PRESS COUNCIL OF

Compendium of Adjudications (April 1, 2006-March 31, 2007)

New Compendium of Adjudications

Contents

Preface Index of the Adjudications of the Council for -- 1 the period April 1, 2006 – March 31, 2007

Adjudications of the Council -- 17 PREFACE

The Press Council has to perform a major function in adjudicating on complaints by and against the Press, and while discharging it, to evolve a code of professional ethics for the journalists, and norms of conduct for the authorities vis a vis the Press. The Council by taking measures to put the processing of the cases on a fast track is trying to shorten the period of disposal of the complaints. But much more has to be achieved in this direction. The present Compendium gives an account of the complaints received from and against the press and the number of complaints adjudicated during the year. I must emphasize that Press Council is not alternative to courts. Its object is to set standards in journalism by encouraging self-regulation and at same time to ensure that its freedom is not trampled upon. The adjudications rendered during the year will, I am sure, contribute largely to the case laws on the subject.

(G.N. Ray) Chairman Press Council of India Index of Adjudications of the Council for the Period April 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007

S.No. Parties Date of Decision

Harassment of Newsmen 1. Complaint of Shri Ravinder Panchal, District July 12, Correspondent, Swatantra Bharat, Jalaun, U.P. 2006 against Police authorities of Jalaun, U.P. 2. Suo-motu action w.r.t. lathi charge on journalists ” at Jehanabad (Bihar). 3. Complaint of Shri A.S. Thakur, Editor, Akhand Jot, ” Delhi against Kumari Kusum, Municipal Councillor, Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi. 4. Complaint of Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj, Sonebhadra, ” U.P. against M.P. Police and Coal Mafia. 5. Complaint of Shri Madhuram Bodo, Editor, Asomiya ” Janamat, Guwahati against Shri Mehdi Alam Bora, Congress Spokesman, Guwahati. 6. Complaint of Shri Devendra Tripathi against Shri Brijlal ” Khabari, Ex-MP and Smt. Urmila Sonkar Khabari, PCS U.P. 7. Complaint of Shri Shadab Hussain, Correspondent October 16, Jadid Markaz, Behraich, U.P. against police 2006 authorities of Behraich, U.P. 8. Complaint of Shri Junaid Taimuri, Journalist, Etawah ” against police authorities of Etawah, Uttar Pradesh. 9. Complaint of Shri Sudama Prasad Dubey, District ” President, Grameen Patrakar Association Lalitpur, U.P. against Police Authorities of Lalitpur, U.P. 10. Complaint of Shri Dinesh Pankaj, Editor, Kamgaron ’’ Ki Duniya, Mathura against Labour Department. 11. Complaint of Shri Harshwardhan Arya, Editor, ’’ Lokmat Samachar, Nagpur against Chief Conservator of Forests, Amravati, Maharashtra. 1 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

12. Suo motu action w.r.t issuance of an interim order/ October 16, notice under Section 144 Cr.P.C. dated 7.12.2005 2006 directing the Editor of Andhra Jyoti to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vishakhapatnam. 13. Complaint of Shri Jaleel Khan, Editor, Voice of ’’ Minority, Guntur against Shri S.M. Shabbir Basha, Former Executive Director, A.P. Minorities Finance Corporation, Guntur. 14. Complaint of Chief Editor, Koot Chakra, Sonbhadra, March 30, U.P. against Government of Uttar Pradesh. 2007 15. Complaint of Shri Ram Kumar Vaishya, Publisher, ’’ Vaishya Lahar, U.P. against Administrator, ISCKON Mandir, Lucknow. 16. Complaint of Shri Satbir Singh, Editor, Dabar Westend, ’’ New Delhi against SDM, Najafgarh, Delhi. 17. Complaint of Shri Arun Kumar, Editor, Sarhad Prahari, ’’ Madhepura, Bihar against anti - social elements. 18. Suo-motu action w.r.t. persistent threats on professional ’’ journalists from Militant organisation in Manipur.

Facilities to the Press 19. Complaint of Shri Digant Oza, Editor, Jal Seva, July 12, Ahmedabad, Gujarat against Government of Gujarat. 2006 20. Complaint of M/s Lok Prakashan Ltd., Ahmedabad, ’’ Gujarat against Government of Gujarat. 21. Complaint of Shri Manoj Sharma, District ’’ Correspondent, Dainik Hawk, Bareilly against Assistant Information Director, Bareilly, U.P. 22. Complaint of Shri Suresh Chandra Rohra, October 16, Correspondent, Nai Dunia, Korba against 2006 (i) Chhatisgarh Samvad Jansampark Sanchnalaya, Raipur, (ii) Chief Minister, Chhatishgarh and (iii) Municipal Corporation, Korba. 23. Complaint of Editor, Bahar-e-Hardoi, Hardoi against ’’ District Information Officer, Government of U.P. 2 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

24. Complaint of Smt. Saroj Verma, Rani Jhansi Times, March 30, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh against DAVP. 2007 25. Complaint of Editor, Lamba Safar, Delhi against ’’ Directorate of Information & Publicity, Government of NCT of Delhi. 26. Complaint of Shri Rama Shankar Prasad, Correspondent, ’’ PTI, Nalanda, Bihar against Director, Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar. 27. Complaint of Shri Mitthu Prasad Agarwal, ’’ Correspondent, Dainik Sanmarg, Suppol against Public Relations Officer, Suppol, Bihar. 28. Complaint of Editor, Tripura Observer, Tripura against ’’ Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala. 29. Complaint of Editor, Hachukni Kok, Agartala against ’’ Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of Tripura, Agartala. 30. Complaint of Editor Nabapanji, Bengali weekly, ’’ Agartala against Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala. 31. Complaint of Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain, Editor, Daily ’’ Action and Daily Urdu Action, Bhopal against Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Bhopal Division. Principles and Publication 32. Complaint of Shaikh Nisarahmad Shermohammed, July 12, Maharashtra against Daily Aple Maharashtra. 2006 33. Complaint of Shri Deepak Chabria, Chairman, ’’ Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personnel, Mumbai against Mid Day and Times of India. 34. Complaint of Ms. K.R. Moghe, Stree Mukti Andolan ’’ Sampark Samiti, Pune against Times of India (Pune Times) Pune. 35. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Bhusreddy, IAS, Special ’’ Secretary, Housing, Government of U.P., Lucknow against Hindustan, Lucknow.

3 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

36. Complaint of Shri Ravi Kumar, Chairman, Calcutta July 12, Motor Sports Club, Kolkata against Autocar India, 2006 Mumbai. 37. Complaint of Dr. O.P. Agnihotri, Joint Managing October 16, Director, U.P. Bhoomi Sudhar Nigam, Lucknow 2006 against the Editor, Rozgar Sangrah, Agra. 38. Complaint of Shri T.T. Adhikari, New Delhi against ’’ The , New Delhi. 39. Complaints of Shri C. Satish, Hyderabad against ’’ , Hyderabad. 40. Complaint of Shri Kulamarva Balakrishna Padubidru, ’’ Karnataka against Prajavani, Kannada daily, Mangalore, Karnataka. 41. Complaint of Shri Baldev Singh, Punjab against the March 30, Editor, , . 2007 42. Complaint of Shri Ramesh Lalwani, Delhi against ’’ the Editor, Times of India and Economic Times, New Delhi. 43. Complaint of Shri Hiranmay Karlekar, New Delhi ’’ against Editor, Economic & Political Weekly, Mumbai. 44. Complaint of Shri Sate Singh Rana, Member, BJP, ’’ Dehradun, Uttrakhand against Maidani Awaz, Dehradun, Uttrakhand. 45. Complaint of Shri Sandeep Jena, Editor, Delta Square ’’ against the Samaj, Oriya daily, Cuttack, Orissa. 46. Complaint of Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Bureau Chief, ’’ Rozgar Evam Parinam, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh against the editor, Employment News, New Delhi. 47. Complaint of Pt. S.L. Vyas, Pt. S.L. Vyas Sansthan, ’’ Phalodi, Rajasthan against the editors, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, Dainik Navjyoti, Ajmer and Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur.

4 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

Press and Defamation 48. Complaint of Shri M.M. Mittal, Mumbai against Nav July 12, Bharat, Mumbai. 2006 49. Complaint of Hon. Secretary, Sahyagiri Co-operative ’’ Housing Society, Mumbai against Confidence, Bi- Monthly, Mumbai. 50. Complaint of Smt. Deenaben Dhandhukiya, Proprietor, ’’ Sai Pooja Enterprise, Gujarat against Junagarh Samachar, Junagarh, Gujarat. 51. Complaint of Shri Dilip Kumar Ramlal Shah, Ahmedabad ’’ against Khadayata Jyoti. 52. Complaint of Shri Pradyumna Sahastabhojanee, ’’ Architect-Urban Designer, Nagpur against The Hitavada, Nagpur. 53. Complaint of Shri Meghraj Hajarimal Jain, President, ’’ Rashtriya Samaj Sewa Bahu Udeshiya Sanstha against Dainik Bhaskar, Nagpur. 54. Complaint of Shri Meghraj Hajarimal Jain, President, ’’ Rashtriya Samaj Sewa Bahu Udeshiya Sanstha against Daily Deshonnati, Nagpur. 55. Complaint of Shri Bharat B. Jain, Mumbai against Mid ’’ Day, Gujarati Daily, Mumbai. 56. Complaint of Shri Ravinder Diwedi, Bhrastachar Nirmulan ’’ Samiti, Thane, Maharashtra against Loksatta, Mumbai. 57. Complaint of Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, Principal Chief ’’ Conservetor of Forest, Lucknow, U.P. against Hindustan, Lucknow. 58. Complaint of Shri Shailander Yadav "Lalai", Minister of ’’ State, Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh against Dainik Hindustan, Varanasi. 59. Complaint of Shri Shailander Yadav "Lalai", Minister of ’’ State, Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh against Amar Ujala, Varanasi.

5 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

60. Complaint of Shri Ashok Kumar Tomar, Principal, July 12, Rashtriya Inter College, Shahpur, U.P. against Amar 2006 Ujala, Meerut. 61. Complaint of Shri B.B. Jindal, Lucknow against ’’ Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow. 62. Complaint of Shri Murari Lal Goyal, Kanpur Dehat ’’ against Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow. 63. Complaint of Shri Shatrughan Singh Chauhan, ’’ Journalist and former General Secretary, Samajwadi Party, U.P. against Aaj, Kanpur. 64. Complaint of Shri Surender Sharma, Bijnor against ’’ Dainik Shah Times, Muzaffarnagar. 65. Complaint of Dr. S.R. Niranjan, Managing Director, ’’ Sun India Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd., Orai, U.P. against Dainik Bundelkhand Kranti, Orai, U.P. 66. Complaint of Regional Manager, (PR & Publicity) LIC ’’ of India, Kanpur, U.P. against Saral Sahara, Unnao, U.P. 67. Complaint of Shri Kishore Virwani, M/s Laxmi Water ’’ Industries, Indore, M.P. against Jan Inqulab, Indore, M.P. 68. Complaint of Shri T. Pitchandi, IAS, Secretary to the ’’ Government of Tamil Nadu, against Dinakaran, Chennai. 69. Complaint of Shri R. Chandra, Vice-Presdient, All India ’’ Democratic Women Association against Dinamalar, Tiruchirapalli. 70. Complaint of Dr. M.L. Khanna, General Secretary, DAV ’’ College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi against , New Delhi. 71. Complaint of Chief Administrative Officer, Indian ’’ Veterinary Research Institute, Izzatnagar, Bareilly, U.P. against Amar Ujala, Bareilly, U.P. 72. Complaint of Shri Manibhushan Tiwari, Inspector Food ’’ and Supply, Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi against Nazar-Ki- Nazar, Delhi.

6 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

73. Complaint of Shri Jagdish Deol, General Secretary, July 12, DAV College Managing Committee Employee, New 2006 Delhi against Punjab Kesari, New Delhi. 74. Complaint of Shri Y. Anil Kumar, UPS, Deputy Inspector ’’ General of Police, (Administration) Thiruvananthapurm against Janamabhoomi, Malayalam Daily. 75. Complaint of Shri S.S. Sharma against Dainik Pudhari, ’’ Mumbai. 76. Complaint of Shri Murlidhar Melwani, Ulhasnagar, October 16, Maharashtra against the Editor, Ulhas Champion, 2006 Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra. 77. Complaint of Shri Nanikram Sidhwani, Ulhasnagar, ’’ Maharashtra against the Editor, Ulhas Champion, Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra. 78. Complaint of Vivekanand Education Society, Mumbai ’’ against the Editor, , Mumbai. 79. Complaints of Vivekanand Education Society, Mumbai ’’ against the Editors, Loksatta, Mumbai and Metro Chembur - Mid Day, Mumbai. 80. Complaint of Shri Madhusudan, Dehradun against the ’’ Editor, Ghati Ka Bharat, Dehradun. 81. Complaint of Shri Rajendra Singh, Secretary, District ’’ Redcross Society, Rewari, against the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Edition. 82. Complaint of Shri Vijay Kumar Khetrapal, Secretary, ’’ U.P. Advertisers Association, Meerut, U.P. against the Editor, Hira Times, Meerut, U.P. 83. Complaint of Shri Sandeep Gupta, Delhi against the ’’ Editors, (i) Public News, Delhi, (ii) Indo Europe News, Delhi, (iii) Fashion India, Delhi, (iv) Krishna Avtar, Delhi and (v) Rashtriya Hindi Samachar Patra, Delhi. 84. Complaint of Principal, Government Women College, ’’ Gurgaon, Haryana against Mahamedha, Delhi.

7 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

85. Complaint of Principal, Government College, October 16, Gurgaon against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Gurgaon. 2006 86. Complaint of Dr. T.B. Singh, Joint Director (Admn.), ’’ Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Science, Delhi against Rashtriya Sahara, New Delhi. 87. Complaint of Director, Indian Institute of Aircraft ’’ Engineering, Mahipalpur Extension., New Delhi against The Times of India, New Delhi. 88. Complaint of the Editor, Brij Vimla Vani, Pratapgarh, ’’ Uttar Pradesh against Dainik Lok Mitra, Pratapgarh U.P. and D.I.O., Pratapgarh, U.P. 89. Complaint of Shri Dharambir Singh, Bijnore, U.P. ’’ against Amar Ujala, Meerut. 90. Complaint of Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh, ’’ Uttaranchal against Amar Ujala, Bareilly. 91. Complaint of Shri Ganesh Singh, M.P. New Delhi ’’ against Samaria Express, Samaria. 92. Complaint of Principal, S.D. College against Din ’’ Pratidin, Haryana. 93, Complaint of Shri Ashok Khemka against The ’’ Hindustan Times, New Delhi. 94. Complaints of Shri Tasneem Ahmed, Chief Conservator ’’ of Forests, Amravati, Maharashtra against the Editor, Lokmat, Nagpur. 95. Complaint of Shri Shaifur Rahman, Proprietor, Asha Arts, ’’ Hyderabad against The Times of India, Hyderabad. 96. Complaint of Shri J.V. Chalapathirao, District Public ’’ Relations Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh against Yadhardha Godhala Sanjeeva Rupam Vaarathi, Telugu Evening daily, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. 97. Complaint of Smt. Qamar Jehan Kausar, Owner of Metro ’’ Lodge, Hyderabad against The Eenadu, Telugu daily, Hyderabad.

8 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

98. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. October 16, of Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad 2006 against The Eenadu, Nellore edition, A.P. 99. Complaint of Shri Narsimha Reddy, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Eenadu, Nellore edition, A.P. 100. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Eenadu, Nellore edition, A.P. 101. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Eenadu, Nellore edition, A.P. 102. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Eenadu, Nellore edition, A.P. 103. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Andhra Jyoti, Telugu daily, Hyderabad. 104. Complaint of Shri Narsimha Reddy, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Andhra Jyoti, Telugu daily, Hyderabad. 105. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Andhra Jyoti, Telugu daily, Hyderabad. 106. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Andhra Jyoti, Telugu daily, Hyderabad. 107. Complaint of Shri Narsimha Reddy, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Vartha, Hyderabad. 108. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. of ’’ Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Vartha, Hyderabad.

9 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

109. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. October 16, of Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad 2006 against The Vartha, Hyderabad. 110. Complaint of Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, D.G. and I.G. ’’ of Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad against The Vartha, Hyderabad. 111. Complaint of Principal, Chirec Public School, ’’ Hyderabad against Deccan Chronicle, Secunderabad. 112. Complaint of Secretary, Ootcamund Club, Ootcamund, ’’ Tamil Nadu against New Indian Express, Coimbatore. 113. Complaint of Shri Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, ’’ Bangalore against Lankesh Patrika, Bangalore. 114. Complaint of Shri Sandeep Rai Rathore, IPS, ’’ Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin,Tamil Nadu against Naveena Netrikan,Chennai. 115. Complaint of Shri S.M. Pasha, Convenor, Shariath ’’ Protection Council, Chennai, Tamil Nadu against Deccan Chronicle, Chennai. 116. Complaint of Father Paul G.D. Cunha, Parish Priest, Our ’’ Lady of Victories Church, Shimoga, Karnataka against Mathukathe, Bangalore. 117. Complaints of Dr. V.B. Tharakeshwar, Lecturer, ’’ Department of Translation Studies, Kannada University, Hampi and others, Karnataka against Hai Bangalore, Karnataka. 118. Complaint of Shri Om Prakash, Inspector General of ’’ Police, Northern Range Belgaum against Hai Bangalore, Karnataka. 119. Complaint of Shri S. Puttaswamy Kas, Bangalore against ’’ Lankesh Patrike, Kannad Weekly, Bangalore. 120. Complaint of Shri Amrender Kumar Singh, Bareilly, March 30, Uttar Pradesh against Amar Ujala, Bareilly. 2007 121. Complaint of Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, ’’ Pilibhit, U.P. against Amar Ujala, Bareilly.

10 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

122. Complaint of Shri Hari Shankar Shukla, Commercial March 30, Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Basti, U.P. against 2007 Paripuran Railway Samachar, Kalyan, Mumbai. 123. Complaint of Shri Vir Bahadur Singh, Superintendent ’’ of Police, District Baghpat, U.P. against Amar Ujala, Meerut. 124. Complaint of M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai against ’’ the Editor, Gujarat Mitra, Gujarat. 125. Complaint of Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary, Sankalp ’’ Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut, U.P. against the editor, Dainik Aaj, Bareilly. 126. Complaint of Deputy Director, I & P R Department, ’’ Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow against the editor, Sahara Samaya. 127. Complaint of Shri Vishwas Kumar Pro. U&H Polio ’’ Hospital, Bhatinda, Punjab against Daily Pilot, Bhatinda. 128. Complaint of Smt. V. Usha Rani, IAS, Commissioner, ’’ Municipal Corporation, Vijayavada against the editor, Vijayavada. 129. Complaint of Shri D.S. Murthy, former Commissioner & ’’ Director of Marketing, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against Andhra Jyoti, Hyderabad. 130. Complaint of Shri Rakesh, S/o Shri Siddaramaih, Deputy ’’ Chief Minister, Karnataka, Bangalore against Lankesh Patrike. 131. Complaint of Shri Rajendra P. Chitale, Managing Partners, ’’ M.P. Chitale & Co., Mumbai against Indian Express, Mumbai. 132. Complaint of Ms. Sheela Patel, Director, Society for ’’ Promotion of Area Resources Centre, Mumbai against The Asian Age, Mumbai. 133. Complaint of Deputy General Manager (Legal), South ’’ Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur against Chhattisgarh Reporter, Bilaspur.

11 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

134. Complaint of Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma, Partner, March 30, M/s Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers, Moradabad, 2007 U.P. against editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly. 135. Complaint of Md. Shafi Quadri, Pilibhit, U.P. against ’’ the editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly. 136. Complaint of Shri D.C. Pandey, District Information ’’ Officer, Haridwar against the editor, Apne Log, Hindi Dainik, Haridwar, Uttrakhand. 137. Complaint of Shri S. Krishnananda Chatra, Partner, ’’ Durgamba Motors, Udupi, Karnataka against the editor, Vidhatha, Kannada Weekly, Shimoga, Karnataka. 138. Complaint of Shri Karsan Bhai Babu Bhai and others, ’’ Janjaria, Una, Gujarat against the editor, Gujarat Samachar, Rajkot, Gujarat. 139. Complaint of Shri Arun Chandra Bhaumik, Agartala ’’ against Dainik Ganadoot, Bengali Daily, Tripura. 140. Complaint of Shri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, Ex-Chief ’’ Minister, Assam against Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati, Asam. 141. Complaint of Smt. Purnima Das Baishya, editor, Hajor ’’ Batori, Kamrup, Assam against Dainik Asom, Guwahati, Assam. 142. Complaint of Shri Jagnnath Singh, Advocate, Anisabad, ’’ Patna, Bihar against Dainik Hindustan, Patna, Bihar. 143. Complaint of Shri J. N. Singh, Bhagalpur, Bihar against ’’ Dainik Hindustan, Bhagalpur, Bihar. 144. Complaint of Shri Kumod Kumar, Police Sub Inspector, ’’ Ranchi, Jharkhand against Dainik Hindustan, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 145. Complaint of Shri B.S.P. Roy, Jt. Commissioner of ’’ Commercial Taxes (Adv.&TC), Dhanbad, Jharkhand against Hindustan Times, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 146. Complaint of Shri S.C. Mohapatra, Chief of ’’ Communication, SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant, Orissa against Shramika Mallika, Rourkela, Orissa. 12 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

147. Complaint of Shri U.K. Thakur, Manager, Bihar State March 30, Hydroelectric Power Corporation, Patna, Bihar against 2007 Dainik Jagran, Patna, Bihar. 148. Complaint of Shri B.K. Sinha Income Tax Officer, ’’ Ramgarh, Jharkhand against Dainik Jagran, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 149. Complaint of Shri Ram Dev Prasad, District Hazaribagh, ’’ Jharkhand against Dainik Jagran, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 150. Complaint of Prof. D.K. Ray, Kolkata against Ananda ’’ Bazar Patrika, Kolkata. 151. Complaint of Shri Ramesh Chandra Baleshwar, Lecturer ’’ (English), Govt. College, Khairwada, Udaipur against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Udaipur. 152. Complaint of Shri Hari Mohan Sharma, Dy. Director, ’’ Bhilwara Khadi Gramodyog Board, Bhilwara, against the editor, Mewar Krantikal and Inside Report, Chittaurgarh. 153. Complaint of Shri Hari Singh Rathore, Jodhpur against ’’ the editor, Rajasthan Kesari, Sandhya Dainik, Jodhpur. 154. Complaint of Shri Hari Singh Rathore, Jodhpur against ’’ the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur. 155. Complaint of Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra, Engineering ’’ Consultants, Bikaner, Rajasthan against the editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur. 156. Complaint of Shri C.M. Sharma, Neemuch, Madhya ’’ Pradesh against the editor, Dashpur Express, Nemuch, . 157. Complaint of Dr. Smt. Chandra Saita, Assistant Director ’’ (Rajbhasha), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Indore against Chambal Chetna, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. 158. Complaint of Shri S.K. Taran, Manager, Jila Sahakari ’’ Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh against the editor, Khoji Lahar, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh.

13 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

159. Complaint of Shri Anand Goenka, Katni, Madhya March 30, Pradesh against the editor, Rashtriya Hindi Mail, 2007 Bhopal. 160. Complaint of Shri Mahesh Babu Saxena, Programme ’’ Officer, Akashvani, Reva, Madhya Pradesh against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, . 161. Complaint of Shri Lallan Ram, Chief Booking ’’ Supervisor, N.R. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, Jansatta Express, Lucknow. Press and Morality 162. Complaint of Shri M.S. Kilpady, Mumbai against July 12, Afternoon Dispatch & Courier. 2006 163. Complaint of Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Sr. Lecturer ’’ (Commerce), Government P.G. College, NOIDA against Hindustan Times, New Delhi and Times of India, New Delhi. 164. Complaint of Dr. C.D. Narshimha Reddy, Editor, October 16, Public Relations Voice, Hyderabad against the Editor, 2006 Economic Times, Mumbai. 165. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate/ March 30, Chairman, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Muradabad, U.P. 2007 against Cricket Samrat. 166. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate/ ’’ Chairman, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Muradabad, U.P. against Dainik Jagran. 167. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate/ ’’ Chairman, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Muradabad, U.P. against Romantic Duniya. 168. Complaint of Prof. D.P.S. Verma, Former Professor, ’’ Faculty of Commerce and Business Studies, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi against The Pioneer. 169. Complaint of Shri Shiv Ranjan Singh, President, ’’ Aasra Samajik Seva Sanstha, Dhanbad, Jharkhand against Dainik Jagran, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

14 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

170. Complaint of Editor, Arthik Prasanga, Kolkata against March 30, Ananda Bazar Patrika and Desh, Kolkata. 2007 171. Complaint of President, Bhartiya Sanskriti Vikas ’’ Sanstha, Hanumangarh against the editors, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur and Punjab Kesari, Jallandhar. Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Religious Writings 172. Complaint of Shri Sunil G. Godbole, Mumbai against July 12, Times of India, Mumbai. 2006 173. Complaint of Shri Tarlochan Singh, Chairman, ’’ National Commission for Minorities, New Delhi against Hindustan Times, New Delhi. 174. Complaint of Shri Rajesh Dutt, Haryana against ’’ Anand Bazar Patrika, Kolkata. 175. Complaint of Shri Manmohan Bhalla, Paschim Vihar, ’’ New Delhi against Hindustan Times, New Delhi. 176. Complaint of Major Ashish Nangia against Alsafa, ’’ Jammu. 177. Complaint of Shri Abdul Rahim Quraishi, Assistant ’’ General Secretary, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, New Delhi against The Pioneer, New Delhi. 178. Complaints of Dr. Krishen Kak, IAS (Retd.) October 16, New Delhi against The Hindu, Chennai. 2006 179. Complaints of Shri V.H. Dalmia, President, Vishva ’’ Hindu Parishad, New Delhi against The Economic Times, New Delhi. 180. Complaint of Shri V. Krishnan against , ’’ Kolkata. 181. Complaint of Shri S. Abuthalha, Madurai, Tamil Nadu ’’ against Tamilian Express, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. 182. Complaint of Shri Mongwati Aier, Deputy Resident March 30, Commissioner, Nagaland House, New Delhi against 2007 the editor, North East Herald, Nagaland.

15 S.No. Parties Date of Decision

Parties

183 Complaint of Shri Hiranyappa, Bangalore against March 30, the editor, The Asian Age, New Delhi. 2007

184. Complaint of Dr. Dharmvir, Secretary, Paropkarini ’’ Sabha, Kesarganj, Ajmer against editor, Dainik Jagran, Panipat, Harayana.

16 Adjudications of the Council

Harassment of Newsmen

1) Shri Ravinder Panchal Versus 1. The Chief Secretary District Correspondent Government of U.P. Swatantra Bharat Lucknow Jalaun, U.P. 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow 3. The Superintendent of Police Jalaun, U.P. Complaint Shri Ravinder Panchal, District Correspondent, Swatantra Bharat, Hindi daily, Jalaun (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 23.2.2005 against local police authorities for allegedly harassing and implicating him in false case due to publication of critical news items as follows:-

S.No. Captions Dated 1“{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉäÉÏà¤ÉMÉ +É¤É JÉÉxÉÉ{ÉÚÉÌiÉ àÉå ¤ÉnãÉÉÒ” 28.1.2005 2“SÉxn bBÉEèiÉ £ÉÉ®ÉÒ {ÉbiÉä cé {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ {É®” 14.1.2005 3“lÉÉxÉÉvªÉFÉÉÒ cÉÊlɪÉÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ ÉʺɪÉɺÉiÉÉÒ SÉÉãÉ SÉãÉiÉä n®ÉäMÉÉ” 4.2.2005 4“nºªÉÖ fÉÒàÉ® BÉEä JÉÉºÉ lÉÉxÉänÉ® xÉä ÉʺÉ{ÉÉcÉÒ {É® {ÉEɪɮ ZÉÉäBÉEÉ” 16.2.2005 5“vÉxÉ BÉEàÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ xÉÉªÉ¤É iÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ +É{ÉxÉɪÉÉ” 15.2.2005 6“VÉäãÉ àÉå ¤Éxn +ÉÉʣɪÉÖBÉDiÉ ÉÊnJÉɪÉÉ {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ xÉä àÉÖ~£Éäb àÉå” 28.12.2004 7“ VÉäãÉ àÉå VÉc® JÉÖ®ÉxÉÉÒ ºÉä àÉßiÉ BÉEènÉÒ BÉEÉä ãÉäBÉE® àÉÖBÉEqàÉÉ” 9.1.2005 8“nºªÉÖ ÉÊxÉ£ÉÇªÉ BÉEä ºÉà¤ÉxvÉ ºÉÉÒ.+ÉÉä. ºÉä cÉäxÉä BÉEÉÒ VÉÉÄSÉ |ÉÉ®à£É” 13.1.2005

The complainant alleged that after publication of some news items criticising local police activities during the tenure of S.P. Jalaun, Amithabh Yash and highlighting their misdeeds, he received threatening calls warning him of dire consequences. The complainant submitted that he had published the aforesaid news items in good faith and in public interest at large but these appeared to have irked the police and the SOG incharge of the area took him on 16.2.2005 to the police station and not only harassed him but also threatened

17 to stop publication of critical writings. The complainant further submitted that inspite of presenting memorandum to the District Magistrate, Jalaun by the journalists of the area, no action had been initiated against the erring official. The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter and provide him security. Notices for Statement in Reply dated 17.5.2005 were issued to the Chief Secretary, Secretary Home (Police) Department, Govt. of U.P. and Superintendent of Police, Jalaun (U.P.). Comments The Superintendent of Police, Jalaun (U.P.) in his comments dated 27.5.2005 while denying the statement of the complainant that he had no connection with the mafia, submitted that ‘Anti-Extortion Cell” had proof which revealed that he had closed relations with the notorious mafia D-4 gang leader Brijnandan Rajput, who resides near the complainant’s residence. The respondent submitted that except the news item relating to the incident dated 16.2.2005 no news clipping enclosed with the complaint, was related to him, thus the allegation that the action initiated against him was as a reprisal measure due to critical publication of being prejudiced, could not be substantiated. Denying the allegations of the complainant of being prejudice, the respondent denied having ever taken action against any correspondent out of malice/ill will. Giving details of the incident, the respondent submitted that on 16.2.2005 he got wireless message that one grey coloured Matiz without number plate was going towards village ‘Sandi’, P.S. Atta on Karmer Road and some suspicious persons were sitting in that. Getting the information police of Atta P.S. got alert and waited for that car at Sandi Nahar Pulia. After seeing the police, the said car clogged 25-30 steps ahead. The complainant along with driver and three policemen of Hamirpur were present in the car. The driver could not produce his licence and the registration papers of the car and thus a case No.52/2005 under Sections 3/181/192/194/196/177/207 M V Act was registered against them. Three policemen in the car had also been suspended from the service. According to the respondent, the complainant had deliberately filed the complaint to maintain pressure on the police authorities. In fact he (complainant) had been a criminal under the garb of journalism. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint as the police had enough proof that the allegations levelled by the complainant were false. The Special Secretary, Confidential Section-2, Govt. of U.P. vide his comments dated 26.8.2005 while stating that the instant matter was inquired by the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, filed a copy of the Inquiry Report of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi. The Inquiry Report revealed that the complainant, Shri Ravinder Panchal had connections with the

18 notorious criminal and mafia gang leader Brijnandan Rajput and he was arrested while going with him by a private vehicle. The complainant had deliberately filed this complaint to save himself and the allegation levelled by him had not been substantiated. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.7.2005 while denying the comments of the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun alleged that the respondent had tried to mislead the Council. The complainant reiterating his contention submitted that the allegation of the respondent that Anti-Extortion Cell had recorded telephonic conversation of Brijnandan Rajput with his relatives and the conversation revealed his relations with him. According to the complainant, if he had connections with Brijnandan Rajput he would have talked to him on his telephone or mobile phone and the police could have presented it as proof. But, since the allegations were far from the truth, the police presented the misleading facts. The complainant further denied allegation that Brijnandan Rajput was his neighbour. He submitted that their houses were in the same locality but in separate wards. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the erring official, who tried to curtail freedom of press. The complainant vide his another letter dated 7.12.2005 informed that he had been continuously getting threats after filing the instant complaint. He submitted that SOG Shri Yatinder Kumar threatened on his mobile to kill him. To substantiate his allegation, the complainant also filed detailed bills of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. He requested the Council to provide him security and initiate action against the above mentioned officer. A copy each of the counter comments received from the complainant was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letters dated 12.8.2005 and 19.12.2005. The State Government filed its comments on this letter on 6.3.2006, reiterating the earlier stand. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. Shri Ravinder Panchal, the complainant, was present before it, while Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Deputy Superintendent of Police, appeared for the respondent police authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee In his oral submissions, the complainant reiterated what he had submitted in his complaint. He admitted that no fabricated case had been filed by the police against him till date, but still he felt danger to his life to the threats being given to him.

19 Shri Pandey, appearing for the police authorities submitted that on 16.2.2005 the police had stopped a Matiz car on getting information that the car was running without registration number. The complainant along with driver and three policemen were present in the car. As the driver could not produce the licence and the registration papers, a case was filed against them. The policemen were suspended. The complainant was not harassed in any way. He was let off with a warning. Regarding charges of threat on mobile, he denied the charge in toto and averred that the complainant also had an agency for BSNL and several policemen purchased Sim Cards from him. The call details recorded one such call for inquiry regarding Sim Card. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the parties. It noted that the representative of the police authorities had submitted that the complainant was not being harassed in any way by the police and no false case had been registered against the complainant. The complainant also agreed that no case had been registered against him, but he apprehended threat to his life. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, felt that while it found no reason to uphold the complaint, it directed the police authorities to examine the threat perception and to ensure personal security of the complainant if there was any threat to his life. The complainant was advised to contact the police if he, at any time, felt insecure. The Inquiry Committee, recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter with above directions to the police authorities. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

2) Suo-motu action with reference to lathi-charge on journalists at Jehanabad (Bihar) The Press Council of India came across reports published in the issues dated 15th November 2005 of the various newspapers reporting lathi-charge on journalists at Jehanabad. As per the reports some journalists of the print and electronic media were beaten up by the police and the District Magistrate of Jehanabad outside the jail campus while they were covering developments in the aftermath of the attack by Naxalites in the night of 13th November 2005. Shri K. Balchand, the Patna based special correspondent of ‘The Hindu’, and some other journalists/photographers were brutally beaten with lathis on the orders of the District Magistrate, Shri Rana Awadhesh with direction that the media contingent present there should vacate the palce within tem minutes.

20 Reporter of TV channel ‘Aaj Tak’, Shri Sujit Kumar Jha was also reportedly injured in the lathi-charge as he resisted a bid to shut of his camera. The camera of ‘star News’ was smashed in the lathi charge, as per the media persons present there. Since the matter prima-facie disclosed an attack on the free functioning of the press and the statute mandates the Press Council to preserve the freedom of the Press, the Council took suo-motu congnizance of the matter under Regulation 13 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. In the meantime, the journalists of Bihar filed a report dated 17.11.2005 on the incident on behalf of Shri Balchand and other involved in the lathi- charge. As per the report, around 11.10 a.m. on November 14, 2005 a large contingent of print and electronic media reporters were covering the chaotic scenes in front of the jail from where more than 350 prisoners had escaped the previous night. At least two news channels “Aaj Tak” and “NDTV” were telecasting the developments live. It was a free-for-all as the administration and police had failed to prevent the movement of people, including prisoners, at the spot. Just then, the Jehanabad District Magistrate, Shri Rana Awadhesh Singh reached on the place with a posses of policemen. Mr. Rana Awadhesh was finding it difficult to move because of the large mob and he kept shouting expletives like “Bagal hato, nahi to murder kar doonga” (Step aside or else I will kill you). Moment later, the District Magistrate confronted the Aaj Tak team and tried to manhandle its reporter, Shri Sujit Jha, and the cameraman. The Special Correspondent of “The Hindu”, Shri K. Balchand, tried to intervene so that events did not take an ugly turn. Just then someone from the protesting mob of people sought “justice” from the District Magistrate and tried to manhandle him. Within seconds, Shri Rana Awadhesh lost his cool and, assisted by armed guards ordered that journalists, who were near him in large numbers, should be beaten up. All hell broke loose, and lathis began to be rained on the reporters. On his part, Shri Rana Awadhesh, with abation in his hand, ‘took charge’ of Mr. Balchand and mercilessly beat him up. The District Magistrate continued to shout expletives while Mr. Balchand kept pleading that there was no reason why he should be beaten up like an animal. Mr. Balchand was beaten up not only by lathis but, on orders of the District Magistrate, his police guards beat him up with gun butts also. The District Magistrate paid no heed as the other reporters retreated from the spot, fearing that the official could go to any extent to prevent them from covering the incident. The entire episode was recorded by electronic media crew from some distance. Mr. Balchand, who had suffered serious injuries, was later rushed to Patna by fellow journalists for treatment. They also file a copy of the medical report of his condition. The journalists requested the Council to intervene in the matter and get the facts of the entire episode of November 14 and November 15, 2005. They appealed to

21 get the facts verified through inquiry and demanded that stern action to be taken against the District Magistrate. According to the journalists, the action of the District Magistrate not only impinged on a citizen’s basis civil rights but also on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression provided in the Constitution as well as the newly promulgated Right to Information. Expressing deep concern over the issue, the Council vide its letter dated 21.11.2005 sought a report from the Chief Secretary of the State on the incident as well as the steps taken by the Government to ensure that the journalists are able to discharge their functions without any fear or hindrance. The steps taken by the Council were also brought to the notice of the Home Ministry vide Council’s letter dated 21.11.2005 since the State of Bihar was then under the President’s Rule. The Chairman of the Council also write to the new Chief Minister of Bihar on 31.01.2006 to apprise the Council of the steps taken by the State Government to ensure security of the journalists at the earliest. Comments Shri H.C. Sirohi, Secretary (Home), Government of Bihar, vide his letter dated 8.2.2006 intimated in response to the Council’s letter dated 21.11.2005 and letter 31.01.2006 addressed to the Chief Minister, that case No. 14108/ 2005 on the issue is already under consideration before the CWJC of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for consideration by the Inquiry committee at Lucknow on 24.03.2006, the State Government again informed that the matter was sub-judice and filed a copy of the affidavit filed before the High Court of Patna detailing the facts. Decision of the Inquiry committee On consideration of the record the Inquiry committee noted that the government had placed its stand before the Court denying any excesses. Since the courts were already seized of the matter, it would not be appropriate for the Council to comment on them. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the council to stop further proceedings as the matter was 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.

22 3) Shri A.S. Thakur Versus Kumari Kusum Editor Municipal Councillor Akhand Jot, Hindi Weekly Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi Delhi Complaint Shri A.S. Thakur, Editor, Akhand Jot, Hindi weekly, Delhi has filed this complaint dated 1.6.2005 against Kumari Kusum, Municipal Councillor, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi for threatening him due to publication of series of critical news items as follows:-

S.No. Captions Issue dated 1 {ÉÉ­ÉÇn BÉÖEºÉÖàÉ ¤ÉxÉÉÒ §É­]ÉSÉÉ®ÉÊ®ªÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®MÉxÉÉ* May 1-7, 2005 2 {ÉÉ­ÉÇn BÉÖEºÉÖàÉ xÉä nÉÒ ºÉà{ÉÉnBÉE BÉEÉä vÉàÉBÉEÉÒ* May 8-15, 2005 3 {ÉÉ­ÉÇn BÉÖEºÉÖàÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´ÉVÉªÉ xÉMÉ® ºÉä ºÉÉèiÉäãÉÉ BªÉ´ÉcÉ® May 16-22, 2005

The complainant submitted that he had published in public interest the news reports highlighting Ms. Kusum’s passive attitude towards development of her constituency being hand-in-glove with the ‘building mafia’, encouraging illegal construction. Further, people of the area had become annoyed, as no attention was paid towards cleanliness in the area which was totally neglected by her. The complainant alleged that the respondent being angry with the publication not only abused him on his mobile but threatened to kill him. The complainant filed an FIR in the Police Station on 23.5.2005 but to no avail. The complainant requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent as her action disclosed threats to freedom of the press. No Comments Notice for Statement in Reply dated 15.7.2005 was issued to the respondent-Municipal Councillor, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. No reply was filed. Ist Hearing The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 18.11.2005. Shri A.S. Thakur, the complainant was present before it in person while Shri K.C. Jha represented the respondent Councillor. While the complainant contended that he had been threatened following publication of report in public interest, the respondent’s representative, also claiming to be a journalist, submitted that the respondent had not been able to respond to the complaint earlier as she did not have a copy of the complaint.

23 He had now collected a copy of the same and may be allowed time to file a reply. The Committee allowed the request for adjournment granting 15 days time for the same but noted that the person seeking to represent did not carry any authority letter from the respondent. It therefore directed the respondent to ensure that she is properly represented the next time. Further Communication of Complainant dated 12.12.2005 The complainant vide his letter dated 12.12.2005 requested that besides Ms. Kusum, Municipal Councillor, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and DCP, P.S. Ashok Vihar may also be called to appear before the Inquiry Committee of the Council. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the respondent (Ms. Kusum) vide office letter dated 03.04.2006. Matter Relisted The matter was again posted for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. the complainant, Shri A.S. Thakur was present in person While Shri Sailash appeared as the duly authorised representative of the respondent Municipal Councillor, Kumari Kusum. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent filed the written submissions of the respondent Councillor. It was submitted therein that the complainant published false and baseless news report. She contacted and informed the reporter that it would have been better if he had contacted her before publishing the news report. The complainant then published a totally false news that she threatened to kill Shri A.S. Thakur, the complainant. It was further asserted that she was doing development work in her ward. She had complained in writing on a number of occasions against illegal construction to MCD and the Deputy Commissioner. It was added that the complainant had published very objectionable news calling her “Leader of corrupt persons”. In his oral submissions her representative reiterated what was submitted in the written statement. The complainant submitted that on his publishing news report about the bad conditions of road and absence of development work in the area Ms. Kusum, the Councillor threatened to kill him on his mobile. He filed a complaint with the police but the police had taken no action against her. On being asked by the Committee as to what proof he had to show that the respondent was shielding Land Mafia and was moving around with them, the complainant said that he was a personal witness to the unsatisfactory conditions of the roads and sanitation in the area. He was however unable to substantiate his charge of corruption or of threats being issued by the counsellor causing interference with the freedom of the press.

24 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments put forth by the parties. It opined that the complainant was not able to substantiate the charges of threat to his life from the respondent by any documentary evidence or otherwise. On the contrary the news reports published by him were defamatory to the complainant. The contention of the complainant was that she was not doing any development work in the area, which was quite different from what he published alleging that the Councillor was hand-in-glove with Land Mafia. The Inquiry committee was of the view that the complaint was without substance. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

4) Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of M.P. Samayik Maya, Hindi monthly Bhopal Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department Government of M.P. Bhopal

3. The Superintendent of Police , Madhya Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 4.8.2005 has been filed by Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj, Correspondent of District Sonebhadra, U.P and Distirct Siddhi M.P. of Samayik Maya, Hindi monthly Magazine, Sonebhadra, U.P. alleging harassment at the hands of coal mafia following their exposure and the subsequent inaction of the local police. According to the complainant on 8.5.2005 having received information regarding rampant theft of coal he reached the spot for collection of news and took some photographs of the theft. In retaliation, the coal mafia along with their goons attacked him at midnight on the same day. They snatched his mobile phone, camera, wrist-watch, gold chain and Rs.1,500/- in cash. The complainant submitted that he lodged an FIR under Sections 294/223/506-IPC with the Baidan Police Station on next day but the police did not take appropriate action against the culprits. The complainant alleged that he has been receiving calls threatening to kill him and to kidnap his children. The complainant further 25 alleged that the mafia threatened him to leave the district due to which he apprehended danger to his life and the life of his family members. No Comments Comments of the Chief Secretary, Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and Superintendent of Police, Sidhi M.P. were invited on 13.12.2005, which are still awaited. A.D. Card have been received back from both the parties. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on May 5, 2006. The complainant, Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj was present in person. S/Shri S.W. Naqvi, Additional Secretary, Home Department and S.P. Pandey represented the respondent police authorities and filed the comments of the government in the matter stating that the case had been registered on the complaint and was already under consideration of the law court. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral arguments reiterated the averments made in his complaint. He added that he went to the police station after the incident but his FIR was not registered. Police did not take action against the coal mafia, as police was afraid of them. He had also given the names of the persons who beat him up. Shri S.W. Naqvi, appearing for the respondent stated that the complainant came to the police station on 9.5.2005. His complaint was registered. He was advised to get X-ray done but he refused to do so. On his FIR five persons were arrested. The accused were booked under Sections 294, 323, 504 and 34 of IPC. After investigation, Challan NO.163/05 dated 30.5.2005 was filed in the Court on 18.7.2005. The matter was pending before the Court. All the five accused named by the complainant in the FIR were parties to the case. The complainant submitted that he apprehended danger to his life. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the parties, the Committee noted that the complainant had raised the grievance that the police did not file the FIR. To the contrary, the Committee noted that the police had already filed the challan and that the accused were also arrested. The matter was pending trail in the court. Thus, the police had taken appropriate action on the FIR of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, however, directed the respondent authorities to process the request of the complainant on his application for security. They should ensure his security if any threat perception was established.

