grievance had been redressed. Shri J.B.Singh, appearing for respondent submitted that the complainant newspaper in the recent past got maximum advertisements and therefore he
107 should not have any grievance. He further submitted that the Information & Public Relations Department was primarily a nodal department for issue of advertisements. The concerned departments had the authority to decide whether the tender/ advertisements be published in local, national or international newspaper keeping in mind the target readers. These departments however, issue their advertisements through the publicity department. The advertisements are issued to the newspapers empanelled as per guidelines. They were in the process of formulating fresh policy for release of advertisement. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complaint had been resolved following regular release of advertisement to the complainant newspaper. It however, observed that the issue remained hanging with the statements made before it by the parties that while the newspapers were empanelled as per the guidelines, no rules had been framed for determining criteria of selection of papers for release of advertisement, leaving it open to authority to pick and choose. The Committee noted that as trustee of public money, it was essential to bring transparency in action of the government so that the decisions were fair and just vis-à-vis similarly placed newspapers and the power could not be used as retaliation or placatory measure. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to direct that the Department may consult the Model Advertisement Policy drawn up by the Council and the policies of the Centre/State/UT to determine its rules in accordance with democratic principles. It directed that the action be completed within a period of two months and intimated to the Council. Response is awaited. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
29) Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain Versus The Commissioner Chief Editor Public Relations Department Daily Urdu Action Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, (M.P.) Bhopal,(M.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 24.4.2007, has been filed by Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain, Chief Editor, Daily Urdu Action, Bhopal against the Commissioner, Public Relations Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh alleging non-issuance of Accreditation Card. According to the complainant, on the night of 26.8.2006 some muslim fundamentalists alleging insult to their religious feelings, attacked his house and
108 office, damaged all household properties and burnt newspaper records including his Accreditation Identity Card. On 2.9.2007, the complainant approached the Commissioner of Public Relations Department, Bhopal with a request to issue duplicate Identity Card but was verbally told that the accreditation card could not be issued due to the pressure of anti-social elements. Again he wrote letter dated 3.10.2006 and 28.10.2006 to the respondent but received no repsonse. The complainant applied for information under the RTI Act 2005, on his request for Accreditation/Identity Card and also met the respondent Secretary cum Commissioner, Public Relations Department who told him that the card could not be issued due to registration of police case. The complainant further stated that the High Court of Jabalpur on 22.2.2007 had quashed all proceedings including an FIR against him saying that no offence under Section 294 IPC could be made out against him. Even after furnishing copies of the High Court decisions, the respondent adopted partial attitude towards him and ignored the High Court orders. He sent another letter dated 16.4.2007 by courier but the respondent refused to receive the same, alleged the complainant. Notice for Comments in Reply A notice for comments in reply was issued to Government of Madhya Pradesh on 8.6.2007. Comments The Joint Director, Public Relations Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh has filed its comments dated 11.7.2007 and submitted that the accreditation card was not issued to the complainant because the police had registered a case No. 144/06 against the complainant under Sections 294/295 A Cr.P.C. The State Press Accreditation Committee in its meeting held on 4.4.2007 recommended not to issue Accreditation Card to the complainant as per Clause 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Accreditation Rules 2002. The respondent further submitted that on the dismissal of the case against the complainant by the High Court as per his letter dated 12.4.2007 the accreditation card was issued to the complainant on 7.7.2007. It was clarified that non issuance of the Accreditation Card was not actuated by malafide but was in accordance with the rules. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 20.7.2007 with a request to intimate whether he is satisfied with the action taken by the respondent in the matter. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 30.7.2007 has submitted that he was not fully satisfied with the action taken by the respondent Public
109 Relations Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. He has alleged that the action of the respondent was unconstitutional and he may be given a hearing before the Inquiry Committee. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the respondent side. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that although the accreditation card has been issued by the respondent, yet his complaint stands for discriminatory attitude of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The complainant submitted that his premises were set on fire by some muslim fundamentalists for raising his voice for secularism and against terrorism and the FIR was lodged against that report. Thereafter, he had been harassed for issue of duplicate accreditation card as Section 20(2) of the M.P. Accreditation Rules, 2002, provided for cancellation of accreditation on filing of FIR or involvement of criminal activities/suspicious conduct. He moved the High Court to get the FIR quashed, and only thereafter was his card provided. He thereafter suffered a lot in getting his payment of advertisements from different departments and he was harassed in issuance of advertisement support/payment of bills etc. by the government officials of higher position. He also cited reference to the previous adjudication of the Council on his harassment by the M.P. Government. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the submissions made before it by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted with regret that the respondent Government was not represented despite service of notice. It further noted that though the matter of issuance of accreditation card had been settled, the issue concerning the provisions of cancellation of accreditation card under Section 20(2) of the Accreditation Rules, 2002, needed serious consideration as it could be used as a tool to browbeat the journalist. The relevant provision reads as follow: 20- fuEu vk/kkj ij vf/kekU;rk jnn dh tk ldsxh % (2) “vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa layXurk@lafnX/k vkpj.k gksus ij U;k;ky; esa vkijkf/kd izdj.k dk vfHk;ksx i= nkf[ky gksus ij ;k ltk;kQrk gksus ij” While it is understandable that a person held guilty and punished by the court for a criminal offence may be denied access to accreditation, the mere factum of registration of an FIR cannot lead to inference of his guilt. In a profession like journalism, such provisions could provide an opportunity to force the journalists
110 reason to compliant to the powers that may interfere with the free functioning of the press. The said clause was, therefore, ultra virus of the fundamental principles of our constitution and required to be withdrawn. The possible implication of such provisions were fortified by the reference to the past adjudications of the Council involving the complainant. The facts of case disclosed need for a pro-active approach by the Press Council under its mandate for preserving the freedom of the press. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to take up the issue of Accreditation Rules as also use of legal provisions for possible harassment with the Government of M.P., through its Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary. The Inquiry Committee further decided that the copy of the said letter may also be forwarded to the Secretary (Home) and Secretary/Commissioner I&PRD for similar action. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these directions and observations. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
Curtailment of Press Freedom
30) Shri Sharad Audhichya Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor, Government of M.P. Semaria Express Bhopal (M.P.) Satna (M.P.) 2. The Secretary,Home (Police) Department Government of M.P., Bhopal (M.P.). 3. The Superintendent of Police Satna (M.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 29.3.2006 has been filed by Shri Sharad Audhichya, Editor, Semaria Express, Satna against Shri Vedanti Tripathi, an alleged anti-social element and habitual offender, suspected of stealing idols, for assaulting and abusing their hawker due to publication of critical writings. The complainant submitted that he carried news items on March 7, 14 and 21, 2006 in his newspaper against the respondent exposing his activities. Aggrieved with the publication of critical news items, on 22.3.2006, Shri Tripathi manhandled their hawker, Shri Jayprakash Gupta and abused him and also snatched copies of their newspaper. The complainant further submitted that Shri Jayprakash Gupta filed a complaint against Shri Tripathi in Kotwali police station and the police lodged a report No.192/06 under Section
111 155 Cr.P.C. but no action was taken by the police on it. The complainant alleged that Shri Tripathi was a person of criminal nature and many cases were pending against him in the court. Notices for statement in reply were issued to the respondent police authorities on 7.8.2006. Comments The Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of M.P. Bhopal in his comments dated 28.9.2006 submitted that the matter was got inquired through the Superintendent of Police, Satna who, in his report dated 25.9.2006, submitted that Shri Jayprakash Gupta filed a written complaint with the Kotwali on 22.3.2006 at 7:00 p.m. and the same was registered as FIR at S.No.1674. Having found that there was no ground to interfere in the matter, Shri Gupta was advised to approach the court of law. Simultaneously, a report was registered under Section 155 and a copy of the report was provided to Shri Gupta. The report further stated that during the investigation, the complainant Shri Gupta in his statement informed that the respondent only abused him but he was neither assaulted nor any paper or money was snatched from him by the respondent. The respondent further stated that both the parties had a rivalry in the past and are habitual of lodging complaints against each other. In the cases registered against them, Challan had been filed in the Court. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 11.10.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 3.11.2006 submitted that the Govt. of M.P. furnished the false report of the Superintendent of Police, Satna, who neither took any statement of Shri Jaiprakash Gupta or Shri Dharmendra Kumar Tamarkar nor they were questioned. The complainant alleged that the police illegally registered four false cases against him due to publication of critical news items. He further alleged that Shri Vedanti Tripathi is a spy/informer of the police and the police authority itself informed the criminal character of Shri Tripathi and his brother. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent police authorities for inaction. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 29.5.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Sharad Audhichya, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Raja Ram Singh Parihar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Satna, Madhya Pradesh appeared for the respondent police authorities.
112 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the hawker of his newspaper had lodged a complaint with the police for snatching the copies of the newspaper on 22.3.2006 in the crowded market and abuses hurled on him by miscreants. A complaint of the hawker was registered under Section 155 but the police prepared the report that was totally different from the complaint given to the police. The respondent police officer submitted that dispute was between the hawker and a journalist. The police had duly recorded the statement of hawker and it was revealed that the said journalist had threatened the hawker not to sell the newspaper that carried defamatory news. There was no witness to corroborate the statement. On urging by the Inquiry Committee, the respondent assured the Committee that he would caution the officials for not taking immediate steps. He further assured that as and when such cases of prevention and distribution/obstruction of newspapers comes to their notice, all necessary steps will be taken. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record. It observed that prevention of distribution of newspaper affected the freedom of the complainant and the police was expected to take all due steps to ensure that there was no hindrance in it. The Inquiry Committee however, took on record the statement made by the respondent Additional Superintendent of Police assuring the Inquiry Committee that in future the police would take immediate steps in the matters of harassment of press and dissemination of news. The Inquiry Committee decided to allow the matter to rest on the basis of assurance given by the respondent police authorities. It recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. Principles and Publication
31) The Assistant Inspector General of Versus The Editor Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Media Force Policy & Coordination Division New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 15.2.2007 has been filed by the Assistant Inspector
113 General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Policy & Coordination Division, New Delhi against ‘Media Force’ Hindi monthly newspaper, brought out by Crime Free India Bureau, New Delhi through its Chief Editor, Dr. Jasbir Arya for publication of misleading advertisements captioned “Kaya aap CBI ke liye kam karna chahte hain?” and “CBI ko nimn case chahiyain” using the name of the CBI without its knowledge and consent in its November 2006 issue. The English rendering of the impugned advertisements is as follow: “Do you wish to work for CBI” C. F. I. B. and CBI (Govt. of India) shall work together to trace/ eradicate the crime. If you have the determination for serving the Nation and you can reach the roots of mafias, then immediately contact us along with your full bio-data. The wages shall be given by CBI on the basis of merit” (This was followed by the address and telephone numbers of CFIB). (2) “CBI needs the following cases” 1. Fake Currency (Counterfeit note) 2. Narcotics (Psychotropic substance like opium, charas, ganja heroine and smack etc.) 3. Drugs (Spurious drugs or Psychotropic substance in form of medicines) 4. Wild Life Protection (Safety of Wild animals and special (Protective Animal) animal conservation) 5. Antics (sic) (Theft or smuggling of Ashtadhatu Idols) 6. P.C.Act 1988 (Assets disproportionate to the income or Bribery by Govt. servants) 7. Fake stamps and (Fake postal/Revenue stamp papers Stamp papers Stamps and Court papers) 8. Illegal Weapons (Illegal arms) Therefore, CFIB intelligence workers are requested that the above said cases are dealt by CBI. If you have any such knowledge or information, then send the same to CFIB Head Quarter as early as possible. Crime Free India Bureau D- 411, Palam Extension, Ramphal Chowk, Dwarka, Sector-7, New Delhi- 110 045. Mobile- 011-20033783, 09868422283, 09350082541
114 According to the complainant the impugned advertisement had been published without the knowledge or permission of the CBI and the same was objectionable as from the text of the advertisement, it is clear that the readers have been invited to join CFIB mentioning that CFIB and CBI shall work together to trace/eradicate the crime. The complainant submitted that a commitment of wages has also been made causing pecuniary liability on CBI. The complainant further stated that the CFIB in their pamphlets lured the members of the public to come and join the CFIB after paying necessary membership fee to become entitled for the incentives promised in the newspaper. As per their terms and conditions, anyone who wants to pass on some information to them for onward transmission to CBI, has to enrol himself/herself first with CFIB after fulfilling some documentary formalities and depositing of Rs.600/-, Rs.1100/-, Rs.2100/-, Rs.3100/-, and Rs.5100/-, under various categories of membership. The complainant pointed out that the respondent had also published the same advertisements in joint-edition of June-July 2006 of the newspaper and repeated it again. The complainant alleged that the respondent was using his newspaper deliberately to cause people to believe that CBI and CFIB have some sort of a tie up.
The complainant raised objection and asked the respondent editor on 5.12.2006 and 5.1.2007 to take appropriate remedial action but no response. The complainant requested that as the respondent committed professional misconduct, the Council may inquire into the matter under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978.
Interim Reply of the Respondent
Show cause notice to the respondent was issued on 13.3.2007. In response, the respondent editor, Crime Free India Bureau/Force in his interimreply dated 16.3.2007 submitted that had the complainant been genuine, he would have used his rights to investigate the matter as per rule and they would have extended in full cooperation. That however, the complainant appears to be unprofessional creating doubts about his being CBI officer, who was trying to scare them in the name of CBI. He also objected that the complainant cast doubts about him. The respondent stated that their investigation had found the address of the complainant wrong as their courier had been returned with remarks “no such person; Return”. The respondent raised doubt about the genuineness of the complaint. The respondent submitted that if it is made clear, they would provide details in the matter. He also said that he doubted the involvement of Press Council staff in the matter.
A copy of the reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 26.3.2007 for their response.
115 Counter Comments of the Complainant
The complainant in his counter dated 26.4.2007 followed by a further letter dated 20.6.2007 while reiterating his complaint, impressed that his complaint is genuine and their office is situated at 27, North Block, New Delhi. The complainant submitted that the respondent, Shri K. M. P. Yadav is assuming designation of Joint Director/Editor, Crime Free India Bureau and sending his letters subscribing on the envelope “On India Pubic Service” which establish that the persons associated with Crime Free India Bureau are discreetly trying to assume identities normally associated with a Government department to mislead the people. Further that the respondent has been sending complaints to the Press Council of India as well as the CBI making certain enquiries resulting delay in the matter. The complainant requested the Council to expedite the action in the matter, as the respondent was trying to delay the matter on superficial grounds.
A copy each of the counter and further letter of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 17.5.2007 and 21.8.2007 for information and to file his written statement on merit.
Respondent’s Further Letter
In response, the respondent editor in his written statement dated 30.8.2007 submitted that it was very strange that neither the complainant met them nor communicated directly but rather approached the Press Council, using it as a mediator between the CBI and CFIB. The respondent alleged that the Officers (i) Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Secretary, National Legal Service Authority, (ii) Shri Anurag Garg, AIG (P), CBI (the complainant) and (iii) Secretary, Press Council of India are actively involved in conspiracy against the Crime Free India Bureau and described Shri Kamlesh Kumar to be the mastermind of the whole matter. The respondent further asserted that the above said three Officers areunscrupulously trying to demean the dignity of CFIB. The respondent requested the Council to initiate stern action against the three Officers and establish the impartial and strong image of Press Council of India.
A copy of the respondent’s written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.9.2007 for information and counter.
Complainant’s Reply
The complainant in his reply dated 7.11.2007 while denying the allegations levelled in the written statements of the respondent submitted that there was no conspiracy against the CFIB on their part or the Press Council of India. The complainant submitted that the three Officers as mentioned in the written statement had nothing to do with each other in the matter as alleged. Thus, the allegation
116 was absolutely frivolous and wrong. The complainant further submitted that the allegations are far from the truth and there was no question of demeaning the dignity of CFIB or misleading the Press Council of India in any manner. They reiterated the complaint on its merits and cited the action taken within the Press Council Act, 1978. The complainant alleged that the respondent is trying to divert the attention of the Press Council of India and CBI from the main inquiry by levelling flimsy and baseless allegations. The complainant submitted that the allegations levelled by the respondent are concocted and baseless.
A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 7.12.2007 for information.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Vineet Agarwal, AIG (Police) CBI, New Delhi appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Media Force (CFIB). However, Shri K.M.P. Yadav, Joint Director & Joint Editor, Crime Free India Bureau, New Delhi in his letter dated 21.2.2008 stated that the impugned news items published in their newspaper regarding CBI was very much correct and therefore cannot be challenged. The respondent further submitted that CFIB’s functioning in cooperation with the CBI is an unquestionable fact. The respondent further submitted that due to reason of internal/national security, they are not supposed to disclose internal details pertaining to their relation with CBI to any person or agency. That though they have no relation with the concerned AIG, CBI nor they have any dealing with him pertaining to any of their business, the concerned AIG, CBI is deliberately interfering in their affairs. According to him, they are only answerable to Director, CBI, concerned Division of CBI and Ministry of Home Affairs.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
Shri Vineet Agarwal, AIG (Police) CBI, New Delhi representing the complainant CBI submitted that the respondent was misleading the public through these advertisements misusing the name of CBI. He asserted the genuineness of the complaint and submitted that the CBI had no understanding or any association with CFBI.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on the basis of the records and oral submissions. It noted that the genuineness of the complainant could not be doubted. Therefore, the preliminary objection of the respondent was not sustainable. It thereafter took note of the respondent’s charge of the complaint
117 and inquiry being a result of conspiracy between NALSA, PCI and CBI officers and dismissed the averment as frivolous and fictitious. It thereafter examined the impugned advertisement on merits and felt that the advertisements were so worded and presented as tended to give an impression of CBI patronage to the CFIB which was highly objectionable. It also noted that among the newspapers cutting before it, was also an advertisement by CFIB inviting the public to join it and this advertisement inter alia mentioned that it was certified by the Press Council of India vide F.No. 22/1/2001-PCI. Thus, document it noted was in fact only a message of good wishes sent by the Chairman of the Press Council in response to request from newspaper and did not certify its standing etc.
Taking all factors into consideration, the Inquiry Committee was satisfied that impugned advertisements were prima facie misleading and objectionable and by publishing these, the respondent was guilty of misconduct. Therefore, taking a very serious view of the matter, it recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the newspaper as well as its Chief Editor, Shri Jasbir Arya and Editor, Shri K.M.P. Yadav under the provisions of Section 14 of the Press Council Act. Further, the Council may also recommend to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to inquire into the matter from legal angle and take all necessary action to protect the public and its interest.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
32) Shri Jayanta Deka Versus The Editor Advocate & others Asomiya Pratidin Asomiya Pratidin Mangaldai (Assam) Guwahati (Assam) Guwahati (Assam)
Complaint
Shri Jayanta Deka, Advocate and others have filed this joint complaint dated 29.12.2006 against the Editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati objecting to the opinion poll conducted by the respondent and publishing a report of the summary on the questionnaire “What kind of sentence the court should impose upon the accused Shri Anupam Das” in its issue dated 13.11.2006, one day ahead of the pronouncement of the judgment on 14.11.2006 in the case of a teenage boy killed by the domestic help. The impugned report carried the caption: “Landmark Verdict of Child Killing on Children Day” with photograph of the victim as well as the accused.
118 According to the complainants, a teenage boy was brutally killed by the domestic help of his family on 22.1.2002 at Guwahati. Immediately after the said gruesome incident, the accused was arrested and later on, he stood the trial before the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati and the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the case was fixed on 14.11.2006. They have alleged that when the Court had to pronounce the sentence of the case, holding of such opinion poll was nothing but blatant transgression into the turf of the judiciary and practice of holding trial by media prior to the pronouncement of judgment that tantamount to the professional misconduct. The complainants have further submitted that a newspaper is not entitled to pass any opinion pertaining to an issue that was sub- judice and calling upon the reader to send SMS on the subject which was wholly sub-judice that emboldening the readers to interfere in the administration of justice. They sought the intervention of the Press Council in public interest, and requested the Council to direct the respondent editor to tender an unqualified apology and issue guidelines in the matter. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin on 11.6.2007. There was no response from the respondent editor. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. The Complainant Shri Jayanta Deka appeared before it in person while Shri G. Mishra, Advocate represented the respondent Asomiya Pratidin. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper had published impugned report on the opinion poll in sensational murder case of a minor boy to influence the Court in awarding the sentence to the accused. The complainant submitted that the conduct of the newspaper was unethical and trial by the media in pending court proceeding was contemptuous. In support of his contention he referred to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.219 with 220 and 221 of 2005 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) Nos.991 with 1302 and 1829 of 2004) D/-4-2-2005 depricating trial by media when the matter was sub judice. An apology was therefore required to be published by the Asomiya Pratidin, added the complainant, apart from appropriate directions by the Press Council. Learned counsel for the respondent failed to justify the report in the matter except for the defence that the poll was conducted because the matter had attracted a lot of public attention. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint and material available on
119 record. The Inquiry Committee at the outset expressed its displeasure over the failure of the respondent editor in filing the written statement. In the absence of the reply of the respondent the Committee had to proceed without the benefit of the insight into justification for the impugned report. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent Asomiya Pratidin published the results of an opinion poll on 13.11.2006 as to what kind of punishment out of death or life sentence etc. was required in the case of murder of child just a day before the date of awarding of the sentence by the court. While the Inquiry Committee noted that the court might have taken recourse to contempt proceeding against the Asomiya Pratidin, it found that the opinion poll in Asomiya Pratidin was an act of recklessness parallel to media trial which could prejudice the court or affect public reaction to the judgment. The Council referred to Supreme Court judgment cited by the complainant and noted that the Hon’ble Bench in the order had observed that “The facts narrated therein were all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in that case. This type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice.This practice was deprecated and the publisher, editor and the journalist who was responsible for the said article were cautioned against indulging in such trial by media when the issue is sub-judice”. The Committee also referred to the norm developed by the Council on the issue for the benefit of the journalists that cautions them against publishing anything that ‘‘is in the nature of a running commentary or debate, or records the paper’s own findings conjectures, reflections or comments on issues, subjudice and which may amount to abrogation to the newspaper the functions of the court.’’ It observed that the respondent newspaper Asomiya Pratidin indulged in trial by media throwing to wind all the caution desired. The Inquiry Committee therefore felt that such flagrant violation of journalistic restraint warranted award of censure to the respondent newspaper, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati. It so recommended to the Council with further directions to publish the adjudication in the newspaper. A copy of the adjudication may also be sent to the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, the Registrar of Newspaper for India, the Directorate of Information & Public Relations, Government of Assam and District Magistrate, Guwahati for necessary action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
120 33) Smt. Karabi Dutta Versus The Editors Guwahati (1) Dainik Janasadharan Assam (2) Asomiya Khabar (3) Amar Asom (4) Dainik Janambhumi (5) Dainik Agradoot (6) Aji; and (7) Asomiya Pratidin Guwahati, Assam
Complaint
This complaint dated 10.4.2007 has been filed by Smt. Karabi Dutta, Guwahati against seven Guwahati based newspapers viz (1) Dainik Janasadharan, (2) Asomiya Khabar,(3) Amar Asom, (4) Dainik Janambhumi,(5) Dainik Agradoot, (6) Aji; and (7) Asomiya Pratidin alleging violations of the norms of journalistic conduct by publication of news items identifying of victims of rape and sexual harassments. According to the complainant, a number of rape and sexual harassment cases had occurred in the last few days and some of the victims were minors. While reporting the cases, names, addresses and other such information, which would lead to their identification, had been published by the respondent newspapers.The complainant submitted that the respondent newspapers of Assam identified the victims of sexual harassment, which is against the law, and jeopardizes the future of the victims. She furnished clippings of the impugned news items and the captions along with the objectionable portions of which are reproduced below:
1. “Child Rape on Childrens’ Day”
“….Manika Deka, a student of 3rd Standard and daughter of Prabin Deka of Medhipara was raped by one 28 years old named Tapan Saharia….” Dainik Janasadharan dated 15.11.2006,
2. “Sensation at Dalgoan Again, 4 years old Child raped within 24 hours of Ambika’s Murder”
“…one Rahul Haque…raped four years old Minara Begum, daughter of Mainul Haque.” Asomiya Khabar dated 20.11.2006,
3. “Student Abuse, 2, including Principal held at Bongaigaon”
“..the victim Sidhartha Sankar Rai, who is a student of the residential school disclosed that ward attendant….abused him sexually..” Amar Asom dated 20.11.2006,
121 4. “Rape Takes Place Again at Dalgaon” “..Minara Begum, daughter of Mainul Haque of Kheterchar village under Dalgaon Police Station was raped by one Rahul…” Amar Asom dated 20.11.2006, 5. “Minor Misbehave at Kundarbill” “ ..8 years old Asanti Karmakar, daughter of Debaru Kamakar of No.3 Kundarbill village of Ambagaon Mouja was raped by her uncle…” Dainik Janambhumi dated 30.11.2006, 6. “Student Sexually Harassed at Ranapara” “…13 years old Jyoti Biswakarma, daughter of Sunil Biswakarma of Hatidubi village was …..sexually harassed by Pramod..” Dainik Agradoot dated 2.12.2006, 7. “Old Man Flees After Girl’s Pregnancy Sensation at Rangia” “..a 45 years old man named Siraj Ali raped Junu Das, daughter of Manmil Das…” Aji dated 18.12.2006, 8. “Two Rapists Youth Arrested” “..three youths of Barangabari…rape Minakshie Kalita (20) wife of Jitu Kalita of same village..” Asomiya Pratidin dated 21.12.2006, 9. ‘Rapist of Child at Nehru Stadium Arrested at Kamakshya Railway Station” “…Sulabh Mahanti ….raped the 9 years old daughter of Nabin Barua of the same area.” Amar Asom dated 11.1.2007. 10. “4 Years Old Guriya Becomes Victim of Rape” “..Guriya’s mother Ayesha Begum….. her father Firoz. Work at some other place.” Amar Asom dated 11.1.2007, 11. “Child Raped at Silpathar” “.. a man named Dilowar Hussain raped an 11 years old child named Mamani Nath…the driver of the Border Roads Organisation raped Mamani at the nearby jungle..” Dainik Agradoot dated 12.3.2007, 12. “Protest at Kaliabor against Sexual Harassment” “an old woman, Monita Biswas a resident of Darigaji…was raped by Sashi Saikia…” Dainik Janasadharan dated 8.3.2007, 13. “Rapist Gaonburah Arrested” “…Pokhrel raped Sabitri Sonar, the wife of his neighbour Ambar Bhahadur Ghimire.” Amar Asom dated 14.4.2007
122 14. “Married Woman Raped at Gauripur” “…Golenur Bibi, a married woman of Khudimari Pratham Khanda village….was abducted and raped at the residence of Chattar Ali near Domardha Bridge.” Amar Asom dated 22.4.2007, 15. “…..was in love with the 20 years old daughter of late Haladhar Deka of Pabhakti village….” Aji dated 6.5.2007. 16. “Tension Still at Lanka:This Time Proposal to Replace Market” “….wife of Dinamoi Namahsudra of Formapar near Lanka was raped by a group of 8 culprits….” Amar Asom dated 6.5.2007, 17. “Seven Years Old Child Rape at Baxirhat” “..the seven years old daughter of Anil Rai, ….coming back from school…was raped by Jamir Ali” Adinor Sangbad 7.5.2007, 18. “Four Years Old Child Raped at Ambikanagar” “….a 3 years 9 months old girl…daughter of Susmita Debnath was raped by one Jhumur Dhar..” Dainik Batori dated 10.5.2007, 19. “ Seven Years Old Child Raped at Baxirhat” “ …Seven years old daughter of Anil Rai…was raped by Jamir Ali…… of the same village…” Aji dated 7.5.2007, 20. “Daughter Raped by Father at Mikirbheta” “…Chakrasing Patar, a resident of Thakuria Borigaon….raped 12 years old daughter..” Dainik Janasadhara dated 24.4.2007 21. “Rape at Karimgunj by temptation of Job” “..Mustaq Ahmed…raped Rukia Begum, wife of Abdul Malik…after parking the car at a lonely place.” Dainik Batori dated 2.5.2007. She had also brought the matter to the notice of the Assam Human Rights Commission and the Commission circulated its order dated 27.12.2006 among the national and local dailies, PTI, UNI, Doordarshan, NE TV, the I&PRD of the Government of Assam, recommending that violation of such right to privacy is punishable in accordance with law. Even after release of the order, some newspapers continued to publish such news items for which she had to draw the attention of the Commission once again. The complainant added that the Commission advised her to approach the Press Council for appropriate action if there is any specific violation of the Commission’s order dated 27.12.2006 by the media. According to the complainant, the names and any other information of the victims of rape and molestation should not be published as it may cause mental
123 trauma to the victims and her/his family and may jeopardize the future of the victims. Written Statement Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors on 14.6.2007. The respondent Editor, Dainik Agradoot, Guwahati in his written statement dated 27.7.2007 appreciated the efforts of the complainant in pointing out the unethical news items published in the newspapers about identification of victim who were minor girls. He has stated that they had directed the editorial staff members not to mention any name of minors in connection with rape etc. The respondent expressed his gratitude to the Council for the initiative taken to curb the menace from the newspapers of the State. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.8.2007 for information and counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 17.8.2007 pointed out that the respondent took notice of minor girls only while the norms was laid down for girl as well as adult victims. Even after filing its written statement, the respondent Dainik Agradoot have published such objectionable news items captions of which are as follows: 1. ‘Rapist of Minor Girl Arrested’ ‘………raped the five years old daughter of Ajit Mech of Holonng Gutibari Village. Dainik Agradoot dated 4.8.2007 2. ‘Married Woman Gang Raped’ ‘………Safina Begum (24), wife of one Rafiquddin of Barthola was kidnapped from her home and taken to Dimapur by………… raped the married woman there.’ Dainik Agradoot dated 15.8.2007. A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to the respondent on 7.9.2007 for information. The other respondent editors failed to file any justification. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. Smt. Karabi Dutta, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri P. Chepnkar, Reporter, Kamala Kanta Baroah, G.M., Bikash Sharma, and Jasmi Hudda, Advocate, Shyamal Sunder Goswami, Advocate, Kanak Sen Deka, Editor, Debashish Sarma, Advocate, G. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent Dainik Jansadharan, Asomiya Khabar, Amar Asom, Dainik Janambhumi, Dainik Agradoot, Aji and Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati, Assam respectively.
124 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in her written and oral arguments stated that some newspapers have been repeatedly disclosing the names, address and other information which can lead to the identification of the victims of rape etc. This was against the norms of journalistic conduct and the ethics of society and every sensible reader would have been shocked to read the news reports complained of. It was added that such identification might make the victim’s life miserable in the society and the newspapers should refrain themselves from publishing the name etc. of the rape victims. The representatives of the respondent newspapers appearing before the Committee expressed regrets for publishing the impugned news reports. They assured the Committee that they would take strong steps to prevent such repetition and the concerned reporters who caused the publications have been warned to be careful in future. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Committee has considered the matter of identification by the newspaper of victims of sexual assault. There is no doubt that the press shoulders the highest responsibility in maintaining societal norms and making a special effort to protect the privacy of the victims of such heinous crime against humanity. It needs no reiteration that utmost caution is to be observed to protect the identity of the concerned even though the reporting itself may be in public interest. This is now universally accepted and implemented as a matter of ethics as well as law. In India Section 228(A) of the IPC and Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, hold specific provisions in this regard and the Press Council has also considered and deliberated on the issue several times drawing up the norms that may be reproduced here with advantage:- Norm 6. Right to privacy ii) 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. iii) Minor children and infants who are the offspring of sexual abuse or ‘forcible marriage’ or illicit sexual union shall not be identified or photographed. It is a matter of surprise as well as dismay that the papers did not take due steps to protect the identity of the victim. This only goes on to prove that while laws may be made and norms may be laid down, creation of the awareness
125 thereof needs to be paid more attention. To this end, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council that while the assurances of future caution and publication of unqualified apologies by all the respondents may be taken on record, the Council may advise all the newspapers through the various press organizations to draw up a basic charter of the do’s and don’t’s for their employees and undertake periodic review of such charter to keep them up to date. This will go a long way in furthering the principles of self-regulation of the press to which the Press Council is committed. It recommends to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
34) Shri Kailash Chand Jain Versus The Editor Dimapur Jain Gazette Jain Gazette Nagaland Guwahati, Assam Guwahati, Assam Complaint This complaint dated 9.3.2007 has been filed by Shri Kailash Chand Jain, Dimapur, Nagaland against the “Jain Gazette”, an official publication of the Jain Mahasabha, Guwahati alleging dual publication, containing different matters on page number five of the edition dated 23.11.2006. According to the complainant, he came to know about the dual publication from another news magazine named PAARSHAD JAIN that the article mentioned in the index of the front page was not found printed inside. He also came to know that the newspaper containing the article in question was distributed to the persons residing in other parts of the country and he some how procured the same. Being a Jain himself, he wrote to the respondent on 11.1.2007 for clarification of the matter, but he received no response. He has alleged that the respondent have neither responded to his letter nor published any clarification in their next issues. The complainant has stated that the matter is highly objectionable as it was printed double, one for being circulated in the area from where it was generated and the other, giving rise to internal conflicts within a community, in the remaining parts of the country. Since the matter concerns with the raising of internal conflicts within a particular community by providing different kind of articles, he urged the Council to take action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 13.4.2007. The respondent editor, Jain Gazette in his written statement dated 25.4.2007 has submitted that the incident occurred due to lack of communication. The
126 weekly paper being printed and published at Lucknow while he resides at Guwahati, the article in question was printed without his knowledge and permission, stated the respondent. When he came to know about it, he stopped the distribution of that particular issue of the weekly paper but unfortunately, the complainant somehow came to know about it and lodged this complaint. The respondent further submitted that there was nothing intentional and they would be more careful in future.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.5.2007 for information and with a request to intimate whether he would like to pursue the case in view of the fact that the respondent has admitted the mistake and has given assurance that they would be more careful in future.
Counter Comments
The complainant in his counter comments dated 30.5.2007 has submitted that though the respondent clearly admitted his mistake, he would like to pursue the matter for the reason of lack of any corrective action following the professional misconduct.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. S/Shri Nirmal Jain and Kesab Paul appeared for the complainant. Shri Kapoor Chand Jain, Editor, Jain Gazette, appeared in person.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant reiterated the complaint that the respondent Jain Gazette had published dual material in 23.11.2006 issue at page 5 and added that after he complained against it he was not regularly getting the copies of Jain Gazette, though he holds a life membership. The complainant contended that the respondent should have carried the mistake in the magazine distributed to its members.
The respondent submitted that the magazine had no intention to hurt the sentiments of its members and was ready to publish regrets in the magazine. He submitted on the second count that the complainant should have written to them for non-receipt of the copy of the magazine and assured that the copies of the magazine would be sent to the complainant.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the parties noted that in view of the undertaking given by the respondent to publish the regrets for carrying different matter in copies of the same issue, no further action was necessary. It decided to recommend to the Council to close the complaint.
127 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
35) Shri Alok Kumar Datta Versus The Editor Advocate Ananda Bazar Patrika Howrah (West Bengal) Kolkata (West Bengal) Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 27.2.2006, is filed by Shri Alok Kumar Datta, Advocate, Howrah against “Ananda Bazar Patrika”, Kolkata alleging non-publication of his second protest letter with regard to the publication of news items captioned “At home is found the hanging body of the student” and “Hanging body of a student recovered at Howrah” (English translation provided by the complainant) in the Kolkata and Howrah editions of the issues dated 20.10.2005. According to the impugned news items, the daughter of the complainant named Sulagna, was preparing for her Chartered Accountant 2nd year examination, was found dead hanging on a ceiling fan at her house in Howrah and the local people alleged that there used to be too much physical and mental torture on Sulagna and she might had been murdered or instigated to commit suicide. It was also stated in the impugned news items that the police informed that the suicide note was recovered from the ground floor of the house, which suggested that Sulagna was suffering from mental depression due to her incomplete preparation for her examination. The complainant’s letter was published by the respondent newspaper under the heading “The story behind the death of Sulagna” with the comments of the concerned reporter on 21.11.2005, stating that on enquiry the complainant had refused to make any comment and told the reporter to ‘ask the police whatever they want to know’ and whatever information they got from the police, was published in the news report. The concerned reporter also commented at the foot of the published letter that the local people have seen the victim being physically assaulted by the family members and they suspected the suicide note might not have been written by the victim. Objecting to the comments added by the respondent reporter in the published letter, the complainant wrote a letter dated 21.11.2005 and when he received no response, he again issued another letter dated 29.11.2005. The complainant submitted that as his second letter had not been published by the respondent, it caused serious damage to his reputation and social position. Notice for comments was issued to the respondent on 4.5.2006.
128 Comments In response, the Company Secretary & Head of Legal, Ananda Bazar Patrika vide his comments dated 19.6.2006 submitted that the news articles were based on the spot investigation/interviews and the same were published in good faith after taking due care and reasonable attention. It was not their intention to malign or cause harm to the reputation of the complainant, stated the respondent and added that on being approached by the concerned reporter, the complainant declined to speak to him and refused to make any comment on the incident but directed the reporter to take up the matter with the police authorities. The concerned reporter highlighted the initial findings which were based on personal interviews of the neighbours and police personnel and as such the allegation of not meeting the complainant was not correct, submitted the respondent. He further submitted that they had already published the entire protest letter written by the complainant with due prominence on 21.11.2005 along with the comments of the concerned reporter thereby providing sufficient opportunity to the complainant to vindicate his rights, if any, in the matter. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 11.7.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 30.6.2006 submitted that the concerned reporter chose to rely on the oral statements of the neighbours with whom they had longstanding dispute rather than on the written findings of the police, the magistrate and the doctors who conducted the post mortem. He has submitted that in the impugned news report, the reporter admitted that there was no complaint against the complainant to the police and the police reports stated that no foul play could be detected behind the death but the respondent in his comment clearly admitted that the news item was based on the suspicion. He alleged that mere suspicion without confirmation could never be the basis of published news, and added that the reporter stuck to his own version of the story as a murder case despite contradictory police report. The reporter never acted in good faith, with due care and reasonable attention, rather than acted with malice to cause harm to his reputation, alleged the complainant. Written Statement A show cause notice issued to the respondent editor on 2.7.2007. In response, the respondent vide his written statement dated 3.8.2007 while reiterating his comments, submitted that a purported protest letter of the complainant along with the reply of the concerned reporter was published on 21.11.2005 and they were convinced that the issue and concerns of the complainant
129 had been completely addressed. The respondent further submitted that there was no such new issue that was agitated in the complainant’s second protest letter dated 29.11.2005. The respondent stated that in the event of rejoinder upon rejoinder being sent, the editor has the discretion to decide at which state to close the issue.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 10.8.2007 for information.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.S/Shri Rajashi Datta and Samik Ghosh appeared for the respondent, Anand Bazar Patrika. The Inquiry Committee took note of the letter dated 28.5.2008 written by Shri Ujjal Datta, son of the complainant stating there in that his father (Shri Alok Kumar Datta) passed way on 20.8.2007.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The representative of the respondent newspaper submitted that the impugned report had been published with due care and caution and the rejoinder of the complainant had also been published with the reporter’s comments that they felt were necessary. The respondent submitted that the complainant’s case for publication of second rejoinder was not acceptable as the newspaper had already published the rejoinder in all fairness.
Recommendations of Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the ethics of journalism requires that the newspaper must make endeavor to establish the veracity of the report and in the instant case the reporter of the Anand Bazar Partika had made all possible attempts to cross check the facts before publication.The another aspect of journalism and ethics imposes a duty on the newspaper to immediately carry the reply of an aggrieved person, which had been done by the respondent Anand Bazar Patrika as soon as it came to their notice in 21.11.2005 issue. The reporter’s note appended to it was also as per the norm which reads as follows:
Norm 14(ii) “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.” Further the complainant has since died. In the circumstances, the Inquiry Committee did not find any fault with the respondent newspaper and taking note of the demise of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
130 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
36) Shri Konsam Lanngamba, Advocate Versus The Editor Honorary President The Telegraph United Committee Manipur Guwahati Imphal, Manipur Assam Complaint This complaint dated 27.7.2006 has been filed by Shri Konsam Lanngamba, Honorary President, United Committee Manipur, Imphal against “The Telegraph”, an English Daily, Guwahati alleging publication of unfounded, provocative, misleading and dangerous news item captioned “NAGA STUDENTS ‘WIN’ TEXT BOOK BATTLE” in its issue dated 23.7.2006. It was stated in the impugned news item that the Union Human Resource Development Minister, Shri Arjun Singh assured a delegation that the Naga Students in four hill districts of Manipur would be allowed to follow the syllabus of Nagaland Board of School Education instead of the Manipur Board of School Education. According to the complainant, tension was very high within hours of getting the news. It, however, little subsided after the HRD Minister, Shri Arjun Singh refuted the claim. The complainant has alleged that the publication of the distorted and highly exaggerated headline was condemnable that deviated from the ethics of press standard. The complainant vide letter dated 1.8.2006 furnished a copy of his complaint to the respondent but received no reply or clarification from the respondent. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 19.12.2006. Written Statement The respondent Company Secretary and Head of Legal, Anand Bazar Patrika in his written statement dated 25.4.2007 submitted that the news item was based on the interview given by the four members Naga Students delegation which met the Prime Minister in New Delhi and the statements appearing in the news item were based entirely on the interview. The caption “Naga Students ‘Win’ Text Book Battle” clearly signified that the word ‘win’ should not be taken literally and it was ‘questionable’ as to whether the demands placed by the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) had been acceded to or accepted by the authorities concerned, stated the respondent.
131 The respondent further submitted that on 24.7.2006, they duly published a clarification in bold print on the same page under the caption “Arjun Clarifies on Syllabus”. It was published in the clarification that the Manipur Chief Minister had said that the Union Human Resource Development Minister, Shri Arjun Singh had clarified that the Centre had given no assurance to the Naga Student Federation on the school syllabus. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 17.5.2007 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.9.2007 submitted that the heading of the news item “Naga students win textbook battle” as well as the first three paragraphs of the news item could never be explained as an ‘interview’ as claimed by the respondent. The complainant submitted that the submission of the respondent in para 8 that ‘the caption Naga students win textbook battle clearly signifies that the word ‘win’ should not be taken literally and it was ‘questionable’ as to whether the demands placed by the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) had been acceded to or accepted by the authorities concerned’ sounds pretty confusing. What was it meant by saying that ‘win’ should not be taken as ‘win’? questioned the complainant. National media like the Telegraph which could influence millions of people should not be allowed to spread any unfounded, distorted and highly sensationalised news headline which may provoke social violence in the already volatile Northeast, added the complainant. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 5.10.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. Shri Jhagjit Singh, Advocate appeared for the complainant. S/Shri Rajarshi Dutta, and Monimoy Dasgupta represented the respondent newspaper, The Telegraph. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated that the Telegraph published provocative news with sensational headline in 23.7.2006 issue. The newspaper did not appreciate the situation prevailing in Manipur which was very volatile and any comment in the newspaper reports about ethnic group could lead to communal violence. The counsel further submitted that although the Telegraph later carried the version of the HRD Minister, it did not put their point of view. The counsel further pointed out that the Telegraph in its last para of the impugned report gave a contradictory statement that the complainant who headed the anti-territory integration movement, declined to comment on the development.
132 The respondent submitted that the impugned report that had been received from their Delhi bureau was neither intended to hurt the ethnic group nor to arouse their sentiments. It was a report about meeting of the delegation with the HRD Minister and when the newspaper came to know about the reaction of Shri Arjun Singh, HRD Minister, the Telegraph immediately published the clarification in same manner. The newspaper thus abide by the journalistic ethics. The respondent further submitted that newspaper was however, ready to publish the clarificatory note of the complainant conspicuously on page 3 with apology. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the parties. It noted that the apprehension of the complainant, United Committee Manipur, that given the volatile situation and the sentiments of the public on such a sensitive issue, the report could affect the State’s peace and tranquility. The Inquiry Committee observed that while the newspaper had promptly published the refutation issued by the HRD Minister, the publication of rejoinder from the complainant in a conspicuous manner would have been appreciable. During the hearing the Telegraph had agreed to publish the rejoinder with prominence together with its unqualified apology. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, directed the respondent to publish the clarification coupled with apology and forward a copy of the issue carrying the same to the complainant and the Press Council of India for record. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the complaint with above directions to the respondent. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
37) Shri S.C. Sharma Versus The Editor Advocate, Patiala House Courts Dalal Street Journal New Delhi Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 8.3.2007/11.4.2007 has been filed by Shri S.C.Sharma, Advocate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against Dalal StreetJournal, Mumbai alleging publication of an incomplete and misleading article captioned “H.B. Stockholding” - “Counter with Hidden Value” in its February 19-March 4, 2007 issue. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news article was highly objectionable, misleading and an attempt had been made to present a rosy picture of the working of the company without disclosing the antecedents of the Promoters/ Directors of the company.
133 According to the complainant, name of the author of the impugned article has not been indicated, which by itself, is an unethical practice. The complainant submitted that the respondent had published the news article in question without making due diligent enquiry about the working of the company and the antecedent of its Directors. The complainant submitted that in fact this company was floated by a share broker firm listed on Delhi Stock Exchange called R.R.Bhasin & Co. This company also floated another company called R.R.B.Securities Ltd. which was floated through misleading prospectus at a price of Rs.100/- per share and this company is not now listed at NSE and BSE and the investors including the complainant have lost crores of rupees due to dubious Promoters/Directors. The complainant further stated that the shares of H.B.Stockholding Company were floated earlier when this company was called H.B.Portfolio Leasing Company at a price of Rs.65/- per share and the share value of the script nosedived to even Rs.2.5 per share resulting in heavy loss to the public including his family members. The shares of the company are now quoted at Rs.20-30 per share. The Directors of the company had been facing criminal prosecution on a complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies Delhi and Haryana in a Delhi Court and they were bailed out from the court of A.C.M.M., Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Apart from this several cases were filed against the company in Delhi High Court and MRTP Commission and the cases are still pending for the unfair and unethical trade practices indulged in by the company. According to the complainant the editor of the Journal instead of issuing a corrigendum and apprising the public of the true state of affairs of the company tried to justify the wrong and biased action in publishing the article containing half truth with a view to mislead the public and the investors which was highly unethical and objectionable. The complainant submitted that he had sent a copy of his complaint dated 8.3.2007 to the respondent for publishing a corrigendum and apprising the readers the true state of affairs by publishing the real story. The complainant alleged that respondent had not issued rebuttal which showed the adamant and unjustified attitude of the editor. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the editor for publishing highly colourful article about the company without apprising the public of the true facts and without conducting proper research and analysis of the working and antecedents of the company. Suo-motu Reply of the Respondent The respondent sent his reply dated 2.4.2007, in response to the endorsement of complaint lodged with the Council and stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant were baseless. Regarding the allegation that the financial data published in the said article was “incomplete and misleading and an attempt had been made by the author to paint a rosy picture,” the respondent submitted that the magazine
134 had sourced the financial data from the websites of Bombay Stock Exchange and Securities Exchange Board of India. According to the respondent if the reader will go thorough the article it was not only quite balanced but also full of facts and figures. The data of facts and figures was gathered from various official sources to form the opinion. Nowhere it was tried to mislead the investors, as alleged. It was also specifically nowhere mentioned that there was no legal case pending against the management. The respondent further submitted that the very basis of recommending the scrip was due to substantial investments held by the company in its books, whose market value is quite high as compared to its H.B. Stockholding market cap. In fact, on going through the BSE or SEBI websites one can easily cross verify that H.B. Stock Holding is holding substantial portion of Jai Prakash Associates shares. Moreover many promoters against whom number of legal cases are proceedings in various courts though the Indian Exchanges have allowed these scrips to trade on the bourses. Even SEBI allows companies to come out with the Public issues. Regarding allegation of unethical practice which suggested that the matter is sub- judice, the respondent submitted that the matters against the company are pending for judicial adjudication and it will be injustice to convict someone even before the court of law and to deliver such a baseless sentences, surprisingly, by the person who is well conversant with the facts on the pending status of the cases. The respondent further submitted that the scrip is listed on the bourses and falls under ‘B2’ category and not under the ‘Z’ category. If the company was detrimental to financial health of the investor, SEBI would have suspended the trading of the company’s shares long back. Even the stock exchanges would have put trading of the company under the ‘Z’ category, giving clear indication about the high risk to the investors. The respondent submitted that the complainant approached the Council without checking the facts and figures with the motive to cause a slur on the magazine’s reputation. The respondent demanded an unconditional apology from the complainant and urged the Council to take action against the complainant. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice issued on the complaint therespondent, in his written statement dated 27.9.2007 filed on 15.3.2008 while denying the allegations submitted that the complaint was baseless, illegal, not maintainable, devoid of merit, without any authority of law and the same is liable to be dismissed. The respondent stated that the contents of the complaint were highly objectionable and the complaint was made with malicious intention to tarnish image of the reputed magazine. According to the respondent the financial data had been sourced from the websites of the Bombay Stock Exchange and the Securities Exchange
135 Board of India. The article was balanced and full of facts and figures and same had been gathered from various official sources to form the opinion. The respondent further stated that they do not have to write about at what price company floated and what was its price in the past. They were only concerned about the present valuation and future predict from the valuation. In the last six months the investors in the company were stated to have made good money and the sensex during the same period had moved up by less than 10%. Denying the allegation in toto the respondent stated that whatever was published in the article was the information sourced from the official website. They failed to understand what corrigendum the complainant desired. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint with cost and consequences and pass any other orders in the interest of justice. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. Shri S.C. Sharma, complainant appeared in person. Shri Jatin Zaveri, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent editor, the Dalal Street Journal. The complainant, Shri S.C. Sharma submitted that the Dalal Street Journal published the promoting article in its issue dated 19 February-March 4, 2007 without mentioning the name of author. The complainant submitted that R.O.C. had prosecuted the Directors of H.B. Stock Holding Ltd. and the matters of unfair trade practice against them were pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the MRTP Commission. The complainant further submitted that although the name of the writer of article was not mentioned, the magazine described the writer as analyst holding shares in the said company. The complainant further submitted that it was highly irresponsible act on the part of the magazine to publish the article and even more so if their claim of having downloaded information from the Internet was correct. The complainant submitted that his grievance was that the respondent magazine published a colourful and deceptive article without giving doubtful background of the company. The complainant submitted that the article was biased and intended to curry favour to the company having unreliable background. The counsel for the respondent Dalal Street Journal stated that the article was based on the data and information downloaded from internet and official website of SEBI, the balance sheet and annual report of the company. The counsel further submitted that the grievance of the complainant was that the data published in the Dalal Street Journal was incomplete, but the complainant had failed to point out as to what kind of data was missing. As regards the prosecution of the Directors of any of the companies, it did not debar them from doing further
136 business. The counsel for the respondent further submitted that the complainant appeared to be aggrieved with the loss incurred on the shares of the said company bought by the complainant but the point has to be noted that the complainant had bought shares in the year 1991 and it did not mean that the portfolio of the company remained the same. It is also not the case of the complainant that he invested in the company misguided by the impugned article. The counsel stated that the correspondent himself had invested in the company and there was no reason for him to mislead the public. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties and perusing the record, noted that the impugned article had been written by a person who held stock in the company and, therefore, the ethical dimension of the action needed to be determined. The Inquiry Committee in order to examine the same, directed the respondent magazine through its lawyer to furnish the following information within four weeks: 1. The name of writer of the article and his monetary involvement in the H.B. Stock Holdings; 2. The details of information downloaded from the website and all the sources of the article; and 3. The quantum of advertisements received by the respondent Dalal Street Journal from the H.B. Stock Holding or from their group of companies during financial year 2006-07. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were again conveyed to the respondent editor, Dalal Street Journal vide Council letter dated 10.4.2008. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2008 at New Delhi. Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Jatin Zaveri, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Dalal Street Journal. The counsel for the respondent, Dalal Street Journal submitted reply dated 13.5.2008 answering the query raised by the Inquiry Committee at the last hearing, which is as follows: 1. Name of the writer of the article is Mr. Sunil Damania, Managing Editor and he holds 1000 shares of H B Stockholding. 2. The details of information received from the official website of Bombay Stock Exchange i.e. www.bseindia.com and SEBI i.e. www.sebi.gov.in
137 3. The Dalal Street Journal had never received any amount from H.B. Stock Holding and it’s group of companies as and by way of advertising revenue or otherwise. The complainant in his oral arguments submitted that the respondent had not provided the reply to the complainant and therefore he was not able to counter it. The Inquiry Committee expressed its unhappiness over the delay in compliance with direction of the Inquiry Committee leading to an abortive hearing and adjourned the matter to afford to the complainant an opportunity to file counter. It also imposed adjournment cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) on the respondent, Dalal Street Journal. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Counter reply of the Complainant The complainant in his counter reply dated 10.6.2008 stated that the impugned article was written by Shri Sunil Damania, Managing Editor of the Dalal Street Journal and the name of the author of the article under the caption “H.B. Stockholding Ltd” was not disclosed by the respondent intentionally and deliberately. The author of the article was having 1000 shares of the said company worth about one Lakh and as per guidelines laid down by the Press Council, it is unethical to publish an article about investment in the company in which the author has vested interest. The complainant further pointed out that details of the company given on the official website of BSE is very sketchy and misleading inasmuch as the original name of the Directors have not been indicated nor the financial results of the company have been disclosed for the last five years. The complainant further submitted that the original name of the company have was H.B. Portfolio Leasing Ltd. He also filed a certificate of incorporation of the new company in place of the old company in support of his statement. The complainant further averred that the website of BSE and SEBI did not disclose the antecedents of the promoters/ Directors of the Company and the pending Court cases in Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and MRTP Commission etc. The complainant submitted that the Registrar of the Companies, Delhi & Haryana filed a criminal complaint against Shri H.C. Bhasin and other Directors of the company in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide complaint No. 49/2003, where the Directors of the company were admitted to bail after registration of criminal case against them. The complainant further clarified that in the said matter the Directors of company obtained exparte stay order in a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court. According to the complainant the promoters/Directors of the company who are share brokers of dubious reputation floated several companies, which have vanished due to malpractices committed by the Directors. The complainant submitted that he had invested in one such company promoted by Shri H.C. Bhasin called
138 R.R.B. Securities which has been de-listed due to gross mismanagement and large number of complaints are pending against the company before SEBI, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana. One complaint against the H.B. Stockholding Company is pending before the MRTP Commission since 1996 and contempt notice has also been issued against the Executive Director of the Company, Shri J.M.L. Arora. According to the complainant the respondent journal has got team of seasoned research analysts and a battery of supporting staff to conduct research before the recommending any share for investment by the public and in the present matter, the respondent have failed to enquire into the antecedents of the promoters of the company and published misleading article. The editor even failed to publish a corrigendum apprising the public of the true state of affairs of the company. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent for the unethical practices adopted by the Journal and thereby misleading the public. The Counter reply dated 10.6.2008 of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 3.7.2008 for information. Respondent’s Further Reply The Managing Editor, Dalal Street Journal, Mumbai in his reply dated July 10, 2008 stated that Dalal Street Journal is being published since last 22 years and pioneer in tracking the stock market. The journal has a professional attitude and has a well defined process before making any recommendations in it. The journal reviews such recommendations on continuous basis and also gives complete list of recommendations of last year at beginning of every New Year with current market price so that readers at large can judge how good or poor the recommendations were. The journal has research team consisting of analysts most of whom are either MBA Finance or Chartered Accountant with research skill and understanding of the stock market. The process of recommendations starts with each of the analyst coming out with various investment ideas and companies they want to cover in the forthcoming issues. Apart from using data available on the official websites of Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), the journal also uses the services of its sister concern, viz. Asian CERC Information Technology, which maintains and updates database of around 6000 companies on real time basis. The recommendations are reviewed by the senior level of analysts before it goes for publication. The respondent further submitted that the complainant has not pointed out any specific mistake or error in the article in question. He submitted that in view of the fact that information about the pending cases against the various Directors of various companies in various judicial forums spread all over the India are not readily available on any website or anywhere else. It is difficult,
139 may, impossible for the journal to consider the antecedents of the Directors of the companies in respect of which the journal makes recommendations. In view of the reply, the respondent prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate, the complainant, appeared in person. Shri Jatin Zaveri, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Dalal Street Journal.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
Reiterating the submissions already on record the complainant asserted that as the author had a financial interest in the company, it was wrong on his part to have written a piece recommending the company. It gave the impression of corporate encouragement for the article in times when paid news was an open secret.