26 With the above observations the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the matter being sub-judice. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings, and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

5) Shri Madhuram Bodo Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Govt. of Assam ‘Asomiya Janamat’ Dispur, Guwahati Guwahati, Assam 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Govt. of Assam Dispur, Guwahati

3. Shri Mehdi Alam Bora Spokesman Assam Pradesh Congress Committee Assam Unit Guwahati, Assam Complaint Shri Madhuram Bodo, Editor, Asomiya Janamat, an Assamese weekly, Guwahati has filed this undated complaint received on 2.12.2003 against Shri Mehdi Alam Bora, Congress Spokesman for attacking the office of the newspaper along with some miscreants. The complainant submitted that Shri Mehdi Alam, official Spokesperson of Ruling Party Congress-I, entered his office at 6 p.m. on November 18, 2003 accompanied by his personal security officer and a few others and started abusing everyone brandishing a pistol and threatened to kill the editor. Soon he started ransacking the office including computers, TV, fax machines, telephone etc. After vandalizing the office he again threatened all the staff that he would kill them if the weekly reported against him. The complainant submitted that “Asomiya Janamat” had published a story of sexual assault on a woman by some surrendered ULFA members on October 26, 2003 on the basis of a complaint to IGP of the State Criminal Investigation Department Mr. S. Kar. However, as the case was sensitive, maintaining the journalistic ethics, they did not publish the name of the victim

27 and persons concerned. The victim of the sexual assault was none other than Mr. Mehdi Alam Bora’s wife. However, the very next day “Asomiya Khabar”, an Assamese daily published from Guwahati published the entire story even identifying the persons involved. As the daily is a big newspaper the respondent could not do anything to it. According to the complainant Mr. Bora has a nexus with the assaulters of his wife and he has exploited her. Mr. Bora was a journalist before he joined the Congress (I). The complainant further submitted that although the Chief Minister condemned the incident of attack on “Asomiya Janamat” and assured to take action against the culprit, the government took no action against Mr. Bora even after lodging of complaints and protests by the journalists’ fraternity. The complainant alleged that the attack on the office of their weekly was an attack on the freedom of the press and expression. The complainant furnished photocopies of the news items and photographs of the attack published by other local newspapers as documentary proof of his allegations. Comments of the Chief Secretary; and Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government of Assam, Guwahati were invited on 5.3.2004 but no reply was received despite issuance of reminder dated 11.1.2005. (A.D. Cards are placed on the file). Notice for Statement in Reply was also issued to Shri Mehdi Alam Bora, Spokesman, Congress (I), Guwahati on 19.4.2005. Comments of Shri Mehdi Alam Bora Shri Mehdi Alam Bora, Spokesman, Assam Pradesh Congress Committee, Guwahati, Assam in his comments dated 8.5.2005 while denying all the statements made in the complaint, submitted that the statement/comments being filed by him was for the limited purpose. He raised objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint and reserved the right of filing a detailed reply at a later stage if and when required. The respondent submitted that the news item in question was published on 19.11.2003 in the front page of the complainant’s newspaper. The respondent submitted that he is one of the Spokesmen of the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee and a journalist who resides in Neha Apartment, Guwahati, Assam as implied in the said news item. Although no one has been named in the said news item a common man or a sensible reader would have no difficulty in understanding that the person against whom the imputations have been made was none other than him. The respondent submitted that the imputation made in the news item questioned and challenged his integrity and cast aspersions on his propriety and reputation and also on the chastity of his wife. The imputations and/or allegations levelled against him in the said news items were absolutely

28 defamatory, false, baseless, motivated and concocted and lowered their image and reputation. He and his wife instituted a title suit No.313/03 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup, at Guwahati for damage and compensation for defamation and permanent injunction. Along with the title suit he also filed a separate application being Misc.(J) Case No.185 of 2003 for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the opposite party/defendants from printing and publishing defamatory and false news item etc. against the petitioners/plaintiffs in their newspaper “Asomiya Janamat”. After hearing the case, the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2 Kamrup, at Guwahati on 28.11.2003 granted an ad interim injunction ex-parte restraining the opposition parties from printing, publishing and circulating any false, baseless and defamatory news articles against them in the weekly newspaper “Asomiya Janamat” and also asked the parties to show cause as to why the order so passed should not be made absolute. Even after the injunction order dated 28.11.2003, the complainant printed, published and circulated several false, baseless and defamatory articles against him in their weekly newspaper “Asomiya Janamat” in its issue dated 3.12.2003 showing complete disregard to and in violation of the aforesaid injunction Order passed by the Hon’ble Court. The Misc.(J) case is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2 Kamrup at Guwahati. The complainant deliberately, willingly and knowingly suppressed this relevant and material fact from the Council for his personal gain. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of Shri Bora’s reply was forwarded to the complainant on 24.8.2005 for his counter. No reply was received. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. Shri Azim Hussein Lasal represented the respondent authorities. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with the postal remarks “left”. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent authorities submitted that two cases with respect to the impugned news report, namely, Sl. No.313 of 2003 and G.R. Case No.5526/03 under Sections 448/506/427/34-IPC were pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup and 2nd Class Magistrate Kamrup, respectively. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that Shri Mehdi Alam Bora, Spokesman,

29 Assam Pradesh Congress Committee, Guwahati, the respondent, in his comments had submitted that two cases filed by him and his wife against the complainant were pending before the Civil Judge and 2nd Class Magistrate, Kamrup. The copy of the statement was forwarded to the complainant. He has not filed any counter. The notice sent to him has been received back as he has left his address on record without intimation to the Council. The Committee, therefore, on the statement of the respondent, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

6) Shri Devendra Tripathi Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of U.P. Baheliya Weekly Lucknow, U.P. Orai, Jalaun, U.P. 2. The Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

3. Shri Brijlal Khabari EX-M.P. Jalaun, U.P.

4. Smt. Urmila Sonkar Khabari, PCS W/o Shri Brijlal Khabari Orai, Jalaun, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 11.7.2005 has been preferred by Shri Devendra Tripathi, Editor of Orai based Hindi Weekly “Baheliya” alleging innumerable threats by Shri Brijlal Khabari, Ex-M.P. and his PCS wife Smt. Urmila Sonkar Khabari following publication of critical news reports in his weekly newspaper in 2003 exposing the irregularities and the anti-public activities of the respondents. According to the complainant due to publication of the aforesaid news reports exposing the respondent, Shri Khabari had lost election and since then harboured a revengeful attitude against him. The complainant alleged that at the behest of the respondent he was attacked on 12.10.2003 by

30 the professional criminals and a case was registered in Kotwali, Orai. However the arrested person gave statement in the Police Station that they were provoked by the respondent to attack the complainant but the police due to the political influence and fear of the respondent did not name him. The complainant further alleged that the respondent’s SDM wife also threatened him on mobile phone that being posted at Naxalites area she could get his son abducted. Further, the respondent Shri Khabari along with some persons irked by the publication visited the printing press of the newspaper and threatened the owner of the press to burn out his press by their workers on the day of BSP rally. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent and ensure the safety of his life and property. No Comments Comments of the respondents Shri Brijlal Khabari and his wife were invited on 14.9.2005 in the matter followed by notices to the Government of U.P. on 7.3.2006. The respondents failed to present any defence. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. S/Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, Manual, Sub-Inspector and Shri Gobind, Advocate were present for the respondents while the complainant remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent police authorities filed the written submissions dated 3.5.2006 of the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun. It was submitted therein that the matter was enquired into by Shri Rajesh Kumar, District Magistrate, Orai. The complainant had filed a case in the year 2003 No. 1133/ 2003 under Sections 395/97 against Kamta Barber and four others. After investigations challan was filed under Sections 394/308. In the case, charges against Ex-M.P., Shri Brijlal Khabari were found false. The complainant had now submitted that now he had no interest in the complaint filed earlier against the Ex-MP and he did not wish to pursue the case. He also filed a letter to this effect signed by the complainant. The complainant had submitted in his letter that now he had no differences with the respondent Ex-MP and in future they would maintain cordial relations. In his oral submissions the representative of the respondent authorities confirmed that the complainant had received the notice of hearing. As the complainant was not willing to pursue the case he was not present before the Committee. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and

31 the oral arguments of the respondent authorities. The Committee felt the need to establish the veracity of the letter sent through the respondents regarding his desire not to pursue the case. The Committee directed the Secretariat of the Council to forward a copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police to the complainant for his confirmation. On receipt of the complainant’s reply the matter may be closed if the complainant confirms the averments of the respondent. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Further Development Responding to the above the complainant, vide his reply dated 28.6.2006 informed the Council that his dispute with Shri Brijlal Khabari and Smt. Urmila Sonkar Khabari had been settled and therefore he did not wish to pursue the case. The complainant further confirmed to have signed the letters dated 2.5.2006 and 12.4.2006 filed by advocate at the time of Inquiry Committee meeting held on 5.5.2006. The matter accordingly stands closed being withdrawn by the complainant. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

7) Shri Shadab Hussain Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Mandal Correspondent Government of U.P. Jadid Markaz Lucknow Bahraich, U.P. 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow 3. The District Magistrate Bahraich, U.P. 4. Superintendent of Police Bahraich, U.P. 5. Shri Ishrat Mahmood Ali Maulvi Idgah Kajipura Bahraich, U.P. Complaint Shri Shadab Hussain, Mandal Correspondent, Jadid Markaz, Bahraich

32 (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 20.12.2004 against the local police authorities alleging inaction on his complaint against a local Maulvi whose son and associates abused and manhandled him following publication of a report captioned “ àÉÖiÉ´ÉããÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ àÉxÉàÉÉxÉÉÒ ºÉä ¤ÉncÉãÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ÉʶÉBÉEÉ® cè <ÇnMÉÉc” (Idgah, a victim of decay due to the Maulvi’s arbitrariness) in the issue dated 31st October-6th November, 2004 of his weekly newspaper. The Maulvi also reportedly filed a case against the complainant under Sections 323/352/504/509-IPC. The complainant termed the action of the Maulvi and inaction of the police authorities as an assault on the freedom of the press. Giving details, the complainant submitted that in the critical news item he highlighted mismanagement in the Idgah and corrupt activities of its trustee, Ishrat Mahmood Khan. The complainant alleged that annoyed by critical publication the trustee of the Idgah threatened him to face the consequences and on 11.12.2004 he was abused and manhandled by son of Ishrat Mahmood Khan and others. The complainant went to the local police station but neither his report was registered nor any action had been taken by the police. On 13.12.2004 a group of journalists met the Superintendent of Police and apprised him about the incident. At his instance the local police filed the complaint No. NCR 156/04 under Sections 352/323/504/509 just as a formality. The complainant also met the District Magistrate and he directed the Superintendent of Police to file report within 10 days. But later neither any action had been taken against the culprits nor any security had been provided to him. According to the complainant, due to political pressure the police authorities were not interested in any effective action against the accused who had a criminal tendency/record as per past record. Moreover, Ishrat Mahmood Khan filed false criminal case against him in the police station and pressurised him to withdraw the complaint, the complainant added. Comments of the Chief Secretary, Secretary (Home) Police Department, Government of U.P., Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, District Magistrate, Bahraich and Shri Ishrat Mahmood Khan, Maulvi, Idgah Kajipura, Bahraich were invited on 18.5.2005. The District Magistrate, Bahraich was also requested to ensure that the complainant does not face any hindrance in discharge of his duties as a journalist. Comments of Shri Ishrat Mahmood Khan, Maulvi, Idgah Shri Ishrat Mahmood Khan, Maulvi, Idgah Kajipura (Bahraich) vide his comments dated 8.6.2005 while denying the allegations submitted that the complainant had deliberately filed this complaint for personal animosity. Shri Khan submitted that he and the complainant were both members of the “Avkaaf Bachao Sangharsh Samiti”. The complainant being involved in the objectionable

33 activities was terminated from the Samiti and a news item relating to his termination was published in the Dainik Hindustan issue dated 11.12.2004. As a result, the complainant became annoyed and not only misbehaved with him but also threatened. He filed an FIR No.1141/04 under Sections 304/504/506- IPC in the Police Station. Shri Hussain also filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich under Section 155(2) on 13.12.2004 and the same was later dismissed. Shri Ishrat Mahmood alleged that Shri Hussain did not enjoy good reputation in the field of journalism and by publishing false and baseless news items he misused the freedom of press. He further claimed that being associated with a religious place he remained calm and did not exaggerate the issue.

Comments

The District Magistrate, Bahraich vide his comments dated 8.6.2005 submitted that the matter was inquired by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and in his inquiry report he submitted that Zonal Officer, City, Bahraich inquired the matter on the spot and reported that the parties were under strict vigilance and SHO had also been instructed to keep an eye on the situation.

The Superintendent of Police, Bahraich in his comments dated 18.6.2005 also confirmed that the law and order in the area was under control and after inquiry it was revealed that the incident of ill-will happened on 11.12.2004 between the complainant and Shri Ishrat Mahmood due to personal animosity and same was resolved later. He submitted that the allegation of the complainant could not be substantiated that there was any threat to the freedom of press. He further issued specific directions also for security of the complainant.

The Under Secretary, Confidential Section-2, Government of U.P. vide his letter dated 22.8.2005 filed inquiry report of the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and informed that the matter relating to the complaint was under trial. He submitted that local police had been directed to ensure security of the complainant.

A copy each of the comments received from the respondents were forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letters dated 29.6.2005 and 14.9.2005. The complainant was also asked to specifically comment on the statement of the Under Secretary, Government of U.P that the matter is pending before the Court of Law.

Hearing Adjourned

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. The complainant Shri Shadab Husain was present in

34 person while S/Shri Viyodhan Yadav, Additional District Magistrate, Khursid Ahmed, District Information Officer, Vijay Kumar, Superintendent of Police and Shri Ishrat Mahmood, Multavi , Idgah represented the respondents. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He added that the police till date had not informed him as to what action had been taken on his complaint. The police was giving protection to the opposite party. He added that when the case was filed against him, he also filed a case against the opposite party. Shri Isharat Mahmood Khan in his written submission filed before the Inquiry Committee submitted that all the allegations of the complainant were without basis. It was further submitted that the complainant and he both were the member of “Abkaaf Bachao Sangharsh Samiti”. The complainant was involved in objectionable activities. Thus the Board in its meeting dated 9.12.2004 terminated the complainant from the Samiti. On reading the news in the issue dated 11.12.2004 in Dainik Hindustan about his expulsion from the Samiti, the complainant became annoyed and got a threatening press release published in Dainik Hindustan on 14.12.2004 under the heading “Revolt in Samiti”. The complainant also threatened him. Further, it was submitted that he filed an FIR against the complainant on 11.12.2004 and the police after investigation registered a case under Sections 384/504, 506 IPC. The matter was pending before Civil Judicial Magistate, Behraich. The charge sheet had been filed and the complainant was on bail. The complainant also registered a case against him under Sections 352, 323, 504, 506 IPC. The Superintendent of Police appearing for respondent Police authorities submitted that the matter did not have connection with press freedom. Both the complainant and Ishrat Mahmood Khan had filed cases against each other and the matter was under trial in the Court. He added that the matter was sub- judice. The complainant countered this by adding that his functioning, as a journalist would be adversely affected, if the police did not act upon the threats being held out to his life. The Committee considered the material available on record and the oral submissions advanced before it by the parties. The matter was adjourned to be listed before it to enable the complainant to file rejoinder to the written statement filed at the time of hearing by Ishrat Mahmood, the respondent. The complainant was further directed to send the complete details of the cases pending trial in the Courts. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. Shri Vijay Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Bahraich

35 appeared for the respondent police authorities while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant vide his letter dated 14.8.2006 reiterated the averments earlier made in the complaint. It was, however, added that in the case filed by Ishrat Mahmood Ali, the second respondent the chargesheet had been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by the police and that he had obtained bail in the case. The police was acting in connivance with the second respondent.

Shri Ishrat Mahmood Ali, the second respondent in his written arguments dated 17.8.2006 submitted that in the incident quoted by the complainant, the complainant and his associates were on bail.

The representative of the police authorities stated that the complainant and Shri Ishrat Mahmood Ali had personal animosity and both got cases filed against each other. The incidents have nothing to do with the journalistic duties of the complainant. He assured that the security of the complainant will be ensured as a part of general law and order duty of the police.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the representative of the respondent police authorities. The Committee accepted that the complainant, Shri Shadab Hussain and the second respondent Shri Ishrat Mahmood Ali had personal enmity amongst them and they were seeking remedy by filing complaints against each other with the police. It had no bearing with the freedom of the press and the complainant was trying to take the shelter of the Press Council to settle his personal scores with the second respondent. The Inquiry Committee took on record the assurance given by the respondent police authorities to ensure the security of the complainant and recommended to the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter.

Decision of the Council

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

36 8) Mohd. Junaid Tamuri Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Bureau Chief, Amar Ujala Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Etawah Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow 3. The Superintendent of Police Etawah, Uttar Pradesh Complaint The President, Etawah Press Club, Etawah, U.P. vide his letter dated 8.10.2002 has forwarded this complaint of Mohd. Junaid Tamuri, Bureau Chief, Amar Ujala, Etawah against the local police officials for threatening and harassing him. Mohd. Tamuri alleged that since he had drawn the attention of the higher district and police officials towards the misdeeds and anti-social activities of Shri Somdutt Sharma, Police Inspector, Kotwali Etawah and Shri Ramcharan Verma, Traffic Inspector, Etawah, he had earned the wrath of the respondent police officials. They not only harassed him but also threatened to kill him to take revenge. According to the complainant both the respondent officials were involved in promoting the sale of narcotics, gambling and satta and made money from the anti-social elements. Giving details the complainant submitted that on 24.9.2002 workers of Congress party demonstrated at the crossing of Municipal Corporation, Etawah against the cancellation of allotment of land allotted to the Indira Gandhi Foundation. The demonstrators burnt the effigy of the Chief Minister in the presence of police while the police present at spot remained a silent spectator. The photographer of Amar Ujala was present there and he took photographs of the incident. The news item with photo covering the demonstration was published in the Amar Ujala in its issue dated 25.9.2002. Since the Police Inspector Shri Sharma was present on the spot, he called the photographer of Amar Ujala at the Police Station and asked him to provide negative of the photographs. The photographer explained to him that these cannot be provided as photos were taken from a digital camera. The complainant stated that irked by the incident, the Inspector did not allow the photographer to take photographs of the Rally organized by Samajwadi Party. The complainant alleged that a murderous attack was made on him by some anti- social elements in connivance with the police officials. An FIR was filed in the police station but the Inspector released the accused without taking any action against him. According to the complainant the action of the respondents officials

37 amounts to suppression of the freedom of the Press. He requested the Council to provide him security. Comments Comments of the Government of U.P. and Superintendent of Police, Etawah were invited on 17.2.2003. In his comments dated 2.5.2003 the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of U.P. informed that the instant matter was inquired into by the District Magistrate, Etawah and it was revealed by inquiry that the allegation made by the complainant against the Police Inspector were completely baseless, untrue and that the complaint was filed with a prejudice against the respondent official. It was further stated in the inquiry report that inspite of repeated request made to the complainant to present his claim and documents, he failed to do so. This itself proved that the complaint was false and baseless. Thus no further action is required for lack of substance. He filed a copy of the Inquiry Report. Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 9.7.2003 submitted that comments of the Government of Uttar Pradesh were prima facie wrong and should be dismissed. According to the complainant the whole inquiry report of the Deputy Collector, Etawah lacked objectivity and was clearly subjective in nature. The complainant submitted that the inquiry report had conspicuously ignored to discuss the evidential material and documents filed by him. This clearly showed the prejudice and preferential treatment of the Inquiry Officer to save the Inspector of Police and his other criminal associates. According to the complainant many applications were submitted to the Inquiry Officer seeking transfer of the respondent Inspector Kotwali Etawah for holding an impartial and fair inquiry but the district/State administration did not pay any heed to it. As a result the police inspector freely abused his powers to terrorise his witnesses. He alleged that the inquiry officer had intentionally and mischievously given a clean chit to the respondent inspector. The complainant submitted that the respondent inspector was habitual of fabricating forged General Diary reports in order to save criminals for which he had been earlier suspended by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Etawah. He requested to quash the report and to take necessary action against the respondent. A copy of counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 29.7.2003 for information. First Hearing The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New

38 Delhi on 29.3.2005. Shri Akhilesh Tiwari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Etawah appeared on behalf of the respondent authorities. The representative of the authorities had filed the reports of District/City Magistrate and statement of various persons with a forwarding letter of Senior Superintendent of Police. The complainant’s request for adjournment was acceded to. After the conclusion of the Inquiry Committee meeting held on 29.3.2005, a letter dated 30.3.2005 was received from the complainant intimating that the suspension order of the respondent Inspector Shri Somdutt Sharma had been revoked consequent upon the order of the Hon’ble Court and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, Shri G.K. Goswami had taken him in the district where he was posted. The complainant stated that Senior S.P., Additional S.P., SDM and Area Magistrate who had prepared fake documents against him were still posted in Moradabad. The complainant further stated that he made complaint against the respondent Inspector to higher authorities leveling charges that the respondent, by running a gambling den, illegally earned Rs. 15 lakhs which annoyed the district administration. The district administration with the help of goons, in pre-planned manner on 6.10.2002 attacked to kill him and a case in Kotwali Police Station was registered against them. He requested the Council to call action taken report from the former Senior S.P., Shri Hariram Sharma who had initiated action in May-June 2003 against the erring officials in the case of gambling. A copy of complainant’s letter dated 30.3.2005 was forwarded to the respondent on 14.7.2005. Further Adjournment The hearing was also adjourned twice on 26.7.2005 and 5.10.2005 on the requests of the parties. IVth Adjournment When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.1.2006, the complainant was present in person along with Shri Ganesh Gyanarty, Advocate and Dr. S. Jahoor Ali Warsi. There was no representation from the respondents side. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Ganesh Gyanarty, Advocate while reiterating the complaint submitted that the complainant had made a complaint to IG regarding the gambling den on which an inquiry was made. The counsel informed that the complainant had exposed the activities of the Shri Somdutt Sharma, Police Inspector and Shri Ramcharan Verma, Traffic Inspector. He stated that because of this, the complainant had earned the wrath of police officials. Shri Goswami, Superintendent of Police did not help them in the matter. The counsel further

39 submitted that functioning of the police in Etawah is not upto the mark and when the journalists write about the functioning of the police they are attacked. The counsel stated that the complainant is a courageous person and writes in public interest. When he complained to the higher officers against the harassment by Shri Somdutt Sharma, an enquiry was started but thereafter no further action was taken. As an evidence of the measure of the police animosity against him, he filed a copy of the letter written by the police authorities to all the departments, informing them that the complainant had left his job at Amar Ujala. He contended that this was not the job of the police authorities and had been done so that he did not get the cooperation of the departments. Directions of the Inquiry Committee After hearing the submissions made before it, the Inquiry Committee directed the District Administration to ensure the safety of the complainant and to ensure that there is no hindrance in the performance of his journalistic duties. The Inquiry Committee further directed that notices should also be issued to Shri Goswami, Superintendent of Police, Shri Somdutt Sharma, Police Inspector and Shri Ramcharan Verma, Traffic Inspector seeking their personal appearance at the next hearing. Vth Adjournment At hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.03.2006, the complainant Mohd. Juned Taimuri was present in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent authorities. The SSP, Itawah had requested by fax dated 23.03.2006 for adjournment as the Chief Minister was scheduled to visit Itawah on the day. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that inspite of the directions given by the Inquiry Committee on 05.01.2006, security was not provided to him. He requested that he may be provided security so that he could perform his journalistic duties freely and fearlessly. The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that the notice of hearing sent to the respondent police authorities through the Chief Secretary had been received back with postal remarks “to whom it belonged”. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter directed the Secretariat of the Council to ensure service of notice on the respondent for the next meeting. The Inquiry Committee further directed that directions of the Inquiry Committee given on 05.01.2006 be again brought to the notice of the authorities through the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure safety of the complainant till pending disposal of the matter. The Special Secretary to the Government of U.P., giving reference to the directions of the Inquiry Committee conveyed by a letter dated 31.05.2006,

40 vide his letter dated 18.7.2006 directed the Superintendent of Police, Etawah, to ensure security of the complainant and to send the compliance report to the Press Council of India and the Government. A copy of the letter was sent to the Council. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006, there was no appearance before it form either side. The notice of hearing sent to the respondents’ viz., Shri Somdutt Sharma, Police Inspector, Etawah, and Shri Ramcharan Verma, Traffic Inspector, Kotwali, Etawah, were received back with postal remarks ‘gone to Moradabad’ and ‘No person of this name in the Kotwali’ respectively. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that the State Government, pursuant to the directions of the Inquiry Committee, had initiated necessary steps to ensure the personal security of Mohd. Juned Tamuri, the complainant. However, the Inquiry Committee reiterated its earlier decision that the State Government should ensure that the complainant does not feel hindrance in the discharge of his journalistic duties and file a report on the action taken in the matter. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close proceedings in the matter with the above. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

9) Shri Sudama Prasad Dubey Versus 1. The Chief Secretary District President Government of U.P. Rural Journalist Association Lucknow Lalitpur, U.P. 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow 3. The Superintendent of Police Lalitpur, U.P. 4. The District Magistrate Lalitpur, U.P. Complaint Shri Sudama Prasad Dubey, District President, Rural Journalist

41 Association, Lalitpur (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 12.12.2004 against former Gram Pradhan for harassing, threatening and assaulting him and the consequent inaction of the police authorities. Shri Dubey submitted that he published some critical news items highlighting misdeeds and corrupt activities of the former Gram Pradhan and earned his wrath. As a result, he was threatened many a times by Shri Ramdas and at last on 20.11.2004 he was attacked by Shri Ramdas and his sons while he was going to cover a news in village Bansi. According to the complainant, somehow he managed to escape from there and filed a case under Sections 323/324/506 IPC in the Police Station. During such attack his hand was fractured but the police was siding with accused and failed to take any action. The complainant submitted that journalists of the area protested against this attack and demonstrated before the ADM and ASP to arrest the culprits and provide protection to him as well as to his family members. According to the complainant inspite of assurance given by the higher officials, no action had been taken against the erring persons. The complainant apprehended threat to his life. He requested to arrest the culprits and provide him security. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P.; District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur (U.P.) on 17.5.2005 for their comments in the matter. The complainant vide his letter dated 14.6.2005 while forwarding Medical Report and X-Ray Report of his fracture, submitted that due to attack on 20.11.2004 he had to remain in the District Hospital for seven days. Reiterating his original complaint, the complainant submitted that the police had filed cases against him with the sole intention to suppress the freedom of the press but failed to succeed in its mission due to interference of the journalists. A copy of the complainant’s letter was forwarded to the respondent Government of U.P. vide Council’s letter dated 21.6.2005 for their consolidated comments in the matter. Comments The Under Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow vide his letter dated 12.7.2005 (received in the Secretariat of the Council on 16.8.2005) informed that it was revealed after inquiry in the matter that police had initiated necessary and appropriate action in the matter. The papers related to the FIRs filed by the complainant and the accused have been presented before the court and no further action is required. He filed a copy of the report of the Superintendent of

42 Police, Lalitpur in the matter, who informed that the matter had been inquired into by the Circle Officer, Talwahat. It was revealed that the complainant, Shri Sudama Prasad Dubey and Shri Ram Das Sharma had animosity since last 20 years and both were habitual of filing cases against each other exaggerating allegations. On 20.11.2004 the complainant filed FIR against Shri Ram Das Sharma under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC but later it was changed to Sections 323 and 506 of IPC since no cut by pointed weapon was found on his body. Later the respondent Shri Ram Das Sharma also filed FIR under Sections 395, 397 IPC against the complainant and on 8.12.2004 both the challans were presented before the court of law. It was also stated in the Inquiry Report that being President of the Rural Journalist Association, the complainant having influence over the journalists got signature of the journalists and published the news about the incident exaggerating the facts. As per the report, the local police had kept vigilance over the activities of both the sides and since the matter had been presented before the court no further action required. In response to the Council’s letter dated 21.6.2005, the Under Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow vide his letter dated 26.9.2005 while furnishing a copy of Inquiry Report of the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur submitted that the Circle Officer, Telwahat, had completed the inquiry on the allegations made by the complaint and no further action/inquiry required in the matter. In his inquiry report the Circle Officer, Telwahat while reiterating the earlier comments stated that the complainant had infact filed this complaint to maintain his pressure. A copy of the comments received from the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 24.8.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 30.8.2005 alleged that the Inquiry Report filed by the Circle Officer was far from truth. The police had not initiated appropriate action in the matter with the intention to save the culprit. It had not filed the FIR under the desired Sections. The complainant stated that he had been continuously getting threatening calls. He alleged that the police by ignoring his complaints and initiating one sided action had conspired to suppress the freedom of the press. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 9.9.2005 for information. The complainant in his further reply dated 18.2.2006 has submitted that he had informed that Council that the Inquiry Report filed by the police authority was false and meant to save the culprit. He has further stated that the case

43 registered under Sections 107/116 has been dismissed and his name implicated into other two cases by the police after his filing the complaint in the Council are also false. The complainant requested the Council to demand correct report from the respondent police and provide protection to him as well as to his family members.

The complainant’s letter dated 18.2.2006 was forwarded to the respondent on 23.2.2006 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry committee at Lucknow on 24.03.2006. Shri Shyam Vir Singh, SHO, Lalitpur was present for the police authorities while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant had, however, vide his letter dated 7.3.2006 expressed his inability to appear before the Committee and requested that matter may be decided on the basis of documents already submitted by him. The representative of the police authorities stated that the complainant and his neighbour, Shri Ram Das Sharma had animosity for last about 20 years and both were habitual of filing complaints against each other. On 20.11.2004 the complainant filed FIR against Ram Das and later Ram Das filed FIR against the complainant. On 8.12.2004 both the challans were filled in the court. Both the cases were found false. He further stated that in the medical report fracture was found in the bone but on the objections of Shri Ram Das the CMO constituted a board of four doctors. They checked up again and reported that there was no fracture. He filed the report of the CMO. He further added that criminal proceedings were pending in the court. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter directed that a copy of the documents submitted before the Committee by the representative of the respondent, be sent to the complainant for his rejoinder. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 24.7.2006 forwarding therewith the copies of letters dated 23.3.2006 and 7.4.2006 filed by S.P., Lalitpur alongwith the report of Circle Officer, Telwahat. The Circle Officer, Talwahat in his report of March, 2006 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur stated that the allegations made by complainant regarding non-taking action in relevant section of IPC is not true. An FIR No. 496/04 was lodged by the complainant’s father Shri Radhey Shyam against Shri Ramdas Sharma under Sections 324/323/504/506 IPC and got the complainant medically examined in which fracture was indicated. However, Shri Ramdas Sharma requested for re-examination of Shri Sudama Prasad Dubey

44 by Chief Medical Officer. A panel of four doctors re-examined Shri Sudama Prasad Dubey and in their medical report, no fracture was found. Therefore, Section 324 of IPC was deleted. It has also been stated in the Report of Circle Officer that the complainant’s allegation that only one sided inquiry was made by the police is not correct. The complaint filed by Shri Ramdas Sharma under Sections 395/ 397 IPC was registered against Shri Dubey but the police found that these allegations were false. The police therefore removed these sections of IPC from the FIR and action was taken only under Sections 323/504/506 IPC. Circle Officer further stated that police had taken action against both the parties in every complaint filed by them. In response to the letters of the complainant to the district administration, it was communicated to the complainant that if he wants any kind of personal security, he can write to the authorities and they will provide security. But the complainant did not write any letter to the respondents. However, instructions had been issued to the SHO, Bansi that if the complainant sends any complaint, it may be examined. The Circle Officer has also stated that police never issued any wrong information against press, and all the reports filed by the police are true. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. The complainant was present before it in person while Shri Shailendra Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur alongwith Shri Shiv Bahadur Singh represented the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the complaint. He added that whenever he wrote against Ramdas, a complaint was filed by Ramdas with the police. His name was unnecessarily included in the complaint and later finding it false, his name was removed from the FIR. The Deputy Superintendent of Police stated that a complaint was filed against the complainant in 2002 and when it was found that his name was falsely implicated it was removed from FIR in the year 2002 itself. He added that there was personal animosity between Shri Ramdas and cousin brother of the complainant who were registering FIRs against each other. The complainant had nothing to do with journalism. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On careful consideration of the record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the parties the Inquiry Committee noted that apparently the complaint did not relate to the freedom of the press. However, it noted that on

45 a number of occasions the complainant name had been mentioned in the FIR but later on finding him innocent his name was deleted from the FIR. It, therefore, directed the police authorities to carefully scrutinise the complaint made to them against Shri Sudama Prasad Dubey, the complainant before the Council and his name may be included, lawfully as per rules, in the FIR. The police authorities should also ensure that the complainant should not be harassed in any manner and he should not face hindrance in performance of his journalistic duties. With the above observations, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

10) Shri Dinesh Pankaj Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor/Publisher Government of U.P. Kamgaron Ki Duniya Lucknow Mathura, U.P. 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner Government of U.P. Lucknow 3. The City Magistrate Mathura, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 15.1.2005 has been filed by Shri Dinesh Pankaj, Editor/Publisher of Mathura based Hindi monthly magazine Kamgaron Ki Duniya against Shri A.K. Sinha, Assistant Labour Commissioner alleging harassment following publication of a series of critical news reports from October 2002 to January 2003 issues captioned “{ÉÚ´ÉÇ ºÉcɪÉBÉE gÉàÉɪÉÖBÉDiÉ xÉä +É{ÉxÉä ºÉàÉÚSÉä BÉEɪÉÇBÉEÉãÉ àÉå gÉÉÊàÉBÉEÉå BÉEä ÉÊciÉÉå BÉEÉä +ÉxÉnäJÉÉ cÉÒ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ” and “gÉàÉ BÉEɪÉÉÇãÉªÉ àÉå §É­]ÉSÉÉ® SÉ®àÉ {É® - {ÉÚ´ÉÇ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ BÉEä +ÉÉnä¶ÉÉå BÉEÉ {ÉÉãÉxÉ ºÉÖÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ ¶ÉÖãBÉE ãÉäBÉE® xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ” respectively. According to the complainant, the respondent telephonically threatened him to stop the publication of the magazine but, he, despite the threats continued the publication of the magazine. The complainant submitted that the respondent had been harassing him by way of making trouble with the printing press as well as issuance of government advertisements. The complainant further submitted that he filed a complaint on 5.2.2002 with the District Magistrate and an inquiry was conducted through the City Magistrate who found the Assistant Labour Commissioner guilty but no action has been taken on the report of the City Magistrate. The complainant alleged that the respondent was prejudiced

46 towards him. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the erring officer Shri A.K. Sinha. Comments of the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Labour Commissioner, Lucknow and City Magistrate, Mathura were invited in the matter on 19.4.2005. Comments The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Admn.), Mathura, vide his letter dated 12.5.2005, furnished the report dated 10.5.2005 of the Assistant Director, Information, Mathura. The report stated that the complainant filed his complaint against the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Shri A.K. Sinha in April 2003 which was sent to the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of U.P. through District Level Journalist Committee, and the Administration had written to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur for necessary action. Consequently Assistant Director, Information, Mathura again wrote to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur requesting him to take necessary action in the matter. On the direction of the District Magistrate, an inquiry was got conducted through the City Magistrate and the report of the City Magistrate was received in May 2004 in the office of Information Department, Mathura and in the year 2004 the Assistant Labour Commissioner was transferred from the District. The report further stated that the Assistant Labour Commissioner initiated action under Labour Act against Shri Satish Chander Agarwal, owner of Pawan Printing Press, Mathura where the magazine of the complainant had been printed and if the action taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner against the owner of the printing press was wrong, it should have been objected to by the owner of the printing press instead of the complainant. The respondent SDM submitted that the complainant is free to publish his magazine and the publication of the magazine was neither stopped nor there has been any restriction to publish it. The respondent further stated that the Under Secretary, Government of U.P. and Assistant Director, Information, Government of U.P., vide their letters dated 24.6.2003 and 9.7.2003 respectively, had referred the instant case to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur for necessary action. Comments of Assistant Labour Commissioner In his comments dated 25.6.2005, the respondent Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bijnor while reiterating submitted that the allegations remained unsubstantiated and stated that neither he harassed the complainant nor obstructed the publication of any newspaper/magazine. He alleged that the complainant by malicious attitude and vested interest filed numerous complaints against him and thus harassing him by making false complaints against him at different places. He charged the complainant for indulging in yellow journalism. 47 A copy each of the comments of the respondent SDM and Assistant Labour Commissioner was forwarded to the complainant on 1.6.2005 and 8.7.2005 respectively for his information/counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his undated counter comments received in the Secretariat of the Council on 4.7.2005 on the comments of the SDM, Mathura submitted that his magazine was being published from M/s Pawan Printing Press and the respondent Assistant Labour Commissioner asked the owner of the printing press on phone that before publishing the magazine its proof be shown to him and in the event of non-compliance by the owner of the printing press, false cases would be registered against him under the Labour Act. He further stated that the respondent by misusing his power and ignoring the Labour Enforcement Officer by showing false inspection of the printing press through Labour Inspector registered false cases against the printing press owner Shri Satish Chand Agarwal. He alleged that the District Administration and the Assistant Director, Information are not serious towards the cases of harassment of the journalists. The complainant further alleged that the respondents are giving protection to the dishonest, corrupt and arbitratory officers directly or indirectly. He requested the Council to take cognizance on the report of the City Magistrate and punish the guilty respondent, Assistant Labour Commissioner. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 8.7.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. Shri Dinesh Pankaj, the complainant appeared in person. S/ Shri B.K. Singh, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Asit Kumar Singh and Deep Raj Jain, Advocate, were present on behalf of the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that his Patrika was published in Pawan Printing Press. The owner of the press was asked by the Labour Commissioner to show him the proof before taking out final print. He was being threatened time and again and was asked not to print the magazine. He further stated that when efforts to restrain him failed, false cases were registered against the printing press owner and fine was also imposed on him. Now his magazine was not being published as no printing press was ready to publish the magazine due to pressure of the Labour Inspector. He also said that the owner of the said printing press would not come out to support his (complainants) contentions as his own business would be adversely affected by antagonizing the Labour Department. 48 The counsel for the respondent authorities contended that as the owner of the printing press was found on inspection to be paying fewer wages to two of its employees, fine was imposed on him, which was duly deposited by the press owner. The Inquiry Committee desired to know from the advocate as to how many printing presses were inspected and challenged under the Minimum Wages Act during the period in which M/s Pawan Printing Press was challaned. The advocate was not able to answer the query. He pleaded that the owner of the press had not complained to the Press Council of India or any other authority. Matter Adjourned The Inquiry Committee, in order to be satisfied of the bona fide of the action of respondent, in imposing fine on the Pawan Printing Press from where the complainant was getting his magazine published, decided to adjourn the matter with directions to the respondent authorities through its counsel to file a detailed statement showing as to how many printing presses were inspected and challaned in Mathura under the Minimum Wages Act during the period the Pawan Printing Press was fined. They were further directed to let the Committee know as to how many time the Pawan Printing Press was booked before the period the complainant’s magazine began to be printed at Pawan Printing Press. As per directions of the Inquiry Committee dated 5.5.2006 the respondent, Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur (U.P.) vide his letter dated 19.6.2006 has forwarded to the Council letter dated 12.5.2006 written by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad addressed to him and copy inter alia endorsed to Press Council of India. It is stated in the letter that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had inspected the Press Premises under the Labour Act during the period and challan was made on the press during the year 2000- 2003 as per list attached. The list shows that in the year 2003 the following Printing Presses were booked under different provisions: 1. M/s Automatic Printing Press, MWA 2. M/s Laxmi Printing Press, NHA, Factory Act 3. M/s Girdhari Lal Agarwal Printing Press, MWA 4. M/s Pawan Printing Press, MWA, Shop Act A copy of the letter dated 19.6.2006 was forwarded to the complainant vide office letter dated 1.8.2006 for comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. The complainant, Shri Dinesh Pankaj appeared in person.

49 Shri A.K. Singh and Ms. Kalpana Srivastava, Assistant Labour Commissioners, Bijnore and Mathura respectively, were present on behalf of the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent authorities stated that the inspection on the Pawan Printing Press was a routine one. There was no malafide in conducting the inspection. Moreover, the owner of the printing press was not an aggrieved party. There were about 12,000 shops in the area and routine inspections were done on the shops which were not registered to ensure that the owners get their shops registered. During 2003, four printing presses including Pawan Prining Press were inspected in routine. Later on, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, imposed fine which was duly paid by the owner of the printing press. It was pointed out that the concerned officer Shri A.K. Sinha was transferred from Mathura. The complainant in his oral arguments stated that each officer was allotted a particular area, but the inspection on Pawan Printing Press was conducted by an officer in whose jurisdiction the area did not fall. According to rules, the outcome of the inspection itself but the owner of printing press received the remarks only after a period of 15 days. The complainant submitted that the owner of Pawan Printing Press Shri Satish Chand Aggarwal has filed an affidavit on 16.4.2003 before the Inquiry Officer, Camp Mathura, that Shri A.K. Singh, ALC, had threatened over the phone on 5.1.2003 to show the proofs of the material composed by the complainant magazine before publication or face dire consequences. He added that no printing press was ready to publish his magazine due to pressure by the Labour Department. The respondent denied the delay in sending the report and submitted that reports are sent by post when the party refuses to accept the report in person. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the complainant and the respondent. It noted that the City Magistrate in his Order dated 24.4.2004 had noted the statement of the complainant regarding the affidavit of the owner of the printing press and regarding absence of any serial number in the inspection notice and observed that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) was expected to appear before him to explain the position, but the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent a letter dated 24.2.2003 giving wrong facts that the complainant was neither printer nor publisher of Kamgaron Ki Duniya In the end of the said order, the City Magistrate found the ALC guilty and recommended

50 that action may be taken against him as per rules. Although, there was no documentary evidence to prove that the printing presses in Mathura had refused to publish the complainant’s magazine, the circumstantial evidence indicated that there was some pressure on the printing presses due to which the complainant’s magazine was not being published. Any type of pressure by the governmental authorities, direct or indirect, amounts to curtailment of the freedom of the press, the Committee opined. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint, call upon the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that the Labour Department of the State Government does not create any such undue pressure on the printing presses, which may cause hindrance to the complainant in getting his magazine published. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

11) Shri Harshwardhan Arya 1. The Principal Chief Conservator Resident Editor of Forests Lokmat Samachar Versus Maharashtra State Nagpur, Maharashtra Nagpur, Maharashtra

2. Shri Tasneem Ahmad Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial) Amravati, Maharashtra Complaint Shri Harshwardhan Arya, Resident Editor, Lokmat Samachar, Nagpur (Maharashtra) has filed this complaint dated 18.4.2005 against Shri Tasneem Ahmad, Chief Conservator of Forests, Amravati for alleged threats following publication of critical news item captioned “Spend one crore in 2 days: Instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forests” in the issue dated 31.3.2005 of his newspaper. The complainant submitted that annoyed with the publication, the respondent vide his letter dated 7.4.2005 while denying the contents not only called upon him to explain the basis of publication but also threatened him to provide evidences supporting the story within two weeks or else the action will be taken as per law. While objecting to the language of the respondent’s letter, the complainant vide letter dated 18.4.2005 submitted that if the respondent had any objection, he could have filed his rejoinder clarifying the facts. But instead of doing so he

51 threatened him and used objectionable language which was an attack on the freedom of the press. Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Amravati and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra State, Nagpur, Maharashtra on 16.9.2005. Comments The respondent Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Amravati in his comments dated 27.9.2005 while denying in totality the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that in fact the complainant had filed this complaint in order to cover up his action of publishing false and fabricated story against him and unsuccessfully tried to drag the entire Lokmat Group just to escape from his own liability. The respondent submitted that he had not written letter dated 7.4.2005 with any intention of insulting Shri Harshwardhan Arya or anybody whosoever, or attacking freedom of press or threatening Lokmat Group of Newspapers in any manner. The respondent submitted that the complaint had been lodged by the complainant before the Council merely with the intention of launching a counter offensive against him to prevent/discourage him and other similarly placed officers from coming to the Council in future even if such false news items are published by him. He requested to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 4.10.2005 for information. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra State, Nagpur in his reply dated 18.10.2005 submitted that he was not directly concerned with this matter. He requested that the notice issued to him be cancelled and decision on the complaint may be taken keeping in view the factual position explained by Mr. Tasneem Ahmed, Chief Conservator of Forests, Amravati Circle, Amravati. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra State, Nagpur was informed vide Council’s letter dated 28.11.2005 that the charge of threats to press freedom lay against a government servant in his official position and thus his request regarding cancellation of notice cannot be acceded to. Ist Adjournment The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006. S/Shri O.K. Mahajan, Divisional Forest Officer (Vigilance) and N.B. Gudge, Deputy Forest Officer, Planning, were present before the Committee for the respondent, while the complainant editor had requested for adjournment as he was unable to attend the hearing due to unavoidable circumstances.

52 In view of the adjournment of the three counter complaints, listed simultaneously, the Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the complainant and adjourned the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. The respondent, vide his letter dated 6.7.2006 requested for adjournment on the ground that the Monsoon Session of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was going on and many legislative matters needed his urgent personal attention. The complainant had also requested for adjournment. On the request of the parties the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter and the counter complaints. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee When the matter in hand and the related counter complaints were taken up by the Inquiry Committee at Hyderabad on 21.9.2006, none of the parties entered appearance before the Inquiry Committee. The Personnel Manager of the Lokmat in a fax dated 20.09.2006 requested for adjournment of the case due to unavoidable work. The Inquiry Committee noted that the parties to the complaints and counter complaints listed before it on three occasions, did not appear to be seriously interested in pursuing their grievance. It therefore recommended to the Council to dismiss 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

12) Suo-motu action with reference to issuance of an interim order/notice under section 144 Cr. P.C. dated 7.12.2005 directing the Editor of Andhra Jyothi to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. The attention of the Press Council of India was drawn to the debate regarding infringement on the fundamental rights of press by Government of Andhra Pradesh raised in Rajya Sabha by Shri Ravula Chandra Sekar Reddy, M.P. informing the House about the interference with media and infringement of their rights by issuing an interim order/notice under Section 144 Cr.P.C. dated December 7, 2005 directing the editor of Andhra Jyothi to appear before

53 the Revenue Divisional Officer in Visakhapatnam at 4 p.m. The reference records that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh was reportedly unhappy with the reporting in the newspaper. As per order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, no report about an officer of the Government or any officer should be published without reference to that officer and without revealing the source of information. There shall be a Screening Committee appointed, headed by the Public Relations Officer of the Government and with three persons from rival newspapers. And thirdly, that there shall be a detailed code of conduct for this particular newspaper. Further, as per news reports in the section of the Press, a Screening Committee had been set up for the purpose consisting of three senior journalists of rival newspapers with the District Public Relations Officer as the Convener. The three journalists, on becoming aware of all these background developments protested and withdrew their name. Subsequently, the State Government too hastily rescinded the aforesaid orders in the face of vehement opposition from all sections sensing that the move could boomerang. A press note was, later on, issued hurriedly saying that the Chief Minister was furious on learning about the notice and reiterated his commitment to freedom of the pres and asked the District Collector to give a clarification on the ruckus. The Council, after consideration of the matter felt that the act of the officer in passing the order appeared to warrant suo-motu cognizance of the matter by the Council. The Council vide letters dated 4.5.2006, asked the Government of Andhra Pradesh as well as the Editor, Andhra Jyothi to furnish a report on the facts of the case to enable the Council to take further course of action in the matter. 1. Reports of the Editor, Andhra Jyothi In response to Council’s letter dated 4.5.2006, the Editor, Andhra Jyothi vide letter dated 2.6.2006 has filed his report on the facts of the case: (i) that Mr. M. Venkateswara Rao, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Visakhapatnam served a Notice cum interim Order (M.C. No.52/ 2005) under Section 144 Cr. P.C., in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the editor of Andhra Jyothi, Mr. K. Ranchandra Murthy on 07.12.2005. (ii) The notice alleged that Andhra Jyothi has been publishing adverse news items about alleged land deals by IAS, IPS officers and other Civil Servants besides Politicians in Visakhapatnam District. The notice also furnished a few examples of some of the alleged adverse news items published by Andhra Jyothi, which were enclosed along with the notice.

54 (iii) The Order, which was served on Andhra Jyothi sought to screen before publication news reports pertaining to public servants. (iv) In his notice, the RDO by virtue of the power vested in Section 144 of Cr.P.C. ordered that; (a) Andhra Jyothi should refrain from publishing baseless and malafide allegations on public servants without taking the opinion of the officers concerned and without revealing the source of information. (b) Any news item published in Andhra Jyothi that could malign the personal character and value system of any public servant should hereafter pass through a Screening Committee comprising The Hindu Chief of Bureau, Mr. R. Sampath, Vaartha Chief of Bureau, Mr. S.S. Siva Sankar, Eenadu’s Reporter, Mr. Srinivas as members, with the District Public Relations Officer as the Convener. (c) The notice further directed to reply as to why not a detailed code of conduct be made for Andhra Jyothi with regards to such news items so as to prevent the publishing of similar news items in future. (d) The notice further stated that the interim order shall come into force with immediate effect and will remain in force until further orders. (v) The notice further directed the editor to explain in person as to why not the order be made final at 4.00 p.m. on 9.12.2005 at RDO office in Visakhapatnam, failing which suitable action will be taken. (vi) Journalists Unions described the action of the RDO as an attempt to curtail the freedom of the press. On learning about the implications of the order the Government intervened and got the order annulled. Journalists gathered at the collectorate held a demonstration denouncing the official’s action. (vii) Mr. R. Sampath who was unilaterally nominated as a member of the Screening Committee has actively participated in the rally to protest against the action of the District Administration. 2. Reports of Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam: The Revenue Divisional Officer, VIsakhapatnam, Shri M. Venkateswara Rao vide letter dated 22.8.2006 filed his reports on the facts and submitted that in the recent past, a series of adverse news items were being published regularly

55 in Andhra Jyothi against the Senior Officers and other public servants of Visakhapatnam District with careless and biased attitude which want to the extent of not only maligning the character and image of those officers in public but also shatter the faith of the public likely to be bestowed upon those officers. In such cases, such officers were likely to face hostile situation in public while dealing with sensitive subjects such as removal of encroachments, rehabilitation etc. and above all much annoyance was caused to such officers who were lawfully employed added the respondent. He further submitted that in those adverse news items, allegations of serious nature had been levelled against the public servants, attributing connections with illegal land dealings, without sufficient reason and evidence which was likely to shatter the faith of the public in general on the Government, which the officers represented and in such case the system of governance would likely to be affected at large and the public could also cause hindrance to the public servants in discharging their legitimate duties which ultimately could cause disturbance to public tranquility. In the light of the aspect stated above, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted that he was inclined to come to a conclusion that unless and other wise publication of this sort of mudslinging news item against the senior officials and government servants, was put to rest, there was every likelihood of disturbance to public tranquility and annoyance to the persons lawfully employed and that there was urgent and imminent need to prevent such things by invoking the provisions of Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, he had issued notice and interim order U/s 144 of Cr.P.C. directing the Editor, Andhra Jyothi to refrain from publishing news items of baseless and mala fide allegations against the public servants without taking their opinion and without revealing the source of such information and also directed to reply as to why detailed code of conduct should not be framed with regard to publication of such news items in future. The DRO and Addl. District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, after analyzing the whole issue felt that his issue needs further scrutiny and accordingly passed orders in Mc. No. 2/2005/A2 dt. 18.12.2005 U/s 144(5) of the Cr.P.C. rescinding the orders of the RDO & SDM, Visakhapatnam issued in MC.No.52/2005 dt. 7.12.2005. Shri M. Venkataswara Rao, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam submitted that the said order dated 7.12.2005 was issued by him in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a measure of confidence building among public servants and as intended against a couple of Telugu Dailies which were indulging in publication of mudslinging news items against the public servants but not against the entire media as projected by the media people and as such could be considered as infringement of the freedom of the press as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

56 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri K.Rama Chandra Murthy, Editor, Andhra Jyothi was present in person, while Shri C. Nageshwar Rao, State Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Shri Sandeep Sultania, Joint Collector and Shri M. Venketashwar Rao, Revenue Divisional Officer, appeared for the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of Andhra Jyothi submitted that the Order was a direct attempt to thwart the independence of the Press. The counsel for the Government of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the RDO had issued the impugned order having observed that the Andhra Jyothi was publishing reports against Government Officers which were unverified and were likely to effect their efficient discharge of duties. There was no malafide or misuse of authority in the action. He took this action of his own volition, and as soon as his seniors were seized of it, the Order was rescinded by his officer, DRO-cum-ADM, Visakhapatnam. He submitted that the government of Andhra Pradesh was committed to protecting and promoting the freedom of the Press and would not violate any provision of the Constitution. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties to the suo motu inquiry initiated by the Press Council, noted the records and submissions before it. It expressed its deep disapproval of not just the action of the RDO but also the reply filed by him before the Council justifying the Order issued by him. Even during the oral submissions before the Council, the said RDO, present before the Committee did not come forth to respond to the concern expressed by the Committee. No record was placed before the Committee to establish that the action was taken with the consent of or under the direction of any of his officers. The Committee opined that the RDO has either deliberately misconstrued the provisions of law to interfere with the free functioning of Andhra Jyothi or he was not well equipped to discharge the duties entrusted to him. It has to be appreciated that the media is an integral part of any democratic form of the government and functions as the eyes, ears and voice of the public. In case the press deviates from its assigned duties and responsibilities, there are sufficient well defined laws to being them back on the correct path, but Section 144 Cr. P.C. is not one of them. Noting that the seniors of the RDO had taken due steps to rescind the impugned order as a remedial measures, the Committee placed on record its expectation that the government or any of its officer will in future take due care to ensure against recurrence of any such action. The Committee

57 further directed that State Government to file within two weeks a report on the administrative action taken against the said RDO. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to decide the matter in terms of the above observations and directions. Decision of the Council The Council perused the records and the report of the Inquiry Committee and noted that the government had not yet intimated the action taken in pursuance of the directions of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.9.2006. Therefore, the Council while accepting and adopting the report and recommendation of the Inquiry Committee, decided that the Government of Andhra Pradesh be directed to file requisite information within two weeks of the receipt of the decision.

13) Shri Jaleel Khan Versus 1. The Managing Director Editor A.P.Minorities Finance Voice of Minorities Corporation Ltd. Gunture Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 2. Shri S.M. Shabbir Basha Former Executive Director A.P.Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd. Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 24.11.2004 has been filed by Shri Jaleel Khan, Editor, Voice of Minorities, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh against Shri S.M. Shabbir Basha, Former Executive Director, A.P. Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd., Guntur alleging threats to his life. The complainant submitted that some daily newspapers published complaints against the former Executive Director, A.P. Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd., Guntur and he sent some news clippings to State Finance Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad for information. The Executive Director was subsequently transferred to Kurnool. Ever since then the Executive Director bore grudge against him. On 20.11.2004 he went to Guntur District Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd. for news coverage. There, four rowdies, henchmen of former Executive Director not only insulted and rebuked him but also warned him with dire consequences. The complainant reported the incident to the Collector and A.P. Minorities Finance Corporation apprehending danger to his life and property but no action has been taken. The complainant alleged that such act of the respondent resulting in causing problem to him in collecting

58 news and in discharging his duties as an editor. He requested the Council to take action against the culprits. Comments of the Managing Director and Shri S.M. Shabbir Basha, Executive Director, A.P. Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad were invited on 20.7.2005. Comments The respondent V.C. & Managing Director, A.P. State Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd. Hyderabad in his comments dated 30.9.2005 while submitting that the allegations levelled by the complainant had been found false and baseless and stated that Shri S.M. Shabir Basha, former Executive Director was transferred to Kurnool from Guntur on administrative grounds contrary to any complaint from the complainant or from others. Further, he was also repatriated to his parent department on his willingness and relieved on 31.12.2004. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 6.10.2005 for information. Notice issued to Shri S.M. Shabir Basha, former Executive Director, A.P. State Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad was received back undelivered from the postal authorities. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri K. Ramanuja Chary, Advocate appeared for the A.P. Minorities Finance Corporation. The complainant in a telegram dated 18.9.2006 requested the Council to dispose of the case on the basis of record. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the respondent authorities intimated the Inquiry Committee that Shri S.M. Shabbir Basha, former Executive Director of the Corporation was no more in the Corporation and had been sent back to his parent department. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and was of the opinion that the officer against whom the complaint had been lodged had since been repatriated to his parent department and the Corporation had no powers to initiate any action against him at this stage. Further the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had not given any fresh facts whether the said officer had caused any harm to the editor or the newspaper. In the absence of any cause of action, the Inquiry Committee opined that no further

59 action was warranted in the complaint and allowed the matter 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

14) Shri Mahendra Aggarwal Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Government of U. P. Koot Chakra, Hindi Weekly Lucknow Sonebhadra Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Lucknow

3. The Superintendent of Police Sonebhadra U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 12.02.2003 has been filed by Shri Mahendra Aggarwal, Chief Editor, Koot Chakra, Hindi Weekly, Sonebhadra against Shri Ram Kishan, brother-in-law of Shri Kailash Nath Singh, then Cabinet Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh and his associates regarding brutal attack at gun- point on the complainant causing grievous injuries to him. According to the complainant, one Zuber Alam a resident of Mahuli had made a complaint to Lokayukta, U.P. against Shri Kailash Nath Singh who is a contractor in Anpara for the last twenty years enclosing therewith copies of FIR filed by the Forest Conservator against Shri Singh’s son and four others regarding seizure of their cars with illegal sand and boulders and his letter written to the Additional District Magistrate, Sonebhadra. The complainant submitted that his newspaper published a news item on the basis of the said complaint in the issue dated 18.01.2003 under the caption “Cabinet Mantri Kailash Yadav Ke Khilaaf Lokayukta Mein Mamla Darj” (Case registered with Lokayukta against Cabinet Minister Kailash Yadav) wherein it was reported that the Cabinet Minister Shri Kailash Nath Yadav illegally and forcefully encroached upon the forest land, collected and transported forest yield worth crores of rupees, thereby causing heavy loss to the exchequer. It was also reported that through his close relatives and employees he terrorised the villagers and tribals and forcefully occupied the forest land falling under Anpara range of U.P. and annoyed over the impugned publication, Shri Ram Kishan made an attack on him, an FIR of

60 which was got registered in the Anpara Police Station vide crime no. 11/03 dated 10.02.2003. The complainant alleged that since the case was against the Cabinet Minister and his relatives, the Administration did not provide protection. The complainant further submitted that a similar news-item had also been published in the January 15, 2003 issue of Hindustan. The complainant in a letter dated 23.04.2003 informed the Council that the police had arrested three persons u/Sections 154,107,116 on 14.02.2003 on the basis of the FIR lodged by him and released them on bail the same day. Since the matter appeared to be sub-judice it was closed by the Council in June 2003. The complainant vide his further communication dated 9.7.2003 informed that the persons against whom his complaint lies are not only relatives of the Cabinet Minister of U.P. but are mafias also and police was helpless and unable to take any action. According to him the Lokayukta had upheld his complaint holding the Minister guilty. He further submitted that the report published by him had also been published by Outlook. The complainant categorically stated that no case in this regard was pending in any court of law and requested the Council to reopen the case and to take necessary action to stop attack on the press and provide him the police security. The case was reopened in February 2004 after the complainant clarified that the case had been filed but no action was taken by the police. No Comments Comments of the respondent State Government of U.P. were invited on 11.6.2004. No comments were filed. Ist Adjournment The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.03.2005. Neither the complainant nor the respondent authorities were present before the Committee. The notice of hearing sent to the respondent had been received back ‘unserved’. A letter was received from the complainant expressing his inability to appear before the Committee due to ill health. He also stated that he had sent all the relevant material to the Council and the matter may be decided on the basis of the material on record. The Committee, however, in order to afford an opportunity to the parties to be present before it and since the service was not complete decided to adjourn the matter to be placed in one of its future meetings. IInd Adjournment The matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 26.7.2005. There was no appearance before it from either side.

61 Directions of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record, the Committee noted that on last occasion also the respondent was not represented before it. The respondent had also not filed his comments. The Committee took strong exception to the attitude of the respondent government and decided that as the complainant apprehended danger to his life, a letter may be addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh that he should personally ensure the presence of Superintendent of Police before the Inquiry Committee at its next meeting. In the meantime, the police authorities should contact the complainant and if he needs, police protection should be provided to him. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.10.2005. Shri Sudhakar Yadav, C.O., Pipri represented the police authorities while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant had however, vide his letter dated 28.9.2005 requested to deal with the matter on the basis of material already supplied by him. He had further submitted that Ram Kishan Yadav was an active worker of the ruling party in the state and was likely to contest the Zilla Panchayat Election to be held next month. He requested that arrangement may be made for his security. Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent police authorities filed the written submissions stating that the complainant had informed the police that after publication of critical news about Kailash Nath Singh, Cabinet Minister, his brother-in-law, Ram Kishan Singh Yadav along with Shyamjit Yadav and Advani, had beaten him up and abused him. On this information an N.C.R. No.11/03 under Sections 323/504 IPC was registered and after investigation Ghanshyam, Shyamjit and Advani were arrested under Sections 157/107/116 and sent to jail. As Ram Kishan Yadav, brother-in-law of the said minister was absconding on 5.8.2004 a challan was filed. It was further submitted that the complainant was personally contacted on 1.10.2005 who informed that he was not facing any problem and that no protection was needed. In his oral arguments he submitted that he meets the complainant, who came to police station for his professional duties, quite often. The complainant has never said that he had requested police protection. On being apprised about the letter received from the complainant, he assured that the local police could keep watch on his security. He added that there was no threat perception to the complainant, but if the complainant wanted permanent security, they will write to the government. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee after considering the material available on record and the oral submissions made by the representative of the police authorities

62 opined that as the complainant had again by his letter dated 1.10.2005 requested the Council to direct the police to ensure his security as he apprehended danger to his life from Ram Kishan Yadav, the representative of the police authorities should meet the complainant and examine the threat perception to him. Further, the assurance given to the Committee by the representative of the police was taken on record and he was further directed to inform the Press Council about the action taken in the matter. The Committee decided to keep the matter pending till a report was received in the matter from the police authorities. Inquiry Report The Superintendent of Police, Sonebhadra vide his letter dated 26.10.2006 submitted that the inquiry was entrusted to Shri Sudhakar Yadav, C.O., Pipri, Sonebhadra. As per the Inquiry Report, the complainant was called to record his statement but he sent a letter dated 19.9.2006 stating that he had already discussed the matter in detail about his apprehension endangering his life since the accused belong to ruling party. Considering the threat perception to the complainant, the S.H.O., Anpara had been given strict directions to keep watch on the problem of the complainant and his family for their safety. Further, the vigil on the opponent had also been kept and any matter if brought to the notice of the police, the legal remedial action be taken. A copy of the Inquiry Report was forwarded to the complainant on 27.12.2006 for information. 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 in view of the action taken report of the respondent police authorities, decided to close the complaint.

15) Shri Vaishya Ram Kr. Gupta Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Government of U.P. Vaishya Lahar, Hindi monthly Lucknow Lucknow, U.P. 2. The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow 3. Superintendent of Police Lucknow 4. The President ISKCON Mandir Lucknow Complaint Shri Vaishya Ram Kr. Gupta, Chief Editor, Vaishya Lahar, Hindi monthly, 63 Lucknow has filed this complaint dated 11.03.2005 against the Administrator, ISKCON Temple, Lucknow for threatening and harassing him due to publication of critical news item captioned “<ºBÉEÉxÉ àÉÆÉÊn® ãÉJÉxÉ>ó - £ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® BªÉ´ÉºÉÉªÉ BÉEÉ BÉEäxp, vÉxxÉÉ ºÉä~Éå BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ BÉEÉ nÉäcxÉ” in its magazine’s issue dated January- February 2005. The complainant submitted that he highlighted the misdeeds and corrupt activities of the Administrator of the ISKCON Mandir in public interest due to which the respondent began threatening him of dire consequences. The complainant alleged that the Administrator of the Mandir threatened him continuously over cell phone to have him killed as reprisal measure for publication of the critical news. The complainant submitted that he approached the higher administrative authorities of the ISKCON temple as also the police authorities of the district but they refused to interfere in the matter. As a result he could not publish next issue of his monthly magazine “Vaishya Lahar”, added the complainant. The complainant further submitted that only when he gave assurance of not publishing anything relating to the Mandir, he somehow managed to publish the next issue of his monthly. He requested the Council to intervene in the matter and provide him justice. Comments of the State Government of U.P. and the President of ISKCON Mandir, Lucknow were invited on 8.6.2005. Comments The respondent-Under Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow in his comments dated 20.9.2005 submitted that the matter was investigated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow, who found the allegations which were levelled in the complaint as true and a case No.36/05 under Sections 506/504 IPC was registered in Kesarbagh Police Station on 11.8.2005 against a Member of ISKCON temple. The inquiry of the said case was under investigation. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 6.10.2005 for his counter comments. ISKCON temple, Lucknow did not file its comments. Vide his further communication dated 11/11/2005 the complainant stated that the Lucknow police furnished wrong information to the Administrative Officers of the State to save the guilty persons. He submitted that name and address of the threatening persons were mentioned by him in his complaint written to the police authorities but no action was taken. The complainant argued that the local police registered the case against unknown persons with the intention to save the guilty persons. He alleged that the action of the respondent police authorities was merely a formality with aim to protect the guilty.

64 A copy of the letter dated 11.11.2005 of the complainant was forwarded to the Government of U.P. on 29.11.2005 with a request to intimate the Council about the steps taken by them for the safety of the complainant. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. The complainant, Shri Ram Kumar Gupta appeared in person. S/Shri Inder Vikram Singh, City Magistrate and Ghanshyam Chaurasia, CO represented the respondent authorities while there was no appearance on behalf of the ISKCON Temple. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions alleged that on publication of a critical news report in January 2005 against the ISKCON Temple highlighting the misdeeds and corrupt activities of its Administrator he received threatening calls from the Administrator. He was threatened of dire consequences. The complainant added that he lodged a complaint by name against the administrator but the report was registered against unknown person. Till date he was not aware as to what action had been taken by the police. The police did not provide him security also. He further stated that there was a danger to his life. The representative of the respondent authorities stated that the matter was investigated by the DIG of police and on finding the allegations to be true a case was registered on 4.8.2005. The inquiry in the matter was going on. He added that the statement of the complainant would also be recorded. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral submissions made before it. It noted that an FIR had been registered by the police against the Administrator of ISKCON Temple and the matter was under investigation. The Committee directed the police authorities, through its representative, to complete inquiries within four weeks from the date of hearing i.e. 24.3.2006 and send a report thereto to the Council. The police authorities were further directed to ensure personal security of the complainant during pendency of the inquiry. With the above directions to the police authorities, Government of U.P. the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint. The complainant in his letter dated 01.04.2006 intimated the Council that a gunner has been posted with him but the State Government has not provided security cover whenever he has to leave the district. The respondent State Government of Uttar Pradesh was asked vide Council’s letter dated 28.6.2006 to comply with directions of the Inquiry Committee and to file the Action Taken Report in the matter.

65 In response Sr. Superintendent of Police, Lucknow vide his letter dated 3.8.2006 informed that the respondents have provided a gunner to the complainant and area police, Hussain Ganj, Mohanlal Ganj and Alambagh have also been directed to keep vigil at the residence and office of the complainant. 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 the action taken report of the respondent authorities and decides to close the complaint.

16) Shri Satbir Singh Versus Sub-Divisional Magistrate Editor South West Delhi Dabar Westend, Hindi Weekly Sub-Division Najafgarh New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 3.11.2004 has been filed by Shri Satbir Singh, Editor, Dabar Westend, Hindi Weekly, New Delhi against Shri Sushil Yadav, SDM, Sub-Division Najafgarh, New Delhi alleging harassment and threats for publication of critical news item. According to the complainant, he published a news item captioned “ABÉE +ÉÉè® ÉÊ®¶iÉÉ ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉÒ SÉSÉÉÇ MÉàÉÇ cè” (Another marital arrangement which is hotly debated –English translation) in his Hindi weekly newspaper “Dabar Westend” issue dated 30.10.2004 concerning similarity of the Gotras of Sushil Yadav, SDM, Najafgarh and the Gotra of the daughter of Suresh Yadav, MCD Councillor, Paschim Vihar. It was stated in the impugned news item that the respondent, Shri Sushil Yadav, a DANCIS Cadre, recently appointed as SDM, Najafgarh had been arranged to be married with the daughter of Shri Suresh Yadav, both of whom belonged to same ‘Khola Gotra’ of the Ahir Caste, whereas the marriage between the same Gotra is a immoral custom. It was further published that since the beginning of the discussion of the marriage, a gossip between the Ahir Samaj has begun but nobody dared to have a talk with these two dominating and powerful families. The complainant submitted that the news item in question was published on the basis of a written information received from Shri Raghunath Yadav, Patron of Yadav Charitable Trust, Najafgarh. He alleged that due to the publication of the news item, the respondent called him to his office on 1.11.2004 and on reaching there, the respondent humiliated, abused and threatened him. Such act of the respondent was a direct attack on the freedom of the press, asserted the complainant. He also alleged that the respondent sent the Revenue

66 officials and local police to his house who gave threats to him and his family that their house would be demolished. The complainant submitted that he has a revenue case pending before the SDM but the respondent did not allow him to withdraw it. The complainant submitted that he had written to the concerned authorities complaining the respondent SDM but no action was taken in the matter. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments of the respondent were invited in the matter on 31.3.2005. In response, the SDM, Najafgarh, New Delhi vide his letter dated 6.4.2005 while returning the Notice for Statement in Reply stated that the respondent Shri Sushil Yadav, the then SDM, Najafgarh, New Delhi has been transferred to Daman & Diu w.e.f 28.2.2005. The SDM, Najafgarh and the complainant were requested on 8.6.2005 and 24.8.2005 to provide latest address of the respondent. On the latest address provided by the complainant on 10.9.2005, a notice dated 26.9.2005 was again served on the respondent but no comments had been filed. First Hearing The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on November 18, 2005. The complainant, Shri Satbir Singh was present in person while the respondent Shri Sushil Yadav vide his letter dated 14.11.2005, requested for adjournment on the ground that he had to leave for Daman & Diu on 15.11.2005 on official duty. The complainant submitted before the Committee that the report in question had been published on the basis of the information given by the Yadav Panchayat. They sent a reporter for the respondent SDM’s version, but he declined to say anything. Then annoyed with the publication of a news report, the respondent called him to his office and abused him. The Committee called upon the complainant to clarify the public interest involved in the said report. He submitted that he had sought to raise a social issue of caste and social bindings and had in the report also termed the Panchayat decision as wrong. He, however, agreed that he had not viewed the matter from the angle of intrusion into privacy of the individuals concerned and assured the Committee that he would keep this principle in mind in future. He, however, contended that the action of the respondent in threatening and abusing him on account of the report was a threat to the freedom of the press. The Committee considered the submissions made before it and the adjournment request of the respondent and decided to post the matter at its next meeting. In the meantime the respondent had been reminded to file his comments.

67 IInd Hearing The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. Shri Satbir Singh, the complainant, was present before the Committee along with his advocate Shri N.N. Anand. The respondent Shri Sushil Yadav, Sub-Divisional Magistrate was also present in person. The respondent Sub-Divisional Magistrate filed his written submissions before the Committee wherein it was stated that the alleged charge that he called the complainant twice through his reader on phone for giving explanation was specifically and categorically denied. He said, that he had never ordered any of his staff members to ask the complainant to come to his office. It was further submitted that a revenue case was pending in the court of the SDM (Najafgarh) which was a matter of record and he had no personal knowledge about the status of the case as of now. He added that the dates mentioned by the complainant were part of the proceedings and were matter of record and whatever was done by him in the official capacity as SDM (Najafgarh) was as per law. He denied all the allegations of the complainant. In his oral submissions, the respondent submitted that in Najafgarh area the land mafia was very active. Revenue department was put to a lot of pressure. There was a complaint about the encroachment on the government land by the complainant. For inquiry, the file was sent to Tehsildar. As he was put to much pressure from political persons, the file was sent to Deputy Commissioner. The complainant had written to 19 agencies including the Press Council of India, complaining against him. They had conducted the inquiry but nothing was found against him. The respondent SDM submitted that as a means of pressurizing him, the complainant had published a series of news reports which invaded his privacy and affected his standing amongst the community. The reports put him and his family to humiliation. The counsel for the complainant requested for adjournment to enable him to file counter to the written submissions of the respondent officer. He submitted that whatever they had published was on the statement of Panchayat. The respondent pleaded that as he was posted at Daman & Diu, it might be difficult for him to appear before the Committee on the next hearing. The Inquiry Committee, on the request of the counsel for the complainant, adjourned the matter with directions to file counter to the written statement of the respondent, a copy of which should be sent to the respondent. The respondent was exempted from appearance before the Committee at the future hearings. He was given the liberty to file his comments to the rejoinder of the complainant, if he so desired. The complainant has not filed counter comments. The directions of the

68 Inquiry Committee were again conveyed to the complainant to file the counter comments vide office letter dated 20.06.2006. Last Adjournment When the matter was again listed for hearing at New Delhi on 13.07.2006, Shri Ravinder Singh represented the complainant. The respondent had been exempted from appearance by the Inquiry Committee. The representative of the complainant filed a letter dated 5.7.2006 before the Committee requesting that as his lawyer was not well, the matter may be adjourned till his lawyer recovers from illness. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had informed that he had been unable to get his counter prepared due to the illness of lawyer. The Committee decided to grant one last adjournment to the complainant to pursue his case. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to complainant for compliance vide Council’s letter dated 7.9.2006, but there was no response. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Satbir Singh, Editor, Dabar Westend appeared in person. The respondent SDM had been granted exemption from appearance. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his submissions reiterated that the respondent SDM called him to his office and on reaching there, the respondent humiliated, abused and threatened him in the presence of Shri Ranbir, an eyewitness. The complainant submitted that he had raised a social issue of Gotra and he had not viewed the matter from the angle of intrusion into privacy. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral submissions made by the parties. It noted that the complainant had been unable to adduce any evidence to substantiate his charge of threats by the respondent. It is a fact that a revenue case against the complainant was pending before the respondent SDM, and the respondent SDM had initiated action on the complaint. The counter charge is that this action had prompted the complainant editor to write against the respondent SDM’s personal matters in the issue dated 30.10.2004. The Inquiry Committee finds that in fact the impugned news report did not serve any public interest and being in the nature of intrusion of privacy, it was advisable for the complainant editor to have desisted from publishing

69 such news reports. The Inquiry Committee did not find any substance in the complaint and decided to recommend 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.

17) Shri Arun Kumar Versus The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Bihar Sarhad Prahari Patna Madhepura, Bihar The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Bihar Patna

The Superintendent of Police Madhepura, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 14.6.2003 addressed to Superintendent of Police with an endorsement to the Council by Shri Arun Kumar, Editor, Sarhad Prahari, a Hindi fortnightly from Madhepura (Bihar) pertains to threats being received by the complainant by setting his press premises on fire since he had been exposing corrupt practices of the politicians and touts. The complainant specifically mentioned the name of a local MLA, Shri Narendra Narain Yadav who had been allegedly aiding and abetting such threats to him. Enclosing the news reports of May 2003/June 2003 issues, the complainant sought protection from such anti-social elements. The news/articles referred to by the complainant are as follows:- 1. ‘Politics: Game of friend and foe’. (May 16-31, 2003) 2. ‘Kidnapping industry is blooming in Bihar’. (No date is given) 3. ‘Who murdered the wife of Dy. Chief of Mhausa? BBC or Who else? 4. ‘Who will Madhepura get social justice? Sharad who stands on truth do not climb down’. (May 16-31, 2003) 5. ‘Public Court: Sharad Yadav, MP given answer to the people of Madhepura’. (June 16-30, 2003)

70 6. ‘Don Suraya was with Cabinet Minister, Police and Journalist’. (June 1-15, 2003) 7. ‘Who murdered Babloo Bhagat?’ (June 1-15, 2003) 8. ‘Pureni Chief Arrested’. (June 1-15, 2003) Notice for Statement in Reply Comments of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Secretary (Home) Department, Government of Bihar and Superintendent of Police, Madhepura were invited on 2.12.2003. No reply was received from any of the respondents. Matter Adjourned The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 25.4.2005. Both the parties were not represented. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant had been received back with the postal remarks “the person named had died some days back.” The Committee noted the remarks of the postal department with reference to the apprehensions of the complainant regarding threats to his life following critical reports. The Committee therefore felt that it was necessary to ascertain the causes, overt and covert for the demise of the complainant and decided to seek report from the District Magistrate, Madhepura in the matter before closing the matter. In compliance of the directions of the Inquiry Committee, the District Magistrate, Madhepura, Bihar, was addressed for submitting a report in the matter but no reply has been received despite reminders dated 22.8.2005 and 31.1.2006. Comments from the Secretary (Home) Police, Government of Bihar were also invited vide Council’s letter dated 4.4.2006. In view of the silence of the government functionaries, Shri Nitish Kumar, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Bihar was apprised of the position of the case by the Chairman of the Council on 4.8.2006, requesting him to take personal interest in the matter and ensure that the concerned officials file the requisite reports to the Council. In response to above letter, Shri Afzal Amanullah, Commissioner & Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar vide his letter dated 12.8.2006 directed the District Magistrate, Madhepura to submit the requisite report to the Council. A copy of this letter had been endorsed to the Council. Matter Closed The matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The Government of Bihar was represented by Shri C.K.Mishra, Resident Commissioner, Govt of Bihar, New Delhi. The same day, the Govt faxed its report vide letter dated 1.12.2006 of

71 District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur which was addressed to the Home (Spl.) Department of Government of Bihar, Patna and copy endorsed to the Press Council of India intimating that inquiry showed that the complainant had committed suicide on 26.8.2004 due to personal reasons. The representative assured the Committee of timely response in future. The Inquiry Committee took on record the assurance given by the representative of the State Govt and noted that the death of the complainant was a case of suicide, prompted by personal reasons as per inquiry report and not due to threats of the anti-social elements, and noted the unfortunate demise of the complainant and 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.

18) Suo Motu Action with regard to persistent threats on professional journalists of Manipur from Militant Organizations The Press Council took suo-motu cognizance to news articles captioned “Journalists act to uphold rights” published by The Statesman, New Delhi in its issues dated 2nd July, 2005. According to the first news article, after persistent threats on professional journalists from militant organizations, the Manipur Working Journalists Union (MWJU) has developed a Code of Conduct for the Manipur journalists, and urged the media in other parts of the country to support such initiatives in the face of acute threats being faced by the journalists. The ‘Code of Conduct’ inter alia includes; (i) Editors will not entertain any diktat from any quarter to publish or not to publish a news report of press release; (ii) No claim made by unidentified sources / person(s) over telephone will be entertained. In case of identification, editors will decide; (iii) No press conference called by any individual or organisations without official invitation will be accepted and all Press releases of any organization have to be signed with the organizational seal on the letterhead; (iv) In case of violation of the Code of Conduct laid down by the All Manipur Working Journalists Union (AMWJU) by any reporter/ newspaper, the All Manipur Working Journalists Union (AMWJU) will initiate action against the reporter/newspaper etc.

72 In the second news article “Manipur media – who stands with them?” written by Shri Pradip Phanjoubam, Editor, Imphal Free Press and carried in The Statesman issue dated 24.4.2006, has expressed his emotions on the death threat from an under ground faction in Manipur which he defied with the backing of fellow journalists and voiced his disappointment and the lack of support from the government and the civil society by raising question as to why the eminent enlightened members of the society remained mute; and has termed the issue as one of the biggest tragedies of the State. According to Shri Phanjoubam, six editors were kidnapped and intimidated, another newspaper was banned by a diktat of an unlawful organisation, there have been threats to lives and yet despite loud public protest by those in the media, there has not even been a single official word of condemnation from the state government as yet on the incident. Another news item captioned “Support for Manipur journalists” published by The Hindu, New Delhi in its issue of 20th April, 2006 reported that six editors were held captive forcing the newspapers to publish a statement at gunpoint and clamped a ban on an English daily and the editors were released after the statement of the militant outfit was published in full. The Manipur Working Journalists Union and its umbrella organization, the Indian Federation of Working Journalists were addressed on 21.7.2005 followed by another letter dated 9.5.2006 addressed to the editor, Imphal Free Press to provide details in the matter. The State government of Manipur was also requested on 22nd March 2006 to provide a report on the facts of the case. A registered reminder was sent on 9.5.2006. No reply was received from any quarter. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for consideration of the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. The Inquiry Committee noted that the journalists organisation as well as the State Government of Manipur did not come forward to assist the Committee in its suo motu inquiry. Therefore, while Inquiry Committee recorded its apprehension over the clear threats to press freedom and reiterated the guiding principles on coverage of Handouts of Militants/Terrorists framed in 1991/1992 recorded in a Report for the year, it decided to drop the proceedings in the absence of complete details and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

73 Facilities to the Press

19) Shri Digant Oza Versus 1. Shri Narendra Modi Editor, Jalseva Chief Minister Ahmedabad, Gujarat Government of Gujarat Gandhinagar

2. Shri Pankaj Kumar Secretary Ministry of Information Government of Gujarat Gandhinagar

3. Shri Bipin Kumar Shrimali Director of Information Government of Gujarat Gandhinagar Complaint This complaint dated 21.12.2004 has been filed by Shri Digant Oza, Editor, Jalseva, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) against the State Government of Gujarat for alleged discrimination in the matter of grant of accreditation to the journalists. According to the complainant, he submitted his accreditation card to Mr. Bhabhor in the Directorate of Information, Government of Gujarat as per practice in December 2003 for its renewal but neither it was renewed nor denied. The complainant submitted that he again wrote to the respondent- Directorate of Information, Government of Gujarat on 11.9.2004 but received no response. The complainant submitted that when neither he got any reply nor received accreditation card, presentations on different platform was also made drawing their attention that veteran journalists were being deprived of accreditation card. Many newspapers/magazines published the charge levelled by him but the Government of Gujarat neither contradicted nor denied it till date. He alleged that while the other journalists were accommodated by issuance of accreditation cards, pending formulations of the new policy, the veteran journalists were refused the same facility, which amounts to discrimination. The complainant contended that the possible reason for denial of accreditation could be that he was one of the persons to have approached the Supreme Court against the role played by the Chief Minister/Government during the communal riots in Gujarat. Another reason for depriving him for accreditation could be that he organised and as well as participated in several events and spoke fearlessly against the role of the Government of Gujarat and its Chief Minister during the riots in the State. The complainant alleged

74 that his right to accreditation card and access to all official information has been infringed by the respondent to penalize him. Comments of (i) Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, Government of Gujarat; (ii) Shri Pankaj Kumar, Secretary, Ministry of Information, Government of Gujarat; and (iii) Shri Vipin Kumar Shrimali, Director of Information, Government of Gujarat were invited in the matter on 21.4.2005. Comments In response, the respondent Government of Gujarat, in its comments dated 24.06.2005, submitted through Additional Director of Information, that the complainant’s statement that accreditation card was given on the discretion was not true for these had been issued as per existing rule. The respondent further denied the statement of the complainant that he submitted his accreditation card for renewal to Shri M. Bhabhor as neither any officer in the name of Bhabhor is discharging duty in the Directorate of Information nor the complainant had given his accreditation card for renewal. It was also denied that the complainant had made his representation to the State Government regarding renewal of accreditation card. He submitted that as per Rule 39 of the Press Accreditation Rules, 2000, each accreditation card holder has to submit original accreditation card along with the prescribed application form as documentary proof, but the complainant did not submit his original accreditation card, therefore, his card could not be renewed. The complainant ought to have followed the procedure under Rule 39 of Press Accreditation Rules and represented to the State Government within thirty days from the date on which the decision of the Committee was communicated to the concerned newspaper/ news agency etc. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 5.7.2005 for information/counter comments, if any. Counter Comments The complainant in his undated counter comments received in the Secretariat of the Council on 7.10.2005 at the outset submitted that the entire documents of the Information Department were far from truth. He submitted that by mentioning the incorrect name of the person of the Department, he might have committed error, but it did not alter the fact that his card No.A04849 was with the department. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 31.10.2005 for information. Further Reply of the Respondent The Deputy Director of Information, vide his letter dated 16.12.2005,

75 informed the Council that the press accreditation cards were issued as per the prevailing rules of the Press Accreditation Committee. He submitted that since the complainant did not follow the prevailing rules, his accreditation card could not be renewed as per rules. A copy of the respondent’s letter was forwarded to the complainant on 23.12.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006. Shri A.R. Patel, Deputy Director was present before the Committee on behalf of the respondent authorities while the complainant remained unrepresented. The complainant vide his letter had prayed for adjournment and requested that the matter be listed for hearing at Ahmedabad as he was unable to afford journey to Pune for hearing. Since the records before it were complete, the Inquiry Committee did not deem it necessary to adjourn the matter. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent authorities reiterated the averments made in the comments dated 24.6.2005. He added that till 2003 the complainant’s card was valid and after that he did not send the card for renewal. On being asked by the Committee as to whether there was a Press Accreditation Committee in the State he replied that a formal proposal of constituting the Press Accreditation Committee has been sent to the Government. He also informed that rules on the subject are under revision and the Director is competent to give adhoc accreditation only for three months. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was denied the new accreditation card on the ground that he did not file the application and the old accreditation card. The complainant asserted otherwise. The Committee directed the Director of Information, Government of Gujarat through his representative to send a fresh application form to the complainant with a copy to the Council and on receipt of the completed application from the complainant, issue the new card within 15 days of its receipt without insisting for surrender of the old card since the card number had been given by the complainant. The respondent was further directed to send an action taken report in the matter to the Press Council. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report

76 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

20) Shri Bahubali Shah Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Managing Director Government of Gujarat Lok Prakashan Ltd. Gandhinagar, Gujarat Publisher of Gujarat Samachar Ahmedabad, Gujarat 2. The Director Information & Broadcasting Department Government of Gujarat Gandhinagar, Gujarat Complaint The Managing Director, Lok Prakashan Limited, Publisher of Gujarat Samachar, Ahmedabad has filed this complaint dated 14.12.2003 against the Government of Gujarat alleging publication in its weekly “Gujarat” on 15th October, 2003 under the title “Gujarat Viseshank” with the word ‘Satya Samachar’, reproducing the art work of their newspaper “Gujarat Samachar” without permission. The complainant alleged that the Government of Gujarat through its Department of Information and Broadcasting launched a Gujarati publication under the title “Gujarat Satya Samachar” and brought out a special supplement on 15.10.2003, the masthead of which was similar to the art work of the complainant newspaper “Gujarat Samachar” which has acquired excellent reputation and goodwill amongst Gujaratees. According to the complainant the features, configuration, pattern, composition of lines and colour applied to the title had become part of the identity of the Gujarat Samachar. The complainant alleged that the respondent had made substantial and material reproduction as the art work of his newspaper with the intention to create an impression in the mind of the general public that the said issue is of the complainant’s company and none else.’ According to the complainant, the respondent’s publication clearly established the confusion and deception by misleading title and reproducing the same art work, design, arrangement, get up, colour and size of letters, thereby committing the breach of conduct and journalistic ethics and professional misconduct. The complainant submitted that earlier the Director, Information and Broadcasting, Government of Gujarat issued a circular dated 26th/27th August, 2003 communicating the decision of the State Government not to release the government advertisements and advertisements of statutory boards, corporation,

77 local self governments and academic bodies to daily Gujarat Samachar published from Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Surat, Vadodara, Bhavnagar and Mumbai. The aforesaid decision and the Circular were challenged by the complainant by filing Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat, wherein a statement was made on behalf of the State Government regarding withdrawal of the aforesaid decision and the Circular. The complainant submitted that Lok Prakashan Ltd., Ahmedabad is bringing out his daily newspaper Gujarat Samachar in Gujarat since 1940 and it acquired excellent reputation and goodwill. It has very wide circulation covering news items independently and objectively. This policy of independence followed by Gujarat Samachar had earned wrath and displeasure of the Government of Gujarat and as a consequence the Government had issued the aforesaid circular. After the matter was challenged before the High Court of Gujarat, the Government had to withdraw the same. The complainant requested the Council to take appropriate action against the State Government for encroaching upon the independence of his newspaper and committing misconduct and breach of high standard of professional and journalistic ethics. Comments of the respondent State Government of Gujarat through the Chief Secretary and the Director, Information & Broadcasting Department were invited on 2.4.2004. Statement in Reply Shri P.S. Pandya, Deputy Secretary to Government of Gujarat (respondent) in his written statement dated 9.7.2004 submitted that the complaint filed by Lok Prakashan Ltd. was misconceived and vague. Disputing the claim of alleged copyright in the art work as contended by the complainant, the respondent submitted that the question whether or not a copyright exists is a matter which falls within the sole competence of Registrar of Copyrights or Civil Court and the Press Council of India, has no jurisdiction but civil court alone can have jurisdiction. The respondent submitted that the complainant showed a tendency to mislead the people of the State by publishing negative reports about the noteworthy achievements under the State’s important programme viz. “VIBRANT GUJARAT”. In these circumstances, they published special edition of ‘Gujarat’ in order to apprise the people about the ‘true facts’ (translation: Satya Samachar) of the noteworthy works done by the Government of Gujarat under “Vibrant Gujarat Programme”. According to the respondent special editions were published out of compulsion when a section of media failed to discharge the responsibility to inform the public at large of the truth in the

78 matters of public interest without any bias or distortion and such was the case when special edition was published on 15.10.2003. With regard to the complaint of encroachment upon independence of the complainant by reproducing art-work, design, arrangement, get-up, colour and size of letters of the title of the complainant’s newspaper, the respondent submitted that as such no art-work or copyright at all exists in alleged design, arrangement, get-up, colour and size of the letters of the title of the complainant’s newspaper as is evident from the following facts: - 1) No copyright can ever exist in the works “Gujarat” and “Samachar” under the provisions of Copy-Right Act or otherwise. 2) The word “Gujarat” is commonly used in title of several newspapers. For example, “Gujarat Mitra”, “Gujarat Today”, “Gujarat Pravah”, “Gujarat Niti”, Gujarat Vaibhav”, “Gujarat Times”, etc. 3) The word “Samachar” is commonly used in the title of several newspapers. For example, “Vadodara Samachar”, “Saurashtra Samachar”, “Sanj Samachar”, “Palanpur Samachar”, etc. 4) The words “Gujarat” and “Samachar” which cannot have copyrights together also cannot claim copyrights. Moreover, the “Title” is not registered with the Registrar of Copy-Rights. 5) The words “Gujarat Samachar” are not written in a manner special and different to common trade practice so as to create any copyright in its favour. “Title” of Newspapers “Vadodara Samachar”, Saurashtra Samachar”, “Sanj Samachar” and “Palanpur Samachar”. The design, arrangement and get-up of the letters of the title is the same and therefore the complainant cannot claim any art-work or a copyright in letters of its “Title” Gujarat Samachar”. The colour of the title of the aforesaid newspapers is black. Similarly, size of the letters is more or less the same. Under the circumstances, the complainant cannot claim any right in law in the Title of its newspaper. 6) There is no scope of public being misled or deceived. The principles of unwary buyer of goods cannot apply in the facts of this case inasmuch as newspapers are read by people who are literate. 7) The title “Gujarat” arrives white-line inside the letters, which is also, a distinguishing feature. 8) The complainant has failed to show that public was misled. The respondent submitted that in the absence of any other evidence of

79 deception/confusion, the question of possibility of confusion or deception becomes academic and irrelevant more particularly in the context of Section- 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978. According to the respondent the alleged violation of copyright does not and cannot constitute encroachment upon independence of complainant’s newspaper so as to constitute breach of high standards of professional and journalistic ethics and conduct as alleged or otherwise. He requested to reject the complaint. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 26.7.2004 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006. Shri Bharat Lakhtariya, Senior Reporter represented the complainant while Shri Sunit Shah, advocate appeared for the respondent authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant submitted that the facts of the case had been filed earlier with the Council. However, he added that the copy of the comments of the government was not received. He further stated that ‘Gujarat Samachar’ was their registered trade mark which the State Government had used by publishing “Gujarat Viseshank with the word ‘Satya Samachar. Learned counsel for the respondent government contended that the question whether or not a copyright existed in the matter falls within the sole competence of Registrar of Copyright. The Press Council had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The complainant was misleading the public by publishing negative reports of the achievements of the State Government. The Government published a special edition to let public know about true fact and the laudable work done by the Government of Gujarat. The word ‘Gujarat’ was used by many newspapers and, therefore, no copyright existed in the words “Gujarat” or “Samachar”. The representative of the complainant requested for adjournment to enable their counsel to appear and argue the case. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Committee considered the record and the oral arguments made before it by the parties. Regarding the request to the representative of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee was of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the matter, as the respondents counsel had satisfied the Committee that this was prime facie a matter to be agitated before a different forum because the issue involved in the matter was of copyright.