Shri Jatin Zaveri, Advocate for the Dalal Street Journal submitted that the article was well researched and based on data available on SEBI and BSE website. The counsel for the respondent further stated that the data in respect of antecedents of Directors of the company were not readily available on any of the website. The counsel further submitted that the author of the article who was also the Managing Director, was holding shares in the company and this was mentioned at the bottom of the article, and if he had any doubt about the prospects, he would not have written the article. On being apprised of the call of the ethics in the matter, he filed an undertaking that the respondent journal would take all precautions in future
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the records and heard the parties. It noted that the grievance of the complainant was that the respondent Dalal Street Journal had brought out one sided report favouring a company whose Directors were facing cases of frauds on investors. The plea of the complainant was that the respondent magazine should have given complete details about the antecedents of the Directors of the said company whose scrip was being recommended to the public. The Inquiry Committee noted that the author of the article in question was none other than the Managing Editor of the respondent magazine, Dalal Street Journal who had admitted to holding shares in the company. The author was not an expert from corporate world but a journalist made it all the more incumbent that the universally accepted norms in this regard should have been kept in mind. The Council had also crystallized them in 1996 and the relevant portion may be quoted here with advantage –
140 Norms of Financial Journalism – 1996 2. The Financial journalists today enjoy considerable influence over readers’ minds and, therefore, they owe it to them to present a balanced and objective view of the financial dealings, status and prospects of a company. 3. The Council feeling concerned over the malpractice in the Corporate Sector and after holding detailed deliberations and discussions with the representatives of the financial institutions and journalists, has recommended the guidelines enumerated below for observance by the financial journalists:- 2) It should be mentioned prominently in the report about any company that the report is based on information given by the company or the financial sponsors of the company. 6) A journalist who had financial interest such as share holdings, stock holdings, etc., in a company, should not report on that company. In the instant case, the respondent is claiming that the complainant has not pointed out any inaccuracy in the report, but that incomplete report itself has the power to mislead the public is axiomatic. The Inquiry Committee, taking all things into consideration including the undertaking of the respondent counsel, recommended to the Council to allow the matter to rest with a warning to the Dalal Street Journal for observing due caution in future. The Dalal Street Journal may further be directed to publish the guidelines drawn up by the Press Council in 1996 in consultation with the SEBI and other authorities for the benefit of the financial journalists. It further recommended that copies of this adjudication may be forwarded to the SEBI, the BSE and the DSE for their record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
38) Shri B.K. Sinha Versus The Editor Ramgarh Cantt. Saras Salil Jharkhand Hindi Fortnightly Delhi Complaint This complaint, dated 27.10.2005 has been filed by Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Ramgarh Cantt., Jharkhand against Saras Salil, a Hindi forthnightly, Delhi for the alleged non-publication of his letters to the editor.
141 According to the complainant, Saras Salil, a Hindi fortnightly journal published by the Delhi Press Group, New Delhi runs a contest which offers five best prizes of Rs.1,000 each to the entry, contributing best answers to the question posed and 15 other prizes of Rs.200 each. He has alleged that he could not sense that the merit alone does not decide the prizes and some commercial considerations do chip in. The complainant wrote a letter dated 14.10.2005 to the respondent editor drawing his attention to the trend and also critical of the magazine’s own questionable stand vis-à-vis one of its cover story. Apart from pin-pointing the unfairness in selection of prize-winning entries, the letter had an unmistakable focus on the journalism of double standards being practiced by the respondent, stated the complainant and added that being wary of the current tendency of majority of editors preferring to edit out critical letters, he made an express request to publish the letter in the letters to the Editors’ column. He has alleged that the letter was very pertinent and its non-publication was an act of disservice to its readers at large and went against good and responsible journalism. Instead of publishing the letter, the respondent sent him a reply dated 25.10.2005 giving dubious reasons for not publishing the same. The complainant then wrote back to the respondent on 27.10.2005 with an endorsement to the Press Council, but neither the letter was published in the magazine nor it was otherwise replied to.
The complainant has stated that two explicit reasons given by the respondent for non-publication of his letters; the first attributed to him that he did not want his letter to be edited, was a blatant lie as nowhere in his letter, he stated that anything even remotely to that effect, and the second being it was too lengthy to which the complainant has stated that the respondent conveniently forgot that the office of the editor has inherent right to edit letters for reasons for space, merit and professional standards.
Notice for comments has been issued to the respondent on 3.3.2006.
Comments
The respondent, Assistant Editor, Saras Salil has filed his comments dated 24.3.2006 and stated that the right of selection of material is the prerogative of the publisher and no outsider can have a vested right of publication. He has submitted that the magazine has not published anything personally against the complainant, which could have given him a right to get his rebuttal published. The complainant’s desired that his letter be published in the column ‘letters to the editor’ and there is no vested right in the publication of the letters written to the editor and the editor is the sole judge of the same, added the respondent and alleged that the complainant, the way in which he has conducted, want to be an editor of the magazine by proxy. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s letter have been duly acknowledged and replied as a matter of fact,
142 it is not necessary for an editor to reply to all letters sent as comments on the articles unless the reader himself is subject matter of published item. Comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 16.5.2006 Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comment dated 1.6.2006 has submitted that the editor’s prerogative cannot be taken to mean editor’s license, and every prerogative has to operate within the ambit of the ethics of profession and can be enjoyed with a manifest sense of responsibility. He has alleged that an editor would only be curbing the freedom of expression if he refuses to publish a letter, which was perfectly publishable. He has also stated that there is something basically wrong with the editorial mindset if it has chosen to describe it as an attempt at ‘proxy editing’. Written Statement The respondent editor, Saras Salil, New Delhi in reply to the show cause notice dated 20.12.2006 in his written statement dated 17.1.2007 has submitted that the complainant has failed to make any case that his letter should have been published and added that he is not an aggrieved party and nothing has been published against him or about him giving him a right to have an opportunity to explain his side of story. He should have clarified how he was affected by the contest or an issue. The respondent further submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant were his personal ‘opinion’ only and not based on any objective basis and has imputed motives to the magazine without any justification or rational basis. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.5.2007 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Jai Prakash Pandey, Deputy Executive Editor, Delhi Press, New Delhi appeared for Saras Salil. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent’s representative submitted that the complainant has been regularly writing to them objecting to one or another report and he was persistent for the last many years in sending unnecessary complaints. The respondent requested that the complainant should be summoned to appear before the Committee and contest the case face to face. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the complainant’s
143 case was that the respondent editor Saras Salil had refused to publish his letters dealing with alleged unethical marketing practices by the respondent magazine in prize winning contests. The Inquiry Committee opined that since these views were not backed by any evidence, the editor had the discretion to decide its selection for publication. The Inquiry Committee, thus, did not find any substance in the complaint and recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being without substance. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
39) Mrs. Rachana Viswanathan Versus The Editor New Delhi The Hindustan Times New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 27.2.2008 has been filed by Mrs. Rachana Viswanathan on behalf of M/s. Rachana Viswanathan & Associates, New Delhi against The Hindustan Times, New Delhi for publishing an article with illustration under the caption “A makeover for Meena Bazar – Red Fort’s 400-year-old royal market to be revitalised” in its issue dated 24.11.2007 giving credit for their prepared design to somebody else. According to the complainant, M/s Rachna Viswanathan & Associates are the authors/architects of the ‘Revitalisation project of Meena Bazar/Chatta Bazar, Red Fort, Delhi but the article attributed the credit for the design to other persons while the sketch was taken from their report submitted in 2005 to the ASI. The complainant submitted that a letter dated 17.12.2007 was issued to the respondent editor registering their complaint with a request to publish an addendum to the article in question correcting the wrong credit given for the design made by them and asking to give the credit to their firm, but received no response despite issuance of reminder dated 9.1.2008. The complainant also filed a copy of the letter from Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India confirming that M/s Rachna Vishwanathan & Associates are the authors/ architects for the ‘Revitalisation project of Meena Bazar/Chatta Bazar, Red Fort, Delhi’. The organisation has been working on the project proposal since the year 2005 and was appointed by Shopkeepers Association (Regd.), Chatta Bazaar, Red Fort, (on behalf of ASI) as an architect consultant for the preparation of the revitalisation proposal of Meena Bazaar/Chatta Bazaar, Red Fort. The organisation has also worked for the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for the same bazaar in the year 2006-2007. The above mentioned article does not give the correct picture about the
144 authorship of the proposal while publishing the design from our proposal. We confirm that ASI did not provide any information to The Hindustan Times about the authorship of the above proposal as published in the article refer to above”. The complainant, therefore, requested the Council to take action against the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi on 9.4.2008. The respondent did not file written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. Mrs. Rachna Vishwanathan, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, The Hindustan Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in her oral as well as written submissions dated 20.8.2008 reiterated the complaint and stated that a complaint was lodged with the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath about the matter vide letter dated 10.12.2007 and copies to the Superintending Archaeologist, Delhi circle, ASI, Red Fort and the Registrar, Council of Architecture, IHC, Lodhi Road. On subsequent meeting with Superintending Archaeologist, she was advised to write a letter to the Chief Editor, The Hindustan Times to republish the article correcting the wrong credit given for the designs made by her firm. The complainant stated that despite handing over the letter dated 17.12.2007 to editor with required reference and sending reminder dated 9.1.2008, the respondent did not give any response. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the complaint. At the very outset the Inquiry Committee expressed strong displeasure over non-filing of the written statement and not entering appearance by the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times. In the absence of any defence it proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material available on record. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant’s case is that her firm M/s Rachna Vishwanathan & Associates had done exclusive work for revitalisation project of Meena Bazar/Chhatta Bazar, Red Fort, Delhi with the approval of Archaeological Survey of India as per Minutes dated 6.10.2005 which commended the presentation made by Mrs. Rachna Viswanathan suggesting conservation/restoration measures as part of a proposed project to revitalize Meena Bazar/Chhatta Chowk, that was a part of centrally protected Red Fort. The other officers of the Archaeological Survey of India present in the meeting expressed that the proposed plan prepared by Mrs. Rachna Viswanathan is a good beginning and with certain minor alterations the same could
145 serve as an effective blueprint for revitalization of the Meena Bazar. They also mentioned that the Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement document to be prepared should clearly mention the do’s and don’ts as far as the shopkeepers are concerned. The complainant’s firm got the work order dated 17.7.2005 as per Memorandum of Understanding signed with Red Fort Shopkeepers Association (Regd.), Delhi. The Inquiry Committee finds that the images/sketches of Revitalisation project of Meena Bazar prepared by the complainant was reproduced by the respondent, The Hindustan Times in the impugned article captioned: “A makeover for Meena Bazar – Red Fort’s 400 years - Old Royal market to be revitalised reporting therein that the shopkeepers, who have funded the project draft will also fund the renovation of their individual outlets till the “changing of the signboards”. Beneath it, the sketch/images were published with further credit line – “Illustration by Durga and a scrip to it:- “An artistic conception of the what Red Fort’s Meena Bazar could look like after its makeover. Alongside were a photograph by Sonu Mehta/The Hindustan Times showing Meena Bazar, as it is now. The Inquiry Committee upon examining the documents was prime facie satisfied of the similarity in the designs of M/s Rachna Vishwanathan & Co. and the illustration by ‘Durga’. Therefore, the validity of complainant’s grievance was upheld. The respondents thereafter failed to make amends after the editor’s attention to the matter was invited by the complainant as well as the Press Council. The Hindustan Times was therefore held to have violated the following norms: 1. Plagiarism- (i) Using or passing off the writings or ideas of another as one’s own, without crediting the source, is an offence against ethics of journalism. (ii) Violations of copyright also constitutes violation of journalistic norms. 2. Right of Reply- (i) The newspaper should promptly and with due prominence, publish either in full or with due editing free of cost, at the instance of the person affected or feeling aggrieved/or concerned by the impugned publication, a contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder sent to the editor in the form of a letter or note. If the editor doubts the truth or factual accuracy of the contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder, he/she 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 evidential material in his/her possession. This is a concession which has to be availed or sparingly with due discretion and caution in appropriate cases.
146 The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances recommended to the Council to warn the editor, The Hindustan Times for the lapse and directed it to re-publish the photograph with correct credit giving reference to the impugned report. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
40) Shri Nadir Khan Versus The Editor Meerut Cantt. (U.P.) Amar Ujala, Meerut, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 4.7.2007 has been filed by Shri Nadir Khan, Meerut Cantt., Uttar Pradesh against Amar Ujala, Meerut for alleged professional misconduct and breach of trust by refusing to publish a Public Notice in the newspaper. According to the complainant, he has some properties in Meerut city for which he has litigation with Shri Iftakhar-un-Haq and Shri Amit Agarwal and others pending before the Hon’ble District Court in Meerut. He wanted to issue a public notice in the matter of the property dispute and approached the respondent newspaper by paying an amount of Rs.7,680/- for its publication against receipt No.33312 dated 8.3.2007. The complainant has stated that as the respondent demanded, an affidavit in support of the litigation pending before the court, verified by a Notary Public it was filed on 9.3.2007 to the satisfaction of the respondent. He has alleged that the respondent then, refused to publish the public notice as it was against an influential and big builder, Shri Amit Agarwal, who was also an Ex MLA and leading worker of Samajwadi Party. The complainant has alleged that the refusal to publish the public notice advertisement under the influence of Shri Amit Agarwal was a clear breach of contract, professional misconduct and offending the standards of journalistic ethics. He has requested to take necessary action against the respondent. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 11.9.2007. The respondent in his written statement dated 11.10.2007 has submitted that the complaint was misconceived as the allegations were false. He has stated that there was no pressure over them for not publishing the advertisement of the complainant but such type of allegations defamed them. The respondent has submitted that when the complainant gave an advertisement-public notice for the purpose of publication in the newspaper forthwith, he was provided provisional receipt No.33312 and original receipt No.121215 in lieu of publishing charges of Rs.7,680/-. However, at the same time, he was apprised by the office personnel of Amar Ujala that his
147 advertisement-public notice would be published only after approval from the Head Officer and in advance the receipts were being given just to prove the deposit of the charges, and in case the Head Office disapproved of his advertisement, it would not be published and the deposited amount could be collected from the office by showing the receipts.
The respondent has stated that the impugned advertisement-public notice given by the complainant could not be published as the complainant levelled allegation against certain persons and did not furnish the certified copies of the pending suits. He was asked to collect the amount from the office after depositing the receipt. But the complainant neither deposited the receipt in the office nor collected the amount. The respondent further submitted that the complainant filed the present complaint just to harass the newspaper and under the influence of same malicious motive, he did not collect his deposited amount though they made repeated request for the same. He further stated that they have legal right to publish advertisement by all legitimate means but no one can pressurize them to publish any specific advertisement by levelling unfounded allegations as the complainant did. They have returned the charges amount Rs.7,680/- by cheque on 28.9.2007 added the respondent and requested that the matter may be dismissed.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the respondent on 3.1.2008.
Counter Comments
The complainant in his counter comments dated 21.1.2008 has denied that submission of the respondent that there was discussion at the time of handing over the advertisement- public notice that the material needed to be approved by the Head Office before publication. He has retaliated that there was no technical fault with the advertisement-public notice but due to the influence of collusion of with Shri Amit Agarwal, the advertisement in question was not published. The respondent refunding of the charge amounting Rs.7,680/- was just to save its skin, stated the complainant and he was not satisfied with the written statement of the respondent, and requested that necessary action be taken in the matter.
A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 30.1.2008.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Nadir Khan, the complainant appeared in person while S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awashti and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava represented the respondent, Amar Ujala.
148 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he had a dispute over transaction of the property under agreement with a builder, BJP worker, having much influence on the newspaper. Some of the heirs of the property had illegally sold the total property to the builder. He submitted that he filed a case over the land/property on which the Court issued a notice. The complainant added that his grievance was that the respondent Amar Ujala despite accepting the advertisement charges did not publish the public notice due to influence of the BJP worker. The respondent submitted that the newspaper office had given provisional receipt against the advertisement booked by the complainant as per common practice. However, on scrutiny, it was found that the complainant had given information, the authenticity of which was not established, and, therefore, the advertisement notice was not published. The money accepted for advertisement was refunded to the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, on examining the record and hearing the parties observed that as the newspaper was not satisfied about the correctness of the notice that had legal implication, it had rightly exercised its discretion in deciding to refuse the publication. The payment for advertisement accepted from the complainant was also refunded. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, observed that Amar Ujala had not committed any journalistic or professional misconduct. For these reasons, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
41) Ms. Anjali Gopalan Versus The Editor Executive Director The Hindustan Times Naz Foundation (India) Trust New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 4.12.2006 has been filed by Ms. Anjali Gopalan, Executive Director, Naz Foundation (India) Trust, New Delhi against The Hindustan Times, News Delhi alleging publication of objectionable article captioned “Future tense but they play on” in its issue dated 1.12.2006. She has objected to the impugned news item on two counts:
149 1. The disclosure of the name of a minor child in the article and incorrect reporting of the child’s story. She has submitted that in any interview with a person living with HIV/AIDS, his/her identity should not be revealed unless there is consent of the individual and in this particular story, a child’s identity has been revealed without any consent and incorrectly represent the facts about the child’s life. This is the violation of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct which mentioned that ‘media must as a role respect the right to privacy of AIDS patients and must not subject them to needless exposure and social stigma’ alleged the complainant. 2. The complainant has been misquoted about ‘Children born with HIV have married and had children’, which according to her, is factually incorrect. Similarly, the doctor has also been misquoted about the child’s story, added the complainant. According to the complainant, the impugned news item has violated the norms of journalistic ethics by disclosure of the name of a minor child in the above-mentioned article. The complainant issued an email on 1.12.2006 to the respondent seeking a written apology but received no response from the respondent. She requested to the Council to take necessary action in this regard. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 12.6.2007. Despite a reminder dated 15.11.2007, no written statement had been filed by the respondent.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi (South), vide letter dated 22.2.2008, has confirmed that the reminder issued to the respondent was delivered on 19.11.2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008 at New Delhi. Ms. Anuradha Mukherjee, Programme Manager, Naz Foundation (India) Trust, appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Advocate, appeared for the respondent, The Hindustan Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the article by The Hindustan Times disclosed the name of a minor child. As per norms, the identity of HIV/AIDS patient should be avoided. Media has to act sensibly and try to maintain confidentiality in such reporting. The complainant submitted that Naz Foundation is fighting against stigma and discrimination faced by HIV positive people as such stories can have implication on the future of the children.
150 The respondent counsel submitted that the Health Editor of The Hindustan Times personally visited the office of the complainant and spoke to her on the subject. He however agreed that the identity of the concerned had been revealed inadvertently. The Health Editor assured the complainant to be careful in future against recurrence of such reports. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the matter opined that in carrying the impugned article which was no doubt well intended for espousing the cause of children with HIV, the respondent committed breach of ethics in mentioning the name of the child being looked after by Naz Foundation. The Inquiry Committee however noted that the Health Editor of the respondent newspaper had made honest endeavour in taking care of such reporting and assured against recurrence, the Inquiry Committee also noted that the Council had recently updated its guidelines on coverage of HIV/AIDS cases to facilitate more cautious reportage. In the circumstances, the short ‘do’s and don’ts’ culled out from the redrawn guidelines may be reproduced here with advantage: DO’S • 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 authorised sources as inaccurate reports have adverse impact on morale and increase stigma • Journalists are responsible for ensuring interviewees understand re- percussions of revelations/identification
151 • 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/counselling 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 judgements 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 The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to advise the respondent and also the press in general to keep the above in mind to guard against unfair reporting and dispose off the matter in view of the assurance of the respondent and the advise above.
152 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
42) Dr. D. Chinniah Versus The Editor Bangalore Lankesh Patrike Karnataka Bangalore, Karnataka Complaint This complaint dated 11.4.2007 has been filed by Dr. D.Chinniah, Bangalore against Lankesh Patrike, a Kannada daily, Bangalore for publication of an objectionable article captioned ‘Jayadeva Haspetrege Hrudroga’ in its issue dated 15.3.2007. The portion of the impugned news item objected to is reproduced as follows: ‘Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology is a cardiac centre that has drawn the attention of the entire country. This paper, twenty years ago had reported that in an institute like this due to nepotism, corrupt practices and mal-administration, the poor were not able to get treatment, but even after ten years of establishment, it is unfortunate this institute is still filth with the same nepotism and casteism.’ The complainant submitted that the impugned article was false and incorrect. It was the reproduction of an article published by the paper in July 1987 which the Press Council had inquired into and held to be unethical at that point of time. Now again it was published without exercising care and caution expected of an editor of a newspaper. The complainant had issued a legal notice dated 16.3.2007 to the respondent but received no response. He however, received a telephone call from the respondent who pleaded that the news item in question was published without his knowledge, but the respondent neither tendered any apology nor promised to comply with the legal notice. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 12.6.2007. The respondent editor, Lankesh Patrike in his written statement dated 14.8.2007 submitted that the article in question is reproduction of what was published 20 years ago and is part of the strategy of the paper to bring out the situation prevailing in Bangalore then and the manner in which the paper presented its view points. It was published, under the caption ‘Bees Saal Baad’ with a view to provide an insight to the present readers on the way of writing of the paper 20
153 years ago, added the respondent. The respondent pleaded that the entire article is a compilation of several facts that occurred 20 years ago and is only a reprint and they failed to understand how the complainant could approach the Council in the matter. The respondent further submitted that before printing the impugned article, his reporter tried to contact the complainant on several occasions to obtain his view and comments on the matter but he was not available and as such the article in question was published without taking any comments from him. The respondent stated that at no point of time, he or any body else from his publication held any malice or ill-will against the complainant. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.8.2007 for information and counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.1.2008 submitted that as admitted by the respondent that the same article was published in the respondent newspaper issue dated 12.7.1987, whereby the Council in its adjudication dated 22.3.1988 condemned and expressed its displeasure against the conduct of the respondent since the article was published without proper materials and the allegations amounted to character assassination. If the impugned article was reprinted purportedly to provide an insight to the present readers on how the paper was written 20 years ago, then the respondent should have also mentioned that the paper had earned the condemnation of the Council on the very news article. The complainant further submitted that the respondent falsely claimed in his written statement that a reporter tried to contact the complainant before the article was published and added that the falsity of this contention is borne out by the fact that the respondents did not reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 4.2.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. Shri T.Mohan, advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri C.V.Ramachandra Murthy, advocate appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s counsel submitted that Dr. Chinniah was a renowned Cardiologist and by publishing the impugned material reproducing what had been published by the same respondent 20 years back, the respondent ‘Lankesh Patrike’,
154 had caused immense damage to his reputation and the image of the institute. He added that the Council had condemned the respondent for this article 20 years back yet the respondent was indulging in character assassination. The respondent submitted that the copy of the counter comments filed by the complainant had not been received. He requested for adjournment to enable them to file further counter to complainant’s counter. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record. The Inquiry Committee at the outset declined the request for adjournment by the respondent Counsel. It was of the opinion that the complaint as well as written statement was sufficient to proceed with the matter. The Inquiry Committee noted that the Council had deliberated on the same matter between the same parties in 1988 and it had expressed displeasure directing the editor, ‘Lankesh Partika’, to be careful in future. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor breached the directives issued by the Council and repeated the same conduct by reprinting the article. It took serious note of this lack of caution and record maintenance and directed the editor ‘Lankesh Patrika’, to publish conspicuously on front page apology for accepting that they had erred in publishing/reprinting the article for which they had already been pulled up by the Press Council. Clippings of this publication be sent to the Press Council as well as the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
43) Shri Shivalingaiah Versus The Editor Bangalore Lankesh Patrike Bangalore Complaint This complaint dated 5.1.2007 has been filed by Shri Shivalingaiah, Bangalore against “Lankesh Patrike” Kannada weekly, Bangalore for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “City Co- operative Bank-A Vinvink of Mandya” (English translation) in its issue dated 11.1.07. It has been stated in the impugned news item that the Mandya City Co- operative Bank built by a leader like Madegowda was on the brink of bankrupcy
155 and in the 22 years of its achievement only worms have come out. The coterie of Koli Shivaliagaiah which ruled it for over 15 years, and made it their ancestral property, the money of more than four thousand share holders is going to be finished. It has been further stated in the impugned news item that in the bank elections P. Krishna who identified with Koli Shivalingaiah’s group was elected as President and Barkley Lingraju as Vice-President but the whole control over the bank remained with Koli only. It has been alleged that as soon as Mr. P. Krishna and Mr. Lingraju assumed office, their first act was to withdraw the term deposit which was to the tune of Rs. three crore invested in the bank and invest the same in Government Bonds. The complainant further alleged that the mode of investing on government bonds itself was a fraud. It was further alleged that the bank has been loosing Rs.10 lakh every month unnecessarily. The face value of these bonds in the share market has been decreasing every day and a sum of Rs. One crore has been lost so far. The average period of deposit in the Bank is five to ten years but these people have deposited for 28 years. No body has hope that the bank will survive till then.
The complainant while denying the allegations submitted that the respondent violated the norms of journalistic conduct and principles by publishing the baseless and misleading articles with the malicious interest. The complainant submitted that the respondent published the distorted material without respecting the truth. He further stated that the respondent published unjustified rumours and surmises. He also submitted that the respondent has failed to verify the authenticity of the facts before publishing the impugned news item and tarnished his image in the eyes of the public.
The complainant has submitted that he sent his rejoinder to the respondent with the request for its publication but received no response. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.
A show-cause notice to the respondent-editor, Lankesh Patrike, Bangalore was issued on 8.3.07.
Written Statement of the Respondent
In response, the respondent editor, Lankesh Patrike filed his written statement dated 2.5.07 and submitted that the entire article was a compilation of several facts that have contributed to the downfall of the bank and he fails to understand how the complainant could approach the Council. He stated that the article in question was only an attempt to bring forth the mindset and views of the people of Mandya and published with the intention of working as a catalyst to improve the functioning of the bank in question which has been set up with the hard work and toil of several stalwarts from the district. The respondent further
156 stated that the article was published after a thorough research and after obtaining the views of several hundreds of the public and was aimed at bringing forth the frustration of the people on the functioning of the bank due to the conduct of the complainant. The respondent further submitted that after collecting the requisite information about the functioning of the bank and the role of the complainant, the concerned reporter tried to contact the complainant on several occasions to obtain his views and comments on the subject but the complainant made himself unavailable to the reporter and as such the article in question was carried without any comments from the complainant. He concluded by saying that the article in question was published on facts without any ill-motive in public interest. He requested to dismiss the complaint.
A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 28.5.07 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. Shri C.V. Ramachandramurthy, advocate appeared for the respondent, Lankesh Patrike. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The counsel for the respondent reiterated the submissions made in the written statement and asserted public interest involved. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant’s grievance was that the rejoinder sent to the newspaper had not been published. The Inquiry Committee observed that though the news item appeared to be in public interest, yet, insofar as the journalistic propriety requires, the rejoinder of the aggrieved person ought to have been published by the respondent to afford right to the complainant to place his version before the public. It therefore, directed the editor, Lankesh Patrike to publish the rejoinder of the complainant. The editor, if so advised, may add an editorial comment that the rejoinder was being published at the instance of the Press Council of India. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these directions and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
157 44) 1. Shri M.Prabhakara Versus The Editor Director of Treasuries Gauri Lankesh Bangaluru Bangaluru 2. Sri K.T. Vijay Krishna Kumar Karnataka Deputy Director of Treasuries Bangaluru 3. Ms. R.S.Uma Devi District Treasury Officer Bangaluru Complaint This joint complaint dated 24.3.2007 has been filed by (i) Shri M.Prabhakar, Director of Treasuries, (ii) Shri K.T. Vijay Krishna Kumar, Deputy Director of Treasuries and (iii) Ms.R.S. Uma Devi, District Treasury Officer, Bangaluru against Gauri Lankesh, a Kannada weekly alleging violation of norms of the journalistic conduct, principle and ethics by publication of an objectionable news item captioned ‘Rajya Khajaneyalli Prabhakar Emba Heggana!’ (A Bandicoot Called Prabhakar in State Treasury) in the issue dated 14.3.2007 of the respondent newspaper. It was alleged in the impugned news item that ‘seeing the administrative affairs going on in the State Finance Department and the departments subordinate to it, one would really wonder whether the Government is running this department or the bandicoots brimming in these departments are running affairs. The skipper of this army of bandicoots is M.Prabhakar, the Director of the Department of Treasury’. ‘…the very manner in which he ascended this throne of power…….he has driven down Somla Nayak, an S.C. and eligible for the post, through his political influence…’- The complainants have alleged that the defamatory impugned news item was published without pre-publication verification and ignoring the accuracy and fairness. The complainants further alleged that an attempt was made by the vested interests to mislead the public and surmises were put forth as facts to malign the image of the innocent people. They sent a letter dated 21.3.2007 to the respondent with a request to publish the rejoinder without editing but to no avail. The complainant have requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 27.4.2007. The respondent in his written statement dated 10.5.2007 has submitted that what was published in the weekly with respect to the rumbling in the State
158 treasury department was based on the hard facts, the documents of which are available with the government. Based on information obtained in the documentary form, provided by the Finance Department, the news item in question was prepared. Even after obtaining information from the Finance Department, the complainants refused to react or give any explanation available with them.
The respondent has stated that the complainants made best possible efforts to suppress and avoided to provide any information on the subject on one pretext or the other when they made verbal queries and an application under RTI Act 2005. They were in possession of copies of application in form-A, RTI Act, copy of the summons issued to the Treasury Director by the RTI Commission, and the final order passed by it along with the partial compliance by the complainants in connection with the news article in question stated the respondent and added that the complainants have no right whatsoever to say that they made no pre-publication verification. The respondent has alleged that the complainants sitting in the public office attempted to hide the truth from the public regarding the affairs of the treasury, the audit reports, its objections and the action taken report therein. He has denied the allegation that an attempt was made to mislead the public, the surmise etc., was put forth to malign the innocent people, with distorted material and vested interest.
The respondent further stated that in the absence of any communication or reaction much less convincing reply from the complainants, it would be highly imprudent to expect publication of rejoinder or anything that too in the light of the convincing documents with them, and stated that the article in question was informative and reformative thus it was better that the complainants should make suitable amendments in their style of functioning instead of glossing over their misdeeds.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainants on 13.8.2007 for information /counter comments.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Mohan.S.Reddy, Advocate appeared for the respondent and reiterated the submissions made in the written statement.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
On perusal of the impugned news item captioned: “Rajya Khajaneyalli Prabhakar Emba Heggana!” (A Bandicoot called Prabhakar in State Treasury) published in the issue dated 14.3.2007 of the respondent newspaper ‘Gauri Lankesh’,
159 the Inquiry Committee held that the impugned news item may be a comment on the working of public officer but the manner of presentation of the report was improper. The documents that were claimed to be in support of the charges had also not been produced before the Committee. Further, the respondent had gravely erred by not publishing the rejoinder of the complainants allowing them to clarify their position before the public. However, since the complainants were not present, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to caution the editor, Gauri Lankesh, Bangalore to keep in mind the principles of right of reply and use of dignified language. The matter may be allowed to rest with this. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
45) The Director Versus The Editor Programmes Committee Udayavani Catholic Sabha Mangalore Pradesh® Manipal Kundapura, Udupi District, Karnataka Karnataka Complaint This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Press Council on 20.8.2007 has been filed by the Director, Programmes Committee, Catholic Sabha Mangalore Pradesh (R ), Kundapura against Udayavani, a Kannada daily newspaper for publication of allegedly false and misleading news item captioned “Attack on a Priest: Allegation” in its issue dated 26.6.2007. It was reported in the impugned news item that a complaint was lodged against a priest in Kundapura P.S. for suspected religious conversion when he went to see one of his servants who was getting treatment in a hospital. Four persons objected that the priest was indulging in religious conversions and attacked him amidst verbal exchange. According to the complainant, the priest was not visiting the servant, and infact, he had taken a sick servant for treatment at the hospital along with two ailing brothers and when they were waiting in the out-patient lounge for a blood test report from the hospital laboratory, four persons dragged and beat them up, without any provocation. He has charged that the news report in question created doubt in minds of unsuspected innocent readers that the priest visited the hospital for religious conversion and the hands of the misled youth attackers are strengthened by this kind of reporting. The complainant issued letter dated 27.7.2007 to the respondent drawing their attention to the impugned news item, in the form of a mass petition protesting
160 against the impugned news reporting. However, the respondent niether care to acknowledge the receipt nor did he publish the objection raised by the complainant.
Written Statement
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 27.2.2008. The respondent editor, Udayavani in his written statement dated 26.3.2008 had submitted that the facts put forward by the complainant were not correct, all are an afterthought, and the allegations against them were false baseless and were intended to tarnish the image of the newspaper. He had stated that the news item in question was published on the basis of two separate complaints under FIR Nos. 216/07 and 217/07 registered at the Kundapur police station in relation to the alleged incident, which took place on 25.6.2007 and pending adjudication before the appropriate authority, thus the matter became sub-judice. The respondent further stated that the word ‘Chakamuki’ (verbal duel) now highlighted by the complainant is only an afterthought and was not the subject matter of the public meetings conducted by the complainant.
The respondent further submitted that the press statements and reports of the meetings convened on 27 and 28.6.2007 were published in the daily newspaper in its issue dated 30.6.2007 and 3.7.2007.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.4.2008 for information and counter comments.
Counter Comments
The complainant in his counter comments dated 10.4.2008 has submitted that the two FIRs and the related litigations pending enquiry at Kundapura Magistrate Court are for relief with respect to criminal attack of the alleged attackers under Sections 323,325,506, read with Section 34 of IPC, which did not interfere with the right of the public and readers to seek journalistic norms in the local print media. Those cases cannot bar the present complaint on impugned newspaper report under Section 14 of the Press Council of India Act, 1978 stated the complainant and added that the provisions of Section 14(3) are not applicable in the matter as argued by the respondent.
The complainant further submitted that the word “Chakamuki” (verbal duel) was not coined by them, neither was it highlighted as an afterthought as alleged by the respondent. It was reported in the original impugned news item. He has stated that the word/phrase is neither unparliamentarily nor it is offensive in normal usage but in the present context, the phrase projected the attack as provoked while as per actual facts, the attack was unprovoked, stated the complainant. The
161 complainant has alleged that the verbal illusion gave initial advantage to the attackers providing them an opportunity to brandish their misdeeds as virtues, emboldened them to make further unverified and unsubstantiated gross accusations against the minority community.
A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 21.4.2008 for information.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2008 at Chennai. Shri Valerian Menezes appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
The complainant submitted that the newspaper reported wrongly that the priest visited the hospital to see one of his servants admitted whereas the priest had taken the servant for treatment to the hospital. The newspaper report created doubts that the priest had been visiting the hospital for conversion. The complainant denied verbal duel, as reported in the newspaper report. He requested for action against the editor.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the submissions made by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted that the newspaper had bonafide reasons to report the matter in the newspaper as it was based on FIRs lodged at Kundapura, police station that showed the commotion in the public. The little variance in reporting whether the priest had been to hospital to see the servant or to admit the servant could not be said to be any violation of norms of ethics. It was also not convinced that inferences could be drawn from the reports of attempts at conversions that could provoke the public. It observed that the Udayvani reported the matter without any insinuation and the facts were based on the FIRs filed. Further the respondent, Udayvani carried follow up stories on the subject, for and against, giving diverse opinion including the version of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee in view of the fact that the newspaper did not exceed journalistic propriety, decided to recommend to the Council to close the matter.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
162 Press and Defamation
46) Shri A.K. Patney Versus The Editor Under Secretary to Punjab Kesri the Government of India New Delhi Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 1.5.2006 has been filed by Shri A.K. Patney, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi against The Editor Punjab Kesri, New Delhi for publication of allegedly false front page news item captioned “Scam of several thousand crores in the garb of Bird Flu” (English translation) in its issue dated 18.3.2006 which according to him was a blatant falsehood made to sensationalize the issue with an ulterior motive. It is alleged in the impugned news item that the government purchased a drug called Chemiflu at the cost of Rs.4,000 crores and that orders for additional quantity worth Rs.16,000 crores have also been placed. It was also stated that these drugs have been purchased against the advice of WHO, which had recommended the purchase of vaccine for handling bird flu. It is further stated in the report in question that a proposal had been made for supply of vaccine for Rs.100 Crores but the Ministry rejected it and instead decided to purchase Chemiflu worth Rs.20,000 crores. The complainant denied the allegations and submitted that the news item was not only factually incorrect but misleading, malicious and defamatory. They stated that the Ministry has not purchased the drug ‘Chemiflu’ as has been made out in the report. Further, the WHO has not recommended any vaccine for use in human against Avian Influenza and had recommended the use of the drug Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) for use for both the treatment of prophylaxis of influenza including Avian Influenza and also provided 2000 courses of Tamiflu to Government of India out of its own stockpile. The complainant has also alleged that impugned news item damaged the reputation of the Ministry in the eyes of the general public. The complainant wrote a letter dated 21.3.2006, to the respondent editor to publish the facts with apology but evoked no response. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 6.6.2006. The respondent, Director, Punjab Kesari in his written statement dated 6.3.2008 submitted that the impugned news item published in the Delhi edition of Punjab Kesari dated 18.3.2006 was totally based on the information supplied to thenewspaper by
163 Dr. Dhananjay, President, National Federation of Indian Farmers, New Delhi who had also addressed a letter to this effect to the Prime Minister of India. Moreover the issue in question in the present complaint had also been raised in the Rajya Sabha. Thus the complaint against the newspaper was not maintainable at all, uncalled for, unjustified, unwarranted and liable to be dropped. The respondent submitted that even otherwise the news also contained a statement as issued by the Health Ministry on the issue and as such the Ministry should have no grievance against the respondent and there are no reasons to make any complaint. Even otherwise the news agency, UNI had also released a news item on the same subject which was published on 21st March 2006 i.e. three days after the publication of the news under complaint and in the said news item the demand made by the leaders of the CPM for independent inquiry was highlighted and published and as such the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare should not have any grievance against the respondent for publishing the said news item in its edition. The respondent further submitted that they have neither received any letter from the Ministry or Press Council of India except the Notice for hearing dated 8.2.2008. He submitted that on receipt of the details of the complaint and the documents, a clarification was published in Punjab Kesari, Delhi edition on 6.3.2008 and the facts stated in the complaint were very much published in the said clarification. He clarified that the Punjab Kesari had no intention to tarnish the prestige and goodwill of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the newspaper never had any intention to create panic in the public. Furnishing a copy of the published clarification in its issue dated 6.3.2008, the respondent submitted that the Punjab Kesari has no intention to malign the image of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the newspaper has also regretted the same. The respondent prayed that since the newspaper had no intention to tarnish the image of any one by publishing the said news story, the complaint may be dropped/ closed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. S/Shri D.K. Sengupta, Under Secretary, H.R. Joshi, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare along with Rajat Gaud, Advocate appeared for the complainant Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. S/Shri Harish Chopra, Chief Sub-editor and Parvinder Sharda, Sr. Sub-editor appeared for the respondent, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that the Punjab Kesari had
164 published totally false news in 18.3.2006 issue of Punjab Kesari with such as exorbitant figure of purchase of Chemiflu which was not even the total budgetof the Ministry. The complainant further submitted that the newspaper editor did not think it fit to verify the correctness of the impugned report. The editor had also not cared to publish the version of the Ministry sent on 21.3.2006. The complainant requested that the respondent Punjab Kesari should be suitably dealt with for maligning the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
The Counsel for the respondent Punjab Kesari submitted that the version of the complainant Ministry has been published in 6.3.2008 issue under the caption- : “No intention to malign the image of Health Ministry”. The respondent further submitted that the written statement dated 6.3.2008, had been filed belatedly due to communication gap in the newspaper establishment. The respondent assured that they will take care in future.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed displeasure over filing of written statement at surely a belated stage without serving its copy on the complainant Ministry. It noted that the impugned report was based on a representation said to have been given by one Dr. Dhananjay, President, National Federation of Indian Farmers, New Delhi. The charges levelled in the representation were very serious and concerned the health and safety of the nation, charges of financial scam and playing with the lives of the citizens against the Government of India tended to shake the faith of the citizens in the state machinery and thus it was imperative that all due steps should have been taken at pre-publication stage to verify the facts and obtain the version of the government so as not to spread panic and mistrust. The paper failed to do so and the government version stated to have been published along with the report was only the suo motu statement of the Ministry assuring the citizens of all necessary steps to control the avian flu. It did not pertain to the charges of Dr. Dhananjay at all. Therefore this defence is not available to the respondent paper. Further the clarification published now after almost two years is not sufficient remedy for the mistrust and panic that the impugned report could have caused. While the Press Council fully supports the press in its efforts to fight corruption and expose abuse of panic, such reports should have firm legs to stand upon. This was unfortunately not the case here. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and warned the Punjab Kesari, Delhi for its recklessness and failure to verify the facts in such an important matter and advised it to observe greater care and caution in future.
165 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
47) Shri Virender Singh Sachan Versus The Editor Krishan Nagar The Aj, Hindi Daily Pukhrayan Dehat Kanpur Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 31.8.2005 was filed by Shri Virender Singh Sachan against “Aj”, Hindi daily, Kanpur for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items captioned “+É{Éc®hÉBÉEiÉÉÇ+ÉÉå xÉä nÉÒ ÉÊ®{ÉÉäÇ] nVÉÇ xÉ BÉE®ÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ vÉàÉBÉEÉÒ” and “àÉÉàÉÉ ¤ÉxÉBÉE® º´ÉSUBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ ¤Éä]ÉÒ BÉEÉä =bÃÉ ãÉä MɪÉÉ ÉÊ{ÉUbÃÉÒ VÉÉÉÊiÉ BÉEÉ ªÉÖ´ÉBÉE” in its issues dated 13.6.2005 and 14.6.2005 respectively. In the impugned news items it was alleged that one backward class young boy, Pope Singh S/o Shri Virender Sachan abducted Miss Priti D/o Shri Shiv Kumar under duress. It was further alleged that when the father of girl met the father of the young boy to complain about the incident the father of accused boy threatened him not to file report. According to the complainant, the impugned news items were false and defamatory, as he had given full support to the parents of victim girl in filing the report as well as arresting his son. The complainant submitted that due to false publication he suffered mental agony and has been defamed in the society. The complainant further submitted that he wrote a letter dated 27.6.2005 to the editor, “Aj” with the request to publish his clarification but the respondent did not pay heed to his request. He also informed that local correspondent of the newspaper had demanded money from him. When his demand was not fulfilled, he published false, mischievous and baseless news items. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement of the Respondent Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, “Aj”, on 19.2.2007. In response, the Executive Editor, “Aj” in his written statement dated 27.3.2007 submitted that they published the news items on the basis of documents including a letter written by Dhaniram Panther, President Bhartiya Dalit Panther, U.P. to Aj giving details with a request for publication and the same were true. He contended that the complainant indeed threatened the father of the girl not to file a police
166 report but due to publication of the news items in question, the police lodged the FIR. The respondent further submitted that due to publication of the news items in question many social and political organisations pressurised the police who caught the duo from M.P. The respondent submitted that therefore the complaint was not maintainable and may be dismissed. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 26.4.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 11.3.2008. S/Shri Virender Singh Sachan, the complainant appeared before it along with Rajkumar Sachan while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that his objection was that the newspaper mentioned thrice that they were kidnappers and abductors. The girl had given statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. that she was not taken against her wishes and nothing wrong was done to her. The complainant submitted that his son and the said girl eloped with consensus but the newspaper “Aj” reported that the boy had abducted the girl on gun point. The complainant filed a copy of the FIR crime No. 134/05 under Section 363/366-A of Indian Penal Code and 3(1) XI SC/ST Act wherein the father of the girl mentioned in FIR that the boy had taken the girl by seducing her. He further submitted that his name had been unnecessarily dragged into the news report. The impugned report also carried some inaccuracies when compared to the FIR. Shri Rajkumar Sachan, a witness appearing for the complainant submitted that he was known to both the families of the boy and the girl and therefore he intervened in tracing the boy and girl from Madhya Pradesh and after preparation of the report in the police station the boy was sent to jail and the girl was brought back to her family. He asserted that the complainant had no role in the incident. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records of the case and heard the submissions made by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complaint related to a report regarding alleged abduction of a young girl by a boy living in the neighbourhood. The father of the boy, objected to the report to the effect that he had threatened the father of the girl not to file the report with the police. The complainant denied the charges and averred that infact he had extended full support to the girl’s father. The Inquiry Committee examined the record and found that the report read in totality was correct and the objection of the complainant
167 was limited to sentences such as threats extended to the family of the girl, or abduction by the boy at gun point and referring to the abduction in plural. The Inquiry Committee opined that the respondent newspaper “Aj” had sufficient material in possession before publication of the impugned news report particularly the letter written by the President of Bhartiya DalitPanther, U.P. which had not been disputed by the complainant. Yet in accordance with the norm of ethics regarding pre-publication verification, in all fairness the reporter should have obtained the version of the concerned at pre-publication stage as the allegations against him had the tendency to affect his image among the society in general and in the family in particular. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to advise the respondent newspaper, Aj, Kanpur to keep in mind the norms of journalistic ethics while reporting such matter in future and close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
48) Shri Narendra Kumar Agarwal Versus The Editor Chairman Nazar Ki Nazar Geetanjali Public School Hindi Weekly Delhi Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 29.7.2004 has been filed by Shri Narendra Kumar Agarwal, Chairman, Geetanjali Public School, Delhi against Nazar Ki Nazar, Hindi weekly, Delhi for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item with the photograph of the school building in its issue dated 26.7.2004 under the caption (Illegal construction of Geetanjali Public School Khajuri underway in full swing). The gist of the impugned news item reads as follows: “The illegal construction of Geetanjali Public School of Karaval Nagar is going on at full swing these days inspite of the fact that this school is situated on Government land from the very beginning. Besides this there are no male or female teachers in this school in accordance with the prescribed qualification. It is significant that Geetanjali school is situated on Government land from the very beginning. Earlier this school was of one story only but the illegal construction of this school now is going on. The construction of second floor of this school has been quietly completed and the construction of the 3rd floor is going on. The said land belongs to the Public Works Department. Competent male or female teachers whose certificates are filed in the record are
168 working not in the school but elsewhere. The recognition of this school can be cancelled after the investigation of the matter. The arbitrary deeds of the manager of the school bypassing the rules of Education Department will be disclosed later on.” Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the respondent published false, concocted, baseless impugned news item, which damaged the reputation of the school and its management in the eyes of the public and society. According to the complainant, the school building was situated on personal land, and the construction work of 2nd and 3rd floor was going on since last seven years and its tax is continuously deposited every year by the management with Municipal Corporation Delhi. The complainant has submitted that he has grabbed no land of Public Works Department. The complainant has submitted that the respondent had also published similar false and defamatory news item in 2003. The complainant has submitted that he sent a notice dated 30.7.2004 through his Counsel to the respondent for publication of contradiction but there was no response. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Nazar ki Nazar, Hindi weekly on 9.2.2005. The respondent editor, Nazar Ki Nazar in his written statement dated 17th February 2005 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that the contents of the legal notice dated 30.7.2004 are totally baseless, false, fabricated and the complaint is filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to him and Nazar Ki Nazar and caused wrongful gain to the complainant. The respondent has submitted that its every news is based on real facts and correct factual position and every news article has been published in the interest of general public and he being the editor personally published news which is accurate, genuine, correct and in the interest of general public. The respondent has submitted that in the last three years of publication of Nazar Ki Nazar no single complaint has been received from public, officers, Department and other persons/place. The respondent has submitted that Nazar Ki Nazar weekly from 26th July to August 2004 published three articles about illegal construction of Geetanjali Public School and the same have been published on the basis of information received/gathered and collected from concerned authorities i.e. DDA, MCD and Education Department etc. The respondent has submitted that the school authority, without any sanctioned plan and without approval of MCD, constructed the said building of the school as per record of the MCD. The respondent has submitted that the school authority has not paid tax for school building. The respondent has submitted that as per MCD record the complainant
169 has paid house tax for his residential house. The respondent has submitted that the complainant encroached the Government land and built school premises. The respondent has submitted that the school’s building was constructed in the year 2004 as per record of MCD and till date the school authority has not taken any permission to construct school building either from MCD or Department of Education. The respondent has submitted that several teachers in the school are not qualified and not appointed as per guideline of the Education Department. The respondent has submitted that the school authority failed to follow the guidelines of the MCD, Education Department and the Supreme Court of India. The respondent has submitted that on the basis of the complaint of general public he visited school premises and tried his best to collect statement from school authorities but the school authorities were unable to show guidelines adopted by them. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to complainant directly by the respondent. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 16.3.2005 while reiterating his allegations has submitted that the written statement of the respondent is completely misleading and contradictory. The complainant has submitted that the reply of the respondent is far from the statement published in the news item in question. The complainant has submitted that the respondent has given a vague reply. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. The complainant was represented by Shri Radhe Shyam Giri who filed a letter dated 6.1.2006, requesting for adjournment of the matter as the Chairman of the school was unable to attend the hearing. Shri Sunil Kumar Rai, Editor, Nazar-Ki-Nazar, Delhi was present in person. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter in view of the request from the complainant. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate was present on behalf of the complainant, while S/Shri Sunil Kumar Rai, Editor, and B.K. Mishra represented the respondent newspaper. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed before the Committee a news paper cutting of a list issued by the MCD containing list of illegal constructions in Delhi. He stated that the complainant’s school building was constructed on the government land and the list contained the name of that property. The MCD had sealed the school building which was removed only after the complainant had filed
170 the affidavit to the fact that they would demolish the illegal construction. He further stated that some teachers who were shown on roll of the schoolwere not actually working in the school. The construction was going on in the school for past several years. The learned counsel for the complainant denied the allegations levelled in the impugned news report and stated that the school was built on the land, which was purchased by the complainant by executing a legal sale deed. The status of the building built on it may be in dispute, but he was paying house tax since 1991 for the school building at commercial rates. He further stated that no construction was going on in the school building. The Counsel added that the teachers in the school were qualified and the list of teachers had been sent to the Education Department also. On being asked by the Committee to establish the authenticity of the claim, the Counsel offered to file documents containing names and qualifications of the teachers employed in the school. The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth by both the sides. It noted that the respondent had alleged encroachment on government land for construction of school and of appointing teachers contrary to the rules of the Education Department. The Inquiry Committee, in order to come to a conclusion about the allegations in the news report, directed the complainant through his Counsel to file an affidavit about the status of the building at the point of time the impugned article was written, and a list carrying the name of the teachers employed in the school along with copies of their educational certificates within two weeks from the date of hearing i.e. 21.8.2006. The matter was accordingly adjourned. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 11.9.2006. IIIrd Adjournment The matter again came up for consideration by the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. S/Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate appeared for the complainant while S/Shri Sunil Kumar Rai, Editor and B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent Nazar Ki Nazar. The complainant’s Counsel submitted that the complainant has already filed an affidavit on 4.10.2006 along with copies of education certificate of nine teachers employed in the Geetanjali Public School as directed by the Inquiry Committee. It had also been stated in the affidavit by the complainant that the building of Geetanjali Public School was built on the private land, purchased through registered sale deed. The plot was never recorded as Government land in the revenue record. It was never declared unauthorised construction and only
171 a small part of its mumty at top floor had been declared as unauthorised construction after publication of the news report. The respondent submitted that the complainant did not provide a copy of the affidavit to him.