80 Therefore, without commenting on matter on its merits, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to allow the complaint 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

21) Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma Versus 1. The Chief Secretary District Correspondent Government of U.P. Daink Hawk Lucknow Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of U.P. Lucknow

3. The Assistant Information Director Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh Complaint Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, District Correspondent, Dainik Hawk, Bareilly (UP) has filed this complaint dated 1.2.2005 against the Assistant Information Director, Bareilly for being prejudiced towards him and adopting an arbitrary attitude by providing false and misleading information to the Accreditation Committee thus depriving him of renewal of his press card. The complainant, vide his letter dated 8.3.2005, submitted that the Joint Director, Information and Pubic Relations Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow recommended a confidential inquiry on the false complaint filed against him by Shri Chhatarpal Singh. The respondent not only issued a press release but also published a notice under his signature in the local newspapers inviting the public to file complaints, if any against Shri Manoj Sharma, District Correspondent, Dainik Hawk against whom an inquiry was said to be under process for involvement in corruption. The complainant further stated that Shri Chhatarpal Singh, who had filed this complaint against him at the instance of Shri Bhupendra Singh Yadav, Assistant Information Director, had denied the allegations vide his letter dated 18.1.2005, addressed to the Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. In his letter Shri Singh admitted that he was forced to file the above-mentioned complaint. In fact the

81 Assistant Information Director tried his best that the complainant could not avail the privilege of the accreditation facility. Since the complainant himself presented his case before the Accreditation Committee, the Committee recommended issue of the accreditation to him. By doing so, the complainant earned the wrath of the Assistant Information Director and he conspired to defame him. The complainant further submitted that despite recommendation of the Accreditation Committee, his press card was not renewed by the respondent. On the contrary a Committee was constituted to inquire against him. The complainant alleged that the respondent was deliberately trying to defame him. He has requested the Council to intervene in the matter and direct the State Government to take necessary action against the erring officials. Notices for statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P, Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and Assistant Information Director, Bareilly, U.P on 19.4.2005. Comments The Assistant Information, Director, Bareilly in his comments dated 30.4.2005 while denying the allegation of being prejudiced towards the complainant submitted that the complainant desired to have an accreditation card without getting the application recommended/sanctioned by his editor. According to the respondent, the Press Note about the complainant was published on the directions of the Additional City Magistrate-I, Bareilly. The respondent further alleged that the complainant had indulged in yellow journalism and blackmailed many persons. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 29.5.2005 outrightly denied the comments filed by the respondent, Assistant Information Director, Bareilly. Reiterating his grievance, the complainant charged the District Assistant Information Officer with malafide denial of accreditation card. The complainant while giving point-wise denial of the comments appealed to the Council to initiate action against the respondent so that he ought to have not misused his post and position. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent, vide Council letter dated 8.6.2005. The complainant, vide his another letter dated 8.6.2005, informed that

82 the Administrative Inquiry Report initiated against him by the District Administration Bareilly had already been sent to the Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. As per the complainant, the Inquiry Report was illegal and nothing but only another nail to harass him. He requested the Council to provide him justice. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. The complainant Shri Manoj Sharma was present in person. Ms. Abhilasha Kulshrestha, Joint Director (Press) and Shri K.L. Choudhary, Information Officer, Bareilly, represented the respondent authorities, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. The primary respondent Shri Bhupendra Singh Yadav appeared before the Inquiry Committee on the next day when the Committee sat to consider other cases. Submission before the Inquiry Committee The complainant while reiterating the submissions made in the complaint added that Shri Bhupendra Singh, who was a corrupt officer, acted arbitrarily and forced Chattarpal Singh to file a complaint against him. Later Chattarpal Singh in his letter to the Director, Information and Public Relations Department admitted this fact. The complainant further stated that he was an accredited correspondent since 1999. Despite the recommendations of the Accreditation Committee, his card was not renewed in the year 2004. The representative of the respondent authorities submitted that the editor of the complainant newspapers sent a letter dated 9.2.2005 stating therein that the complainant was not on the rolls of the newspaper. As a complaint had been received against Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, the department sent the same to the District Magistrate, as they had no means to inquire into the allegations in the complaint. The Committee desired to know the reason why the DIO had issued a press release and a public notice of the matter and under what rules the inquiry was directed. The representatives were unable to reply to the query. The Committee express its dissatisfaction over the responses of the department. On the next day i.e. the 24th March, 2005 Shri Bhupendra Singh Yadav, the then Assistant Information Director, Bareilly, presently posted as Assistant Director, Information, Etawah, appeared before the Committee. He explained that he could not appear before the Committee on the appointed date, as having been transferred to Etawah, he was not informed on time of the date of inquiry. On 22nd March, 2005 at 4.30 p.m., he was informed about the inquiry on telephone and as the train was late, he could not reach on time.

83 In his submissions about the complaint, he contended that the complaint was baseless. Many persons had complained of yellow journalism against the complainant by filing affidavits. The District Magistrate directed the City Magistrate to hold inquiry and he was directed to issue a press note inviting people to let him know if any one had a complaint against Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma. He further stated that the editor of the newspaper had removed the complainant from service. Thus, there was no question of issuance of accreditation to the complainant. The complainant filed a fresh application for accreditation enclosing therewith an experience certificate from Dainik Jagran. On the recommendation of District Information Officer, the Accreditation Committee granted the accreditation to Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma. He was also unable to satisfy the Committee of the rules under which the inquiry was held or the public notice issued.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the complainant and the representative of the respondent authorities. The Inquiry Committee expressed its deep displeasure over the conduct of the respondent in causing magisterial inquiry against the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma who was a journalist by profession on the complaint of Shri Chattarpal Singh whose own bonafide had not been established and who is reported to have later claimed to have made the complaint under the pressure of Shri Bhupendra Singh Yadav. It was surprised to note that the City Magistrate, Bareilly, issued a press note informing the general public that an inquiry was going on against Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma and if anyone had grievance against him, he may give it in writing or orally at his office between 28.1.2005 and 7.2.2005. The Press Release gave an impression as if the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma was a hardcore criminal and not a journalist. The Inquiry Committee decided to place on record its deep concern over the attitude of officers of the department. It further recommended that the adjudication of the Council may be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for initiating inquiry against the erring officer and to file an action taken report within a month of the receipt of the adjudication. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

84 22) 1. Shri Suresh Chandra Rohra Versus 1. Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of Nai Duniya Chhatisgarh Korba, Chhatisgarh Raipur

2. The President 2. The Director Chhatisgarh Patrakar Information & Public Sangharsh Samiti Relations Department Korba, Chhatisgarh Government of Chhatisgarh Raipur, Chhatisgarh Complaint This complaint dated 10.6.2004 and 14.6.2004 has been filed by Shri Suersh Chandra Rohra, Correspondent, Nai Duniya and the President, Chhatisgarh Patrakar Sangharsh Samiti, Korba respectively against the policy decision of the Government of Chhatisgarh and Municipal Corporation, Korba attempting centralization of Government advertisements thereby promoting corruption and working against the interest of small newspapers. The complainants alleged that the State Government’s policy of inclusion of the local bodies like Municipal Corporation/Nagar Nigam and district level institutions in the “Chhatisgarh Samvad”, an agency to regulate Government advertisements was socially and morally against the interest of small newspapers. They apprehended that such centralization of advertisements of local bodies might give rise to the corruption. The complainants alleged that this policy is an attack on the freedom of Chhatishgarh press and it should not be implemented for the small newspapers who may never be able to receive advertisements in competition to large number of big and medium newspapers. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Chief Secretary and the Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Chhatishgarh Raipur on 12.7.2004. Statement in Reply The Commissioner, Directorate of Public Relations, Raipur in his comments dated 1.9.2004 submitted that the State Government has exempted local bodies while directly issuing advertisements to the newspapers. He further informed that 1/3rd of the commission collected by the Government in issuing advertisements has been earmarked for the pension fund of the journalists. While relying on the letter dated 16.8.2004 of Chief Executive Officer, “Chhatisgarh Samvad” it was intimated that the State Government has given exemption to local bodies in directly issuing advertisements to the newspapers which was modified since earlier semi-government organizations, Public

85 Enterprises, Corporation, Mandals and autonomous bodies were brought under the control of “Chhattisgarh Sambad” an associate organisation of the Public Relations Department of the State Government. The respondent while denying the allegation made in the complaint stated that the decision taken by the Government earlier was also in the interest of journalists. A copy of the Statement in Reply was forwarded to the complainant on 9.12.2004 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments In his unsigned and undated counter comments, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 4.8.2005, the complainant while reiterating his complaint requested that the policy of the Government of Chhatisgarh to centralize the Government advertisements be changed and Information offices of all the 16 districts of the State be given rights to issue advertisements of district level as per past practice adopted 15 years back. The complainant further stated that the present Chhatishgarh Government had intended to earmark for the pension fund of the journalists from the 1/3rd commission collected by the government in issuing advertisements but after more than one year implementation has not been done in this regard. However, with the announcement of the abovesaid pension policy Government has improved its image among the public but done injustice towards journalists’ community. If the government intend to earmark for the pension fund, it should start from its own fund nor from the 1/3rd commission collected by the government in issuing government advertisement. He requested the Council to render justice to them. A copy of the unsigned and undated counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 23.11.2005 for information. Respondent’s Reply On the unsigned counter comments of the complainant, the respondent Commissioner, Directorate of Public Relations, Govt. of Chhatishgarh, Raipur in his rejoinder dated 1/12/2005 submitted that the Public Relations Deptt. and the Chhatishgarh Sanwad have been authorised to release advts. in pursuance of the decision of the State Government and this has been done keeping in view the tradition followed by the erstwhile State of M.P. Further, the news are published through Distt. Public Relations office and no advts. released for these and are issued only to State-level newspapers. He further stated that though the implementation of the pension scheme for the journalists is not mandatory for the Government and it is under the process of planning a pension scheme for the welfare of the Journalists’ with the assistance of insurance/co-operative banks in agreement with journalists. The respondent

86 denied the averment of the complainant that justice is not being given to the journalists in the State. A copy of the rejoinder of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 15.12.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. Shri Umesh Mishra, Assistant Director, Public Relations Department was present on behalf of the respondent authorities of Government of Chhatisgarh while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent authorities submitted that the State Government had already issued orders for decentralizaton of release of advertisement of lower level. He further submitted that the advertisement policy was under formulation and till it was formed they were following the advertisement policy of the Madhya Pradesh Government. The advertisements were being issued to State level newspaper only. He added that local bodies were directly releasing their advertisements to the newspapers. About pension to the journalists, he stated that a Committee had been already formed. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the oral submissions of the representative of the respondent authorities, the Inquiry Committee noted that the government had already taken appropriate action for decentralization of advertisements release process and a Committee had been formed to look into the issue of pension to the journalists. The Advertisement Policy of the State was also being drawn up. Thus, the Committee opined that the grievances of the complainants had been largely ventilated. While recommendations of the Council to allow the matter to rest the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend it to direct the State Government to study Press Council of India’s model advertisement policy while formulating the advertisement policy of the State Government and to provide for transparency and non-discrimination in release of advertisements. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

87 23) Shri M.M. Nawab Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor Government of Uttar Pradesh Bahar-E-Hardoi Lucknow Urdu Weekly Hardoi, U.P. 2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. Lucknow

3. District Information Officer Hardoi, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 21.12.2004 has been filed by Shri M.M. Nawab, Editor, Bahar-E-Hardoi, Urdu Weekly, Hardoi(U.P.) against District Information Officer and Assistant Information Officer, Hardoi for cancelling the declaration of his newspaper terming it as irregular due to which DAVP has not been releasing advertisements to his newspaper. The complainant alleged that his press accreditation has also not been renewed by the respondent, which affected his journalistic duties. According to the complainant, he has been facing problems in performing his journalistic work due to indifferent attitude of the respondent-DIO, Hardoi. The complainant furnished a copy of the letter dated 18.8.2004 received from the District Information Officer, Hardoi with a copy endorsed to the District Magistrate, Hardoi, DAVP and RNI informing that the declaration of his newspaper itself gets cancelled for non-availability of 50% of the issues in a quarter and without authenticating new declaration he was not entitled to publish the newspaper. The complainant submitted that he had regularly been filing all issues of his newspaper in the office of the Information Department but the staff deputed there had never given him acknowledgement. The complainant further submitted that in response to the District Information Officer’s Notice dated 18.8.2004 he clarified his position vide his letter dated 26.8.2004 that his newspaper was being published regularly for the last 14 years and he had been depositing each issue in the District Information Office as per rules but no reply has been received from the respondent. He alleged that the respondent has been deliberately trying to close down his newspaper being prejudiced towards him. The complainant also alleged that he has also been deprived of information about the official press conferences. The complainant vide his letter dated 17.8.2005 clarified that after getting notice from DIO, Hardoi declaring his newspaper as irregular and asserting that the declaration of the newspaper stands automatically cancelled under the

88 provision of the PRB Act, 1867, he stopped the publication of his newspaper. However, he has not received any notice from the District Magistrate, Hardoi regarding cancellation of his newspaper’s declaration. He requested the Council to direct the DIO, Hardoi to withdraw his notice so that he can publish his newspaper without any hindrance.

Comments of the Chief Secretary, Director Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P. and District Information Officer, Hardoi (U.P.) were invited on 29.8.2005.

Comments

The District Information Officer, Hardoi in his comments dated 16.9.2005 while denying the allegations of the complainant submitted that the notice had been issued to the complainant as per Section 5(6) of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867. He also drawn the attention towards Section 11(A) of the PRB Act, 1867 according to which the complainant is required to furnish two copies of each issue of his newspaper on publication. Due to violation of aforesaid section of the PRB Act, 1867, the Notices dated 25.3.2004 and 18.9.2004 were issued to the complainant. Denying the allegation of the complainant that notices were deliberately issued to him malafide despite filing of all issues of his newspaper as stated, the respondent clarified that the complainant’s newspaper was not the only one to whom notices were issued. In fact notices were issued to 12 such newspapers held as irregular. According to him, the declaration of such newspapers stands automatically cancelled and a new declaration shall be necessary before commencing publication.

The allegation levelled by the complainant that no “Receipt Register” has been maintained in the information Office or no acknowledgement is given for submission of newspaper is false. Since the declaration has been cancelled on technical grounds no information at District Magistrate level was required to be provided to the complainant.

A copy of the comments of the respondent-DIO, Hardoi was forwarded to the complainant on 26.9.2005 for his counter comments.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 7.10.2005 while reiterating what he had submitted in his complaint that his newspaper is being published regularly for the last 19 years and he had been submitting regularly two-copies of the issue of his newspaper in DIO office but he had been denied its acknowledgement. He alleged that the notice had been issued by the respondent due to malicious attitude towards him.

89 A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondents on 24.10.2005.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. The complainant, Shri M.M. Nawab was present before it in person while Shri Anand Swaroop Choudhry, Additional Information Officer, Hardoi, represented the respondent authorities.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He added that he sent the issues of the newspaper regularly to District Information Officer but he had no proof to substantiate his statement as he was not given receipts. He had also kept the issues of newspaper in his own office and could produce the same when asked for.

The representative of the respondent authorities submitted that there was no malafide behind issuing of notice to the complainant. It was only to make him aware that his publication was not regular. He added that on receipt of issues of newspaper from the publisher, proper receipt was issued. He produced before the Committee the counter-foils of some of the receipts issued by his office. He further stated that the notice was issued to 12 publications. He assured the Committee that on submissions of the copies of the newspapers by the complainant, the declaration would be restored.

Matter Kept Pending

On consideration of the record and the oral arguments advanced before it the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant’s case was that despite publication of weekly regularly and submitting the issues in the office of District Information Officer(DIO), his recognition for the purpose of advertisement was not renewed and he was served a notice by the DIO. Consequently, he stopped the publication. The respondent had justified their action claiming that weekly was not regular and the publisher failed to submit requisite number of issues with the DIO’s office. The respondent’s representative showed the counter- foils of some of the receipts showing the receipt of issue of periodicals in the DIO’s office. It appeared to the Committee that documents produced by the respondent required proper scrutiny to establish their authenticity more so as some of the receipts in the book were kept blank and could be filled up at a later date. As the respondent’s representative has assured the Committee that on receipt of the requisite documents from the complainant his case for restoration of recognition would be considered, the Inquiry Committee directed

90 the complainant to file the issues of the newspaper of the relevant period with the office of DIO. The respondent DIO was directed to process the case of the complainant for restoration of declaration on receipt of required documents from the complainant. The respondent was further directed to intimate to the Council the decision taken in the matter.

The complainant vide his letter dated 30.03.2006 informed the Council that he had gone to DIO office on 25.3.2006 for submitting the issues of his newspapers of the relevant period as per directions of the Inquiry Committee meeting held on 24.3.2006 at Lucknow. The respondent however refused to receive the same unless written direction is received from the Press Council of India.

On the contrary, DIO, Hardoi, vide his letter dated 20.7.2006 has informed that the complainant did not file the issues of his paper nor the complainant contacted the office.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, District Information Officer, was present on behalf of the respondent department, while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The DIO by a letter dated 5.8.2006 again informed that the complainant had not submitted the copies of the newspaper as per directions of the Inquiry Committee given at Lucknow. In his oral submissions reiterated what he informed by his letter. He added that a letter was sent to the complainant.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee noted the contradictory stands before it and reiterating its earlier decision, directed the complainant to send the issues of the newspaper of the relevant period to the Office of the DIO through registered post and the DIO to process the case of the complainant for restoration of declaration on receipt of the requisite documents. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Decision of the Council

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

91 24) Smt. Saroj Verma Versus Directorate of Advertisement & Editor, Rani Jhansi Times Visual Publicity Jhansi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 8.4.2002 has been filed by Smt. Saroj Verma, editor, Rani Jhansi Times, Hindi Weekly, Jhansi (U.P.) against DAVP for non release of advertisement and denial of rate contract for the year 2000-2001 despite fulfilment of all basic formalities and submission of essential documents. The complainant has charged the DAVP with partial and discriminatory attitude in not issuing the rate contract and advertisement to her newspaper. She has also alleged that the respondent demanded gratification money from her for issuing the advertisement and granting the rate contract. The complainant submitted that the respondent did not bother to reply to her letter and their behaviour was not good. The complainant submitted that this act of the respondent was due to reprisal measure and requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Comments Comments of the respondent DAVP were invited on 24.10.02. Joint Director (Advtg.), DAVP in his letter dated 3.2.2005 submitted that the publisher of the weekly had applied for DAVP empanelment for the year 2002-03 which was placed before Panel Advisory Committee for their consideration in the meeting held on 5.2.2003. The seven members Panel Advisory Committee did not find the case suitable for DAVP empanelment due to poor printing. The publisher had not applied again for DAVP empanelment since then. However, the publisher was requested to apply afresh with required improvement in printing quality. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee. Shri Pankaj Nigam, Assistant Media Executive appeared on behalf of the respondent authorities, viz., DAVP. The representative of the DAVP referred to the submissions made in the letter dated 3.2.2005, and stated that the case of the publisher was placed before the Panel Advisory Committee, which did not find the paper suitable for DAVP empanelment.

Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee

The Committee considered the material on record and the oral

92 submissions of the representative of the DAVP. Although the complainant was not present, the attention of the Committee was drawn to the fact that in the meeting held on 5.2.2003, the Panel Advisory Committee of the DAVP did not find the case of the complainant suitable for DAVP empanelment due to poor printing, and that the complainant was required to apply afresh after improving the printing but she did not apply. No record was produced before to the Committee to establish as to how the DAVP had sent the communication to the complainant for applying afresh for DAVP rate contract. The Committee therefore directed the Secretariat of the Council to send a copy of the DAVP’s letter dated 3.2.2005 to the complainant for necessary action. The Committee, however, observed that it was unfortunate that though the decision in this regard was taken by DAVP as far back as in 2003, the complainant had not been requested immediately to take further action. The Committee further observed that the Press Council had sent a letter to the DAVP on 24.10.2002 for comments on the complaint of Smt. Saroj Verma, which was duly acknowledged as per A.D. Card, placed on record. The DAVP, for no reason, slept over the communication of the Council and sent its reply only on 3.2.2005. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the callous attitude of the DAVP in not responding to the Council’s communication promptly. The representative of the DAVP was directed by the Inquiry Committee to send to the Council the details of the newspapers, whose cases for empanelment were rejected by the DAVP on similar grounds.

The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties vide Secretariat’s letter dated 21.6.2005.

IInd Adjournment

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 26.7.2005. Neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared before it. Shri Pankaj Nigam appeared before the Committee on 27.7.2005 and apologized for his non-appearance the previous day. The representative of DAVP submitted that the complainant paper had not applied for empanelment after its application was rejected in the year 2003.

The Inquiry Committee, however, observed that it was necessary for it to be satisfied that the parameters of the Advertisement Policy of the Centre were being uniformly applied and there was no pick and choose, as alleged. The Inquiry Committee noted from the records that on the last occasion on 29.3.2005 when the matter was listed for hearing before it, the Committee had adjourned the matter with directions to DAVP to furnish the details of the newspapers whose cases for empanelment were rejected by the DAVP on the grounds of poor printing, but the DAVP had not complied with the directions of

93 the Committee. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, adjourned the matter with directions to the representative of DAVP to ensure that it furnishes the above details within two weeks from the date of hearing i.e. 27.7.2005. Director General, DAVP was reminded on 20.09.2005 and also requested to look into the matter personally and furnish the details, but no response. IIIrd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.10.2005. Shri Pankaj Nigam appeared on behalf of the respondent DAVP while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Pankaj Nigam appearing for DAVP requested for grant of one month time as the data required to be placed before the Inquiry Committee by DAVP had to be culled out from about more than 2000 files. While adjourning the matter, the Inquiry Committee directed the DAVP, through its representative to compile and send to the Council the requisite data at the earliest possible. Despite reminder to the DAVP issued on 12.12.2005 there was no response. IVth Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.1.2006. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side. Shri Pankaj Nigam, Assistant Media Executive appeared on behalf of the respondent DAVP. Shri Pankaj Nigam representing DAVP informed the Inquiry Committee that the list of papers whose applications for empanelment had been rejected was under compilation as they were filtering out the relevant cases. The Inquiry Committee observed that the list of papers rejected for empanelment sought by it was with regard to the papers rejected by DAVP due to poor printing pertaining to the relevant time and that this should not have taken so long. However, the Committee while adjourning the matter, directed that DAVP should supply the relevant information with samples within fifteen days. The respondent did not comply with the directions of the Committee despite being reminded vide office letters dated 21.3.2006 and 20.7.2006. Vth Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New

94 Delhi on 21.8.2006. There was no appearance before it from complainant’s side. The DAVP was also not present to provide reply to the issues raised by the Inquiry Committee in earlier meetings.

The Inquiry Committee expressed its deep concern over the attitude of the DAVP in constantly flouting the directions of the Inquiry Committee. It noted that the instant matter was adjourned four times to enable the DAVP to file details of the data that was material to the larger issue before it, i.e. the list of papers rejected due to poor printing at the point of time relevant to the complainant’s case. Despite reminders dated 21.3.2006 and 24.7.2006 the respondent DAVP did not bother to comply with the directions of the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to invoke its powers under Section 15 (1) of the Press Council Act to summon the relevant documents and information. The Inquiry Committee directed that the DAVP should furnish the relevant information within fortnight of the service of the summons and ensure at the next hearing the presence before the Inquiry Committee of the officer conversant with full facts of the policy decisions and enjoying the authority to take decision in the matter.

The summons were issued on 19.9.2006 to the Director General of DAVP, and the Directorate vide its letter of 27.09.2006 filed the list of 128 cases rejected on the grounds of poor printing.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Bal Krishan Verma, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Pankaj Nigam, Assistant Media Executive appeared for the respondent DAVP.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The counsel for the complainant submitted that even after fulfilling the requirement the DAVP was not issuing advertisements to Rani Jhansi Times. He further stated that the other newspapers who had very poor printing were being issued advertisements. The complainant’s counsel alleged that the DAVP had given rate contract and issued advertisements to the newspapers of the Jhansi region that were not visible in the area. He also produced issues of the paper for relevant period to satisfy the Committee of the quality of printing. He added that they have not received any letter from DAVP giving the grounds of rejection of the newspaper.

The representative of DAVP submitted that the DAVP had rejected the newspaper for rate contract on the ground of poor printing and intimation to this effect had been sent to the complainant newspaper on 4.9.2006 as regards

95 the list of 128 newspapers rejected on the basis of poor printing sent by the DAVP under the cover of its letter dated 27.9.2006. When the Committee pointed out that the complainant’s name did not figure in the list of cases rejected, the respondent’s representative agreed that the list pertained to the period till 31.7.2001, i.e. prior to the rejection of the complainant case in September 2001. He then averred that the circulation of Rani Jhansi Times was not established as per assessment by the RNI, which was another ground for rejection of the empanelment. The Committee noted that this ground was being cited for the first time before the Committee, and summoned the file of complainant paper. On perusal of the notings on file, the Committee was not satisfied on the bonafides of the rejection of the complainant case. The representative of DAVP then offered re-examination of the matter.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth by the representative of the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the original issues of the respondent newspaper, Rani Jhansi Times, produced by the complainant before the Committee, could not be said to be of poor quality printing. Thus, this ground of rejection taken by DAVP was not tenable. Juxtaposed with the file notings of the DAVP, the Inquiry Committee perforce was led to believe that the decision to reject the claim of the complainant newspaper was arbitrary and the newspaper had been deprived of the government advertisement without any reason and put to financial loss. The Inquiry Committee, while expressing its displeasure over the matter, observed that it was desirable and expected from DAVP that a proper scrutiny of the documents of the newspapers submitted to it for empanelment and rate contract should be made and reasoned decision be taken. The Committee observed that as custodian of the public money, the authorities are duty bound to ensure its use and distribution equitably and without discrimination. Having further taken note of the offer of the DAVP to have the matter examined, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to direct the complainant to apply afresh fulfilling the required formalities and the DAVP to re-examine the case of the complainant Rani Jhansi Times for grant of rate contract for the purpose of release of advertisement. The Inquiry Committee further recommended that its observations in the matter be brought to the notice of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting under which the DAVP functions.

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 25) The Editor Versus 1. Chief Secretary Lamba Safar Govt. of NCT of Delhi Hindi weekly Delhi Delhi 2. Director Directorate of Information & Publicity Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi

Complaint

This complaint dated 3/1/2006 has been preferred by the Editor, Lamba Safar, Hindi Weekly, Delhi against the Director, Information and Publicity, Govt. of NCT of Delhi alleging non-issuance of Press Accreditation Card due to prejudice. According to the complainant she had applied for accreditation card fulfilling all the requirements on 4/4/2005 to the Director, Information and Publicity, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In response, she was directed to furnish clippings of some news items/articles for the last three years which were provided by her to the Directorate of Information and Publicity, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Since then the respondent after every six months intimated that her case has been deferred by the Press Accreditation Committee for one reason or the other to its next meeting. Finally on 3/1/2006 she was informed by the respondent that her case will now be placed before the Press Accreditation Committee as all the formalities have been complied with relating to her case. The complainant alleged that due to malafide her application for accreditation had been deferred by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi time and again despite being complete in all respect. She further alleged that the respondent without examining the case and with the intention to harass her did not issue accreditation card. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Comments

Comments of the respondent Govt. of NCT of Delhi were invited in the matter on 3/4/2006. In response, the Dy. Director (Press), Directorate of Information and Publicity, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in his comments dated 25/4/ 2006 submitted that complainant’s case was placed before the Press Accreditation Committee on 8/9/05 and was kept informed about the progress of the case from time to time. At present the Press Accreditation Committee is not in existence and the action has been initiated to formulate the new Press Accreditation Committee. The case of the complainant will be placed before the newly Press Accreditation Committee’s forthcoming meeting for consideration.

97 A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 28/4/2006 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. Ms. Geeta Naresh, Editor, Lamba Safar appeared in person along with Shri Naresh Kumar Choubey while Shri Nalin Chauhan, Information Officer, SIP Delhi Government appeared for respondent.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that the respondent had been delaying the grant of accreditation to her on one ground or the other despite the fact that all the formalities had been fulfilled. The complainant requested that the directions may be issued to the respondent Directorate of take immediate steps for granting the accreditation to the complainant, Ms. Geeta Naresh without further delay.

The representative of the respondent DIP, submitted that the Accreditation Committee in its last meeting had asked the complainant to clarify her designation, whereupon the case for grant of accreditation would be cleared. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper, Lamba Safar, was being brought out by the complainant and her husband and they were frequently inter changing the designation which was causing confusion in considering the case. On receipt of clarification from the complainant accreditation would be issued to her.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material on record and the oral submissions made by the parties, directed the complainant to expeditiously meet the query of the Press Accreditation Committee and further directed the respondent Directorate of Publicity to clear the subjective grant of accreditation to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with these directions to the parties and recommended to the Council to close the case accordingly.

Decision of the Council

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

98 26) Shri Rama Shankar Prasad Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Correspondent, PTI Government of Bihar Nalanda, Bihar Patna

2. The Director Information & Public Relations Department Government of Bihar Patna Complaint Shri Rama Shankar Prasad, Correspondent of PTI at Nalanda, Bihar has filed this complaint dated 21.6.2004 against the Director and Assistant Director of Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar for alleged refusal to his Press Accreditation Card despite due recommendation and eligibility. The complainant submitted that being an accreditated correspondent of PTI from Nalanda District at Bihar Sharif since 1978 he had sent his press card No.530 issued on 26.12.1978 for renewal and computerization in the prescribed form to the District Public Relations Officer, Nalanda on 3.11.2003, duly recommended by the Bureau Chief of PTI, Patna. He has added that his application was forwarded to the Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Bihar, Patna by the District Public Relations Officer, Nalanda on 4.11.2003 but the respondent Director and Assistant Director were malafide, avoiding to issue the card in question. The complainant further mentioned that the Director, Public Relations Department-Shri Rajendra Choudhary and Assistant Director-Shri Syed Shamim Akhtar belong to Bihar Sharif and they developed some ill-will against him and were not in favour of duplicate accreditation card though he fulfilled the requisite conditions. Aggrieved with the unwarranted behaviour of the respondents, the complainant filed a complaint in writing to the Commissioner, Public Relations Department, Bihar but both the respondents made it their prestige point and did not even obey the directions of the Commissioner. The complainant further submitted that Accreditation Committee of the Public Relations Department, Bihar, Patna had also approved his name besides three others from Purnea on 23.2.2004 but the respondents issued the press cards only to the other three correspondents, ignoring him. The complainant alleged that the respondent maliciously and deliberately avoided issuance of Accreditation Card, which apparently amounts to curtailment of the freedom of press.

99 Notice for Statement in Reply dated 14.1.2005 was issued to the Chief Secretary and Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for their comments in the matter. Statement in Reply The Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide his comments dated 21.4.2005, submitted that as per rules the Information & Public Relations Department issues press passes only to district level correspondents who are employed full time and/or appointed working actively in any news agency/newspaper/electronic media. Since the complainant, Shri Rama Shankar, Correspondent, PTI, Nalanda (complainant) is a part time correspondent for Bihar Sharif in Nalanda district working for PTI the State Government was unable to issue him Accreditation Card. The respondent also filed photocopy of the letter dated 31.3.2002 issued by the Bureau Chief, Patna of PTI substantiating the contention that he is a part time correspondent of PTI. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 2.5.2005 for information/counter comments, if any. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 16.5.2005 while denying the comments of the respondent submitted that the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Bihar had misled the Council. He submitted that the information provided by the respondent could not be implemented on him as his press card was 27 years old. Reiterating his original grievance the complainant submitted that the Accreditation Committee of the State Government had recommended/ approved his name for issuance of press card but the officials of the respondent department did not issue press card being prejudiced towards him. He alleged that the respondent department had adopted dual policy which amounts to curtailment of the freedom of press. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 5.7.2005. Further Reply from the Respondent The respondent-Director, I&PRD, Government of Bihar, vide his letter dated 8.9.2005, submitted that the Accreditation Committee had recommended to renew the complainant’s press card with the condition that the same could be issued after inspecting the validity of the relevant documents/papers. Since the complainant’s documents were not found as per the rules, the department was unable to provide new press card to him.

100 A copy of the respondent’s reply was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 16.9.2005. Matter Adjourned When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006, Shri K.R. Sharma, Assistant Director, Department of I&PRD, Bihar appeared for the respondent authorities. The complainant vide his fax dated 14.7.2006 expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to illness. The representative of the respondent requested for adjournment on the ground of incomplete instructions. Acceding to the request of the parties the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for being placed before it at one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Krishna Ranjan Sharma, Assistant Director, I&PRD appeared on behalf of the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent officer submitted that the complainant was not a full time correspondent of the PTI and he had not given any proof of his appointment such as a salary slip. The respondent further submitted that Press Accreditation Committee had asked the Directorate of I & PRD to examine the case after the computerization of all the data. According to the respondent, the 13 members Accreditation Committee is set up in the State and the Director is one of the members of Press Accreditation Committee. According to the policy of the State Government of Bihar, the accreditation is given to the four representatives of State level newspapers and one to the District level newspapers. The respondent’s representative submitted that after all computerization of data, it came to the notice that the complainant was part time correspondent of PTI. Since the complainant’s documents were not found as per the rules, the department was unable to provide new press card to him. Recommendation of Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and submissions made before it. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was a journalist of long standing accredited for the last 27 years and his case for renewal of accreditation card was pending since 2003. The Committee also noted that the Press Accreditation Committee has recommended the case of the complainant for grant of accreditation card. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the complainant’s application warranted consideration and could be considered by the Press Accreditation Committee under the accreditation to journalists

101 belonging to “Long and distinguished category”. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to direct the complainant to apply afresh for the year 2007-08 with complete documents. His application may be examined and decision taken thereon within two months from the date of application. As per procedure he may also be noticed for an opportunity to establish his case. It further observed that the government is duty bound to extend the facilities for coverage of news to bonafide journalists within the parameter of a fair and non-discriminatory policy. Therefore, the State Government may if necessary amend its policy with the objective, taking help, if required, from the model policy drawn up by the Council. This may be done under intimation to the Council. The case may be disposed off in accordance with the above 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.

27) Mitthu Prasad Agarwal Versus 1. Chief Secretary Correspondent Govt. of Bihar, Patna Dainik Sunmarg 2. Director Suppol, Bihar I & P R Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. District Public Relations Officer Suppol, Bihar

Complaint

This complaint-dated 6.6.2004 has been filed by Shri Mitthu Prasad Agarwal @ Hariprasad Agarwal, Suppol, Bihar, Correspondent of ‘Dainik Sunmarg’ against the District Public Relations Officer, Suppol, Bihar alleging harassment by not issuing him Railway Concession Coupon.

The complainant, an accredited journalist under the State government since 1978, submitted that the Eastern Railway issued an order dated 20.2.2003 concerning Railway Concession to the accredited journalists residing beyond 25 Kilometres from Headquarters. He has alleged that he had applied several times for Railway Concession Coupon, but the respondent, District Public Relations Officer, Suppol, Bihar ignored his application. The complainant added that the attitude of the respondent is not justified and amounted to curtailment on the freedom of the press.

102 Notice for Statement in reply were issued to the State government through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar and the District Public Relations Officer, Suppol on 31.3.2005.

Statement in Reply

The respondent-District Public Relations Officer, Suppol (Bihar) in his comments dated 13.4.2005 has submitted that after receiving the request of the complainant regarding issuance of concessional coupon by railway, his application was forwarded on 29.8.2003 to the Station Superintendent/Station Master, Suppol requesting them to grant the concessional coupon to the complainant and the same was received by the railway authorities on 4.9.2003. Thus rejection of the complainant’s request to forward his application to the railway authorities for concessional coupon doesn’t arise. The respondent while referring to the complaints made by the complainant to District Magistrate, Suppol and Lokayukta has reiterated that they had already written to the railway authorities regarding issuance of concessional coupon to the complainant as per rules. The respondent has stated that he himself is a part of the press therefore curbing its freedom by them doesn’t arise. He has submitted that he holds the complainant and the press in high respect and if the complainant contacted him or the Station Master, Suppol regarding the issue of concessional coupon the issue could have been resolved.

The respondent further stated that the complainant is not an accreditated journalist as the accreditation of all the journalists of the State has been cancelled w.e.f. 30.12.2003. As per Press Representative Act, the complainant has not renewed his accreditation.

A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant directly by the respondent.

Counter Comments

Vide his letter dated 22.4.2005 addressed to the Director of Information & Public Relations, Suppol, the complainant denied the statement of the respondent that he did not renew his press accreditation card. In this connection, the complainant submitted that the respondent may be directed to show their Despatch Register to the Council whereas he is ready to show his Identity Card. The complainant further submitted that the statement of the respondent that had he contacted him (DIPR) or the Station Superintendent, Suppol there could not have been any confusion is also false and baseless. The complainant submitted that he did not receive information from any level of the government department regarding cancellation of accreditation of the correspondents. The

103 complainant denied the allegation of the respondent that he has no connection with journalism. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 11.8.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. Shri K.R. Sharma, Assistant Director, Department of Information & Public Relations, Government of Bihar appeared before the Committee. The complainant vide his letter dated 20.6.2003 submitted that he was an old man of 83 years and was orthopaedic patient. He further submitted that he was an accredited correspondent. He reiterated that directions may be issued to I&PRD for renewal of accreditation card and to the railway authorities for issuing him the concessional coupons as per rules. Matter Adjourned The Committee considered the material on record. It noted that the grievance of the complainant was against the railway authorities for non- issuance of concessional coupons. The District Public Relations Officer had informed the Council that he had forwarded the application of the complainant to the concerned railway authorities, which was duly received by them. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to direct the concerned authorities to issue railway concessional coupon to the complainant if he fulfils the requisite criteria within a fortnight. The Committee further decided to direct them to file an Action Taken Report to the Council. The matter was adjourned to await compliance. As per directions of the Inquiry Committee, a letter dated 29.08.2006 issued to the respondent authorities to file an Action Taken Report in the matter. The Under Secretary, Government of Bihar vide his letter dated 17.10.2006 forwarded a copy of reply of the Secretary, Information & Public Relations Department, Bihar, Patna for information and necessary action. It was submitted in the reply that only accredited journalist could avail the railway concessional coupons and the complainant was not an acreditated journalist. As per the provisions of the Press Accreditation Rules, 1985 and Amendments 2004 accreditation could only be granted to the State level and District level journalists on the recommendation of the Press Accreditation Committee and sub-district level journalists are not entitled to avail accreditation. Moreover the newspaper summary had also denied having employed the complainant as a journalist. Therefore, the Information & Public Relations Department, Bihar did not provide facility to railway concessional coupon to the complainant.

104 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for the consideration before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Krishna Ranjan Sharma, Assistant Director, Information Centre, New Delhi appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The complainant in a letter dated 27.11.2006 requested the Council to forward his case to respondent District Relations Officer for fresh course of action. The complainant also requested to exempt him from appearing before the Inquiry Committee due to ill health.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The respondent officer submitted before the Inquiry Committee that the Accreditation was being granted at state level upto the District level journalists. The journalists of sub-divisional level are not entitled for accreditation. He was, however, entitled to accreditation at district level if he fulfilled other criteria. The accreditation to the complainant was given in the year 1998. The respondent further submitted that they had inquired from the concerned newspaper i.e. Sunmarg and it was found that the complainant was not employed by the Sunmarg as a journalist.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the matter noted that the rules framed by the Government of Bihar did not permit to grant accreditation to the journalists of sub-divisional level. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the newspaper Sunmarg had already denied having employed the complainant as a journalist, as per statement given by the respondent authorities. The complainant on the other hand prayed for his case being forwarded to the concerned officer for accreditation. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to direct the complainant to file a fresh application duly supported by all the documents for consideration of the state authorities. The state government may process this as per rule and take an equitable decision.

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 28) Shri Arun Nath Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor/Publisher Government of Tripura “Tripura Observer” Agartala Agartala, Tripura 2. The Secretary Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism Government of Tripura Agartala

3. The Director Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism Government of Tripura Agartala

Complaint

Shri Arun Nath, Editor/Publisher, “Tripura Observer”, Agartala, Tripura has filed this complaint dated 5.10.2005 against the Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Government of Tripura alleging non-upgradation of his newspaper, “Tripura Observer” for the purposes of release of government advertisement. According to the complainant, his newspaper attained the Status of “A-1” category in terms of the advertisement policy of the State Government in the year 2001, as per certificate issued by the RNI on 13.11.2002, but by sheer abuse of power, the respondents avoided the grant of the said “A-1” category to his newspaper. The complainant submitted that upgradation of a newspaper was allowed by the government on the basis of the recommendation made by a Review Committee constituted under the Provisions of Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules, 1998. The Review Committee is headed by the Secretary, ICAT and it duly considered his case and found it fit for upgradation to “A-1” category, but, unfortunately the government remained mischievously silent to the positive recommendations of the Review Committees while other newspapers easily attained their upgradations without any hurdle.

The complainant had earlier filed this complaint on 13.2.2004 against the Government of Tripura on the same issue but later on withdrawn it for taking the matter to the High Court. The complainant, however, prayed for being allowed to pursue again with the Council and a letter dated 16.11.2005 was issued to the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism (ACA&T) and Director, ICA&T, Government of Tripura seeking action taken report in the matter.

106 As per the complainant, from the various affidavits submitted by the State Government before the Hon’ble High Court, the following facts had come to surface:- i) The Review Committee finally decided and recommended upgradation of the complainant newspaper to Grade “A-1” in its meeting dated 13.01.2003. ii) To accommodate some other newspapers, the Advertisement Policy of the Government was amended on 29.9.2004. iii) By a Notification, the Government dissolved the Review Committee and dropped the recommendations made by the Review Committee. This Notification was brought out on 29.10.2004. iv) “Aajkal” (Bengali daily) was awarded “A-1” Grade on 17.12.2004 without the recommendation of the Review Committee. v) “Bartaman Tripura” (Bengali daily) upgraded from “B” Category to “A” Category after the dissolution of the Review Committee. vi) The Government in its reply took the plea of financial paucity for non-granting the grade to the complainant, though it liberally awarded such Grade to other newspapers even without the recommendation of the Review Committee. The complainant also drew the attention of the Council to the Notification dated 29.9.2004 and 29.10.2004. Whereas the earlier Notification pertains to amending the policy to accommodate newspapers of its choice the latter relates to cancelling the recommendation in favour of the complainant without assigning any reason or without giving any opportunity to him. The Director, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism Department, Government of Tripura, in its letter dated 23.1.2005 stated that upgradation of newspapers of Tripura was regulated by the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules 1998 which came into force w.e.f. 01/12/1998. As per that policy the proposal of upgradation of one category to other was processed by this Directorate for obtaining the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted by the State Government and thereafter, the proposal as recommended by the said Review Committee was placed before the State Government for consideration. Recommendations of the Review Committee dated 1.4.2002 had been placed before the State Government on 01.04.2006 but no decision was taken in respect of giving provisional higher categorization to Tripura Observer. It was stated in the letter that Tripura Observer did not fulfil all the eligibility criteria for being upgraded to Category “A-1” in 2000/

107 2001. It had been categorically mentioned in Advertisement Policy of the Government that the newspaper must have paid circulation of more than 10,000 copies for being upgraded to “A-1” Category including other criteria. Tripura Observer had submitted latest circulation certificate showing 11,828 of sold circulation only on 18.11.2002. The respondent further stated that meeting of Review Committee was again convened on 13.01.2003 and issue of upgradation of Tripura Observer along with some other newspapers was also discussed. The Review Committee recommended provisional categorization to Tripura Observer for “A-1” category on the condition that it should continue to hold its present status in respect of size, number of page, circulation etc. in future. Thereafter the recommendations of the Review Committee was further placed before the State Government for consideration, but the State Government did not accept the recommendations and said Advertisement Policy was under review of the Government and no decision was taken. The Government on 01.04.2004 enhanced the rate of advertisement. Due to limited resources of the State, the Government had amended the existing Advertisement Policy vide order dated 29.09.2004. Criteria for upgradation of category of newspaper as per amended policy are reproduced below: “For upgradation of newspaper from one category to other, the department will examine the proposal on the basis of circulation certificate (not more than 1 year old) from RNI/ABC. Keeping in view the fund position and thereafter if fund permits the proposal may be placed before the State Government with the recommendation of the Review Committee for consideration”. Keeping conformity with this amendment of Advertisement Policy, the State Government decided to dissolve the existing Review Committee for re- organization of the same and also disapproved the recommendation of the said Committee. The respondent further stated that Review Committee in its meeting held on 13.01.2003 had also recommended three other newspapers for upgradation along with Tripura Observer, but the State Government had not considered the above recommendations of the Review Committee. So there was no question of discrimination with the Tripura Observer. The respondent stated that as per Government Advertisement Policy one of the eligibility criteria of “A-1” and “A” Category is that they must have 70% sales agents in all District Head Quarters, 50% in Sub-Divisional Head Quarters and 50% in Block Head Quarters. The respondent further stated that it has come to light that while Tripura Observer submitted a copy of the circulation certificate issued by the RNI

108 showing sold circulation of 11,828 to the Directorate on 18.11.2002, on the other hand, the said newspaper submitted a circulation certificate of Chartered Accountant to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. showing its circulation more than 54,000. It further came to the notice that the Senior Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in a letter addressed to Tripura Times categorically mentioned inter alia the said circulation figure of Tripura Observer. There was reason to doubt the correctness of the circulation figure as furnished by the Tripura Observer to this Department. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. Shri Arun Nath, Editor, Tripura Observer, the complainant was present in person. Shri Nishakant Pandey, Advocate, represented the respondent Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Government of Tripura. The counsel for the respondent requested for an adjournment on the plea that they are awaiting proper instructions and more documents. The complainant submitted that he was worried about the attitude of the respondent government as they were bent upon destroying his paper. The complainant submitted that he had spent Rs.15,000/- to attend the hearing and he had no means to come again for the hearing. The Inquiry Committee after considering the submissions of the parties and as the counsel for the respondent was not posted with all the facts of the matter, gave a conditional adjournment to the respondent with directions that the respondent government will bear the travel expenses of the complainant by his usual mode of travel, incidental expenses, and provide boarding/lodging to the complainant for the next hearing at Delhi. The Inquiry Committee further directed that the respondent government be officially apprised of the directions. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were also intimated to both the parties vide office letter dated 30.03.2006. Letter from the Complainant The complainant vide his letter dated 10.05.2006 informed the Council that he had suffered a loss of about Rs.30 Lakh since January 2003 onwards due to non-implementation of the Review Committees recommendation. The complainant prayed the Council to look into the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.08.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. Shri Rituraj Biswas, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Government of Tripura.

109 The complainant submitted that the Government of Tripura had framed Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules 1998 providing for upgradation of a newspaper from Category ‘A’ to ‘A-1’ subject to fulfilment of the criteria prescribed. His newspaper fulfilled the conditions of upgradation from ‘A’ Category to ‘A-1’ Category. The Review Committee constituted by the Government had recommended for his upgradation as special case. The Government had, however, not taken any action. The Review Committee again recommended on 13.1.2003 for upgradation but the government did not take any action. Instead, the policy was amended to do away with the provision, yet the upgradation was extended to some newspapers to favour them.

Shri Rituraj Biswas, Advocate for the respondent Government of Tripura submitted that the recommendations of the Review Committee were not binding on the government. The government had received documents to show that the complainant was claiming a fake circulation. Subsequently, advertisement policy had been amended due to financial paucity and the complainant did not file fresh application. The complainant’s case was not that his paper was deprived of the advertisements. The complainant paper was being given advertisements. The only point was of upgradation. The complainant had given circulation certificate of year 2002, whereas the circulation certificate of year 2003 was required at that time. Moreover, the circulation figure of the complainant paper was not found reliable after a departmental inquiry.

On the point of costs awarded on the last occasion, the complainant submitted that he had not been paid any ‘costs’ as the government had informed him that they would seek review of the direction.

The Inquiry Committee noted that the Government of Tripura had formed a Review Committee and later dissolved the Review Committee in October 2003. In the meantime, some newspapers were granted upgradation. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, suggested to the State Government of Tripura to consider the case of upgradation of the complainant newspaper from October 2004 on the basis of material already submitted by the complainant. The complainant was also directed to file statement of circulation of 2004-05 filed before DAVP. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent State Government to take a decision in respect of the complainant’s case within six weeks from the date of submission of circulation certificate by the complainant. Both the parties were directed to send the compliance report to the Council. The government was also directed to ensure payment of the costs awarded on the last hearing.

The complainant in his letter dated 17.10.2006 stated that he had submitted a fresh proposal for upgradation of his paper, Tripura Observer vide

110 his letter dated 25.8.2006 but the Director, ICAT, Government of Tripura informed him that they will take action only after getting communication from the Press Council of India. The complainant in his letter dated 23.10.2006 intimated that the Director, ICAT was not complying with the directions of the Inquiry Committee because they had not received any communication from the Press Council of India. The action taken report was called for from the Government of Tripura vide office letter dated 27.9.2006 followed by reminder dated 6.11.2006. The reminder was given to the complainant by hand at New Delhi for serving the same to the State Government of Tripura. The complainant served the letter to the respondent on 13.11.2006 and submitted the service report. There was no response from the respondent State Government of Tripura. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. The complainant Shri Arun Nath appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent State Government of Tripura. The complainant submitted that his periodical is first English daily newspaper with present circulation of 21000 copies. The State Government of Tripura had not taken a decision despite his repeated letters and communications from the Press Council of India. The requisite documents as directed by the Inquiry Committee on last occasion had been filed in the Directorate of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism. The complainant further submitted that the cost imposed on the State Government by the Inquiry Committee had also not been paid to him by the respondents. The complainant submitted that after dissolution of the Review Committee, the State Government had taken decision to empanel and upgrade four newspapers, namely, (1) Aajkal on 16.12.2004; (2) Bartman Tripura on 30.12.2004; (3) Ajiker Fariyad on 20.6.2005; and (4) Arohan on 1.6.2005. The complainant added that the Ajiker Fariyad, was launched on 15.4.2005 which was empanelled within two months of its publication whereas the mandatory criteria provided for empanelment after three months. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee At the very outset, the Inquiry Committee took serious note of the non- appearance of the respondent State Government of Tripura and its falure to depute any representative to clarify the stand of the Government before the Inquiry Committee. Further, the Inquiry Committee noted with displeasure that the State Government of Tripura had not acted on its assurance following oral

111 directions to consider the case of the complainant newspaper for upgradation for making payment of cost of adjournment to the complainant.

On merits, the Inquiry Committee, on consideration of the material on record, noted that the Government of Tripura had drawn up a policy in 1998 to provide for upgradation of newspapers for the purposes of advertisement release. This policy had been amended/withdrawn in Sept 2004 due to limitation of resources. It was within the competence of the state government to take this decision in public interest. However, while the policy was in force, the government as custodian of public money, was mandated to expend it equitably and justifiably without any discrimination or favour. It is necessary that the action of the authorities are transparent and devoid of any element of pick and choose. In the instant case, the government has been unable to satisfy the Council that it acted bonafide in not upgrading the complainant paper as per the provisions of the policy. Furthermore, the complainant has named four papers which were allowed the benefit of the policy after it had been withdrawn, in one case, even before the paper could complete the incubation period. To the Inquiry Committee, it, therefore, appeared that the government was using public money as its personal bounty distributed at own whims. This agitates against the very basic tenets of the functioning of a democratically elected government and appears to be a covert tool to pressurize the press towards the use of ‘friendly pen’. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, having considered the matter, recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint of Tripura Observer with the above observations under Section 15(4) of the Press Council Act, 1978, and direct it to implement its policy, vis-à-vis, the complainant as it stood before its withdrawal in September 2004, after taking into account the circulation claim for the relevant years. It further recommended to the Council that a summary of this adjudication may be released to the press, particularly, the Tripura press, for being brought to the notice of the public.

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: Letter dated 11.1.2007 of Director, ICAT, Government of Tripura seeking adjournment on the ground that the Government of Tripura was organising statehood day on 21.1.2007, was received after the hearing.

112 29) Shri Mintu Bhowmik Versus 1. Chief Secretary Editor/Publisher Government of Tripura Hachukni Kok Agartala Agartala, Tripura 2. The Director Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of Tripura Agartala Complaint This complaint dated 23.9.2005 has been filed by Shri Mintu Bhowmik, Editor/Publisher, Hachukni Kok, Kokborok daily (minority language paper) published from Agartala (Tripura) against the Director, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala regarding refusal to upgrade his newspaper “Hachukni Kok” from category “C” to “B” for the purpose of the release of advertisements since the State Government is against the Kokborok language people and did not want to see their survival. According to the complainant, he had applied on 14.5.2001 for upgradation of his newspaper from “C” category to “B” category fulfilling the requisite criteria laid down in the Tripura State Government Advertisement Policy to the Director, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Govt. of Tripura. The Review Committee recommended his newspaper for upgradation for “C” category to “B” category on 13.1.2003 and sent its recommendations on 14.1.2003 to the Hon’ble Information Minister, ICAT Department for necessary approval. The complainant submitted that after two months he met the Hon’ble Minister with a request to approve the decision of Review Committee, who, assured him to approve the same. The complainant also met the Hon’ble Chief Minister for intervention in the matter but the government neither rejected the recommendation of the Review Committee nor implemented it due to which he had been deprived of advertisements as per “B” category and suffered heavy financial losses. The complainant also alleged that due to influence of the CPM Party the State Govt. is not taking necessary steps for upgradation of his newspaper. Comments of the Chief Secretary and the Director, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Government of Tripura, Agartala were invited in the matter on 11.11.2005. Comments Shri S.K. Chaudhury, Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of Tripura in his comments dated 27.12.2005 stated that the matter

113 of upgradation of newspapers of Tripura is regulated by the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules, 1988 and as per this policy the matter of upgradation of “Hachukni Kok” from “C” to “B” category was placed before the Review Committee for examination and thereafter the recommendations of the Review Committee were further placed before the State Government for consideration which did not approve the recommendation of the Review Committee. The respondent further stated that the State Government meanwhile amended the existing Advertisement Policy and now the criteria for upgradation of category of the newspaper is as follows:- “For upgradation of newspaper from one category to other, the department will examine the proposal on the basis of circulation certificate (not more than one year old) from RNI/ABC. Keeping in view the position and thereafter if fund permits the proposal may be placed before the State Government with the recommendation of the Review Committee for consideration.” The respondent further informed that in conformity with the aforesaid amendment in the Advertisement Policy, the State Government decided to dissolve the existing Review Committee for its re-organization and also disapproved the recommendation of the said Committee on 29.10.2004. Further, so long the process of re-constitution of the Review Committee is underway no decision can be taken for upgradation of any newspaper. Further, publication of the newspaper ‘Hachukni Kok’ is irregular and the complainant was directed to disclose the reason for its irregular publication to which it was stated that due to some unavoidable reason the regular publication of ‘Hachukni Kok’ was not possible in month of April, May and August. According to the respondent that in view of the facts explained by him, the instant case may not be linked as curtailment of freedom of press. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 2.1.2006 submitted that the amendment made by the State Government to its advertisement policy was impractical since it is not feasible for the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) to issue the circulation certificate every year. He further submitted that due to financial crisis they were not in a position to publish their newspaper regularly and further unable to appear before the Inquiry Committee of the Council to place the facts before it. He alleged that the respondent Government disapproved the recommendation of the Review Committee without assigning any reason, which is illegal and unethical. Further, the ICAT Department after disapproval of the recommendation of the Review Committee enlisted ‘Ajker Fariad’, ‘Bartaman Tripura’ and ‘Aajkal’ for advts. and issued advts. regularly. The complainant requested the Council to direct the State Government to

114 upgrade their newspaper ‘Hachukni Kok’ w.e.f. 13.1.2003, the day Review Committee recommended upgradation of the newspaper. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent Government of Tripura on 12.1.2006 for information. Further Reply of the Respondent The respondent-Director, ICAT in his counter-rejoinder dated 6.2.2006 to the counter comments of the complainant while reiterating their comments submitted that “Aajker Fariyad” newspaper was an old weekly newspaper enlisted with ICAT as “C” category weekly newspaper. The said newspaper has been converted from weekly to daily from 15.4.2005 and applied for upgradation but it could not be considered due to dissolution of the Review Committee. The respondent submitted that according to the new policy, local newspaper will be enlisted for the first time in “C” category and for subsequent upgradation the recommendation of Review Committee is necessary. In regard to ‘Bartaman Tripura’ newspaper the respondent submitted that the said daily newspaper was down graded from “A” category to “B” category w.e.f. 25.11.2000 as it was printed in letterpress and its printing was not legible. Besides production of the newspaper was not also up to the mark. The editor had appealed to the Press Council to restore the category of the newspaper and the Council in its verdict categorically mentioned that the editor after improving quality of his newspaper may apply for upgradation. Meanwhile, ‘Bartaman Tripura’ upgraded his printing status with off set printing from 1.4.2004 and in compliance with the verdict of the Press Council the matter was considered. The respondent further stated that as far as “Aajkaal” case is concerned the State Government decided to enlist local edition of outside newspanb pers with ICAT for issue of advts. subject to fulfilment of specific criteria with a view to encourage publication of local edition of outside newspapers. The respondent submitted that recommendation of the Review Committee is not applicable in the case of ‘Aajkaal’ as this is not a case of upgradation. The newspaper has been enlisted with same “C” category as daily newspaper from 20.6.2005. The respondent concluded that since the complainant’s newspaper has been found irregular for more than one month, therefore, it cannot be enlisted in the approved list for Government Advertisements as per the Advertisement Policy. A copy of the communication dated 6.2.2006 of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 27.2.2006 for information. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant editor, Hachukni Kok in his letter dated 10.01.2007 intimated his inability to attend the hearing due to financial constraint.

115 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee At the very outset, the Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the failure of the respondent State Government of Tripura to depute any representative to clarify the stand of the Government before the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee, on consideration of the material on record, noted that though it could not accept the strong charge that the State government is against the Kokborok language people and does not want to see their survival, if found that the newspaper had been recommended for upgradation by government’s own Review Committee which would have satisfied itself about the eligibility of the paper for it. The Inquiry Committee advised the respondent State Government of Tripura to follow an equitable transparent policy in the use of public money.. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to direct the State Government of Tripura to consider the case of Editor, Hachukni Kok, Agartala, for upgradation of the Hachukni Kok to “B” category as found fit by the Review Committee constituted under Tripura Accreditation Policy Rules, 1998. 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.

30) Shri Debajit Bhattacharjee Versus 1. The Chief Secretary Editor/Publisher Government of Tripura ‘Nabapanji’ (Bengali weekly) Agartala Agartala, Tripura 2. The Director Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism Government of Tripura Agartala Complaint Shri Debajit Bhattacharjee, Editor/Publisher, ‘Nabapanji’, Bengali weekly, Agartala has filed this complaint dated 3.2.2006 against the Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Govt. of Tripura for not upgrading his weekly to category ‘B’ from category ‘C’ and thereby violating the government policy in respect of the weekly newspapers.

116 The complainant has submitted that his weekly ‘Nabapanji’ is being published in “off set category” since 7.3.2004 and its circulation has touched 5,890 copies per week. Accordingly, he informed the RNI and wrote a letter dated 29.3.2004 to the respondent Director for upgradation of the weekly but no action has been taken despite issuance of several reminders since then and the latest reminder on 29.6.2005. After one-and-a-half year, he was informed vide letter dated 8.8.2005 that the Review Committee which was constituted for upgradation of newspapers stood dissolved without finalization of the new Committee and therefore no decision can be taken for upgradation of any newspaper before finalization of the new Review Committee. Further, according to the Government Advertisement Policy, there is no provision to upgrade any newspaper on “adhoc basis”. The complainant submitted that as per the Government policy any newspaper/periodical which will be enlisted for the first time will be enlisted in ‘C’ category. If the newspaper/periodical satisfies the criteria laid down in this policy for ‘C’ category status, Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Govt. of Tripura will be competent to enlist such newspaper/periodical in ‘C’ category. However, for any subsequent upgradation of category, the proposal will be processed by the Director and placed before the State Government for consideration on the recommendation of the Review Committee. The complainant alleged that despite furnishing all the documents to the respondent in respect of his prayer, he had neither received upgradation nor ‘off set’ rate of publication as per government policy of advt. for small newspapers in Tripura. The complainant further alleged that the respondent had adopted vindictive attitude towards his weekly. The complainant submitted that his weekly has qualified the eligibility criteria for upgradation to ‘B’ category i.e. paid circulation, production-standard, page of publication, print area, reader class etc. as stated in the Government Advertisement Policy of Tripura. Thus there was no scope for the Director to take unfavourable decision of his claim. The complainant avers that the Director, ICAT has to consider his prayer for upgradation of category to the Review Committee being constituted by the State Government with the following persons:- 1. Secretary, ICAT 2. Labour Commissioner 3. Director, ICAT 4. One Senior Journalist 5. Concerned Officer of the ICAT Department

117 As four members out of five are officers being in service under Govt. of Tripura, whose comments could have been easily invited any time by the Director, decision of the majority may be taken before finalisation of the new Review Committee. According to the complainant, the statement of the Director that no decision can be taken for upgradation of his newspaper is untrue as some weekly newspapers and one daily newspaper had been upgraded into ‘B’ and ‘A’ category respectively despite pendency of constitution of the new Review Committee. The complainant alleged that due to unjustified attitude of the respondent he has been facing great financial crunch. The complainant has submitted that his weekly could have been upgraded subject to finalisation of Review Committee. Comments of the Chief Secretary and the Director, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism Government of Tripura, Agartala were invited in the matter on 10.4.2006. Comments The Director, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Govt. of Tripura in his comments dated 10.5.2006 while denying the allegations of the complainant, submitted that earlier the proposal for upgradation of the “Nabapanji” from ‘C’ category to ‘B’ category was placed before the Review Committee on 13.1.2003 but his case was not considered because the newspaper was not found to have made improvement of its earlier status. He submitted that the State Govt. amended the existing advt. policy vide Order dated 29.9.2004 and now the criteria for upgradation of category of newspaper as per amended policy is as follows:- “For upgradation of newspaper from one category to other, the department will examine the proposal on the basis of circulation certificate (not more than one year old) from RNI/ABC. Keeping in view the fund position and thereafter if fund permits the proposal may be placed before the State Govt with the recommendation of the Review Committee for consideration”. The respondent further submitted that in conformity with the aforesaid amendment of advt. policy, the State Govt. decided to dissolve the existing Review Committee for re-organization of the same. As per advt. policy of the State Govt., the newspaper must have circulation of not less than 2,000 copies for ‘C’ category and not less than 5,000 copies for ‘B’ category. The Editor, Nabapanji submitted a circulation certificate from RNI showing 2,639 copies of circulation in 1994 and another from Chartered Accountant showing 5,890 copies of circulation in 2004. He did not give any certificate from RNI in support of his increased circulation.

118 However, it was observed from the letters of Press Council addressed to the Editor, Nabapanji dated 9.6.2003, 11.6.2004 and 10.6.2005 that the above increased circulation figure was available with the office of the RNI. When the newspaper concerned submitted the increased circulation from Chartered Accountant in 2004, how was this available with RNI in 2003? Why could the Editor, Nabapanji not submit circulation certification from RNI instead of Chartered Accountant? To justify it the respondent has filed copies of the letter of Press Council of India relating to levy of fee. The respondent stated that though the circulation figures, shown by the newspaper indicated a large readership, but they received reverse information from the field. Their district officers are ignorant of any circulation network of the paper in some districts whereas as per policy, the newspaper should have network in the district. He further stated that as per policy of the govt. all ‘C’ category newspapers are paid @ Rs.18/- per col. cm. as cost of advt. Nabapanji was also being paid at similar rate. So there was no question of deprivation. Thus the allegations made by the complainant were baseless and fabricated. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 12.6.2006. Counter Comments The publisher of Nabapanji in his counter reply dated 11.9.2006 has stated that the Director, Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism, Government of Tripura had given misleading statement. The proposal for upgradation of his newspaper from ‘C’ category to ‘B’ category was not placed in the meeting of Review Committee. The Director had only informed the complainant that the Review Committee had been dissolved. The complainant submitted that he had applied thrice for RNI circulation certificate on 2.8.2004, 1.9.2004 and 15.10.2004 but got no response. The complainant stated that yearly levy of fee paid to Press Council of India could have been the base of circulation, which the Director, ICAT could take into consideration. According to the complainant the newspapers i.e. Aajkal and Bartman Tripura had been upgraded by the Director, ICAT of his own. A copy of the counter reply was forwarded to the Director, ICAT, Government of Tripura on 25.9.2006. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.1.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant editor, Nabapanji, Bengali Weekly, in his letter dated 05.01.2007 intimated his inability to attend the hearing due to financial constraints.

119 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material on record noted that case for the newspaper for upgradation had not yet been considered on merits by the authorized committee despite lapse of several years. It observed that while the government is duty bound to apply its policy decision equitably to all, the procedures should also not be lost sight of. In the instant case, since the state government had not been able to place reliance on the circulation figures provided by the complainant, it should have on its own recommended circulation check by the RNI, so that the paper was not denied what could have been its right. The complainant had stated that he had thrice applied to the RNI for circulation certificate which had not been provided. Therefore, the Inquiry Committee recommended that the State Govt may be asked to immediately move the RNI for circulation check for the relevant years, and if the claim is established, the paper should be empanelled in the relevant category. However, insofar as pecuniary benefits are concerned, such decision may not have any retrospective effect. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the case with the above 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.

31) Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain Versus 1. Chairman Chief Editor Railway Board Daily Urdu Action, and New Delhi Daily Hindi Action Bhopal, M.P. 2. Director Information Department Railway Board, Rail Bhawan New Delhi

3. General Manager West Central Railway Jabalpur, M.P.

4. Divisional Railway Manager West Central Railway Bhopal Division Bhopal, M.P. Complaint Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain, Chief Editor, Daily Urdu Action and Daily Hindi

120 Action, Bhopal has filed this complaint dated 14.2.2006 against the Divisional Railway Manager, Bhopal alleging denial of payment of the advertisement bills pending since 1997 and resorting to partiality and injustice in releasing the advertisements. The complainant submitted that bills amounting to Rs. 13,140/- for Daily Urdu Action and Rs. 9,103/- for Daily Hindi Action were submitted just after publishing the advertisements of W/c Railways DRM Office, Bhopal during the years 1997-2004 but payment remains pending despite the numerous reminders to all the concerned officials. The complainant alleged that the concerned officers, Sr. DEN, DRM, Bhopal had not only withheld the payment of advertisements but also stopped advertisements to his newspapers. He alleged that the action of the respondent amounted to an open partiality and discrimination. According to the complainant, the total amount of his advertisement bills along with surcharge from the date of billing as per rules is as under:- 1. Daily Urdu Action- Total amount of Advertisement bills with surcharge-Rs.82,769/- 2. Daily Hindi Action- Total amount of Advertisement bills with surcharge-Rs.70,442/- Total amount of Rs. 1,53,211/- is due up till now which is to be paid by Railways. The complainant requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent for adopting partiality and injustice towards him and also direct him to make payments of all pending bills without any delay and release advertisements to his newspapers without partiality. Comments of General Manager, West Central Railway The General Manager, West Central Railway Jabalpur in his comments dated 12.4.2006 while denying the allegation that advertisements had been stopped to the complainant’s newspaper, submitted that during the last two financial years i.e. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, 40 advertisements had been issued to the complainant. To justify his claim, the respondent filed a list of the advertisements issued to the complainant during the aforesaid period. Regarding non-payment of the advertisement bills, the respondent submitted that all the 12 such bills were for the period from 1997-2001. According to the respondent, West Central Railway had been constituted on 1st

121 April, 2003 rejoining the three zones i.e. Bhopal, Jabalpur and Kota. Prior to this, Bhopal zone was a part of the Central Railway and at that time advertisements were being released to the newspapers directly by Advertising Engineering Division. Since all the pending bills were related to the tenure prior to the constituting of the West Central Railway, Engineering Division of Bhopal zone was intimated to take action and then the complainant was asked to provide duplicate bills. However, instead of furnishing the duplicate bills, he threatened to approach the court of laws. The respondent appealed to the Council to ask the complainant to provide duplicate bills so that payment could be made accordingly. A copy of the reply was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 19.4.2006. Communication from the Ministry of Railways The Deputy Director, Public Relation, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Government of India vide letter dated 19.4.2006 addressed to the General Manager (PR), West Central Railway, Jabalpur with a copy to the Council advised the West Central Railway to settle the matter expeditiously and to submit the action taken report thereof. Vide a copy of the letter to the complainant, the Deputy Director (PR) requested him to contact Chief Public Relations Officer, West Central Railway, Jabalpur for further action in the matter. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.5.2006 denied the statement of the respondent, West Central Railway that advertisements were being issued to the Daily Urdu Action and Daily Hindi Action. The complainant stated that 10 Departments of the Divisional Railway Manager had stopped advertisements to Daily Hindi Action for the last three years and five departments had not issued any advertisements to the Daily Urdu Action. Rest of the five departments had issued total 7,396 sq.cm. advertisement to the Daily Urdu Action and that showed only one advertisement in a month. The complainant submitted that after filing this complaint only a small advertisement had been issued to the Daily Urdu Action in March 2006 and later it was totally stopped whereas other newspapers were continuously getting classified as well as display advertisements. The complainant further alleged that the respondent had misled the Council by making a statement that the payment could not be made due to reconstitution of the West Railway zone. According to the complainant, Divisional Railway, Bhopal had not been reconstituted.

122 Reiterating his original complaint, the complainant submitted that he had furnished many duplicate copies to various railway officers as and when desired but to no avail. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 6.6.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 27.2.2007. The complainant, Shri H.H. Majid Hussain appeared in person, Shri Anil Jain, PRO and Shri Anti Sharotriya, Head Clerk appeared on behalf of the respondent railway authorities. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent had not made the payment of his bills despite the fact that he had visited the officer of Divisional Railway Manager. The complainant stated that his office was burnt and damaged by the fundamentalists and therefore he was unable to compile the record and was unable to submit the duplicate bills again though he had already provided copies at least three times. The complainant requested that the respondent might be directed to pay arrears of his advertisement bills with interest. The respondent submitted that the bills of the complainant had been misplaced and he was requested to submit duplicate bills so that payment could be made. In the absence of duplicate bills it was not possible for them to release the payment. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the respondent office would have in its own records the release orders and if they had misplaced the bills, this was no reason for the complainant to suffer. It accordingly directed the respondent to make the payment of bills within a month from the date of hearing after taking affidavit from the complainant affirming the publication of the said advertisements and that he had not been released the payment for the advertisements published in the newspaper. In case of over payment the same may be adjusted in future. The Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint as settled 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.

123 Principles and Publication

32) Shri Shaikh Nisarahmad Versus The Editor Shermohammed Apla Maharashtra Dhule Dhule Maharashtra Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 18.2.2005 has been filed by Shri Shaikh Nisarahmad Shermohammed against “Apla Maharashtra”, Dhule for publication of allegedly misleading news item in its issue dated 28.12.2004 captioned, “Green Zone lifted despite opposition from opposite party” (English translation). Relevant English translation of news provided by the complainant reads as follows: “Meanwhile, avoiding the opposition of opposite party, the subject of reservation of green zone has been sanctioned ————— Reservation on Green Zone has been lifted.——————————— The subject of land of K.K. Developers sanctioned despite Opposition. Subject of conversion of green zone into residential zone Despite opposition by opposite party and BJP, has been sanctioned.” The complainant has stated that the land bearing Dhule Survey No. 430 and 432 reserved as green zone is proposed for modification under Section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. This section neither empowers to any Municipality to lift or vacate or evict any reservation nor has any meaning of lifting reservation. The complainant has stated that passing of resolution under Section 37(1) of M.R.T.P. Act means that the municipality would publish a notice for any objection or suggestion for any minor change in the Town Planning and follow the laid down procedure before affecting any charge. The complainant has stated that the editor committed professional misconduct by publishing such ambiguous news intentionally to favour an individual and to cause loss to the public in general. The complainant has submitted that conversion of Green Zone into residential Zone or any modification is not possible under Section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have quashed such type of conversion in their various judgements. The complainant has submitted that the deceitful news has a tendency to create misunderstanding among the people that the reservation has been

124 lifted. If the people remain under the wrong impression, they may not possibly get back their amount. The complainant has requested for expeditious disposal of the complaint as the subject is gravely concerned with Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Stockhome Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment Act and Article 21, 47, 48A and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant has submitted that he had issued a rejoinder on 31.1.2005 to the Editor, Apla Maharashtra and requested the editor to publish factual position so that the misunderstanding among the public is removed but the respondent editor did not take cognizance of his rejoinder. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Apla Maharashtra on 18.5.2005. The respondent editor, Apla Maharashtra in his written statement dated 8.6.2005 has submitted that the complainant has already filed complaint against the respondent, regarding the same subject matter with the Hon’ble Collector and District Magistrate, Dhule, before filing the present complaint and the same matter is sub-judice before another competent forum. The respondent has submitted that the complainant is not having any locus standi to file this complaint, as the complainant is not concerned with the immovable property, which is the subject matter of the news. The respondent has submitted that the subject matter of the news published was immovable property, which is agricultural lands marked as green zone, which cannot be converted into non- agricultural lands without the prior permission of the Collector, Dhule. This process is challenged by the opposition party in Dhule Municipal Corporation and the same was included in the agenda of the meeting. But prior to this discussion and prior to getting sanction from the competent authority for change of user, one K.K. Developers started sale of the plots of agricultural lands assuming that the same land is converted into non-agricultural lands and layout is sanctioned. The respondent has submitted that in order to attract the public at large K.K. Developers published advertisement in daily newspapers of Dhule District and offered the sale of plots by schemes of installments. The respondent has submitted that this was illegal sale of plots by which no title could pass to any proposed purchaser. This type of illegal offer was continuously published and money was being collected from the public at large, the respondent has submitted. The respondent has submitted that this illegality and cheating was the subject matter of the news item in question. The respondent has submitted that this news was never published with intention to mislead the public but public was made aware about the misdeeds of K.K. Developers. The respondent has submitted that the K.K. Developers is cheating the public at large and collecting money from the poor persons and this illegal act of K.K. Developers

125 was published in order to protect the interest of public at large. The respondent has submitted that if whole news is read it will high light on the fact that news is about the discussion of the subject matter of the meeting of Dhule Municipal Corporation and no one is misled by the said news till today. The respondent has submitted that this complaint had been filed only to harass them. The respondent editor, Apla Maharashtra has submitted that it is false and incorrect that before filing complaint, complainant drew the attention of the respondent. The respondent has submitted that by publishing the news they informed the public regarding the illegal act of conversion of the disputed agricultural land into non-agricultural land and its procedural part as the same was false as prior to this procedure plots were being sold, therefore, there is no reason to believe that a newspaper has offended the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or the editor has committed any professional misconduct. The respondent has requested the Council to reject the complaint with cost.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.8.2005 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2005 Shri Dipak S. Patil, advocate represented the respondent newspaper while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The counsel appearing for the respondent filed an affidavit of the complainant. The complainant had in the affidavit stated that since the respondent had shown him the clarification regarding disputed headlines he had no complaint against the editor. He prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the complaint.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

In view of the request of the complainant, the Committee allowed the matter to be withdrawn. It recommended to the Council to close 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

126 33) Shri Deepak Chhabria Versus 1. The Editor Chairman Times of India Employment Promotion Mumbai Council of Indian Personnel 2. The Editor Mumbai Mid-Day Mumbai Complaint Shri Deepak Chhabria, Chairman, Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personnel, Mumbai in a letter dated 19.4.2004 to the Council has submitted that the EPCIP is a recognized and registered body of overseas Recruiting Fraternity. The complainant, who looks after various interests of its members, has submitted that their members and other Registered Recruiting Agents are crying hoarse over the direct advertisements given by Foreign Employers to recruit personnel as they claim the advertiser is given a free hand to advertise and lure candidates for jobs. According to the complainant, the Foreign Employers are required to obtain necessary permission from Indian mission abroad to advertise for personnel in India. He has averred that the media plays an active role in helping such advertisers by publishing their advertisements. He also referred to the matter to the Press Council by the Central Government regarding publication of such unauthorized advertisements in the media and the consequential guidelines drawn up by the Press Council in 2003 for the benefit of the media. He asserted that the guidelines were not being abided by the media. The complainant specifically pointed out that The Times of India and Mid-Day newspapers, by allowing publication of direct advertisements given by foreign employers and unauthorized agents for overseas jobs in the issues dated 7.4.2004 and 11.4.2004, clearly violated Emigration Act and Rules framed thereunder. The complainant requested the Council to take suitable measure to contain the unwarranted act of newspapers/dailies to publish illegal and unethical advertisements. The instances of such publications supported by documents are as follows: Times of India – (1) “Vacancies in Nigeria” by Mr. R P Singh, Agro Allied Development Ent. Ltd. New Delhi. Issue dated 11.4.2004. (2) “Required for a leading plastic company in Sharjah/UAE” by the AGM (Plants), UAE. Issue dated 11.4.2004. The complainant also furnished, at later stage, the clipping from the Times of India encaptioned: “Work in the UK!” by [email protected]. Issue dated 12.9.2004.

127 Mid Day – “Urgently required hotel staff for UK” by Hopes Forever Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Issue dated 7.4.2004. The complainant in his another letter dated 17.7.2004 addressed to Minister of Labour, Government of India and the Editor, Mid Day had stated that in the news items captioned: “High Risk, high reward” under the columns ‘Jobs Abroad’ appearing in Mid Day, details of employment opportunity in Iraq, along with the risks and rewards involved were given. The complainant objected to the news for the fact that the Government of India had already stopped granting any sort of emigration clearance to those wishing to immigrate to Iraq. The complainant has, in the interest of safety of Indian citizens requested that the newspaper be directed to desist from publishing such news to stop recruiting agencies taking advantage of the news story. Comments of the respondent editors, The Times of India and Mid-Day were invited on 5.7.2004. Comments of The Times of India The Deputy Chief Manager-Secretarial & Legal, The Times of India in his comments dated 7th August 2004 has submitted that they have not committed violation of any provision of any law and of Section 24(4) of Emigration Act, 1983 in particular. The respondent has submitted that there is no specific allegation against them referring to specific advertisement in the captioned complaint and as such they are unable to deal with the same. The respondent has submitted that the complaint is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 14.12.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Mid-Day on 14.12.2004 for failing to file comments. The respondent editor, Mid-Day has not filed any reply. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters were taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006. The complainant Shri Deepak Chhabria, appeared before the Committee along with Shri O.P. Bhardwaj, Vice Chairman, EPCIP and Shri R.A. Bangera, Protector of Emmigrants, Ministry of Overseas & Indian Affairs while Shri Avinash M. Dube, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Mid Day. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, The Times of India.

128 The learned counsel for the Mid Day requested for adjournment on the plea that he received the papers only a day before and thus he was not aware of the facts of the case. The Inquiry Committee declined the request for adjournment and decided to proceed with the matters on its merits. The complainant was directed to put forth his arguments. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his written and oral submissions stated that the publication of direct advertisements given by foreign employers for overseas jobs by the newspapers was in violation of the Emigration Act, 1983 and Rules. He added that as per the procedure prescribed under Sections 15 and 16 read in conjunction with Section 19 of Emigration Act 1983 no employer shall recruit any citizen of India for employment in any country or place outside India without a valid permit issued by the competent authority authorised to issue such permit. Employers failing to adhere the procedure are liable to face penalties under Section 24 of the Act. It is further provided in the said Section 24 (4) of the Emigration Act, 1983 that whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, it be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence. The Council had also issued guidelines for the press prescribing the procedure for verification of the genuineness of the advertisement received by it. He requested the Council to give directions to the newspapers with regard to publication of direct advertisements for foreign employment. The complainant alleged that the newspapers were abetting the crime and indulging in irresponsible act. The representative of Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs submitted that the government acted against such advertiser under the provision of the Emigration Act, but there was no provision in the Act for action against the media carrying the advertisement. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral submissions advanced before it by the complainant and the government representative. The Committee noted that despite the guidelines of the Press Council of India issued in July 2003 regarding advertisements for overseas recruitments, some of the newspapers continued to publish advertisements given by the foreign employers directly or though unauthorized agents. The Inquiry Committee referred to the guidelines issued as far back as on 28.7.2003, which read: “The Press is advised to ensure that the advertisements of foreign employers for employment outside India are accompanied by the following particulars: a. Registration Certificate Number/Permit Number of the advertiser;

129 b. Full address with Telephone Number, Post Box Number, e-mail address these could be given addition to the full address but not as the mode of communication; c. Statement that no fee towards processing application or for any other purpose shall be charged from the applicant; d. Name of the Posts/jobs; e. Number of position/vacancies in each category; and f. The salary offered to each category of job. “In case of any doubt, the publisher may also ask for copies of Demand Letter and Power of Attorney supposed to have been given by the foreign employer or sponsor to an agent, on the basis of which the said advertisement is being released. “Also, clarifications may be sought from the Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi or from the offices of the Protector of Emigrants located at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin, Chandigarh and Hyderabad. “The list of registered recruiting agents is also available on the website of the Ministry of Labour.” The Committee expressed its unhappiness that despite legal provisions and ethical guidelines, some section of the media continued to carry the advertisements. The Committee observed that the media shouldered a heavy responsibility in protecting the gullible job seekers from falling prey to unscrupulous elements that exploited persons after clandestinely sending them abroad. Over the past few years, several such instances had been exposed by the media itself. Therefore, rejecting the illegal advertisements would be positive contribution by the media to a social cause espoused by it, by not lending credence to the unauthorized recruiters. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to advise the press in general and the two respondents before it in particular, to direct their advertisements department to accept advertisement relating to overseas job opportunities only after satisfying themselves that the advertiser was duly registered with the Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of Labour and the registration number was cited in the advertisement. The Committee also recommended to the Council to advise the aforementioned department of the Government of India to amend Emigration Act to make the media publishing the advertisement also liable for promoting the illegality. It should simultaneously create an awareness amongst the public on the issue through advertisements campaign in newspapers periodically. The above steps would be in larger interest of the public as well as the media, the Committee observed.

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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

34) Ms. Kiran Ram Moghe Versus Pune Times M/s Stree Mukti Andolan (Supplement of Times of Sampark Samiti India) Pune, Maharashtra Pune, Maharashtra Complaint This complaint-dated 29.6.2004 has been filed by Ms. Kiran Ram Moghe, a representative of M/s Stree Mukti Andolan Sampark Samiti, Pune against the Pune Times (a Supplement of Times of India), Pune for publication of an article captioned: “When the Boss gets Flirty” in its issue dated 3.6.2004. It has been highlighted in the impugned article that - “Feeling the heat about your boss being hot on you? Warding off your boss’ advances without getting fired is not impossible says Shabana Patker”. The impugned article observes - If your boss is hitting on you and is hell-bent on satisfying his carnal cravings, there’s very little you can do to get out of the sticky situation while keeping your job intact. Still here are a few things you can try. Hunk Hire Rent a six-foot plus beefcake to pretend to be your boyfriend/brother/ lover. Make sure he’s waiting to pick you up as you and your boss leaves the office. Hopefully, the sight of his bulging biceps under his bursting-at-the- seams t-shirt scares your boss of his amorous intentions! Ring Thing Buy a rock of a zircon diamond and wear it prominently on your left hand. Gush about your ‘fiancé’ every time your boss is within earshot and display his pictures on your soft board. This should work up to a point. To be on the safe side, conjure up a real fiancé fast. City Jump If you can put in for a transfer to an office in another city, now would be the time! You could try a city in the same country and if you work for an MNC. Heart Ache You could explain patiently to your boss that due to a heart defect your

131 cardiologist has banned you from indulging in any strenuous activity-sexual or otherwise. Just remember not to brag about your daily two-hour workout sessions to your colleagues. STD Scare As a last resort you could also whisper shame-faced into his ear that you’ve contracted congenital herpes and are on medication. If that doesn’t put him off, nothing will. Jokes aside, now for some serious advice. Try being completely honest with him. Tell him that his overtures make you very uncomfortable and that you do not see him in sexual light. You could soft pedal the rejection (and keep your job) by telling him your intense respect for him and his distinguished manners make him a father figure in your eyes. If absolutely nothing works, start looking for a new job, hopefully with a female boss. If the same thing happens with her, then button your blouse baby – you’re in trouble! The complainant, who represented a joint platform of several organizations working on women’s issues, has submitted that the article in question is objectionable because it misguides women about their right to a safe work environment. The complainant has submitted that the said article not only does not mention the 1997 Supreme Court guidelines issued in the ‘Vishakha’ case, but also trivializes the problem by providing ‘laughable’ solutions to what is actually a serious crime against women. The complainant has submitted that at the very beginning, the article states: “There’s very little you can do to get out of the sticky situation while keeping your job intact.” In fact the Supreme Court judgment is particularly clear that women who complain of sexual harassment cannot be victimized by the management and has issued clear guidelines for the protection of the complainant. The complainant has submitted that instead of encouraging women to stand up against harassment, and seek recourse to the existing law, the article trivializes the issue and provides “amusing” alternatives such as “rent a six- foot plus beef-cake” or “buy a rock of zircon diamond”, which are neither serious nor effective legal and practical measures to deal with the problem. The complainant has submitted that the tone and tenor of the these so-called solutions is that women need to turn to men for protection, either in form of bodyguards or fiancées or husbands, etc. The complainant has submitted that in other words, the article reinforces the stereotype that women are incapable of independently protecting themselves, and need men to look after their

132 interests. She has submitted that even the “serious advice” given at the end of the article fails to mention the guidelines and their provisions for Complaint Committees that are mandated to be set up at every workplace, instead, women are advised to talk to the man, and if that fails simply quit the situation. The complainant has submitted that the writer has assumed that sexual harassment is a simple offence that can be easily sorted out by a friendly discussion. She has submitted that the writer seems to have failed to understand that most women are not only embarrassed, but also fearful of articulating the fact that they are sexually harassed, precisely because they may lose their job. The complainant has further submitted that their attempt to draw the attention of the respondent in the matter met no concrete response. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 9.2.2005. The Times of India in its written statement dated 18.3.2005 filed through the Legal Department has submitted that Bennett Coleman and Co. Limited owns many reputed publications including The Times of India, The Economic Times, Maharashtra Times, Navbharat Times etc. It has submitted that The Times of India regularly publish various educative and informational articles may it be relating to commerce or health or women. He has submitted that they have published innumerable articles relating to sexual harassment of women. The respondent has submitted that the article written in Pune Times, which is the subject matter of the complaint was a light headed, ludicrous and humorous material meant for light reading. The respondent has denied that the said article was highly objectionable as alleged or otherwise. He has submitted that on reading the article any person of normal prudence would come to the conclusion that it is meant for light reading with the intention to generate humor. The respondent has submitted that The Times of India has covered the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in Vishakha’s case prominently on the front page on 14th August 1997, i.e. on the very next day of when the judgment was pronounced. The respondent has submitted that thereafter, on many occasions, they have published various articles on the said issue. The respondent has submitted that no case has been made out for the Press Council of India to ban the publication of Pune Times. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.4.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006. Ms. Kiran Moghe, the complainant was present before the Committee, accompanied by representatives of several other organizations, while Shri M.S. Yande, advocate represented the respondent newspaper.

133 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that the impugned article was in violation of the guidelines of the Supreme Court laid down in 1997 in ‘Vishahka’ case. The respondent had tried to trivialize the problem of sexual harassment at work place. It was misleading to suggest that nothing can be done to protect the dignity of the women. She further submitted that a representation to the editor was made who advised them to view the satire as in a lighter vein. The complainant pleaded that media has its social responsibility. The complainant averred that since their organization was dealing with such cases of victimization on regular basis, they felt that such light hearted attempts to laugh away the issue, caused a serious hindrance in dealing with real cases. She prayed that the Times of India should publish an apology for bringing out such an irresponsible article.

The learned counsel for the respondent newspaper submitted that The Times of India was a paper widely read by all and they tried to cover all matters that readers may find of interest. While their paper regularly carried serious articles on the problems of victimization at workplace, the impugned article published in the Pune Times supplement was written in a lighter vein and needs to be seen in proper perspective.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the parties. It noted that the impugned article touched on an issue that was required to be dealt with extreme sensitivity. There is indeed a tendency to laugh away or closet the problems faced by the women at the workplace and the issue has been put in proper perspective only with the judgment of the open court in the “Vishakha” case. A lot remains to be done to create awareness of the action areas and the print media can play a laudable role in the matter. The respondent claims to have published innumerable articles, reports in this direction, which is worthy of appreciation. However, it is, at the same time, necessary to ensure that these efforts are not undone by simultaneously treating the subject lightly. Therefore, the Committee felt that the editor erred in selecting the impugned piece for publication. Furthermore, having been apprised of the views of the complainants (who also form the readers of the paper and their views should be as valuable for it) it did not take any corrective steps or give any weightage to it, and , in fact, is reported to have advised the complainant to take the article in the lighter vein, thus trivializing the issue. The Committee felt that it would have appreciated the offer even now by the paper to make amends by publishing the views of the complainant in the paper.