The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity to the respondent to file reply on the affidavit directed the complainant to supply a copy of the affidavit to the respondent. The Inquiry Committee also directed the respondent to serve their reply to the complainant. The matter was accordingly adjourned. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties on 22.1.2007. In response the respondent editor, Nazar-Ki-Nazar filed an affidavit dated 27.1.2007 wherein he denied the contents of affidavit filed by the complainant, Shri Narender Kumar Aggarwal, Chairman, Geetanjali Public School, Delhi. The respondent submitted that since the complainant has given false and fictitious addresses of teachers and failed to give salary certificates of the teachers and staff of the school, the affidavit filed by him was not true and correct. The respondent alleged that the complainant had stated wrong story with ulterior motive and malafide intentions. According to the respondent Nazar Ki Nazar is one of the reputed newspapers of National Capital Territory of Delhi and its every news is based on facts and published in public interest. IVth Adjournment
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.3.2007 at New Delhi.Shri Radhey Shyam appeared for the complainant. S/Shri Sunil Kr. Rai and B.K. Mishra, Advocates appeared for the respondent editor, Nazar-ki- Nazar. The complainant submitted that he was registered owner of the property and paying house tax since 1991. The respondent submitted that he has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.1.2007 that the salary certificate and the addresses of the teachers are not given by the complainant and thus the affidavit filed by the complainant was incomplete and invalid. The respondent further submitted that the documents of Delhi Government have already been filed which reveal that the construction by the complainant was illegal.
The Inquiry Committee in order to ascertain the veracity of documents filed by the parties directed to cause inquiry from the MCD as to whether the construction by the complainant was on Government land or it was legally done
172 by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter with directions to list it for hearing on receipt of information from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Accordingly a letter dated 8.5.2007 had been issued to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi to intimate the factual and authentic position. Vth Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 30.8.2007. Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, represented respondent, Nazar ki-Nazar. There was no appearance on behalf of the MCD. The complainant reiterated his submission that the school was not constructed on the government land. That they purchased land from private owner on a sale deed and they are paying property tax since 1991. He further submitted that they have not grabbed PWD land for the use of playground for the students and parking. The representative of the respondent submitted that the school was built on government land and they used PWD land as playground for the students and parking for the private vehicles. The respondent’s representative further submitted that the school built an illegal floor with six rooms, without prior permission of the MCD nor they have any authorised map which is passed by MCD. The Inquiry Committee noted that the MCD despite service of notices neither filed any reply nor deputed any one to assist the Committee. The Inquiry Committee however, directed the complainant to file a certificate from the Revenue Department that the land on which the school is constructed is not a government land. The Inquiry Committee further directed the respondent to file documents in support of their allegation that the school was constructed on government land. The Inquiry Committee also directed that MCD should file the reply in the matter. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to adjourn the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Radhey Shyam appeared for the complainant. Shri Pushpendra Chauhan appeared for Nazar-Ki-Nazar and S/Shri A.K. Singh, Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Shahadra Zone, M.D. Gupta, SE, Shahadra North, MCD and Yogendra Sharma, EE(B) II, Shahadra North, MCD appeared for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his submissions and stated that he had filed all
173 the documents in support of his case. The complainant further stated that the land bought at Khasra No. 92/2, Village: Mirpur Turk was not subject tomutation since the land was less than 1000 yards. The complainant submitted that respondent newspaper inter-alia levelled serious allegation of encroaching on government land, which was totally false. The teachers working in the school were also duly qualified and employed as per rules. Shri Pushpendra Chauhan appearing for Nazar-ki-Nazar submitted that they had raised three points viz. (a) encroachment on government land, (b) unauthorised construction and (c) unqualified teachers in the school run by the complainant. The respondent contended that the land belonging to Gram Sabha can not be sold and the complainant was claiming to have bought it from a private party. At this juncture, the complainant filed a copy of an order F.No. 1-33/UC/ UD/Policy/2007/206070-20686 dated 12.12.2007 by Lt. Governor of the NCT of Delhi which reads as follows: “In accordance with Para 2.2 of the school guidelines 2007 for Regularization of Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi as received from the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India under letter No.O-33011/2/94- DDHB-Vol.-XI dated 5th October, 2007, the Lt. Governor of the NCT of Delhi, is pleased to define the Government/Public land and/or private land as follows: 1. Land under acquisition proceedings Government Land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been given, and the landowners have received the compensation irrespective of current physical possession. Private Land: All lands in respect of which the Awards have been given but the landowners have not taken the compensation and are returning the physical possession. 2. Gaon Sabha Lands Government Land: All lands originally vested in the Gaon Sabha at the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, irrespective of the physical possession on ground and all lands subsequently vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the aforesaid Act, where the physical possession is with the Government. Private Land: All lands vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, where the physical possession is with the original landowners.” Shri A.K. Singh, Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Shahadra Zone representing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a report No. EE(B)-II/SH-N/08/D dated
174 7.3.2008 before the Inquiry Committee stating therein that as per record of Building Department, Shahadra North Zone, no building plan has been sanctionedfor the Geetanjali Public School. As per the site inspection conducted on 24.8.2007 by the Building Department Shahadra North Zone, the property consists of a three storeyed building on a plot of 530 Sq. Yards. The unauthorized construction of mumty at top floor had been booked vide file No. 334/B/UC/SH-N/05 dated 30.3.2005. As per the local inquiry conducted during the aforesaid site inspection, this premises had been used by a firm called Fine Wood India (P) Ltd. Earlier, from 1988 to 1996, and thereafter, the owner/occupier had registered Geetanjali Public School on 2nd June 1996 in place of Fine Wood India (P) Ltd., and this School was recognized by GNCTD vide No. F-DDE/NE/Z.IV/03/1083 dated 3.2.2003. The property in the name of Geetanjali Public School lies in an unauthorized colony and as per the Notification dated 30.1.2008, status-quo, with respect to unauthorized development, is to be maintained till 31.12.2008. This notification further provides that the notices issued by MCD (Local Authority) against unauthorized development shall be suspended and no punitive action shall be taken till 31.12.2008. Shri A.K. Singh, Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Shahadra Zone submitted that the MCD had booked the top story-mumty of the complainant’s school building and the status quo is maintained. The area was falling in Shahadra Zone and since it was an unregularized colony, the question of encroachment on MCD land did not arise. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee heard the submissions made by the parties and perused the records. The Committee noted that the gamut of impugned news report in 26.7.2004 issue of the weekly was that the Geetanjali Public School was built on government land, constructed without sanction plan and that the teachers appointed by the school were not qualified. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had placed on record an affidavit dated 4.10.2006 with educational certificates of nine teachers employed in the school which clearly indicated that the teachers employed were qualified. Regarding two other allegations of encroachment on government land and unauthorized construction, the MCD has clarified that the land in question did not belong to MCD and that the status quo was maintained in r/o illegal construction of top floor mumty of the school. MCD has also clarified that school was not constructed on MCD land and the whole colony was unregularised. The Inquiry Committee was of the opinion that the issue of encroachment of government land had not been established. The Inquiry Committee opined that the respondent editor was not able to produce any documentary evidence to support the allegations levelled in the impugned news report. It, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent newspaper for publication of a matter, the facts of which had not been established.
175 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
49) Shri Ashutosh Varshnay Versus The Editor Ex Mayor, Aligarh Shikhar Ki Goonj Uttar Pradesh Aligarh Complaint This complaint dated 4.5.2005 has been filed by Shri Ashutosh Varsnay, Ex-Mayor, Aligarh against Aligarh based Hindi weekly “Shikhar Ki Goonj” for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items captioned “Barahsaini Samaj Ka Mukhiya Kaun? Ashutosh Ya ……” (Who is head of Barahsaini Community? Ashutosh or) and “Kalyan Aur Raju, Ashutosh Ki Muthi Mein” (Kalyan and Raju are under the control of Ashutosh) in its issues dated April 22- 28, 2005 and April 29 - May 5, 2005 respectively. According to the complainant the respondent approached his office, demanded money and on refusal to meet his illegal demand, published the impugned news items with a view to blackmail him. In the first impugned news item it has been stated that the complainant’s party had fallen to dust. The entire community was in a mood to roll out the complainant, a billionaire in blanket parade. The lobby supporting the complainant, which was bowing the head at the door of BJP leader, Kalyan Singh, had been thrown out of the gate like bees and mosquitoes from the milk. He was trying to become the only one seed of the Barahasaini community. None of the houses of Varshnay was left where the silver plate with laddoos (sweet meat) of human skull size was not sent. On suddenly becoming neo rich, the complainant’s attitude changed. In the second impugned news item it has been stated that due to complainant’s proximity with former C.M.’s son Rajbir Singh Raju, party workers are moving from the party. It has also been stated that because of the complainant, the party workers have been humiliated and even senior BJP leaders have to wait many hours outside the residence of the complainant. The complainant’s photograph had also been published along with the impugned news items. The complainant further submitted that he has a prestige in BJP and Varshnay community and due to publication of the impugned news items his image had been lowered in the society. He alleged that the respondent by publishing the vulgar news items with a view to blackmail him had acted against the accepted norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant further alleged that the respondent published his photograph without his consent. The complainantinformed that he had drawn the attention of the respondent editor on 7.5.2005 and 13.5.2005 (through advocate) towards the impugned news items but the respondent neither published
176 his contradiction nor gave any reply. He requested to cancel the registration of the newspaper. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Sikhar Ki Gunj, Aligarh on 16.8.2005. Written Statement The respondent editor, “Shikhar Ki Goonj”, Aligarh in his written statement dated 28.8.2005 submitted that the complainant is a neo rich, an exporter and earned crores from his business and became Mayor on the strength of money. However, impugned news items were published in public interest without any malice. He denied having any ill will against any one. He also denied the allegations levelled by the complainant that he demanded money from him and described him a defector and illiterate person. The respondent further alleged that the complainant during his tenure as Mayor had openly taken his ‘share’ from the contractors and the people were habitual to call him ‘Share Sahib’. He alleged that the complainant was in the habit of harassing the journalists. The respondent submitted that the statement of the complainant that they have acted against the norms of journalistic ethics was totally false and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 30.9.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.11.2005 while denying the allegations of the respondent submitted that the statement of the respondent that they published the impugned news item in public interest was false. The complainant submitted that the respondent had not furnished any proof in support of his allegation of corruption. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 7.2.2006 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Sudhir Kumar Kulshrestha, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. There was no appearance from respondent side. The notice of hearing sent to respondent editor was received back in the Secretariat of Council undelivered. As the notice of hearing could not be served on the respondent the Inquiry Committee, in order to afford one more opportunity to the respondent decided to adjourn the matter.
177 IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. A fax dated 29.8.2007 was received from the complainant informing that he was hospitalised in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and he was unable to appear before the Inquiry Committee and requested for another date. Shri Harish Bhardwaj ‘Betab’, Editor, appeared for the respondent newspaper ‘Shikhar Ki Goonj’. The respondent editor filed his written submission dated 28.8.2005 reiterating that the complainant had recently become rich and was an exporter who earned crores from his business and became a Mayor on strength of money. The news was published in public interest without any malice or ill will against any one. The respondent denied the allegation of demand of money. The respondent submitted that the complainant had filed a case against the respondent newspaper in a Civil Court. On being asked by the Committee whether he had any documentary evidence in support of his statement that the complainant had filed a suit, he requested for time to send the documents to substantiate that the matter was sub- judice. The Inquiry Committee in order to ascertain the facts, directed the respondent to file the documents in support of his contention within a fortnight and decided to adjourn the case. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Harish Bhardwaj, Editor, Shikhar Ki Goonj, appeared for the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent editor filed a copy of the suit No.3459/2005 filed by the complainant against the respondent in the Court of CJM, Aligarh under Section 500 IPC in respect of the impugned news item dated 22-28 April, 2005 published by Shikhar Ki Goonj. The respondent editor reiterated that the matter was sub- judice. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had filed the present complaint as well as defamation suit in the court to harass him. The complainant never appeared either before the Council or in the Court of CJM on any of the date. He added that he was attending the hearing and faced all the proceedings in both the forums, which was nothing but a harassment tactic of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had filed a suit in the Court of CJM, Aligarh in respect of the impugned news item dated 22-28 April, 2005 issue which was the subject matter of inquiry before the Council. The
178 complainant neither appeared before the Inquiry Committee nor requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the conduct of the complainant in not informing the Council about the pendency of the suit which was initiated immediately after filing the present complaint, despite subscribing to a declaration dated 6.6.2005 that he would inform the Council if any proceeding is initiated by the complainant in the Court of Law during the pendency of the present complaint. It therefore recommended to the Council to close the case being sub-judice. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
50) Shri S. K. Shukla Versus The Editor Lecturer/Addl Centre Superintendent The Aj Vivekanand National Inter College Kanpur Purkhrayan, Kanpur Dehat, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 16.5.2005 has been filed by Shri S. K. Shukla, Lecturer/ Additional Centre Superintendent, Vivekanand National Inter College, Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh against Aj, a Hindi daily published from Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh alleging publication of false and defamatory news item captioned “Rage amongst students and guardians due to partiality of Centre Superintendent” in its issue dated 23.3.2005. It has been reported in the impugned news item that there was a great anger amongst students and guardians due to the biased attitude of the Additional Centre Superintendent. The complainant, appointed in the Kisan Inter College, Hansemau, was acting as the Additional Centre Superintendent in Vivekanand Inter College, Pukharayan for the High School and Intermediate Examination of Uttar Pradesh Board, was alleged to have been projecting himself as leader of the teachers, giving tuition to the students by collecting one to two thousand rupees per students. He reportedly assisted the students in using unfair means in the examination, and on 18.3.2005, the complainant even changed the seat of a student namely, Shubham Tripathi to enable him to resort to cheating in the 2nd Session of the Chemistry Paper II examination. The students and guardiansreportedly lodged complaint to the higher authorities against the complainant with a request to appoint another official to replace the complainant. The complainant has submitted that one person from the respondent newspaper Aj had approached him for helping a student in the second shift
179 examination of the Chemistry paper but he turned down his request, therefore, the respondent published the news item in question as a reprisal measure. Due to publication of the impugned news item, his prestige has been lowered in the society, alleged the complainant and added that he wrote to the respondent editor on 28.3.2005 denying the allegations but received no response. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 11.7.2005. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 25.7.2005 submitted that the news item in question was published on the basis of information collected by the local correspondent as well as documentary evidences. He submitted that Shri Thakur Prasad Yadav, Auditor, Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh, Kanpur Dehat, in a complaint dated 22.3.2005 wrote to the District Magistrate, alleging that a fake teacher was helping student cheat in the examination. The respondent further stated that Shri Dhaniram Panthar, Chairman, Bharatiya Dalit Panthar, Uttar Pradesh too addressed a complaint dated 22.3.2005 to the District Magistrate highlighting the activities of the complainant in helping student in the examination and called for inquiry into the matter. Further, the student-candidate and guardian organization also wrote to the district authorities in the matter. The respondent also stated that on receiving the information, their representative went to the examination centre and confirmed the fact and added that the complainant was also removed from his position. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 8.8.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.8.2005 furnished a copy of letter of Shri Sohan Lal Saxena, Principal dated 29.3.2005, denying the allegations levelled against him by the respondent, and stated that as per the letter, the impugned news item proved to be untrue. He questioned the genuineness/ authenticity of the two letters dated 22.3.2005 purported to have been written by the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh and Bharatiya Dalit Panthar. The complainant further stated that the allegations of the said student and guardian association were proved wrong by an inquiry conducted by the concerned authority. The complainant reiterated that the concerned correspondent on failing to convince him to assist a student in cheating, caused publication of the impugned news item as a reprisal measure, to defame him in the society. A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to the respondent on 7.10.2005 for information. 180 Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.6.2007 at New Delhi. Shri S.K. Shukla, complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant reiterated his complaint and alleged that the reporter of the respondent newspaper, Aj was interested in favouring the son of a teacher in copying during the examination but as he did not allow copying, false news items against him were published. He further submitted that the letter head of Shri Dhani Ram Panther used by the respondent was fictitious. The complainant submitted that he had verified from Shri Dhani Ram Panther, who told him that he had changed his name since 2000 from Dhani Ram Panther to Panther Dhani Rao Bouddh. The complainant filed a letter dated 21.5.2007 of Shri Panther Dhani Ram to this effect. Therefore, the reference of that organisation was also fictitious. The complainant further submitted that there was no Association by the name of Student Parent Sangh, and added that the respondent newspaper ought to have verified all these facts and his version should have been obtained as he was Centre Superintendent during the examination. The Inquiry Committee decided that the veracity of the letters of Shri Dhani Ram Panther @ Panther Dhani Rao Bouddh and Student Parent Sangh should be verified from them directly. It further decided that the letter dated 21.5.2007 of Shri Panther Dhani Rao Bouddh be forwarded to the respondent newspaper for their counter. The Inquiry Committee thus, decided to adjourn the matter. Accordingly the President, Bhartiya Dalit Panther, U.P. and the President, Student-Guardian Organisation, Vivekanand National Inter College, Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh were requested vide Council’s letter dated 3.8.2007 to file their comments/reply on the documents filed by the respondent along with his written statement to which there was no response. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.8.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. A letter dated 19.8.2007 was received from the complainant stating that clarification given by the district correspondent was false and far from the truth. Thecomplainant reiterated that the respondent newspaper was interested in some of the students being permitted to copy from each other in the examination. As he did not allow them to do so, the respondent editor published the impugned news item. The complainant submitted that the allegations levelled against him by the respondent were false. He further submitted that no Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh was in existence in Kanpur Dehat, U.P. The complainant alleged that the forged letter of Shri Dhani Ram Panther was used by the respondent to defame him in the society.
181 Matter Adjourned
The Inquiry Committee noted that on last hearing it had directed that letters of the Dhani Ram Panther @Panther Rao Buddh and “Pariksharthi – Abhibhvak Sangh” (Examinee-Guardian Association) should be verified from them directly. No reply was received from the forum.
The Inquiry Committee perused a letter dated 22.8.2007 of Shri Sohan Lal Sexena, Principal, Vivekanand National Inter College, Kanpur Dehat informing the Council that the “Pariksharthi – Abhibhavak Sangh” (Examinee-Guardian Association) was not in existence in Pukhrayan, Kanpur Dehat. It was also submitted that Shri S.K. Shukla, Professor, Additional Centre Superintendent was honestly doing his work and the respondent had defamed the complainant and tarnished his image in the society by publishing the impugned report.
The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter to elicit response from Shri Dhani Ram Panther @ Dhani Rao Buddh.
Accordingly a letter dated 17.10.2007 was issued to the President, Bhartiya Dalit Panther, Uttar Pradesh but no response was received despite issuance of reminder dated 29.1.2008.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Executive Editor, The Aj in a letter dated 25.2.2008 submitted that the written statement dated 25.7.2005 had already been filed by them and the Inquiry Committee might take the arguments made therein into consideration.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the complainant had neither entered appearance nor had he requested for adjournment. There was also no response from Bhartiya Dalit Panther to the Council’s letter for confirmation of the submissions of the complainant. The Committee therefore felt that it did not have sufficient information to take a decision in the matter and recommended to the Council to close the complaint.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
182 51) Shri Manoj Kumar Trivedi Versus The Editor Assistant Regional Manager Dainik Jagran U.P. Transport Corporation Meerut (U.P.) Meerut (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 12.7.2006 and 17.10.2006 has been filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Trivedi, Assistant Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh Transport Corporation, Meerut against Dainik Jagran, Meerut alleging publication of some objectionable news items, captions of which are as follows: 1. “àÉÉèiÉ BÉEä ºÉ{ÉE® VÉèºÉä cÖ<Ç cÉ<Ç]äBÉE ¶ÉiÉɤnÉÒ ºÉä´ÉÉ” (dated 14.7.2006)
2. “àÉÖ{ÉDiÉ ªÉÉjÉÉ xÉ BÉE®ÉxÉä {É® bÅÉ<Ç´É® BÉExbBÉD]® ¤Éxn ÉÊBÉEªÉä” (dated 11.9.2006) According to the complainant, Assistant General Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Transport, Meerut, the correspondent of the respondent newspaper Dainik Jagran approached him regarding the ‘Shatabdi Services’ offered by the Corporation. When the complainant apprised him that only one bus has come into operation and the remaining two buses are at Regional Office awaiting formal clearance, the respondent got angry saying how many officers he should approach for information and threatened to carry such news items so that it would be difficult for them to save their reputation. Thereafter, the news item dated 14.7.2006 was carried with regard to a break failure during the journey between Ghaziabad and Meerut, another news item dated 11.9.2006 was about the arrest of conductor and driver for not allowing policemen to travel free which caused resentment among the employees of the transport department. The complainant said he issued a letter to the respondent editor who declined to receive it on the ground that it should be addressed to the concerned correspondent. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.12.2006 but the respondent did not file the written statement in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on10.3.2008 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Srikant Asthana, Regional News Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut appeared for the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent filed a copy of the letter dated 5.3.2008 of the complainant along with an affidavit dated 7.3.2008 addressed to the Press Council stating
183 therein that the matter has been settled after detailed discussion with the editorial in-charge of Dainik Jagran, Meerut. The complainant, therefore desired that no further action on his complaint is required. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the letter dated 5.3.2008 of the complainant had not been received in the Council till the date of hearing. The Inquiry Committee however was of the opinion that since the complainant had not appeared for oral hearing, the Council may dispose of the complaint as settled and withdrawn. In case the complainant disputes the authenticity of the copy of the letter produced by the respondent, the complainant shall be at liberty to ask for re-opening of the matter. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
52) Mohd. Fasih Uddin Versus The Editor Advocate Dainik Jagran Moradabad (U.P.) Moradabad (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 11.8.2006 has been filed by Mohd. Fasih Uddin, Advocate, Moradabad against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Moradabad for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 13.6.2006 under the caption “Bar Ki Garm Baithak, Fasih Uddin Nilambit” (Hot meeting of the Bar, Fasih Uddin Suspended – English translation). It has been alleged in the impugned publication that the complainant during the General Body meeting of the Bar Council of India on 10.6.2006 misbehaved with its President, Shri Prem Singh. The impugned publication further alleged that the Vice President pronounced the decision that the membership of the complainant was suspended till further orders and show cause notice would be issued to the complainant to terminate his membership. According to the complainant, the imputations published by the respondent were highly objectionable and per se defamatory. He averred that a meeting of the few biased members much less than required quorum and without specific agenda and proper notice was not a meeting of General Body of the Association. The complainant submitted that the respondent had published the impugned news item on the basis of a news item published in Dainik Amar Ujala on 11.6.2006, which was full of false allegations aimed at highlighting some members and blurring
184 his image. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent editor on 13.7.2006 and 7.8.2006 towards the impugned news-item and requested him to publish the contradiction of the impugned news item. The respondent’s counsel vide letter dated 28.7.2006 intimated him that the publication was bonafide and nothing defamatory was contained in the news item. The respondent’s counsel further stated that the news item in question was published on the basis of press note dated 12.6.2006 which was issued by the Bar Association. The respondent advised the complainant to solve his grievance with Bar Association after which a suitable press note would be entertained either issued by the complainant or the Bar Association. The complainant submitted that the respondent published malafide, false, defamatory report against law, established norms of journalism and public taste. The news item was based on press note sent by the Secretary of the Bar Association, which was not a certificate of the truth of its contents. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran on 13.9.2006. In response, the respondent Dainik Jagran, Moradabad in its written statement dated 24.11.2006 submitted that the impugned news item was published on the basis of information received from the Bar Association and Library, Moradabad in a form of press release on 12.6.2006, a day before publication of the news item in question i.e. 13.6.2006. The respondent added that if the complainant wished to publish his rejoinder, they were ready to publish after its receiving and investigating the same. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.12.2006 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2008 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Anupam Markandey, News Editor, Dainik Jagran, Moradabad appeared for the respondent Dainik Jagran, Moradabad. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent submitted that a similar news was published by a contemporary newspaper, namely Amar Ujala and on a complaint from the same complainant against Amar Ujala before this Council, the publication of the version of the complainant was agreed upon. The representative of the respondent Dainik Jagran submitted before the Committee that the newspaper Dainik Jagran was also ready to publish the version of the complainant as was published in Amar Ujala in June 2007.
185 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the record noted that despite service of notice of hearing, the complainant had not chosen to appear before it. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the matter in terms of the precedent before it and the submissions of the respondent. It, therefore, in view of the offer made by the respondent Dainik Jagran to publish the version of the complainant recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter with directions to the complainant to send his composite version to the respondent newspaper and the respondent to publish the same with the prominence within two weeks of its receipt with editor’s remarks that the rejoinder was being published on Council’s direction. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
53) Shri Ved Prakash Saini Versus The Chief Editor Saharanpur Pradesh Ke Apradh (Uttar Pradesh) Saharanpur (U.P.) Complaint This complaint has been filed by Shri Ved Prakash Saini, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh against “Pradesh Ke Apradh”, a Hindi monthly magazine from Saharanpur alleging harassment to him and his family and also publication of an objectionable news item captioned “ Thana Mandi Kshetra Mein Jua Satta Charm Seema Par” in its issue of March-April, 2006. According to the complainant, Shri Subhash Chand Verma, Chief Editor, ‘Pradesh ka Apradh’ employed the complainant’s wife namely, Smt. Sushma Saini as an Assistant Editor of the magazine and also the Secretary to an organization called ‘Manav Ekta Evam Kalyan Samiti’. The complainant alleged that the respondent had shown Smt. Sushma Saini (complainant’s wife) as his(the respondent’s) own wife in some medical documents and also stayed together; and harassed him and his family misusing his position as a journalist. The complainant further alleged that in order to cover up his unlawful behaviour of keeping other person’s wife, the respondent published the impugned news item against him charging involvement in gambling. The complainant issued a notice dated 27.4.2006 to the respondent but received no response. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.7.2006. The
186 respondent in his written statement dated 19.7.2006 submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and baseless. He stated that the legal notice dated 27.4.2006 claimed to have been issued to him by the complainant was never delivered to him and described it as a fake and prepared only to support his allegations. The respondent further submitted that Smt. Sushma, wife of the complainant, was employed as an Assistant Editor and was also made Secretary to the organization “Manav Ekta Evam Kalyan Samiti” but was removed from the post and the matter was published in the magazine on Page 4 of June-July 2006 issue. With regard to the medical papers furnished by the complainant wherein Smt. Sushma Saini was shown as wife of the respondent, the respondent submitted that the same was prepared by the complainant in connivance with the concerned doctor to defame him in public. The respondent further submitted that due to the publication of the news item the complainant and other gamblers were apprehended by the police though the complainant was let off due to political connections without fine. The respondent has furnished an affidavit filed by Smt. Sushma Saini narrating the facts of the matter regarding her relationship with her husband-complainant, Shri Ved Prakash Saini. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.9.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.9.2006 has submitted that the legal notice, addressed to the respondent was sent under registered post and the same was delivered and another notice addressed to Smt. Sushma was refused as both the addressees were residing at the same address, and he furnished photocopy of the documentary evidence to prove his stand. He has stated that the respondent has ruined his family by keeping his wife Smt. Sushma Saini with him and added that the removal of her from the post of Secretary of the organization was done only after the matter was brought to the notice of the Press Council. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 5.12.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 11.3.2008. Shri Ved Prakash Saini, Saharanpur, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Subhash Chand Verma, Editor, Pradesh Ke Apradh, Saharanpur, U.P. appeared for the respondent paper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the impugned news item regarding
187 involvement of complainant in Satta activities published in respondent newspaper ‘Pradesh Ke Apradh’, was totally false, and intended to harass the complainant. The complainant further submitted that there was nothing in police record in respect of the allegations levelled by the respondent editor in the impugned news item and no case was pending against him nor he was arrested. On the contrary the respondent editor was a man of criminal background and had gone to jail in a rape case. The complainant further submitted that he is grandfather and all the children are living with him except his wife who was employed by the respondent and kept by the respondent. The respondent editor, who appeared later before the Inquiry Committee submitted that it was a matter of dispute between husband and wife and incidentally the wife of the complainant was working in his newspaper establishment therefore he had been implicated. He further submitted that a defamation case is pending in respect of the impugned news item. The complainant then confirmed having also filed a defamation suit. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of documents and submissions made by the parties noted that the subject matter of the complaint was pending in the Court of law and observed that it was the duty of the complainant to have informed the Council of this action to avoid dual proceedings. The Inquiry Committee, decided to drop further proceedings in the matter being sub-judice. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
54) Smt. Usha Nagar Versus The Editor Ghaziabad Dainik Prayan Ghaziabad Complaint Smt. Usha Nagar has filed this complaint dated 7.12.2006 against the Editor, “Dainik Prayan”, Hindi daily, Ghaziabad alleging publication of false, misleading, motivated and defamatory advertisement by all locals, Rakesh Marg, ward 39 under the caption ‘‘Appeal – Soch samajh kar vote dein” in its issue dated 2.11.2006. In the impugned advertisement it had been stated that the husband of a contestant of ward 39, Rakesh Marg and office bearer of the national level party
188 was indulging in anti-social activities and he was history sheeter of the area. That the police had recovered “Ganja” worth Rs.10 lac from his house and his name has been listed in police station. The advertisement appealed to the voters to consider how far a person concerned over self alone would work for area development. The complainant has submitted that she was contestant in elections of Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad from Ward No.39 on Congress Party’s ticket. As the polling was scheduled on 3.11.2006, the objectionable publication in the form of “Appeal” was published in the respondent’s newspaper at the behest of her rival. The appeal in question purported to be issued by the area residents, questioned the voters whether they would cast their vote in favour of a candidate, whose husband is a criminal/history-sheeter. The complainant averred that her husband is not what has been published in the newspaper. She further alleged that the impugned publication damaged her reputation and caused her defeat to the elections. She issued a legal notice dated 18.11.2006 to the respondent but received no response. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Prayan on 19.2.2007. Written Statement In his written statement dated 8.3.2007 the respondent editor, “Dainik Prayan” has submitted that 50 people of ward 39 came to his office on 2.11.2006 and gave an advertisement for publication and paid Rs.5,000/- for the same. In the said advertisement, the people informed about the cases, which were pending against the husband of the complainant. The respondent alleged that Case No.345/ 96 under Section 302 IPC, Case No.392/96 under Section 25Arms Act were lodged in the police station of Sihani Gate. The respondent has submitted that the news item was published after thorough pre-publication verification by his correspondent. However, inadvertently, at some places, complainant had been mentioned instead of her husband. This was an error on the part of the advertisers. The respondent alleged that after publication of the advertisement, the husband of the complainant came at his office with 20-25 unknown people and threatened to kill him. The respondent submitted that he had published regrets in his newspaper on 3.3.2007 under the caption “Sarvajanik Soochna”(Public Notice). A copy of the written statement was forwarded to complainant on 16.3.2007 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 11.3.2008. S/Shri Baleshvar Nagar, husband of Smt. Usha Nagar and
189 Chanderpal Singh appeared for the complainant. Shri Krishan Tyagi, Editor, Dainik Prayan, Ghaziabad, appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Baleshwar Nagar, husband of Smt. Usha Nagar, representative of the complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper had published the impugned advertisement allegedly on the basis of a press note issued by the people of the area. The names given in the proof attached by the respondent with his written statement were largely fictitious and most of the real names were infact his rivals’ supporters. He was described as a history sheeter, and charges of possessing ganja and dispute among all the three brothers were all false. He stated that he was not a history sheeter, however, a case was lodged against him in 1996 and he was acquitted in that case in 1997. He further submitted that a false case of possessing ganja has been registered against him six months back. There was no case against the complainant. He further submitted that the paid advertisement was published by the respondent to malign him in the society and to cause damage in the election on the eve of election. The subsequent public apology did not refer to the impugned advertisement at all. He requested for stringent action against the respondent. The respondent news editor submitted that the newspaper had no intention to damage the election prospects of the complainant. The advertisement was based on press release given by the public and published on payment of Rs. 5000/- and since it was a paid advertisement, it was incumbent for them to publish it. The newspaper had enquired from the police station and it was foundthat the history sheet was opened in respect of the husband of the complainant. The respondent also submitted that a contradiction under the caption ‘public notice’ had been published by the newspaper. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the documents and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee at the very outset noted that the respondent newspaper carried a defamatory advertisement on the eve of the election day that landed to mar the election prospects of the complainant. The information was also factually incorrect and did not correctly distinguish between the complainant and her husband. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the newspaper published the vague clarification without giving any reference to the impugned publication or without any reference to the complainant who was contesting the municipal elections which did not serve any purpose. It was of the opinion that the newspaper faulted in having allowed publication of unverified and defamatory content in the garb of advertisement and more particularly on the eve of the elections when the complainant did not get an opportunity to clarify matter. The norms of ethics as well as the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of
190 India do not permit such publication and circulation of any material in respect of candidate contesting elections on election eve. The Inquiry Committee also observed that the norm framed by the Press Council of India relating to Election Reporting says that : “The press should refrain from publishing false or critical statements in regard to the personal character and conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate or his candidature, to prejudice the prospects of that candidate in the elections. The Press shall not publish unverified allegations against any candidate/ party”. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the respondent newspaper Dainik Prayan deliberately published the motivated impugned advertisement which was damaging not only to the complainant, so far as her election prospects were concerned, but also damaging to the reputation to the husband of the complainant describing him as a history sheeter without any substantiative documentary evidence. Further the clarification/contradiction was not carried in a proper form/manner which faulted to rectify the unethical conduct on the part of the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee held that the editor ‘Dainik Prayan’ was guilty of flagrant violation of journalistic norm. It therefore decided to recommend to the Council to reprimand and warn the respondent editor, Dainik Prayan. It may also direct the editor ‘Dainik Prayan’ to publish an apology on the same page of the newspaper giving reference to the impugned advertisement within three weeks and send a copy of the issue carrying apology to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for information/record. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. Foot Note: Dainik Prayan published the Public Notice in the issue dated March 17, 2008.
55) Mahatma Jagdishwaranandji Versus The Editor Paramtattvam Dham Ashram Sarita, Hindi Fortnightly Lucknow New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 1.10.2006 has been filed by Mahatma Jagdishwaranandji, Paramtattvam Dham Ashram, Lucknow, U.P. against “Sarita” Hindi fortnightly, Delhi for publication of allegedly false, defamatory, derogatory and fabricated article captioned “Sant Gyaneshwar Ki Hatya, Ek Adharmi Ka Ant” in its fortnightly (2nd) issue of March 2006.
191 In the impugned article it was alleged that some people attacked the vehicles of so-called God Gyaneshwar and his disciples. In that incident the Sant, his four females and three male disciples died and five female disciples were injured. A detailed report has been published regarding the ill activities of the so- called God Sant Gyaneshwer. According to the complainant, the late Sant Gyaneshwar Swami Sadanandji Paramhans was a Sant of high repute and calibre and was worshipped and regarded as the Supreme incarnation of the Supreme Exist by his disciples/followers. The complainant submitted that the impugned news concerns the assassination of Sant Gyaneshwar Swami Sadanandji Paramhans and seven of his disciples on 10.2.2006, and the respondent published the same under the influence of the murderers, politicians and corrupt officers. According to the complainant the respondent editor used objectionable sentences under the captions as “ºÉxiÉ YÉÉxÉ䶴ɮ BÉEÉÒ ciªÉÉ, ABÉE +ÉvÉàÉÉÔ BÉEÉ +ÉÆiÉ”, “VÉɪÉnÉn BÉEÉ àÉÉäc”, “àÉÉnBÉE {ÉnÉlÉÉç BÉEÉ àÉɪÉÉVÉÉãÉ” and “+ÉÉ<Ç ãÉ´É ªÉÚ ÉËBÉEMÉ ®ÉVÉÉ” which revengefully defamed his Sadguru. The complainant alleged that the impugned news item was published to defame the late Sant Gyaneshwar Swami Sadanandji Paramhans with a view to hurt the sentiments of his disciples. The complainant had sent the notice to the respondent editor along with objectionable articles, but the respondent denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The delay in filing the complaint was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman on 30.11.06 keeping in view the reasons furnished by him. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Sarita, New Delhi on 5.12.06. In his written statement dated 14.12.2006, the respondent editor submitted that the article in question has been written in ‘public interest’ and the facts stated therein have been derived from the public records. The press has a pious duty to inform, caution and enlighten public and it is in the carrying out of this duty that the article in question was written. The respondent has submitted that the article contains the details of as many as 13 FIRs, which have been registered against Sant Gyaneshwar at different police stations. A series of cases of murder, land grabbing and under various other provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Arms Act have been registered against the so called Sant Gyaneshwar at different police stations since 1981 to 1999. The respondent added that the complainant neither in his notice dated 25.9.2006 nor in the present complaint has denied the said facts. The respondents vide letter dated 26.10.2006 have drawn the attention of the complainant but he has not denied or refuted the said fact. The respondent submitted that there was no question to publish the article in coalition with the murderers with a revengeful motive and there was no defamation as alleged. The facts as averred in the
192 complaint were denied in toto being vague, false, hyperbolic and self-serving, added the respondent. Further the complaint has not been supported by any documentary evidence to substantiate the awareness made therein. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 19.12.2006 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 11.3.2008. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/ Shri Jai Prakash Pandey, K. K. Kataria and Ramesh Khandr, Advocate, appeared for the respondent side. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent submitted that the respondent magazine Sarita discharges its journalistic duties with responsibility and it always publishes the stories within the freedom assigned under the constitution. The magazine used its columns in serving the society and the article published in March 2006 issue about Sant Gyaneshwar was based on documentary evidence and the details of thirteen FIRs registered against Sant Gyaneshwar regarding murder and land grabbing. The respondent also filed documentary evidence of the criminal cases concerning Sant Gyaneshwar. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the observations in the impugned article in respondent magazine Sarita were based on the documents available with the magazine and same were reflected in the impugned article. The complainant was also not present to press the case. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
56) Shri Bhagwati Prasad Versus The Editor Chief Executive Mission India National Cooperative Union of India Noida New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Complaint This compliant, dated 20.1.2006 has been filed by Shri Bhagwati Prasad, Chief Executive, National Cooperative Union of India, New Delhi against Mission
193 India, a Hindi weekly from Noida, Uttar Pradesh alleging publication of false and defamatory news items captions of which are as follows: 1. ‘Disclosure: Widespread Embezzlement in National Cooperative Union of India by Persons having vested interest’ dated 16th – 22nd December 2005; 2. ‘Highest Degree of Corruption in National Cooperation Union of India’ dated 23rd –29th December 2005; 3. ‘Undemocratic Activities in National Cooperative Union of India’ dated 30th December 2005 – 5th January 2006; and 4. ‘Cheating in Recruiting Process of National Cooperative Union of India’ dated 6th – 12th January 2006. It was alleged in the impugned news items that the appointment of Shri Bhagwati Prasad, the complainant to the post of Chief Executive in National Cooperative Union of India was due to the influence of an Ex-MP. It was further alleged that the President and the Chief Executive were paid in foreign currency on their trip to foreign countries and their personal visits were also treated as official visits. It was also alleged that the relatives of the President and the Chief Executive were extended the facilities provided to the members of the Governing Council, and NCUI had incurred a loss of Rs. four crores dueto space provided to NBCDF and also that promotions were made on grounds other than merits etc. According to the complainant, the entire information which has been published in the impugned news items was baseless, false and malafide and a mere reading of the contents and the manner, in which it had been written, clearly shows that the publication in question had been made on the basis of false and malicious propaganda and the information was supplied by the persons with vested interest. He has alleged that the respondent chose to publish the news items in question without even caring to check the veracity of the statements/documents/ proceedings mentioned therein and also stated that the entire publication was made only with a view to damage the reputation of the Chief Executive, the Chairman as well as the apex organisation of cooperatives in India. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 14.6.2006. The respondent editor, Mission India, in his written statement dated 29.6.2006 has submitted a detailed reply point-wise countering the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that they have never followed yellow journalism as all insertions/news are based on reality, facts duly checked and verified. He has submitted that with regards to the impugned publications, they have enough material on the wrongs and misdeeds of National Cooperative Union of India for insertion
194 and to save Indian Cooperative movement from the autocratic practices of the present President and Chief Executive. The respondent has further stated that the complainant has been choosy and selection of very few allegations/wrongs/illegalities, ignoring and leaving aside many discrepancies on which it wanted to sidetrack attention of the respondent. Of all correct facts with embedded deficiencies, illegalities and wrongs committed by NCUI President and Chief Executive, only selected allegations appear to have been countered, which means the remaining ones are accepted by it, stated the respondent editor and added that copies of proof in support of their stand in the matter are being supplied. He also stated that they have never received the letter of the complainant dated 20.1.2006 as it was sent at a wrong address. The approach of the respondent has never been to bring to disrepute any one including NCUI, however its publications help erring persons/institutions to adopt honest practices to save its image. He has further added that as per regular and laid down principles its policies and practices, it never published any news item without verifying the correctness of the same. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.7.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.11.2006 has submitted that the averments made in the written statement by the respondent, were false, incorrect and malicious. According to him the written statement clearly show that the respondent has published report on the basis of misinformation provided by some disgruntled officers or ex-officer/employees of National Cooperative Union of India as the impugned news items are malicious and have been published to tarnish the image of the complainant and the apex institution. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 8.1.2007 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Anil Amrit, Advocate and Shri K. Kulshreshtha appeared for the complainant. Shri Jagdish Chandar Sharma, Editor, Shri S.N. Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Mission India. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the respondent was still continuing to publish false news reports against the complainant. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had engaged him the same day and therefore sought adjournment to plead the case of the respondent. The Counsel
195 for the complainant did not object to the request for adjournment but pressed his grievance of continuous defamation. The Committee on consideration of the matter decided to grant conditional adjournment on the request of the respondent directing that the paper may not publish any further reports on the issue till the disposal of the complaint by the Press Council. Accordingly a letter dated 22.6.2007 has been issued to respondent editor, Mission India to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2007 at New Delhi. S/Shri Anil Amrit, Advocate and S.K. Kulshrestha, representative appeared for the complainant. Shri S.N. Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Mission India. The complainant’s counsel submitted that the brief relating to the complaint was not traceable due to shifting in his office and sought adjournment. The Counsel for the respondent Mission India submitted that the complainant got appointment in the year 2000 due to political pressure and got extension. A relative of the complainant being a Member of Parliament was instrumental inhis appointment. The complainant was a U.P. Cadre Officer, who joined the organisation in Madhya Pradesh without being relieved from U.P. but no action was taken because of his influence. The Counsel further submitted that an ex-Director of National Co-operative Union of India, had approached the High Court in the matter and the writ is pending. However, there was no stay. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter on the request of the complainant to its next sitting on 31.8.2007. It however, noted that the Counsel for both the sides had expressed difficulty in attending the hearing on 31.8.2007. The Inquiry Committee thus directed both the parties to exchange written submissions and send copies of the written submissions to the Council, on the basis of which it will decide the matter. Accordingly both the parties were reminded to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee vide Council’s letter dated 7.8.2007. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007 at New Delhi. Shri Vishal Anand entered appearance for the respondent, Mission India. The Inquiry Committee noted that as the respondent ‘Mission India’ had handed over written arguments on the date of hearing i.e. 31.8.2007, it decided to adjourn the matter for giving an opportunity to the complainant to file counter
196 to the written statement of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee directed that a copy of the written statement may be sent to the complainant. Reiterating his written statement the respondent editor, Mission India in his written argument dated 31.8.2007 submitted that the appointment of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad as Chief Executive was not only illegal but was done under political pressure of his own daughter Ms. Reena Chaudhary the then M.P. (Lok Sabha) and even his retirement age was enhanced by amending Recruitment Rules to give benefit to him ignoring all other employees and thus Article 14 of the Constitution of India was violated. Giving details the respondent submitted that there had been no illegality in publishing the news items against the complainant, which is Government body. No loss has been caused to the complainant. Moreover, the respondent did its duty being newspaper and brought all these facts to the knowledge of the public at large. There had been no personal ill will or motive on the part of respondent and every care has been taken while publishing five newspaper issues regarding news item against NCUI. According to the respondent no newspaper can be put under pressure and voice of the Press can not be shut under fear, threat or intimidation. Nothing contrary to law has been published by the respondent and all news items published were based on solid evidence. Press is free to publish in nationalinterest and no loss has been caused to the complainant by publishing the allegedly false news items which are based on facts and evidence. The respondent has requested to dismiss the complaint and take action against the complainant for filing the false complaint. Complying with the directions of Inquiry Committee a copy of the written arguments dated 31.8.2007 filed by the respondent editor was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 24.10.2007 for his counter comments. No reply has been filed so far by the complainant. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 24.4.2008. S/Shri S.K. Kulshrestha, representative and Anil Amrit, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Vishal Anand appeared for the respondent, Mission India. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s counsel filed written submissions as directed by the Inquiry Committee on the last date of hearing. Reiterating the allegations, the complainant counsel submitted that even after the complainant sent his version subsequent to the first publication, no steps had been taken by the respondent editor to publish his version against the impugned news reports rather a further
197 attempt had been made by running a series of publications carrying allegations against him. He submitted that their grievance would be redressed if the paper publishes the complainant’s version even now. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had personally as well as telephonically asked the complainant to give his version but the complainant did not give his version. He, however, offered that if the version to the impugned reports is given by the complainant, the newspaper will publish the same. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material and oral submissions made by the parties noted that the complainant had infact issued a rejoinder to the respondent newspaper which was quite lengthy. In the light of the request made by the complainant’s counsel and offer of the respondent, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send his consolidated version in respect of all the impugned news reports to the Editor, Mission India. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent editor to publish the version of the complainant in a conspicuous manner with due reference to the impugned reports and let the readers judge the issue and form their independent opinion. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these directions to the parties and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
57) Shri Dependra Pathak Versus The Editor Additional Commissioner of Police & Metro Now Chief Spokesperson New Delhi Delhi Police Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 16.5.2007 has been filed by Shri Dependra Pathak, Additional Commissioner of Police and Chief Spokesperson, Delhi Police, New Delhi against Metro Now, New Delhi alleging publication of defamatory, incorrect and mischievous news item captioned ‘Sex on the Syllabus at Police Training College’ - ‘Prostitution Training College’ in its issue dated 15.5.2007. The impugned news item reported that a group of policewomen training at Delhi Police’s Police Training College were caught in a South Delhi hotel minutes after they left the rooms of their satisfied clients and began to count the Rs.5,000
198 bundles they had just received. The sleazy sex racket was not limited to the trainee women cops, even their wardens, who were senior constabulary and sub- inspector level women officers, were involved, alleged the news item in question. It was further alleged that while the trainee cops have been thrown out of the training college, the wardens have been transferred to New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, and disciplinary action against them has been initiated. It was also reported that the departments own sting reportedly revealed the PTC sex racket after senior police officers received information that some trainees were regularly ‘leaving’ college at night. The complainant submitted that the contents of the news item were totally incorrect and mischievous. In the Police Training College of Delhi Police in the last one month, none of the trainees had been terminated. Neither any sting operation was carried out nor any warden or lady supervisory staff had been transferred or removed on such grounds as reported in the news item. Each and every aspect of the news content was false and fabricated, alleged the complainant and added that it was a character assassination of innocent girls undergoing training for public service and also of the premier training institute. It was highly uncalled for, slanderous, and defamatory in any civilized society, alleged the complainant. The complainant also alleged that the article was published by Metro Now without checking the facts from the concerned officials. The complainant issued a letter dated 15.5.2007, rebutting the impugned news item but he neither received any reply nor any rejoinder was published. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 14.6.2007. The respondent editor, Metro Now in his undated written statement, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 2.7.2007, has submitted that not only did the incident take place as reported by them, but they can place the names of the two trainees who were subsequently terminated and belonged to the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and other to the Manipur Police. The transfer of wardens to 9th and 10th Battalion was also a matter of record. The reporter had spoken to a very senior officer at the Police Training College, Shri Virender Chahal, who confirmed that the wardens had indeed been transferred but asked the reporter not to quote him or file the report. The respondent has also stated that the contrary to the police submissions that no rejoinder was published, it was published next day on 17.5.2007 stating clearly that the police denies that incident. Thereafter they have again expressed regrets in the issue dated 26.6.2007 for having hurt the sentiments of readers and students by headlining the report as “Prostitution Training College”.
199 The respondent further submitted that their intention has not been to defame anyone or malign anyone, thus they did not publish any further reports on the issue despite having more information. He has added that as an indication of their bona fide as far as honest intention goes, they have expressed their regret as having hurt the sentiments of the other trainees by the headline of the impugned reports. They are responsible newspaper and as such value the traditions of fair reporting and freedom of expression, but acknowledge their responsibility towards the truth and would never publish anything knowing it to be false, fictitious or fabricated. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 3.7.2007 for information and counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.7.2007 has submitted that the news item which appeared on 15.5.2007 in the respondent newspaper with the title “Sex On The Syllabus At Police Training College”, “Prostitution Training College” does not depict the daily as a responsible newspaper and is totally false and fabricated. The very basis of their story that one of the girl belonged to Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and the second to the Manipur Police as mentioned in the reply of the respondent is false and fictional as there are so such trainees with them. He has added that no woman recruit wasterminated on such grounds till 15.5.2007 is a matter of official record and can be placed before the authorities and that no lady wardens posted since July 2006 to look after the women recruits were transferred to 9th and 10th Battalion of DAP is again a matter of official record and can be produced before the authorities. In its follow up report on 17.5.2007 the newspaper had tried to authenticate its false and fabricated story instead of tendering any apology or clarification as is evident from the language. The newspaper has instead re-confirmed that the Principal, P.T.C., was their “source” for this information. The complainant further stated that the apology was published after issue of notice by Press Council of India and also after the parents of the women recruits undergoing training in PTC contemplated legal action against the newspaper but the paper simultaneously reasserted that they have the names of the women students found involved in prostitution but did not produce even with the written statement. The complainant further asserted that a reporter, Pradip R. Sagar spoke to the Principal, PTC, Shri Virender Singh on 14.5.2007 on telephone and enquired whether some trainees have been terminated. The Principal, PTC briefly told him that seven recruit constables were terminated on 9.5.2007. The reporter further enquired generally what are the grounds of their termination. On this, Principal, PTC replied that there are various grounds of their termination such as misconduct, indiscipline etc. In fact, these seven recruits were terminated on the ground that a report was received that they had submitted false sports certificates to gain
200 unfair advantage at the time of their recruitment. It was also asserted that some other isolated incidents even otherwise could not be used to defame all the students and the department. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 31.7.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquriy Committee on 24.4.2008 at New Delhi. S/Shri Virender Singh and Rajan Bhagar represented the complainant, Delhi Police while Ms. Sangeeta Sobdhi, Advocate, Ms. Soni Sangwan, Deputy Editor and Shri Anil Sachdeva, Head Finance represented the respondent, Metro Now. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative reiterated the averments made in the complaint objecting to the inaccurate reporting maligning the Police Training College and the trainees thereon. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that the news report was prepared after thorough investigation and proper verification from the Senior Police Officers with regard to the information that some trainee police women had been leaving the college at night. The Counsel further submitted that the response of the complainant Delhi Police had also been published in the subsequent report. The Counsel further submitted that the note from the editor on the subject had been carried by newspaper Metro Now regretting for inadvertently hurting the sentiments of the Police Training College pupils in the issue dated 26.6.2006 was also published. The respondent also submitted that the report was carried bonafide without any intention to hurt anyone. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the submissions made by the parties. It perused the impugned publication dated 15.5.2007 under the caption “Sex on Syllabus at Police Training College” followed by “Prostitution Training College” in which the first three letters had been highlighted to mark the institution’s name. A further highlighted comment read “What are they teaching now a days”. It next perused the report dated 17.5.2007 provided by the respondent to show that the version of the Delhi Police had been carried by them. This was followed by the “Letter from the editor” expressing regrets for having hurt the sentiments of readers and P.T.C. pupils. The Committee’s examination of the matter centred around these three documents. The Committee found the impugned report to be very reckless and mischievously judged on the scale of journalistic caution and responsibility. It noted the failure of the respondent to substantiate the assertion of truthfulness of the
201 reported incident with any form of evidence despite the complainants charge that whole story was fabricated. Such fabrication beyond doubt constituted a very grave misconduct which was compounded by the manner of presentation of the report that began with the caption and the sub-caption that boldly proclaimed “Sex on the syllabus” and made use of acronym of Police Training College i.e. P.T.C. to reword it as Prostitution Training College, with further sub-title ‘what are they teaching now a days’. It was accompanied by a photograph of a girl in provocative clothing and wearing the police cap and carrying a baton and handcuffs. To hold that the sensational front paged report maligned the institute and its inmates in one sweep would not be wrong even without going into the contents of the report which the Metro Now has failed to substantiate. In their defence they have referred to the police version carried on 17.5.2007. But on examination, this document appears to only compound the offence. This publication captioned ‘Lecture session after prostitution expose’ has been carried as a follow up of the impugned report to reassert the incident and report the repercussion of the report. A photograph of the impugned reporthas been reproduced in a central box. Towards the end of this long report, a short six line denial has been carried followed by the reply of Metro Now of considerable length. The somewhat maligning factor is that the editor of the paper accepted the protests received by them and published its regrets at the implication of use of term “Prostitution Training College’’. However, in totality the Inquiry Committee cannot but hold the respondent Metro Now guilty of abdication of its journalistic responsibility of ensuring the accuracy of its reports; of refraining from sensationalising and wrongly mentioning and bringing to disrepute, a class of a person or an institute. For these reasons the Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to censure Metro Now and directs it to publish prominently the gist of the adjudication in the paper within a fortnight from its receipt. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
58) Dr. Mangal Das Versus The Editor Senior Medical Officer Punjab Kesri Community Health Centre, Fatehpur Jalandhar District Kangra, (Himachal Pradesh) Punjab Complaint This complaint dated 9.3.2007 has been filed by Dr. Mangal Das, Senior
202 Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Fatehpur, District Kangra, against Punjab Kesri, Jalandhar, Punjab alleging publication of false and defamatory news items as follows: Sl.No. Captions Dated 1. Samudayik Swasthya Kendra Fatehpur Mein 2.2.2007 Aniyamittayain 2. Hazari Register Mein Aniyamittaon Ka Mamla Ujagar 6.2.2007 3. Swasthya Kendra Fatehpur Mein Aniymittaon ki 10.2.2007 Hogi Jaanch – Swasthya Vibhag Ne Diye Aadesh The complainant alleged that Shri Daulat Chauhan, press reporter of the respondent at Jawali, Kangra, in a bid to settle his own scores with thecomplainant, had roped in all the other respondents in order to blackmail him. The complainant narrated the cause leading to the publication of the impugned news items and stated that Smt. Neelam Sandil, wife of the reporter, Shri Daulat Chauhan, was working under the complainant Dr. Mangal Das at CHC, Fatehpur as Staff Nurse. On 20.12.2006, Smt. Neelam Sandil along with another staff nurse, refused to sign the office orders issued by the complainant. The complainant alleged that due to the issuance of notice to Smt. Neelam and her colleague for disobedience of the office orders calling their explanations, the respondent reporter threatened him to withdraw the notice. The complainant alleged that the reporter published, without seeking his version, the lopsided and factually incorrect news items in connivance with the editor in a bid to score his own personal scores by misusing his freedom and position. He further submitted that he served a legal notice dated 9.3.2007 to the respondents but did not receive any reply nor was the rejoinder published by the respondent. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 14.6.2007. The Respondent Editor, Punjab Kesri, Jalandhar, Punjab in his written statement dated 26.6.2007 submitted that the allegations of the complainant were totally incorrect, wrong and denied, except for the fact that the newspaper carried a news item about the Community Health Centre, Fatehpur, District Kangra. He added that the name of the complainant was not mentioned anywhere in the news item in question, which was general in nature and did not point out to the complainant in person. The respondent submitted that the news items dated 6.2.2007 and 10.2.2007 had been published in the ordinary course of the newspaper without any malice or ill- will or motive against the complainant or any other person. The impugned news items were about the activities of the working of the CMC, Fatehpur and the complainant was contacted on his mobile phone and the
203 news item carried his version as well. The respondent further submitted that from the facts narrated by the complainant, it is established that it was a case of rivalry, enmity and disharmony between the complainant and the staff nurse, Smt. Neelam Sandil, who happened to be wife of the respondent reporter. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2007 for information and counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 19.7.2007 submitted that there was no enmity, rivalry or disharmony between the complainant and the staff nurse – Neelam Sandil. The husband of the said staff nurse, Kartar Sandiltook undue advantage of working with the media and tried to settle his personal grievance with the complainant for initiating disciplinary action against his wife for disobedience, and had roped in the respondent to further his mal intentions. He alleged that the respondent had intentionally carried the defamatory news against the complainant without verifying its authenticity or cross checking with the complainant and also caused its reporting on electronic channel. He requested the Council to take action in the matter. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 31.7.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 24.4.2008. The complainant was not present. Shri M.M. Thapar, Section Head, Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent’s representative submitted that the newspaper had carried the news report about the working of Community Health Centre, Fatehpur and it had done a fair reporting. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s grievance was basically against Jain News Network for telecasting the News about the irregularities in the Community Health Centre. The respondent requested that no action was warranted against the newspaper Punjab Kesari. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the complainant despite of service of ‘Notice for Hearing’ did not appear before the Committee to contest the case. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution with a word of caution to the editor of the paper to carefully scrutinize the reports to ensure that these were not being reported by its reporter to settle scores in personal matter and recommended to the Council accordingly.
204 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. Foot Note: “Adjournment request received from the complainant after hearing of the case”.
59) Shri M. L. Syal Versus The Editor President Punjab Kesari Haryana Civil Pensioners New Delhi Welfare Association Sirsa, Haryana The Editor Haryana Deep Sirsa, Haryana
Shri Deepak Sharma Press Reporter Punjab Kesari Sirsa, Haryana Complaint This complaint dated 26.2.2007 has been filed by Shri M.L. Syal, President, Haryana Civil Pensioners Welfare Association, Sirsa against Shri Deepak Sharma, reporter of Punjab Kesari and editor, Haryana Deep alleging publication of defamatory news items captioned “Rishvat Le Kar Pakra Gaya Aur Rishvat De Kar Chhoot Gaya” (Punjab Kesari) and “Bhrasht Adhikariyon Ki Sanrakshandata Haryana Ki Hudda Sarkaar” (Haryana Deep) in the issues dated 26.9.2006 and 7.3.2007 respectively. The complainant alleged that Shri Deepak Sharma, Press Reporter has been blackmailing the Haryana Government Officers/Officials and earning money by extortion. He has also alleged that respondent newspaper maligned his son Mr. C.M. Syal who has been working as Sub Divisional Engineer in Public Health Department at Ellanabad. According to the complainant, his son married off his daughter to the son of one Shri Kewal Krishan Dhamija and gave dowry according to his status. But Shri Dhamija was not satisfied with the given dowry and annoyed with this he got false complaints filed against his son, on charges of corruption and used the services of Shri Deepak Sharma, Press Reporter of Punjab Kesari to get these news published in Punjab Kesari and also Haryana Deep, where the mother of Shri Deepak Sharma, Smt. Sudesh Diwakar, working as the editor and his father Shri Ravi Diwakar as the publisher.
205 In an another letter dated 21.7.2007 the complainant alleged that Shri Ravi Diwakar besides working as a press reporter was also a contractor with PWD, Public Health Department where his son was working as Sub Divisional Officer. The complainant added that prior to the tenure of his son, Shri Diwakar had executed a contract for construction of S&S Rank and laying RCC Pipe Channel at village Bhavdin, Sirsa where his son did not oblige Shri Diwakar for work done in violation of the norms. The complainant in his letter dated 19.9.2007 informed the Council that the editor, Punjab Kesari has published the clarification in his newspaper on16.8.2007. He requested to take action against Shri Deepak Sharma and Shri Ravi Diwakar, concerned journalists and the editor of Haryana Deep. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors, Punjab Kesari and Haryana Deep and Shri Deepak Sharma, Press Reporter of Punjab Kesari on 27.10.2007. Written Statement of Haryana Deep The respondent editor, “Haryana Deep” in her written statement dated 6.11.2007 denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant but admitted that Shri Ravi Diwakar is her husband and Shri Deepak Sharma is her son and both are journalists. The respondent has submitted that when she did not know the complainant or his family personally, why should the complainant make personal comments about her. According to the respondent, other newspapers of the State had also published the news items against Shri Chander Mohan Syal (complainant’s son) and there was no ill will against the complainant, his son or his department. She further submitted that the complainant’s statement that she (respondent) published the impugned news item with the sole motive to blackmail the complainant’s son and his department was completely false. She stated that the complainant had made this complaint to pressurize them. She also stated that Shri Chander Mohan Syal, Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Department, Sirsa (complainant’s son) was caught red handed by the vigilance team when he was taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- and sent him to the jail. A case No.26 dated 16.6.2007 was filed against the complainant’s son but the complainant never contradicted it. The impugned news item was published in public interest. Shri Chander Mohan Syal, the accused had not filed any complaint against any newspaper, but the complainant had given threats to her and her family with dire consequences, therefore, the respondent had filed complaint against complainant (Shri M.L. Syal) and his two grandsons with district Police in this regard where they had given assurance in writing to the police that they would never indulge again. Written Statement of Punjab Kesari The respondent editor, Punjab Kesari in his written statement dated
206 14.11.2007 submitted that the complaint has been filed on the letter head of Haryana Civil Pensioner Welfare Association by M.L. Syal who happens to be the President of the organization. The respondent submitted that neither the organization nor the complainant was in any way affected by what had been published and have no locus standi in the matter. The respondent editor further submitted that on receipt of copy of letter of the complainant, Punjab Kesari published a clarification on 16.8.2007. The respondents added that Shri Deepak Sharma, Reporter has disassociated from the Punjab Kesari and it had published the announcement of the same in the newspaper on 4.11.2007. Written Statement of Shri Deepak Sharma, Press Reporter Shri Deepak Sharma, Press Reporter, Punjab Kesari in his written statement dated 29.11.2007 submitted that the impugned publication has no relation with any pensioner officer/worker or pensioners organisation. The respondent submitted that the complaint has been filed with the Council and Punjab Kesari due to animosity against him. He further submitted that the complainant has been indulging in filing fake complaints with the district administration against him using highly objectionable language. The respondent has submitted that he has no personal animosity with complainants’ son who was arrested in a bribery case. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has filed this fake complaint to emotionally blackmail him and to damage his journalistic future. The respondent further submitted that the Punjab Kesari has cancelled his authority as a reporter and stopped his finances and when the Punjab Kesari published the contradiction of the impugned news item and regretted for the same, he was not related with the said complaint. A copy each of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.1.2008. Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 31.12.2007 has submitted his counter comments. The complainant submitted that his son Shri Chander Mohan Syal, SDE was entangled in the corruption case on 16.6.2006 and this information was published in almost all the newspapers as per routine but Shri Deepak Sharma got published the news in Punjab Kesari after more than four months on 25.10.2006 to blackmail him. The complainant has further submitted that Shri Deepak Sharma, reporter should not be exempted and the punishment awarded by the Punjab Kesari is justified and his Association will be satisfied if the said reporter remains out from the press. The complainant has alleged that Shri Deepak Sharma and Shri Ravi Diwakar, Press Reporters got licence of “Haryana Deep” in the name of Smt. Sudesh Rani and issued first edition on 22.2.2007 wherein on first page they
207 published the news of his son. The complainant questioned the necessity to publish the news after eight months since the incident. It was done to harass his son and to extort money, added the complainant. The complainant has further submitted that in the 2nd edition of ‘Haryana Deep’ on 7.3.2007, the respondent again published the same news on the first page and attacked his grandson by calling him “Gunda” of film “Sholay”. The complainant submitted that the editor of “Haryana Deep” made a complaint in police station against his grandson, which turned out to be falseafter investigation. The respondent Haryana Deep has again raised 10 questions in the publication dated 21.8.2007. The complainant further submitted that the editor of “Haryana Deep” Smt. Sudesh Rani is wife of Shri Ravi Diwakar and its management is being controlled by her mischievous husband using the newspaper as a weapon to extort money. The complainant has alleged that Shri Ravi Diwakar demanded Rs.5,000/- for settlement. He has requested for action against respondents Shri Deepak Sharma, Shri Ravi Diwakar and Smt. Sudesh Rani, editor of Haryana Deep. The complainant further alleged that Shri Deepak Sharma has shown himself as correspondent of Punjab Kesari but the Punjab Kesari in its issue-dated 4.11.2007 has published that Shri Deepak Sharma was not working in their newspaper. The complainant vide his letter dated 23.2.2008 filed a copy of the impugned news item captioned ‘]ÅÉƺÉ{ÉE® ¤ÉxÉÉÒ ¶Éc +ÉÉè® àÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ JÉäãÉ’ published by ‘Haryana Deep’ in its issue dated 7.2.2008. The complainant alleged that the impugned publication was more proof of blackmailing by Haryana Deep against him and his son. The complainant further alleged that the respondent Haryana Deep is playing tactics only to extort money from his son as his demand of Rs. 5000/- was not fulfilled. A copy of the complainant’s letter dated 23.2.2008 was forwarded to the respondent Haryana Deep on 5.3.2008. The complainant vide his another letter dated 11.3.2008 alleged that the mischievous and blackmailing activities of the respondent ‘Haryana Deep’ are increasing day by day. He requested the Council to take an early decision in the matter and cancel his license so that all such activities can be stopped. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.4.2008. The complainant in his letter dated 23.4.2008 intimated his inability to attend the hearing and requested to decide the case on the basis of record. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate appeared for Punjab Kesari. Shri K.R. Kandara represented the respondent Haryana Deep and Shri Deepak Sharma the concerned reporter also entered appearance personally.
208 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The Counsel for the Punjab Kesari questioned the locus standi of the complainant in the matter on merits. He submitted that the newspaper had not written anything particular against the complainant. It was general news and no name was mentioned in it. The Counsel further submitted that the news relatedto an Officer against whom an FIR was lodged in corruption case and he was put behind the bar who remained in jail for two months. Further the letter received from the complainant had been published in the columns of the newspaper, Punjab Kesari, and as the newspaper was receiving complaints against the reporter his services were terminated. Shri K.R. Kandara representative of the respondent Haryana Deep submitted that the newspaper had published the news item to express the opinion of the public on the functioning of the government that although the government was claiming transparency, it was acting contrary to what the government was saying in its policy matters. Shri Deepak Sharma, the reporter submitted that he was working as a stringer for Punjab Kesari and when he filed the story for publication at the relevant time, the Punjab Kesari assured to carry it in its future publication. In the meantime, he launched his newspaper and published the news in public interest. The reporter further submitted that the object of writing was to highlight the fact that the Haryana Government on the one hand had announced that any government servant who was sent to jail shall not be taken back in the service, on the other hand the Officer reported who was caught in bribery case sent to jail had been immediately reinstated. The reporter, submitted that it was unfortunate that he had been removed by the Punjab Kesari for doing his honest reporting. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the submissions made by the parties before it. The Inquiry Committee opined that the impugned news item had been published citing an instance of reinstating of an Officer of Haryana Government Health Department, who was caught by Anti Corruption Department while taking bribe and he was sent to jail. On getting bail the said Officer was not only reinstated but he was given better posting. As per contention of the respondent, the publication was in public interest to expose the State Government in deviating from its own policy of removal of the Official from the service found indulging in corruption. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complaint had been moved by the father of the concerned officer who had not come forth to deny the charges. Since the incident reported and the subsequent developments were correct, its reporting was in public interest. Thus, the Inquiry Committee observed that as the respondent newspaper had some basis and justification for publishing the news, it was not inclined to uphold the complaint and decided to recommend to the Council to reject it.
209 Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
60) Shri S.L.Koli Versus The Editor General Secretary Parwat Jan Christian Solidarity Society Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttrakhand Complaint
This complaint dated 10.10.2006 has been filed by Shri S.L.Koli, General Secretary, Christian Solidarity Society, Dehradun against ‘Parwat Jan’, a Hindi monthly magazine for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned ‘O Jesus! Mariam Se Balatkar’ in its issue dated September 2006 regarding alleged malfunctioning of the four Children’s Homes run by Christian Missionaries in Dehradun. The complainant submitted that the impugned news article was published with malafide intention to bring the Christian community to disrepute. The complainant issued a notice dated 2.11.2006 to the respondent which was received back unclaimed. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 12.2.2007. The respondent did not file written statement despite service of notice. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.4.2008 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee perused the letter dated 18.4.2008 received from the complainant and letter dated 17.4.2008 from the respondent intimating that a compromise has been reached in the matter after the editor tendered a written apology. In view of settlement arrived at between the parties, the Inquiry Committee decided to allow the case to be closed. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
210 61) Shri Chandrabhan Garg Versus The Editor Chairman Satya Ka Pujari Municipal Corporation Council Bijapur Bijapur Udhamsingh Nagar Udhamsingh Nagar (Uttarakhand) (Uttrakhand) Complaint This complaint dated 17.5.2005/6.7.2005 has been filed by ShriChandrabhan Garg, Chairman, Municipal Corporation Council, Bijapur, Udhamsingh Nagar against ‘Satya Ka Pujari’, Bijapur alleging publication of false and defamatory news items captioned ‘Badhal Bijapur Ke Badshah Hain Chandrabhan Garg’ and ‘Andher Nagari Ke Talpat Vajir Hain Chandrabhan Garg’ in its issues dated 9.5.2005 and 16.5.2005 respectively. The complainant submitted that the respondent editor had demanded an advertisement worth Rs.5,000/- from the Municipal Corporation Council and on refusal the respondent published the impugned news items. The complainant had served a notice dated 19.5.2005 to the respondent, asking him to publish contradiction and an unconditional apology. The respondent in his reply notice dated 28.5.2005, denied the allegations and stated that the news items in question were published to highlight before the administration, the problems faced by the residents. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.1.2006. The respondent in his written statement received in the Council on 23.1.2006 has submitted that the news items in question were based on facts and with proof and added that various newspapers had published the same news items. The respondent also denied having demanded advertisement worth Rs.5000/- from the Municipal Corporation. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.1.2006 for information. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.4.2008 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee perused a letter dated 25.3.2008 received from the complainant stating that complaint filed before the Council against respondent “Satya Ka Pujari” was due to some mis-understanding, and in the meeting held on 30.6.2006 in the presence of D.M. Udhamsingh Nagar, district level Patrakar Samiti and respondent “Satya Ka Pujari” the matter had been settled. The respondent in his letter dated 26.3.2008 also requested the Council to close the case.
211 The Inquiry Committee in view of the request of the complainant and the respondent decided to close the complaint as settled. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
62) Shri Satish Kumar Jain, HCS Versus The Editor Hissar (Haryana) Nabh Chhor Hissar (Haryana) Complaint This complaint dated 29.9.2006 has been filed by Shri Satish Kumar Jain, HCS, Hissar against Editor, Nabh Chhor, an evening daily newspaper from Hissar for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items captioned as below for the period pertaining to his tenure as SDM, Hansi: 1. “One Officer, One Case and Two Decisions”–”Government Losses Crores, Plots Amounting to Crores of Rupees Allotted to Relatives” dated 3.8.2006; and 2. “CM’s Flying Squad Sealed the Record of SDM’s Office Hansi, Complaint (Isthgasa lodged)” dated 4.8.2006. According to the complainant, in the first news item it was alleged that “Candidates who had paid 50 lacs to one crore rupees as bribe for getting appointment as HCS officer, after that how they are serving the people it can be understood by the following facts. Shri Satish Kumar Jain, HCS, SDM, Hansi has been misusing the powers of Collector. He has given two decisions in same case within a period of two months under the Stamp Act…”. The complainant alleged that the news item was false and inaccurate with malicious intention to tarnish his image and reputation. The complainant had never passed such order as alleged in the said case on 19.9.2005. However, the order was forged by the then Reader, Shri Shyam Lal, who was working in the office of SDO (C) Hansi, and was later charged under Sections 409/420/467/468 IPC for fraud and forgery. The second news item reported that CM’s Flying Squad has sealed the record of SDM’s office Hansi, Improvement Trust Hansi and Tehsil record and have taken photocopies of all the record in a scam during the fifteen months tenure of SDM Hansi, Shri Satish Kumar Jain. It was further stated in the
212 impugned news item that the complaint has been lodged in local court against Sub- Divisional Magistrate for taking action against him and a demand has been raised for lodging case against him under different provisions of law. The impugned reports charged the complainant with irregularities in auction of commercial properties to his own family members. Denying the allegations in the impugned reports, the complainant has submitted that no such alleged raid was conducted on the said date by CM flying squad in his office at Hansi or in the Improvement Trust Office, Hansi. Regarding auction of plots he averred that the auction took place as per law following all rules and regulations. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news items were totally false, incorrect and baseless and had been published to harm his reputation. The respondent failed to publish his version or even respond to his objections and clarification. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.12.2006. The respondent editor failed to file any written statement in the matter. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 11.3.2008. Shri Satish Kumar Jain, City Magistrate, Fatehabad, Haryana, the complainant, appeared in person. There was no appearance from respondent’s side. The complainant submitted that he is presently posted at Fatehabad. He submitted that the respondent Nabh Chhor had published totally false and baseless news items to tarnish his image. The allegation of giving bribe for getting the HCS post was totally baseless. The complainant denied the allegation in the first news report of not giving prominence to the auction for sale of properties and averred that an advertisement to this effect was released even to the respondent paper. As regard passing of two different orders in respect of a matter: State versus M/ s Ved Trading Co., Hansi, the complainant submitted that the second order was forged by the Reader of the office of the SDM, Hansi. The said employee was suspended for forgery in the sale deed No.3829 dated 4.3.2004 for filing a bogus challan of Rs. 49,370/-. An inquiry was conducted by the Additional Commissioner, Hissar and (Shri Shyam Lal) the said Reader was found guilty. The complainant filed a copy of the inquiry proceedings No.164 dated 24.8.2006 of the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar and an undated inquiry report No.2623 of the Additional Commissioner, Hissar. Noting the absence of any defence before it, the Inquiry Committee following the principles of natural justice decided to adjourn the matter to afford another opportunity to the respondent.
213 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Satish Kumar Jain, HCS, City Magistrate, Fatehabad, Haryana appeared in person. The respondent again failed to enter appearance.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant reiterated the submissions made by him at last hearingand submitted that newspaper had defamed him and also made mockery of the system. The complainant submitted that the respondent neither filed reply nor defended the matter. He added that regarding auction of the plots due procedure was followed. Auction notice was published in the local newspaper, telecast in electronic media and public announcement was also made.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the record noted that the Editor, Nabh Chhor despite repeated opportunities given to him, neither filed written statement nor was he represented before the Committee to defend his case leading to the inference that the respondent had no defence to offer. On merits, the Inquiry Committee observed that documents filed by the complainant substantiated the charge that the Editor Nabh Chhor had made allegations against the complainant of corruption and allotment of plots to his relatives or even action by C.M’s squad without any basis. Being inaccurate, the publications were reckless and point to likelihood of misuse of the powers of the press for blackmailing the authorities. The respondent further compounded the offence by not only failing to take the version of the complainant at pre-publication stage but even abstaining for giving any space to it in the newspaper post publication. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the Editor, Nabh Chhor for gross violation of journalistic ethics and norms regarding pre-publication verification and defamatory writings. It further recommended that the Council’s adjudication be sent to the DAVP with reference to clause 18 of the pre-revised Central Advertisement Policy and to the RNI and Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Haryana for such action as they deem fit in the matter.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
214 63) Shri Tejinder Singh Versus The Editor Editor 1) Punjab Kesari India’s Justice 2) Jag Bani Ludhiana Complaint This complaint dated 30.12.2006 has been filed by Shri Tejinder Singh, Editor, India’s Justice, Ludhiana against (i) Punjab Kesari and (ii) Jag Bani for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items captioned ‘‘Three including editor nabbed for blackmailing” in their issues dated 1.12.2006. It was alleged in the impugned news items that the police registered a case against the editors of Arjun Patrika and India’s Justice S/Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Jasbir Singh and Tejinder Singh on the complaint of Shri Vinod Kumar, Development Officer of United India Insurance Company for blackmailing under the threat of defaming him by publishing news item. The Development Officer was reported to have said that the complainant, Shri Tejinder Singh and others pressurized him for getting them false claim by insuring their car, which he strictly refused and thereafter he was being blackmailed under the threat of being defamed through the newspapers. It was further alleged that on the officers refusal to meet demand of money, the complainant herein started publishing false news items against him and sent false complaints and copies of such newspapers to the higher officers of the company and threatened to get him suspended. According to the complainant, due to publication of the critical news item captioned ‘Salary of an insurance official is Rs.20, 000/- and his monthly expenses are Rs. One lac. What is wrong, the black misdeeds of white collar officials’ in his newspaper, India’s Justice in its issue of October 2006, and seeking information in the matter from the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana, the insurance officials used their influence to call the complainant to the police station. The complainant, along with his father Shri Gurbaksh Singh, went to the police station, on 12.12.2006 and again on the next day 13.12.2006 at 6.00 p.m. where the police recorded their statement. The complainant has alleged that officials of the insurance company along with 10-12 companions, started threatening the complainant’s father in the police station, pressuring him to tender apology in writing that in future, he will not publish any news item about the fraud committed by the officials of the insurance company. On refusal, the officials of the insurance company began assaulting his father, removed his turban from his head and insulted in filthy language, alleged the complainant. He added that his father, as a result, filed a writ petition in Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Criminal Misc. 75645-M of 2006 for direction to the concerned police to register a criminal case in the matter. He has submitted that the insurance officials succeeded in getting false case registered under Sections
215 384, 500, 506 IPC vide FIR No. 210 dated 29.11.2006 as a counter to the writ petition filed by his father. The Court granted him anticipatory bail. The complainant submitted that attention of the respondent editors was drawn vide his letter dated 11.12.2006 with the request to publish the rebuttal of the impugned news items but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statements Show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 11.9.07. Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra, editor of both Punjab Kesari and Jag Bani, Jalandhar, Punjab in his written statements dated 12.10.2007 has submitted that the news items were based on an FIR No.210 dated 29.11.2006 made by one Shri Vinod Kumar Sarin with the Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana under Sections 384, 500, 506 IPC and was reported by the News Reporter Shri Kulwant Singh from Ludhiana on 30.11.2006 and was published in the ‘Punjab Kesari’ and ‘Jag Bani’ issue dated 1.12.2006 in the ordinary course of the publication of the newspapers, bonafide, without any motive or malice against the complainant. The respondent has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and submitted that the complainant reached a compromise with Shri Vinod Kumar Sarin in order to save himself from prosecution, as he was not confident that he could disapprove the allegations made against him. He has submitted that the news items in question did not violate any journalistic norms or ethics and as such, the complaint is not maintainable. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.10.2007 for information and counter comments, if any. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.11.2007 has denied that the impugned news items were completely based upon the FIR, registered at Ludhiana and added that the respondent intentionally reported against an independent newspaper a wrong and incomplete news with the intention to defame and curtail the rights of independent newspaper. He has added that even though a compromise was effected, it did not debar him from complaining against the paper which did not follow the rules of journalism and published false and defamatory news items without verifying the truth and taking the version of the complainant party. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 7.1.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2008
216 at New Delhi. S/Shri Tejinder Singh, complainant along with Jasbir Singh appeared in person. Shri Madan Mohan Thapar, appeared for the respondents Punjab Kesari and Jag Bani, Jalandhar.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant submitted that the respondents had published inaccurate news items and the contents of the news were different from the FIR filed against the complainant and his father. There was no mention of third name in the FIR. In the bail order, the Hon’ble Court had also observed that there wasno reference of third person namely, Shri Jasbir Singh in the FIR. The complainant submitted that his version was also not carried by the Punjab Kesari.
The representative of the Punjab Kesari and Jag Bani filed a copy of the complaint on the basis of which FIR was written in which the third name of Shri Jasbir Singh was also mentioned. The representative submitted that the newspaper had sufficient basis for publication. The respondent denied having received any contradiction from the complainant and submitted that the newspaper was ready to publish it if the contradiction is received.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties took note of the submissions and the records produced before it and felt that the FIR taken together with complaint application had been correctly reported. Moreover, the contradiction reported to have been sent was a document signed by a third person and only sought time to discuss the matter. It did not carry denial on merits. Therefore the complaint was not liable to be upheld. However, the respondents Punjab Kesari and Jag Bani had offered to publish the version of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee therefore directed the complainant to send factual version to the respondents as well as the Press Council of India and respondent newspapers Punjab Kesari and Jag Bani should publish with due prominence within three weeks from its receipt. The respondents should send a copy of the issue of the newspapers carrying the clarification of the complainant to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with above directions to the parties.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
217 64) Shri Khyali Ram Morya Versus The Editor President Punjab Kesari Municipal Committee Hindi Daily Ellanabad, Sirsa Jalandhar Haryana Punjab
Complaint
This complaint dated 22.12.2006 has been filed by Shri Khyali Ram Morya, President, Municipal Committee, Sirsa (Haryana) against “Punjab Kesari” for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items captioned “Parshadon Mein Vishvash Kho Chuke Hain Palikadhyaksh: Bajigar” and ‘‘Akhir KahanKharch Hota Hai Vikas Karyon Ka Paisa” in its issues dated 27.11.2006 and 22.12.2006 respectively with a motive to blackmail him and to tarnish his image in the society.
According to the complainant, the news item dated 27.11.2006 reported dissatisfaction of Municipal Councillors in the working of the President who allegedly constructed fourteen shops at Ellenabad giving the tender to his brother. It was further alleged in the news item that the government of Haryana had issued funds of lakhs of rupees to Municipal Committee for development of the area of Ellenabad but no work has been done. It has also been alleged that the complainant was inexperienced and misused the funds.
The complainant has alleged that Dr. M.P. Bhargava, Reporter, Punjab Kesari demanded his share of monthly income from the funds of Municipal Committee for not reporting against him. However, when he refused to pay, the reporter had published the news items to damage his reputation in the society.
The complainant has submitted that the news reports were based on a press note of criticism issued by a Municipal Councillor and the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa finding a prima facie case in the same and decided to hold an inquiry by appointing the SDM who gave clean chit to the complainant. The complainant has submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent editor to the matter vide letter dated 9.3.2007 but received no reply.
Written Statement
In his written statement dated 18.6.2007 the Editor, Punjab Kesari has submitted that complaint was not based on correct facts and as such, the allegations levelled by the complainant were absolutely wrong and denied. The news items in question were published in the ordinary course of publication of newspaper, reporting on the working and functioning of public body and a public institution like the Municipal Council. The public of the area has the right to know and remain informed about the functioning of such public body.
218 The respondent has submitted that the news item dated 27.11.2006 was a report about the dissatisfaction of Municipal Councillors with the working of the complainant. The reporter has merely reported the views of different sections of Municipal Councillors and the complainant has no right to say that the other Councillors have to restrain their views. The second news item dated 22.12.2006 was also a report about the disharmony among the Municipal Councillors and some of them were dissatisfied with the functioning of the ruling party and have expressed their own views regarding the development works of the Municipal Committee. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.7.2007 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 6.8.2007, the complainant has submitted that the allegations levelled in the news items were based on some notes and the respondent could not produce any evidence. He has asserted that the reporter of the newspaper, Shri M. P. Bhargava had prepared a fake press note in the name of Shri Khattu Ram, Councillor and got his signature by misguiding him and published the news. The complainant has filed an affidavit of Shri Khattu Ram, Councillor who is illiterate and learnt to put signatures after being elected. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 16.5.2008. Shri Premdas Choudhary, Member, Municipal Committee, Ellenabad, Sirsa, Haryana, represented the complainant. Shri Madan Mohan Thapar, appeared for the Punjab Kesari, the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant submitted that the impugned news items were dispatched by the reporter, Dr. M.P. Bhargava, of Punjab Kesari after preparing a fake press release in the name of Shri Khattu Ram, Municipal Councillor and having forged signatures of Shri Khattu Ram. He further submitted that Shri Khattu Ram had denied issuance of press release and had given an affidavit to this effect. The complainant’s representative submitted that the allegation of giving tender to his brother was false and defamatory. The representative of Punjab Kesari submitted that the news was based on the documents i.e. press release issued by Shri Khattu Ram. Shri Khattu Ram after eight months had denied under pressure having issued any press release. Moreover, the press release of Shri Khattu Ram was not the sole basis for the publication, other Councillors had also given memorandums to this effect as the matter was in public interest. The respondent also submitted that the version of
219 the complainant had been published in 19th May 2007 issue under the caption: “Palika Kay Vikas Karyon Mein Naheen Hua Koi Ghapla: Maurya”, giving reference to both the previous news items. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and noted that the newspaper Punjab Kesari at the time of publication of news in question had sufficient basis for the publication. Further, the respondents had in keeping with norm of journalistic ethics published the version of the complainant prominently. The action taken by the Editor, Punjab Kesari was in due compliance of journalistic ethics and therefore the Inquiry Committee held that no furtheraction in the matter was warranted. The Inquiry Committee, thus, decided to recommend to the Council to dispose of the complaint in view of the public interest in the matter and the space given to the complainant’s version by the Punjab Kesari. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
65) Shri Meher Prasad Yadav Versus The Editor Co-Editor Dainik Jagran Dainik Bhaskar and Jhansi Editor, Janhit Darshan Jhansi Complaint This complaint dated 30.10.2006 and 18.12.06 has been filed by Shri Meher Prasad Yadav, Co-Editor, Dainik Bhaskar and Editor, Janhit Darshan, Jhansi against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 29.10.2006 under the caption “Baruasagar Mein Pratyashi Ke Bhai Ne Kiya Hungama-Patrakaar Ko Bandhak Banane Ki Koshish”. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant, Shri Meher Prasad Yadav (Guddu), brother of one of the presidential candidates in the election for the City Municipal Council, Baruasagar, on hearing of bogus voting, came to the polling station and threatened the journalists present there and tried to stop them from covering the election proceedings despite the press passes issued by the authority. Denying the allegation, the complainant submitted that the impugned news item was false, baseless and published without any basis and evidence. The complainant further alleged that the news item was published with an intention to
220 defame him and his brother who was contesting for Chairmanship of the Municipal Council, Baruasagar. The complainant has submitted that both he and his brother are well known in the society. The complainant further submitted that he sent a letter dated 23.11.2007 to respondent Dainik Jagran with the request to publish the contradiction but it was received back undelivered. Again a letter was issued to the respondent by U.P.C. but no reply was received.
A show cause notice was sent to respondent editor, Dainik Jagran on 19.2.07. Written Statement
The respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi in his written statement dated 27.2.2007 has submitted that the complaint was false and far from truth. The respondent submitted that neither the complainant nor his brother were Public Servants, Parliamentarian or M.L.A.s. Both being anti-social elements, made their own gang and were involved in criminal incidents. The respondent further submitted that the incident that occurred on 28.10.2006 at time of election, which was witnessed by journalists of the newspapers who published the facts. The respondent submitted that a team of journalists of Jhansi visited the city corporation area of Baruasagar led by the Assistant Information Officer, Shri Dhani Ram, where the complainant and his brother were indulging in bogus voting. On this information the team of journalists reached Pt. Ramsahay Sharma Inter College where the complainant issued threats to stop the coverage of the incident. The complainant with his associate forcefully caught the representative of Dainik Jagran, Shri Raghuvir Sharma and detained him in a room. On hearing his shouts, other journalists released Shri Raghuvir Sharma. The information of the incident was given to the District Magistrate who passed the orders to hold inquiry in the matter. On the very next day the impugned news item was published in Dainik Jagran. Annoyed with the impugned news item, the complainant filed this false complaint. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 16.3.07 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments
The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.6.2007 submitted that several allegations made and contentions raised in the reply by the respondent were neither true nor correct. According to the complainant, the averments made in the complaint were true and borne out by record and the complaint was filed as the impugned publication not only damaged his reputation and credibility but of his brother and was against the ethics of journalism. The complainant further submitted that the impugned news item was malicious and defamatory calling his
221 brother mafia/criminal. His brother has been re-elected Chairman of the City Municipal Corporation, Baruasagar, Jhansi.
A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor on 20.7.2007.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.5.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Meher Prasad Yadav, Co-editor, Dainik Bhaskar, appeared in person. There was no appearance from therespondent, Dainik Jagran. Shri Yashowardhan Gupt, Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi in a fax dated 16.5.2008 requested for adjournment.
The complainant submitted that he is an accredited journalist since December 2005. The complainant submitted that while proceeding for Mauranipur for coverage, he got message about bogus voting at Baruasagar Polling Station. The complainant reached there for coverage, but the respondent, Dainik Jagran made imputation against him. The complainant denied allegations made in the news item published by Dainik Jagran and averred that it was improper to defame a journalist in this manner. According to the complainant the Bundelkhand area is dominated by the mafia and there was nexus between police and mafia. Whosoever tried to write against the syndicate, he had to face consequences. The complainant submitted that the Dainik Jagran had neither taken his version nor published his contradiction.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the complainant. The Inquiry Committee at the outset noted that the complainant may be a journalist but the impugned publication was of no relevance to that role but were personal in nature pertaining to his role in the election being fought by his brother. The newspaper had reported the incident of uproar at the polling booth where the complainant, being a journalist, ought to have not present being an interested party to one of the contestant to the Municipal Elections. The Inquiry Committee finds that respondent Dainik Jagran as a witness had sufficient bases for publication of the impugned news item. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to reject the complaint.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
222 66) Ms. Anita Rahman Versus Aji, Assamese daily M/s. Anita Rahman S.K.Oil Guwahati Bhella, Barpeta, (Assam) (Assam) Complaint This complaint dated 29.12.2006 has been filed by Ms. Anita Rahman of M/s. Anita Rahman S.K. Oil (Sub Wholesaler Depot), Bhella, Barpeta against ‘Aji’ an Assamese daily, Guwahati for publication of an allegedly unethical reporting captioned ‘Enormous Corruption in Kerosene Depot of Bhella. Hawkers are dissatisfied by the mafia raj of Anita’ in its issue dated 18.12.2006. It was alleged in the impugned news report that the complainant had been running a mafia band in Bhella and was minting money by increasing the quota of Kerosene against the name of the hawkers and retailers. It was further alleged that transfer of the ownership of the depot by the complainant from the name of her deceased husband to her name was illegal as per the prevailing rules. The report questioned the genuineness of her depot and alleged that the complainant, by increasing quota of the hawkers of Kerosene and selling them in black market had been making huge profit. The complainant alleged that the impugned news report was nothing but vilification against her by some disgruntled elements who wanted to grab the depot from her. She sent a clarification dated 18.12.2006 to the respondent explaining her position that she was distributing the Kerosene to the hawkers, retailers and agents under PDS Scheme every month and that the depot was legally transferred in her name. But the respondent did not bother to publish the clarification. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 13.2.2007. The respondent editor, Aji, Assamese Daily, Guwahati in his written statement dated 28.2.2007 at the outset submitted that they came to know about the grievances of the complainant only on receipt of the show cause notice from the Press Council. The respondent stated that the news item in question was based on the allegations levelled by the local people and the same was published without any intention to defame her. The respondent further stated that the complainant had never visited their office in connection with the published material and they were ready to publish her clarification/contradiction. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.3.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008
223 at Guwahati. Smt. Anita Rahman, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Debashish Sarma, Advocate appeared for Aji, Assam.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant submitted that the respondent Aji had published the false and unverified report to defame her. The complainant submitted that the licence of the oil depot was transferred to her after the demise of her husband and there was nothing illegal in it. The Deputy Commissioner office was allotting the quantity of kerosene as per requirement and there was also no irregularity in its distribution. The complainant submitted that the newspaper Aji did not publish her version despite personal visit to the newspaper office.
The respondent’s advocate submitted that the newspaper had given in its report the data and the quantity of the Kerosene which was not being given to the right person.
On being asked by the Inquiry Committee regarding attempts at pre- publication verification and non publication of the rejoinder and making unwarranted remarks like mafia for the complainant, the respondent’s counsel submitted that he would ensure that the rejoinder with apology is carried in the Aji. The respondent counsel submitted that it could not be done earlier due to change in the management of Aji.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the parties. It noted that the Respondent, Aji had made reckless allegations against the lady complainant alleging favour to the complainant by the Deputy Commissioner office in allocation of kerosene license after the death of her husband even though the action was as per rules. No attempt had been made to obtain her version after the locals repeatedly complained. The Inquiry Committee finds the remarks made by the newspaper in the context and circumstances that she was working as a mafia, was objectionable. The paper then denied her right of reply. The Inquiry Committee thus deprecated the conduct of the respondent newspaper Aji and directed it to publish the rejoinder of the complainant coupled with an apology. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these directions.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
224 67) Shri Ranjit Gogoi Versus The Editor Liaison Officer Asomiya Pratidin C.M.’s PR Cell, Govt. of Assam Guwahati Dispur, Guwahati Complaint This complaint dated 19.4.2006 has been filed by Shri Ranjit Gogoi, Liaison Officer, Chief Minister’s Public Relations Cell, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati against “Asomiya Pratidin”, an Assamese daily, Guwahati alleging publication of objectionable news item in its issue dated 13.4.2006 captioned and sub-captioned as below: “The person connected with the tainted chapter of smearing Golden Temple with blood: Under his leadership violence in Asom too for five years.” “Arrest Gogoi, the key person of Operation Bluestar.” “Gogoi tried to kill me – Brendaban.” “This startling news of Gandhi family was kept under wraps for 20 years.” According to the complainant, it was alleged in the impugned news item that Chief Minister of Assam; Tarun Gogoi’s revelation that he was a party to the “Operation Bluestar” as an M.P. and AICC member, had created a widespread reaction, and the opposition, Asom Gana Parishad demanded immediate arrest of the Chief Minister under the National Security Act and alleged that the Congress Party was anti-people. The Asom Gana Parishad President also charged the party with attempts to kill him. The complainant had issued a contradiction on the same day i.e. 13.4.2006, to the respondent, refuting the allegations with a request to publish it on front-page of the paper. The respondent on 14.4.2006 published the contradiction but the complainant was not satisfied with the same as contents of the contradiction had been mixed-up with the respondent’s own comments and the heading titled: “Operation Bluestar- Chief Minister tries to evade responsibility shrewdly” itself tried to negate the clarification of the complainant-Chief Minister’s office and as it lacked prominence. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin on 7.6.2007. No written statement was filed by the respondent editor. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008
225 at Guwahati. Ms. Krishna Sarma, Advocate appeared for the complainant, while Shri G. Mishra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent, Asomiya Pratidin. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s counsel submitted that while the contents did not justify the heading through the report the Asomiya Pratidin had made serious allegations against the Chief Minister giving reference to the Operation Bluestar and tried to create distrust among the people. The charges levelled by the AGP were false and politically motivated but the paper had made no effort to verify them. The Chief Minister strongly refuting the news item had informed the editor that the facts given in the news item were totally false, baseless and the newspaper was trying to malign the image of the Chief Minister in public. In the press meet held at Hotel Ambarish on April 11, the Chief Minister, Mr. Tarun Gogoi clarified that he was only incharge of the control room opened at AICC headquarters aftermath of “Operation Bluestar” to keep vigil on political situation arising at that time. He discharged such duties in the capacity of Joint Secretary of AICC. Shri Gogoi further informed his position through clarification, that the army operation- “Operation Bluestar” had no link with AICC control room but the clarification issued by the Chief Minister’s Office was not published in right perspective as it was mingled up with the comments of the respondent newspaper stating therein that other newspapers had filed stories that were responded to by the main opposition party AGP demanding resignation of the Chief Minister and that demand was only carried by Asomiya Pratidin. The counsel called for stringent action under the Press Council Act for maligning the Chief Minister of the State on the basis of false statements of the opposition parties. The respondent submitted that while the rejoinder of the complainant government had been carried, the newspaper was ready to publish a fresh rejoinder. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the submissions made by the learned counsels. The Committee noted that Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati had published a news report in its issue dated 13.4.2006 quoting the demand of opposition to arrest the Chief Minister of Assam and alleging that Shri Gogoi was key person in the Operation Bluestar and therefore he should be arrested under National Security Act. The Committee noted that the respondent had taken the charges of the opposition of face value without taking the version of the concerned person. This was all the more essential as the target was occupying the high position of the Chief Minister of the State and false charges of such serious ramification was likely to affect the credibility of the person to hold such office. Furthermore the rejoinder had been given a headline and intermixed with own comments that did not afford the complainant a fair opportunity to place his position before the public. The Committee noted that while the public servants
226 and persons occupying public position are expected to take criticism of their actions and conduct in their stride, such complacency cannot be at the cost of accuracy. Therefore, the Committee was satisfied that the complaint deserved to be upheld with action under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978. However, having taken note of the offer of the respondent to publish the rejoinder again the Committee directed the complainant to send the rejoinder afresh to the respondent which the respondent should publish within a fortnight of its receipt with an apology and inform the concerned parties. If this is complied with, the Council may pass an order only upholding the complaint without awarding censure, warning or admonition. Council’s Decision The Council on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and the records of the case noted that the respondent Asomiya Pratidin had published the clarification of the complainant in compliance with the direction on 22.6.2008 and accepting the recommendations of the Committee upheld the complaint but allowed the matter to rest at this.
68) Shri Amanullah Versus The Editor Sales Tax Officer Hamara Kaam Central Section Kolkata, (W.B.) Kolkata (W.B.) Complaint This complaint dated 7.7.2006 and 10.10.2006 has been filed by Shri Amanullah, Sales Tax Officer, Central Section, Kolkata against ‘Hamaara Kaam, a bilingual-Hindi/English Weekly from Kolkata for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “Deplorable Condition of Sales Tax Department in the State of Asim Dasgupta, the Chairperson of Central VAT Committee” in its issue dated 1.7.2006. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant Shri Amanullah, Sales Tax Officer took huge bribe quite openly by means of coercion; being a leader of an officer’s union, kept everyone from Assistant Commissioner to Commissioner and even Finance Minister under his control; worked unlawfully for higher authorities and higher authorities endorsed his malpractices for fear of Hartal, Gherao etc. forcing to close down business of a dealer in non-taxable goods and dealers who were unable to satisfy him with bribe; damages to the government revenue. The complainant has alleged that the charges levelled by the respondent were baseless and no vestige of truth lies therein. According to the complainant, the respondent editor of Hamara Kaam, Shri Anil Kumar Poddar has been the Owner and Director of M/s. K.A. Graphics
227 Limited, which was a registered dealer under the Sales Tax laws and was assessed by the complainant, who once rejected the dealer’s (respondent) application for ‘C’ Forms for a huge amount quite on valid grounds and a huge demand of tax was made upon assessment for 4 Q.E. 31st March, 2004. According to the complainant this might have enraged the respondent and he was so vindictive towards him that he sent the issue of the newspaper dated 1.7.2006 through courier post direct to him. The complainant further stated that while the dealer/ respondent was free to file appeal petition against his order he instead maligned him with baseless allegations in his newspaper with the impugned report, that also had a sub-caption ‘Has Amanullah, leader of an Officers’ Union slackened the senses of Shri C.M. Bachhawat, Commissioner of West Bengal Sales Tax’. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item, on 7.7.2006 and asked him to withdraw the allegations and tender apology but to no avail. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.12.2006. The respondent filed no written statement in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. Shri Amanullah, Sales Tax Officer, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the respondent’s side. However, the respondent requested for adjournment over the telephone on the date of hearing on the ground that he had to attend a hearing in a criminal complaint. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent editor in the impugned report had made baseless allegations against him. The impugned report not only attacked his character and integrity but also made several concocted allegations against senior functionaries of the department. The complainant submitted that there was not an iota of truth in the news item and the only reason for the publication was that he did not oblige the respondent in his work as a dealer under Sales Tax laws. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the record. At the very outset, the Inquiry Committee noted the failure of the respondent editor, Hamara Kaam in filing the written statement and not appearing for oral hearing rather seeking adjournment at the time when the complainant had no opportunity to consider
228 postponement of the travel. The Inquiry Committee declined the request of the respondent editor for adjournment in view of the conduct of the respondent in not filing the written statement despite service of notice and evading hearing, leading to the inference that the editor had no defence to offer. The Inquiry Committee thus proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of material available. It noted that the impugned article carried serious allegations against a public servant. These needed to be substantiated before the Committee to present a valid defence. The paper failed to avail of this opportunity. Thus, the charge of the complainant that the report was prompted by denial of benefit in his business capacity gained credence vis-à-vis the charge of motivated reporting. The Press Council of India is a strong votary of the right of press to critically evaluate the functioning of the public servants but it is axiomatic that such critical evaluation has to be based on true and accurate information and be devoid of any prejudice or malafide. The impugned publication did not pass this litmus test. The Inquiry Committee was thus satisfied that the complaint deserved to be upheld with award of censure to the respondent newspaper, Hamara Kaam and its editor for violation of ethics and professional misconduct. It recommended to the Council accordingly. It further recommended that a copy of the adjudication be also sent to the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, the Registrar of Newspapers for India, the Director of Information and Public relations, Government of West Bengal for necessary action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
69) Dr. Hemendra Kumar Borah Versus The Editor Hony. Secretary Dainik Agradoot Indian Medical Association Guwahati (Assam) Tezpur Branch Tezpur (Assam) The Editor Asomiya Khabar Guwahati (Assam) The Editor Asomiya Pratidin Guwahati (Assam) Complaint Dr. H.K. Bohra, Hony. Secretary, Indian Medical Association, Tezpur Branch, Tezpur, Assam has filed these complaint dated 5.5.2007 on behalf of his Association’s senior member, Dr. Sailendra Kumar Deuri against three newspapers
229 namely “Dainik Agradoot”, “Asomiya Khabar” and “Asomiya Pratidin” for publication of an allegedly false, unauthentic and baseless news items in their issues dated March 30, 2007 under the caption “Operation by Vigilance and Income Tax Department in Tezpur”, “Four held under Vigilance Department” and “Four held under Vigilance and Income Tax Department Operation in Tezpur” – (English translation) respectively. It has been stated in the impugned publication that Chief Minister, Vigilance Cell and Income Tax Department jointly conducted an unexpected raid at the residence of four persons in Tezpur and extracted many illegal documents regarding large amount of illegal property. The party raided the residence of four persons (including the complainant association’s senior member) and the charged persons, within a short span of time, collected a huge amount of money and had not paid their due taxes thus catching the eyes of Income Tax Department. The impugned publication charged Dr. Sailendra Kumar Deuri, Director, LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health, Tezpur with accumulating a huge amount of money by embezzling the fund provided by the NEC and Central Government for development of the institution and care of the patients. Shri Deuri has also been charged with having illegal documents in connection of payment of tax. The complainant has alleged that the impugned publications were derogatory and demeaning with the sole objective of defaming the image of their senior member. According to him all the allegations were untrue and baseless which had tainted the public image of the doctor and harmed his professional career. He has further stated that the impugned news items tainted the image of Dr. Deuri harming him socially and professionally by calling him a corrupt person. The complainant has further alleged that the respondents have invented a concocted story of a joint raid to give credibility to their story and the invented news items published with selfish ends has caused Dr. Deuri immense grief. The accusation of corruption, embezzlement of fund and non-payment of income tax due was unsubstantiated and not based on facts. According to the complainant, attention of the respondents were invited towards the impugned publication on April 2 and 3, 2007 with the request to publish the clarification but the respondents neither published the clarification nor contacted them. He has requested the Council to take action against the respondents. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors, Dainik Agradoot, Asomiya Khabar and Asomiya Pratidin on 2.8.2007. Written Statement of Asomiya Khabar The editor, Asomiya Khabar in his written statement dated 18.8.2007 has submitted having published the clarification of the complainant in toto in the
230 newspaper dated 3.4.2007. The respondent has submitted that they had no intention to tarnish the image of the complainant but wanted to act as a watchdog of the society by exposing corruption and malfunctioning in governance. The respondent admitted their mistake for not verifying the report before its publication. Written Statement of Dainik Agradoot The editor, Dainik Agradoot in his written statement dated 19.9.2007 has submitted that they published the clarification of the complainant in his newspaper on 31.8.2007. The respondent has further submitted that they had no intention to malign the image of Dr. Sailendra Kumar Deuri by publishing the said news item. No Written Statement of Asomiya Pratidin The respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin did not file written statement despite issuance of reminder dated 19.11.2007. The postal authority has confirmed that the letter has been delivered to the respondent on 31.11.2007. Copies of the written statements of the respondents Asomiya Khabar and Dainik Agradoot were forwarded to the complainant on 24.8.2007 and 8.10.2007. Counter Comments The complainant in his letter dated 13.10.2007 placed on record the resolution of the Executive Committee of IMA, Tezpur and conveyed thanks for steps taken with regard to false news published in the name of Dr. S.K. Deuri of the IMA. The complainant requested to take similar action against the editor, Asomiya Pratidin. Appearance Before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. Dr. Sailendra Kumar Deuri representative represented the complainant. S/Shri G. Misra, Advocate, K.K.Borah and Kanak Sen Deka, Editor, represented the respondent Asomiya Pratidin, Asomiya Khaber and Dainik Agaradoot. Submissions Before the Inquiry Committee Shri Sailendra Kumar Deuri stated that the editor Asomiya Khabar and Dainik Agradoot had published the clarification but the third respondent Asomiya Pratidin had not carried the clarification. The complainant submitted that the respondent should have contacted them before publishing false, unauthentic and baseless news item. The counsel for the respondent Asomiya Khabar assured the Inquiry Committee that in future they will take care. Editor, Dainik Agradoot has informed the Inquiry Committee that he has issued instructions that they will verify all the news items before publishing. The counsel appearing for Asomiya Pratidin submitted
231 that he had not received any clarification from the complainant. The counsel for the respondent, however, assured the Inquiry Committee that they will be more careful in future and will ask his client Asomiya Pratidin to publish the clarification of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral submissions made before it. The Inquiry Committee noted that Asomiya Khabar and Dainik Agradoot had published the clarification of the complainant in their respective issues dated 3.4.2007 and 31.8.2007. Inquiry Committee also noted that the respondents admitted their mistake for not verifying the facts before publishing the news items. It observed that it was true that at times not everything can be verified but a newspaper should have bonafide reasons to believe its report’s authenticity to proceed with a publication. Thereafter right of reply was an important constituent contributing to the high standards of the press. Thus no further action was necessary in regard to the first two respondents. Regarding Asomiya Pratidin, the Inquiry Committee while expressing displeasure over the failure of the Asomiya Pratidin to honour these basic commitments, took on record the assurance given by the respondent, Asomiya Pratidin that the clarification of the complainant will be published. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to re-send his clarification to the respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin and the respondent to publish it within a fortnight. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaints with these directions. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. Foot Note: - The respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin published clarification in its issue dated 22.6.2008.