134 In the circumstances, the Committee held that the respondent The Times of India, Pune, had infracted the norms of journalistic conduct by publication of the impugned report in the Pune Times, and then denying the complainants’ their right of rejoinder. For the above, the Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure The Times of India, Pune, the editor concerned and the author of the impugned article. It further recommended that a copy of the Council’s adjudication be sent to the DAVP, the RNI, the State Information Department and the Deputy Collector, Pune, for such action as deemed fit at their end. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

35) Shri Sanjay Bhusreddy, IAS Versus The Editor Special Secretary Dainik Hindustan Town & Country Planning Department Lucknow, U.P. And Executive Director of Awas Bandhu Lucknow Complaint This complaint dated 13.2.2004 has been filed by Shri Sanjay Bhusreddy, IAS, Special Secretary, Town and Country Planning Department and Execuitve Director of Awas Bandhu, Government of U.P. Lucknow against “Dainik Hindustan”, Lucknow for publication of an allegedly false and baseless news item under the caption “ +ÉÉ{ÉnÉ |ɤÉxvÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +É]ãÉ-àÉÉänÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉÉÒbÉÒ” (Atal-Modi’s C.D. on Disaster Management) and box item captioned “ºÉ´ÉÉãÉÉå {É® JÉÉàÉÉä¶ÉÉÒ” “Silence on Queries: in its issue dated 28.1.2004. The impugned news item states that in the backdrop of a poem “Haar Nahin Maanunga-Kaal Ke kapaal Par Likhta Mitata Hoon” Prime Minister Vajpayai appears on the screen with the Chief Minister of Gujarat. This C.D. was not shown in any political rally but was shown to the correspondents who had been invited to a workshop on ‘Earthquake and Disaster Management” organized by the Awas Bandhu, U.P. The impugned news item further states that this workshop was organized to discuss about the programme being conducted jointly by Union Government and UNDP under which Disaster Management Authorities are proposed to be set up in 38 cities of the country. Prior to discussions on the aforementioned subject Sanjay Bhusreddy, the Executive Director, showed this C.D. to demonstrate the statistics relating to relief operations conducted after the Bhuj Earthquake. In this movie it was

135 shown that how many buildings were damaged, the extent of causalities and its impact on health, transport and communication infrastructure and how the government tackled these problems. It has also been stated that during the screening questions were raised that if only statistics were proposed to be shown, the same could have been shown without the presence of political people. Replying to this Shri Reddy stated that “you should concentrate on the statistics only and ‘edit’ the remaining part”. This CD has jointly been prepared by Government of India and the International agencies like UNDP. The box item raised questions which it said had remained unanswered. The officers do not have answers to question regarding earthquake management and government orders issued on the same:- (a) How do people know that the buildings, in which they are buying a flat, is having disaster management measures. What is the guarantee of a Structural Engineer’s Certificate? (b) How a general Government order will be effective when the multi- storeyed building are being constructed in localities without sanctioned maps and even after sealing of the buildings? (c) Even after the issuance of G.O., several buildings have come up which do not have earthquake resistant measures. Whether any action will be taken against the erring engineers of the Development Authority? The complainant has averred that impugned news item ignored the important issues and intent and purpose of workshop and highlighted an incomplete questioning aspect to give it political colour. He stated that a workshop had been organized by the Awas Bandhu and many representatives of the media had been invited to the workshop in which a C.D. was shown on earthquake of Bhuj followed by a discussion as to how the government tackled these problems. The complainant has submitted that all other leading newspapers published the true facts but the respondent published false and baseless imputation and gave importance to unnecessary things. The complainant has submitted that he had written to the respondent on 28.1.2004 but did not get any 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 on 28.6.2004. In response, the respondent has submitted that it is quite unfortunate that the Government is totally unwilling to accept a true and correct report of the proceedings of the meeting held on 27.1.2004 and has sought to raise a

136 non-existent issue before the Council to the effect that appropriate attention has not been given to the achievements of the Government and stress has been laid on the C.D. exhibited at the meeting which featured the former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajapai and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. The respondent has stated that the Press cannot give a wrong report or mislead the public but within its sphere, it has the discretion to focus its attention and the attention of the public to such issues as, in its opinion, are of relevance and need to be brought to public knowledge. But at the same time, the press cannot be made a mouthpiece of the government and cannot be directed or required to report events or news in the method and manner which is palatable to the government. The respondent has submitted that the press cannot be taken to task simply because what is seemingly unimportant to the government officials is projected in the forefront in the press cover. Similarly, it is never the requirement of the law that all the discussions and debates to which the press is invited must be reported in full and in manner required by the authorities. If this were to be so, it would be the end of press freedom. The Government would only have to bring about press release and all newspapers would be obliged to reproduce the same. The respondent has submitted that it is also an admitted position that the press can fairly criticize the government for its acts and omissions and unless and until the report is malafide or malicious or intended to cause injury or is misleading or untrue, such fair criticism is protected by the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The respondent has further submitted that in view of the facts, the complaint of the complainant, a senior I.A.S. Officer, that the respondent did not mention the achievements of the government as projected in the meeting held on 27.1.2004 cannot be a basis to take punitive action against them. The respondent has submitted that except the first paragraph, the remaining paragraphs give a fair description of the proceedings and the claims of the department have been fairly represented by them. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has wrongly taken exception to the first paragraph of the impugned newspaper report. It is true, as a fact, that the CDs did contain the footage as mentioned in the first paragraph. It is also an admitted position that it was possible, may desirable, to have a CD which focused on real term achievements rather than having political overtones to the same. It cannot be denied that the CD depicting political leaders was not something indispensable and they were within their right to bring its point of view to the knowledge of the public. The respondent has informed that the other newspapers had given a more detailed and exhaustive coverage to the press meeting held on 27.1.2004. Hence the entire gamut of facts were made available with the public, therefore, it cannot be said that the public was sought to be misled. The respondent has submitted that no prejudice, injury or harm has been caused to the government, which should have in normal course taken this criticism in fair stride. The respondent has submitted that it was never its

137 intention to conceal or mislead or be party to partisan political contentions. The respondent has submitted that the report does not in any manner violate the norms of journalistic conduct. The respondent has prayed that the inquiry against them be dropped. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.4.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. The complainant Shri Sanjay Bhusreddy was present in person, while the respondent newspaper remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He added that the CD was shown to the reporters in the workshop to show the steps taken by the government towards the Disaster Management. It had no political overtones. Such reporting discouraged the officers from taking initiatives to matter of public importance. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On going through the written records and the oral arguments advanced before it by the complainant, the Inquiry Committee observed that the role of media assumes great importance during disasters in the country. It noted that the impugned report had been written in the background of the workshop organized by the government and the UNDP to increase an awareness among the public about the issue through the media. This was an appreciable action. The impugned report tended to lay emphasis not on the information provided but on the screening prior to the discussion, in a dramatized manner. The matter also had to be seen in the light of the then forthcoming elections. The Committee accepted that the newspaper has the right to report matters as per its own perception but at the same time it is necessary to abide by the universally accepted canon of journalistic conduct that news and views should not be mixed. In the instant case, this distinction had not been maintained. Undesirably news is sacred and views are one’s own. Therefore, while the Committee did not feel any action necessary in the matter under Section 14(1) of the Act, it recommended to the Council to advise the respondent to take care that all sides of a core issue are reported and news and views are presented in a distinct and clear manner. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

138 36) Shri Ravi Kumar Versus The Editor Chairman Autocar India Calcutta Motor Sports Club Mumbai Kolkata Complaint This complaint dated 24.12.2004 has been filed by Shri Ravi Kumar, Chairman, Calcutta Motors Sports Club Ltd., Kolkata against ‘Autocar India’ an automobile magazine from Mumbai for publication of allegedly false information and non-publication of a booklet/souvenir for nationwide circulation as a supplement along with the September 2004 issue of the magazine. According to the complainant, the Motor commenced with an inaugural run on the 28th August 1904 from Calcutta to Barrackpore and the Calcutta Motor Sports Club desired to celebrate the centenary of Motors Sport in India and in this regard decided to issue a booklet/souvenir based upon articles, photographs and news clippings of Motor Sport in India during the last 100 years. The complainant has submitted that after several discussions, the respondent Autocar India Magazine committed to publish booklet/souvenir for circulation as a supplement along with the September 2004 issue of the magazine nationwide on the occasion of the Calcutta Motor Sports Club (CMSC) celebrating the centenary of Motor Sports in India, on the condition that the complainant’s club would give to the respondent magazine a scoop and an exclusive on the original article covering the First Event of Motor Sport in India one hundred years ago for the magazine’s 5th Anniversary issue of September 2004. The complainant has alleged that prior to the receipt of the complimentary copies of the magazine, they purchased the magazine from bookstalls and found that the magazine was being sold without the supplement booklet/souvenir that had been promised. He also alleged that the reason for the souvenir/booklet not being published and circulated along with the magazine as promised was evident from an article in the said issue of the magazine containing statements contrary to the facts that were available with the respondents. The correct information, on where motor racing began in India, was provided by the complainant’s club to the respondent, in the form of clippings of news article dated 14th December, 1958 and 20th November 1960. That information from these articles was carried in the booklets/souvenir sent by the respondent to the complainant. The complainant has also objected to a news article captioned ‘Tracking Success’ published in the respondent’s magazine of September 2004 issue and has alleged that the author George Francis deliberately and dishonestly printed the impugned article which stated that motor racing started in Madras. Had the booklets/souvenir along with the magazine published as promised, this false

139 article concerning the origins of motor racing in India could not be foisted and misinformation perpetrated on the Indian public and the distorted fact published in the magazine would have made the industry a laughing stock among readers. They had a clear choice to publish the article with the false facts and deliberately and fraudulently did not publish and circulate the booklet/souvenir with September 2004 – 5th anniversary issue of the magazine. The complainant has submitted that e-mail was sent i.e. ‘Letters to the Editor’ but it was neither acknowledged nor published in the magazine. The complainant alleged that such professional misconduct is offensive to the standards of journalistic ethics as per Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act and requested the Council to take action in the matter. Written Statement A show cause notice to the editor, “Autocar India” was issued on 10.2.2005. In his written statement dated 24.2.2005 the respondent Editor, “Autocar India” denied that the magazine was responsible for any action which could be considered a professional misconduct offensive to the standards of journalistic ethics either under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978 or otherwise or at all. The contents of the complaint are misconceived, false, incorrect and contrary to the contents of the documents, upon which the complainant seeks to place reliance. The complainant has not made out any case much less a prima facie case to invite an inquiry as contemplated under Section 14(1) of the Act and the complaint ought to be dismissed in limine. The respondent has submitted that they agreed to publish and provide a booklet/ souvenir on the occasion of the complainant celebrating the centenary of Motor Sports in India without any financial contribution from the complainant. The respondent has denied that the same was in consideration for any “scoop” as alleged in the complaint. The information allegedly provided by the complainant as the alleged “scoop” is not information exclusively available with the complainant and the complainant has made false statements for ulterior motives. In fact, they should have pointed out, that they had given full support to the CMSC by taking steps to raise sponsors for the souvenir. The respondent has submitted that the complainant was well aware that the response of the sponsors was not as expected and that they would be bearing the cost of the souvenir themselves. Given this position, they had discussed with the complainant the possibility of sending them only 2000 copies of souvenir, which would be a slimmer version of what was originally planned. The complainant had, as set out in its e-mail dated August 20, 2004 addressed to the editor, Autocar India, agreed that they would receive only 2000 copies of the souvenir for distribution to the Press and others during their celebrations. In addition to the fact that it had not been possible to raise the necessary sponsorship monies, respondent pointed out that they were provided with the logos from the complainant well

140 behind schedule in spite of the fact that they were informed of the requirements in advance. This further delayed the publishing and dispatching of the souvenirs along with the anniversary copy of the magazine since the anniversary copy of the magazine was ready for distribution before the souvenirs were ready due to the delay in receipt of the logos. The respondent has submitted that due to Nationwide Trucker’s strike, which was not an event which either they or the complainant could have controlled, they were not in a position to send too many complimentary copies of the magazine “Autocar India” which they had agreed to send and had to limit the numbers given the weight of each magazine. In spite of all these obstacles the 2000 souvenir booklets were supplied in time for the CMSC celebrations. The respondent has submitted that the magazine has kept up its promise against all odds in spite of the fact that the complainant did not monetarily contribute to the publication of the souvenir and where, in fact, they had to publish the same at their cost to cover the lack of sponsorship money. The respondent has submitted that an article titled ‘Turn of a Century’ was published on page 206 of the September 2004 edition of the magazine. The article ‘Turn of a Century’ was in-house article which stated that the first motor race in India was ‘the 1904 Inaugural Run of the Bengal Automobile Association’. The article ‘Turn of a Century’ ends with the statements “……………The Calcutta Motors Sports Club officially took the mantle of Motorsport activities from the BAA in 1950. As regards the article ‘Tracking Success’ written by Mr. George Francis, the respondent has submitted that Mr. George Francis, is a freelance journalist who writes for a variety of publications and they do not endorse any message that the Madras Motor Sports Club or any other sports club is the first Motor Sports Club as allegedly set out in Mr. George Francis’ article. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.3.2005 for information. Complainant’s Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 12.5.2005 reiterated that the failure on the part of the respondent was deliberate. The offer of publication of the booklet/souvenir for circulation as supplement along with the September 2004 issue of the Magazine nationwide was without expecting any consideration at that time, or treating the article as consideration. If the amount raised exceeded the cost of publication, the respondent had offered in writing to equally share the profit with the complainant club. The complainant has submitted that the respondent had never informed the club of the purported delay. The complainant also stated that the respondent’s statement about truckers’ strike was not relevant which could affect the respondent’s ability to deliver the promise. The complainant further submitted that the complainant

141 club kept secret about the September issue of Auto Car Magazine carrying the news of centenary, which can be borne out by the fact that not a single automobile magazine being published anywhere in the world carried the fact about the centenary because the complainant kept its promise exclusively with the respondents. As regards article of Mr. George Francis, the complainant alleged that the respondents had commissioned him to write and thus the actions of the respondents were predetermined, deliberate and intentional designed to mislead and were in bad faith. The complainant requested the Council to record its strongest disapproval of the fraudulent and dishonest conduct of the respondent and censure and admonish the Magazine and its editor and journalist. Adjournments The matter was adjourned on three occasions on the request of the respondent on 27.5.2005, 28.7.2005 and 7.2.2006. Final Hearing The matter was taken up for final hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. The complainant, Shri Ravi Kumar, was present in person, while Shri Nikhil Sakhardande appeared for the respondent Auto Car India, along with Shri Hormadz Sorabjee, Editor. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Reiterating the submissions made in the complaint, the complainant added that the article was a deliberate attempt to damage the reputation of Calcutta Motor Sports Club. The author of the article, George Francis dishonestly gave the wrong information that the Motor racing started in Madras. The respondent also failed to keep its promise by not publishing the souvenir along with the magazine. He added that the President of the Club sent a letter by e- mail indicating the true facts but the same was not published. The counsel for the respondent argued that the impugned article contained the views of the author who was a known figure in the field. Mr. Francis asserted that the motor race started in Madras, whereas, according to the complainant, the motor race started in Calcutta. However, he offered to publish the version of the complainant with a comment that they do not subscribe to either view. Regarding non-publication of sourvenir, the counsel pleaded that while there were some constraints behind it, the dispute was essentially commercial in nature being a contract agreement and the Council has no role to play in that part of the complaint. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the material on record and the oral submissions of the parties, the Inquiry Committee noted that the grievance of the complainant

142 was two-fold viz., firstly publication of false information, “the motor racing started in Madras” and, secondly, non-publication of a booklet/souvenir as a supplement to the “Auto Car India” September 2004 issue for being circulated on the occasion of the Calcutta Motor Sports Club celebrating the centenary of Motor Sports in India. The complainant contended that the Motor racing started in Calcutta. In order to afford the complainant his right to reply, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send a brief article, not exceeding 500 words, words, giving the facts with documentary evidence and respondent to publish the same. The respondent may seek the response of the author of the impugned article in question also, if received along with comments, within a fortnight of the receipt of the adjudication from the Council. As regards non- publication of the souvenir with the issue of magazine, the Inquiry Committee accepted that violation of contract agreement was outside the purview of the Committee. It recommended to decide the case accordingly. Further Development The complainant vide his letter dated 27.6.2006 has forwarded a copy of the June 2006 issue of BBC Top Gear Magazine, mentioning that Calcutta Motor Sports Club is the first Motor Sports Club in India and requested that this fact may be brought to the notice of the respondent for their views on the subject. He has further requested that this fact be considered before reaching the conclusion and another hearing be scheduled in the matter. Decision of the Council The Council considered the Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee and other papers before it and decided that since the Inquiry Committee has already settled the case by directing that complainant be afforded a right to reply by way of publication of a brief article giving the facts with documentary evidence subject to the condition specified, no further action is warranted on the letter of the complainant. Therefore, the Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inqiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

37) Dr. O.P. Agnihotri Versus The Editor Joint Managing Director Rozgar Sangrah, Hindi weekly Uttar Pradesh Bhoomi Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Sudhar Nigam Lucnow, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 28.6.2003 had been filed by Dr. O.P. Agnihotri, Joint Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Bhoomi Sudhar Nigam, Lucknow against

143 Rozgar Sangrah, Hindi weekly, Agra, U.P. for publication of an unauthorised advertisement in its issue dated 14-20 March, 2003 regarding appointment of SC and OBC in the Nigam. In the advertisement the last date of filing the application was mentioned as within four days from the date of publication of the advertisement whereas the last date mentioned by the Nigam in the advertisement actually, issued to other papers on 25.2.2003 was within 15 days from the date of the publication of the advertisement. The complainant has alleged that the facts were twisted by the respondent and the advertisement was published unauthorisedly. The complainant has also furnished to the Council, a copy of the complaint of some of the applicants given to Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow alleging that the time limit of four days in the advertisement published by Rozgar Sangrah was too less to apply and all the four days were gazetted holidays thereby depriving them to post their applications and the Corporation had conspired to fill the vacancy secretly. The complainant had written a letter dated 28.6.2003 to the respondent editor calling explanation but no response. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 17.10.2003. The respondent Editor, Rozgar Sangrah in his written statement dated 5.11.2003 has submitted that the Rozgar Sangrah weekly is being published under Section 19(1) (A) of the Constitution of India and also Right to Information for the welfare of un-employed youths. The respondent has submitted that the information regarding vacancies is being published free of cost by the newspaper with an objective to give details of all the vacancies in their weekly, which were published in other newspapers of the country to educate the unemployed since all the newspapers are not available at all the places. The respondent has submitted that Rozgar Sangrah is a weekly and published once a week in advance. The advertisement in question was published by other newspapers on 3.3.2003 and the last date was not mentioned in the advertisement. The advertisement in question was published in Rozgar Sangrah in its issue of 14th March 2003 which was available in the market on 7.3.2003. As the date of publication was 14.3.2003, the last date was mentioned as within four days from the date of publication of the advertisement. The respondent has submitted that if the last date was published as within 15 days from the date of publication of the advertisement then the last date comes to 28.3.2003 as per advertisement published by other newspapers on 3.3.2003. Due to this fact the change was carried out to save the interest of the applicants. The respondent denied having received complainant’s letter dated 28.6.2003. Complainant’s Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on

144 28.11.2003. The complainant has submitted that under Section 19(1)(A) every one has a right to information but it does not mean free information to mislead. The complainant has submitted that the advertisement was published by Dainik Aaj and Dainik Swatantra Bharat on 25.2.2003 and not on 3.3.2003. The respondent had no right to publish the advertisement in distorted and misleading manner. The complainant has submitted that publication of misleading advertisement by the respondent landed the Uttar Pradesh Bhoomi Sudhar Nigam in trouble, such as, queries from Prime Minister’s Office and student’s complaints to CBI, because it was impossible for them to send applications within four days. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 23.2.2004. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was listed before the Inquiry Committee for hearing at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. Shri Arun Kumar Rawat, editor, along with Shri P.K. Agarwal, Advocate appeared for the respondent newspaper, while the complainant remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the respondent argued that the advertisement was published in the issue dated 14.3.2003 of the Weekly. The Weekly publishes compilation of advertisements from different papers, free of cost, in public interest. Since the issue of Weekly was available in the market a week earlier to the published date of the issue i.e. 7.3.2003, the last date for submitting application was mentioned as within four days from the date of advertisement. He further stated that the complainant did not mention as to what financial loss was suffered by them. In response to the query of the Committee as to why the matter was published as advertisement and not as news if it was meant only for information, he was unable to give any satisfactory reply. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record. On perusal of the matter in question, it noted that the impugned material carried no indication that it was carried as a news for information of the readers . In fact, the change in time limit tended to mislead the prospective applicants and thereby caused them to complaint against the Nigam. The publication of this advertisement free of cost also created a false impression among the public that the State Government was releasing advertisements to the Weekly and thus helped to give it a standing which it did not enjoy. The publication was absolutely unethical and irresponsible, the Inquiry Committee held. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to warn the respondent Editor, Rozgar Sangrah,

145 Hindi Weekly, published from Agra over the publication of the advertisement in question and to direct him to refrain in future from publishing unlawful and misleading information in any form. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

38) Shri T.T. Adhikari Versus The Editor Dwarka Hindustan Times New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint, dated 7.10.2004 has been filed by Shri T.T. Adhikari, Dwarka, New Delhi against The Hindustan Times, New Delhi for allegedly misleading the public by carrying incorrect dateline and mixing pages of various editions when circulated outside Delhi. The complainant submitted that the first page of The Hindustan Times available at Srinagar on 1.10.2004 was datelined New Delhi, Late City’ and from the next page onwards upto the last page it was marked as ‘HT, Chandigarh’. He has alleged that the respondent has mislead the public by circulating their Chandigarh edition as New Delhi Late City edition by just changing the first page of the newspaper. Comments of the respondent The Hindustan Times were invited on 14.2.2005. Comments The General Manager & Company Secretary, The Hindustan Times in his comments dated 28.3.2005 submitted that the world of newspaper journalism; right from reporting to printing has undergone a major change due to advent of computers and internet. At present, it is possible to transmit newspaper pages across cities in a matter of seconds and the same pages can be printed and distributed in two or more cities simultaneously. This is quite different from the earlier practice when newspapers printed at New Delhi were physically transported to other cities and distributed in the evening or even the next day. The respondent further stated that with a view to provide timely and latest news to their readers in the Northern region of the country, the respondent opened a printing center of its New Delhi edition at Chandigarh on 19.4.2000 and the prominent difference in the paper printed from Chandigarh and distributed from there to Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh

146 is that they carry local and regional news in the inside pages in addition to national and international news. The respondent further submitted that The Hindustan Times does not have separate Chandigarh edition but only a printing center and the entire compilation and preparation of the newspaper takes place at New Delhi though it is printed at Chandigarh so that it reaches its readers quickly otherwise it would reach the readers by evening or even the next day. Therefore the respondent submitted that the newspaper use ‘ND’ on the masthead of the newspaper as Chandigarh printing center is a part of New Delhi edition and hence The HT Chandigarh paper distributed at Chandigarh is the New Delhi Edition. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 6.5.2005 for information. First Hearing The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. The complainant was not present. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal represented the respondent, The Hindustan Times. However, a letter dated 22.12.2005 was received from the complainant stating, inter alia, that he is a reader of The Hindustan Times and only wanted that the Council should stop such practices of The Hindustan Times if they were found illegal and improper. He stated that the matter may be decided on the basis of the material on record. When the matter was called out, the representative of the respondent requested for a pass over which was granted. The matter thereafter was adjourned to hear the counsel at length on the issue that affected readers interest. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21-22.8.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal and Ms. Prerna Mehta, counsel entered appearance for The Hindustan Times. The complainant in his letter dated 7.8.2006 requested the Council to decide the matter on the basis of material provided by him. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the respondent submitted that The Hindustan Times has only printing presses in Patna, Lucknow and Chandigarh and that the first main page of all the editions is prepared at Delhi. The inner pages can be edited by the local editors to replace Delhi news with the news of local interest. Earlier the practice was to print the whole newspaper at Delhi and transport it to outside Delhi. This was however, not only did transportation take time but news of local interest could not be made available to their readers. In this, their effort was to give news which would be of interest and relevance to the local readers.

147 He averred that they had no intention to mislead any reader and sought guidance of the Council in the matter. He pleaded that he tried to obtain the norms/ guidelines on the subject but could not get any such norms. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee discussed the matter. It agreed with the complainant that the dateline New Delhi on the masthead of the newspaper called an edition other than New Delhi has a tendency to mislead the readers. The Committee felt that if the technology made it possible for the local editor to edit the inner pages of the paper, using the same technology, the datelines on the masthead could also be corrected to indicate the area specific edition. The Inquiry Committee directed The Hindustan Times to take corrective steps to clear the confusion amongst their readers. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter with above advise. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

39) Shri C. Satish Versus The Editor Hyderabad The Hindu Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 21.7.2004 has been filed by Shri C. Satish against “The Hindu”, Hyderabad edition alleging publication of biased news articles captioned “When farmers die” and “Chandrababu: image and reality” authored by Shri P. Sainath in its respective issues dated 22.6.2004 and 5.7.2004 and non-publication of his dissenting views on the aforesaid articles. According to the complainant, the impugned articles reveal the respondent newspaper’s excessive bias in favour of Marxist oriented rhetoric. He averred that the media like Universities is overwhelmingly infested with Marxists who masquerade as intellectuals, writers, and human rights activities. They make frequent outbursts against “communal BJP”, Chandrababu etc. but not against corruption and several decades of Congress and Communists ruining economy. The complainant submitted that in the name of socialism, Government companies and offices were overstaffed and were made to sell goods/services at a loss causing financial bankruptcy. He submitted that before shedding tears on panchayats, one should not forget that they have become very corrupt, feudal and non-performing long back. The complainant further submitted that for the present problems in agriculture and rural section one should hear the reasons

148 and solutions from experts like Swaminathan and not a biased Sainath or the Congress and Communist politicians. The complainant vide his further communication dated 19.2.2005 while reiterating that the respondent is prejudiced and partial in publishing the news article, forwarded a clipping of the news article titled “Dealing with Naxalism” published in The Hindu issue dated 17.2.2005. He alleged that the respondent disallowed dissenting views of the readers. The complainant further alleged that the respondent denied his right of reply by refusing to publish his rejoinder/ letter to editor. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Initially comments of the respondent Editor, The Hindu were invited on 20.12.2004 but when no reply was received a show-cause notices was issued to the respondent, “The Hindu”, on 17.6.2005. Written Statement In his written statement dated 27.6.2005, the respondent editor, The Hindu while denying the allegedly frivolous and mischievous allegations submitted that their newspaper is known for its impartial and unbiased views. He further submitted that ‘The Hindu’ has always been fair in publishing letters received condemning criticizing and/or praising reviews and article published by it though it is absolute discretion of the editor. The respondent reiterated that “The Hindu’ has a history of publishing unbiased news and views. He also clarified that the non-publication of letter of the complainant was due to space constraints contrary to alleged reason put forth by the complainant as it would be next to impossible to publish all letters received from readers. Further, the complainant had made sweeping allegations and uncalled for remarks against them which is unbecoming of a reader of ‘The Hindu’. The respondent concluded that the complaint is devoid of merits and has no basis whatsoever and ought to be disposed of outright. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 6.7.2005 for information. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 30.7.2005, the complainant submitted that the statement of the respondent newspaper contains unwarranted use of adjectives like ‘frivolous’ and ‘mischievous’. He further submitted that the statement of the respondent that he made two complaints is false. The complainant stated that just by repeating over and over that the newspaper is unbiased and impartial, the respondent cannot hide the fact that they had become biased. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 12.8.2005 for information.

149 Appearance before the Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. The complainant appeared in person. Shri N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu, Chennai in a letter dated 11.9.2006 stated that the complainant had not given sufficient evidence that the newspaper offended against the provisions of the Press Council Act and did not conform to the procedure of inquiry satisfying the condition as to how the publication or non- publication of material was objectionable. Submissions before the Committee The complainant in his oral submissions before the Inquiry Committee reiterated his compliant and added that the respondent newspaper instead of replying to his letter described it as frivolous. He also referred to the observations of Ombudsman of The Hindu on the issue of balanced presentation of views. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, on consideration of records and submissions made before it, opined that the freedom of the press is an integral part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The editor or management of a newspaper also enjoys the right to lay down and pursue policy of a paper or subscribe to a political thought. Yet in doing so it has to ensure that the facts presented to the readers are true and correct. In writing an article also an author enjoys the right to present his own viewpoint. That is the essence of free press in a democracy and for that very reason that it is essential to ensure the presence of divergent media subscribing to varying political thought. In the instant case if the author subscribed to a particular thought that he presented in his article, the paper could not be faulted for it. Insofar as publication of the complainant’s letter is concerned, The Hindu has clarified that their non-publication was due to scarcity of space. There is nothing on record to lead the Committee to believe any malafide behind it though it would have been advisable for the editor to have selected the letter for publication even after being apprised of its own reader’s strong views on the issue instead of dismissing them as frivolous. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the matter with these 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

150 40) Shri Kulamarva Balakrishna Versus The Editor Padubidri Prajavani, Kannada Daily Karnataka Mangalore, Karnataka Complaint This complaint dated 4.11.2004 has been filed by Shri Kulamarva Balakrishna of Padubidri (Karnataka) against “Prajavani”, Kannada Daily Bangalore edition against publication of an article and opinion piece by Mr Nagesh Hegde with a separate comment in “Prajavani” under the caption “For Treatment of Cancer Cow’s urine”-Essence of deathlessness?” (English Translation) in its issue dated 21.10.2004 concerning propagation of cow urine therapy as a possible cure for cancer terming it as an unscientific, misleading publication hurting public interest. The English translation of the news item reads as follows:- “This is a rare report. For a patient in deathbed, as the last resort cow’s urine was given to drink. The result was the patient completely recovered a doctor from Kasaragod reported. This was not a miracle. From the time of Sushruta this treatment was known, says the doctor. But this is entirely scientific has not been proved. Claiming this as the only remedy and excluding normal medication, resorting to Urine therapy could be dangerous.” For details the address of the ENT doctor was published along with photograph. According to the complainant the publication of the impugned article and the opinion piece opposing the premise at another space were misleading and harmful to the public interest as the both pieces are unlikely to be read by the same readers, thus promote unfounded superstitions. Besides, there was no journalistic justification for the publication of “cow urine cure” article. The complainant submitted that the publication of the alleged ENT Specialist, Dr. Satyashankar’s photo, address with his telephone number was intended to enhance the credibility of the report and was entirely misleading and against professional ethics enjoined on an Indian Medical Association member. Terming it as the worst form of “accommodative and abetment” journalism, the complainant contended that it is professionally impermissible to a medical doctor to be party of such conduct. It is unlawful for any one including a monastic swami, unregistered as a medical practitioner of any kind to dispense cure of any kind. He submitted that a rejoinder dated 23/10/2004 was sent to the respondent but no reply was received despite a reminder dated 29.10.2004. Show cause notice dated 8.6.2005 was issued to the respondent editor ‘Prajavani’, Mangalore.

151 Written Statement In response, the Assistant Editor, Prajavani, in his written statement dated 19.7.2005 while stating that they did publish the impugned article regarding cow urine as a possible cancer therapy but it was neither touted as a miracle therapy nor a cancer cure. Rather a sufficient warning was prominently carried in the box right under the headline. Further the doctor who recommended the said therapy himself suggested it be used as a last resort when there is no other way to save the patient was quoted in the impugned feature. Further pre- publication verification regarding urine therapy was resorted to by way of relying on the clinic proceeding reported in a profession medical journal “Journal of Autorhinoloringalogy and Head & Neck surgery”. Further with a view to forewarn the readers another article by their staff columnist was carried in the editorial page. Since necessary precaution had been taken there was no violation of journalistic ethics. It was published with a bonafide intention of highlighting the newer possibility of merging the ancient wisdom with emerging modern medicines. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 26.7.2005 for information/counter comments. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 3.9.2005 the complainant submitted that the media has led to deterioration in the law and order situation, social values and promoted a general sense of indiscipline and chaotic social conditions leading social disharmony. He submitted that the editorial staff of the ‘Prajavani’ did not convince themselves of the authenticity of the article independent of the claim of the doctor. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 16.9.2005 for information. Appearance before the Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Ms. R. Akhileshwari, Special Correspondent appeared for the ‘Prajavani Daily’. The complainant however, in an e-mail dated 12.9.2006 while using derogatory comments against the working of the Council is in taking up this matter after considerable period, intimated that he wish to withdraw the complaint. Recommendation of the Committee The Inquiry Committee in view of the complainant’s e-mail informing withdrawal of the complaint, decided to recommend to the Council to allow its withdrawal.

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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

41) Shri Baldev Singh Versus The Editor Goindwal The Tribune Punjab Chandigarh Complaint This complaint dated 25.10.2004 has been filed by Shri Baldev Singh of Goindwal, Punjab against The Tribune, Chandigarh. The complainant has submitted that in response to Mr. Manpreet Singh Badal’s article captioned “Akali Dal Not Communal” published in The Tribune, Chandigarh issue dated 08.09.2004, he sent a registered rejoinder dated 10.09.2004 to the respondent- editor, The Tribune but he has not published the same despite his reminder dated 10.09.2004. The objectionable portions of the article highlighted by the complainant read as follows: “Unlike the Akali Dal, the Congress indulges in a dubious politico-religious game. In Punjab, it fielded a B-team against us and provided them all kinds of support, cash, kind police protection and coercion. Many of these candidates were those who were denied the ticket by our party…Meanwhile, something about terrorism. I can name half a dozen Congress politicians of Majha who were in league with militants. They promoted Bhindranwale and used a section of the militants to settle scores with Akali leaders. I do not have to illustrate my point. Mr. Nayar in his numerous writings over the past two decades has already documented this.” The complainant has contested that it is meritorious for the paper and the author to publish that they promoted Bhindranwale and used a section of militants to settle scores with Akali leaders but it is not meritorious to publish his rejoinder that Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale had for long Akali support. According to the complainant, it is factually and historically false that Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was creation of the Congress Party. He has requested the Council to take appropriate action against the respondent. Comments A notice for comments was issued to the respondent editor, The Tribune on 17.2.2005.

153 Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune Trust in his comments dated 11.10.2005 has submitted that they have published the rejoinder sent by the complainant to the article captioned “Akali Dal Not Communal” dated 8.9.2004 in their newspaper issue dated 11.10.2005 in the letters to the editor column under the caption “Don’t blame Cong.” The respondent has submitted that the original letter may have been lost sight of in the avalanche of letters that they receive everyday and it was not a deliberate omission. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. Shri P.N. Andley, Deputy Manager was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri A.J. Philip, Senior Associate Editor vide his letter dated July 13, 2006 which was filed before the Inquiry Committee by the representative of The Tribune informed that they had already published on October 11, 2005 the rejoinder sent by Shri Baldev Singh to the article titled “Akali Dal not Communal” written by Shri Manpreet Singh Badal. This, he contended, was enough to clarify the position of the complainant. As there was nothing on record to show that the notice of hearing had been served on the complainant, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings with the directions to the Secretariat of the Council to forward a copy of the letter dated 13.7.2006 of the respondent Associate Editor to the complainant for his counter, if any. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed vide Council’s letter dated 23.08.2006 to the complainant for compliance, but there is no response. Appearance before the Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was again no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri A.J.Philip, Senior Associate Editor appeared on behalf of The Tribune. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent’s representative submitted that the newspaper had already published the rejoinder of the complainant in its issue dated 11.10.2005 and, therefore, the newspaper had nothing to add further to the comments already sent to the Council. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record. It noted that 154 the notices of hearing on two occasions had been sent at the address provided by the complainant in his complaint, but he neither appeared before the Committee nor had he filed counter to the comments of the respondent editor. The Inquiry Committee further noted the fact that the respondent newspaper “The Tribune” in its issue dated 11.10.2005 had published the complainant’s rejoinder under the caption “Don’t blame cong” in the letters to the editor column. The Inquiry Committee opined that the impugned article dated 8.9.2004 captioned “Akali Dal not communal” was an opinion piece by Shri Manpreet Singh. Thus, newspaper complying to the norms of journalistic conduct with regard to right to reply, had published the letter of the complainant expressing his views to the impugned article. Thus, the Inquiry Committee felt no further action was necessary in the matter. 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.

42) Shri Ramesh Lalwani Versus The Editor New Delhi The Times of India New Delhi

The Editor The Economic Times New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 15.8.2005 has been filed by Shri Ramesh Lalwani, New Delhi against The Times of India and The Economic Times. The complainant has submitted that he enjoys copyright of a photograph of Gateway of India posted on http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/India/photo 155168. The complainant has alleged that the respondents, The Times of India and The Economic Times used his photograph by downloading from Internet without his permission and published in the following articles: 1. Times of India – Caption: ‘Maximum City, Cool Capital’ issue dated 31.8.2005. 2. Economic Times – Caption: ‘Realty Checked – Prime land or sticky assets? – Issue dated 18.10.2005.

155 The complainant in his letter dated 1.8.2005 to The Times of India, requested the editor that it would be appreciated if an acknowledgement is published in the paper. The complainant in his letter dated 8.11.2005 brought to the notice of the editor of The Economic Times the copyright infringement and demanded Rs.5000/- as compensation for copyright violation. The complainant has submitted that neither of the respondents gave any reply. No Written Statement Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors, The Times of India and Economic Times on 1/3/2006. In response the Sr. Editor, Times of India requested for some more time to file his reply, but there was no response despite reminders dated 8.5.2006/13.9.2006. Matter Ajourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. The complainant had, however, requested for adjournment on the ground that he was presently in USA. On the request of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter. Complaint against Times of India The complainant in his letter dated 4.9.2006 had intimated that The Times of India in its issue dated 3.9.2006 re-printed the photo of Gateway of India giving credit to the complainant. The complainant therefore intimated that he wished to withdraw the complaint against ‘Times of India’. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Ramesh Lalwani appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent ‘Economic Times’. Submission before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted before the Committee that The Economic Times had used his photograph downloaded from the Internet. It did not respond to letter for compensation for the photograph’s unauthorized use. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material on record noted that The Times of India had subsequently taken corrective steps and given due credit to the complainant for the photograph. The Inquiry Committee decided to allow the matter in respect of Times of India to be withdrawn, as requested by the complainant.

156 The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint in respect of Economic Times and noted that the subject matter of copyright infringement attracts the provisions before a different forum. Insofar as the print media was concerned, the canons of ethics are that the violation of copyright also constitutes violations of journalistic norms. The Inquiry Committee did not appreciate the conduct of the respondent Economic Times in neither responding to the complainant nor the Press Council. The grievance of the complainant could have been redressed, if the respondent ‘Economic Times’ had even subsequently given due credit to the complainant for using the photograph in question. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to uphold the complaint against ‘Economic Times’ to the extent of unauthorized conduct of using the photograph without permission of the complainant, taking it directly from the Internet, and observed that corrective measures even at this stage would set the record straight and caution its own journalists against any such repetitive conduct. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

43) Shri Hiranmay Karlekar Versus The Editor New Delhi Economic & Political Weekly Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 16.5.2006 has been preferred by Shri Hiranmay Karlekar, Consultant Editor, Pioneer alleging non-publication of his revised rejoinder to Ms. Sarmila Bose’s review of his book captioned “Bangladesh : The Next Afghanistan?” which was published in the issue dated 4.3.2006 of Economic & Political Weekly, Mumbai. According to the complainant, when one writes a book, one gets both good and bad reviews and should be prepared for that. However, that the impugned review, as even a cursory look at it will show, was utterly tendentious, intellectually less than honest, and inundated with innuendoes and insinuations. The complainant submitted that he particularly felt that some of the observations on development in Bangladesh should not go uncontested. The complainant submitted that the respondent e-mailed him a copy of the review on 16.3.2006 and he sent his rejoinder to the respondent on 5.4.2006 by e-mail as well as registered post. In response, the respondent, vide his e- mail dated 6.4.2006, stated that they normally do not publish rejoinders to reviews unless there are errors in facts or very obvious misrepresentations of 157 the argument. The respondent further stated that, however, they will go through his note and will take an appropriate decision. The complainant submitted that he again e-mailed revised rejoinder with more details for its publication on 16.4.2006, which was simply acknowledged by the respondent on 18.4.2006. When there was no reply, the complainant again e-mailed to the editor on 26.4.2006 requesting him to let him know when his revised rejoinder will be published and waited for another three weeks but to no avail. The complainant submitted that he has a great regard for the respondent publication and did not approach the Press Council for a direction to publish the rejoinder even though the two months deadline for filing the complaint expired. Finally he decided to lodge a complaint with the Press Council because undue delay would rob his rejoinder of its impact as people by then would have forgotten how the review read and also having published a malafide and tendentious review. The complainant requested the Council to waive the applicability of the two months deadline of filing the complaint. He also pointed out that whether Ms. Bose’s review merits such a description and requested the Council to direct the respondent to carry his revised rejoinder in its entirety and without any further delay. Since the complainant had primarily raised the grievance of denial of right of rejoinder, the response of the respondent editor, Economic & Political Weekly, Mumbai, was sought on 29.5.2006, to decide further course of action. Comments The Editor, Economic & Political Weekly in his point wise comments dated 12.6.2006 submitted that Ms. Sarmila Bose, a well-known journalist was entrusted to prepare an objective review of the said book. On receipt of the review, the article was subjected to an internal review process and found suitable for publication. The journal’s policy is to encourage comments and rejoinders which contribute to debate and discourage comments which find fault or have nothing substantive to offer. The respondent further submitted that he informed the complainant by e-mail on 6.4.2006, that they would go through his rejoinder and as a policy they do not publish rejoinders on reviews unless there are errors in fact or there is misrepresentation of argument. Reviews are meant to be critical evaluations and if authors were to be given space to contest each critical appraisal then there would be a never ending cycle of communications between the author and the reviewer. According to the respondent, having received the rejoinder of Shri Karlekar, he examined the same along with his senior colleague in order to ensure that they arrive at the right decision and their view based on a careful reading was that Shri Karlekar had not demonstrated any errors in facts or misrepresentation in argument in the review of the book. Shri Karlekar’s

158 objections were mainly to critical comments on the book, which however, is what a book review is expected to provide in a fair and non-prejudiced manner. The respondent contended that it was their view that the reviewer, Ms. Sarmila Bose, had provided such a review. He further stated that the complainant’s second version of his rejoinder titled “A Revised Rejoinder” was not materially different from the first version. The respondent further submitted that on a re- examination of the material as well as the procedures they followed in this case, that they took an independent decision and carefully considered decision with due deliberation and without any prejudice to Shri Karlekar. They gave the matter considerable importance and care as reflected in the decision to have two members of the editorial staff read the original review and the rejoinders. The respondent admitted one error that they did not immediately communicate their final decision to Shri Karlekar, though they had mentioned in their e-mail dated 6.4.2006 their policy of deciding on publication of rejoinders. He concluded by saying that they are constantly making attempts to improve their functioning and always seek advice and support in this regard. A copy of the comments of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 24.7.2006 for his counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.8.2006 submitted that the refusal by the respondent to publish his rejoinder to Ms. Bose’s review was not only unacceptable in toto but also violates the norms. In addition, the stand of the respondent was contrary to canons of intellectual discourse and fair and ethical journalism. Dismissing the submissions of the respondent, the complainant averred that the first yardstick that should be applied in judging a writer/reviewer’s ‘quality of scholarship’ and ‘integrity of views’ is the intellectual rigour characterizing his/her work, which require that statements should be clear and precise, the arguments logical, the documentation detailed and the references complete. Vague and incomplete sentences, and allegations without detailed and accurate evidence and references, constitute the hallmark of poor scholarship. The complainant alleged that Ms. Bose’s review bears the unmistakable stamp of the latter and worse. According to the complainant insinuation of Ms. Bose made in the form of a question, was that the title of his book was meant to attract attention, the mention of the title of the book of Bangladeshi writer she refers to was absolutely essential to enable the readers to judge whether it had really ‘pipped him to the post’. However, the most intriguing factor is that Ms. Bose had mentioned the question the book poses but not its name. The complainant submitted that since Ms. Bose neither mentioned the author nor the title of the book, he could only presume that the reference was to Ali Riaz’s God Willing : The Politics of Islamism in Bangladesh

159 (Rowland and Littlefield Publishers, 2004). If so, then the title of the book was very different from that of his. Also, the title did not automatically indicate that the book posed the question “Is Bangladesh becoming a Taliban State?” He further stated that Ms. Bose wrote in the second paragraph of the review that he could have disposed with much of his first chapter and goes on to state, “when he returns to the topic that is of relevance to the main focus of the book, the creation of Bangladesh, he is unfortunately dependent on one or two sources of doubtful reliability and ends up by repeating a number of well-worn myths and clichés without addressing the interesting questions thrown up by some of his remarks”. The complainant contended that since the above was not the main focus of his book, it was clear that Ms. Bose did not even glance through his book. Further, his all ‘sources’ had not been named though condemned, which was not fair to them or to the writer. The complainant stated that Ms. Bose did not name the source ‘of doubtful reliability’ while alleging that the book appeared to be heavily relied on one Bangladeshi newspaper. The complainant further stated that Ms. Bose did not controvert even a single information or editorial comment which he cited from The Daily Star. He contended that the above lapses severely detracted from the intellectual rigour of the Review. The complainant requested the Council to direct the respondent newspaper to publish his rejoinder in toto and close the debate on the subject. The respondent was requested on 21.8.2006 to consider its publication in view of the right of reply enjoyed by him, but when no response was received from the respondent, show-cause notice dated 31.10.2006 was issued to the respondent. Written Statement In the written statement dated 20.11.2007 the respondent editor stated that the Press Council issued show cause Notice dated 31.10.2006 and issued another notice dated 6.11.2006 within a week asking them to appear before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006. The respondent submitted that since the Press Council had apparently decided to convene the meeting of the Inquiry Committee even before the expiry of the 14 day period provided to reply to the letter of October 31, 2006, the respondent presumed that they do not have to reply to the show cause notice. The respondent submitted that they are a small organisation with limited human and financial resources that have to be fully devoted to publication of journal on a weekly schedule. The respondent regreted inability to spare either the finance or time to travel to New Delhi to appear before the Press Council of India on the matter relating to the complaint of Shri Karlekar. The respondent submitted that they have not received any communication from the PCI acknowledging receipt of June 15 communication or of having deliberated on their reply. On the other hand the newspaper had

160 received three letters from the PCI pertaining to the complaint. One dated August 21,2006 asking to publish rejoinder of Shri Karlekar, second, show cause notice of October 31, 2006, and third notice dated November 6, 2006, asking to appear before the Inquiry Committee on December 5, 2006. The respondent submitted that the Press Council of India’s silence on their communication stands in sharp contrast to the resistance and speed with which it processed the complaint of Shri Karlekar. The respondent submitted that an edited version of Shri Karlekar’s rejoinder has been published in the Letters column of the Economic and Political Weekly on November 18 which was longer-about 25% longer-than the review, which evoked the author’s response. According to respondent, the EPW is committed to the functioning of an independent and autonomous Press Council of India. It was in keeping with this belief that the newspaper decided to publish Shri Karlekar’s communication. The respondent expressed the newspapers’ extreme disappointment on the manner in which the PCI investigated the complaint. Shri Karlekar is a member of the Press Council of India, a statutory body of long standing and repute, and must avoid all conflict of interest and also the appearance of any conflict of interest and member of the PCI must necessarily place restraints on themselves in making complaints before the PCI as long as they continue as members. (This would be so even if there are mechanisms to prevent the member bringing a complaint to sit in judgement on the issue.) He further submitted that if this exclusionary rule was not there, the independence of the PCI as well as its reputation for independence would surely be affected. The respondent questioned the appropriateness of Mr. Karlekar making and pursuing so aggressively a complaint through a statutory body of which he is a member and the PCI pursuing the matter without being sensitive to the conflict of interest that is so clear to outsiders. Complainant’s Reply The complainant in his reply dated December 2nd 2006 at the outset took serious exception to the last paragraph of the respondent’s communication. The complainant denied having pursued his complaint with Chairman, Members or Officials of the PCI. The only discussion he had on the subject was with an esteemed fellow member of the PCI who had said that Mr. Reddy had telephoned him in connection with the complaint and who had enquired about the matter. The esteemed fellow member had told that he had assured Mr. Reddy that the fact that he was a member of the PCI would make no difference and that the complaint would be decided strictly on merit, and by Inquiry Committee of which the complainant was not a member. It was, therefore, the respondent’s conduct that raised serious question of giving the appearance of lobbying.The complainant submitted regarding

161 the charge of filing the complaint in self interest that the review published in the EPW was not just critical but perverse and the entire episode raised two issues of public importance. The first is whether a journal, particularly one which wants to be taken seriously, should publish a book review that is tendentious, uses methods that are less than admirable and misrepresents the book’s main thrust. He had thought that a rejoinder would not only set the record straight in respect of the book but also remind the journal’s editorial team of the need to maintain the standards associated with it. It was surprising when not only the initial rejoinder, but also the revised version, which took into account the point made by Mr. Reddy in his e-mail of April 6, 2006, was not published. This raised the second issue-whether, having published a review like Dr. Bose’s of his book, a journal which claims to give “as much space as possible to a diversity of view with the only yardstick being the quality of scholarship and the integrity of view”, should refuse to carry the rejoinder. The right to reply is fundamental principle of democratic discourse. Its denial tantamount to the repudiation of a basic norm of democratic debate and politics. The complaint was in defence of this norm. The principle of judicial exclusion, as it is observed wherever the rule of law prevails, does not lay down that judge should have no recourse to a country’s judicial process in cases where he or she is a victim. It lays down that he or she should not participate in the hearing of a case where a conflict of interest is involved. He contended that it would be absurd to argue that a judge should not approach any court of law with a complaint as long as he or she is in office. What is, however, important is to ensure that his or her complaint is dealt with a manner that is absolutely transparent and leaves no room for questions about the impartiality of the proceedings and the verdict. In a country like India, which has multi-tiered judiciary covering its entire length and breadth, the above is ensured by assigning a complaint by a judge to a court in which he or she does not sit. In the case of the PCI, this is ensured by assigning a member’s complaint to an Inquiry Committee in which he or she does not sit. To argue that even this is not enough to avoid “all conflict to interest and also the appearance of any conflict of interest”, is to cast a totally unwarranted aspersion on members of the PCI. This is particularly so because the PCI has on other occasions too pronounced on complaints by members and the fairness of its verdict has never been questioned. Besides, it seems that in his haste to score a point over him, Mr. Reddy had not thought through the implications of what he said in his communication of November 20, 2006. Some of the PCI’s members represent trade union organizations of journalists, professional bodies of editors and owners of publications. Should the PCI shut its doors to a complaint by a member against a newspaper owner or editor who has victimized him or her

162 for participating in trade union activity or standing up for principles of journalistic ethics? To its eternal credit, the present PCI has taken up at least one such complaint and dealt with it in a befitting manner. Mr. Reddy can, of course, argue that such a victimized working journalist should approach a court of law. Remedy through the judicial process, however, takes time and costs money, given the backlog of cases, the provisions for appeals at various levels and the high fees charged by lawyers. Few working journalists have the money and time to take the judicial route. Mr. Reddy’s question regarding the propriety of the lodging a complaint with the PCI would have carried much greater conviction if it had been made at the very outset and not in his communication of November 20, 2006, which was obviously drafted after he had received a show cause notice. His belated raising of the issue has made him vulnerable to the allegation that it has been done to divert attention from the weakness of the EPWs case, which would have become further clear during the hearing of the complaint that had been scheduled for December 5, 2006. The complainant submitted that the relevance is not the length of a review or response to it but the substance of both. In this particular case, the edited version that has been published has omitted some of the vital details that would have made the rebuttal more pointed. He further submitted that the statement that the EPW had published the rejoinder because of its “commitment to the functioning of an independent and autonomous Press Council of India”, would have commanded greater credibility had the rejoinder been published immediately after the receipt of the PCI’s communication dated August 21, 2006, asking it to publish the rejoinder, and reference to which he has made in his own communication of November 20, 2006. Even if an immediate publication was not possible, a communication could have been sent to the PCI stating the EPW’s intention to publish it at the earliest opportunity. Besides, the question remains whether the EPW had sent any reply to the PCI’s communication dated August 21, 2006, asking it to publish the rejoinder. If it had not, then there is hardly any justification for Mr. Reddy saying “The Press Council of India’s silence on our own communication stands in sharp contrast to the speed with which it is processing the complaint of Shri Karlekar”. Nevertheless, the fact that the EPW has published an edited version of the rejoinder that vindicates the principle of the right to reply, the complainant stated that he did not want to proceed further with the complaint and requested to treat the matter as closed. The complainant expressed deep disappointment over the EPW’s response to the request for the publication of even revised rejoinder and aspersions Mr. Reddy has cast on the manner in which the PCI has investigated the case.