70) Ms. Nivedita Menon and Other Versus The Editor Members The Pioneer Department of Political Science New Delhi University of Delhi Delhi Complaint Ms. Nivedita Menon on behalf of self and other eight members viz. S/Shri P.K. Dutta, Satyajit Singh, Ashok Acharya, Ujjwal Singh, N. Sukumar, Ms. Neera Chandhoke, Ms. Madhulika Banerjee and Ms. Saroj Giri, Department of Political
232 Science, University of Delhi, Delhi filed this complaint dated 24.9.2007 against “The Pioneer” for publication of an allegedly malafide, defamatory, misleading and irresponsible news item captioned “Signatures on plea against don forged – Case of alleged sexual harassment by DU professor” in its issue dated 25.8.2007. The impugned news item read as follows- “The petition filed against the Head of the Department of Political Science for sexually harassing a colleague contains fake signatures. It had been found that the signatures of at least two petitioners are not in their handwriting. While P.K. Dutta, a reader in the department, is in Kolkata for the last two years on study leave, Madhulika Banerjee, a lecturer in the department was also not present when the petition was signed. A total of nine teachers from the department had submitted a petition to the DU Vice- Chancellor demanding the removal of the accused, Bidyut Chakravarty, from the post of Head. When asked, Ujjwal K. Singh, one of the signatories in the petition, accepted that Dutta was not in the city when the petition was signed. Madhulika Banerjee too accepted the fact that her signatures were forged. According to well placed sources, Lecturer, Ashok Acharya, who is also one of the signatories in the petition, is on study leave since the last month and gone to Australia and the other petitioners who are mostly from the left cadre were using his name to force their views. Apprehensions are rife that all this is being orchestrated and promoted by these teachers, who are mostly the Left intellectuals, to get Professor Achin Vinayak promoted to the Headship of the department. Nivedita Menon, Ujjwal Singh and P.K. Dutta, who are among the nine signatories in the petition, are due for promotions. The coming of Vinayak, who is also a Left intellectual would make their promotions easier, one of the lecturers said. Sources revealed that the real cause behind the sudden allegations of sexual harassment by the Officer on Special Duty, Anamika Sharma, was to avenge Chakravarty’s decision to issue a show-cause notice against her. Chakravarty had issued a show cause notice against three officials including Sharma on March 30 for negligence. They had left the office open with all the important documents including those kept for making purchases out of the university grant left on the table. While the two other officials Chander Dutt and Sanjeev Chauhan accepted their responsibility, Sharma never replied. She rather alleged of sexual harassment against the Professor, a source said.” According to the complainants the story refers to a letter written by them to the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University in April 2007 which was given wide
233 publicity in The Times of India and The Hindu at that time. The story in The Pioneer was published four months later with no reference to the developments since then. The complainants further submitted that one of the relevant developments was that the report of the Inquiry Committee into the complaint of sexual harassment was completed, had been submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, and a copy had also been provided to both the complainant and the accused, according to the provisions of the statute of Delhi University. According to the complainants, both parties had the right, according to Ordinance XVD of Delhi University, to make the report public to whomever they wish. The complainants alleged that the story misrepresented some facts and omitted others in order to malign them and protect a Professor who was found guilty of sexual harassment by a duly constituted Inquiry Committee. They further alleged that the story by Durgesh Nandan Jha was intended to cause doubt on their integrity, after they took a principled stand on the complaint of sexual harassment against the Head of the Department of Political Science. According to the complainant they had been accused of the grave charges of ‘forgery’ in their letter to the Vice-Chancellor, and the letter had further been misrepresented as the “petition filed against the Professor for sexual harassment” despite the reporter having spoken to some of them who had signed the letter at that time, and having received the necessary clarifications from those he contacted. They stated that the reporter did not speak to the complainant in the case, but quotes a “source: as saying that the complaint was motivated and false”. The complainant wrote a rejoinder dated 26.8.2007 to the newspaper in the form of a letter to the editor, which was sent by e-mail account of one of the persons whose signatures on the letter to the Vice-Chancellor was allegedly “forged’. The complainants submitted that on September 6, 2007, the reporter Durgesh Nandan Jha called over telephone and said that he wanted to meet them. The complainants replied that they would not meet him as he misrepresented his conversations with them in his story. The complainants requested the correspondent to publish the rejoinder by 10.9.2007 but the correspondent stated that the matter was not in his hands and that his editor would take the final decision. The complainants further submitted that the respondent had not published the rejoinder. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Pioneer, New Delhi on 12.11.2007. Written Statement The Managing Director and Editor, The Pioneer in his written statement dated 28.11.2007 submitted that the complaint was an attempt to coerce the respondent to publish the rejoinder sent by the complainant in its entirety without giving any verification as to the authenticity of the statements made therein. The respondent further submitted that they are always willing to publish rejoinder if any breach had occurred from their side. This was evidenced by the honest efforts of
234 their reporter Durgesh Nandan Jha, who on receiving the rejoinder tried to contact the complainant and verify certain factual aspects of the rejoinder which were doubtful. He called up the complainant to make certain queries which were not answered as the complainant did not want to speak. The respondent stated that he was not in a position to publish the rejoinder as he was not satisfied about the correctness of the facts narrated therein. According to the respondent, the complainant filed this complaint being aggrieved with the use of the word “forgery” to describe the signatures of two persons made in the petition during their absence. The word “forgery” was not used anywhere in the news item but the words that were used were the word “forge” and “fake signatures” which were respectively used in the caption of the news item and to describe the signatures made for the absentees and not “forgery” as alleged by the complainant. The respondent stated that the complaint arises out of the certain discrepancies in the petition made to the Vice-Chancellor, however, the complainants had not annexed a copy of the petition submitted to the Vice-Chancellor to prove their claims that the signatures were not fake. The Press Council may summon the petition submitted to the Vice- Chancellor in original and get a forensic test done to find out whether the signature initial against the names of P.K. Dutta, Madhulika Banerjee and Ashok Acharya are original. Regarding allegation that no reporter tried to get in touch with Ms. Anamika Sharma, the complainant of the sexual harassment was utterly false, the respondent stated that the Press Council may also call for the mobile records of a reporter Mr. Durgesh Nandan Jha (9911282763) and Ms. Anamika Sharma (9818216628) between 20th August 2007 to 30th August, 2007 from the service providers to check whether their reporter contacted Ms. Anamika Sharma. If it is found that such contact was made the Council may initiate action against the complainant for making and verifying the statements that are false. According to the respondent, the Chairman of the Apex Committee against Sexual Harassment, Prof. Vibha Chaturvedi was on record stating that the report was not a public document and just three copies of the same was made, one each for the contending parties and one for the University authority. The respondent pointed out that the University had placed the report before in a higher body, Executive Council, in a sealed cover under the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the complainants claiming in the rejoinder that the report was a public document was utterly false. This being the position that he could not have publish the rejoinder which contained such statements. The respondent submitted that the complainants had in rejoinder taken objections to the word ‘petition’ being used to refer to the communication sent by the complainants to the Vice-Chancellor. The New Oxford Dictionary Volume II defines a petition as “a petition is a formal written request, one signed by many people appealing to a person of authority or body in some cause”. He submitted that the letter written by the complainants was a formal request to a person in authority, in a cause. The respondent alleged that the present complaint is only a means used to threaten an honest investigative reporter
235 who had tried to expose the intentions of this particular group of academics in removal of Mr. Bidyut Chakraborty from the post of Head of the Department. A reading of the news item would show that there was only a narration of facts which the reporter had come across in the course of his investigation and there was no element of malice in the publication. The respondent further alleged that the complaint was made only with intent to threaten and demoralize a newsperson who had tried to bring out the truth in the matter. The complainants are only using the offices of the Press Council to prevent a newspaper from pursuing its constitutionally mandatory duty of reporting matters in which public interest is involved. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 4.12.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. Counter Comments The complainant, Ms. Nivedita Menon in her counter comments dated 7.12.2007 submitted that the respondent reply is utterly frivolous and makes a mockery of his response to the Press Council, as is clear from his assertion that while the complainants claimed that the news report used the word “forgery”, in fact that word was not used, and the words used were “forge” and “faked signatures”! This kind of meaningless legalistic nitpicking insults the intelligence of the Press Council. She further submitted that the persons concerned had authorized them to put their own initials against their names on their behalf, as the reporter confirmed on speaking to one of them. He actually conceded this in the story even while reiterating the words “fake signature” and “forge” when the reporter knows as well as they do (and concedes) that there was no forgery but that authorized persons initialed against the names of consenting parties, therefore, the suggestion of a forensic test is clearly a tactic to divert attention from the fact that the words “forge” and “fake signatures” were untrue, malafide and deliberately misused. According to the complainant the University has placed the report before a higher body, the Executive Council, in a sealed cover under directions of the Hon’ble High Court. Giving brief reiteration of the sequence of events, the complainant submitted that at the time of the story in respondent newspaper (25.8.2007) and their immediate response to it, the inquiry process was already completed; the Apex Committee had found Dr. Chakravarty guilty and given a copy of its report to the Vice Chancellor and to both parties. After this point, according to the Delhi University statutes (Ordinance XVD). It became a public document. They have noted all these facts in their response to the respondent newspaper. Although these developments had already taken place, the respondent newspaper published a story on the case that was silent on all of this, choosing instead to focus on purported “fake signatures” on a four months old letter to the Vice-Chancellor from members of the department, saying that since there was a serious complaint against Dr. Chakravarty, he should be asked to step down from positions of power
236 during the inquiry, as required by university statutes. The complainant submitted that the respondent’s intention was precisely to divert attention from the fact that the report of the duly constituted Committee had already, in those four months, unanimously found Dr. Chakravarty guilty of sexual harassment. The complainant informed the Council that they are no longer interested in pursuing the complaint against the respondent newspaper, since Prof. Bidyut Chakravarty, whom the newspaper was trying to protect, has been duly punished on the basis of the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee, by the University authorities. Since due process has been completed, Prof. Chakravarty found guilty of sexual harassment, and duly punished, they rest their case. Nevertheless, the Press Council might like to take seriously the facts that the respondent newspaper published false and misleading information in a news report in order to protect a powerful person, that the respondent has taken the Press Council lightly in his response and furnished false information to the Council. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 11.2.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.7.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant did not appear before it. S/Shri U. Hazarika, Advocate alongwith O.P. Gupta, Manager, Human Resources, The Pioneer appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The Counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant in her counter dated 7.12.2007 to the Council had said that the complainants were no longer interested in pursuing the complaint. The Counsel however, assured that the newspaper would take care in future while publishing such news reports. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing the respondent pointed out that the complainant in the same letter had in the end requested the Council to consider the fact of misleading information in the impugned report. The Inquiry Committee therefore having taken all facts into consideration expressed its unhappiness over the publication but in view of the assurance of the respondent and the complainants desire not to pursue the matter any more. It recommended to the Council to close the case with an advice to be more careful in future. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
237 71) Shri Shyam Kumar Mandal Versus The Editor Ward Commissioner Dainik Jagran Kahalgoan Nagar Panchayat Bhagalpur, Bihar Bhagalpur, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 19.8.2006 has been filed by Shri Shyam Kumar Mandal, Ward Commissioner, Kahalgoan Nagar Panchayat, Bhagalpur for publication of allegedly false and baseless news items captioned ‘Avishwas Prastav Ke Sawal Par Rajag Va Congress Aamne Saamne’ and ‘Hungama Karne Se Nirmanadhin Sadak Ki Janch Adhuri’ in its issues dated 26.6.2006 and 30.6.2006 respectively. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.12.2006. The respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Bhagalpur in his written statement dated 13.12.2006 submitted that both the impugned news items were authentic and based on facts. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.7.2008. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant vide his undated letter, received in the secretariat of the Council on 14.7.2008 informed that he has got satisfactory reply from the respondent and therefore he wished to withdraw the complaint. A similar letter was received from the respondent. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint as withdrawn. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
72) Shri Pateswari Singh Versus The Editor Lecturer Chetna Vichardhara Maharana Pratap Polytechnic Gorakhpur (U.P.) Gorakhpur (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 1.2.06 has been filed by Shri Pateswari Singh, Lecturer, Maharana Pratap Polytechnic, Gorakhpur through his counsel against “Chetna
238 Vichardhara”, a Hindi daily, Gorakhpur for publication of allegedly objectionable news item captioned “Shikshak ne kiya guru pad ko kalankit” (Teacher brings disgrace to the stature of teacher) in its issue dated 28.1.06. In the impugned news item the respondent newspaper without naming the complainant has made allegations against a teacher of Maharana Pratap Polytechnic, (Gorakhpur) that the said teacher had blemished the stature of teacher by giving lesson of immorality to students instead of morality. The impugned news item stated that the teacher holding the position of NCC Officer was inspiring amongst the students the lesson of self interest. It has also been stated that the said teacher was degrading the teachers community and causing embarrassment to students by not paying heed to Principal’s orders, earning money by giving tuitions to student, doing financial irregularities; disregarding the national flag, which is pride of nation, not taking interest in teachings, using derogatory language for senior teachers and not wearing uniform.
The complainant alleged that though his name was not mentioned in the impugned news item, the language of the news item made it clear that it was referring him as a teacher who blemished the name of teachers/teachership. He further alleged that the respondent by publishing the impugned news item had lowered his image in the society. The complainant stated that the impugned news item was totally false, baseless and published by the respondent with a view to defame him.
The complainant sent a legal notice dated 1.2.06 to the respondent but received no response. Written Statement
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 24.4.06, In response, the Chief Editor, Chetna Vichardhara in his written statement dated 8.5.06 submitted that the news item in question was published on the basis of a Press Release and after the lapse of almost four months, the documents could not be traced. It was stated that nowhere the name of the complainant was mentioned in the news item. The respondent further stated that they did not know the complainant, thus the question of holding any malice against him does not arise. The respondent further submitted that the statement of the complainant that they deliberately published the news item in question to defame him was totally wrong as they have no such intention. He stated that if the complainant feels that he has been defamed by the publication of the news item in question, they apologize for the same and are ready to publish the complainant’s clarification, if he so desired.
A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 30.5.06 for information.
239 Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.7.2007 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in his fax dated 25.7.2007 informed the Council that due to sudden demise of his elder brother in a road accident he was unable to appear before the Committee. He requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee, acceding to the request of the complainant, adjourned the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.8.2007. There was no appearance form either side. The complainant in a fax dated 30.8.2007 and the respondent editor, Chetna Vichardhara in a letter dated 28.8.2007 requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the parties and decided to adjourn the matter. IIIrd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 24.4.2008. The complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant in his written submissions filed at the time of hearing denied the averment of the respondent editor in the written statement that the news items could not be linked to the complainant in any manner as no where the name of the complainant was mentioned in the news item. The complainant submitted that he was holding the position of NCC Officer and Warden of the Students Hostel of the Polytechnic and name of both the posts had been mentioned in the impugned publication repeatedly. This itself showed that the impugned news item identified him. The complainant reiterated that the publication was false, baseless and defamatory and published with malicious intention and as a result of conspiracy against him. The complainant further submitted that the impugned news report was got published by the Principal of the Maharana Pratap Polytechnic as he was annoyed at being pointed out by the complainant for not showing due respect to the National Anthem. The complainant submitted that the Principal had immediately left after flag hoisting ceremony without attending the National Anthem. The complainant submitted that he had pointed this out as the complainant was holding the position of NCC Officer. The Principal of the polytechnic had issued him a notice for alleged speech given to the students and the complainant had replied to the said notice clarifying that he had not uttered anything objectionable. The complainant further submitted that the students gave in writing that the complainant
240 had not given any wrong speech. The complainant filed relevant documents in support of his contention before the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had filed the written submissions at the time of hearing and the respondent was not present to answer the fresh points raised in it. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to serve a copy of the documents filed on the respondent editor. It also directed the Secretariat of the Council to forward a copy of the written submissions of the complainant to the editor, Chetna Vichardhara for the comments. The matter was, thus, adjourned. Accordingly a copy of the written submissions filed by the complainant was forwarded to the respondent editor for comments, vide Council’s letter dated 10.7.2008. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant in a fax letter dated 21.8.2008 requested to decide the matter on merits. The respondent asked for adjournment due to ill health. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee did not accede to the request of the respondent for adjournment and decided to dispose off the matter on merits. The Inquiry Committee on careful perusal of the record noted that the respondent Chetna Vichardhara carried news making general accusations against a teacher. In its reply, it also defended the publication on the ground that it was based on press release and that the name of the complainant was not mentioned. The respondent editor could not substantiate the stand taken by him that the news was based on a press release. The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material accepted that the impugned news report sufficiently identified the complainant in a small local area and the newspaper should have verified the facts before deciding to carry the report on the basis of the claimed press release. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that the complaint deserved to be upheld with a warning to the editor, Chetna Vichardhara. However as the editor has now agreed to publish the clarification of the complainant, it directed the respondent editor to honour this commitment within two weeks and to forward a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
241 73) Shri D.K. Mittal, IAS Versus The Editor Managing Director The Times of India IL&FS Limited New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 25.4.2007 has been filed by Shri D.K.Mittal, Managing Director, IL&FS Limited, New Delhi against The Times of India, New Delhi for publication of a news item captioned “Waste plant may add to toxins in air” “Discarded by US & Europe, City opts for outdated Tech” in its issue dated 4.3.2007. According to the complainant, the impugned news item brought their company (IL&FS) into disrepute by projecting that it had signed Memorandums of Understandings (MoUs) with Municipal Corporations of Delhi and Mumbai to set up plants by using technology, which has been discarded by developed countries which will add pollution to the cities and will discourage recycling and reuse of waste. He stated that the correspondent never tried to reach them to understand the issues involved in the treatment of garbage and the perspective of IL&FS on the same. The complainant alleged that the impugned article was published without verifying the facts with inputs from interested parties and with an intention to project the interest of certain lobby operating in the Municipal Waste areas. Detailed letters to the respondent editor on 6.3.2007 and 9.3.2007 followed by legal notice dated 19.4.2007 to the concerned journalist did not elicit any response. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India, New Delhi edition on 13.6.2007. The respondent in his written statement dated 23.7.2007 submitted that the impugned news item was based on facts and relevant government reports and was published without any malice towards any stakeholder. It had quoted points from the Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Optimal Waste Treatment and Disposal for the Entire State of Delhi based on Public Private Partnership Solution; prepared by the COWI in association with Kadam Environmental Consultations for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The study stated that: 1. The fundamental mass burn incineration technology has seen considerable improvement leading to an environmentally friendlier process and very reliable operation, but breakthroughs for innovative incineration technologies are waiting has started (sic). The so-called no-emission technologies do not really exist. 2. Production of refuse driven Fuels (RDF) for incineration is a viable technology, but the technology has not gained any
242 significant market share in countries where the calorific value of the waste has for mass burn incineration. The cost of RDF is often very high for societies with low calorific value because energy is used to dry the waste before it becomes feasible to burn it. RDF is often an option when emission standards are lax and RDF is burned in conventional boilers with no special precautions for emissions. 3. Biogasification or methanisation as it is commonly referred to in India is widely used for waste from agriculture, but has not reached the same convincing track record for treatment of municipal solid waste. 4. The cost functions are developed on the basis of actual plant costs from European countries and therefore not directly transferable to the context of India, however, they illustrate the cost relations and the so-called effect of economy of scales, i.e. the saving in investment and operating costs arriving from building treatment facilities with the highest capacity. 5. Therefore, a rejection of all offers using the aforementioned RDF technology seems recommendable. The respondent stated that they are known for highest standards of journalistic ethics, norms and conducts and also known for giving correct and reliable news to its readers. As a policy, The Times of India has the deepest respect for all efforts being made by the government and private entities to improve the urban infrastructure of India. The respondent editor, The Times of India, New Delhi has intimated that the matter regarding refuse driven fuel (RDF) technology is sub-judice in the Supreme Court and hence cannot be taken up at the level of the Press Council of India, simultaneously. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.7.2007 for information/counter comments. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.4.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Yoginder Kumar Diwedi appeared for the complainant and requested for adjournment. He also filed a letter dated 21.4.2008 of the standing Counsel of the complainant requesting for adjournment on the plea that due to some unavoidable personal work at his hometown he was unable to appear before the Committee. As the respondent had also filed an adjournment request, the Inquiry Committee acceded to the request and adjourned the matter.
243 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi. S/Shri Deepak Gupta, Manager, IL&FS along with Sandeep S. Tiwari, Advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance from the respondent’s side.
Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant’s counsel submitted that the IL&FS performs advisory functions and it had signed MoUs with Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Mumbai Municipal Corporation for specific purpose on Public Private Integrated Waste Management. The respondent newspaper had given inaccurate account to misguide the readers and damage the credibility of the Corporation for bringing allegedly wrong technology in the country. The complainant submitted that the technology advised by IL&FS is currently in use in Europe, Japan and Australia. The corporation was in the process of signing MoUs with other Municipal authorities in different States but the impugned report in The Times of India gave adverse impact about its project proposals. The complainant averred that the court has already decided the issue of technology and had The Times of India contacted then they would have clarified the reasons for suggesting this technology. Further, The Times of India did not give any response to their letters dated 15th and 9th March, 2007 and therefore action should be taken against the respondents.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and heard the submissions made before it. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the impugned news report dated 4.3.2007 in The Times of India observed that it had sufficient basis to comment on the technology proposed for refuse derived fuel and waste management. The report may be subject to a difference of opinion but such reporting largely contributed in creating an awareness about environment related issues. In fact it was a welcome and creditworthy exercise which should be welcomed in public and national interest. The Committee felt that while it would been advisable for The Times of India to have given due space to the version of the IL&FS no malice or motive could be attributed to them on this count. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, felt that the complainant did not establish any cause for action against The Times of India and recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
244 74) Mrs. Kuldevi Yadav Versus The Editor Principal Indian Express Government Model Supplement, Chandigarh Sr. Sec. School Newsline Chandigarh Chandigarh Complaint This complaint dated 24.5.2007 has been filed by Mrs. Kuldevi Yadav, Principal, Government Model Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh against The Indian Express supplement, ‘Chandigarh Newsline’ for publication of allegedly defamatory news item captioned ‘A Tale of two Government Schools in the City’ ‘GMSSS-8 students are thrown out of class if teacher does not come; problems galore at Government High School’ in its Indian Express issue dated 19.5.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that students prayed that their teachers come to the school and take class everyday because when the teachers do not come, they had to face bigger problem. It was also stated that at the Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector – 8, boys and girls had to sit in the corridor, right at the entrance of the school whenever their subject teacher was absent. It was further alleged in the impugned news item that Mrs. Kuldevi Yadav, Principal was not present in the school but Vice Principal Harmeet claimed that they were short of staff. So, anytime a teacher does not come, we ask the students of his/her class to sit here in the corridor so that the teacher on duty to attend on visitors can keep an eye on them also. If left on their own they really create nuisance, which cannot be handled otherwise. Later a student was quoted as saying that every time a teacher was absent, they were made to sit on the floor in the corridor, and anybody who enters the school thought that they were serving some punishment. The complainant denied the allegations and submitted that the captions and the news item have distorted the fact to make the news sensational. The complainant issued a rejoinder dated 24.5.2007 to the respondent giving a point wise rebuttals to the allegations and wrote ‘no comments’ against the statement that referred to her in the impugned news item. The respondent editor in his reply dated 15.6.2007, to the complaint, stated that the complainant had herself admitted that she was absent when the trainee reporter visited the school, who then spoke to Vice Principal. With regard to the averment that the building where the primary classes were to be held was under construction, because of which the primary students could attend classes only in the afternoon, the complainant stated that the building was completed and handed over to the school authorities on 24.5.2007. To this point, the respondent in his
245 reply submitted that the news item in question was published on 19.5.2007, five days before the building was handed over to the school authorities. The complainant however termed the reply of the respondent dated 15.6.2007 as inequitable. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 9.8.2007. The Editor, the Indian Express, Chandigarh in his written statement dated 6.9.2007 submitted that the complainant made vague allegations and was unable to make out any case against the newspaper, as the facts reported in the news report were true and correct and have been substantially admitted by the complainant in her complaint. The respondent submitted that the complainant herself admitted that she was absent when the reporter visited the school and the reporter therefore spoken to the Vice Principal, Smt. Harmeet, who was quoted prominently giving her explanation of the publication, viz: ‘Principal Kuldevi Yadav was not present in the school but Vice Principal Harmeet said “We are short of staff. So, any time a teacher does not come, we ask the students of his/her class to sit here in the corridor so that the teacher on duty to attend on visitors can keep an eye on them also. If left on their own, they really create nuisance, which cannot be handled by others.”’ The respondent has submitted that as the school’s own version were carried in the news item therefore it can have no grievance against the newspaper. He has added that the news report was carried in good faith, in public interest, after visits to the schools and personal verification by the concerned reporter, after taking the comments of the person incharge available, for publication (giving the views/explanation of the concerned Vice Principal and Principal respectively), and the students, and without any malice towards the complainant or anyone else. The respondent denied that they have given sensational ‘caption’ and ‘distorted facts’ to make the news sensational as alleged. A copy of the written statements was forwarded to the complainant on 27.9.2007 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments of Complainant The complainant in her counter comments dated 22.10.2007 submitted that the person incharge of the school did not tell to the reporter that the students were sitting in the corridor for punishment given to them. It was not conceivable that the reporter concluded that the students were sitting in the corridor out of punishment it was not clear and how this unverified and untrue reporting was in
246 public good, added the complainant. She further stated that when the reporter visited the school, the building was completed, but it was not handed over to the competent authorities and it was not comprehensible that such a large building having eighteen rooms lost the reporter’s sight. She went on to state that it was certainly a sensational caption to attract the attention of the readers for an untrue story. The complainant alleged that her image had been tarnished and sought legal action in the matter. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 20.11.2007. Counter Comments of the Respondent The respondent in his counter comments dated 15.12.2007 submitted that the complainant made vague allegations against the editor and the trainee reporter and her rejoinder dated 22.10.2007 contained bald and simple denial without any explanation as to how she was defamed. The complainant failed to avail of the bona fide offer made by the respondent in his capacity as the editor, saying if the complainant wished to clarify anything further she may write to them or meet him after fixing a telephonic appointment, submitted the respondent and added that the complainant was given an opportunity, but she spurned the offer and chose to pursue an unnecessary and vexatious complaint. The respondent concluded that the facts reported in the news report were true and correct and had been substantially admitted by the complainant in her complaint and repeatedly reiterated the contents of his written statement. A copy of the counter comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 31.1.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 24.4.2008. Shri P.C. Yadav, represented the complainant, while Shri Anil Kumar, Senior Assistant, Legal Department, The Indian Express appeared for the respondent. Matter Adjourned The representative of the respondent sought adjournment on the ground that the counsel engaged by the respondent newspaper had met with an accident in the morning. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the respondent’s representative, adjourned the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New
247 Delhi on 21.8.2008. Shri P.C.Yadav, appeared for the complainant. S/Shri N.B. Joshi, Yoginder Singh, Purushettar Mishra, Advocates appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that such situations were very rare when the students had to sit in the corridor since the school was running short of staff. He submitted that the caption of the news item was distorted and sensational. Further the newspaper had not published the rejoinder issued by the complainant. Shri Yoginder Singh, advocate appearing for The Indian Express submitted that the newspaper had not published anything defamatory and the complainant had no cause to be aggrieved since no allegations were made against her in the news item. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper had published the news in public interest reporting the sufferings of the students and was based on the information gathered from the students. He further pleaded that the version of the Vice Principal had been published. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the documents and considered the submissions made by the parties. It noted that the respondent had ventilated the grievance of the students through the impugned news report. The news was based on facts as the representative of the complainant had admitted that there was shortage of staff and the students had to sit in corridors even though this happened rarely. The newspaper while publishing the impugned item also carried the version of the Vice Principal of the school. The Inquiry Committee observed the impugned report was in no way defamatory. It only highlighted some shortcomings while the authorities should also view positively for corrective steps in the interest of the students. It thus felt that no case was made out for action against The Indian Express under the Press Council Act and recommended the Council to dismiss the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
75) Shri Sufi Miyan ji Versus The Editor Meerut, U.P. Shah Times Meerut, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 10.8.06 has been filed by Sufi Miyan Ji, Meerut
248 (U.P.) against “Shah Times”, Meerut edition alleging publication of false, baseless and defamatory news items under the caption “Naya Fanda – Tantrik Ka Prachar Karengi Balayen” and “ Khulasa Hone Par Tantrik Ke Khilaf Khufia Janch Shuru” in its issues dated 12.7.06 and 13.7.06 respectively. It has been alleged in the impugned publication that the complainant has engaged on commission basis some girls for luring the clients. The impugned news item also alleged that the complainant wanted them to indulge in fleshtrade. The impugned publication stated that on disclosure of the matter an inquiry was initiated against the complainant. It has also been stated in the impugned publication that the police had already raided the complainant’s residence/office on receiving the information regarding burning of human bones. The complainant alleged that the impugned news items were false and defamatory and published with an intention to blackmail and extort money from him following his refusal to favour the reporter with free blessed rings. He submitted that due to the publication of the impugned news item he suffered mental agony and defamed in the society. The complainant submitted that notices dated 20.6.06 had been issued to the respondent editor, Shah Times, Muzaffarnagar and Meerut edition but they did not publish any contradiction. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Shah Times, Meerut on 10.1.07 but he did not file his written statement. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.4.2008. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Mohd. Abad appeared for the respondent newspaper, Shah Times. The respondent submitted that the news report was about a tantrik who had not been named and not against the complainant Sufi Miyanji. The respondent added that a raid was conducted on Metro Plaza and sex workers were nabbed. He added that he had sent written statement by e-mail but he was not carrying the copy of the same. The Inquiry Committee was not inclined to accept the statement and adjourned the matter directing the respondent to file written statement within ten days from the date of hearing with a copy to the complainant. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.6.2008
249 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Mohd. Abad, sub-editor, Shah Times, Meerut appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent filed a copy of the written statement dated 29.7.2008 wherein he denied the allegation that the news item was published with the intention to blackmail and extort money from the complainant. According to the respondent the news item was published on the basis of information received from the public. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the record and noted that the respondent editor, Shah Times was given sufficient opportunities to defend the matter. The editor, however, filed a vague reply at a very belated stage after repeated directions. The Inquiry Committee noted that even without naming the complainant, he had been identified with his address, and that the respondent newspaper had nothing in its possession to substantiate the allegations made in the impugned report that he now claimed to be based on public information. The respondent editor compounded the offence by not publishing the clarification of the complainant. For breach of journalistic ethics regarding pre-publication verification, defamatory writings and right to reply, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper, Shah Times, Meerut. It further decided that a copy of the Council’s adjudication be sent to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, District Magistrate, Meerut, DAVP and RNI for action as they deem fit. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
76) Shri G.P. Aahirwar Versus The Editor Assistant Commissioner of Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times Entertainment Tax Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar, (U.P.) (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 20.11.2006 has been filed by Shri G.P. Aahirwar, Assistant Commissioner of Entertainment Tax, Muzaffarnagar against ‘Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times, Muzaffarnagar alleging publication of false and defamatory news items:
250 1. G.P. Aahirwar (Khatik) Manoranjan Kar Ayukt Ne Sharab Ke Nashe Mein Khanabdosh Banjaaran Mahila Ka Gal Kat Khaya, Mahila Ne Jamkar Chappal Bajai Khatik Ke Driver Nasir Khan Ne Ghasittey Huye Khatik Ko Gaddi Mein Dalkar Ghar Tak Pahunchaya.– Dated 9.10.2006, 2. G.P.Aahirwar (Khatik) ne Manoranjan Kar Vibhag Ko Croron Ka Chuna Lagaya, Daru Pikar Ghumta Hai Qualis Mein ‘B’ Form Mein Darshakon Ki Sankhya Kam Kar Do Number Mein Dhan Kamana Hai Pesha Iska. Piracy CD Bhi Bhik Rahi Hai Market Mein. Apne Driver Nasir Khan Ke Sath Karta Hai Jamkar Aiyashi, Agra Mein Kharidi Croron Ki Sampatti, Janch Ki Maang. Larki Ki Shaadi Mein Deya Bungalow. Gaddi Va Nakad Bis Lakh Rupee.– Dated 30.10.2006. According to the complainant, the impugned news items were highly derogatory, abusive and utterly humiliating and alleged that the news in question were published intentionally to cause irreparable damage to his reputation. The complainant also alleged that the respondent had with malafide intention, tried to blackmail him. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 4.11.2006 to the respondent asking to tender unconditional apology, but received no response. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 30.7.2007. But the respondent failed to file his written statement in the matter. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.4.2008. There was no appearance from either side. However, the complainant in a fax dated 23.4.2008 requested for adjournment due to non grant of leave by his department. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the complainant adjourned the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi. Shri G.P. Aahirwar, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he was posted in Muzaffarnagar from August 2003-2007 and he never came across or ever interacted with any representative of the respondent newspaper. But respondent maligned his image
251 by publishing the news items alleging therein that G.P. Aahirwar, (Khatik) Commissioner, Entertainment Tax is a habitual drunkard who misappropriated crores of rupees of the department. A gypsy girl had badly beaten him with slippers when he chewed her cheek in a drunken state. His driver somehow managed to put him in the car. The complainant objected to the language used against him in the news items and referring to him by caste. The complainant submitted that he was not aware as to why the respondent had published the news maligning him. The reasons must be best known to the respondent who was not present to answer. The complainant requested for stern action against the respondent. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the record and the oral arguments put forth by the complainant. It noted that the respondent editor, Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times was given sufficient opportunities to defend the charges. The editor, however neither filed the written statement nor was he represented before the Committee to defend his case. It, therefore, appeared that the respondent newspaper had nothing in its possession to substantiate the allegations made in the impugned report per se maligning the complainant. The Inquiry Committee felt that the language and contents of the impugned reports were so objectionable that they could warrant nothing but a censure under the Press Council Act, 1978. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council accordingly. It further recommended that a copy of the adjudication may be sent to the DAVP, RNI, District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar and Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for such action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
77) Prof. Himadari Datta Versus The Editor Regional Institute of Ophthalmology Sangbad Pratidin Medical College, Kolkata (W.B.) Kolkata (W.B.) Complaint This complaint dated 22.5.2006 has been filed by Prof. Himadari Datta, Regional Institute of Ophthalmology Medical College, Kolkata against Shri Krishna Kumari Das, Reporter, Sangbad Pratidin, a Bengali daily newspaper for publication of an allegedly false and damaging news item captioned “Surgery of Left Eye Done on Right’ in its issue dated 12.4.2006 alleging that the State’s health care system had blundered again in one of its centre of excellence in ophthalmology.
252 It was published in the impugned news item that a faulty surgery in the wrong eye resulting in infection made a lady returned home sightless. It was the doctor, who advised surgery in the left eye, but the surgeon performed the operation in the right eye, and on the day after the surgery, the surgeon, Dr. Datta left the city. It has also been alleged that a number of other doctors in the institute later said that although Dr. Datta was supposed to perform the surgery, it was actually done by Dr. Somnath Bandopadhyay, one of his juniors. The complainant described all the allegations as absolutely lies. The patient was advised admission for cataract operation in her right eye under local anaesthesia, she had signed the informed consent for the same, and her daughter was its witness. She has stated that on 19.4.2006, she had written to the respondent editor of Sangbad Pratidin to send responsible journalist to meet her to find the truth, but did not get any response. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 4.10.2006 who failed to file written defence. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati and was adjourned on complainant’s request. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant was absent. Shri Gautam Lahiri, Chief of Bureau, Pratidin, Delhi appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Gautam Lahiri appearing for the respondent submitted a letter dated 20.8.2008 stating therein that they have already taken up the matter with the complainant and agreed to publish the rejoinder as early as possible. The complainant had been requested to send the rejoinder for being published at the earliest. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the complainant and the statement leading to amicable settlement, as the respondent had agreed to publish the rejoinder of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee therefore, decided to dispose off the complaint with the direction to the respondent newspaper to publish the rejoinder at a conspicuous place and forward a copy of the issue carrying the rejoinder of the complainant to the Press Council as well as the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to allow the matter to be closed with above directions.
253 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
78) Dr. B.K. Prasad Versus The Editor Nepal Dainik Jagran, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 25.9.2006/10.11.2006 has been filed by Dr. B.K. Prasad, Nepal against Shri Vijay Giri, Journalist, Dainik Jagran alleging extortion of money by publishing false and defamatory news item dated 27.8.2006 under the caption “Bhoomi Vivad Ko Le Mamla Darj”. It was stated in the impugned news item that the complainant had shot the rival party in a property dispute. Thereafter police registered a case against unknown persons. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the news item was false and published with the sole intention to blackmail him. The other party fired the gunshot and police case had also been registered against them. The complainant had sent the letter to editor but received no response. A show case notice to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Muzaffarpur was issued on 19.12.2006. Written Statement In his written statement dated 12.1.2007 the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran denied the allegation levelled by the complainant that his correspondent indulged in extorting money by way of blackmailing and contended that the complainant has not submitted any evidence to substantiate it. The respondent submitted that news reported about a land dispute and there was no indication in the news item that the complainant fired the gunshot. The respondent submitted that both the parties registered a case in the court of law regarding the incident. The respondent submitted that news item was published on the basis of the facts and the allegations of the complainant were baseless. He further informed that the matter was pending in the court of law. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 6.3.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.6.2008 at Guwahati. There was no appearance from either side.
254 The Inquiry Committee in order to afford an opportunity to the parties to put forth their case decided to adjourn the matter. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2008. There was again no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant despite repeated opportunity did not come forward to assist the Committee in arriving to the conclusion. The Inquiry Committee thus, presumed that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the case. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
79) Father Thomas Versus The Editor Principal Jan Aukat St. Mary’s School Hindi Weekly Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint-dated 5.3.2007 has been filed by Father Thomas, Principal St. Mary’s School, Bhadohi (UP) against “Jan Aukat”, Hindi Weekly, Bhadohi for publication of allegedly false, misleading and malafide news item under the caption “Prarthana Ke Naam Par Daliton Ko Isaai Banane Ki Kavayad Tej” (In the name of prayer, exercise for conversion of the Dalits to Christianity gains momentum) sub titled “Bible is being taught to those to attend the prayer” in its issue dated 25.12.2006. It was alleged in the impugned news item that in the name of prayer, the dalits of surrounding places were being converted to Christianity at St. Mary’s School, Nai Bazar of Bhadohi city. Dozens of Hindu family people attended this prayer meeting and Christian Missionaries were teaching them Bible. Dozens of dalit family people were given instructions of Christianity by Father Thomas and Father Felix. Along with the prayer Fathers were converting Hindus and the Hindu Organisations are not aware of this. The Christian Missionaries were targeting such people those who are less educated and suffer from serious diseases. These people were told that they will be free of devils, ghosts, sickness and in this way they were made to attend the prayer and after few days they were provoked to become Christians. The Christian Missionaries were very active in the district and they have spread their network in the backward class.
255 Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that in fact the respondent chief editor met him and demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the garb of advertisement in his newspaper “Jan Aukat” but the complainant politely refused that no advertisement was required for the institution, whereupon the respondent got furious and threatened to teach him a lesson. The complainant submitted that the respondent was instrumental in creating an ugly scene inside the school campus on 11.9.2006 with regard to non-payment of tuition fee by some students. In the month of December, the respondent came to the complainant, begged pardon for his misdeed and got access inside the church, took photographs of a Sunday Prayer in the Church at Bhadohi. Later the respondent used the said photograph with all sorts of wrong, false, purposive, misleading and malafide allegations under the heading “In the name of Prayer, exercise for conversion of dalits to Christianity gains momentum”. He has alleged that the sinister move was part of the evil design of the respondent to teach a lesson to the complainant for refusing to give him Rs.5,000/- for advertisement. The complainant issued letter dated 25.1.2007 to the respondent asking him to publish his contradiction but to no avail and instead, received a reply dated 2.2.2007 from the respondent asking him to send the letter in Hindi. The complainant sent the letter in Hindi on 14.2.2007 but received no response. Show cause notice dated 14.6.2007 was issued to the respondent editor, Jan Aukat. Written Statement In his written statement dated 10.7.2007, the respondent editor, Jan Aukat denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. He submitted that the news item in question was published in good faith without any malice towards the complainant and without any intention to defame the complainant or his school. Annoyed with the publication the complainant made baseless and cooked up allegations against him. The news item was published on the basis of a press release dated 20.12.2006 issued by Vishva Hindu Parishad, Bhadohi. The other newspapers had also published about the conversion of Dalits by the missionaries, added the respondent. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.7.2007 for counter comments. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 3.8.2007, the complainant submitted that the reply contained incorrect, wrong false and purposive allegation. He submitted that the St. Mary’s school, Bhadohi has played an important role in building good moral character, to being about peace and integration of people of all religions, besides imparting sound learning with modern resources and development according
256 to the need of the country, inclusive of spiritual truth and knowledge as God revealed. The complainant alleged that the letter dated 20.12.2006 said to have been written by Vishva Hindu Parishad was self creation of the respondent to extract illegal money from him. Moreover, the allegations were vague, incorrect, wrong, false and purposive as not even a single instance of conversion said to have been done by him, was quoted. He alleged that the respondent had misused his sword of pen to demolish good name and fame of the St. Mary’s School. The complainant has requested that reply of the respondent may be rejected and he may be allowed justice. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to respondent on 21.8.2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. Father Thomas, Principal, St. Mary School, Bhadohi the complainant appeared in person alongwith Ms. Mary Scania, Adovcate. Shri Nasir Qureshi, Editor, Jan Aukat appeared for the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent had approached for an advertisement worth Rs.5000/-. The complainant submitted that the respondent again approached the school to take photographs during function on 25th December, 2006 in the Church. The respondent thereafter came out with false propaganda of conversion. The complainant submitted that the school had been peacefully functioning since 20 years and no conversion had been encouraged or undertaken by them. Had that been so, a large part of the population would have by now been converted, but the situation was otherwise. The respondent denied that the advertisement was demanded. The newspaper used to write letter for advertisement and never asked for it orally. The respondent further submitted that there was resentment in the area since April, 2006 and they had observed that about one dozen dalits were present during prayer in the Church on 25th December, 2006. He was, however, unable to satisfy the Committee about any proof of conversion or give reasons for non-publication of the rejoinder. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and considered the submission made before it. It noted that the complainant’s case was that the respondent came out with impugned news item on account of refusal to meet the demand favouring advertisement support sought by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the respondent had been permitted to take photograph of Sunday Prayer, but the respondent used the same for the purpose of charging the institute
257 with conversion. Despite due opportunity and general reports of religious conversions notwithstanding, the respondent had not been able to produce evidence to support his charge of conversion by the complainant institute. It had also failed as an independent reporter, to afford the complainant an opportunity to place their version before the public, leading credence to the charge that the action and conduct of the respondent was motivated by the failure to gain advertisement support. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and to warn the respondent newspaper Jan Aukat not only for misuse of the freedom of the press and indulging in journalistic aberration but also trying to distract the communal harmony in the area. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
80) Mohd. Razi Ahmed Rizvi Versus The Editor Steno Amar Ujala District Development Office Hindi Daily Badayun Bareilly Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint Mohd. Razi Ahmed Rizvi, Steno, District Development Office, Badayun has filed this complaint dated 27.8.2007 against Amar Ujala, Badayun edition for publishing allegedly false, defamatory and baseless news items as follows: S.No. Caption Dated 1. Ukhad–Pachhad Mein Fansi Bal Vikas Yojana 4.12.2006 2. Prashiksan Ke Naam Par 20 Lakh Thikane Lagaye 10.12.2006 3. Rajniti Ke Stambhon Par Bal Vikas Yojana 29.12.2006 4. D D O Ke Steno Ne Kiya Vibhag Ko Sharmsar 12.7.2007 The impugned news items highlighted the alleged irregularities, misdeeds, corruption and illegal activities in the District Development Office, Badayun. It was alleged in the news items that the Steno of DDO indulged in objectionable activities and sexually harassed the lady officials of the Department. Denying the allegations the complainant alleged that the news items were totally false, baseless, defamatory, derogatory and tarnished his image. The complainant alleged that the respondent reporter, Shri Vinod Bhardwaj pressurized and demanded money and when he refused his demand he published the false and
258 baseless news items out of malice. The complainant submitted that in the news item dated 12.7.2007 the respondent reporter crossed all the limits to assassinate his character and defamed him in the public. The respondent reporter highlighted a complaint of the year 2002-2003 which had been inquired by a two member Committee and found the same baseless. This itself showed that the respondent reporter was prejudiced toward him. The complainant submitted that he personally met the respondent reporter who assured him that in future he will not publish any defamatory news items against him but failed to fulfill his promise. The complainant stated that he also wrote to the respondent editor to initiate action against the concerned reporter, but did not receive any reply. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Bareilly on 30.11.2007. Written Statement In his written statement dated 18.12.2007 the respondent editor, Amar Ujala submitted that the news items in question were true and the same were published in public interest. He submitted that news items were intended to bring to the notice of the public the working of the District Development Office. The respondent produced documentary evidence in support of the news items. He further added that newspaper neither had any motive nor any interest in the affairs of the complaint except than that of inquisitive urge of journalist to know some matter concerning public importance and report the same in free and fair manner for welfare of people. The news items were objective and fair reporting made in good faith in discharge of public duty and devoid of any malice. He submitted that the news items were based on certain complaints against the complainant. On the basis of such complaints an inquiry was initiated against the complainant and serious strictures were passed against the complainant. The respondent filed a copy of the order dated 11.6.2007 passed by the Ms. Usha Singh, Principal, Zila Shiksha Avam Prashikshan Sansthan, Badayun who was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the matter. In the inquiry report she recommended that the work related to the women may not be assigned to Mohd. Razi Ahmad Rizvi (the complainant), Steno in the office of District Development Office. Filing the supportive documents the respondent stated that it was clear that the entire complaint was misconceived and liable to be dismissed. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.1.2008 for counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 5.2.2008 denied the allegations made by the respondent. He submitted that the assertion of the respondent is contrary to facts and circumstances of the news items and the language used
259 therein was per se derogatory. He submitted that Smt. Usha Singh, Principal had conducted inquiry but no evidence orally as well as in writing was produced by the women officials who filed the complaint against him. He further submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not have any right to pass the stricture against him. The Chief Development Officer and District Magistrate found the inquiry report as baseless and forwarded to the Administration with their recommendation to dismiss the inquiry report. But the newspaper did not publish the facts. He stated that the reporter had published the news items without verifying the facts from him. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to respondent on 13.2.2008. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Razi Ahmed Rizvi, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Prabhat Kumar Srivastava represented respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the reporter of Amar Ujala had started a tirade against him and in every news item his name was added by the reporter whether it related to his department or not. He further stated that he was working as Steno and he had no powers to disburse the fund as alleged. The complainant submitted that the newspaper alleged siphoning an amount of Rs.20 lakhs in a programme whereas the total amount sanctioned for the programme was around Rs. One and a half lakhs only. He added that the news regarding complaint of some women published in 12.7.2007 was not at all warranted since the District Magistrate had already rejected the recommendations in the inquiry report. The complainant submitted that the respondent reporter tried to malign his image in every news relating to District Development Office. The complainant pointed out that the affidavits/documents filed by the respondent in support of their news are all dated after publication of the news and therefore could not be admitted to justify the reports. He also asserted that in response to the letter setting out his objection, the respondent sent a purported reply on 29.9.2008 but the envelope was opened in the presence of the postman himself and was found to contain blank papers. The postman had attested this fact on the envelope itself. He filed evidence in support of his statement. The respondent submitted that Smt. Usha Singh in her report dated 11.6.2007 had made it clear that the complainant should not be given any task/work relating to women. The newspaper thus had sufficient basis for publication. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the documents and considered
260 the oral arguments of the parties. It noted that the respondent Amar Ujala had published a series of news items against the complainant. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the Press has a right to comment on public person but a duty is also cast on it to see that it does not lead to character assassination of a person based on unestablished facts. A person holding an official position as Steno, could have normally no policy making and decision taking authority in matters of child development programmes and grants etc. or training programmes. However, having decided on publications on the basis of documents available the respondent should have published the clarification of the complainant affording him right to reply. This it steadfastly denied. It, therefore, directed the complainant to frame a consolidated rejoinder of all the four news items and send the same to the editor, Amar Ujala. The Inquiry Committee further directed the editor, Amar Ujala to publish the rejoinder of the complainant at a prominent space and to send clipping of the rejoinder published to the Council as well as the complainant for record and information. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these observations and directions. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
81) Shri Dilip Kumar Sarawagi Versus The Editor Secretary Jhansi Parakh, Hindi weekly Society for Human Rights Jhansi (U.P.) & Justice, Mauranipur Jhansi (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 12.7.2006 has been filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Sarawagi, Secretary, Society for Human Rights & Justice, Mauranipur, Jhansi against “Jhansi Parakh”, Hindi weekly for publication of allegedly false and vulgar news items in its issues dated 30.3.2006 and 20.4.2006. The captions of the impugned news items read as follows:- 1. |ÉäàÉ |ÉƺÉMÉ àÉå {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ nÉä-É? (30.3.2006) 2. xÉcÉÉÊ®ªÉÉ ãÉä £ÉÉMÉÉ |ÉäÉÊàÉBÉEÉ BÉEÉä {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ Jɤɮ* (30.3.2006) 3. ¤ÉÉäãÉ MÉÉä®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉäãÉ iÉä®É BÉEÉèxÉ ÉÊ{ɪÉÉ* (30.3.2006) 4. nÉnÉ ÉÊ´ÉnÉ BÉE® nÉä +ÉÉè® {ÉÉÒxÉÉ BÉEàÉ BÉE® nÉä* (20.4.2006) 5. VÉxÉμÉEÉäÉʺÉxÉ ={ÉlÉÉäBÉE ÉÊ´ÉμÉEäiÉÉ BÉEä SÉÉÊ®jÉ BÉEÉ {ÉiÉxÉ <ºÉ cn iÉBÉE* (20.4.2006) The complainant alleged that the respondent newspaper deliberately published the false, vulgar and defamatory news items about the general public and women
261 with the motive to blackmail them. The complainant further alleged that the local people had been suffering with irreparable mental agony due to publication of such news items. The complainant alleged that the impugned news items were published with the intention to blackmail the innocent persons. According to the complainant, some of them complained to the respondent editor in this regard but no action has been taken as yet. He had also written a letter to the respondent editor, but received no response. On the request of the complainant, the delay of approximately two months in filing the complaint was duly condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India vide his order dated 30.11.2006 and a show-cause notice dated 5.12.2006 was issued to the respondent editor, Jhansi Parakh, Jhansi. Written Statement The respondent editor, Jhansi Parakh, Jhansi in his written statement dated 26.12.2006 while denying the allegation levelled against him in the complaint submitted that the complainant’s organization was fake and not registered. According to the respondent, it appeared that the complainant was a fraud person and misusing the letter-head of the organization for fraudulent activities. The respondent stated that the complainant had not established his locus as to how he was affected by publication of the impugned news items. The respondent alleged that the complaint was misleading and the complainant was a blackmailer himself. The respondent further alleged that the complainant fraudulently published the pamphlets about their reputed correspondents, S/Shri Umesh Chaturvedi and Devendra Chaturvedi stating that they were blacklisted by the Press Council and distributed these in all shops and houses of Mauranipur at mid-night. The respondent also alleged that the complainant had a gang and they were terrorising and harassing the general public in different ways. The respondent also denied the allegation that the impugned news items were false and vulgar and stated that the complainant did not clarify how the impugned news items were vulgar. The respondent stated that the news items were published in public interest. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 12.1.2007 for information. Counter Comments/Sur-Rejoinder etc. The complainant vide his counter comments dated 7.2.2007 while recording his dissatisfaction with the written statement of the respondent submitted that his organization was supported by United Nations Agencies and listed since 1999 and had an account in nationalized bank and also spending thousands of rupees for research and training. The complainant stated that the allegation of distributing the pamphlets was also incorrect. The complainant alleged that the respondent was creating a socially polluted atmosphere through impugned reports.
262 The complainant requested perusal of the impugned news item captioned “VÉxÉμÉEÉäÉʺÉxÉ ={ÉlÉÉäBÉE ÉÊ´ÉμÉEäiÉÉ BÉEä SÉÉÊ®jÉ BÉEÉ {ÉiÉxÉ <ºÉ cn iÉBÉE” in which it was stated that a teacher of St. Mary’s School, whose husband was mentally-retarded person, had illegal relation with a wholesaler of Crocin. The complainant submitted that the respondent also involved his wife, who is a teacher in St. Mary’s school and described him as mentally imbalanced. The respondent vide his further letter dated 7.7.2007 while reiterating his earlier statement requested the Council to get the matter enquired into by the district administration. A copy of the reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 24.7.2007 with a request to establish his locus in filing the complaint. In response dated 6.8.2007 the complainant submitted that a bare reading of the false and vulgar impugned news items itself shows the locus and factual status of his complaint. The complainant has further submitted that the respondent was deliberately misleading the Press Council and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him in a criminal case. The respondent editor vide his further letter dated 4.10.2007 addressed to Shri Devender Chaturvedi, Correspondent informed that the term of his appointment as “approved honorary correspondent” had come to an end and hence he should not send any reports for publication henceforth. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri Dilip Sarawagi appeared in person. The Editor, Jhansi Parakh vide his letter dated 11.7.2008 requested for adjournment due to demise of his brother and wife. The Inquiry Committee noted that it was a cross complaint of the case listed at S.No.7 (13/59/06-07) which had been adjourned and therefore acceded to the request of the Editor and decided to adjourn the matter. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The respondent vide his letter dated 9.10.2008 requested for adjournment which was not granted by the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee took cognizance of this complaint and the cross complaint of Pt. Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi (F.No.13/59/06-07) together. It observed that as per police report, the two parties were engaged in a personal dispute following which the police had barred both under Section 107 Cr.P.C. to maintain peace, leading to closure of that complaint. The two parties had also not appeared
263 before the Committee. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
82) Shri Babu Lal Versus The Editor Lucknow Aaj, Hindi daily Lucknow Complaint This complaint dated 3.9.2005 has been filed by Shri Babu Lal, Lucknow against “Aaj” Hindi daily, Lucknow for publication of an objectionable and defamatory news item captioned “Duplicate Chabi Lagakar Dukan Se Do Lakh Ki Chori” in its issue dated 26.8.2005, alleging that the complainant used duplicate key to open the disputed shop from where the cash and goods worth rupees two lakh had been stolen. The complainant has submitted that the allegation levelled in the impugned news item was totally false and was published with the intention to defame him. According to the complainant, no FIR was lodged at police station, Banthara district, Lucknow by Shri Kundan Lal against the complainant, as alleged, hence the matter published in the newspaper was based on imagination of the editor. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 26.9.2005 saying that the news item was objectionable and defamatory and demanded an apology. In response, the respondent editor in his reply has submitted that the allegation is completely devoid of merit as the news item in question was published on the basis that Shri Kundan Lal, the complainant’s rival in a property dispute lodged the report with the local police for the loss and theft. The complainant did not demand a clarification/ rejoinder to be published but insisted for an apology to which the respondent did not agree. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Aaj on 6.6.2006. Written Statement In his written statement dated 28.6.2006 the respondent has submitted that a dispute between complainant and Shri Kundan Lal is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD), Lucknow. The respondent has submitted that under the Court’s order, Shri Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate-cum-Commissioner visited the disputed shop in the presence of the complainant. The respondent has submitted
264 that the news item was published on the basis of the complaint dated 16.8.2005 lodged by Shri Kundan Lal to the DM, Lucknow. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 25.7.2006. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 12.9.2006, while denying the allegations made against him in the impugned news item the complainant reiterated his complaint. He submitted that the statement of the respondent was deliberate mis- statement of facts, containing falsehood. He further submitted that Shri Kundan Lal moved an undated application before the S.O. Banthara, Lucknow on concocted facts on 13.8.2005, which was not in his knowledge. He further added that the FIR had neither been registered nor its cognizance been taken and no criminal case has been initiated in any court of law. Hence, the defamatory news item published in the newspaper was not based on facts. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor on 18.12.2006. Reply of the Counter Comments In his reply dated 1.2.2007 the respondent editor denied the allegations and stated that the complainant misled the Press Council by suppressing the facts that the matter is pending between Shri Kundan Lal and the complainant in the Civil Court. The opponent of the case is the wife of Shri Kundan Lal. He further stated that there was no intention to defame the complainant by publishing the news item as it was published in public interest. A copy of the reply was forwarded to the complainant on 29.5.2007. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 16.5.2008. The complainant vide his letter dated 9.5.2008 intimated that he was unable to appear before the Committee due to ill health. He requested for another date of hearing. Shri Mahesh Mishra, Working Resident Editor, Aj, Lucknow appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the complainant decided to adjourn the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant in a letter dated 20.7.2008 requested for adjournment due to ill health. Shri Mahesh Mishra, Working Editor, appeared for the respondent Dainik Aj, Lucknow.
265 The Inquiry Committee while acceding to the request of the complainant for adjournment, however, observed that the complainant should have intimated his inability to appear before the Committee to the respondent. It decided that no more adjournment shall be granted to the complainant in this case. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant again requested for adjournment vide his letter dated 15.10.2008 due to ill health. Shri Rajendra Prasai, Marketing Executive, Aj, Lucknow, appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent representative submitted that the report was based on information received by them and the newspaper was ready to publish the contradiction of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the complainant sent respondent only a legal notice demanding publication of an apology but no rejoinder/clarification was sent by him. It observed that the function of a newspaper was to place all sides of an issue before the public to form its opinion. Therefore taking on the record the agreement of the respondent’s representative that the clarification of the complainant would be published, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council that the matter may be closed with direction to the respondent newspaper to publish the version of the complainant within a fortnight on the basis of the facts provided by the complainant in the complaint papers filed before the Council. The respondent may forward a copy of the issue of the newspaper carrying complainant’s clarification to the complainant as well as the Press Council of India for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
83) Ms. Madhurima Baruah Versus The Editor Guwahati Ajir Asom Assam Assam Case Summary A complaint dated 13.6.2003 was filed by Ms. Madhurima Baruah, Guwahati, Assam against Ajir Asom, Assamese daily published from Guwahati
266 for publication of an allegedly defamatory news item captioned “Roguery in GMDA, corruption reaches stupendous point, Bhanu’s mysterious sympathy to a woman who built a house unauthorisedly” in its issue dated 25.5.2003. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) had issued permission to Ms. Madurima Barua, an ex-employee of GMDA and at present an employee of P.W. Department of Government of Assam, to construct an Assam type house. She started the construction encroaching illegally a major portion of the land by covering the adjoining plot. The owner of the plot lodged a complaint against the unauthorized encroachment by Ms. Baruah. On the basis of the complaint and on receipt of the report of the Circle Officer of North Guwahati Revenue Circle, GMDA enquired departmentally and issued a “stop construction” notice to Ms. Baruah. But the lady did not move from her stand, as she was supported by Shri Bhanu, the Vice- President of GMDA. It was further alleged that Ms. Baruah had disobeyed the instruction of the authority several times but the GMDA did not take step to demolish the unauthorized construction. The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of documents noted the submissions of the complainant that construction was done in accordance with the permission given by the competent authority and no favour was shown by the Commissioner, as alleged in the news item dated 25.5.2003 in Ajir Asom. The complainant’s further grievance was that the question of showing favour to her did not arise as she had never met the Commissioner nor was he known to her. The Inquiry Committee noted the reply of the respondent Ajir Asom that the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) had issued permission to the complainant against Dag No.783, Patta No.279 of Mouza Sila Senduri Ghopa under North Guwahati Revenue Circle. But with the assistance of the said order of permission from GMDA, Ms. Baruah started construction by illegally encroaching a major portion of land bearing Dag No. 781. The real owner of the said land covered by Dag No. 781 and 780 of Patta No.279 had lodged a complaint against unauthorized construction by Ms. Baruah. On the basis of the said complaint the Circle Officer of North Guwahati Revenue Circle submitted a report and further GMDA also enquired the matter departmentally and issued a ‘stop construction notice’ to Ms. Baruah. Even after that Ms. Baruah did not stop construction of work. On 15th of May 2002, the GMDA issued another departmental notice for the second time. In reply to the said notice, Ms. Baruah’s letter was rejected and for the last time vide letter No.BP/737/141/99/47 dated 22nd October 2002 another notice was served upon Ms. Baruah to demolish the house under construction within a month. In the said notice, it was also made clear that the authority shall take needful action if there is violation of the said notice.
267 It was contended since Ms. Baruah was close with the high-ranking officials of GMDA, she had been in position to disobey the instructions of the authority several times. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents opined that the newspaper had reported the matter in the issue dated 25.05.2003 based upon the order issued by the Authority from time to time and was in possession of some material which formed the basis of publication of the impugned report. The Inquiry Committee therefore felt that there was no reason to take cognizance of the complaint and thus decided to recommend to the Council to close the complaint being devoid of merit. The Council in its decision dated 27.7.2007 considered the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee and accepted the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and closed the complaint as being devoid of merit. Review Application The complainant Ms. Madhurima Baruah, Guwahati, Assam vide her letters dated 13.11.2007 and 14.3.2008 has requested for review of the decision rendered by the Council on 27.7.2007 in her complaint against the editor, Ajir Asom, Guwahati on grounds of denial of principles on natural justice and error apparent on the face of record. The complainant has sought review of her case on the following grounds: a. After receiving the decision of the Council dated 27.7.2007 she noted that the Council’s decision was based on the written statement of the respondent editor, Ajir Asom. b. The complainant has claimed that she had not received any written statement dated 23.7.2004 of the respondent editor and was totally ignorant of its contents. c. If she had received the written statement her representative might have submitted her objections in writing before the Inquiry Committee on 29.3.2007. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 22.2.2008 that the written statement filed by the respondent editor had been sent to her on 19.9.2004, like all other communications sent to her previously and had not been received back in Council undelivered. With regard to her request for review of the case she was informed that review may be considered only if she provide any substantive information. Another copy of written statement was also forwarded to her. The complainant in her reply dated 14.3.2008 while denying the allegations of the respondent that she had any political influence, submitted that permission was granted for construction of a small Assam Type House to her by GMDA by
268 verification of sites and record as per rules and this has nothing to do with her intimacy with the Town Planner or Mr. M.G.K. Bhanu, IAS., whom she had never met, although she had worked in GMDA long back but at that time none of them were working there. She alleged that the respondent editor had published the impugned news item with malafide intention to defame her. The complainant claimed that she had neither encroached upon anybody’s land nor any illlegal construction of a house was taken upon the plot of land which was gifted to her by her father in law. Filing an Order dated 26.8.2005 of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3, at Guwahati in the Civil Suit No. 73/2002 between Champak Kanta Baruah & Ors. Vs Madhurima Baruah & Ors., the complainant claimed that the judgment itself proves that the newspaper had malafide and ill intention. Since this is the fact that other person is none other than the close relatives of her late father-in- law having some petty objection over a misplaced Dag Number on the same Patta of the plot of land, error unknowingly made by the revenue officer while supplying the copy of the mutation order to her which was cleared by the order of Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3, at Guwahati. The complainant requested the Council to consider her review application in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Civil Court, which has put to rest the whole matter over her so called illlegal construction, thereby revealing the malafide intention involved in the impugned news item through unethical journalism in collusion which some of her relatives to accrue benefits by publishing the false news item with a motive to defame her. Review Allowed The review application was placed before the Council in its meeting held on 12.6.2008 at Guwahati. The Council on perusing the documents and records of the case opined that the newspaper had reported the matter in the issue dated 25.5.2003 based upon the order issued by the Authority from time to time and was in possession of some material which formed the basis of publication of the impugned report. The Council also noted that the written statement dated 23.4.2004 was forwarded to the complainant vide letter dated 10.09.2004 and had not been returned by the postal authorities. The Council however, took note of the Order of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.3, Guwahati in a Civil Suit No. 73/2002, dated 26.8.2005 which was in favour of the complainant, was not placed on record at the time of hearing before the Inquiry Committee of the Council. It decided that since the record of service of the written statement was not complete, the review petition may be allowed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.10.2008
269 at New Delhi. Smt. Madhurima Baruah, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the respondent, the Ajir Asom. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that she is working as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department of the Government of Assam and had also acquired a Ph.D. degree from the Guwahati University in the year 2005. The complainant submitted that the newspaper had nefarious and malafide intentions in publishing the objectionable news item which was proved beyond doubt by the fact that, they did not even bother to know that a civil suit was going on at the Court of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) no.3 at Guwahati in that matter. By publishing the malafide news item they made her to suffer irreparable harm. However, the justice delivered by the Hon’ble Civil Court has proved that, it was a dispute amongst the family in relation to a minor displaced Dag number of the land which was an error unknowingly made by the Revenue office while supplying a copy of the mutation given to the father-in-law who was the original pattadar of the land gifted to her. The newspaper and its executive editor misled the Press Council of India by saying that ‘they have verified the facts of the news before publishing it and had maintained the standards of journalism’. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on going through the record and background of the matter, opined that the respondent newspaper Ajir Asom, had published the impugned report dated 25.5.2003 regarding alleged unauthorized construction based on the notice of the GMDA. The Inquiry Committee however, noted that the Ajir Asom transgressed the ethics in making unwarranted insinuation against the lady of her having intimacy with town planner. The Inquiry Committee further observed that the complainant had got a favourable verdict of the Civil Court in a Civil Suit No.73/2002 that the property in dispute over which she had made construction was gifted to her by her father-in-law. The Inquiry Committee expected that the newspaper should have presented the facts and followed up the story in journalistic approach and it should not have mingled up facts with comments and restrained insinuation derogatory and defamatory to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee while cautioning the editor, Ajir Asom decided to seriously reprimand the respondent and directed the editor to publish regret in the columns of Ajir Asom prominently. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
270 84) Shri Shah Mahmood Versus The Editor Behat, Distt. Saharanpur, U.P. Amar Ujala Meerut, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 6.4.06 has been filed by Shri Marrof Ahmad on behalf of Shri Shah Mahmood, Behat, District Shaharanpur against “Amar Ujala”, Meerut alleging publication of following objectionable news items:- S.No. Caption Dates Newspaper 1. “Phir Uth Rahi Hai Rashtra Droh Ki 9.7.2005 Amar Ujala, Sadandh” (Stink of treason rises again) Meerut 2. “Atankvadion ki khep west U.P. 11.7.2005 Amar Ujala, mein bhi tayaar ho rahi hai” (Team Meerut of terrorist is being readied in West U.P. also.) 3. “Bare bare darte hain aman ke 11.7.2005 Amar Ujala, dushman ‘baba’ se” (‘Big Wigs’ Meerut are afraid of enemy of peace ‘Baba’” The complainant has alleged that the publications were highly mischievous and obnoxious as being a pack of lies, they resulted into degradation of reputation of the saint Maulana Soofi Khwaja Mohammed Khush Hal Peer Sahib in the eyes of general public. Not only his Holiness, the tens of thousands of his followers throughout the country have felt shocked as the activities of the publication alleged his role with some terrorists. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 14.7.2005 to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut edition stating that the news items were reported maliciously knowing well that each and every sentence of the news items was not only false, frivolous and vexatious but also obnoxious, indicating the communal bent of mind from the tenor by not mentioning specific name of the person to whom it was referred to. The news items were not only highly mis- representative, torturous and perfidious, but highly irrationalistic. The respondent gave a reply dated 29.7.2005 and denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and questioned his locus standi in the matter. The respondent also stated that they failed to understand as to how the complainant could be sure that the news items were regarding their guru only as there were many babas living in and around Muzaffarnagar. He has submitted that the news item had not published the name of any specific person. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala on 6.8.2007. 271 The respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 16.8.2007 had submitted that they issued a detailed legal reply to the notice given by the complainant and since no fresh news item had been published, no further correspondence had also been received. Since the said baba has no complaint of defamation at all, how the right accrues to other different person to complaint on his behalf, stated the respondent; and added that the complainant is not the aggrieved person and therefore has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The respondent further submitted that the nature of complaint was quite ambiguous, not specific and was more of the nature of public interest litigation. The accusation terming the newspaper as communal did not contain even an iota of truth in it and did not have platform to stand on as for decades this newspaper is being published and no one from any quarter or section has made such a baseless and hallow allegation, stated the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the news items were not at all against muslims and evidently it is an attempt by the complainant only to give it a communal tinge as an attempt to malign the reputation of the newspaper simply because they have shown the courage to publish news items based on sheer objective reporting duly supported with documentation in utter discharge of pious duty of press towards it readers and general public only. He further submitted that in the news item, despite the reports of L.I.U., I.B., reports and enormous complaints received by the administrative authorities and the government, the newspaper exercised utmost restraint and in not a single news item, name and identity of the baba was mentioned and consequently it was difficult to comprehend as to how the alleged defamation has occurred. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.8.2007 for information/counter comments. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.4.2008. Shri Maroof Ahmed, Advocate represented the complainant. There was no appearance from the respondent, Amar Ujala. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the respondent Amar Ujala published a series of news reports against Sufi Baba which had hurt the sentiments of the disciples of baba. The Counsel further submitted that the legal notice was sent by the complainant to Amar Ujala and in their reply dated 29.7.2005, the respondent challenged the locus standi of the complainant. The Counsel submitted that the followers of religious Guru enjoyed the locus standi to move the complaint. As regards the publication of defamatory news reports in Amar Ujala without mentioning the name of the Baba, the Counsel contended that Sufi Baba had been identified in the reports through references such as that baba was residing at Chillegah Bihar Garh Morna, Muzaffarnagar, West Uttar Pradesh for the last 30 years and had built-up a palacial house. In one of the news reports
272 the newspaper Amar Ujala had mentioned the name as Sufi Khwaja Mohammed Khush Hal Sahib Baba. The Counsel denied that any secret inquiry was conducted against the baba. The Counsel was unable to provide any information on the citizenship status of the baba. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the Counsel directed the complainant to file an affidavit in support of his averments within three weeks and also clarify the issue of citizenship. The matter was accordingly adjourned. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.8.2008 at New Delhi. S/Shri Shah Mahmood, Behat, appeared in person along with Bahar-U-Barqi, Advocate, Mohd. H. Qureshe and Mrs. Nagria Afridi (U.P.). S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, Prabhat Kumar Srivastava appeared for Amar Ujala. The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 22.8.2008 on the request of the complainant counsel enabling him to file affidavit. The complainant counsel filed affidavit on 22.8.2008 stating therein that Chillahgah, Changah, Bihargarh, Hazrat, Moulana Soofi Khuaja Mohammed Khush Hal Sahib (Peer) is occupied in blessing and preaching to lead and follow the people the correct path of bonhomie, fraternity, love, tolerance and affection irrespective of caste, colour and creed and for the integrity and solidarity of India. His holiness was born in India and he has always been an Indian citizen. The following are the passports issued from time to time by the authorities in favour of his Holiness after due verification as required under the Indian Passport Act under its Rules: i) First Passport – Date of Issue 26.12.1975 issued at Lucknow Passport No. K657226 Expiry 26.12.1980. ii) Additional Booklet – Date of Issue 25.6.1977 issued at Lucknow Passport No. L162688 Expiry 26.12.1980. iii) Additional Booklet - Date of Issue 19.3.1979 issued at High Commission of India – Colombo, Passport No. L850283 Expiry date 26.12.1980. Extended validity of Passport – Date of Issue 29.10.1980 at Lucknow Passport No. L850283 Expiry date 24.10.1982. Extended Validity of Passport – Date of Issue 17.6.1982 at Lucknow Passport No. L850283 Expiry date 26.12.1985 (final). iv) Additional Booklet – Date of Issue 1.9.1982 at High Commission of India– Colombo Passport No.R596707 Expiry date 26.12.1985 (final). v) Additional Booklet – Date of Issue 12.9.1984 at High Commission of India–Colombo (Ceylon) Passport No. U692076 Expiry dated 26.12.1985 (Final). vi) Fresh Passport – Date of Issue 11.10.1985 at Bareilly Passport No. A515834 Expiry Date 10.10.1990.
273 vii) Fresh Passport – Date of Issue 10.7.1990 at Bareilly Passport No. H549052 Expiry date 10.10.1995.
Lost Passport – Date of Issue 20.6.1995 Expiry date 18.06.2005 Bareilly T861914 and U254375 - Date of Issue 31.1.1996 Expiry date 18.6.2005. viii) Fresh Passport – Date of Issue 19.12.1996 at Bareilly Passport No. A0282780 date of Expiry 18.6.2005. ix) Additional Booklet – Date of Issue 7.10.1998 at Bareilly Passport No. A6328326 date of Expiry 18.06.2005. x) Additional Booklet – Date of Issue 1.2.2001 at Ghaziabad Passport No.A9348828 date of Expiry 18.6.2005. xi) Valid Passport – Date of Issue 18.2.2005 at Ghaziabad Passport No.F2185741 date of Expiry 17.2.2015.
It was further stated in that affidavit that there is LIU Branch in district Muzaffarnagar, (U.P.) where one Sub-Inspector, Shri Mome Raj Singh was posted who bears a communal mind and who is chronically habitual of threatening the people to extract huge money and many times he was suspended and reinstated. This is the Sub-Inspector who has been manipulating news reports through various Hindi newspapers. The present respondent is one of them. Amar Ujala (Respondent) had no basis or any reliable sources or documents as claimed by it in its reply dated 16.8.2007 to support objectionable reporting. Being aggrieved against such reporting the complainant along with others approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and other higher officials of the State and the Hon’ble Prime Minister and demanded an enquiry and investigation by a higher investigating agency against such officials and Amar Ujala because such reportings are not only causing unrest in the society but were creating an unwarranted controversy between social groups of the society.
The respondents filed a copy of the confidential report of Special Officer, Muzaffarnagar recorded on 24.4.2005 regarding Shri Peerkhushal resident of Village Bihargarh, police station – Bhopa District – Muzaffarnagar that Shri Peerkhushal was born in 1925 in Balakoot, Peshawar, Pakistan and it was not known when did he migrate to India. In 1971, he built a small hut on the hummock at Bihargarh and later succeeded in getting 6.52 hectare land belonging to forest department in 1975, with political influence. He later built a palatial house worth Rs. two crore with boundary wall on 50 bigha land and was owning many luxury cars. He had grabbed the land illegally, the exact measurement of which is to be done by the forest department. The forest department had lodged complaint against him and other inhabitants residing surrounding his house as per cases as below:
274 Year Registered Number of Amount Number of Present Cases Felling Trees accused Position 89-90 1 2 3600/- 4 Case disposed of 91-92 2 9 11530/- 6 Case pending 92-93 1 2 7700/- 5 Case pending 94-95 4 15 10450/- 12 Case pending 95-96 1 2 2450/- 2 Case pending 97-98 2 1 9500/- 1 Case pending A case was also registered against Peerkhushal in crime no. 184/99 under Sections 332/353/342/504/506 of IPC by the Junior Engineer, Electricity Department. The foreigners were taking shelter at Sarai built by Shri Peerkhushal and a resident of Srilanka was given free treatment by an Orthopaedic doctor. The present scenario and the criminal activities of Shri Peerkhushal give indication that the foreign aid (money) might be utilized for terrorist activities. The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and directed the respondent to file an affidavit in support of the impugned reports. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file affidavit on their stand within 15 days whereafter the Inquiry Committee will verify the information from the authorities. The matter was adjourned. Affidavit filed by Amar Ujala dated 5.9.2008 As per directions of the Inquiry Committee the reporter of the respondent Amar Ujala had filed the affidavit in support of the impugned news items dated 9.7.2005 to 19.7.2005. The respondent stated that the news item dated 19.7.2005 published with the caption “Dhanadyon Ki Janch Me Fanse Baba Peer Khushal” is not the subject matter of the present complaint as it was filed by the complainant on 22.8.2008, as it was in some other context. The respondent reporter stated that the news items were based on the information received from the different police authorities, district administration, vigilance, LIU etc. The respondent reporter further stated that the information had been gathered by him from the responsible public servants. There was no reason to disbelieve on the same, and the news items were published in public /national interest. At the end of affidavit the respondent newspaper stated that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint which is in the nature of PLC and subject matter of the complaint is also beyond the jurisdiction of Council. A copy of the affidavit of respondent Amar Ujala was forwarded to the complainant on 22.9.2008 for information/rejoinder, if any.
275 Counter Affidavit filed by the Complainant dated 23.9.2008 In response to the affidavit filed by the respondent, the complainant in his rejoinder dated 23.9.2008 has submitted that affidavit was frivolous, misconceived and pack of lies. He submitted that the respondent failed to disclose and point out specific source of his obtaining information which led him to have published such objectionable news items. The complainant further submitted that just saying that he had received some information from government agencies does not amount to complying with the requirements directed by the Council. Such activities were attempt to malign image of Moulana Soofi Khwaja Mohammed Khushal Peer Sahib and thereby creating a chasm and hatred among certain factions of the society. A copy of the affidavit dated 23.9.2008 filed by the complainant forwarded to the respondent for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on November 17, 2008. Shri Shah Mahmood, the complainant appeared before the Inquiry Committee in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Amar Ujala, Meerut. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant stressed that the name of the Sufi Baba has been specifically mentioned in the news reports. He was a revered saint and enjoyed a large following who had been deeply hurt by the false insinuations against the Sufi Baba engaged in philanthropic work. He was a citizen of India and till date had never been ever questioned in connection with any terrorist activity. The publication had thus hurt the sentiments of thousands and thousands of devotees of Sufi Baba. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth before it. At the outset the Inquiry Committee rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent that the complainant had no locus standi to file this complaint. The Committee observed that as a devotee of Sufi Baba complainant had the locus standi to file the complaint. It referred to the principle developed as norm 3 (xi), Locus Standi, as, the issue:- in cases involving personal allegations/criticism, only the concerned person enjoying the locus standi can move the plaint or claim right to reply. However, a representative organisation of persons attached to an organisation or a sect / group has the locus standi to move complaints against a publication directly criticising the conduct of a leader.
276 On merits, the Committee observed that the respondent had published a series of news reports against Sufi Baba which questioned his nationality and commitment to the nation. The charges had hurt the religious sentiments of the devotees of Sufi Baba. It accepted that the Sufi Baba could be identified by the indications given in the impugned news reports. The complainant had produced before the Committee copies of various passports of Sufi Baba establishing that Sufi Baba was a bonafide citizen of India. On the other hand, the editor had been unable to produce any document that could have served as the basis for such serious charges. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, held that the Amar Ujala was not justified in carrying the impugned reports. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala, Meerut. It also recommended that the copies of the Council’s adjudication may be forwarded to DAVP, RNI, District Magistrate, Meerut and I&PRD, Government of U.P. for action, as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
85) Shri Shyam Sunder Gautam Versus The Editor Manager Dainik Jagran Sri Sarveshwar Shiksha Deep Agra Vidyalaya, Mathura (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 30.8.2006 has been filed by Shri Shyam Sunder Gautam, Manager, Sri Sarveshwar Shiksha Deep Vidyalaya, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh against Dainik Jagran, Agra alleging publication of false, fabricated and defamatory news item captioned “Kalank – Shiksha ke mandir mein youn shoshan” with his photograph in its issue dated 30.6.2006. It has been alleged in the impugned new item that the complainant sexually exploited a lady teacher and when due to this exploitation, the victim lady teacher resigned from the service, he (Complainant) published pamphlets with a view to defame her. The impugned publication further alleged that after publication of the pamphlet the crowd force marched to the complainant’s house and wreaked havoc. The impugned publication stated that on the complaint of victim lady, the police registered a case under Sections 345, 501 and 506 of sexual exploitation and arrested the accused complainant who is also Supervisor in Goat Research Centre. According to the complainant the impugned publication with his photograph was totally false and baseless and has damaged his reputation in public eye. The complainant submitted that the impugned news
277 item has been published with the connivance of some anti social elements and the police and mediapersons. The complainant denied publication of any pamphlet, as alleged in the impugned publication. The complainant submitted that he sent his contradiction on 23.2.2007 for publication but neither the respondent published any rejoinder nor gave reply. Vide his further letter dated 5.7.2007 the complainant informed that the respondent has been continuously publishing false and misleading news items. He submitted that the newspaper Dainik Jagran in its issues dated 2.3.2007 and 23.5.2007 again published false news items under the caption “Jhootha fasane ka aarop” and “Mahila ayog se shikayat” respectively and he had drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news items on 28.5.2007 with the request to publish his contradiction but the respondent did not pay heed to his request. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Written Statement Show cause notice to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran was issued on 12.4.2007 but he did not file reply or written statement in the matter despite reminder dated 12.7.2007. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2008. Shri Shyam Sunder Gautam, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the respondent editor’s side. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter as the service of notice on the respondent was not complete. The matter was accordingly adjourned. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on November 17, 2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Shyam Sunder Gautam was present in person, while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Dainik Jagran. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the averments made in his complaint. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents carefully. It observed that the respondent Dainik Jagran neither filed the written statement in response to the show cause notice of the Press Council of India dated 12/4/2007 followed by a reminder dated 12.7.2007 nor was it represented despite service of notice of hearing. Thus, the averments in the complaint remained unrebutted. In the absence
278 of any reply from the respondent, the Committee held that the respondent had no defence to offer in response to the charge of the complainant.
On merits, the Committee noted that Dainik Jagran had published the impugned news report against the educational institution and its Manager charging him of sexually exploiting a lady teacher. The photographs accompanying the impugned publication showed the complainant as giving his clarification. The material on record showed that an incident had indeed taken place when the lady concerned had taken the matter to the police. However, it felt that while reporting the developments, the paper had made no attempt to carry the version of the complainant that was totally at variance with version of the lady, and had been given out prior to the impugned publication. Yet it was denied its due space. Furthermore, the rejoinder sent post publication was not only ignored, the publication dated 2.3.2007 was so presented as to wrongly show that the complainant had issued a press release. The Committee felt that the impugned publication carried very serious charges and as it placed the complainant in an undoubtedly disadvantageous position, it was the duty of the newspaper to have afforded equal opportunity of version to the opposite party and then leave the matter in public domain. For the aforesaid reasons, the Inquiry Committee held that the respondent offended the norms with regard to defamatory writings and right to reply. For above infractions of journalistic norms, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper, Dainik Jagran, Agra. It further recommended that copies of the adjudication of the Council may be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Agra, RNI, and Information & Public Relations Department, Govt of U.P. for such action, as they deem fit in the matter.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
86) The Secretary Versus The Editor Bharatiya Red Cross Society Neemuch Prahari Neemuch, (M.P.) Neemuch, (M.P.)
Complaint
This complaint dated 16.8.2006 has been filed by the Secretary, Bhartiya Red Cross Society, Neemuch against ‘Neemuch Prahari’, a Hindi daily newspaper alleging publication of a series of false and defamatory news items running for months against the society’s activities and the Secretary. The captions of the objectionable writings are as follows:
279 1. ‘What do the wealthy donors intend to show by getting honoured by the Hon’ble Governor?’ dated 21.6.2006 2. ‘Dissatisfaction brewing against Secretary’ dated 23.6.2006 3. ‘Accounts are not audited’ ’13 A.C.s purchased by Red Cross Society installed for officers’ dated 24.6.2006 4. ‘Secretary, Red Cross in the grip of corruption’ dated 25.6.2006 5. ‘Why Red Cross Society ruled by one community?’ dated 26.6.2006 6. ‘Uma Bharti’s supporters disenchanted with Blood Bank, 90 Kgs blood was donated’ dated 27.6.2006 7. ‘Red Cross Society sells blood to private hospital. Needy and poor persons faced hardship’ dated 28.6.2006 8. ‘Resident of village Kukdeshwar, Pintoo, Patient of Thalassemia denied blood’ dated 30.06.2006 9. ‘Hue and Cry raised for A/c’s. Dated 1.7.2006 10. ‘Involvement of all office bearers in corruption not only of Red Cross but also allied branches like Blood Bank, Drug De-addiction Centre and Kilkari’ dated 12.7.2006 11. ‘Red Cross Society has always commendable activities’ dated 14.7.2006 and 12. ‘Lunch was not managed by Red Cross Society so Hon’ble Governor went hungry from Neemuch dated 8.8.2006. Denying the allegations the complainant alleged that the impugned news items were false and fabricated, and published only to defame the Society. The complainant has stated that donors who felt sympathetic and affectionate towards distressed humankind would only donate when they are fully satisfied that their donation will be properly utilized for good deeds and welfare of humankind and that the society to whom donation is given is trustworthy and reliable. In addition, donors do not hunger for honours, added the complainant. He also denied the purchase of 13 A/cs as totally false and fallacious and that no A/c was provided to any officer or office bearer of the society. The accounts of the Society have been audited annually and there is no charge of corruption nor any inquiry was pending against the Secretary and Executive Committee has expressed full faith and belief in him. The complainant also stated that the allegation of the Society being run by one community, was totally false and baseless and stated that members of the Society includes all class, caste and creed of the society.
280 With regards to the charges of selling of blood, the complainant has stated that they never sold blood and a nominal testing fee is collected. The Society makes all possible efforts and arrangements to comply with requirements of all government and non-government hospitals and granted rebate on testing charges to the poor and the needy, added the complainant. The complainant issued a rejoinder dated 14.8.2006 but it was neither published nor responded to. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.12.2006. No written statement was filed by the respondent, Neemuch Prahari. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 17.11.2008. Shri Pankaj Kumar Rathore appeared for the complainant, while editor, Neemuch Prahari remained unrepresented before the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant in his oral and written submissions submitted that Red Cross Society was helping the poor and the needy. The Society had collected money from the people at the time of different natural calamities in the country and had sent money to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. A sum of Rs.17 lakhs was sent at the time of Gujarat earthquake, 31 lakhs at the time Tsunami, but now, after the publication of impugned news reports, the society could not collect a single penny at the time of floods in Bihar. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record, the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor did not file the written statement despite receiving show cause notice dated 5.12.2006. The respondent was also not represented before the Committee to defend the impugned reports. The Committee, thus had to proceed on the premise that the respondent had no defence to offer. On merits, the Committee noted that the respondent had published a series of news reports levelling serious charges of corruption against the then Secretary of the Indian Red Cross Society. In addition, the working of the Society was also criticized. It appeared to the Committee that the reports had been published without cross- checking the facts or information from the concerned. The respondent editor compounded the offence by not affording right to reply to the complainant society by failing to publish its rejoinder dated 14.8.2006. The Committee opined that the respondent had violated norms of journalistic conduct regarding pre-publication verification and right to reply. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to warn the respondent editor, Neemuch Prahari, Neemuch, M.P., for the above infractions.
281 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
87) Shri P.S. Pahilwan Versus The Editor Principal, Swamy Muktanand Dainik Samrat Vidhayalay, Yeola and Secretary & Aurangabad CEO, Shri Gurudev Shikshan Maharashtra Prasarak Mandal, Yeola District : Nasik, Maharashtra Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 9.3.2006 has been filed by Shri P.S. Pahilwan, Principal Swami Muktanand Vidhayalaya, Yeola and Secretary & Chief Executive Officer, Shri Gurudev Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yeola, District Nasik against Dainik Samrat, a Marathi daily from Aurangabad for publication of an allegedly baseless and defamatory news item captioned ‘The institute is not established to hand over the power to Cobblers and Matangees-said communalistic Principal’ in its issue dated 11.1.2006. The objectionable portion of the impugned news item is reproduced below: ‘In the Legislative Constituency of Mr. Chhagan Bhujabal, who is the Minister of PWD, the Principal and winner of National Teachers Awards made generic statement that he has not started the institute to hand over the charge to the Cobblers and Matangees. This generic statement created a stir (furore) among the organization of backward teachers and also the organizations of non-teaching employees throughout Maharashtra and all of them condemned the Principal. As per the report of backlog Verification Committee, there are two sanctioned posts of Assistant Head Masters, one is reserved and the second is for open. But the generic principal did not intend to fill up the reserved post.’ Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the respondent published the baseless and defamatory news item without verification with malafide intention, thereby committing professional misconduct. He issued explanation to the respondents on 12.1.2006 but received no response, nor was his clarification published. No Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 23.3.2007. The respondent failed to file written statement in the matter.
282 No Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 17.11.2008, there was no appearance before it from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that despite receiving the notice of hearing the complainant neither requested for adjournment nor he was represented before it. In the absence of any communication from the complainant, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
88) Shri G.C. Rout Versus The Editor Jt. General Manager/Admn. Deshonnati Ordnance Factory Marathi Daily Nagpur Nagpur
Complaint
This complaint dated 10.3.2006 has been filed by Shri G.C. Rout, Joint General Manager/Admn., Ordnance Factory, Nagpur against Deshonnati, Marathi daily for publication of allegedly objectionable and defamatory news item captioned “Serious charges against officers of Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari” in its issue dated 21.2.2006. It was alleged in the impugned news item that a former contractor of the Factory in a press conference had alleged that some officers of Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari who were posted there for the last many years were taking bribes from the contractors of their choice and has demanded their suspension. It is further alleged that Shri Anand Singh said that in the Security Department Officers were transferred to other cities after completion of three years service, but the officer like S/Shri G.V. Shiv Kumar, Rajeev Agarwal, P. Mishra and G.C. Rout were frequently getting their posting to Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari and were taking bribe from the old contractors. In Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, there was a contract valued at rupees one crore, in which labourers were being paid Rs.70/- as against the wages of Rs.114.70/-.
The complainant while denying the report alleged that the impugned news item was published without verifying the veracity of wild allegations of corruption against senior officers made by disgruntled petty labour contractor, the respondent
283 published the impugned news item. He has submitted that the said contractor M/S Anand Enterprises had been issued advisory letters for bad performance in respect of catering service by National Academy of Defence Production (NADP) and thus fresh tenders were not issued to the firm. The complainant has submitted that the allegations were totally untrue and spoiled the image of the officers of the Factory. The petty contractor, who was apparently aggrieved by lawful action taken by the Factory, had influenced the newspaper. The complainant has informed that the newspaper niether published the rejoinder issued by the Factory on 10.3.2006 nor gave justification for not publishing the rejoinder. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 2.6.2006. Written Statement In his written statement dated 8.2.2007, Shri P.G. Pohre, Editor, Dainik Deshonnati, Nagpur has specifically denied that the said news article was published without verifying facts. He stated that the complaint under reply was a frivolous and baseless and was nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law and the same was filed with an ulterior motive to pressurize the respondent so that the respondent should succumb to the complainant’s demand of publishing an apology and it was filed to harass the respondent mentally and otherwise. The respondent further stated that contents of the said complaint were false and dishonest. As per the content of news item in question the contractor, Anand Singh made all allegations against the complainant including other officers of the factory in press conference and was well within the knowledge of complainant, added the respondent. Moreover, Anand Singh made the allegations against the complainant by arranging press conference at Nagpur. He stated that the complainant himself admitted in the complaint that he ought to have taken legal action against the said contractor. The respondent submitted that if the allegations made by the Contractor, Anand Singh against the Factory were false then it was just and necessary that the complainant should have taken legal action against him personally but the complainant has not taken the step against him and filed a false complaint against the Deshonnati newspaper only. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had intentionally not made Shri Anand Singh (Contractor) party to the present complaint though he was real caused person to the present complaint. He also submitted that without prejudice the above pleading the respondent was ready to publish clarification if the complainant is ready to give minute details in connection with the news item along with necessary documents. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 30.3.2007.
284 Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 13.6.2007 has given detailed submissions asserting that the respondent did not verify the facts and did not obtain details from them but published the news item to tarnish the image of the complainant’s as well as organization and the concerned officers before the public at large. He denied all the contents of the written statement. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to respondent editor on 2.7.2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 17.11.2008. Shri G.C.Rout, Joint General Manager (Admn) along with Shri Subhasis Mahapatra appeared for the complainant, while Shri Abhijeet Deshmukh, Correspondent, represented the newspaper daily Deshonnati. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. Shri Deshmukh, appearing for the respondent, stated that after the press conference, the reporter contacted the officers but they did not give clarification. He added that had the complainant sent clarification replying to the charges on merits after publication of the report, the same would have been carried by the newspaper. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee: The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral submissions put forth before it. The Committee observed that merely on the basis of a press conference of a contractor, the respondent published the report levelling serious charges of corruptions against the officers of the Ordnance Factory without any verification of the charges on such an important matter having serious ramifications for national security in the present scenario. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to warn the respondent editor to refrain from publishing unverified news reports based on press conference of a person who did not enjoy any locus to comment on the issue. However, as the respondent editor assured to publish the clarification of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send factual clarification to the respondent and the respondent to publish the same prominently at a conspicuous space without making any comments thereon. The Inquiry Committee further directed the respondent to forward a copy of the issue carrying the rejoinder to the complainant as well as the Press Council for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with above directions to the parties.
285 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
89) Shri P. Satyanarayana Raju Versus The Editor District BC Welfare Officer Vaartha Daily Khamam, (A.P.) Edulapuram (A.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 2.4.2006 has been filed by Shri P.Satyanarayana Raju, District BC Welfare Officer, Khamam, A.P., against Vaartha daily, Edulapuram, for publication of a false and baseless news item captioned “B.C.Samkshemamloo Collection Kings – Mudipula Kosam Suspensions – Manchi Posting Koosam Deputations” in its issue dated 17.1.2006. The impugned news item reported irregularities in transfers-postings/suspensions-reversions etc of the employees of the department. The complainant submitted that insiders who were deprived of personal favours could have tried to exploit the situation by using the press to defame the district administration. The impugned news item was baseless and the press reporter intentionally published it without making any pre-publication verification from the department. The complainant further submitted that the respondent denied right of reply by not responding to his detailed rejoinder dated 20.1.2006 issued to the editor that gave all the facts and clarified the position as recorded below.
Allegation Reply Transfer of HWO Gr.II Govt Transfer was effected to the HWO Gr.I, BC Girls Hostel, Tirumalayapalem. Govt BC Girls Hostel, Tirumalayapalem to Nelakondapally considering spouse case in accordance with the government orders as her husband working as Sr.Asst., in Govt Jr.College, Nelakonda Pally. Placing of HWO Gr.II. Govt BC It is the temporary arrangement, the Boys Hostel, V.V.Palem as department is taking action for filling up Incharge to the Govt BC Girls of vacant post of HWO with the Class- Hostel Tirumalayapalem. IV employees by promotion. Placing of ASWO, Palvoncha as Administrative convenience, the ASWO full additional charge to the post Sathupally was kept full additional charge of ABCWO, Palvoncha instead to the post of ABCWO, Palvoncha as of placing the ATWO Palvoncha. most of the hostels are surrounding Sathupally erstwhile taluk.
286 Irregular transfer and depution of The Govt have issued orders lifting ban Junior Assistants working in the on transfer and posting of govt employees Office of the DBCWO, Khamam in the month of June/July 2005. The to ABCWOs office, Khamam by transfer was effected to the IA of this taking money. office who is long standing and working 18 years in one place. She was also deputed to DBCWO on administrative ground. Deputation made to the class-IV Deputation have been made to the class- employees on their request and IV employees for effective function of some of the Class-IV were hostels on administrative grounds only suspended during hotel inspections without suffering any employees were by the DBCWO without any also placed under suspension due to their serious allegation and they were indiscipline in discharging their duties and reinstated and posted to their they were also reinstated duty after willing. following the due procedure posting them in the agency area. Action is being taken by the The allegation is not correct. After return department for posting of the from leave by the HWO, Mulakalapally, HWO, Govt BC Boys Hostel, it is proposed to post at Nugur Venkata- Mulakalapally on return from puram which is agency area and far leave in good place. off distance of 250 kms, Khamam Town. Due to technical reasons It is not correct the ABCWO has reversion was effected to the reported in the office on 9.12.2005. After ABCWO, Palvoncha. She get taking approval of the District Collector, orders from the Court for orders have been issued admitting the continuing as ABCWO, above individual to duty from 9.12.05. Palvoncha. But the DBCWO, Palvoncha. But the DBCWO has delayed one month to give joining permission to her intentionally. The respondent failed to file written statement in response to the show cause notice dated 12.2.2007. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. The complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Vaartha.
287 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the impugned publication was prompted by a disgruntled employee to belittle him and harm his standing. The matter had been enquired into on the directions of the District Collector and the facts were found to be otherwise, but Vaartha neither cared to contact them before the publication nor was the rejoinder published. The complainant stated that he suffered great mental agony and physical injury due to false publication. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, upon perusing the record and hearing the complainant, noted that the editor, Vaartha neither filed written statement nor made any appearance before the Committee leading to draw the inference that the respondent had no defence to offer. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of material available on record. It noted that the complainant department had issued a detailed rejoinder dealing with each allegations made in the news item giving parawise reply in juxtaposition with regard to each transfer and postings in the department. The respondent having failed to make pre-publication verification should have made amends immediately on receipt of the rejoinder from the complainant by publishing the facts and leaving the matter to the readers to judge and form an opinion. It has, on the contrary, steadfastly supported one-sided stand by even failing to submit to the Press Council. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the editor, Vaartha for infraction of norms of journalistic conduct. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
90) Shri V. Mohan Babu & others Versus The Editor Lab-Technician, Grade-II Vaartha, Telugu daily Primary Health Centre Hyderabad C. Belgal, Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh Complaint Shri V. Mohan Babu, Lab-Technician Grade-II, Primary Health Centre, Kurnool District (Andhra Pradesh) and others vide their complaint dated 2.7.2006 against the editor, “Vaartha”, Telugu daily, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) have alleged that the respondent had published a false and misleading news item with ill-motive under the caption “Without eligibility promotions-cheating in the food serving department-Scam in Lakhs in Medical & Health Department” (English
288 Translation) in its issue dated 2.7.2006. The impugned publication charged the department employees with financial irregularities and promotion of unqualified persons of the post of Lab Technician/Lab Attendants. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainants alleged that the caption of the impugned publication was highly objectionable since the promotions were entirely the service matter between the employer and the employee. The complainants further alleged that the respondent mischievously published that they had been served with charge memo on the direction of the Administrative Tribunal. The complainants also alleged that the respondent was degrading their position as Lab Attendants to Lab Technician Grade-II in pursuance of Special Rules for recruitment to the said post issued in G.O. Ms.No.565 Medical & Health Department dated 27.8.1979. According to them, the respondent could not interfere in their service matters without having the full knowledge of the service jurisprudence. The complainants alleged that the respondent without quoting any court direction published that as some employees had approached the court and it was disputed and thereby the Administrative Tribunal got wild that they were still continuing as Lab-Technicians Grade-II which was a false statement and highly objectionable. The complainants submitted that they had drawn the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned publication on the same day i.e. 2.7.2006 but no reply has been received and no rejoinder was published by the respondent. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 4.10.2006 the respondent editor, Vaartha vide his undated written statement, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 1.11.2006, while denying the allegations levelled in the complaint, submitted that they had no malice towards the complainants and they did not know who were beneficiaries of the proceedings mentioned in the impugned news item. The respondent further submitted that the impugned news item was published only with an intention to bring out the facts of the happenings, in the administration of the Health Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh. According to the respondent, as per the enclosures submitted by the complainant itself it was clear that (42) non-qualified persons were appointed as Lab-Assistant Grade-II under Rule 10(a)(1)(1) i.e. purely on temporary basis, in the pay scale of Lab-Attendants on 11.8.1995, which was itself a clear irregularity. The respondent stated that in usual course they were to be given the post of Lab-Attendants and they were to be placed as in charge Lab-Technicians Grade-II posts only as they were fit to that post only. In the said appointment letter, it was clearly mentioned that they would have been paid the pay scale of Lab-Assistant, till they acquired Lab- Technician course certificate. According to the respondent, in view of the clear condition, the persons who were appointed were not eligible to claim the pay scale
289 of Lab-Technician Grade-II. ignoring this clause the Government had paid the pay scale attached to the post of Lab-Technician Grade-II from the date of appointment under the guise of orders of A.P. Administrative Tribunal under various proceedings causing huge loss to the Revenue of the Government i.e. loss to public. The respondent stated that the impugned news item was published only with an intention to bring the said irregularities to the notice of the public without any malice or motive to defame anyone and persons who were affected were also not known to them. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 17.5.2007 for information/counter comments. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance on either side. However, the complainant filed a written submissions dated 5.12.2008 informing that the Vaartha had published the rejoinder in the issue dated 5.11.2006. The Inquiry Committee observed that the impugned publication was a report or information received by the newspaper on the working of a public institution therefore the matter was of public interest. The ethical shortcoming of having failed to take the version of the department/ affected person at pre-publication stage had been rectified by publication of the rejoinder, albeit at a belated stage. The Committee, therefore, felt that no further action was required against the respondent under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act and recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
91) Ch. Dhananjaya Naidu Versus The Editor Sub-Inspector of Police Vaartha Special Branch Hyderabad-(A.P.) Visakhapatnam Rural (A.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 27.1.2007 has been filed by Ch. Dhananjaya Naidu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Visakhapatnam Rural against the “Vaartha”, Telugu daily alleging publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item in its issue dated 1.12.2006. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant, who had been facing several allegations, snatched away “Sainikudu” film cinema tickets at Jyoti theatre. The impugned news item further alleged that police officers were turning out to be worse than the ticket black-marketers.
290 The complainant submitted that on 30.11.2006, a Telugu film “Sainikudu” was released in Jyothi theatre and on the same day respondents demanded to secure cinema tickets by using his influence. He felt that it was not his legitimate duty to do such acts and he did not fulfil the demand of the respondents upon which the respondents threatened not only him but also his staff who were present at that time, saying that no one can stop him if anything was published in their newspaper. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Vaartha, Hyderabad on 14.6.2007. Written Statement In his written statement dated 26.7.2007 the respondent submitted that the complainant was facing several allegations in all the places where he worked. The news item in question published on 1.12.2006 was true. The respondent further stated that on 30.11.2006, the complainant snatched away 15 tickets of the cinema called “Sainikudu” from Jyothi theatre, that the persons who were standing in the queue for the tickets for hours together were shocked by the act of the complainant and they immediately telephoned to the Commissioner of Police and he rushed to the police station where the complainant was working and enquired about the incident. The Commissioner conducted an enquiry basing on the publication dated 1.12.2006 and after satisfying himself, the Commissioner surrendered the S.I. to the DIG of Police for transfer. The impugned news item was published as it was true for the public good and not with ill motive or intention as alleged. The respondent submitted that after issuing the notice dated 25.12.2006 and 27.12.2006, the complainant approached them and requested to publish his version as a clarification to the publication dated 1.12.2006. Accordingly, they published the clarification in their newspaper Visakhapatnam edition dated 28.12.2006. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.8.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance on either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and observed that the question before it in the instant complaint was of journalistic propriety and the respondent ‘Vaartha’ in all fairness had published the rejoinder of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided that no further action was warranted in the matter. It recommended to the Council to close the complaint.
291 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
92) The Public Relations Officer Versus The Editor Tuticorin Port Trust The Hindu Tuticorin Chennai Complaint This complaint dated 24.4.2007 has been filed by the Public Relations Officer, Traffic Department, Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin against ‘The Hindu’ Chennai for publication of an allegedly false, objectionable and malicious news item in its issues dated 14.2.2007 captioned “Trade union members observe fast in Tuticorin” and 9.4.2007 in “Reporter’s Diary” with a motive to tarnish the image of the Port. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 26.7.2007. But respondent did not file the written statement despite service of notice. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. Shri A.A. Sheik Monna Ahmed, Public Relations Officer, Tuticorin Port Trust appeared for the complainant. Shri Suresh Nambak, Chief of Bureau appeared for the Hindu. The complainant submitted that the Tuticorin Port Trust is no more interested in pursuing the complaint as the Chairman of the Trust has been changed. The Inquiry Committee, upon hearing the complainant decided to close the complaint for non-prosecution. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
93) Shri V. Chandrashekhar Versus The Editor Bangalore Ahinda Vani (Karnataka) Bangalore (Karnataka) Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 15.11.2006, has been filed by Shri V.Chandrashekar, Bangalore against Ahinda Vani, a Kannada monthly from Bangalore for publication of allegedly inaccurate,
292 baseless and misleading news item captioned “A ploy to politicize the issue of ration card also” in its September-October 2006 issue. According to the complainant, it was reported in the impugned news item that by adopting all tricks he was successful, in snatching the post of President of Anjanapura Grama Panchayat, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste women. It was also alleged that the complainant, not showing the guts to directly contest elections for Grama Panchayat during 2005, he had made the candidates withdraw by showing bait and was successful in getting elected unopposed. The complainant was also alleged to have manipulated as the Panchayat head, the distribution of rations cards, which caused strong protest among the public. The complainant denied the allegations and submitted that the procedure for issuance of ration card involved various government authorities to scrutinise the accuracy of information, and allegation levelled against him shows that the article is malicious, misleading and unjustified. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 25.1.2007. The respondent Editor, Ahinda Vani in his written statement dated 10.2.2007 has submitted that the complainant has not specifically denied the charges levelled against him in his complaint before the Press Council or in any letter to the respondent. The complainant has not asked him for any clarification, added the respondent. The respondent further submitted that as a journalist committed to public interest, he has every right to expose any malpractice with regard to any matter of public interest and also to inform the public through his newspaper, the true state of affairs. The respondent asserted that the State Government of Karnataka was taken to task by the opposition party in the legislative assembly with regard to the irregularities in the distribution of ration cards to the poor and the needy, and the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies assured to take suitable action after a full-scale survey. He has alleged that the complainant has tried to curb the freedom of the press by filing complaint against him. He also submitted that they had no grudge against the complainant nor made charge of corruption but only a charge of favouritism in the distribution of ration cards and that in the post he had also been praised for his good work. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.3.2007 for information and counter comment. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. Shri A. Vijikumar, advocate appeared for the respondent, Ahinda Vani. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.