163 No Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the accusations made by the respondent against the working of the Secretariat of the Press Council of India in issuing notices without sufficient time frame. The Inquiry Committee decided that undue haste shown in the matter by the Secretariat may be inquired into and necessary administrative action be taken in the matter. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the complainant in a letter dated 2.12.2006 intimated that the publication of edited version of his rejoinder has vindicated the principle of right of reply and therefore requested to treat the matter as closed. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to allow the complaint to be withdrawn. It recommended to the Council to close 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.

44) Shri Sate Singh Rana Versus The Editor Member Maidani Awaz State Working Committee Rishikesh, Deharadun Bhartiya Janta Party Uttrakhand Uttrakhand Complaint This complaint, dated 19.01.2005 has been filed by Shri Sate Singh Rana, Member, State Working Committee (BJP), Uttrakhand against Maidani Awaz, a Hindi weekly newspaper from Dehradun for alleged misconduct in unauthorised lifting and publication of an advertisement of new year greeting and thereafter raising a demand for payment in lieu thereof blackmailing. According to the complainant, the respondent by scanning his photographs from some other newspaper, published the aforesaid advertisement in his name in his newspaper dated 3.1.2005 without his consent. When the complainant refused to make payment for the said advertisement, the respondent published another news item dated 10.01.2005 captioned “BJP leader threatened representatives of Maidani Awaz”. The respondent through its representative, Shri Jitender Kumar Meena, filed a police complaint on 11.1.2005 against him

164 and he also filed his reply thereto on 12.01.2005. The complainant has objected to the publication of the news item as a result of the non-payment of the bill for the advertisement inserted without his consent. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 22.7.2005. Written statement The respondent in his written statement dated 10.8.2005 has submitted that they have published the advertisement in question by scanning it from some other newspaper, as directed by the complainant when he gave verbal order for publication of the same. He has submitted that they had published the complainant’s “New Years Greetings” in their newspaper on 25.01.2004 and got payment for the bill of advertisement. In the same manner they have published the complainant’s new year greeting and photograph in their weekly newspaper issue of 27 December 2004 and January 2005 as they have received verbal order with a promise to make payment in due course. He has added that as the complainant told them that he would make payment in due course, they asked for payment after the publication. The respondent went on to state that when their representative reminded the complainant for payment, the complainant threatened him. He further added that the complainant had also threatened them in the past and the matter was reported to the concerned police authorities and was also published in their newspaper issue dated 10.01.2005. The respondent has stated that the complainant being a working member of the BJP, aiming for a seat in Legislative Assembly wanted to get publicity by using his newspaper to influence and impress the public by publishing greetings on special occasions. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.9.2005 for information. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that none of the parties had entered appearance before it to assist the Inquiry Committee in arriving at a conclusion. In the absence of such assistance, the Inquiry Committee was of the view that the matter may not be processed. It therefore decided to drop the proceedings and recommended to the Council to close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report

165 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

45) Shri Sandeep Jena Versus The Editor Editor/Printer/Publisher/Owner The Samaja, Oriya Daily Delta Square, Oriya Monthly magazine Cuttack, Orissa Bhubaneswar, Orissa

Complaint

This complaint-dated 23.11.2004 has been filed by Shri Sandeep Jena, Editor/Printer/Publisher/ Owner, Delta Square, Oriya monthly magazine, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) against “The Samaja”, Oriya daily, Cuttack (Orissa) for publishing a news item in its issue dated 3.10.2004 alleging plagiarism. According to the complainant, on the basis of an advertisement for the post of ‘News Contributor’ published in “The Samaja”, he applied for the same and sent photocopy of his article captioned “Doctorate could be possible without Ph.D, only in Utkal University and appointment through fraud in Utkal University–Why action not being taken against the Professor” (English translation), which was originally published in his monthly magazine “Delta Square” June 2003 issue. The complainant alleged that the respondent- newspaper used this information from his news article and published the same in the front page of The Samaja issue-dated 3.10.2004 under the caption “Surprise-Controversial Professor been appointed as Chairman of PG Council” (English translation).

The complainant has further stated that he contacted the General Manager of ‘The Samaja’ as well as their Cuttack office regarding infringement of his news and they assured him that they would look into the matter. But nothing happened. The complainant also wrote a letter on 6.11.2004 to the respondent but evoked no response.

The complainant alleged that it had become a practice of the respondent to violate the ethics of the press as the respondent had also on 5.10.2002 published news, which was originally published in his magazine three months earlier to that of ‘The Samaja’. He translated the version in Oriya and used the news as well as the information and published it as if it was their own work. No credit or by-line was given to him rather the news credited to his or her Bhubaneswar representative. He further alleged that the respondent purposefully did this to harass the other journalists.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, The Samaja, Cuttack on 24.5.2005.

166 Written Statement The respondent-editor, The Samaja in his written statement dated 20.6.2005 denied the allegations levelled against him and submitted that complainant submitted an application for contributing news as ‘News Contributor’ for The Samaja, appeared in the written test along with several other candidates, but could not make it to the merit list and hence could not be permitted to contribute news to ‘The Samaja’. The respondent stated that being aggrieved and with a revengeful attitude he filed this complaint, which is totally false, baseless, and without any merit. According to the respondent, they are not aware of publication of any newspaper by name “Delta Square” in the State of Orissa and it is ridiculous to say that ‘The Samaja’ published any news by way of infringement. Even assuming but not conceding that the complainant had published any news item with regard to irregularities in the appointment in Utkal University. The respondent further submitted that the news item published in ‘The Samaja’ is “Appointment of controversial Professor as Chairman, P.G. Council-A surprise”. The respondent stated that the claim of the complainant to have published the news with regard to irregularities of appointment in Utkal University and granting of advance increment to Prof. Mohanty, decision of the P.G. Council for not giving any important assignment/responsibility to Prof. Mohanty as he had created many indiscipline in the Department and that the efforts of the present administration to appoint him as new Chairman of P.G. Council etc., the news published in ‘The Samaja’ is after appointment of Prof. Mohanty as Chairman of the P.G. Council highlighting the details of Shri Mohanty as to how he is controversial person and inspite of several allegations against him, Shri Mohanty had been able to become the Chairman of the P.G. Council by superceding two senior Professors influencing the office of the Chancellor. Several other allegations against the controversial Prof. Mohanty and his background had been brought out in the news published in ‘The Samaja’. The respondent submitted that the news published in ‘The Samaja’ was based on the facts and data collected from different sources by the Bhubaneswar representative of ‘The Samaja’. The claim of the complainant that ‘The Samaja’ had published the news through infringement is therefore, thoroughly out of misconception of facts and with an ill intention to harass the management of ‘The Samaja’ by dragging into unwarranted litigation only for not selecting him to contribute news for ‘The Samaja’. The respondent submitted that hundreds of applications were received by their Personnel Department at Cuttack, which were destroyed after the selection was over. The respondent further stated that their news contributor at Bhubaneswar had neither any access to those papers nor there was any scope for him to utilize such papers attached to any application, therefore, the allegation of the complainant being baseless is liable to be rejected. The respondent submitted that the submission of the complainant

167 that he met the authorities of ‘The Samaja’ with regard to the news is totally false and made for the purpose of this case. The complainant never met any of the authorities excepting for the purpose of written test to contribute news for ‘The Samaja’. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.8.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant as the notice of hearing could not be served as he had shifted and no change of address had been given to the Council. Shri A. Acharya, Personnel Manager and Shri S.K.Mishra, Personal Officer made appearance on behalf of the respondent –The Samaja. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent’s representative submitted before the Inquiry Committee that their newspaper is held in high esteem and never indulged in plagiarism. The grouse of the complainant was that he had not been selected as a news contributor as he was not found fit to the post by the Personal Department of The Samaja. The focus of their report differed from that of the report produced by the complainant along with his complaint and covered facts subsequent to the date of the referred publication. The respondents further submitted that they were not aware of the complainant’s publication, namely, Delta Square. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records and heard submissions made by the respondent representative. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that record is sufficient to proceed on the basis of material available. The Inquiry Committee did not appreciate the conduct in not intimating his present address for communication. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent, The Samaja had carried the impugned news report about appointment of Prof. Mohanty as Chairman of P.G. Council, in a controversial manner which it claimed to have prepared after collection of facts by the Bhubaneswar based representative of The Samaja and carried facts beyond those in the cited report. Based on these averments the Inquiry Committee was not inclined to accept the charge of the complaint. The Inquiry Committee thus opined that the complaint lacked sufficient grounds for action against The Samaja. 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

168 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

46) Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain Versus The Editor Bureau Chief Employment News Rozgar Evam Parinam New Delhi Chhattisgarh Complaint This complaint dated 31.12.2003 has been filed by Shri Rajendra Kumar, Bureau Chief, Rozgar Evam Parinam against Employment News/Rozgar Samachar for publishing misleading advertisements in its issues dated 6-12 December, 13-19 December and 20-26 December, 2003. The alleged misleading advertisement reads as follows: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY Dayanand Parisar, Arya Nagar, Durg-491001 (C.G.) Admission Notice for Correspondence Course 1. MBA (1 year - integrated) Eligibility : Graduate 2. MBF (1 year –integrated) Eligibility : Graduate 3. P.G. Dip. In Business MGT.’HONS. (1 yr) Elig.:Graduate 4. DIPLOMA IN BUSINESS MGT. (6 Months) Elig.(10+2) / Equivalent 5. CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANT (1yr) Elig.: 10+2/ Equ. 6. DIPLOMA IN EXPORT MANAGEMENT (6 Months) Elig.: 10+2/ Equ. v Exam. Centres: All over India *Medium:Eng./Hindi v Complete Study Material * Palacement Assistance For PROSPECTUS, send self-addressed stamped (Rs.36/-) evnvelope (10"x8") LAST DATE:31.01.2004 SESSION STARTS :Feb.2004 DIRECTOR £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ |ɤÉÆvÉ |ÉÉèvÉÉäÉÊMÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉƺlÉÉxÉ nªÉÉxÉÆ {ÉÉÊ®ºÉ®, +ÉɪÉÉÇ xÉMÉ®, nÖMÉÇ-491 001 (U.MÉ) {ÉEÉäxÉ& 0788-5011062 {ÉjÉÉSÉÉ® {ÉÉ~áɵÉEàÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊãÉA |É´Éä¶É ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ

169 1. AàÉ.¤ÉÉÒ.A. (1 ´É­ÉÇ -ºÉàÉäÉÊBÉEiÉ) {ÉÉjÉiÉÉ& ºxÉÉiÉBÉE 2. AàÉ.¤ÉÉÒ.A{ÉE. (1 ´É­ÉÇ ºÉàÉäÉÊBÉEiÉ) {ÉÉjÉiÉÉ ºxÉÉiÉBÉE 3. BªÉ´ÉºÉÉªÉ |ɤÉÆvÉ àÉå ÉÊb{ãÉÉäàÉÉ-+ÉÉìxÉÇºÉ (1 ´É­ÉÇ) {ÉÉjÉiÉÉ& ºxÉÉiÉBÉE 4. BªÉ´ÉºÉÉªÉ |ɤÉÆvÉ àÉå ÉÊb{ãÉÉäàÉÉ (6 àÉcÉÒxÉä) {ÉÉjÉiÉÉ& 10+2 /ºÉàÉBÉEFÉ 5. ºÉÉÌ]{ÉEÉ

The complainant has submitted that the advertisements were issued by Ms. Sandhya Pathak, Director, IIMT, Durg regarding admission to MBA, MBF, PG. Diploma in Business Management courses, Certified Management Accountant and Diploma in Export Management for publication in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. The advertisements were published by the Employment News in its issues dated 6-12 December, 13-19 December and 7 December 2003 – 2 January 2004 and by the Rozgar Samachar in its issue dated 20-26 December 2003. The complainant has submitted that at the bottom of the advertisement it has been mentioned that Exam. Centres: All over India and for prospects, send self-addressed Stamp (Rs.36) envelop (10"x8"). The complainant has submitted that the IIMT has illegally earned lakhs of rupees from prospectus between 6 December 2003 to 31 January 2004. The complainant has submitted that the Employment News is a newspaper run by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and any information published by the Government journal is considered authentic but the advertisement of IIMT published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar are misleading and illegal since it has not been mentioned in the advertisements as to which University the IIMT is affiliated. Comments Comments of the General Manager & Chief Editor, Rozgar Samachar were invited vide Council’s letter dated 29.3.2004. Ms. Shalini Narayanan, Editor, Employment News in her comments dated 21.6.2004 has submitted that the complainant may be asked to clarify as to why legal action may not be taken against the complainant for reproducing advertisements from Employment News without permission, violating the

170 Copyright Act. The respondent has submitted that it has also been brought to the notice of the Employment News that the Rozgar Avam Parinam newspaper is a subscriber of the Employment News and is unauthorisedly using Employment News advertisements. The respondent has submitted that it has been confirmed by the DAVP that Rozgar Evam Parinam is not on its panel and, hence, has no locus standi to reproduce DAVP advertisements published in Employment News. The respondent has denied the allegation that the Employment News had misled the youth through the advertisement given by the Indian Institute of Management Technology, Aryanagar, Durg, Chhatisgarh. The respondent has submitted that the documents of the Institute have been duly verified and found in order. As far as the stamped envelope of value Rs. 36 is concerned, the respondent has submitted that revenue from the stamps goes to the Government of India and not to any particular Institute. The respondent has submitted that after receipt of complaints regarding educational institutions in Chhatisgarh, Employment News has taken several steps to check the authenticity of educational institutions and all ‘money-tags’ from advertisements of private institutions have been removed. In fact, except for vacancy circulars, all notices of all private educational institutions have been stopped in view of such complaints. The respondent has submitted that the complainant himself has been illegally reproducing Employment News advertisements without permission. The respondent has submitted that Rozgar Evam Parinam is not empanelled with DAVP, but regularly publishes advertisements routed through DAVP to Employment News and on that basis makes the false claim of being the only employment-related paper from particular region. The respondent has submitted that the complaint be dismissed as it is baseless and malafide. The respondent has submitted that the complainant be asked to pay damages in the context of unauthorised reproduction of Employment News advertisements and render apology for the same. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 7.7.2004. Complainant’s Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 13.7.2004 while denying the allegations has submitted that no such advertisements have been reproduced by them in their newspaper Rozgar Evam Parinam. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 18.8.2004. On consideration of the complaint, Hon’ble Chairman opined that a similar complaint entitled: Ms. Savita Agarwal and Ms. Ritu Jain, Advocates, New Delhi Vs. Employment News, New Delhi (F.No. 14/500/03-04)), had been

171 adjudicated by the Council on 28.06.2005. Therefore, the present complaint may be disposed of by reiterating the guidelines enunciated by the Council in that case. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, concurring with the opinion of the Hon’ble Chairman, decided to dispose of the complaint reiterating the guidelines issued in earlier cases, namely, “The Employment News” in the year 2005. Since the Employment News had taken a decision not to publish advertisements of private institutions including the admission notice, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

47) Pandit S.L. Vyas Sansthan Versus 1. Dainik Navjyoti Falodi 2. Dainik Bhaskar & Rajasthan 3. Rajasthan Patrika Rajasthan Complaint A common complaint dated 4.6.2004 has been filed by Pandit S.L.Vyas Sansthan, Falodi, Rajasthan against three Hindi daily newspapers viz, (i) Dainik Navjyoti, Ajmer, (ii) Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur and (iii) Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur for non-publication of news item relating to alleged theft in the complainant’s temple. According to the complainant, on 7.4.2004 a daylight dacoity took place at the temple when the idol was broken and cash was stolen. The estimated loss was to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs. The complainant brought all these facts to the notice of the district officials and lodged a complaint with Lokayukt, when it was revealed that the district officials along with police force had conducted the demolition drive and the complainant had demanded action against the officials. According to the complainant, the respondents demanded Rs.1000/- each from the complainant for publication of the news item. The complainant vide letter dated 26.7.2005 filed an affidavit to the effect that in respect to the theft incident on 7.4.2004, the correspondents of the three respondent newspapers; (i) Shri Santosh Vyas of ‘Dainik Navjyoti’, (ii) Shri Prakash Lukkar of ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ and (iii) Shri Naryan Soni of ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ demanded Rs.1000/- each from the complainant for

172 publication of the news and since then no news had been published by the respondents’ paper about the incident. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 16.8.2005. Written Statement of Dainik Bhaskar Dr. Sanjay Pandey, Executive Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur in his written statement dated 27.8.2005 submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant are false, baseless and far from truth. The respondent furnished documentary evidence to prove that the complainant’s organisation was not registered with the government and the temple construction was removed by the government authorities. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 12.9.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.9.2005 submitted that comments made by the respondent were not relevant to the matter and stated that the temple still exists and the correspondent of the respondent Shri Prakash Lukkar had indeed demanded and received money for publication of news items. Written Statement of Rajasthan Patrika The Deputy Editor, Rajasthan Patrika in his written statement dated 31.8.2005, submitted that the allegations of the complainant are false and baseless and till date the complainant had not drawn his attention towards the alleged demand of money by the concerned correspondent. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.11.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.11.2005 denied the comments made by the respondent and reiterated that the respondent correspondent was not publishing news without getting money. No Written Statement of Dainik Navjyoti Dainik Navjyoti did not file its written statement in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 26.02.2007. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Dr. B.M. Goyal, Bureau Chief, Dainik Navjyoti, Shri Kirtirana, Executive-Editor,

173 Dainik Bhaskar and Shri Rajiv Harsh, Editorial Incharge, Rajasthan Patrika represented the respondents. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Dr. B.M. Goyal, representative of Dainik Navjyoti filed written statement and submitted that Shri Santosh Vyas was not a reporter of Dainik Navjyoti. Moreover, Dainik Navjyoti had not published any report, which could form the basis of the complaint. Shri Kirtirana, representative of Dainik Bhaskar submitted that the Chairman, Municipal Corporation, Falodi had given a letter on 22.8.2005 to Dainik Bhaskar that there was no registered organisation, namely, Pt. S.L. Vyas Research Institute in Falodi. Pandit S.L. Vyas, the complainant had encroached upon the Land on Municipal Corporation, which the Municipality, Administration and Police removed a year back. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar had reported the removal of encroachment in its issue dated 8.4.2004, which was the cause of the annoyance of the complainant. Shri Rajiv Harsh, representative of Rajasthan Patrika submitted that the complainant did not give concrete complaint to ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ about demand of money by this reporter. The complainant had also not informed the contents of the news for which the reporter made the alleged demand. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the documents and considered the oral arguments put forth by the respondent. It noted that the main grouse of the complainant was non-publication of news regarding breaking of idol and loss of cash as he did not pay Rs.1,000/- to each of the correspondents of the respondent newspapers. The Committee further noted from records that as the inquiry by the Lokayukt had shown, in fact, the Municipal Corporation had demolished the structure due to its unauthorized encroachment on municipal land. The respondent correspondents being aware of this had therefore not deemed it fit to publish the report of alleged dacoity. The complainant has also been unable to establish his charge of demand of money. The Inquiry Committee, thus, opined that there was no cause of action against the respondents and recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for lack of substance. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

174 Press and Defamation

48) Shri Mohanlal Mahadeoprasad Mittal Versus The Editor Mumbai Navbharat Mumbai Complaint This complaint-dated 13.8.2003 has been filed by Shri Mohanlal Mahadeoprasad Mittal, Mumbai against the Mumbai edition of Nav Bharat for publication of an allegedly defamatory and false news item captioned “Bare Bhai Ke Ghar Mein Chori Ke Arop Mein Giraftar” (Arrested under the charge of stealing in the house of elder brother) in its issue dated 25.7.2003. It has been alleged in the news item that L.T. Marg Police Station police arrested the complainant who broke open the lock of the house of his elder brother. Later he was released on bail. Dr. Mahesh Mittal had reportedly gone to America when Mohan Lal Mittal residing next door, broke open the lock of his house and stole some articles. The neighbours informed Dr. Mahesh about the same whereupon he came to Bombay and filed an FIR. Then the police arrested Mohan Lal. The complainant in his letter dated 28.7.2003 to the editor stated that he was not arrested in respect of any case of theft, as alleged in the impugned news item. No case of theft had been registered against him in the Police Station since the concerned police official was also of the opinion that there was no substance in the allegations. The complainant had submitted that he had twice written to the respondent denying the charges and to furnish the details of the information and the sources of the news item on the basis of which the news item was published but no response. The complainant has alleged that the news item is false and defamatory and has lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public at large and, business community. No Written Statement Show cause notice dated 23.2.2004 was issued to Editor, Nav Bharat. Two reminders dated 7.7.2004 and 24.1.2005 were also issued to the respondent editor, Nav Bharat but written statement was not filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006. The complainant was present in person while Shri A.P. Dhanwat represented the respondent, Navbharat, Mumbai.

175 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral argument stated that he was never arrested as the police was satisfied that there was no substance in the complaint filed against him. The newspaper did not taken any notice of his denial for any corrective action. He alleged that the report had been published with malafide intention to defame him in the public without verifying the facts. Copies of the newspaper were sent to his relatives free of cost. Shri Dhanwat appearing for the respondent submitted that he was unaware of the facts of the case and sought time as the editor-in-chief was in Nagpur. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record, the Inquiry Committee noted that despite sufficient opportunity afforded to him, the respondent editor failed to file the written statement in response to the show cause notice of the Press Council dated 02.02.2004 followed by the two reminders dated 7.7.2004 and 24.1.2005. The representative of the respondent who appeared before the Committee was not in a position to contest the case as according to him he was not aware about the facts of the case. Thus no useful purpose had been served by his presence. Under the circumstance, the Committee was not inclined to give any adjournment in the case. On merits of the case it had no hesitation in holding that the averments made in the complaint refuting the allegations made in the news item in question had sufficient basis. The Committee further noted that citing reference to an FIR, the complainant had been charged of breaking open the lock of the house of his elder brother and committing theft. It was also alleged that the complainant was arrested and later released on bail. The complainant had categorically denied the allegations even that an FIR had been filed. The respondent failed to file any defence despite sufficient opportunity. The Inquiry Committee noted that the news report was per se defamatory of the complainant and had been published without proper verification. The respondent editor compounded the offence by not publishing the correction when the complainant drew the attention of the editor to the facts. The respondent, had thus, the Committee breached opined the norms of journalistic conduct relating to defamatory writings and right to reply. For above noted infractions of journalistic conduct, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper, Nav Bharat, Mumbai edition and its editor and the concerned reporter who filed the impugned news report. The respondent may also be directed to publish the gist of the adjudication of the Press Council of India in the columns of the newspaper prominently within two weeks of its receipt and to file a copy thereof to the Council for record. The Committee further recommended that a copy of the

176 Council’s adjudication may be forwarded to the DAVP, RNI, I&PR Department, Government of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate, Mumbai 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

49) Hon. Secretary Versus The Editor The Sahyagiri Co-operative Confidence Housing Society Ltd. Hindi Bi-Monthly Goregaon (East) Mumbai Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 8.10.2003 was filed by Hon. Secretary, Sahyagiri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Goregaon, Mumbai against ‘Confidence’ a Bi-monthly Hindi news magazine from Mumbai for publication of an allegedly baseless and defamatory news item captioned “ºÉ¿ÉÉÊMÉ®ÉÒ ÉʤÉÉÏãbMÉ ÉÊMÉ®xÉä BÉEÉÒ ºÉÆ£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ” “Possibility of Collapse of Sahyagiri Building” (English translation) in its issue dated 1-5 May, 2003. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Sahyagiri Building is in a dangerous condition because some of the shop owners had illegally carried out additions and alterations in violation of rules and regulations, by bribing the corrupt office bearers. The impugned news item further alleged that some of the corrupt office bearers of the building kept allowing some of the shop owners to carry out unauthorised changes in their shops without the permission of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. It was stated in the news item that continuous structural changes are made by individual occupants violating all safety rules and regulations of the Society, thereby weakening the original structure of the building and some of the residents had expressed their fear of the collapse of the building. The complainant submitted that he sent a letter dated 9.5.2003 to the respondent drawing his attention towards the impugned publication. The respondent in his reply dated 15.5.2003 asked the complainant to appoint an Architect for taking his opinion on the safety of the building. The respondent stands by what he had published. According to the complainant, the respondent editor Shri Om Prakash Sharma runs an eating-house in the complainant Society building. The complainant alleged that the respondent had been violating all the byelaws of the Society and when he was served with a notice, instead of replying to the

177 points, the respondent misused journalism by pressuring the Managing Committing members of the Society. The complainant submitted that the act of the respondent is an abuse of journalism. He alleged that the allegations made in the impugned news item against the office bearers of the Society are baseless, untrue and defamatory. Written Statement Show cause notice to the respondent was issued 26.3.2004. In his written statement dated 15.4.2004 the respondent submitted that whatever was stated in the complaint is totally false and bogus and allegations made against him are totally false. The respondent submitted that he did not commit any mistake in publishing the news item in question. He submitted that the news item was based on the facts. The original plan of the building confirmed the deviation. The respondent submitted that there is no defamatory statement as alleged by the complainant. He submitted that they have already sent the reply to the society members. The respondent requested that the complaint be dismissed. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 13.5.2004 for information. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 24.5.2004 the complainant submitted that he did not agree with the reply of the respondent. The complainant requested action against the respondent. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 8.6.2004 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006. S/Shri Eknath V. Raikar and Prakash Patil were present on behalf of the complainant while Shri Om Prakash Sharma represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint added that all the allegations made in the article were made solely to pressurise the management to succumb to the wrong demands of the respondent against whom an amount of Rs.1, 00,000/- was outstanding against water bills. He was also served a notice. He further added that building was perfectly alright and even the Municipal Corporation did not take any action even after publication of the news report.

178 The respondent editor controverting the statement of the representative of the complainant stated that illegal construction was going on in the society. When asked to substantiate the charge of weakening of structure, submitted that he had only said that if the deviation went on, the building was likely to fall. He, however, offered to publish the clarification of the complainant, when the Committee observed that his report could have set off a scare amongst the residents. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee In view of the offer of the respondent editor the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send the clarification to the Press Council of India, for being forwarded to the respondent for publication. The Inquiry Committee also directed the respondent to publish the clarification of the complainant, sent by the Press Council, within 15 days of its receipt and forwarded a copy of the issue carrying the same to the complainant and Council for record. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off the matter with above direction 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

50) Smt. Deenaben Dhandhukiya Versus The Editor Proprietor Junagarh Samachar Sai Pooja Enterprise Junagarh, Gujarat Vadodara, Gujarat Complaint This complaint dated 28.2.2005 has been filed by Smt. Deenaben Dhandhukiya, Proprietor, Sai Pooja Enterprise, Vadodara (Gujarat) against Editor, Junagarh Samachar, a Gujarati newspaper of Junagarh (Gujarat). The complainant is an LIC agent providing insurance services in various parts of Gujarat. She has submitted that editor of the respondent newspaper had put forth unreasonable demands and threatened to affect the character of the girls/ women carrying out the insurance services in the village, if his demands were not met. Since these were not met, the editor published a report casting aspersion on their character and making other false allegations vide news item dated 31.1.2005 encaptioned: “SCANDAL – “Big scandal – exploitation of innocent village people by Sai Pooja Enterprise – In the name of service charges double money are extracted”. 179 It has been stated in the news item that the Sai Pooja Enterprise provides employment only to females. The women reach the village and brief the Sarpanch of the village and offer him free insurance as inducement for getting policies. Taking insurance through these female can cross any kind of limits. Double amount is recovered from the innocent people. “Blood Bottle Aid” coupon is given along with insurance policy. These coupons are rejected by the Blood Bank. The Sai Pooja Enterprise collect Rs. 1300/- for insurance in respect of theft, agriculture and household but give valid receipt of Rs. 458/- and the balance amount of Rs.842/- is collected as their service charges. The complainant has submitted that employing females is not an offence. As regards blood bank coupons, the same are not to be produced in the blood bank but at her office for getting cash for blood bottle. The complainant has submitted that the policies are given in Gujarati Pamphlet and the customers are not kept in dark, as alleged. The complainant has stated that words used for female staff are painful and affect their married life. The complainant has submitted that she issued a rejoinder to the editor but no response. A show cause notice dated 18.11.2005 was issued to the respondent editor. Written Statement Editor, Junagarh Samachar in his written statement dated 9.1.2006 has submitted that the newspaper has brought the truth to light and cautioned the public. The respondent has cited the instance of one Shri Virpara Girdharlal Govindbhai of Junagarh, who was given three insurance policies on 18.6.2003 of the United India Insurance Company with total premium of Rs.570 against the payment of Rs.1300 to the firm. According to the respondent, the insurance agents of any insurance companies are not allowed to collect any amount in excess of the premium. Further, the certificates given by the Officer of Kisan Vikas Yojana and Sarpanch/President/Secretary for filing claim had no value in settlement of claim. The two coupons of bottle of blood worth Rs. 300 each had no serial number. The respondent has submitted that the complainant’s firm was exploiting the rural public in Rajkot and it was reported in the newspaper Rajkot “Aaj Kaal”. It had been reported therein that one Shri Vijay Mepabhai Vadodariya of Padadhari, Distt. Rajkot had filed a complaint before DSP, Rajkot alleging that he had paid cash Rs.3000 on 5.4.2002 but he came to know from LIC, when he fell ill, that his insurance policy was not issued. On contacting the office of M/s Sai Pooja Enterprise at Rajkot, he was given evasive reply. The editor submitted that the news was first published in “Saurashtra Aaj Tak” on 16.7.2005 and subsequently in his paper on 18.7.2005. The respondent alleged that the complainant has filed false documentary evidences, which were different from the one that were given to public and thus the

180 proceedings should be initiated against the complainant for filing wrong complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 27.1.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.02.2006. The complainant, Smt. Deenaben Dhandkhukiya was present before it in person while Shri Rajesh Pandya represented the respondent newspaper, Junagarh Samachar. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant contended that the news item was defamatory and objectionable. It had been insinuated that only girls were kept on employment for a purpose and whatever the Sarpanch of the village demanded, he was given. This was derogatory remark against the girls. After publishing the news, the newspaper was distributed free in the whole building. She submitted that after publication of the news, two out of eight girls left the job. She further submitted that Life Insurance Corporation had taken no action against her after the news. On being asked by the Committee as to how the mixed policies covering Life Insurance and General Insurance are given, she explained LIC and GIC policies were being given separately for accidental/natural death. She added that after the news she met the editor and told that it was not proper to publish such news against the ladies staff. Regarding extra charges she submitted that since she was providing service in far flung areas, it was necessary to meet office expenses. The respondent editor defending the publication submitted that he had written about the exploitation of ladies by the complainant and that she was wrongly interpreting the meaning of ‘demands’ by the Sarpanch. The news was based on information gathered by the newspaper that the complainant was exploiting the illiterate rural public. He added that they had no intention to malign the complainant or the ladies working with her. He added that when the complainant visited his office to clarify the matter, she had admitted that one of her employees had been removed from service because of such charges. He had tape recorded this conversation. This established that her employees were offering services beyond their call of duty. The complainant countered this statement by submitting that she herself had removed the lady who was found to be of doubtful character. The respondent asserted that his fight against exploitation of innocent persons would continue but on the advise of the Committee agreed to publish her clarification with apology.

181 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and considered the oral arguments advanced before it by the parties. It was of the view that the news tended to lower the image of the complainant and the ladies working with her in society and among their family members. The newspaper mixed up the news with its views and the language employed in the impugned reports was ambiguous and not in good taste. However, in view of the readiness of the respondent editor to publish the clarification of the complainant together with his apology, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send her clarification and the respondent editor to publish the same with regrets within a fortnight of its receipt with the same prominence as the impugned report. The respondent may further forward the issue of the newspaper carrying the clarification to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint in terms of the 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

51) Shri Dilip Kumar Ramlal Shah Versus The Editor Ahmedabad Khadayata Jyoti Gujarat Gujarati monthly Gujarat Complaint This complaint dated 5.12.2003 has been filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Ramanlal Shah, Ahmedabad, Gujarat against the editor of Khadayata Jyoti, Gujarati monthly for publishing an allegedly false news item captioned “Shri Kotyark Khadayata Samiti” in its issue dated September’ 2003, wherein it has been reported that the Khadayata Samiti in its meeting held on 31.8.2003 passed a unanimous resolution resolving that the complainant be removed from the membership of the society, as he had made baseless and false allegations before various government, non-government and semi-government institutions against Gnati (caste) causing damage to them. The complainant has submitted that the entire news item was false and published by the respondent editor with malafide intention to discredit him among his caste members. The complainant has submitted that after reading the impugned publication he approached the President of Kotyark Khadayata Samiti and came

182 to know that by an invitation dated 8.8.2003, the Samiti had invited all the well wishers of the community to have a discussion on the aspect of taking steps against the persons who were causing unnecessary obstacles in the management of Shri Khadyata Community Sanstha and development of Khadayata community brotherhood. Though the complainant is a member of the said samiti, the invitation was not given to him. Later due to some reasons, the said meeting could not take place and the same was postponed. The complainant has submitted that a communication to this effect was sent by the President to all its members as well as to the Khadayata Kelavani Mandal Jyoti Prakashan Samiti making it very clear that they did not have any meeting on 31.8.2003 and they have not given any news item to be published. The complainant has submitted that he wrote a letter dated 7.11.2003 to the respondent editor requesting to supply the details of the meeting of 31.8.2003. The complainant has submitted that on 25.11.2003 the editor and the Secretary sent a reply that he has no right to ask for any explanation and whatever they had published was correct. The complainant has submitted that by publishing a false story with a malafide intention, the respondent editor had committed serious misconduct. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Khadayata Jyoti on 13.4.2004. The Secretary, Shree Khadayta Jyoti Prakashan Society filed the written statement dated 18.5.2004 denying the allegations levelled by the complainant and submitted that he had neither published any false news nor committed any professional misconduct. The respondent has submitted that the Kotyark Khadayata Samiti sent a news item to be published, which was duly signed by the Secretary and Trustees with the rubber stamp. That resolution passed on 31.8.2003 reads as follows: “It is unanimously resolved that D.R. Shah who has made frivolous and false allegations against the Central Institution of Khadayata Gnati before Government and non government institutions and thereby has been creating obstructions in the development of Gnati and therefore as a measure to expose this person by way of punitive action, he be removed from the membership of the samiti.” The respondent has submitted that the President and Secretary by letter dated 27.08.2003 informed all well-wishers of the community that the meeting fixed for 31.8.2003 had been postponed. However some of the invitees who remained present held meeting themselves on 31.8.2003 under the Presidentship of Kanubhai Harilal Shah and so called resolution passed. It was asserted that since the resolution was passed, the editor has not contravened the provisions of the Press Council Act. 183 Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.6.2004 for information/counter comments. The complainant in counter comments dated 17.07.2004 submitted that there was no meeting of The Kotyark Khadayata Samiti passing any resolution, as the meeting of the Samiti was actually not held. The complainant has submitted that the respondent editor before publishing the defamatory matter had not tried to verify the truthfulness of the matter. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 13.8.2004. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006. Shri J. Mathew, Advocate appeared for the complainant while there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The respondent vide his letter dated 4.2.2006 submitted that the complainant was known for making false complaints and in past also the Press Council had dismissed a complaint. He added that the news was published on the basis of a letter of Kotyark Khadayata Samiti duly signed by the Secretary. The news was correct. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of the Council. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant filed the written submissions supported by documentary evidence, reiterating the averments made in the complaint. He asserted that the President and the Secretary of the society were supporting rival camps and when the President cancelled the meeting, the Secretary used the letterhead to record the said resolution unauthorisedly. He added that the complainant was being called to the subsequent meetings of the society. The clarification sent by the complainant was not published. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral and written submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant. The Committee noted that the respondent editor had published the news on the basis of the letter sent to him by the Secretary of Kotyark Khadayata Samiti on the letterhead of the society. Thus, the respondent had authentic document in its possession at the time of publication of the news. However, to afford the complainant his right to reply, the Committee recommended to the Council to direct the complainant to send his factual version, without counter allegations to the respondent editor and the respondent to publish the same within a fortnight of its receipt. The Council may further direct the respondent to forward a copy

184 of the issue carrying the clarification to the complainant and 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

52) Shri Pradyumna Versus The Editor B. Sahasrabhojanee Hitavada Architect – Urban Designer Nagpur Nagpur, Maharashtra Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 22.6.2004 has been filed by Shri Pradyumna B. Sahasrabhojanee, Architect – Urban Designer, Nagpur against the Hitavada, an English Daily published from Nagpur, Maharashtra for publication of objectionable news items captioned, “Architects’ selection smacks of dirty design” dated 27th April 2004 and “NIT’s architect appointment case gets murkier” dated 2nd May 2004. The objectionable publication/non-publication of the matter by the Hitavada are as under: - Defamatory headline in ‘City Line’ Edition of “The Hitavada” dated 27.4.2004 ‘Architects’ selection smacks of dirty design’ “Both the civil bodies headed by the same IAS officer commonly follow a practice of appointing architects and designers who are in the good books of the NIT and NMC authorities. “And never ever NIT or NMC have invited tender while giving work to architects and designers” disclosed an officer on condition of anonymity. “Sources in the NIT have also revealed that because of this lot of hanky- panky goes on. The sources cited glaring examples of this. The work of constructing new hospital and commercial complex in the Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) and Hospital worth Rs. 200 crore is a classic example of how this practice benefits local architects as well as officers”. “Normally an architect is paid about three percent of the total project cost. At this rate any architect engaged for IGMC work will be getting a whopping Rs. 6 crore. Looking at the huge cost, even some nationally reputed architects had shown their interest in the project. They included none other than internationally acclaimed Hafeez Contractor. He was willing to take up the entire project at just 2.5 percent of the project cost. A local architect also

185 tried to compete with Contractor’s offer. However, the work has been awarded to two local architects. One is Ashok Mokha and second Pradyumna Sahasrabhojanee. Mokha was awarded the work of commercial complex and Sahasrabhojanee the work of hospital. Of the, Mokha came through a competitive process and landed the job. “People in NIT and also in architectural world wonder on what basis was Sahasrabhojanee awarded the work of hospital. Which hospital has he constructed in the past? Which prestigious project of this scale can he claim to have executed in the city? The project cost of just the hospital is about Rs. 100 crore but the cost of all projects executed by Sahasrabhojanee so far do not add up to this sum”, a source said. Defamatory Headline in ‘City Line’ Editor of ‘The Hitavada’ dated 2.5.2004: NITs architect appointment case gets murkier”. “P. Sahasrabhojanee, a city based architect and partner of Integrated design Concepts, whose name had appeared in one of the item i.e. XXIVth part of the ongoing series ‘NIT scam’ published by the Hitavada on April 27, had issued a rejoinder and the same was published by the Hitavada edition of May 1. The story was about how architect of NIT and NMC projects are selected arbitrarily without following any norms. “Since when has the happy coincidence of somebody happening to be present in an officer’s chamber become a criterion for award of a public work? If this is the practice that collectors of this state follow, then contractors and architects should keep sitting in the chambers of District Collectors for getting work”. “During the press conference, personal discussion and even in the written statement , the complainant had made it clear that the initial proposal was drafted by him as an individual architect. He then floated a firm Integrated Design Concepts in partnership with two others. He has claimed that Architect Shriram Marathe was made partner of the said firm because he was having past experience of working on hospital projects. “Again may we ask Sahasrabhojanee as well as the then Collector and IGMC Dean to clarify whether the work was to be given to Sahasrabhojanee or his firm which was born later because the work was done by Sahasrabhojanee who has no experience of doing a hospital project of this magnitude. “And what a coincidence it is that the collector in whose chamber Sahasrabhojanee “happened to be present” and was requested to work on the project was Manu Kumar Srivastava and when Sahasrabhojanee’s firm was actually awarded the work by NIT its Chairman was again Manu Kumar Srivastava! Who will explain this coincidence Manu Kumar Srivastava or

186 Sahasrabhojanee or someone else? Can this coincidence again be the norm for granting a public work for which the fees would be upwards of Rs. 5 crore?”.’ “Finally, the complainant, on a number of occasions in his rejoinder, personal discussions and press conference, had been consistently claiming that his (or his firm’s) appointment was legally correct and made by following all norms. “Basically this is the point, which The Hitavada had brought out in the original story. Question was as to what were the norms for appointing an architect that NIT, NMC or any other government agency must follow? The complainant admitted in the Press Conference that he was unaware whether any such norms exist. He had been quoting Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1989 and Architects Act 1972, for this. However what he and all the bosses of NIT and NMC have failed to tell is that Government of Maharashtra has actually formulated norms for this. The NIT while appointing the complainant firm did not follow these norms. The Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra, through a government resolution issued on December 11, 1997 made these norms public and mandatory for all governmental agencies to follow. This was a thirteen-page document and the most important part of the whole story was that appointment of such architect, whose fees are in excess of Rs. 25 lakh will be finalized by the Public Works Department only after consultation with the Law and Judiciary Department and Finance Department of Government of Maharashtra. “Will Sahasrabhojanee answer the key question as to which procedure was followed by the NIT Chairman and then Collector Manu Kumar Srivastava who also overruled the suggestion of all the members of the Board of Trustees (who are Satish Chaturvedi, Guardian Minister, Nitin Raut, MLA, Jaiprakash Gupta and Pramod Darne) that Sahasrabhojanee should not be given the work? This he did on as many as four occasions in four meetings of the Board of Trustees”. Complainant’s Charge The complainant has submitted that the newspaper made allegations that were malicious, defamatory and out of context. The complainant submitted that the impugned news items were factually incorrect and deliberately misleading. He had prepared an exhaustive document titled “Particulars of Documentary Evidence” for submission, along with his complaint, to the Council of Architecture, New Delhi. The complainant has submitted that he contracted the respondent concerned correspondent, who held that though the news article hurts the complainant directly, it was actually a campaign against the local authority of NIT and therefore it was not necessary to obtain the view of an individual. The complainant has submitted that he had written to the respondent 187 editor of the Hitvada on 3.5.2004 but to no avail. The complainant has submitted that he addressed a Press Conference on 1.5.2004 based on which the respondent published a rejoinder captioned, “Architect denies allegations’ in its issue dated May 1, 2004, without withdrawing the allegations. The complainant has submitted that the respondent published yet another news item captioned “Mah clears 100 Cr. For IGMC Complex” on 26th May 2004, without mentioning even once, the serious allegations made against him. The complainant in his letter dated 29.4.2005 to Editor, The Hitavada, Nagpur submitted that this article contains specific derogatory references aiming to tarnish his personal and processional reputation. The article also clearly appeared on the front page for some persons who intend to cause serious harm to his personal, social and professional interests. The complainant submitted that he regrets to note, from personal experience, that from time to time, like a cheap tabloid which makes up sensational stories, either to keep its circulation going or to give vent to personal jealously or vendetta, or just the inability to accept presence of honest and upright citizens in the society. The Hitavada takes sadistic satisfaction in misusing its position for maligning and publicly ridiculing persons of good character and reputation. The complainant submitted that on 27.4.2004 he called up Shri Ganesh Kanate and had a lengthy discussion with him. He promised him on telephone that if he issues a clarification he would publish it with equal prominence in the same position on the front page so that damaged caused by his article to his name could be controlled, thereafter he met him in the evening on the same day at his office and provided him with a written and signed reaction, together with documentary evidence which showed that his report was full of errors. The complainant in his letter dated 1.11.2004 intimated the Council that the malicious campaign by the Hitavada had resulted in removal of his firm from the said project in a very irregular and illegal manner, for which the complainant’s firm filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of Mumbai High Court. In the said writ, the Hitavada is not made a party nor any relief of action is sought against the Hitavada for defaming or harming his firm. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Hitavada on 30.3.2005. The respondent editor, Hitavada did not file his written statement in the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was listed for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006. The complainant appeared in person to present his case. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Hitavada.