293 The respondent submitted that the impugned report was published in public interest and issue of ration card distribution was raised by the leader of opposition in legislative assembly. Inquiry was under process. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper was not aware of the outcome of the inquiry since the report has not been finalized. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the record noted that the complainant was a public person occupying the post of head of the Panchayat and his action and conduct thereby were open to public scrutiny and comments. He has not filed any evidence to support his assertion of falsity of charge while the respondents action was fortified by the assertion of public interest. The Inquiry Committee further noted that full scale state inquiry into the allegations of malpractices in distribution of ration cards was stated to be pending. It was, thus of the opinion that no malice could be attributed to the respondent newspaper in reporting the matter that was in the public interest. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
94) Shri V. Chandrashekhar Versus The Editor Bangalore Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike (Karnataka) Bangalore (Karnataka) Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat on 15.11.2006, has been filed by Shri V.Chandrashekar, Bangalore against Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike, a Kannada news magazine from Bangalore for publication of allegedly inaccurate, baseless and misleading news item captioned ‘History of Villain Younger Brother of Vajramuni’ in its November 15, 2006 issue. It was reported in the impugned news item that the action of Vajramuni who acted as Prachanda Ranvana in the theatre and was permanent villain of films, was never a villain in his real life. However, his own younger brother Chandrashekhar @ Chandru as a different manifestation of Ravana has been causing trouble to the people of Anjanapura. For the craze of land of Chandru, who was also the President of Anjanapura Grama Panchayath, the burial ground, Gomal and all have fallen prey and the village is divided into two groups. It was further stated that Chandru who pacified the scheduled caste people for a while, gave eight guntas of land in government Grove in Survey Number 56 of Anjanapura,
294 as burial ground for the scheduled caste. After three/four burials all of a sudden, some Muslims went there, claiming that piece of land was given to them by the President Chandru for dismantling the graves and the intervention of the some village people prevented the occurrence of an ugly scene and left the issue to be decided in the presence of President Chandru. The complainant was alleged to have refused to go to the Panchayat meeting on 28th October, and when called, he was alleged to have threatened those who went to bring him. It is further alleged that there was a rumour that for the land in question an advance of Rs.20 lacs had already been received by Chandru. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the respondent violated the norms of journalistic conduct and published baseless and misleading news article with malicious intent to tarnish his image in the public. He added that the respondent distorted material without respect for the truth and published unjust rumours and surmises set forth as fact and also failed to verify their authenticity. The complainant also alleged that he sent his rejoinders to the respondent for publication but received no response. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 25.1.2007. The respondent in his written statement dated 4.4.2007 has submitted that the impugned news item was published on the basis of facts and also published in public interest. It was a fact that there was a dispute between the backward caste and the Muslims of the area regarding burial sites and it was also a fact that the complainant played an important role in causing confusion in the minds of the people of the area regarding burial sites and because of his action, there was communal tension in the area for a few days. The respondent also stated that they concluded the impugned news article with the hope that the complainant Mr. V. Chandrashekar will solve the dispute and protect the interest of both the communities in the area. The respondent further stated that the complainant has, at no point of time, sent them his clarification or rejoinder regarding the impugned news article and alleged that the complainant tried to mislead the Council by falsely claiming to have sent a rejoinder. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.5.2007 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Mohan S. Reddy, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Learned counsel for the
295 respondent asserted the correctness of the impugned report and reiterated the submissions made in the written statement. When questioned by the Committee as to how the report could be based on ‘rumours’ as stated therein, the counsel submitted that they had authentic information but no supportive documents, therefore, they labelled it as ‘rumours’. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record as well as the impugned news item captioned “History of Villain Younger Brother of Vajramuni”. It noted the submissions that the developments as reported by the paper were based of facts. These were highlighted to bring to public notice the dispute and the role therein of the complainant as a public person. The Inquiry Committee felt that while the publication itself could not be held to be faulty, the language used by the respondent was not very dignified. While a public person may be criticized and commented upon in performance of his functions, it is improper to use adjectives and terms deemed derogatory. Further, instead of claiming that the report was based on ‘rumours’, the proper journalistic terms, in the light of the submissions was, ‘learnt from reliable sources’. This caution should be observed by the respondent for future reference. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to reject the complaint with the above observations. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
95) Shri Siddu Savadi, MLA Versus The Editor Jamakhandi Constituency Gouri Lankesh Bagalakota Bangalore Karnataka Karnataka Complaint This undated complaint received on 20.7.2007 has been filed by Shri Siddu Savadi, MLA, Jamakhandi Constituency, District Bagalakota, Karnataka against Gouri Lankesh, a Kannada weekly, Bangalore for publication of allegedly misleading and defamatory news item captioned ‘Jamakhandi Chieftainship of Siddu Savadi’ in its issue dated 4.7.2007. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was published without pre-publication verification and the respondent even denied right of reply by refusing to publish his rejoinder. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 20.8.2007. The
296 respondent editor, Gauri Lankesh, Bangalore in his written statement dated 1.10.2007 submitted that the news report in question was based on facts and other daily newspapers had published the same material. The respondent further submitted that the complainant Shri Siddu Savadi had initiated a Civil Case No. O.S.No. 4979/2007 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore against the newspaper for publication of the news item in question, the matter thus, became sub-judice. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 22.7.2007 for information and counter comments. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Mohan.S.Reddy, Advocate appeared for the respondent and submitted that the matter is pending in the Court and thus the Council may not proceed with inquiry under Section 14(2) of the Act. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the record noted that the complainant neither filed counter to the written statement of the respondent nor was he represented before the Committee to contradict the averments of the respondent. The Committee while accepting the statement of the respondent that the matter was pending in a civil court and was, thus, sub-judice, recommended to the Council to drop the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
96) Kumari Shobha Kerandlaje Versus The Editor Member of Legislative Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Council Bangaluru Patrike (Karnataka) Bangaluru (Karnataka) Complaint This complaint dated 17.1.2007 has been filed by Kumari Shobha Karandlaje, Member of Legislative Council of Karnataka, Bangaluru against Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike, for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Shobha is Mohini and Yaddi is Bhasmasura for BJP- A Mohini is born to ruin the demons called BJP-She is Shobha Karandlaje”(English translation) in its issue dated 24.1.2007. The impugned news item reported that due to Mohini (complainant) it is guaranteed that their party will be ruined, as she had no value. It was further reported that not only that the worshipper of this Mohini, Deputy Chief Minister
297 Yadiyurappa has vowed even if the sky fall he will not ditch her and decided to make her a Minister but the high command of the party say ‘chee what will happen to the honour of our party’. The internal fighting had been going on in the camps of Cheddis at that time when MLC Shobha was going to become a Minister in the present Koja Govt. See the sorry plight of these Hindu heroes, at one time they were boasting as they have taken contract of protecting Bharathambe and also Hindu Religion and Hindu Culture but when one beautiful Shobha Karandlaje entered the Karnataka politics, then the turmoil in the BJP started and had grown to such an extent that the BJP was on the verge of being split internally. But Yeddi was bent upon to make her Minister. Objecting to the insinuations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that she was a Member of Legislative Council of Karnataka State and involved in social service oriented activities without expecting any rewards. According to the complainant, she was also in the past elected senate member of Mangalore university during her college days. Thereafter she jumped into full time politics and joined BJP as State General Secretary and after considering her efficacious work the party leaders made her MLA. The complainant stated that she earned good name, fame and reputation in the society and apart from that she got lot of supporters in the state of Karnataka in particular and at national level in general. The complainant alleged that the respondent violated the norms of journalistic conduct and principles by publishing the baseless and misleading articles with the malicious interest to tarnish her image in the public. The complainant submitted that the respondent published the disputed material without respect for the truth. According to her, the respondent failed to verify the authenticity of the facts before publishing the unjust rumours in the impugned news item. The complainant submitted that she sent rejoinder to the respondent but neither the respondent published the contradiction/clarification nor gave reply. A show cause notice dated 8.3.2007 was issued to the editor, Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike, Bangaluru. Written Statement The respondent editor in his written statement dated 4.4.2007 while denying the allegations submitted that the impugned article was published in public interest, based on the facts and after thorough investigation. According to him, there was no prejudice against anyone and asserted that the complainant did not send her clarification/rejoinder to them for publication and she deliberately misled the Press Council. The respondent stated that the complainant many times herself in the interview repeated that the Chief Minister, Shri B.S. Yediyurappa was her “Godfather” and it was also a fact that the complainant was an aspirant to ministership in the coalition government between the Janta Dal (Secular) and the BJP. Journalists are aware that it was not unusual for political ‘godfathers’ like
298 Shri Yediyurappa to grant such positions to their political followers and associates such as the complainant. Just the way even common people know that politicians couch their ambitions about party positions in the words “I am willing to serve the party in which ever position the party deems fit” and the complainant’s case was not different. The respondent further stated that it was the duty of a journalist to expose such dissident activity in a major political party and that was what they had done. According to the respondent, the faction which was opposed to Chief Minister, Shri Yediyruppa and the complainant group citied the tale of “Mohini and Bhasmasura” to illustrate how their combine would destroy the BJP in the State and that was also what they had reported in the impugned news article. There was nothing false or inaccurate in the statement that members of the faction headed by Shri Yediyurappa and the complainant had managed to get most of the posts in the district levels of the BJP. The respondent stated that since the impugned article was about the dissidence against Shri Yediyurappa and Ms. Shobha Kerandlaje’s faction, their photos were published along with the article and he did not understand that why she had objected to the photo published with her ‘political guru’ and political godfather’. According to him, the box item pertains to who else in the BJP stand a chance to be selected as member of the Cabinet. The respondent stated that they were totally clueless how this amounts to anti-public in the opinion of the complainant. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.5.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. Shri Mohan S. Reddy, Advocate appeared for the Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike and submitted that the matter published in the Patrike was based on reliable sources. The respondent counsel reiterated the submissions made in the written statement. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the impugned news item captioned: “Sobha is Mohini and Yaddi is Bhasmasura for BJP. A Mohini is born to ruin the demons called BJP- She is Shobha Karandlaje” published in 24.1.2007 issue of Gauri Lankeshra Lankesh Patrike observed that the respondent newspaper had reported on political scenario in the State in a manner that as per the complainant cast aspersions on her character. The Inquiry Committee opined that the Press has the rights to comment on the action of one holding public office, but it may not indulge in character assassination. The report should have been couched in a more dignified language. At the same time the political figures need to adopt a more open approach towards the media comment on their actions and conduct. The Inquiry Committee while strongly disapproving the manner of reporting,
299 cautioned the editor, Gauri Lankeshara Lankesh Patrike against basing their value judgments on mere hearsay and failure to establish facts. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
97) Km. Shobha Kerandlaje Versus The Editor Member of Legislative Hai Bangalore Council, Bangaluru (Karnataka) Bangaluru (Karnataka) Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat on 5.2.2007 has been filed by Km. Shobha Kerandlaje, Member of Legislative Council of Karnataka, Bangaluru against ‘Hai Bangalore, a Kannada weekly, Bangaluru for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Yeddi has readied to make Shobha as Minister” in its issue dated 19.1.2007. It was stated that the impugned news item that as soon as the date for cabinet expansion of BJP-JD(S) coalition Government was fixed, the Deputy Chief Minister all of a sudden awakened and was intending to make Shobha Kerandlaje as Minister. Even in the past when the BJP-JD(S) coalition Government came into power Yaddi was intending to make Shobha Kerandlaje as Minister. He had expressed so in public also, but Ananth Gang revolted and said ‘if it is so, it should be Vimala or otherwise keep quiet”. According to the complainant, the impugned news item was totally imaginary, baseless and unjustified published without proper pre-publication verification to create a colourful and sensational story with vested malafide interest without respecting the truth. The complainant further alleged that the news item in question was published with distorted material with an attempt to hide the truth from the public. She alleged that the planted defamatory publications glorified the one sided story to damage her reputation in public. The complainant issued an undated letter to the respondent with a request to publish its rejoinder, but received no response. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 8.3.2007. No written statement has been filed by the respondent in the matter. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance before it from either side.
300 The Inquiry Committee perused the record and even while it observed that the editor, ‘Hai Banglore’ should have taken care to file reply to the notice of the Council, it observed that the respondent ‘Hai Bangalore’ had reported political change in the State, that the complainant was intended to be inducted by the Deputy Chief Minister in the cabinet expansion of BJP-JD (S) coalition Government. The Inquiry Committee did not find fault with the respondent in commenting on the events in proper journalistic language. It, therefore, decided to close the complaint being devoid of merit and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
98) Km. Shobha Kerandlaje Versus The Editor Member of Legislative Council Jaya Kirana Bangaluru (Karnataka) Mangalore (Karnataka) Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat on 5.2.2007 has been filed by Km. Shobha Karandlaje, Member of Legislative Council of Karnataka, Bangaluru against ‘Jaya Kirana’ Mangalore, a Kannada newspaper for publication of an allegedly defamatory news item under the captioned “Now, Mohini Problem in BJP Vishwanath Tease” in its issue dated 15.1.2007with a view to sarcastically make fun of the serious issue to create her bad image in the society ignoring all the core issues. It was alleged in the impugned news item that again Mohini trouble has started from Shobha Karnadlaje to BJP. Shobha, the MLC, who is having the Party and the Administration in her control, now is interfering with the cabinet expansion. She herself is bent upon becoming a Minister and acting as Mohini. Yadiyurappa is dancing to the tune of this Mohini and not lending ear to the words of any other leader. By this, revolt situation has arisen in the State unit. According to the complainant, the news item in question was published with a distorted material, unjustified rumours and surmises set forth as facts. She has alleged that the impugned news article was highly defamatory, inaccurate and baseless. No Written Statement The respondent did not file written statement in the matter despite service of show cause notice issued to the respondent on 8.3.2007.
301 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee perusing the impugned news item “Now, Mohini Problem in BJP Vishwanath Tease” published in 15.1.2007 issue of Jaya Kirana, observed that the respondent newspaper had reported on political changes in the State which was in accordance with journalistic practice. However, while commenting on the issue the respondent editor, Jaya Kirana used language that adversely affected the character of the complainant. It opined that the Press had all the right to criticise the actions of anyone holding public office, but it may not indulge in character assassination or take refuge to “rumour” or “reliable information” to malign the public figure. The Inquiry Committee while strongly disapproving the manner of reporting decided to recommend to the Council to caution the editor, Jaya Kirana for the above. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
99) Km. Shobha Karandlaje Versus The Editor Member, Karavali Ale, Kannada daily Legislative Council of Karanataka Mangalore, Karnataka Bangaluru, Karnataka Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 13.2.2007 has been filed by Km. Shobha Karandlaje, Member, Legislative Council of Karnataka, Bangaluru against Karavali Ale, Kannada daily of Bangaluru for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Whether State BJP is the private property of Yadiyurappa-Shobha?” (English translation) in its issue dated 17.1.2007. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Shri Yadiyurappa, Deputy Chief Minister, who went giving post in the party and the Legislature to Shobha for his selfish ends, volunteered to get a Ministership for Shobha neglecting the opinion of the workers, leaders of the BJP party. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that she is a Member of Legislative Council of Karnataka State and involved in social service oriented activities without expecting any rewards. According to the complainant, she was the elected senate member of Mangalore
302 University during her college days. Thereafter she jumped into full time politics and joined BJP as State General Secretary, and after considering her efficacious work the party leaders made her MLA. The complainant submitted that she earned good name, fame and reputation in the society and apart from that she also got lot of supporters in the State of Karnataka in particular and in the nation in general. The complainant alleged that the respondent violated the norms of journalistic conduct and principles and published baseless and misleading article with the malicious interest to tarnish her image in the public. According to her, the respondent published the distorted material without respecting the truth. She further submitted that the respondent published unjust rumours and surmises and failed to verify the authenticity of the facts before publishing the impugned news item. The complainant submitted that she sent her rejoinder to the respondent with the request for its publication, but the respondent neither published the contradiction nor gave reply. A show cause notice dated 8.3.2007 was issued to the respondent editor, Karavali Ale, Kannada daily, Mangalore (Karnataka). Written Statement The Editor/Printer/Publisher, Karavali Ale vide his written statement dated 23.5.2007 while denying the allegations levelled in the complaint, submitted that no rejoinder was received by them for publication, though they would have readily published the same, if they had received the same. The respondent further submitted that no allegation of personal nature was made against the complainant in the impugned write up. According to the respondent, they analyzed the political and ethical implications of the Deputy Chief Minister’s special efforts to find a place for the complainant in the Cabinet and in the party. The respondent added that there was no malafide in the write up as cited by the complainant but it was only an analysis of a given local political situation which a newspaper is entitled to do so in exercising the freedom of press. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.6.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the impugned news item captioned: “Whether State BJP is the private property of Yadiyurappa-Sobha?” published in 17.1.2007 issue of Karavali Ale, Kannada daily, observed that the respondent newspaper had reported on political changes in the State and while critically
303 analyzing the issue, the respondent editor had used language derogatory and defamatory of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee opined that the Press had all the rights to criticise anyone holding public office, but it must not indulge in character assassination. It strongly condemned the language used in the news report which did not conform to journalistic propriety. The Inquiry Committee held the respondent editor guilty of violation of journalistic ethics regarding decency and good taste. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to caution the editor, Karavali Ale to desist from using obscene language while publishing news reports/write ups. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
100) Shri T.V. Shivananda Versus The Editor Koppa Varada Malnad Karnataka Karnataka Complaint This complaint dated 10.3.2007 has been filed by Shri T.V.Shivananda, Koppa, Karnataka against ‘Varada Malnad’, a Kannad weekly of Koppa, Karnataka for publication of allegedly biased news article captioned “Pure Conspiratorial Objection against Great Sculptor of Rare Cottage Industry” (date of issue not given). It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant, Shri T.V. Shivananda was giving trouble to a famous art sculptor, Shri Mahesh, on the pretext of environment pollution and public nuisance. Shri Mahesh was alleged to have said that the complainant gave him ‘unbearable mental agony and intolerable troubles and when he did not budge for all these, there is indication of life threat.’ The complainant has submitted that he is leading a campaign against a hazardous industry, which is running in their residential area. However, the respondent has criticized him with derogatory terms with false and baseless points to damage his status, prestige and reputation in the society. He also alleged that the respondent has breached the norms of journalistic ethics by refusing to publish his rejoinder. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 3.8.2007. The respondent in his written statement dated 21.8.2007 has submitted that the news article in question was based on a written statement given by one Mahesh Hulugaru and furnished a copy of the same along with other documents
304 as evidence. He has alleged that the complaint filed by Shri Shivananda was baseless and unnecessary and he was not ready to express regrets in the matter. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.8.2007 for information and counter comments, if any. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 14.9.2007 has submitted that it is not journalism to blindly publish the version or contention of one side of the parties on a disputed issue. He further alleged that the intentional failure of the respondent to verify the facts before publishing the news article, is born out of his bias and partisan attitude and it strongly smelt his having yielded to some allurements. The complainant further submitted that the respondent’s failure to publish his rejoinder is another proof of his biased and crass partisan view on the issue and added that this act of the respondent breached the journalistic ethics. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 27.9.2007 for information and counter comments, if any. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance on either side. The complainant, however vide letter dated 2nd December, 2008 intimated that he was in a responsible job in LIC of India, was unable to take leave and attend the hearing at Chennai. He sent his written statement along with supportive documents for consideration of the Inquiry Committee. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material on record. It noted that the respondent newspaper reported a written grievance of an art sculptor, who was facing trouble from the complainant on the grounds of environmental campaign. The Inquiry Committee observed that the undisputed fact was narrated in the complaint itself by the complainant that the campaign against the hazardous industry was being led by him with various government authorities. This is what was reported on the basis of written complaint by the opposite party, its publication could not be deemed wrong notwithstanding the non publication of the rejoinder. The Inquiry Committee thus opined that no action in the matter was warranted. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
305 101) Shri K.B. Lokeshappa Versus The Editor Vice Principal Vidhatha weekly Govt. P.U. College Shimoga District Koppa, Chikmangalore Karnataka Karnataka Complaint This complaint dated 17.1.2007 has been filed by Shri K.B. Lokeshappa, Vice Principal, Government P.U. College, Koppa, Chikmangalore against Vidhatha, a Kannada weekly for publication of an allegedly objectionable news item captioned “Koppa Junior College Lokeshappa’s politics of Bicycles” in its issue dated 11.10.2006. It was published in the impugned news item that the government while laying stress on women’s education had benefited them by providing bicycles to those belonging to below poverty line who were studying in 8th standard. It was alleged therein that the complainant, Vice Principal and the school management (School Development and Monitoring Committee) had given the bicycles to their well wishers and manipulated the system as they wished. It was also stated in the news report in question that the complainant had played politics even in the admission which proves that there was immense corruption in the case of bicycle distribution. The local MLA ordered inspection and verification in the matter of bicycles distribution but the complainant did not change his temperament. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 7.3.2007. The respondent did not file written statement in the matter. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2008 at Chennai. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material on record. While it deprecated the editor for laxity in not responding to notices issued by the Council, it noted that the impugned news report appearing on 11.10.2006 in Vidhata weekly was a criticism of the matter of irregularities in distribution of bicycles by the college authorities. The impugned report was thus in public interest. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided that no case was made out against the respondent. The Committee recommended to the Council accordingly.
306 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
102) Smt. Lakshmi Krishnamurti Versus The Editor Chennai Tamil Murasu (Tamil Nadu) Chennai Complaint This complaint dated 13.2.06 has been filed by Smt. Lakshmi Krishnamurti, Chennai against Tamil Murasu, Tamil daily, Chennai for publishing a gossip column maligning her father, Late Shri S. Satyamurti (who died in Jail in March 1943 during Quit India Movement) captioned “Hush Hush” in its issue dated 19.12.05. The impugned publication read as follows: “Eleven M P’s have been caught taking bribe for asking questions in Parliament. This matter is being discussed with a sense of shock by the public. Even in those old days, there was such an excitement. Bharat Devi, a newspaper was published in 1940. This was published by S. Sadanand, son of C.V. Swaminatha Iyer who published ‘Viveka Chinthamani’. Goenka bought the Indian Express and Dinamani bought this from Standard, India’s first Swadesi news agency, Free Press of India, was started by him. In the Bharat Devi issue dated 8.12.1943, (page 2 gossip column) a news appeared, this was reproduced in ‘Kudi Arasu’ paper page 10, the details are ‘some persons used to say in passing Satyamurti take bribes causally”. I mentioned this to Satyamurti once. He was not perturbed all, calmly he replied. Day long, I toil, even if there is a Panchayat election somewhere, Satyamurti must come to blow the trumpet. I am not a rich man On what do I subsist? In this country is there a Carnegie fund for politicians? After electioneering my family and I, could we live on air? From whom do I take this bribe? Have I betrayed my country by taking either money, title or position from the white man? Some rich man would want a question to be tabled. He has money and I have the capacity to ask questions. If I do this once in a way, is it a bribe? Satyamurti remarked”. According to the complainant the impugned gossip-column was an un- substantiated, posthumous calumny against a long dead patriot, causing pain to his family and friends. The character assassination indulged was unethical and irresponsible, being third-hand repetition of hearsay gossips (without date, person, place or context, of a fictitious interview) which the editor could easily have checked with the complainant before its publication. The complainant further submitted that the editor did not even acknowledge her rebuttal sent to him on 18.1.06 which was a gross violation of the Indian traditions of fairplay and chivalry
307 to indulge in character assassination of a dead patriot and martyr in this manner and even now it is not too late for the newspaper to do the right thing by way of retraction and regret. She requested the Council that she wanted to protect the reputation. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Tamil Murasu, on 30.3.06 but he did not file his written statement. A.D. card is on the record. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2008 at Chennai. Shri G.S. Sivakumar, Advocate appeared for the complainant. S/Shri Mani Veeraswami, legal consultant and M.A. Vimal Mohan, Advocate appeared for the Tamil Murasu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s Counsel submitted that the Tamil Murasu in its 19.12.2005 issue carried an item maligning a dead person by quoting an item of 1943 that appeared about the father of the complainant late Shri S. Satyamurti. The re- printing and reiteration of allegation of bribe in the present context of Parliamentarians taking bribe was unwarranted that caused immense agony to the complainant. Another grievance of the complainant was that the Tamil Murasu did not retract when approached and thus failed to do journalistic duty. The respondent submitted that the paper was ready to publish rejoinder of the complainant and that they had no intention to hurt the sentiments of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that the newspaper Tamil Murasu checked history about the previous reported incidents of ‘case for question’ and reported it in the present context in “Hush Hush” column. The respondent did not fabricate the publication but it was the reproduction of an earlier write up. It is not known whether any denial had been sent to the 1943 report at the relevant time and the reproduction was topical and gave complete context. However, in view of the offer of the respondent to publish the rejoinder, the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to publish the rejoinder with a foot note that the paper did not mean to bring to disrepute the freedom fighter and had no intention to hurt the sentiments of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee directed the editor, Tamil Murasu to send clippings after publication of the rejoinder to the Press Council as well as the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these directions.
308 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
103) Shri Bhagwandas Dahyabhai Surti Versus The Editor through advocate Gujaratmitra Surat Surat Complaint Shri Bhagwandas Dahyabhai Surti has filed this complaint dated 24.5.2006 against the editor, “Gujaratmitra”, Surat for the publication of an allegedly defamatory news item in its issue dated 26.3.2006 under the caption “Police complaint against Bhagwandas – former Vice President of District Panchayat and others”. It was reported therein that: “the former Vice President of District Panchayat along with his accomplices illegally entered the land situated at Varachha, set on fire the things and articles, threatened to kill the owner of the land, and pressurized to withdraw the police complaint, and therefore, the land owner has filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police for justice. A suit is pending before the Civil Court with respect to this disputed land. According to the complainant, Dr. Navinbhai Kantharia had made illegal encroachment over the Government land and a Special Civil Application No.14410 of 2005 was filed by him before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat ordering the Collector, Surat to carry out inquiry about the said illegal construction. The Collector, Surat, after hearing the parties, ordered Mamlatdar City Taluka to remove the said illegal construction. The complainant has submitted that pursuant to the said order, Mamlatdar City Taluka carried out demolition of the said illegal construction under the police bandobast, and acquired the said Government land in February 2006. In these circumstances, there was no question of entering the said place and setting ablaze the things and articles of Dr. Kantharia, as alleged in the impugned news item. He further asserted that as Dr. Kantharia had not filed any police complaint, there was no question of pressurizing its withdrawal. The complainant issued a notice to the editor, Gujaratmitra on 27.4.2006 but his clarification was not published. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Gujaratmitra on 10.8.2006. Written Statement In his written statement dated 7.9.2006 the respondent editor has submitted that the news item in question was based on the police complaint filed by
309 Dr. Navinbhai Kantharia which was made on 23.3.2006 and the office of the Police Commissioner took cognizance of the complaint on the same day with Registration No.1640/2006 and assured suitable action. He further added that he had not added any details nor attempted to make it sensational since they had confined the news item to the facts in the complaint A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.10.2006. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 12.1.2009 stated that he is an old person and his case may be taken up at Surat. He added that based on the written statement, he had filed a criminal complaint against Dr. Kantharia and his son. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of material available on record. It noted that the respondent Gujaratmitra had reported a matter which was in furtherance of a dispute already existing between the litigants. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent newspaper relied on the statement of the opponents of the complainants in a SCA No.14410/2005 taking exception to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court and complaining to the Commissioner of Police, Surat for setting ablaze the articles purportedly by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee further noted the respondent newspaper’s assertion made in the complaint No.1640/2006, although no details were provided to the Council. However, the Committee opined that the editor was bound to make pre-publication verification and carry the version of all the parties which he had failed to do. The Inquiry Committee, however, refrained from deciding the case as the core issue was sub-judice and it recommended to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
104) Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani Versus The Editor Kausa, Thane District Hamara Thane Samachar Maharashtra Kausa, Thane District Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 30.6.2006 has been filed by Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani,
310 Kausa, District Thane, Maharashtra against Hamara Thane Samachar, a Hindi weekly from Kausa for publication of allegedly false news item captioned “Virani Parivar Ke Bete Laga Rahe Apne Baap Ke Nam Par Dhabba” (The sons of Virani family are putting the black spot in their father’s name)–(English translation) in its issue dated 28.5.2006 to 3.6.2006. It was reported in the impugned news item that the two sons of Virani family Mr. Iqbal and Fayed have destroyed the family of a poor person and by demolishing his shop they have snatched away the bread and butter of the family. After the demolition by the Municipal Corporation, Mr. Iqbal alongwith his workers of his petrol pump came to the demolished structure of Mr. Karam Hussain and again started breaking the said demolished structure. The complaint has been lodged against the owner of Virani Petrol Pump, Ms. Ismail Karim Virani and his two sons with Mumbra Police Station under Section 506 of IPC. The news item further stated that the sons of Virani have been continuously giving the threats to Mr. Karam Hussain for his life and limb. It was also alleged in the impugned news item that the Dy. Commissioner took money from the owner of Virani Petrol Pump for demolishing the house of Mr. Karam Hussain. The complainant denied the allegation and submitted that the Municipal Corporation of Thane gave notice to Mr. Karam Hussain to produce the relevant documentary proof about the authorization of his illegal structure on Mr. Virani’s land and the complainant’s family members were nowhere involved in the demolition of the said illegal structure. He has further stated that due to false news item, he and his family has suffered a huge loss of their reputation in the society at large. He issued a legal notice to the respondent but received back with remarks ‘not claim.’ A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 15.9.2006. Written Statement The respondent Smt Noorjahan Shaikh, Chief Editor, Hamara Thane Samachar in her written statement dated 3.10.2006 has submitted that the news item in question was based on facts submitted by Mr. Karam Hussain Ansari, the person affected in the incident. Mr. Karam Hussain Ansari furnished, the relevant papers to show that the ownership of the said plot of land mentioned in the news item and on which the demolished structure was based, belonged to him and not Iqbal Virani. The respondent submitted that they were satisfied with the government documents submitted to them by the affected party, which they had enquired with the local municipal office and found to be correct. The respondent further submitted that they had contacted the complainant several times both on telephone and in person before publishing the news item but he refused to speak anything on the subject and dared them to publish whatever
311 they thought was right and as a result, the impugned news item was published without the version of the complainant. The respondent offered to publish the version of the complainant at his cost if he submitted the same to them. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.4.2007 with a request to intimate whether he is satisfied with the reply of the respondent. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 12.11.2007 has submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent as he had not published the rejoinder and was instead trying to reason out, which was not acceptable to him and all he wanted was that an unconditional apology be printed in the same place in the latest edition of the newspaper and the Press Council should compensate him since he had incurred lot of expenses. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 16.1.2008 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the editor, Hamara Thane Samachar. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the property owned by him at Kausa village, Thane was encroached upon by one Shri Karam Hussain Ansari. Acting on a complaint before Thane Municipal Corporation by the complainant, the illegal structure was demolished by the Thane Municipal Corporation and he was informed. Thereafter the matter was closed. But the four newspapers of the Thane/Mumbai published false news making allegations of demolition by the complainant family which was totally misconceived. The complainant further submitted that one of the respondent newspapers had apologized and therefore he did not pursue the matter. The complainant requested for action against the three newspapers that includes the respondent herein. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the newspaper report captioned “Virani Parivar Ke Bete Laga Rahe Apne Baap Ke Nam Par Dhabba” attributed motives for demolition of unauthorized construction on the complainant’s family whereas the said demolition was carried by Thane Municipal Corporation after due notice and hearing the parties. If one of the parties was
312 dissatisfied with the action of the Corporation, the remedy thereof lay in the courts, not in a newspaper. The respondent had published a one sided report and denied right of reply to the complainant. Until it came in the form of a paid advertisement this was against all canons of responsible journalism and deserved to be condemned in no uncertain terms. The Inquiry Committee therefore recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and directed the respondent editor, Hamara Thane Samachar under Section 14(2) of the Press Council Act, to publish the rejoinder of the complainant which was already available with the newspaper within a fortnight of the receipt of Council’s adjudication and to send cuttings of it to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
105) Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani Versus The Editor Kausa, Thane, Maharashtra National Reporter Hindi weekly, Thane Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 11.7.2006 has been filed by Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, Kausa, District Thane, Maharashtra against National Reporter, a Hindi weekly for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “Manpa Ne Todha Adhikrit Bandhkaam” (Muncipal Corporation has demolished authorised construction) English translation in its issue dated 28th May to 3rd June 2006. It has been stated in the impugned news item that there was a land dispute between the complainant’s father Mr. Isamail Virani, Owner of Virani Petrol Pump and Mr. Karam Hussain and upon the complaint of Mr. Virani on 25th May, the Municipal Corporation with the help of the police forcibly pulled out the family members of Mr. Karam Hussain and demolished their house. It was also stated that Mr. Hussain accused Mr. Iqbal Esmail Virani of forcibly taking away the valuable articles of Karam Hussain and sold at some other place and also threatened him of annihilation and to be buried on the same plot of land. The complainant submitted that the respondent published the impugned news item with malicious intentions and ulterior motives. He further stated that the respondent on the last page of his newspaper printed that “It is not necessary that the editor is aware of all articles printed in the newspaper”, which showed that the editor is not taking the responsibility of the articles published in his own paper. The complainant
313 further submitted that due to the false publication they have suffered a huge loss of their reputation in society at large as well as their business reputation. He alleged that the respondent by publishing the impugned news item violated the norms of fair journalism. The complainant further submitted that he sent a notice/letter dated 11.7.06 through his advocate to the respondent with the request to publish an apology. In response, the counsel for the respondent in his reply dated 9.8.06 submitted that they are ready and willing to publish the other story, if documentary evidences are provided to them. The complainant in his further letter dated 26.3.07 submitted that the respondent was not interested in publishing an unconditional apology, which was not acceptable to him. He further stated that the respondent demanded documentary evidence in support of publication of his clarification. The complainant averred that what he all wanted was an unconditional apology to be printed at the same place in the latest edition of the newspaper and also compensation from the Press Council. Written Statement of the Respondent A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, National Reporter, Thane on 12.6.07. In response the respondent editor, National Reporter filed his written statement dated 4.7.07 and stated at the outset that the complaint was false, frivolous, vexatious and was the result of vindictive and frustrated motive against the newspaper for illegalities caused and committed by the complainant. The respondent further stated that they even had tried to contact the complainant for his comments after receipt of the news but he was not available and therefore the statement of the complainant could not form part of the news item. He has submitted that in the entire news item, not a single element of personal attack or vengeance on their part could be seen and what has been published and printed was the state of affairs depicted from the record supplied to the newspaper by Mr. Karam Hussain Ansari, who claimed himself to be the victim of injustice and harassment. The respondent submitted that they offered and still ready to publish the clarification and or the other side of the story, if any, in its latest publication, with clarification if found necessary, but in absence of any statement or other story, it was not possible for them to publish any such clarification. The respondent concluded by saying that they specifically maintained that no act of defamation was committed and assured of every possible co-operation for the purpose of inquiry and undertook not to violate any guideline of the Council for fair and free journalism. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 19.7.07 for information/counter comments if any.
314 Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant in his counter comments dated 11.8.07 while denying the written statement of the respondent submitted that the impugned news article in question was not in accordance with high professional standards. He has further stated that the respondent was not a responsible person and hence publishing articles in his newspaper without checking the facts and this point is worth noting down since it is a clear violation of the basic principle that has to be followed by any newspaper and also such act showed that the respondent misused the freedom so enjoyed by the press. The complainant alleged that the respondent is trying to cover up his acts by giving out explanation that his reporter had visited his office and due to his unavailability they published the impugned article. The complainant stated that on the last page of the newspaper it was printed that “It is not necessary that the editor is aware of all article printed in the newspaper”, which is incorrect and objectionable. He questioned that is it correct to print such a statement? Can the PCI take objection to this? Are there any guideline for such misguiding statements made by the editor? The complainant gave summary of the entire matter along with documentary evidence. According to him, the respondent has not done a right thing by protecting the land mafia by publishing defamatory articles against him. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 22.10.07 for information. Further Reply of the Respondent The respondent vide his undated letter has filed his reply on the counter comments and submitted that the complaint filed against his newspaper is false, frivolous, vexations and the same was the result of vindictive and frustrated motive against him for the illegalities caused and committed by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the entire news item, on perusal would show that not even single element of personal attack or vengeance on the part of him could be seen. He has also stated that the failure on the part of the complainant to supply his clarification and statement for publication in news- paper itself falsifies his case and exhibits his ill-intention of implicating his paper into a false complaint. A copy of the reply was forwarded to the complainant on 18.2.08. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the editor, National Reporter.
315 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the property owned by him at Kausa village, Thane was encroached upon by one Shri Karam Hussain Ansari. Acting on a complaint before Thane Municipal Corporation by the complainant, the illegal structure was demolished by the Thane Municipal Corporation and he was informed. Thereafter the matter was closed. But the four newspapers of the Thane/Mumbai published false news making allegations of demolition by the complainant family which was totally misconceived. The complainant further submitted that one of the respondent newspapers had apologized and therefore he did not pursue the matter. The complainant requested for action against the three newspapers that included the respondent herein. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the newspaper report captioned “Manpa Ne Todha Adhikrit Bandhkaam” (Municipal Corporation has demolished authorized construction) attributed motives for demolition of unauthorized construction on the complainant’s family whereas the said demolition was carried by Thane Municipal Corporation after due notice and hearing the parties. The respondent published a one sided report and denied right of reply to the complainant. Even accepting the respondents contention that the impugned publication did not carry any personal attack, the complainant had a version which he enjoyed the locus to bring to public notice. The respondent ought to have published the rejoinder of the complainant as per ethics and norms of journalism. The Inquiry Committee therefore recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and in order to afford right of reply to the complainant to direct the respondent editor, National Reporter, to publish the rejoinder of the complainant which was already available with the newspaper within a fortnight of the receipt of Council’s adjudication and to send clipping to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
106) Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani Versus The Editor Kausa, District Thane Aaj Kal Ka Tahalka (Maharashtra) Mumbai Complaint These complaints, dated 30.6.2006 and 7.8.2006 have been filed by
316 Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, Kausa, District Thane against ‘Aaj Kal Ka Tahalka’, Mumbai for publication of allegedly false news item captioned ‘Crorepati Virani Ne Garib Ke Dukan Ko Viran Kara Diya’ and ‘Virani Ka Jhoota Progaganda PWD Ki Jagha Par Kabza Jamane Ke Saazish’ issues dated 28.5.2006 to 3.6.2006 and 4-10.6.2006 respectively.
It was alleged in the impugned news item that Millionaire Virani applying his force and influence has demolished a gala which was almost 30 years old, owned by one Mr. Karam Hussain Ansari, who was also reported to have received a lot of threats from the Virani to vacate the gala. Mr. Virani had made complaint with Municipal Corporation on 24th May. One bulldozer of Municipal Corporation came to that place as usual after initial show off was turned back. But thereafter Virani’s sons along with their people have demolished the gala. They said that wherever you go, everything is sold for money. Virani brothers have taken the law in their own hands and shown that nothing is supreme before money.
Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that a letter received from the PWD clarified all misconceptions about the ownership of the disputed land and the same should have been investigated by the respondent before publishing the impugned news item. He has alleged that the Municipal Corporation of Thane gave notice to Shri Karam Hussain to produce the relevant documentary proof of the authorization of his illegal structure on the Virani’s land, and added that the complainant and his family members have no involvement in the demolition of the illegal structure. He has also alleged that the one sided and unverified impugned news items were published deliberately to defame him and his family.
The complainant had issued a legal notice dated 30.6.2006 to the respondent but the same was returned with remarks ‘Left Place’ but the newspaper has been carrying the same address as its office.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 15.9.2006.
No Written Statement
The respondent has filed no written statement in the matter. The Acknowledgement card is on record.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. Shri Iqbal Esmail Virani, the complainant appeared in person. S/Shri Iqbal Abbas Bharti, Reporter and Shoib Ratkar, Chief Reporter appeared for the respondent, Aaj Kal Ka Tahlka.
317 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant submitted that the property owned by him at Kausa village, Thane was encroached upon by one Shri Karam Hussain Ansari. Acting on a complaint before Thane Municipal Corporation by the complainant, the illegal structure was demolished by the Thane Municipal Corporation and he was informed. Thereafter the matter was closed. But the four newspapers of the Thane/ Mumbai published false news making allegations of demolition by the complainant family which was totally misconceived.
The complainant further submitted that one of the respondent newspapers had apologized and therefore he did not pursue the matter. The complainant requested for action against the three newspapers that includes the respondent herein.
Shri Iqbal Abbas Bharti, Reporter appearing for Aaj Kal Ka Tahlka in his oral arguments submitted that the shop which was demolished was constructed in 1982. It was built at PWD area at Bombay-Pune Road and the said construction was legal. It was therefore totally wrong to say that the construction was illegal. The newspaper reported the resentment after demolition.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the newspaper report captioned “Crorepati Virani Ne Garib Ke Dukan Ko Viran Karan Kara Diya” and “Virani Ka Jhoota Propaganda PWD Ki Jagha Par Kabza Jamane Ke Saazish” attributed motives for demolition of unauthorized construction on the complainant’s family whereas the said demolition was carried by Thane Municipal Corporation after due notice and hearing the parties. The respondent published a one sided report and denied right of reply to the complainant. The respondent had also tried to turn the incident into one of the mighty against the poor even though the Corporation action was based on evidences. The Inquiry Committee observed that the respondent ought to have published the rejoinder of the complainant as per ethics and norms of journalism and recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and directed the respondent editor, Aaj Kal Ka Tahalka to publish the rejoinder of the complainant which was already available with the newspaper within a fortnight of the receipt of Council’s adjudication and to send clipping to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for record.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
318 107) Shri Permanand T. Gedam Versus Shri Ashok Soni Controller Publisher & Editor Unauthorised Construction Maharashtra Buland Times CIDCO Ltd., Vasai-Virar Vasai (West) Sub-Region, Thane, (Maharashtra) Thane (Maharashtra) Complaint This complaint dated 19.6.2006 has been filed by Shri Permanand T. Gedam, Controller, Unauthorised Construction, CIDCO Ltd., Vasai-Virar Sub-Region, Thane, against ‘Maharashtra Buland Times’, a Marathi daily, Thane alleging publication of false, unsubstantiated and defamatory news item on front page with his photograph under the caption “Where no money is received, there arrives Gedam” in its issue dated 27.4.2006. The impugned news item concerns the CIDCO’s demolition of illegal buildings in Anand Vihar and it stated that the complainant had beaten up the photographer of Sahara News Channel when he was covering the news of demolition and nobody knew the complainant’s intention by disallowing coverage of the news of the incident. The CIDCO officers were also alleged to have created unauthorized work at Nallasopara, and it was further stated that if an inquiry about the property of CIDCO officers made, it may be bigger than the Telgi scam. Denying the allegation levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has submitted that Mr. Ashok Soni, Reporter had been maligning the officers of CIDCO, more particularly him, for the last few weeks by publishing false news articles. According to the complainant, on 26.4.2006, they were demolishing an illegal structure and many pressmen were present there. Under the guise of covering the incident, Mr. Soni was disturbing and interrupting their work and the complainant has substantial witness to the said statement. That had sahara photographer been beaten up, there would have some complaint. He has stated that on many occasions in the guise of being a press reporter, Mr.Soni has also demanded favours, which were refused by him and added that this was nothing but a means to pressurize him and his department to take steps in his favour. The complainant issued a letter dated 17.5.2006 to the respondent with a request to tender apology. However, the respondent in his reply dated 22.5.2006 denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that the news article in question was true and denied having demanded any favour from the complainant. The complainant has alleged that instead of publication of his clarification, the respondent again published two more unconfirmed and vague news items in its issues dated 25.5.2006 and 26.5.2006 to malign him and used the medium of press to extort and terrorize the public and obstruct public servant from doing their jobs.
319 Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 11.9.2006. The respondent editor in his written statement dated 29.9.2006 has submitted that the news article in question carried the true story of facts around the Vasai region, and denied that he had been maligning government officers and/or the complainant in the recent past. He also denied that on 26.4.2006, he was disturbing and interrupting the demolishing of illegal structures by the complainant. The respondent furnished an affidavit filed by a news reporter of Sahara Mumbai TV Channel, narrating the facts that occurred on that day and the highhanded attitude of the complainant to substantiate his statement and further added that there were many criminal cases pending against the complainant in Vasai Courts. The respondent has stated that by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the news articles in question were defamatory and added that there was no necessity to publish any clarification to the letter dated 17.5.2006 of the complainant as the impugned news reports were printed only after ascertaining their authenticity. He also denied that at any point of time, he had asked favours from the complainant. The respondent challenged the complainant to prove as to when and how he held him to ransom, extorted money and furnished zerox copy of the certificate of registration as MAHMAR/2003-16954 of his newspaper from the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) showing the Registration Number to establish the genuiness of his publication. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.10.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant, in his counter comments dated 11.11.2006 has submitted that the supporting affidavit filed by the respondent was an after thought with a view to gain ground for the illegal acts of the respondent. It was claimed by the respondent that there were a number of reporters present at the site of demolition but none of them carried any report except the respondent Mr. Ashok Soni. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 11.1.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.01.2009 at Nagpur. Shri Ashok Basappa Udayavar appeared for the complainant while Shri Ashok M. Soni represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the department had carried out demolition on CIDCO’s unauthorised construction and all the demolitions were carried in 320 accordance with the rules. The complainant further submitted that the respondent editor deliberately published the news of demolition to target him personally and the news was carried with heading by name. The complainant submitted that the news item was defamatory and the heading was more damaging to his reputation. The complainant asserted that the affidavit filed by the journalist of Sahara Mumbai was an after thought and prepared after five months of the incident. The complainant contended that there was no police complaint filed by the said journalist. The respondent editor submitted that the photographs of buildings not demolished were evidence that the complainant was in habit of carrying demolition where he did not get money and when he got the bribe, the buildings were allowed to remain. The editor reiterated his submissions made in the written statement. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and upon hearing the parties observed that the respondent relied on unsubstantiated information and inferences to level the charges against the complainant. He had no supportive evidence to substantiate the inferences. The respondent further aggravated the offence by publishing photographs of the complainants along with demolition site. The Inquiry Committee accepted that the affidavit on which the respondent editor was relying appeared to be an after thought, to cover up the charges levelled in the report against the complainant. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the principles of affording right of reply were also not honoured by the respondent editor of Maharashtra Buland Times, and instead of making corrections, the respondent editor kept on the tirade in subsequent issues. Thus, the Committee observed that the respondent was guilty of publishing unsubstantiated writing and not allowing right of reply to the complainant. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and directed the editor, Maharashtra Buland Times to publish the rejoinder of the complainant within a fortnight of the receipt of Council’s adjudication and send cuttings of it to the complainant as well as the Council for record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
108) Shri Ashok Basappa Udyavar Versus The Editor Vice President Maharashtra Buland Times Nationalist Congress Party West Thane Thane (Maharashtra) Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 13.8.2007, has been filed by Shri Ashok Basappa
321 Udyavar, Vice President, Nationalist Congress Party, Navghar Manikpur Block Committee, Thane, against Maharashtra Buland Times, West Thane for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned ‘Ashok Udyavar Rashtrawadi Congress Party N.M. Block, Deputy President was forced to give his sureties in the court’ in its issue dated 22.8.2007. According to the complainant, the news item was about personal dispute between members of the Jayraj Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and alleged that there is no question of involving his name or Rashtrawadi Congress Party. He further alleged that the names of the party and its workers were used only to pressurize and malign the party. The complainant has also objected to the publication of his photograph along with the impugned news item and alleged that it has maligned his name and damaged his personal life. The complainant further alleged that the news item in question along with his photograph was published with an intention to blackmail him for extortion. The complainant had drawn the attention of the respondent editor, Maharashtra Buland Times by forwarding a copy of his complaint before the Council but received no response from the respondent. The complainant further submitted that the respondent has been habitual of floating one publication one after another from the same address with RNI number when the previous one gets into trouble. He had run newspapers like ‘Rajvrath’, ‘Maharashtra Manav Times, Samachar and now Maharashtra Buland Times have faced trouble, he started another newspaper namely Uttar Mumbai Buland Times in the name of his wife. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Maharashtra Buland Times on 21.2.2008. The respondent editor, Maharashtra Buland Times did not file written statement in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant appeared in person while Shri Ashok M. Soni, respondent editor appeared as respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his complaint and stated that the respondent newspaper Maharashtra Buland Times while reporting against him had maligned his party, namely, Nationalist Congress Party. The complainant stated that his party’s name was irrelevant to the impugned news item and dragging his party in the personal matter was unethical.
322 The respondent submitted that the complainant was a party functionary therefore his connection was relevant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On perusing the record and hearing the parties, the Inquiry Committee opined that the complainant was a public person and even in the complaint before the Council he had used the letterhead of the Nationalist Congress Party. Therefore, the respondent could not be faulted for identifying him with the name of the party. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
109) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi Versus The Editor National President Mumbai Mitra, Marathi daily Anti-Corruption Committee Mumbai Thane (Maharashtra) Complaint This complaint dated 3.12.2007 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane (Maharashtra) against Mumbai Mitra, Marathi daily for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item in its issue dated 10.11.2007 under the caption : Hkz"Vkpkj fuewZyu lfefrP;k v/;{kkoj 'ksdMks xqUgxqUgs (Hundreds of crimes against the President of Anti-Corruption Committee- English translation). It has been alleged in the impugned publication that there were hundreds of criminal cases registered against the complainant. Further the impugned news item charged the complainant with cheating the public. In the impugned news item it has been stated that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mumbai has issued a circular along with list of crimes registered against the complainant at different police stations cautioning the public and police. According to the complainant, the impugned news item was false and baseless and has been published with a view to defame him in the eyes of public. He denied that hundreds of cases were registered against him in any police station as alleged in the impugned news item except the case registered against him under MACOCA. The complainant further submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent on 15.11.2007 with the request to publish contradiction of the news
323 item but he neither published contradiction nor gave any reply. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Mumbai Mitra on 7.4.2008. Written Statement of the Respondent
In response to show cause notice dated 7.4.2008, the respondent in his written statement dated 5.5.2008 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has contended that the impugned news item was published on the basis of copy of the notification issued by the office of the Director General of Police, Mumbai. The respondent further submitted that the complainant is trying to defame the reputation of his newspaper at the instant of one Shri Kamlesh Vaishnav, the ex-editor of Mumbai Mitra who was frustrated with the good reputation enjoyed by Mumbai Mitra all over Maharashtra. The respondent stated that he did not commit any violation or irregularity by bringing the notification to the Notice of Public in bonafide belief. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 19.5.2008 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, Anti-Corruption Committee appeared in person. Shri Kamlakar R. Desai, Reporter, Adventure appeared for the Mumbai Mitra. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee
The complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper Mumbai Mitra published the impugned news item dated 10.11.2007 on the basis of a press release issued by the DGP, Mumbai seven years ago in 2001. The complainant submitted that the newspaper published an old press release to defame him. The complainant further submitted that of the 13 cases listed in the release, 10 had already been closed. There was no case against him except MACOCA.
The respondent editor submitted that people who suffered at the hands of the complainant approached the newspaper to highlight their plight since no justice was done to them in long pending cases against the complainant. After publication of the news, the complainant threatened the newspaper. The respondent was unable to satisfy the Committee as to why the complainant’s version had not been published and submitted that the complainant could send a factual rejoinder for being published in Mumbai Mitra.
324 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and heard the parties. It noted that the complainant’s main grouse was that the contradiction was not carried by the newspaper to correct the inaccuracies in the report. The Inquiry Committee did not appreciate the act of the respondent newspaper in publishing old pending cases, although no vengeance could be attributed to the editor. It noted that the matter pending against the complainant were being decided by the courts in due process of law. The Inquiry Committee however, in view of the facts of the case including the agreement of the respondent to publish the factual position, directed the complainant to send rejoinder limiting to facts to the newspaper, Mumbai Mitra, and further directed the editor, Mumbai Mitra to publish the same within a fortnight. The respondent editor was directed to forward a copy of the issue of the newspaper carrying the rejoinder of the complainant to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these directions. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
110) Shri Brajesh Kumar Versus The Editor Employee Mandsaur Parikarma State Bank of Indore Hindi Weekly Mandsaur, (M.P.) Mandsaur, (M.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 26.12.2006 has been filed by Shri Brijesh Kumar, an employee of the State Bank of Indore, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh against ‘Mandsaur Parikarma,’ a Hindi weekly alleging publication of a series of false, misleading and defamatory news items. The captions of the impugned news items furnished by the complainant are as follows: 1. “State Bank of Indore Ki Pratishtha Ko Dhakka” dated 9.11.06, 2. “State Bank of Indore Ki Pratishtha Ko Dhakka” dated 16.11.06, 3. “State Bank of Indore Ki Pratishtha Ko Dhakka” dated 23.11.06, 4. “Chandra Shekhar Ko Di Bank Karamchari Brajesh Sharma Ne Parikrama Ke Liye Supari” dated 30.11.06, 5. “Parikrama Mein Prakashit Samachar Kisan Kar Sakte Hai Bank Ke Virudh Dharna Pradarshan Ka Head Office kyon Bheja Fax?”
325 “Kyon Chala Court Mein Bank Se Farji Loan Dene Ka Prakaran?” dated 7.12.06, 6. “Ulta Chor Kotwal Ko Dante” dated 14.12.06, 7. “Patrakarita Ka Girta Star” Editorial dated 14.2.2007 The complainant has alleged that the aforesaid impugned news items were false, misleading and defamatory and were published by the respondent with the intention to blackmail him and to tarnish his and his family’s image in the public. He has also submitted that the language used in the impugned news items was highly objectionable. He stated that the respondent has violated the norms of journalistic conduct and requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. He requested for exemption from complying with Regulations 3(1)(c) on the ground that it may provoke the respondent to carry more news items with a renewed revenge to cause agony to him and his family members. Hon’ble Chairman in exercise of the power vested under the proviso to Section 3(1)(C), waived the compliance of the Regulation 3(1)(C). A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 23.4.2007. Written Statement The respondent editor of Mandsaur Parikarma vide his written statements dated 3.5.2007 and 11.5.2007 submitted that the impugned news items were published on the basis of the documentary evidence and furnished a copy each of the letters written by S/Shri Vinod Kumar Gurjar and Bheru Lal Kanchwala, both victims of fake currency note case. He also furnished a copy of an affidavit filed on 30.9.2006 before the Naryanagarh Law Court by Shri Ajit Singh Jain, which revealed how the complainant had helped his friend to get a fake loan. The respondent submitted that the Council can get information as to how the complainant harassed the farmer for the issuance of Kisan Vikas Patra/ Farmer Credit Card and the way he collected money from them through the middlemen. He has alleged that the complainant got published a defamatory press note in the form of an advertisement under the caption ‘Kalam Se Kalam Encounter’ in a newspaper named “Amrit Manthan” issue dated 9.11.2006. He denied the complainant’s statement that the impugned news items were published with the motive to blackmail the complainant. The respondent stated that he neither violated the norms of journalistic conduct nor committed professional misconduct. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.5.2007 for information/counter.
326 Complainant’s Reply The complainant vide letter dated 21.5.2007, intimated that on the receipt of the show cause notice from the Press Council, the respondent issued him a legal notice, indirectly threatening him for getting published a press note in Amrit Manthan against the respondent in its issue dated 9.11.2006. The complainant in his counter dated 4.6.2007 raised a question whether the language and tone of the respondent newspaper was in accordance with the norms of journalistic conduct. The complainant alleged that the respondent was publishing false and defamatory news item without any proof. The complainant also submitted that the news item published by the respondent dated 23.11.2006, that he had taken VRS from the bank was absolutely wrong and he has not submitted any proof in this regard. The complainant in another letter dated 26.7.2007 informed that the respondent in his newspaper dated 20.7.2007 published that the Press Council was satisfied with the written statement given by the respondent and the complainant suffered a humiliating defeat. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. Shri Sheetal Sharma appeared for the complainant and Shri Dheeren Modi, Chief Editor, Mandsaur Parikarama appeared before the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative reiterating the complaint submitted that the respondent had carried highly defamatory series of news reports and added that the respondent had published a news item on 20.7.2007 stating that the Press Council was satisfied with the reply of the respondent and had closed the complaint. He added that the material published by the editor, Mandsaur Parikarma, was motivated and highly objectionable and intended to harm and injure the reputation of the complainant. The respondent editor submitted that he was under the impression that as there was no correspondence on the complaint after filing of written statement by him, the matter has been closed. Therefore, he published a news to that effect. The respondent editor submitted that the complainant had issued a press release/ letter which was defamatory per se of the respondent. In addition, the complainant had got the said press release published in Amrit Manthan against the respondent. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee On considerations of the matter, the Inquiry Committee opined that the editor, Mandsaur Parikarma, misused the column of his newspaper to assassinate
327 the character of the complainant to settle personnel scores with the complainant. The Inquiry Committee further observed that the news report about closure of the present complaint was pure concoction. It found that the respondent editor had thrown all norms of journalistic ethics to wind and indulged in misuse of the journalistic freedom. The Inquiry Committee for violation of journalistic norms decided to recommend to the Council to censure, Editor, Mandsaur Parikarma and to direct him to publish the gist of the Council’s adjudication in Mandsaur Parikarma conspicuously. It also recommended to it to forward the copy of the adjudication to the DAVP, RNI, and State Government of Madhya Pradesh for necessary action as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
111) Shri Anand Mendhekar Versus The Editor Chartered Engineer Jansatta Bilaspur Raipur Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh
Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi Correspondent Jansatta Korba Complaint This complaint dated 27.1.2007 has been filed by Shri Anand Singh Mendhekar, Chartered Engineer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh against Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, Correspondent, Jansatta, Korba for publication of allegedly false and misleading news item in Jansatta under the caption “Ayogya Vyakti Ko Banaya Competent: Kaarkhana Shramikon Ki Jaan Khatre Mein” in its issue dated 4.5.2004. The complainant had informed that the respondent has been blackmailing and threatening him through his co-reporters over telephone and banning his entry in Korba. According to the complainant, his grievances are not against Jansatta but against Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, a Korba based correspondent of the said newspaper for an alleged harassment. The complainant further stated that the respondent, Shri Gurdeep Singh is involved in journalism along with professional service related to the Engineering Consultancy. He has alleged that the respondent had been using journalism and newspaper as a banner to threaten and blackmail him and other government officials. The complainant further alleged that the respondent has attempted to
328 defame him by sending letters to his various clients highlighting the issue of qualification without knowing the facts and doing so without any authority. He has added that the respondent was engaged in intentional publication of news related to health and safety and recognition of disqualified persons as competent so as to create undue pressure on the department with the intention to revoke the recognition of the complainant as a Chartered Engineer. The complainant had drawn the attention of the editor of Jansatta vide letter dated 26.7.2004 and reminder on 17.2.2007 with regards to the activities of Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, Correspondent but received no response. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Jansatta, Raipur and Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, Special Correspondent, Jansatta, Bilaspur on 2.4.2007. Written Statement of Correspondent While Jansatta sought time to study the matters in depth in his written statement dated 28.4.2007, the respondent correspondent, Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi has submitted that the allegations of harassment, blackmailing, attempt to extort money levelled by the complainant are baseless, bogus, false and without support by any proof and evidence and hence liable to be rejected. He has stated that he only acted as a Special Correspondent of Jansatta, not as an Engineer. The respondent has further submitted that the complainant, Shri Anand Mendhekar was a BE (Production) graduate of 1995 batch from RTM, Nagpur University, thus he was not eligible to act as a Competent person under Sections 28, 29, 31, 87, 21 (2) of the Factory Act, 1948 as he does not hold the requisite degree in Mechanical/Electrical/Metallurgical/Chemical/Textile Engineering. He has alleged that the complainant got a license in the name of his relative Shri Vijay Ganpat Rao Tijare by giving his firm’s false address of Bilaspur and affixed his seal and introduced himself in different factories as a ‘Competent Person’ under Factory Act and pressurized and threatened them to give testing job by offering them heavy commission. He has stated that he issued letter dated 15.7.2004 followed by another letter dated 10.8.2004 to the complainant to get his version to be published along with the news item in question but received no response and added that he has committed no professional misconduct. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.5.2008 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 6.6.2007, the complainant has objected to the claim of the respondent being all rounder consultant and an expert in every field. He has alleged that the respondent Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi is a dismissed
329 employee of State Electricity Board, who was dismissed after departmental inquiry conducted against him for misconduct with his senior officials and negligence in imparting his duty as an Executive Engineer. He has further stated that Shri Gurdeep Singh is misusing his identity as journalist for own interest and requested the Council to take appropriate action against him. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 4.7.2007 for information. Reply of the Counter Comments In response to letter dated 28.4.2007 the respondent has filed further letter dated 24.6.2008 in which he alleged that the three documents submitted by the complainant with his complaint have been filed with an intention to deceive the Press Council. He has requested to confirm the above facts from the complainant. Accordingly a copy of the same was forwarded to the complainant on 3.7.2008 with the request to confirm the genuineness of the documents. Reply of the Complainant The complainant vide his letters dated 14.6.2008 and 3.7.2008 has submitted that the respondent is trying to misguide the Council by such manipulations and mentioning that he has submitted forged documents. He further submitted that he obtained the details under RTI which is available with him and the same will be produced before the Council whenever required. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.01.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant was not present. Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, Special Correspondent appeared along with Shri Nutan Singh Thakur, advocate who reiterated the submissions made in the written statement that the complainant did not possess the requisite qualification of education or experienced and got license in his relative’s name. He admitted that he was himself an engineer and earlier worked for the same authority. He was unable to reply to the query of the Committee regarding compliance of the complainant when all his reports had been duly countersigned. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the complainant had no grievance against the newspaper Jansatta and sought remedy against harassment by the special correspondent Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, who had reported the impugned news item dated 4.5.2004 questioning the competence of the complainant as safety consultant in industrial units. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the respondent noted that the respondent Gurdeep Singh Sehmi, Correspondent appeared to hold rival position with the complainant and was using
330 the forum of Jansatta to settle personal scores. Such use tantamounts to misuse of the faith reposed on him bonafide by the editor of the newspaper. It also noted that Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi appeared to wear different hats of special correspondent as well as engineering consultant though the post of special correspondent was a permanent post. The Inquiry Committee therefore opined that: “Special Correspondents/reporters of the newspaper whether full time or part time should not hold different positions in other professional fields so that they do not use the weapon of the newspaper as a tool to settle personal scores” The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to consider guidelines to the press on the issue. The Inquiry Committee further recommended upholding the complaint and warning the correspondent, Shri Gurdeep Singh Sehmi of Jansatta, Korba for misusing the freedom of the press. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
112) Shri Khilawan Chandrakar Versus The Editor Bureau Chief Samyagati Deshbandhu Indore Itarasi (Madhya Pradesh) (Madhya Pradesh) Complaint This complaint dated 4.11.2006, has been filed by Shri Khilawan Chandrakar, Bureau Chief, Deshbandhu, Itarasi against Samyagati, a Hindi daily from Indore for publication of series of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:
S.No. Captions Date 1. ¶ÉÆBÉE® BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ´ÉxÉ {É® {ÉÖÉÊãÉÉʺɪÉÉ xÉVÉ®å.....? 29.9.2006 2. ÉÊJÉãÉÉ´ÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉÆÉÊnMvÉ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå {É® {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ |ɶÉɺÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ xÉVÉ® 11.10.2006 3. ºÉ]ÉäÉÊ®ªÉÉå BÉEä <¶ÉÉ®Éå {É® {ÉjÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ ZÉÚ~ÉÒ ÉʶÉBÉEɪÉiÉ BÉEÉ μÉEàÉ VÉÉ®ÉÒ 7.11.2006
Denying the allegations, the complainant who claimed to be an established journalist of the area has alleged that the impugned news items were false, baseless and defamatory which caused grave damage to his image and reputation in the family, friends and society. He asserted that the local reporter Santosh
331 Shukla’s own conduct and action were under a cloud. He had issued a notice dated 14.11.2006 to the respondent through his advocate with a request to publish his rejoinder/clarification but received no response. The complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper had violated norms of journalistic ethics by publishing defamatory and false news items with ulterior motive and malafide intention and denied right of reply. He has requested to Council to take necessary action in the matter. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 19.2.2008. Written Statement The respondent editor, Dainik Samaygati, Indore in his written statement dated 28.2.2007 has denied the allegations of malafide. He has submitted that they have published the news item in question as routine news received from the concerned reporter, Shri Santosh Shukla at Hoshangabad in District Itarsi. The respondent further submitted that on having noticed the criminal mindset of the reporter, he was removed from the service. He has stated that they have no malice towards the complainant and has expressed regrets and tendered his apology for the same. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.7.2007 Counter Comments The Complainant in his counter comments dated 12.8.2008 has submitted that he is not satisfied with the written statement and the matter to which clarification was given by the respondent. He has demanded that had the respondent felt regretful, he should have published the rejoinder and his apology in own paper and district level newspapers at Hosangabad. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 23.8.2007 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant was not present. Shri Kailash Kanase, Administrative Officer appeared for the respondent and submitted that after change in the management, the concerned reporter had been removed. Further, the complainant was approached for his version but he did not respond, added the respondent. Recommendations of the Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that the publication of the charges against the complainant journalist prima facie appeared to be
332 motivated by the respondent journalist and was an attempt to settle scores. The new management of the newspaper Samaygati, had taken corrective steps and removed the correspondent who caused the publication of the impugned report admitting his “criminal” nature. To now, take the case to a logical conclusion it decided to direct the respondent editor, Samaygati to publish an apology to the effect that “we express regrets for publishing the reports dated 29.9.2006, 11.10.2006 and 17.11.2006 against Shri Khilawan Chandrakar, Bureau Chief, Deshbandhu, Itarasi, Madhya Pradesh and the correspondent who published the reports have been removed from service”. It further directed that editor of the paper as the final authority responsible for the selection of contents should guard against appointment of journalist whose integrity and commitment to ethics of journalism was not established. It recommended to the Council to allow the matter to rest with a word of caution to the respondent to be careful in future. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
113) Smt. Seema Mishra Versus The Editor Lecturer Samaygati Govt. Boys. Sr. Sec. School Hindi evening daily Tirla District Dhar (M.P.) Indore (M.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 1.1.2007 has been filed by Smt. Seema Mishra, Lecturer, Government Boys Sr. Sec. School, Tirla District, Dhar (M.P.) against Samaygati, Hindi evening daily for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item along with her photograph without her consent in its issue dated 11.12.2006 under the caption “vuqRrh.kZ O;k[;krk ns jgs gSa vkWijs’ku DokfyfV esa izf{k’k.k” (Operation Quality Training being given by failed Lecturers-English translation). It has been stated in the impugned news item that under the DIET programme the training organized under Operation Quality was handled by those lecturers who had failed badly in the examination conducted for selection of excellent teachers. It has been further stated in the impugned news item that the complainant and her husband had also given the said exam but they could not succeed for selection as excellent teacher. The impugned news item further alleged that the complainant had given training in Science subject to the teachers but a cursory look at the last five years result of the 10th and 12th classes of the Government Boys Sr. Sec. School, Tirla reveals that the schools result had been very disappointing.
333 Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news item were absolutely malicious, defamatory and false with a view to lower her image in the public. She submitted that the respondent published her photograph without permission projecting her as criminal. The complainant stated that publication of photograph without consent of any women and depicting her in objectionable manner itself is an offence under Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that the respondent local editor Narendra Jain was a blackmailer who had also published false and baseless news item against her husband in ‘Vardhmanpur Times’ which has now been closed. The complainant has submitted that she had drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication on 17.1.2007 requesting to publish her contradiction but the respondent neither published any contradiction nor gave any reply. She requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Samaygati, Dhar (M.P.) on 8.6.2007, but no written statement was filed despite time bound reminder dated 6.2.2008 issued to the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant in a letter dated 13.1.2009 requested the Inquiry Committee to decide the matter on the basis of written submissions. Shri Kailash Kanare, Administrative Officer appeared for Samaygati and submitted that after change over of management, the concerned reporter Shri Narender Jain had been removed due to his blackmailing practice. The respondent offered to publish the version of the complainant. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted that now management of the respondent paper had taken corrective steps by removing the correspondent who caused publication of the news report. Further the offer of the respondent to publish the clarification would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to direct the respondent editor, Samaygati to publish the rejoinder of the complainant giving due reference to the original report and the removal of the reporter and to forward its copy to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for information and record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
334 114) Shri Rajender Kumar Bariya Versus The Editor, Assistant, Grade II Chambal Chetna District Trade & Industry Centre Hindi daily Gwalior (M.P.) Gwalior (M.P.) Complaint Shri Rajender Kumar Bariya, Assistant, Grade-II, District Trade & Industry Centre, Gwalior (M.P.) has filed this complaint dated 3.7.2006 against the editor of Chambal Chetna, Gwalior, Shri D.D. Sharma alleging publication of false, defamatory and baseless news items with a motive to blackmail him. The captions and dates of issue reads as follow:
S.No. Caption Issue 1. efgyk deZpkjh ds pfj= guu ds i= dh mPpLrjh; 20-3-06 tkap dh ekaxA 2- ftyk m|ksx Xokfy;j&ojS;k us yxk;k v-l-fi-y-fo-fo-fu- 27-3-06 dks yk[kksa dk pwukA 3- ojS;k ,oa lw;Zoa’kh dh tksM+h us Hkw&ekfQ;kvksa ls lkaB& 3-4-06 xkaB djksM+ksa dh tehu dksfM;ksa ds Hkko csphA 4- ojS;k ,oa egkçca/kd us lwpuk ds vf/kdkj dk mMk;k 10-4-06 [kqyk etkdA 5- lw;Zoa’kh dk JhokLro dks flQkfjlh i= dk xgjkrk 1-5-06 jgL;A 6- yEch QsgfjLr gS ojS;k ,oa lw;Zoa’kh ds dkys dkjukeksa dk 15-5-06 jgL;A 7- ojS;k us egkçca/kd dk;kZy; ekyuiqj esa tedj vkard 22-5-06 epk;kA 8- ojS;k }kjk fodykax deZpkjh dh gR;k dh lkft’k--\ 29-5-+06 9- oS’;kyl vkSj pdyk?kj dh rtZ ij py jgk gS 5-6-06 egkçca/kd Xokfy;j dk dk;Zy;A 10- ojS;k }kjk dh x;h jktLo Nfr dh tkap D;ksa ugha--\ 12-6-06 11- lkS esa lkS csbZeku] fQj Hkh esjk çns’k egkuA 19-6-06
335 12- egkçca/kd lw;Zoa’kh }kjk pEcy pSuk dh vkokt dks 3-7-06 nckus dk ç;klA 13- cNMk gqvk [kik ,d ,d tqeZ dh nks nks ltk] ?kksj 10-7-06 ukblkQh gSA 14- m|ksx foHkkx esa rcknyksa dk cM+k ?kksVkyk mtkxj] 17-7-06 m|ksx ea=h ls ysdj dbZ vf/kdkjh lansgksa ds ?ksjs esaA
The complainant has alleged that the aforesaid news items were false, fabricated and defamatory published with a view to cause grave damage to his career and reputation in public eyes. He further added that news items were published without seeking any clarification from him. According to the complainant, the respondent D.D.Sharma met him in his office and demanded Rs. 25,000/- to help the newspaper and when the complainant refused to pay, the respondent threatened publication of defamatory news items against the complainant and proceeded to do so. The complainant has stated that the respondent is habitual of publishing defamatory news and he was punished by the Civil Court under Section 500 IPC and sent to jail for six months. The complainant has sent the rejoinder to respondent editor on 2/6/2006, inspite of publishing the rejoinder, the respondent editor published more news items against him in his newspaper. The complainant has requested to take action against the respondent editor Chambal Chetna. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the editor, Chambal Chetna on 13.4.2007 followed by reminder dated 13.11.2007 but no written statement has been filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. Shri Rajendra Kumar Bariya, the complainant appeared before the Committee in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant reiterated the submissions made in the complaint. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record. It noted that the editor, Chambal Chetna had neither filed written statement nor made appearance before it despite service of notice. The respondent appeared to have has no defence to the charges, the respondent editor had with deliberate malafide carried on a tirade against the complainant working to seek favour and to blackmail the complainant. It noted that the language used in the impugned publications was objectionably couched. The
336 editor had no respect for journalistic propriety and ethics and had thrown all norms to wind. Disapproving the conduct of the editor for defamatory publication in the Chambal Chetna, the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the editor, Chambal Chetna for gross violations of norms of journalistic ethics regarding defamatory writings. It also recommended that a copy of the Council’s adjudication be sent to the DAVP, RNI and Government of Madhya Pradesh for such action, as they deem fit in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
Press and Morality
115) Shri Chandrahas Shukla Versus The Editor Leader Punjab Kesari Shiv Sena New Delhi New Delhi Complaint The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) forwarded to the Councila copy of the memorandum dated 23.6.2006 addressed to President of India by Shri Chandrahas Shukla, a leader of Shiv Sena, New Delhi regarding objectionable publications in the “Punjab Kesari”, New Delhi. Lodging a formal complaint on 20.9.2006 against “Punjab Kesari” for publication of allegedly obscene and half- naked pictures in its issue dated 21.6.2006, the complainant alleged that the impugned pictures were totally against the Hindu culture and bound to greatly hurt their religious sentiments. The complainant further alleged that the respondent-newspaper “Punjab Kesari” always published such type of half-naked/nude pictures and hurt the feeling of the citizens of India. According to the complainant, they tried to contact the respondent editor but he did not bother, therefore, they protested against the respondent newspaper for publication of nude photographs at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi and requested the Hon’ble President of India to take strict action against the respondent. He requested the Council to take necessary action and cancel the registration of respondent newspaper. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi on 13.4.2007. Written Statement The respondent Director, Punjab Kesari vide his written statement dated
337 17.5.2007 stated that the complainant did not write to them before filing the complaint before the Press Council of India. He further stated that perhaps the complainant tried to contact the editor but could not succeed due to his non- availability at New Delhi. The respondent submitted that if the complainant desires to contact them at their office, they would try to solve the matter together. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 22.5.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. The respondent resident editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi vide his further letter dated 6.7.2007 informed the Council that a copy of the written statement dated 17.5.2007 forwarded to the complainant at their New Delhi address, as printed in his letterpad, was received back undelivered with the remarks “Premises Locked”. The respondent alleged that the intention of the complainant was only to harass them. He requested to dismiss the complaint. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 24.4.2008. The complainant was not present. Shri Parvinder Sharda, Senior Sub-Editor, Punjab Kesari alongwith Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent Punjab Kesari, New Delhi in its written arguments dated 24.4.2008 while reiterating the reply dated 17.5.2007, submitted that the impugned photographs were in no manner obscene and the contention of the complainant was illogical, baseless and without any ground. According to the respondent there is nothing obscene in the photographs published and there were only the thoughts and the vision of the complainant who was taking the photographs as nude and obscene. He submitted that the newspaper under no circumstances and in no manner whatsoever could control the vision, thought and psychology of its readers and for that matter of the complainant. The respondent submitted that the photographs published and such similar photographs are taken from the films, which are duly approved and censored by the Censor Board of India for exhibiting and were in no manner obscene. Thus the photograph did not in any manner fall under the category of obscenity, vulgarity and cannot be considered to be objectionable. He requested that complaint be dropped/closed being false, frivolous and vexatious. The respondent’s counsel in his oral arguments contended that the Punjab Kesari had published the material which was prevalent in society. However in case the Press Council feels that the impugned publication hurt the feelings of the complainant or any community, the newspapers will take care that such publications are not published in future.
338 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents and oral submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent was of the view that the impugned publications may be growing and regular phenomenon in the press today, but that did not mean that they were not violative of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, or against the ethics of journalistic conduct. The Inquiry Committee, however, taking note of the assurance held out by the learned counsel of the respondent that the newspaper will take greater care in future against publishing such photographs decided to dispose of the complaint with a word of caution to the respondent newspaper, Punjab Kesari to observe greater caution in selection of material considering the wider range and age group of its readers. It recommended to Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
116) Shri Sanjay Bansal Versus 1. The Editor Advocate/National President Punjab Kesari Desh Kalyan Samiti Delhi Moradabad (U.P.) 2. The Editor Amar Ujala Agra (U.P.) Complaint This complaint dated 18.11.2006 has been filed by Shri Sanjay Bansal, Advocate/National President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad (U.P.) against (1) Punjab Kesari; and (2) Amar Ujala alleging publication of obscene, vulgar pictures of women and sex related advertisements in their various issues. According to the complainant, the respondent Punjab Kesari in its issues dated 25.9.2004, 25.11.2004, 13.1.2005, 31.8.2006, 19.11.2006 and 21.11.2006 published allegedly half-nude/semi-nude pictures of film actresses, viz. Claudia Shiffer, Kate Hudson, Priyanka Chopra and others. Likewise, the respondent Amar Ujala in its issues dated 24.9.2006, 5.11.2006 and 12.11.2006 also published allegedly obscene and vulgar pictures of the film actresses and advertisements of gold capsules and oil. The complainant submitted that these two newspapers had been continuously publishing obscene photographs and indecent material. He expressed concern about the growing trend in media in publishing such type of obscene material. The complainant submitted that such
339 publication is violation of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and punishable under Sections 292, 293 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant requested the Council to initiate suo-motu/strict action in public interest to prohibit such publications. Show-cause notices were issued to the respondent editors, Punjab Kesari, Delhi and Amar Ujala, Agra on 15.6.2007. Written Statement of Amar Ujala The respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 30.6.2007 submitted that the published photographs are very common trend reporting movie gossip and are by no means against the public decency and morality at all and by no means cast any evil or unethical impact on the readers. According to the respondent the advertisement of gold capsules and oil published by them was only in the context of treatment of desperate patients. The respondent submitted that there was no obscenity in the photographs from Bollywood and the same had been cleared by the Censor Board. According to the respondent, it was utterly wrong to allege that the pictures of film stars and others had the tendency to cast any undesirable impact on the readers/viewers and no case hasbeen made out under IPC as alleged by the complainant. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement of the respondent Amar Ujala was forwarded to the complainant on 6.7.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. Written Statement of Punjab Kesari The respondent Director, Punjab Kesari in his written statement dated 4.7.2007 submitted that the impugned photographs were in no manner obscene and the contention of the complainant was illogical, baseless and without any ground. He further stated that there was nothing obscene in the published photographs and these were only the thoughts and the vision of the complainant who was taking the impugned photographs as nude and obscene. The respondent further submitted that the impugned photographs were taken from the films which had been duly approved and censored by the Censor Board of India for exhibiting. He stated that the photographs in question could not in any manner whatsoever be called obscene or vulgar. A copy of the written statement of the respondent Punjab Kesari was forwarded to the complainant on 17.7.2007 for information/counter comments, if any. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 19.1.2008 addressed to Chairman/Secretary replying to written statement of the respondent Amar Ujala
340 submitted that the respondent has been constantly publishing the obscene photographs in his newspaper. He submitted that a Special Committee should be constituted against the erring newspapers/magazines to restrain such obscene, vulgar photographs of women and advertisements. He further stated that the newspapers were being encouraged by the Council’s failure to take action against them and that if the Council did not immediately act on his point wise suggestions, the complainant would file cases before the competent Courts against the Press Council of India personally against the Chairman/Secretary and other concerned. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Sanjay Bansal, Advocate and President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad appeared in person. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi and Shri Prabhat Kumar Srivastava, appeared for the respondent, Amar Ujala, Meerut. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the outset took note of threats and contemptuous observation of the complainant in the letter dated 19.1.2008 vis-à-vis the Council and its functionaries. Taking serious note of the tone and tenor of the letter it observed that the complainant was trying to resort pressure tactics to get the matter decided in his favour as per his dictates from this quasi-judicial tribunal. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided not to take cognizance of the matter. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to close the complaints of Shri Sanjay Bansal against Punjab Kesari and Amar Ujala as ‘not heard’. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
117) Shri V.P. Goel Versus The Editor Lucknow The Times of India New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 16.12.06 has been filed by Shri V.P. Goel, Lucknow against “The Times of India” for publication of allegedly objectionable advertisements in its issues dated 3.12.05, 7.12.06, 8.12.06 and 9.12.06 under the column “Massage Parlour”. According to the complainant, the advertisements have been given for so called “body massage” giving mobile numbers in bold letters. The impugned advertisements provide so called body massage services by
341 high class female/male/collegiates, Indian and Foreign Models for 24 hrs. at client’s home and hotel at very high cost which range from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 1 lakh. He has informed that he contacted some massage centres as published in Mumbai edition of the newspaper issue dated 21.1.07, and from Lucknow on 23.1.07 who told him that they are also providing sexual services at Delhi in the garb of massage services. One ad is named as ‘One on One’ and the other as ‘A to Z’. The complainant submitted that these details were collected on contacting some of them on phone from Lucknow as well as from Delhi from a hotel where he stayed for his personal work occasionally. The complainant has alleged that one can avail all services including sexual act and the models would fully co-operate to client’s entire satisfaction. He has alleged that such type of ads are spoiling character and career of young boys and girls and are making adverse impact on society.
The complainant has submitted that he wrote a letter dated 8.11.06 to Miss Shailja Mantri who is Head of Advertisement Section of The Times of India requesting her to stop publication of these ads on moral grounds and she assured him to look into the matter. He has further submitted that a letter dated 18.12.06 was also written to the Chairman, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., Mumbai but received no reply. The complainant has also written the letters to concerned Government of India authorities in this regard.
Written Statement of the Respondent
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India on 30.7.07. In the written statement dated 21.8.07 Shri Rajnish M. Singh, Advocate, The Times of India has denied that there was any indecent representation of women as alleged by the complainant. The respondent stated that they have not contravened any law.
The respondent submitted that a newspaper receives hundreds of advertisements under various columns of the newspaper, which are printed/published, and as such it is not practically possible to cross check the veracity of the advertisements, and for what purpose these advertisements are released, nor there is any law which enforces any right on the newspaper to take or reject advertisements. Moreover the quantum of advertisements are such that it is humanly impossible to go through each advertisement. Moreover, the newspaper’s responsibility is to check issues pertaining to media laws, and other laws which prohibit publication of objectionable advertisement, which are in contravention of any law of the land. The advertisements which are carried in the newspaper clearly advertise about massage parlours and the advertisements were not illegal, and did not mention about any other activity. He has further stated that several other newspapers are also carrying such advertisements. He also stated that in the
342 event of any misuse of such advertisement, they cannot be blamed or held responsible for such misrepresentation. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 27.8.07. Counter Comments of the Complainant In reply the complainant in his counter comments dated 10.9.07 has submitted that the contents, wordings and language of the advertisements damages the reputation of women in general and of high class models, i.e. students of colleges and University especially of English medium college, corporate persons. He stated that the contents are indecent, disrespectful to young girls, high class models and harming person’s reputation especially of women. The complainant has submitted that the reply of the respondent was misleading and unreliable and requested the Council to give him an opportunity to place his oral submission before it. He also requested that The Times of India may be instructed to stop publication of such advertisements. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 12.10.07 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2008 at New Delhi. Shri V.P. Goel, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance from the respondent, The Times of India, New Delhi. The complainant submitted that the respondent had been publishing the advertisement of massage parlour etc., which was against public morality. These advertisements also tended to malign the women of high stature as a class. The complainant stated that such advertisements are not in the interest of society. The Inquiry Committee noted that The Times of India had not entered appearance. Noting that several newspapers were publishing similar advertisements and the matter required serious consideration of the society on an ethical plane, the Inquiry Committee in order to allow The Times of India to place its case before the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter. It further decided that apart from the respondent editor, Shri Ravi Dhariwal, CEO of The Times of India may be addressed for eliciting response as the issue also concerned the advertising department of the paper. Accordingly the parties were informed about adjournment of the case and the respondents were requested to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee vide letter dated 23.6.2008. The Counsel for Shri Ravi Dhariwal, CEO, The Times of India vide letter dated 1.7.2008 while denying and refuting the contents of the complaint in toto
343 submitted that the reply already filed by The Times of India may be taken on record on his behalf too. The respondent denied that the advertisements published in the newspaper contravene any law of the land. According to the respondent the advertisement itself was neither derogatory nor it had anything to do with the journalistic norms. Thus, there is no cause for which any action could be taken under Section 14 of the Act. The respondent prayed that the Council may drop the proceedings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2008 at New Delhi. Shri V.P. Goel, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of The Times of India. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated his complaint and submitted that the advertisements of escorts and “Massage Parlour” published in The Times of India are invitation to open sex. The complainant urged that these advertisements should be banned. He suggested the genuineness of the advertisers could be established if the advertisements display the address instead of the mobile phone number. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record observed that even though the complaint lay against The Times of India, the issue was equally applicable to several newspapers published across the country. It was very clear that the veiled advertisement affected the social fabric of the country and the newspapers were an important constituent of instruments affecting social responsibility. It was not a question of whether the advertisements, as they were framed violated any law, but whether the message camouflaged had any bearing on ethical plane. The answer to this cannot be anything but in affirmative. In a similar issue before it, in a suo motu action in 2003 against The Hindustan Times and The Times of India, the Press Council of India had advised The Times of India and press in general to refrain from publishing such advertisements. The ethics drawn up on the basis of its pronouncements may be reproduced here: “Classified advertisements of health and physical fitness services using undignified languages, indicative of covert soliciting, are violative of law as well as ethics. The newspaper should adopt a mechanism for vetting such an advertisement to ensure that the soliciting advertisements are not carried”. Further, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seized of the similar issue had in the Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court, vide orders dated 8.12.2004 in Writ Petition No.1232 of 2004 where The Times of India was a respondent expressly directed as follows:
344 (i) Newspapers and periodicals are restrained from publishing any advertisement which amount to invitation of prostitution;
(ii) Newspapers and periodicals are restrained from publishing any advertisement which have sexual overtones;
(iii) Newspapers and periodicals are restrained from publishing any advertisement which would violate Section 3 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and other provisions of different Act.
The orders of the Hon’ble High Court were also apparently being flouted by the newspapers in intent if not in words. The Inquiry Committee felt that the press as a potent means of influencing social behaviour and norms needed to rise above commercial consideration in such matters. To quote a Vatican paper, advertising using media as a vehicle is a pervasive powerful force shaping attitudes and behaviour in today’s world. There can be no denial of the positive contribution that advertising can and does make even in the health care sector, the nomenclature generally given to sector where the impugned advertisements are placed. However, if such camouflaged advertisements are accepted they can in the long run only negatively impact the society. Ethical codes of restraint developed not just by the Press Council of India but several other agencies across the world are only as effective as the willingness of the media to abide by them. Therefore, the importance of public involvement which may organize itself to protect its interest vis-à-vis commercial interests. To this, can be added the powers of potent laws to protect the interest of the future generations and the society. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to uphold the charge of the complainant of abdication of social responsibility by the respondent arraigned before it and other newspapers carrying similar advertisements even if no specific law was being violated. Since ethical guidelines and persuasions have not yielded much result the Council may leave it to the government to consider proper enactment to deal with the matter. To this end the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to forward its adjudication to the Government of India, Law Commission and to National Commission for Women for appropriate action.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
345 118) Shri Mayurkumar Shah Versus The Editor Ex-Chief Sanjh Samachar Shiv Sena, Bhavnagar Shardabag Gujarat Rajkot, Gujarat Complaint This complaint dated 14.7.2007, has been filed by Shri Mayurkumar Shah, Ex-Chief of Shiv Sena, Bhavnagar against ‘Sanjh Samachar’ a Gujarati daily newspaper from Rajkot for alleged publication of an objectionable material- photographs of soccer sensation David Beckham and his wife in its issue dated 13.7.2007. The caption and the sub-titles of the impugned photographs reads as:- ‘Bedroom Session of World Best Footballer Beckham’ London: Beckham & his wife Spice Girl named Victoria daily flashes in newspaper. As Beckham, World’s best footballer has not only done any good performance in football. Even today, he gets the top of the top revenue as footballer. He also gets unbelievable amount as ‘model.’ Bechkham and his wife Victoria has given very bad photograph for American magazine “W”. For this bedroom photograph, he has earned million pounds and giving such mischievous pose he has shown the dangerous path to the society and citizens at large. The complainant has submitted that by publishing objectionable news with obscene photographs, the respondent has transgressed all norms of journalistic ethics. He has requested to Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Sanjh Samachar on 15.11.2007. The respondent editor, Sanjh Samachar, Rajkot did not file written statement despite service of the notice to the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant was not present. The respondent editor in his written statement, filed before the Committee, submitted that the photograph published in newspaper was of very popular football star David Beckham and his popular wife Victoria,(Spice) Beckham where a popular star and idol for many fans had given such a photograph to a magazine which was against the societal norms. They just wanted to prove a point to common public and to diehard fans of these western
346 celebrities that they could go to any extent for money and people should understand the same. Further, it was submitted that they did not intend to instigate any sexual behaviors by printing these photographs and nor had they any malafide intentions.
Shri Tarun S. Kothari, Advocate appeared for the respondent Sanjh Samachar along with its editor. He reiterated the submissions made in the written statement of the editor. The editor was unable to satisfy the Committee as to why the publication of the photograph was needed if they only wanted to campaign against such behaviour.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the impugned material noted that the publication of personal intimate photographs by the respondent newspaper Sanjh Samachar was totally against Indian ethos. Their publication in western magazines may not be taken amiss but such act by the respondent only appeared to an insidious way of attracting reader at best in the garb of criticism of the such publicity gimmicks. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to condemn the action of the editor, Sanjh Samachar with an advise to all the newspapers to assure that objectionable matter/material is not reproduced alongside their criticism/critical appraisal of such publication.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
119) Shri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy Versus The Editor Advocate, Hyderabad Deccan Chronicle Andhra Pradesh Secundarabad, A.P.
Complaint
This complaint dated 21.9.2006 has been filed by Shri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, Advocate, Hyderabad against Deccan Chronicle, Secunderabad for publication of sexual stories, nude photographs of ladies and false scoops and reportings.
The complainant has objected to the following clippings and photographs published by the respondent:
1. Photographs of nude and semi nude with caption ‘that’s entertainment’ and ‘backpack’ – dated 12.8.2005
347 2. Photographs of Semi-nude women titled ‘party whirl’ with a comment by a man ‘this is heaven’ – dated 19.6.2005
3. A news article captioned ‘Male organ in Rebellion’ – undated
4. ‘Male Escorts available on Net’ – dated 26.6.2005
5. ‘Parents find gay guys safest porn partner for daughters’ – dated 29.5.2005.
6. Pictures of women scantily dressed with captioned ‘Fitness-Tuck in belly lose two inches’ – dated 20.11.2006.
The complainant has alleged that for promotion and sale of their paper, the respondent has mischievously indulged in wholesale deficiencies of services and highly unfair and unethical trade practices printing and publishing false stories, nudity, women in promiscuous position, dirty articles etc.
He has alleged that the respondent editorial staff of the Deccan Chronicles appeared to be sadist, deriving pleasure in nudity and sex, and are continuously publishing objectionable materials.
No Written Statement
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 10.1.2007.
The respondent has not filed its written statement in the matter.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant was not present. Shri R. Pradeep Kumar, General Manager (Advt.) appeared for Deccan Chronicle. He submitted that newspaper was publishing different section for its readers. The impugned publications appeared in “Healthy Life Style Column”. Now, the newspaper had stopped publication of the said column. He added that except one photograph, the remaining were projection of life style, fashion and entertainment. The respondent submitted that such pictures are not often published and the newspaper would take all precautions in reporting such matter in future.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record. It noted that the respondent had published material, which had offended the public taste. The Inquiry Committee however, took note of the assurances given by the representative of the respondent newspaper and taking them on record, directed the respondent to take greater caution in future. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the
348 complaint in view of the assurance of the respondent that no material that might offend the public taste will be published in future. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
120) Shri N. Raveendran Versus The Editor Chennai Deccan Chronicle Chennai Complaint This complaint dated 18.4.2007 has been filed by Shri N. Raveendran, Chennai against Deccan Chronicle, English daily, Chennai for publication of allegedly obscene photograph-advertisement on the very front page of the newspaper. According to the complainant, the advertisement in question published by the respondent in its issue dated 18.4.2007, was a promotional campaign released by “Hidesign” and carried a photograph of naked man and women in an indecent posture. He has alleged that the impugned photograph was totally obscene and was highly depriving, which was bound to corrupt the minds of youngsters and is highly surprising as to how such a publication has come to be published by the respondent without any regard to the undesirable impact that such a photograph would have on the public. He has further alleged that the deliberate act of publishing the obscene advertisement in the daily newspaper amounted to gross misuse of freedom of the press. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 14.6.2007. The respondent publisher, Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited, Hyderabad has filed his written statement dated 11.7.2007 and submitted that Hidesign advertisement was published in many other newspapers in India and abroad. He has stated that the advertisement is not objectionable, as it communicates nothing but the naturalness of the product. He however, assured that they will be careful in future in accepting advertisements for publication. The respondent further submitted that the Advertisements Standards Council of India has cleared the advertisement in question accepting the explanation for the advertiser, Hidesign that the international campaign designed in Paris, meant
349 to stress the naturalness of its product, the artistic and aesthetic side of the product and was not meant to be sexually erotic.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 19.7.2007 for information and counter comments.
Counter Comments
The complainant in his counter comments dated 11.10.2007 has stated that it is surprising as to how the photograph in question depicting a naked couple in a vulgar posture could convey the naturalness of the product, which is a leather product, and added that it is quite obvious that an indecent and erotic photograph is being used by the concerned company only to attract the attention of the audience and it in no way depicts the naturalness of the product. He has further stated that from the clearance of the advertisement by A.S.C.I., it is clear that they have not paid their attention to the indecency and obscenity contained in the advertisement and no statutory body should allow this sort of obscene portrayal to malign, spoil and corrupt the youngster of the society.
A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 20.11.2007 for information.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant was not present. Shri B.H. Kasinath, News Editor, Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad appeared for the respondent and submitted that the impugned advertisement released by the international brand had been accepted in routine. Moreover, the said advertisement had been cleared by the ASCI. Therefore no complaint against the Deccan Chronicle was made out. He however, assured scrutiny of advertisement material at the time of their acceptance.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record noted that the advertising company in its statement before the ASCI had defended the advertisement as an international product designed aesthetically and artistically. The ASCI was satisfied with their response. It was however essential to keep in mind that international outlook and attitudes may differ from country specific outlook and attitudes and an even greater scrutiny was necessary in accepting advertisement of international brands. With this observation the Inquiry Committee was inclined to accept the assurance of the respondent and recommended to the Council to allow the matter to rest accordingly.
350 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
Communal, Casteist and Anti-Religious Writings
121) Shri Shree Gopal Pandit Versus The Editor Noida Nav Bharat Times U.P. New Delhi Complaint This complaint of Shri Shree Gopal Pandit, Noida, also received through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, against Nav Bharat Times, New Delhi objecting to the publication of a front page multi-colour caricature of Hindu gods namely, Lord Sri Hari Vishnu, Mahalaxmi, Prajapati Brahma and Sheshnag Maharaj in its issue dated 1.3.2006 with caption “¤ÉVÉ] BÉEÉÒ àÉɪÉÉ, BÉEcÉÓ cƺÉɪÉÉ BÉEcÉÓ âóãÉɪÉÉ” day after the general budget depicting Finance Minister as Vishnu God with Laxmi as “service tax” on his feet along with three political leaders as “Sheshnag” and other industrialists in a lotus flower as “Brahma”. The complainant averred that the publication had the tendency to hurt the religious susceptibilities of Hindus. Comments A notice for comments in reply was issued to the respondent on 2.6.2006. The counsel for the respondent filed comments dated 26.6.2006 and submitted that the said picture was published purely as a work of art. The artist inspired by Hinduism made an allegorical use of mythological story on the eve of general budget. This was just an artist’s expression, which was not created to harm or hurt the religious feelings of anyone else. The respondent editor, Nav Bharat Times, in his comments dated 15.6.2006, stated that the sketch in question was widely appreciated by the readers and it stood by its artist’s right, though it also took serious note of sensitivities of some people irrespective of their microscopic number, and published their version in the ‘letter to the editor’ column on 2.3.2006. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 7.7.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant filed his counter comments dated 26.7.2006 and submitted that the picture in question was not at all a work of art. The artist did not create
351 any work of inspiration, imagination, visualization nor did he use allegorically the mythological story. The complainant alleged that it is an act of art cunningness, and art unculturalness while they were claiming maintaining of the highest standards of journalistic ethics, and respect all religions. With regard to the comment of the respondent editor, the complainant stated that his complaint was not at all individualistic interpretation but based on ethical, religious, scientific considerations as well as it reflects the feeling of all the sects of Hinduism mainstream. He denied that the picture in question was an artistic creation, and asserted that it was rather a crude imitation, duplication and copy of the refrangible and immortal creation of the great unknown artist, which has been accepted and worshipped from the time immemorial and will be regarded and worshipped by people indefinite time to come. A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to the respondent on 13.10.2006. Show Cause Notice Since the complainant was not satisfied with the comments of the respondent and desired to pursue the matter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 19.4.2007. Written Statement The respondent advocate filed written statement dated 7.5.2007 and stated that the contents of the notice as contained in its various paragraphs are strictly and specifically denied and refuted in toto. The respondent reiterated their earlier comments/written submission dated 26.6.2006 and 15.6.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.3.2008 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Shree Gopal Pandit appeared inperson along with Shri Bir Singh, Advocate. There was no appearance on behalf of Nav Bharat Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant filed his written arguments with citation from the scripture to press his point and submitted that the caricature of Lord Vishnu published in Nav Bharat Times issue dated 1.3.2006 was offending and blasphemous. The caricature depicting the Finance Minister in the form of Lord Vishnu was most objectionable. The complainant argued that it was not only a matter of hurting his personal sentiments but was a matter of journalistic propriety whether such publications ought to be continued to be allowed in future. The complainant further submitted that the clarification in letters column dated 2.3.2006 was insufficient
352 unless there was express commitment from the newspaper against repeating such material on Hindu God-Goddesses. The complainant cited instances of protests when the cartoon of Prophet Mohammed or commentary on Mahatma Gandhi was published. The complainant submitted that Hindu Gods Sri Laxmi Narayan is worshipped not only by Hindus but other communities all over the world. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee heard the submissions and considered the documents. It noted that the respondent newspaper while reporting on the general budget carried a caricature of Hindu Gods depicting the Finance Minister and other leaders and industrialists as gods in 1.3.2006 issue of Nav Bharat Times. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the respondent Nav Bharat Times had in 2.3.2006 issue immediately carried the version of the readers objecting to the impugned publication as hurtful to their sentiments. The Inquiry Committee opined that the newspaper was prompt in carrying the protest letters in its next edition. Impugned caricature of the Finance Minister and others although published in lighter vein, as the artists expression of the budget presentation, could have been avoided by the respondent Nav Bharat Times had the drawing been given due editorial consideration from the angle of responsibility to the society and its religious sentiments. The Inquiry Committee in view of the absence of any malafide behind the publication and the space given to the letter of protest, decided to recommend to the Council to advise the Nav Bharat Times to take greater care in future in selection of material that bordered between artistic freedom and sensitivities of its readers at large. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
122) Shri Bal Patil Versus The Editor General Secretary The Hindu All India Jain Minority Forum Chennai (New Delhi) Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 4.1.2008 has been filed by Shri Bal Patil, General Secretary, All India Jain Minority Forum (New Delhi), Mumbai against The Hindu, Chennai for publication of an objectionable news item in its issue dated 5.11.2007. The complainant has objected to the statement made in the impugned news item which reads:
353 “The Central Government’s reported move to give Scheduled Caste status to Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims will deprive current SCs (among the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists) of their job and education quotas, according to Vijay Sonkar, President of All India Scheduled Caste Reservation Protection Forum.” The complainant has submitted that since as per the Constitution provisions, the Jains are not included in the Scheduled Caste, he wrote to the respondent pointing out the report as misconceived and unwarranted, and demanded clarification. The respondent editor in his reply, furnished the clarification of the special correspondent from Kochi which is reproduced below: ‘I spoke to Dr. Vijay Sonkar Sastri and he says that he sticks to what he said at the meet. ‘He has pointed out that SCs among Jains are constitutionally entitled to SC reservation. May be the organization that took objection to the reference is not fully aware of the facts, he says. ‘I also spoke to Mr. K.V. Madanan, Working President of the All India SC Reservation Protection Forum, he has quoted explanation 2 of Article 25 which says that “In sub clause B of Clause 2, the reference to Hindu shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religions.” The complainant has submitted that since the response was reiteration of the original report, he had no option but to write a detailed rejoinder to the respondent editor taking serious objection to the unwarranted inclusion of the Jains community in the Scheduled Caste category. Shri Justice Panachand Jain (Retd.) from Jaipur vide letter dated 2.2.2008 sent his opinion in the matter for consideration on the complaint of Shri Bal Patil hoping to be of some assistance in resolving the controversy. Shri Justice Jain has stated that it is desirable that one may first understand the concept of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. To determine whether or not a particular caste is a Scheduled Caste or not, one has to look at the notification issued by the President under Article 341 and once such a notification is issued by the President it becomes final and any modification thereof can be made by way either of including or excluding from the list any caste, race of tribe or part or group thereof by law made by the Parliament. Under this provisions, the President promulgated a number of orders listing the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and also on the recommendation of the Backward Classes Commission, the Parliamant modified the Presidential orders by enacting the S.C. & S.T. Order (Amendment) Act. Clause (3) of the Scheduled Caste Order 1950 provides that no person who
354 professes a religion different from the Hindus or the Sikh shall be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. This provision has created a difficulty that under Clause (3) of the order only a person professing the Hindu or the Sikh religion can belong to a Scheduled Caste and a person who became a Buddhist and declared that he had ceased to be a Hindu could not derive any benefit from the order. The Supreme Court also held when a member of a Scheduled Caste is converted to Christianity and thereafter is reconverted to Hinduism, that he belongs to his original caste if members of the caste accepts him as a member. From the above statement of facts and law it is thus clear as to who is a Scheduled Caste, stated Shri Justice Jain and added that the Jains cannot thus be considered to be falling within the definition of Scheduled Caste and the Jain do not find any place in any of the Presidential orders, consequently cannot be regarded as Scheduled Caste. Notice for Comments A notice for comments was issued to the respondent on 25.2.2008. Comments The respondent Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, Shri N.Ram in his comments dated 27.3.2008 has submitted that the news item in question was a factual report based on the public utterance of Mr. Vijay Sonkar Sastri, President of All India Scheduled Caste Reservation Protection Forum, former BJP MP and former Chairman of the SC/ST Commission, at a news conference at Kochi, Kerala. He has stated that the news item, a mere reproduction of what was stated in public, was published in good faith and in public interest in order to bring the news of a proposed agitation scheduled nationwide and without any intention of causing any hurt to any person of any religion, caste or community. On being approached in the matter, Shri V.S.Sastri stood by what he had said at the news conference and stated that ‘the SCs among Jains are constitutionally entitled to SC reservation and the organization that took the objection is not aware of the fact’ stated the respondent and added that the newspaper and its correspondents adhered to the journalistic norms, guidelines and ethics. Copies of the comments were forwarded to the complainant, Shri Bal Patil and Shri Justice P. C. Jain on 4.4.2008 and 23.4.2008 respectively for their information and counter comments, if any. Counter Comments Shri Justice Panachand Jain (Retd.) in his counter comments dated 5.5.2008 has submitted that clubbing together amongst the current Scheduled Castes, ‘Hindu, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists’ with Jains is not only misleading but it is factually
355 incorrect. It is in this manner that a controversy is being raised and Jains are unnecessarily being dragged into the category of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of undermining their superiority in comparison to Forward Hindu castes and communities, stated Shri Justice Jain. He has added that Shri Patil, the complainant was against the unwarranted and misleading inclusion of Jains in the Scheduled Caste category and desired that correct statement of fact may be published. Shri Justice Jain has further alleged that clubbing Jains amongs Dalits is a serious insinuation against the Jain community as Jains do not fall amongs the category of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which has a special meaning under the Constitution. He has submitted that the defence taken by the respondent is not sustainable in law and appropriate action may be taken in the matter. The complainant, Shri Bal Patil in his letter dated 9.5.2008 has submitted that he concurred in toto with the arguments and citations given by Shri Justice Panachand Jain to refute the statement of the respondent.
A copy each of the counter comments dated 5.5.2008 and 9.5.2008 received from Shri Justice Panachand Jain and Shri Bal Patil respectively were forwarded to the respondent on 14.5.2008 for information.
Show Cause Notice
Since the complainant was not satisfied with the comments made by the respondent, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 30.5.2008.
Written Statement
Shri N. Ram, the respondent Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu in his written statement dated 16.6.2008 has submitted that the news item in question was a factual report based on the public utterances of Mr. Vijay Sonkar Sastri, President of All India Scheduled Caste Reservation Protection Forum, former BJP MP and former Chairman of the SC/ST Commission, at a news conference at Kochi, Kerala. The news item, a mere reproduction of what was stated in public, was published in good faith and in public interest in order to bring the news of proposed agitation scheduled nationwide and without any intention of causing any hurt to any person of any religion, caste of community stated the respondent. He has added that on receipt of objections from the complainant, the Special Correspondent approached Mr. Vijay Sonkar Sastri, who then stood by what he had said at the news conference. They have also spoken to Mr. K.V.Madanan, working President of All India SC Reservation Protection Forum, who stated that as per Explanation 2 of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which says “ In Sub Clause B of Clause 2, the reference to “Hindu” shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religions”, and this information was also conveyed to the complainant, stated the respondent. The complainant
356 further submitted that there has been no violation of such norms, guidelines and ethics in the matter. Copies of the written statement were forwarded to the complainant and Shri Justice Panachand Jain (Retd.) on 20.6.2008 for information/counter comments, if any. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2008 at New Delhi. S/Shri Bal Patil, General Secretary, All India Jain Minority Forum (New Delhi), Mumbai, appeared in person, along with Shri Justice Pana Chand Jain. S/Shri S. Ramanujam alongwith Mr. M.K.V. Vishwanathan, Advocate appeared for the respondent, The Hindu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted, with due respect to Dalits that the news item in The Hindu quoting the statement of Shri Vijay Sonkar Shastri on SCs among Jains was misconceived. The complainant submitted that there are no Dalits in Jains. The complainant submitted that the newspaper report unfairly included Jains in the SC category. The complainant requested that his rejoinder should be published. Shri Justice Panachand Jain submitted that the newspaper had given factually wrong statement. The newspaper should have published their version that Jains are not included in SCs to rectify the misgivings. The counsel for The Hindu submitted that the complaint was not main- tainable. The respondent submitted that as per several Supreme Court Judgments embracing any religion by a Dalit does not deprive him or her of the rights available prior to conversion. He added that The Hindu held no ill intention in the case and only reported a statement at a press conference, therefore, the complaint should be rejected. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents and hearing the parties finds that although the newspaper, The Hindu had only carried the statements made at a press conference and its bonafide could not be doubted. However, it was advisable for the editor to have published the views of the complainant to allow him to put his point of view before the readers. As an impartial reporter, that was the prime duty of a newspaper. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, directed the editor, The Hindu, through its counsel, to publish the gist of the complainant’s rejoinder as per norms and send clippings to the Council as well as to the complainant for information and record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter accordingly.
357 Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
123) Shri Vijay Veerla Versus The Editor Nottingham Deccan Chronicle United Kingdom Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 2.5.2006 has been filed by Shri Vijay Veerla, Nottingham, United Kingdom against the Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad for publication of an allegedly false and distorted news reports captioned ‘They herded them into huts and shot them’ and ‘Dargah destroyed, curfew in Baroda’ in its issue dated 2.5.2008. It was reported in the first news report that ‘unidentified assailants shot dead 22 Hindu villagers and wounded 10 others in the hills of Doda district of Jammu and Kashmir overnight..’ The complainant has alleged that the respondent whitewashed the crime of Islamic militants who killed innocent villagers by branding the killers as ‘unidentified assailants’ whereas the rest of the world reported what it was. With regard to the second news report, which stated that ‘four persons were killed and 22 injured after a dargah over 200 years old was demolished by civic authority in Baroda,’ the complainant has alleged that the meaning of the main news was twisted in the caption by publishing as ‘destroyed’ while it was ‘demolished’ as a part of civic municipality action. The complainant has alleged that the respondent is guilty of willful misrepresentation or suppression of facts with a view to present distorted news or propaganda for a view of a section. The complainant in his letter dated 10.5.2008 has stated that the respondent newspaper Deccan Chronicle willingly or otherwise misreported the two incidents. All Indian newspapers and news agencies, international newspapers and news agencies covered the first news item as it was and in some cases, the usual suspects were named or the official version was reported as it was presented while the respondent newspaper surreptitiously avoided using any reference, alleged the complainant. The same fault has been committed by the respondent in the case with the Baroda Dargah incident, alleged the complainant, and added that it was commonplace to remove encroachment in all parts of the world. Mosque are routinely demolished even in Saudi Arabia to pave roads and in the present case, the dargah is not even a mosque but a small mausoleum for a peer, which of course is against the tenets
358 of Islam. However, the respondent deliberately reported the bonafide ‘demolition’ as ‘destroying’ with an intention to misreport or to incite communal passions in the native Hyderabad, alleged the complainant and added that the action of the respondent is an instance of professional misconduct. He sent his rejoinder via email on 1.5.2006 but received no reply from the respondent editor of the newspaper Deccan Chronicle. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee Written statement was not filed in response to the show cause notice which was issued to the respondent on 8.12.2006. The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.1.2009 at Nagpur. The complainant did not appear before it. Shri B.H.Kasinath, News Editor, appearing for Deccan Chronicle submitted that the complainant’s objection was two fold i.e. (a) In respect of news report of Deccan Chronicle about massacre in Doda district of Jammu by unidentified assailants while according to other newspaper reports given by the complainant they were identified as Lashkar-e-Tayyaba militants. (b) Reporting demolition of Dargah in Gujarat by Municipality which was wrongly worded as “Destroyed” instead of “Demolished” by Deccan Chronicle in its heading to the second news report. The respondent representative submitted regarding the first report that the action was in keeping with the general principles of not identifying the crimes by the community. Regarding the second he assured that the newspaper shall take precaution in reporting such sensitive matter. Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the record and noted the respondent explanation. The representative of the respondent had assured the Committee greater caution against recurrence of such grievance in future. The Inquiry Committee observed that a newspaper ought to be careful in choosing language for reports with religious/communal connotation so that sentiments of any community or a religious group were not hurt. In the instant case in view of the assurance of the respondent, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the case with this word of caution to the respondent newspaper, Deccan Chronicle. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.
q
359