188 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He, however added that after publication of the news report he contacted the concerned reporter and gave him the documents showing that the news was not corrected and requested him to publish the clarification but he did not do so. He submitted that the project proposal for better land use/ facilities was prepared in 3 ½ years and presented before eminent personalities and it was appreciated. The complainant alleged that as an environmentalist he had exposed some scam in NIT so some NIT people were against him and due to conspiracy by them and partly due to malicious campaign by the Hitavada, the contract was cancelled. It was further submitted that on the basis of complainant’s press conference denying the allegations, the respondent newspaper published the clarification on 1.5.2004 but on the very next day, again published another misleading and derogatory news report controverting his denial. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the complainant. It noted that despite receipt of the show cause notice of the Council dated 30.03.2005, the respondent editor neither filed the written statement nor was he represented before the Inquiry Committee to defend the publication of the impugned news report. Absence of defence from the respondent led to the inference that the averments made in the complaint refuting the allegation made in the news reports in question were true and the paper was unable to justify the impugned publication. In the circumstances, the Committee opined that the headline of the news report dated 27.4.2004 created an impression that the complainant’s firm did not have adequate experience of handling such a big project and that the contract of construction of the Hospital and the sports complex had been obtained by the complainant by some unfair means. In the second article dated May 2, 2004, which was published after publication of the complainant’s clarification, it was alleged that the complainant’s firm was awarded contract in violation of the norms formulated by the government in 1997. As contended by the complainant, the news reports were partly the cause for the termination of complainant’s contract, the Committee held that the news reports had been published without due verification of facts from the person who was likely to be affected directly or indirectly by the articles. The impugned articles had the tendency to badly affect the business interest and reputation of the complainant. Therefore though the paper may have had some basis for preparing the report, it did not give sufficient weightage to the version of the concerned person to allow the readers to form independent

189 opinion. Thus, the respondent breached the norms relating to defamatory writings and pre-publication verification. For above noted infractions of journalistic conduct, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and admonish the respondent newspaper, Hitvada, Nagpur and its editor. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

53) Shri Meghraj Hajarimal Jain Versus The Editor President Dainik Bhaskar Rashtriyas Samaj Sewa Bahu Nagpur Udeshiya Sanstha Nagpur Complaint This complaint-dated 21.5.2004 has been filed by Shri Meghraj Hajarimal Jain, President, Rashtriya Samaj Sewa Bahu Udeshiya Sanstha, Nagpur (through his advocate Shri R.S. Vyas) against “Dainik Bhaskar”, Nagpur (Maharashtra) for publishing the following allegedly false and defamatory news items: -

S.No. Caption Dated 1. “xÉɤÉÉÉÊãÉMÉ ãÉbÃBÉEÉÒ MÉÉªÉ¤É cÉäxÉä ºÉä +ÉÉgÉàÉ ºÉÆnäc BÉEä PÉä®ä àÉå” 23.7.2003 (Orphanage is under suspicion due to disappearance of minor girl) 2. “ABÉE {ÉJÉ´ÉÉbäà ¤ÉÉn ãÉbÃBÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä JÉÉäVÉxÉä ÉÊnããÉÉÒ VÉÉAMÉÉÒ {ÉÖÉÊãɺɔ 8.8.2003 (After one fortnight, police will go to Delhi for finding out the girl) 3. “ãÉbÃBÉEÉÒ àÉcÉÒxÉÉå ºÉä MÉɪɤÉ, SÉèxÉ BÉEÉÒ xÉÉÓn ºÉÉä ®cÉÒ cè 11.9.2003 VÉ®ÉÒ{É]BÉEÉ {ÉÖÉÊãɺɔ (Girl absconding since months, Jaripatka police is in sound sleep)

Written Statement A show cause notice dated 11.1.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Nagpur. In response Shri Prakash Dubey the editor of Dainik Bhaskar vide his letter dated 9.2.2005 submitted that the newspaper has already published the clarification in the issue dated 9.2.2005 under the caption (Neither

190 Sharda was abducted nor there was any conspiracy). The editor has requested that the complainant or his counsel were put to inconvenience due to publication. The editor desired that the matter be amicably settled. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2005. there was no appearance before it from either side. The advocate for the complainant, vide his letter dated 23.01.2006 had intimated that since the respondent, Dainik Bhaskar, had published the correct position in the newspaper and also published regrets the complainant did not wish to pursue the matter. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee In view of the request of the advocate for the complainant the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being settled and 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

54) Shri Meghraj Hajarimal Jain Versus The Editor President Deshonati Rashtriya Samaj Sewa Nagpur Bahuudeshya Sanstha Maharashtra Nagpur, Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 18.7.2005 has been filed by Shri Meghraj Hajarimal Jain, President, Rashtriya Samaj Sewa Bahuudeshya Sanstha, a Public Trust, Nagpur against Deshonati, a Marathi daily published from Nagpur for publication of allegedly defamatory news item captioned “Orphans are misused by using their names” in its issue dated 5.6.2005. The English translation of the news item provided by the complainant reads as follows: “Institution by name Shree Anath Bal Seva Ashram is collecting the donations by making the orphans wander from door to door in hot summer. Shri Anath Bal Seva Ashram, Nagpur is managed by Rashtriya Samaj Seva Bahuudeshiya Sanstha and collects the subscription for orphans. This institution collects the subscriptions by using minor orphans of the ages between 12 to 15 throughout Vidharbha. This institution selected 11 children and gave them Receipt Book, one Certificate and one register for enrolling names of the

191 donors in lieu of receipt. Amount upto Rs. 2000 to Rs. 2500 is collected daily from one child. One Vijaynath Rathod who comes from Daryapur has so informed. Out of the collected amount Rs. 200 is paid to these children for taking meals at Dhaba. Vijaynath has told that Kamalnath Pawar is their Adviser. It is learnt that Meghraj Jain is the President of this institution. There are 200 children in this institution. It is pertinent to note that these children, taking the Receipt Book, during the whole day of hot summer, go to Marriage functions or crowded public place and narrate woe of their institution and then put forward the receipt book and if there are figures like 100, 51, 21, 11, 10 then they issue the receipt, and Rs. 5, 3, 2 and 1 are taken without receipt and entry of its receipt is made in Register. There children collect the subscription from the places like Akola, Amravati, Washim etc.” The complainant has submitted that the news item in question is totally incorrect and published with the sole intention to bring disrepute to him and the institution. Neither the complainant nor any other office bearer of the trust engaged any orphan or child below the age of 18 years of age for collecting donation/subscription and the news has been published without verifying the truth. The complainant has submitted that he issued a legal notice on 9.6.2005 to the respondent with a request to publish the rejoinder but in spite of receiving the said notice, no action has been taken by the respondent. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Deshonati on 17.11.2005. The Sub-Editor, Deshonati in his written statement dated 10th December 2005 has submitted that the complaint is frivolous and baseless and is nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law. The same has been filed with an ulterior motive to pressurize them, so that they should succumb to the complainant’s demand of publishing an apology. The respondent has submitted that as per the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act, it has been clearly stated in the printline published in Deshonati daily, that all the views and opinions published in the said newspaper are not necessarily the views and opinion of the Chief Editor or the Editor. The respondent has submitted that one of their correspondent has gathered this information/news from master Vijaynath Rathod, who was collecting the subscription for the said Sanstha, in the presence of the public at Daryapur. The respondent has submitted that the complainant neither in his legal notice dated 9.6.2005 served on them nor in the present complaint has anywhere denied that master Vijaynath Rathod is not their student/representative. The complainant has also nowhere denied that master Vijaynath Rathod has never been engaged for collecting subscription/ donation etc. by the said Sanstha. The respondent has submitted that the

192 complainant in his legal notice as well as in the present complaint makes an ambiguous statement that the Sanstha has never engaged any orphan or child below the age of 18 years for collecting subscription. The respondent has submitted that the said Sanstha is not that much popular or big that a news article published on it would earn any popularity to the newspaper like Deshonati. The respondent has submitted that a bare perusal of the I-Card, Certificate and Receipt Book, which has been relied upon by the complainant, would reveal the mischief tried to be played by the complainant. On careful reading of the I-Card, Certificate and the Receipt Book, one can easily make out that none of the document discloses that the person who is holding the same is a major or minor, nor does the certificate anywhere mentions that its holder is an orphan or not. It only mentions that the holder is authorized to collect subscription, membership fees etc. The respondent has submitted that the certificate mentions that so and so has been “sent out for General Studies and for subscriptions……..”. Because of such wording the reader/donor gets a prima facie impression that the person who is holding the certificate is an orphan who has been sent out to collect the subscription and at the same time he would be able to see and learn the things of the outer world. The respondent has submitted that these documents are nothing but eyewash, the same cannot come to the rescue of the complainant so as to prove that minor orphans are not engaged by the said Sanstha for collecting subscription. The respondent has submitted that the conditions which have been mentioned on the Certificate, I- Card or the Receipt Book, just cautioned the people not to give donation without verifying the certificate and its validity and to see that original certificate and Receipt Book are produced at the time of demanding the donation or subscription, and also warned that if a person is found demanding subscription without original certificate, he/she should be handed over to the Police etc. The respondent has submitted that an ordinary man who is busy in his own affairs has no time to carefully read all these documents and all the conditions mentioned thereon. The respondent has submitted that if a child approaches him for donation, at first instance if he is inclined to give donation of Rs. 10, 20, 50 etc., he would not even bother to go through the list of documents provided by the complainant. Even if somebody undertakes the exercise of cross-checking the documents, the outcome is none of the documents discloses the age of the donee or whether he/she is major or minor. The respondent has submitted that the news article published in Deshonati is not defamatory. The respondent has submitted that the same has been published after inquiry and there is documentary proof to support the same, even the complainant has completely failed to prove that the said Sanstha does not engage orphans for collecting subscription, donations etc. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 5.1.2006 for information.

193 Counter Comments In response to written statement of the respondent Deshonati, Nagpur the complainant has filed para wise counter comments dated 17.1.2006. The complainant has stated that sole aim of the respondent was to divert the mind of people by publishing false, flashy and defamatory news. The complainant further submitted that Deshonati tried to mislead the Council since there was no ulterior motive in filing the complaint. The flimsy news was published, which caused great harm to the reputation of the complainant. The complainant further stated that any news item published by the respondent editor is the liability of respondent. Before publishing any news, the truth of the same must be confirmed from the concerned authorities. The complainant has further stated that nobody has made any complaint about the trust of the complainant about any irregularity or illegality in functioning of the trust of the complainant. The Deshonati has no business to get the untrue matter published against the complainant. The intention is apparent that rivals of the complainant must have induced the officials of Deshonati to publish such false news so that people should stop donating to the trust. However, the allegation made in statement is ill motive to ruin the trust of the complainant. The complainant requested that Council take stringent action against respondent so that they may learn a lesson and do not publish such false news against any Sanstha/anybody. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee there was no appearance before it from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On careful consideration of the record the Committee noted that the allegation in the news report objected to by the complainant was that Shree Anath Bal Seva Ashram was sending orphans between the age of 12 to 15 years door to door for collecting donations. It was based on respondent’s interview with one Vijaynath representing the institution. The complainant, while denying that any orphan or child below the age of 18 years was being sent for collecting donations/subscription had not controverted the reference to Vijaynath. Therefore, the Committee was not convinced that the report was entirely without basis and was in the interest of the society. The Committee, therefore, did not find any reason to accept the complaint and recommended to the Council to dismiss the same. However, before parting with the case, it referred to the statement of the respondent editor that in the print line of the paper, it is made clear that all the views and opinions published in the paper are not necessarily the views and opinion of the Chief Editor or the Editor. The Committee observed 194 that under Section 7 of the PRB Act, 1867, the responsibility for the entire matter published in a newspaper including the advertisements devolves on the editor of the paper. Therefore, the disclaimer was neither ethically not legally correct. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

55) Shri Bharat B. Jain Versus The Editor Mumbai Mid-Day, Gujarati Daily Mumbai Complaint This complaint-dated 23.7.2004 has been filed by Shri Bharat B. Jain, Mumbai against Mid-Day, Gujarati daily, Mumbai for publication of his photograph along with his wife’s photograph with a caption “Raju Jain who is accused in fraud committed worth crores of rupees. Police has recorded statement of both Bharat Shah his brother-in-law and Varsha his sister” in its issue dated 22.7.2004. The complainant submitted that till the publication of the report the police had not even knocked on their door and the respondent intentionally published his photograph along with his wife to harm their reputation when they had no connection with the matter under report. The complainant submitted that the newspaper had caused tremendous harassment and loss of reputation by publishing the photograph with remarks. He added that the police had confirmed not giving any such news or photograph to the publication. The respondent did not care to verify the facts, the complainant added. The complainant issued a rejoinder dated 20.8.2004 to the respondent which was not published by the respondent editor, Mid-Day, Mumbai. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Mid-Day on 4.1.2005. The respondent editor, Mid-Day in his written statement dated 18th January 2005 submitted that the charge of the complainant was false. The respondent has submitted that the In-charge Crime Inspector of Nala Sopara

195 Police Station Shri Sanjay Hazare had told Mid-Day that he had recorded the statement of the complainant and his wife Smt. Varsha Jain who was Raju Jain’s sister in the Raju Jain cheating case. The respondent has submitted that on the basis of official information obtained from the concerned police station, they had published the said news on 22.7.2004. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.2.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee Shri Avinash M. Dube, Advocate was present on behalf of the respondent editor, MID DAY while the complainant, vide his letter dated 22.1.2006 expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to his ill health. The Inquiry Committee decided to proceed with the matter. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the respondent pleaded that the report was published on the basis of information given by the police. Both the complainant and his wife were involved in the case. On being asked as to whether he could produce any documentary evidence to support his statement, the counsel replied that the papers were in the Mumbai office. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On careful consideration of the material available on record and the oral arguments of the counsel for the respondent, the Committee was of the considered opinion that this was a clear case of irrelevant reporting and insinuating guilt by association. The Committee was not convinced by the defence taken by the lawyer of the respondent that the report was based on the information provided by the police as he was unable to substantiate his statement by any documentary evidence. It was an admitted fact that the accused was the complainant’s brother in law as mentioned in the news report also. The Committee was of the view that firstly the respondent did not care to verify the facts at pre- publication stage and secondly, the respondent denied right of reply to the complainant by not publishing his clarification. Further more, the publication of the photograph of the complainant and his wife, which had no relevance to the news report, was in violation of the norm of journalistic conduct, which reads as follows: “Newspapers should eschew suggestive guilt by association. They should not name or identify the family or relatives or associates of a person convicted or accused of a crime, when they are totally innocent and reference to them is not relevant to the matter being reported”. The Committee further opined that

196 the impugned photograph did not serve any public interest but did cast a reflection upon the antecedents of the complainant and his wife. For violation of above said norms of journalistic conduct, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper, MID DAY, its editor and the concerned reporter. It further recommended to it to forward a copy of the adjudication to RNI, DAVP, I&PRD, Government of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate, Mumbai for such 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 reports of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

56) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi Versus The Editor President Lok Satta All India Anti Corruption Marathi Daily Committee Mumbai Thane, Maharashtra Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 2.6.2005 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, President, All India Anti Corruption Committee, Thane, Maharashtra against Lok Satta, Marathi Daily, Mumbai for publication of a defamatory news item on 1.6.2005 under the caption “Fake Officer of anti corruption department arrested.” It has been reported in the news item that the police had arrested the complainant while extorting Rs. 50,000/- from the owner of the Tirupathi Tours & Travels. It was alleged that the complainant had threatened the owner that he was selling bogus train tickets, which was being enquired into. Further, it was reported that the Kasturba Marg Police arrested the complainant on 30.05.2005 when he reached the office of Tirupathi Tour & Travels to receive second instalment of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant has submitted that he had left Mumbai for Delhi on 31.5.2005 and that he was never arrested. The complainant issued contradiction on 3.6.2005, which was not published by respondent editor ‘Lok Satta’. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Lok Satta on 7.9.2005 for filing written statement.

197 The editor, Lok Satta in his written statement dated 23rd September 2005 has submitted that the complaint is false and baseless and has been filed only as an afterthought to intimidate the Press and suppress the true facts. The respondent has submitted that the news report was published in good faith, in public interest, believing the same to be true and correct, based on information gathered from police and Press Release issued by the police authorities of the Kasturba Police Station, Mumbai without any malice towards the complainant or any other person. The respondent has submitted that in Mumbai, there is a growing and alarming trend of so called social workers or fake NGOs cheating or extorting monies from business and ordinary citizen. One such incident had come to the notice of the police authorities of Kasturba Police Station, who wanted to educate and caution the general public about the modus operandi used. Accordingly they had forwarded to the newspaper, a Press Release for publication, to enable the incident to get wide publicity and thereby forewarn the public. The respondent has submitted that the said news report had reported that a person claiming to be an officer of the Anti Corruption Committee had sought to extort Rupees Fifty Thousand from one Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Owner of Tirupathi Tours & Travels. This unknown person claimed himself to be an officer of Anti Corruption Committee. He constantly made telephone calls to said Shri Agarwal alleging supply of bogus tickets etc. and sought to extort money from the businessman. Being mentally harassed Shri Agarwal promised to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and accordingly paid Rs. 8,000/- as first instalment. According to the complaint filed by Shri Agarwal, the said purported officer started nagging Shri Agarwal for payment of the balance amount. Shri Agarwal thereafter asked the complainant to come to his shop and collect the balance amount. Meanwhile, Shri Agarwal lodged a complaint against the complainant in the concerned police station, viz Kasturba Police Station and the police caught him red handed and succeeded in arresting the said purported officer. The police then issued a Press Release, on the basis of which the newspaper carried the report in Lok Satta. The respondent has submitted that subsequently, the police, on investigation, learnt that the said purported officer was one Shri Lalitraj Sitaram Yadav. He had been issued identity card of the purported Anti Corruption Committee. The respondent has submitted that the police contacted the newspaper seeking to clarify their Press Release, and on the receipt thereof, a clarification was immediately carried in Lok Satta, Mumbai issue dated 2.6.2005. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has suppressed from the Council the fact that he is engaged in questionable activities and has police record. The respondent has submitted that the Director General of Police has vide a notification/circular dated 29.9.2001 informed all the police authorities and Senior Officers not to entertain any complaints lodged by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi. Further the said circular stated that the complainant is in the habit of lodging false complaints against Government and/or Semi

198 Government officers/employees and if investigations are not proceeding as per his wishes and for ulterior and malafide motives, he misleads the general public. The respondent has submitted that there are a number of complaints/cases of serious nature which are pending against the complainant in various police stations and in Courts. The respondent has submitted that the newspaper carried the news report on the basis of a Press Release issued by the police authorities and the very next day, a clarification was also carried. The respondent has submitted that significantly the complainant has no grievance against the police who issued the Press Release. The respondent has submitted that they have not received any letter from the complainant. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 17.11.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006. Shri Mukand Sansaram, resident editor was present before it on behalf of the respondent while the complainant remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Sansaram appearing for the respondent contended that though the press release issued by the police did not name any person, they got the name of Shri Dwivedi from the police on inquiries. Regarding the arrest also they later learnt that he was not arrested in this case but was arrested in 2001. Therefore, on the very next day a clarification was published clarifying the matter. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that the respondent in his written statement defended the publication. A copy of the written statement was sent to the complainant. The complainant neither filed any counter to the written statement nor was he present before the Committee to pursue his case despite due service of the notice of hearing. Further, the Committee observed that the newspaper had published the clarification, correcting the inaccuracies in the report. The Inquiry committee thus 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

199 57) Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh Versus The Editor Indian Forest Service Hindustan, Hindi daily Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, U.P. Complaint Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, Indian Forest Service, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. Lucknow has filed this complaint dated 19.12.2003 against Shri Rajendra Kumar, Reporter Hindustan, Hindi daily for publishing two scandalous and imputative news items captioned “¤ÉÖxnäãÉÉ BÉEÉ OÉäxÉÉ

201 2.7.2004. The complainant in his counter comments dated 27.5.2004 submitted that his version was published on 2nd page of the Hindustan, Lucknow edition only whereas the news items were published in both editions i.e. Lucknow and Varanasi on 1st Page. Sur Rejoinder of Respondent Hindustan A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 2.7.2004. The General Manager (Corporate Affairs, Taxation) & Company Secretary in his sur rejoinder dated 25.3.2004 has submitted that the complainant’s grievance is that his reply has been published on page 2 of the local edition of the newspaper on 3.2.2003 but the main report had been carried on the front page. The respondent has submitted that the reply of the complainant was published with equal prominence in the 2nd page of the newspaper and in detail explained his stand in the matter. Same space and prominence by printing in bold has been given to the reply. Due to constraints of space and to accommodate the news of the previous day, sometimes it becomes difficult to place all the information on the front page. Regarding the complainant’s further grievance that his reply had not been printed in the Varanasi edition the paper stated that the said omission was totally inadvertent and if so directed, his reply would be published in the Varanasi edition of the newspaper as well. The respondent has further stated that in so far as the report submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, the complainant may produce written confirmation of the claim made by him which would definitely be published by them. The respondent has stated that as per the information available with them on 19.11.2003 i.e. by the time the edition dated 20.11.2003 was finalised; there was a move to make an adverse entry in his character roll. It appears that on 20.11.2003, a decision was taken that only a vigilance inquiry be instituted against the complainant. Hence, in all fairness, the said report was published on 24.11.2003 giving prominence to the fact that only a vigilance inquiry has been ordered against the complainant. The respondent has submitted that there was no attempt to publish a false or misleading or wrong information and they have published the fact of a vigilance inquiry on 24.11.2004. The respondent has prayed that the show cause notice be discharged and further proceedings be dropped against them. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. The complainant Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh alongwith his advocate, Shri Sishir Tewari was present before the Committee while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the respondent

202 newspaper published news reports, which were factually incorrect and aimed at maligning the complainant without properly verifying the facts. The counsel reiterating the submissions made in the complaint added that the impugned news reports were published on the first page of the newspaper in Lucknow as well as the Varanasi editions whereas the clarification of the complainant was published on 2nd page in Lucknow edition only without giving reference to the impugned news report. He asserted that the complainant was a person of high repute in the field and in fact was known to fight corruption and environmental damage. He asserted that he was being victimized on this account. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the learned counsel for the complainant. The Committee noted that the grievance of the complainant was two fold viz. publication of the news reports which were false and aimed to damage his reputation and secondly, the publication of his clarification on the second page of the newspaper in Lucknow edition only. The Committee observed that the impugned news reports had charged the complainant with irregularities and loss to the government exchequer. The complainant’s fight against the regime destroying the environment is said to be the reason for this. The complainant has also apparently been absolved of all allegations against him. The Committee felt that it was necessary for the media to ensure that all its facts were properly verified and established and that it was in fact not being used as a vehicle by anyone to settle scores. In the instant case, this appears to be so. Thus even while no verification had been done from the concerned person at pre-publication stage, the clarification, carried without any reference to the previous reports, did not carry the same weight. The paper has already accepted that its non publication in Varanasi was an inadvertence. For the reasons aforesaid the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent newspaper, Hindustan published from Lucknow and Varanasi. It may further direct the respondent editor to publish the clarification of the complainant, within a fortnight of the receipt of the Council’s adjudication, in the Lucknow and Varanasi editions with prominence giving reference to the impugned news reports and to forward copies of the issue carrying the complainant’s clarification to the Press Council of India and the complainant. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly. Note: Mr. S.N.Sinha, member of the Press Council of India did not participate in the proceedings of the case due to his interest in Hindustan Group of Papers. 203 58) Shri Shailendra Yadav “Lalai” Versus The Editor State Minister “Dainik Hindustan” Social Welfare Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Complaint This complaint dated 22.6.2004 has been filed by Shri Shailendra Yadav “Lalai”, State Minister, Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow against “Dainik Hindustan”, Varanasi (U.P.) for publishing two allegedly false and distorted news item in its issues dated 25.5.2004 and 26.5.2004 under the caption “+É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE ºÉÆ®FÉhÉ {É® BÉEÉä]Ç MÉà£ÉÉÒ®” (Court serious on political protection to the accused) and “nÆnÉÇiÉ +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ÉÊ~BÉEÉxÉÉ ®ÉVªÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ ãÉãÉ<Ç BÉEÉ +ÉÉ´Éɺɔ (Hard core criminal’s address is residence of State Minister Lalai) respectively. It has been stated in the first impugned news item that the matter of political protection to the notorious accused Ajay Yadav @ Parshuram Yadav @ Parshu Yadav has come to the notice of the court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order stated that the murder accused is still moving free and the same is in the knowledge of the police but the police did not arrest him till date. The impugned news item further stated that the court clearly highlighted the name of State Government Minister Lalai Yadav and ordered the Superintendent of Police to ensure the arrest of the accused. The second impugned news item has stated that “If you want to know whereabouts of the notorious and hard-core accused of Purvanchal, then you must go to the residence of the State Minister”. It has been further stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused on the address of the State Minister. The impugned news item stated that Shri Lalai Yadav denied all the allegations of having relation with Parshu Yadav and also stated that he will go to the court for defamation. According to the complainant, the impugned news items had been published by the respondent without any basis or any valid evidence. The complainant has submitted that there is nothing in the police records that the complainant is godfather of hardened criminal. The complainant has stated that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur has already condemned the news in his order dated 28.5.2004. The complainant has further submitted that he never harboured any criminal in any manner and in none of the police record it is mentioned that the alleged hardened criminal was living with him.

204 The news has been published to defame him, which has caused much physical and mental agony. The complainant alleged that the news items are highly objectionable and the same have been published only to lower down his image in the eyes of the public.

The complainant vide his letter dated 22.7.2004 requested the respondent editor to publish the contradiction of the false news item. But the respondent newspaper did not publish the contradiction despite forwarding a copy of the order dated 28.5.2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate condemning the news items.

Written Statement

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Dainik Hindustan on 3.12.2004. The respondent editor in his undated written statement has submitted that while publishing the news items no code of journalistic ethics has been violated by them and the principles of journalism have also not been violated. The respondent has submitted that the news items in question are the day-to-day development of a famous murder case of the area. The respondent has submitted that the news items were based on the order dated 28.5.2004 of the Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. The respondent has submitted that it has also been mentioned in the news item that the Minister was not available at the time the news item was published to furnish his version.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.2.2005 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. Shri Ramesh Chander Yadav was present on behalf of the complainant while S/Shri Kumar soveer, Correspondent and Padam Kirti, Legal Correspondent represented the respondent newspaper.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

Shri Ramesh Chander Yadav, appearing for the complainant reiterated that the Dainik Hindustan had tried to damage the Minister’s reputation through the two sensational false news reports in its issues dated 25.5.2004 and 26.5.2004. The news items referred to the Court order to state that the accused were taking shelter in the house of the complainant. The C.J.M. did not move any such order and the CJM also issued a clarificatory order suo-motu. The complainant sent a letter to the editor requesting him to publish the clarification. These were ignored by the respondent.

205 The representative of the respondent newspaper submitted that the news report was published on the basis of police record and the records and order of the CJM, that the application moved before the Court said that the accused stayed with the complainant. He added that the second news report carried the version of the complainant also. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral submissions put forth before it by the representatives of the parties. The Committee noted that in the clarification given by the CJM to the news report dated 26.5.2004 in Dainik Hindustan, it was mentioned that it was brought to the notice of the Court that the accused Ajay Yadav was living with the State Minister, Lalai Yadav. Therefore, to ensure his arrest the arrest warrant was issued to the Superintendent of Police. He further clarified that in the order it was not mentioned that the Minister was giving shelter to the accused. In the opinion of the Committee it could not be established that accused had no connection with the complainant. The Committee therefore, did not find fault with the reporting, as it appeared that the news was based on the orders of CJM dated 28.5.2004 the records of the Court and also on the police record. Further the respondent had published the version of the complainant also. For the reasons aforesaid the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly. Note: Mr. S.N.Sinha, member of the Press Council of India did not participate in the proceedings of the case due to his interest in Hindustan Group of papers.

59) Shri Shailendra Yadav Lalai Versus The Editor Minister for Social Welfare Amar Ujala Government of Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Lucknow Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 27.5.2004 has been filed by Shri Shailendra Yadav Lalai, State Minister for Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow against Amar Ujala, Varanasi (UP) for publishing defamatory news item captioned “ºÉàÉÉVÉ BÉEãªÉÉhÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEä ºÉɪÉä àÉå {ÉãÉ ®cä nÉä JÉÖÆJÉÉ® ¤ÉnàÉɶɔ (Under the

206 protection of social welfare Minister, two hardened criminals flourishing) in its issue dated 20.1.2004. The photographs of the complainant and two criminals were also published by Amar Ujala. It was alleged in the impugned news item that as per police record, the State Social Welfare Minister is godfather of two hardened criminals. How much welfare of the society is being done by the State Social Welfare Minister, can be matter of debate, but according to police sources the criminals gain full welfare from him. There is list of top ten criminals of area in the P.S. Nizamabad. Santosh Singh is at Serial No.1 and Parshuram Yadav is at Serial No.2. In dossier register (the register for keeping details of criminals) of police station the details of these two criminals are mentioned. In the column of Santosh Singh and Parshuram Yadav the remark in “the present activities of criminals and protector” the name of MLA from Khthan and State Social Welfare Minister, namely Lalai Yadav is mentioned. It is another thing that because of being MLA and Minister the police has taken no action against him. When the aforesaid register was prepared, he was Minister in Bahujan Samaj Party Government now he is Minister in the Samajwadi Party Government”. Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the impugned news item is published without any basis and without having any valid evidence. According to the complainant the impugned publication is totally false, baseless, imaginary and his name is published deliberately to defame him and to lower his image in the society. The complainant has submitted that he contradicted the impugned news item immediately through press statement, which was published in various newspapers except in “Amar Ujala”. The complainant has submitted that the delay in filing the complaint was due to the fact that on 26.5.2004, a news was published in “Dainik Hindsutan” in same manner, and he realised that under some conspiracy the news is being published only to defame him and thus he filed the instant complaint. No Written Statement Hon’ble Chairman condoned the delay and accordingly show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, “Amar Ujala”, Varanasi, U.P. on 16.7.2004 for not publishing the contradiction sent to him by complainant and for violation of norms of journalistic ethics of denying the complainant his right of reply. Written Statement In his written statement dated 4.3.2006, the respondent editor submitted that the impugned news item was substantially true and was published bonafide

207 in the true spirit of journalism and was objective reporting in discharge of public duty devoid of any malice. He further submitted that the impugned news item was sent by Sri Shivaji Singh, Bureau in Charge of Azamgarh on the basis of his investigation and on the basis of record maintained in the police station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh. Mr. Parashuram Yadav and Santosh Singh, both were harden criminals and crime history of both the accused are present in the P.S. Nizamabad, District Azamgarh. The aforesaid reporter had taken photograph of one page of case history of Santosh Singh from the police diary maintained at aforesaid thana. The said photograph was taken by the digital camera. One photograph was the photograph of entire page of police diary and other one was the enlarged version of relevant remark made by the police in respect of Shailendra Yadav “Lalai”. In the said remark before the column of Vartman Gatividhiyank, it was mentioned by the police that person concerned was living with Lalai Yadav. In the photograph of the record of criminal history of Mr. Santosh Singh maintained at P.S. Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, at the “Place of shelter”, the name of the complainant was clearly mentioned. It was added that the news item was published on the basis of aforesaid documents and the newspaper neither had any motive nor any interest in the affairs of complainant except than that of inquisitive urge of journalist to know some matter concerning public importance and report the same in free and fair manner for welfare of people. He also filed said evidence in support of the impugned report. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. Shri Ramesh Chander Yadav, Advocate, was present on behalf of the complainant, while S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Pradeep Kumar Upadhya represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Committee The counsel for the complainant submitted that defamatory news items were published by Amar Ujala under the sensational headline. The photograph of the complainant with two criminals was also published. He further stated that the clarification sent by the complainant was not published by the respondent newspaper. The representative of the respondent newspaper reiterated the submissions made in the written statement dated 4.3.2006 of the respondent editor. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the material available on record and considered the oral submissions made before it by the parties. It noted that in

208 the police record produced by the respondent editor, it was mentioned that the place of shelter of the wanted was “Jaunpur Vidyak-Lalai”. Thus, the Committee opined that at the time of publication of the impugned news reports, the respondent had sufficient documentary evidence in their possession for making the statement in public interest. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, did not find fault with the respondent in publishing the news report and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case being devoid of merits. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

60) Shri Ashok Kumar Tomar Versus The Editor Principal Amar Ujala Rashtriya Inter-College Meerut, U.P. Shahpur, Muzaffarpur Uttar Pradesh Complaint Shri Ashok Kumar Tomar, Principal, Rashtriya Inter College, Shahpur, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh has filed this complaint dated 27.5.2004 against Amar Ujala for publishing allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “VÉxÉ{Én àÉå xÉBÉEãÉ BÉE®iÉä 16 ÉÊ´ÉtÉÉlÉÉÔ {ÉBÉEbäà MÉA ’’ (16 students caught copying in the District) in its issue dated 30.3.2004. It has been inter alia reported in the impugned news item that the District Deputy Inspector of Schools arrested three students during his search raid in the Rashtriya Inter College, Shahpur. He severely chided the Centre Superintendent and also warned him of action. The impugned report cited the incidents of other colleges. Denying the allegations the complainant has submitted that impugned news item is false, misleading and has damaged his prestige. The complainant has submitted that during the inspection only two students were arrested and the Centre Superintendent was neither scolded nor warned. The complainant has submitted that last year also the respondent published a misleading news item captioned “ºÉÉàÉÚÉÊcBÉE xÉBÉEãÉ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ{ÉBÉE c]ɪÉÉ” (Mass copying-invigilator removed) in its issue dated 28.3.2003. The complainant has submitted that the school wrote a letter on the same day i.e. 30.03.2004 to the respondent editor requesting him to publish the contradiction but he did not respond despite issuance of reminders dated 15.4.2004 and 30.04.2004. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

209 Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala on 10.8.2004. The editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 6.10.2004 has submitted that the complaint is legally not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The respondent has submitted that the news item was substantially true and was published bonafide in the true spirit of journalism and was an objective reporting of the incident. The respondent has submitted that the news item was published in public interest without any malice against the complainant and there was no intention of the newspaper either to defame the complainant or to damage the reputation of the institution. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint that in what manner the newspaper has violated the norms of journalistic ethics and which portion of the news item is objectionable. The respondent has submitted that it has been admitted by the complainant that copying material was recovered from the possession of two students during the D.I.Os. inspection at the time of examination, thus the news item was true and as per journalistic norms he only performed his journalistic duties. The respondent has submitted that they have not violated any norms of journalistic ethics by publishing the impugned news item and the present complaint has been filed just to harass them. The respondent has submitted that they are ready to publish the version of the complainant, if any. Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 9.12.2004. The complainant in counter comments dated 4.1.2005 has submitted that the reply of the Amar Ujala is without proof and justice demands proof. The complainant has submitted that neither the news reporter came to college on that date of inspection nor any official authority from the college sent any news to Amar Ujala. The complainant has submitted that the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar himself asked the editor for the proof of the charge concerning the centre superintendent of Rashtriya Inter College, Shahpur that he had been warned by the ADIOS. The external Superintendent also wrote directly to the Council denying the statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. Shri Sukhram Pal Singh Tomar appeared for the complainant before the Committee while S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Sharad Tanda, advocate represented the respondent newspaper.

210 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that the paper appeared to hold some animus against them and similar reports had been published the previous year. He asserted that the respondent newspaper had published a factually incorrect news item stating therein that the District Deputy Inspector of Schools had scolded and warned the Centre Superintendent of the school as three students were arrested from his school while copying. In fact only two had been caught and there was no occasion for any warning being given to the school. He wrote to the editor denying the allegations and with the request to publish clarification but to no avail. The Inspector of Schools was also wrote to the editor. He submitted that instead of publishing the clarification he received threat from them. The counsel for the respondent asserted that three students were arrested while copying. On being asked as to whether the reporter of the newspaper was present in the school when the Principal was chided, the counsel replied that he was not sure whether the reporter was present or not. He added that they had no documentary evidence in support of the statement regarding the Principal being chided. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the oral submissions made before it, the Inquiry Committee noted that the grouse of the complainant was primarily over the publication of words that “the District Deputy Inspector of Schools had severely chided Centre Superintendent of the school and also warned him of action.” The complainant had categorically stated that no such remarks were given by the Deputy Inspector. Shri Amar Pal Singh, External Centre Superintendent in his letter–dated 4.1.2005 to the Council had also stated that ADIOS did not chide the complainant. The complainant felt that the remarks had affected his prestige. The Committee observed that in the school or colleges there may be some students who indulge in copying during the examinations. Thus, the part of the report about copying may be right but the remarks regarding the C.S. being chided for it were not warranted. The Inquiry Committee felt that the reporter had unnecessarily made this comment and the paper compounded this irresponsible conduct by ignoring the version of the school. For the above the Committee recommended to the Council to reprimand the respondent newspaper and direct it to observe due caution in future in ensuring the accuracy of the reports. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on considelation of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

211 61) Shri B.B. Jindal Versus The Editor Lucknow Swatantra Bharat Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Complaint This complaint dated 19.7.2004 has been filed by Shri B.B. Jindal, Lucknow against Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow for publication of allegedly false, malicious and defamatory news item captioned “Caroron Ka Gaban Karne Wale Hathon Main Power Corporation KI Command” (Power Corporation’s command in the hands of the persons who have misappropriated crores) in its issue dated 15.6.2004. According to the complainant, in the news item the following libellous, false and concocted allegations have been levelled: Service of the complainant as member (F&A) of U.P. State Electricity Board were terminated on account of misappropriation of crores of rupees. One of the three agencies i.e. Sai Computers (P) Ltd. to whom contract has been awarded by Lucknow Electric Supply Administration (LESA) belongs to Sh. B.B. Jindal. Out of three agencies the KLG group of Gurgoan to whom also LESA has awarded this contract, the franchise of which also belongs to Sh. B.B. Jindal. Recovery notice was issued against Sh. B.B. Jindal. Sh. B.B. Jindal got himself declared bankrupt and evaded recovery. Sh. B.B. Jindal accepts that he is the proprietor of Sai Computers (P) Ltd. And Director of the company. He is giving benefits to U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Officers. The complainant has submitted that the cooked up stories is a result of blackmailing threats of Sh. Ashwini Srivastava, correspondent of the respondent newspaper who asked for favour of employment to some of his relatives and some part time work for himself at Sai Computers, where the complainant is a consultant. The complainant has submitted that the respondent correspondent Sh. Ashwini Srivastava must have joined hands with those not happy with some decisions taken by him during his service. The complainant has submitted that it is also strange that respondent editor of Hindi daily Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow also allowed Sh. Ashwini Srivastava to make serious/personal charges against a reputed retired senior citizen without proper verification and thus he is also guilty of abetment and liable for consequences. The complainant has submitted

212 the false, malicious and motivated news story has damaged his retired life and social image. The complainant issued legal notices to the correspondent and the editor of Swatantra Bharat but none of them bothered to give reply to the notice. The complainant has requested to take appropriate disciplinary and punitive action against the editor and its erring correspondent, Shri Ashwini Srivastava. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Swatantra Bharat on 2.12.2004. The respondent did not file his written statement despite due service of show cause notice. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearaing by the Inquriy Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. The complainant Shri B.B. Jindal was present before it in person while the respondent newspaper Swatantra Bharat remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral arguments contended that the impugned news was published on his refusal to the reporter to employ some persons who were either related or known to him. The report contained seven false insinuations against him. The complainant added that the report was published without verifying the facts. He further stated that legal notice sent to the editor and the reporter evoked no response. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the complainant, the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor had neither filed the written statement in response to the show cause notice dated 2.12.2004 of the Council nor cared to appear before the Committee to defend his case. The absence of any defence from the respondent led the Committee to proceed on the basis that he had no defence to the charges of the complainant that the news report was false, motivated and malicious. On merits, the Committee noted from the news report that the respondent had levelled serious allegations against the complainant of misappropriation of crores of money and of promoting personal interests when he was member (F&A) of U.P. State Electricity Board, stating that on account of that, he was terminated from the services. The complainant had categorically denied the allegations. Therefore, the respondent failed to submit any evidence to substantiate the report and reply to the charge that the impugned publication was motivated by the complainant ‘s refusing to favour the journalist and in this had the support of the editor.

213 For the above reason, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and to reprimand the respondent newspaper, Swatantra Bharat, the concerned reporter and also the editor. Further a copy of the adjudication may also be forwarded to the State Government for its record. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

62) Shri Murari Lal Goel Versus The Editor Kanpur Dehat Swantantra Bharat Uttar Pradesh Hindi daily Lucknow, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 18.8.2004 has been filed by Shri Murari Lal Geol of Kanpur Dehat against “Swantantra Bharat”, Hindi daily, Lucknow edition for publication of an allegedly false misleading and defamatory news item in its issue dated 30.7.2004 under the caption “SÉÉä®ÉÒ BÉEä VÉä´É®ÉiÉÉä BÉEÉÒ ÉʤɵÉEÉÒ BÉEÉ àÉÖJªÉ BÉEäxp ¤ÉxÉÉ ºÉ®ÉÇ{ÉEÉ ¤ÉÉVÉÉ® (Jewellery market is the main centre for sale of the stolen jewellery). The impugned news item datelined Pukhrayan, Kanpur Dehat’ reads as follow:- “Pukhrayan Jewellery market has become main centre for sale of stolen and looted jewellery. Stolen gold from other district and states is being melted here. Many a time when cases come to light, Police takes its’ share and allows the malpractice”. “Information received says that Murari Lal Geol and Hira Lal Niharia are main persons who buy booty from thieves and robbers”. “An FIR had been registered against Murari Goel in police station. Bhognipur in a case of idol theft. One idol was bargained by Murari Goel for lakhs of rupees but because the middleman did not get appropriate share, the same came to the knowledge of police and at that time police made Murari Goel main accused. After this incident Murari Goel became main businessman for stolen jewellery and idols. Today by buying stolen jewellery and idols he has become millionaire. Melting of the jewellery is done by his neighbour, Hiralal Niharia. “Sources say the booty of daylight robbery at Mauranipur, last month, was purchased by Murari Geol and was melted by Hiralal Niharia. Mauranipur

214 police found melted jewellery worth lakhs from this jeweller on the information of robbers”. “Some time back when Andhra Police conducted a raid here, this jeweller had saved Baua and his brother, who were shown absconding, by giving bribe of Rs.40,000/- to police. This clearly shows that Pukhrayan jewellery market is main market for stolen and looted jewellery and idols and Murari Goel is the main person behind this” According to the complainant, the impugned news item is false, baseless misleading and defamatory and has been published by the respondent with a view to blackmail him. Denying the allegations made in the impugned news item, the complainant has submitted that he has never purchased any stolen item from any one. The complainant has also denied registration of any case against him. He has alleged that the correspondent of the newspaper, Shri Yogender Tewari had demanded Rs.5000/- from him but he refused to pay him, due to which the impugned news item was published. The complainant has submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent editor to the impugned news item on 18.8.2004 with a request to publish contradiction of the impugned news item but neither the contradiction was published nor any reply was given by the respondent. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Swantantra Bharat, Lucknow on 24.1.2005. No written statement was filed despite due service of notice. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006, Shri Murari Lal Goel, the complainant appeared before it in person while the respondent newspaper remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated what he had submitted in his complaint. He added that the respondent had published the news quoting his name therein whereas no FIR had been registered against him as mentioned in the news and there was no police action. He denied the allegations made in the impugned news item and submitted that the news was totally false and had been published on his refusal to pay Rs. 5000/- to Shri Yogender Tewari, the reporter of the newspaper. He added that the reporter had in the past also caused publication of similar reports but these were without any identification. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral submissions 215 advanced before it by the complainant. On perusal of the impugned news report the committee noted that the respondent had levelled serious allegations against the complainant of buying the stolen and looted gold ornaments. It was also alleged that the complainant was booked by the police in a case of idol theft. The complainant had specifically denied all the allegations against him. He had stated that no FIR had been registered against him nor had the police taken any such action. The news report, the Committee felt, was highly derogatory and had the tendency to damage the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of his relatives in particular and the society in general. The Committee further observed that the respondent editor had failed to avail of the opportunity to present his defence by filing the written statement. He was also not represented before the Committee. Under the circumstance, the Committee had to proceed holding that the respondent had no defence to offer and the impugned news report had been apparently published with the motive of blackmailing the complainant and extorting money from him. The Committee observed that while it was the duty of the press to expose the wrong doings that come to their notice, such reports had to be backed by a irrefutable facts and evidences. In this case the report appeared to be motivated by some extraneous consideration that led the editor to even deny, the complainant his right of reply. Based on these observations, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent newspaper, Swatantra Bharat, Hindi daily, published from Lucknow, its editor and the reporter who filed the story for publishing per se defamatory and derogatory news report against the complainant. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

63) Shri Shatrughan Versus The Editor Singh Chauhan, Dainik Aaj Former District Kanpur General Secretary Uttar Pradesh Samajwadi Party, Jalaun, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 14.7.2004 has been filed by Shri Shatrughan Singh Chauhan, Journalist and former District General Secretary, Samajwadi Party, Jalaun, U.P. against Dainik Aaj, Kanpur for publishing an allegedly defamatory news-item in its issue dated 14.7.2004 captioned “S.P. Leader causes damage

216 to the image of the party – First complains then ‘feel good’ and then withdraw complaint.” In the news item the complainant has been projected as a blackmailer used to lodging complaint and later withdrawing them after taking bribe. It has also been reported that Junior Engineer had made arrangements for a mobile phone and some cash for the complainant through a contractor. The dubious activities of the complainant are the talk of the Samajwadi Party. The complainant is not only the leader of the Samajwadi party, who is involved in blackmailing some other leaders are also in the same activities. The complainant has submitted that the concocted news item was published with a biased attitude of defame him. The complainant has submitted that unparliamentary words have been used in the news item. The complainant has submitted that false allegations have been levelled in the news item to defame him and his party. The complainant sent his contradiction dated 4.8.2004 which has not been published by the respondent, Dainik Aaj. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Aaj on 1.10.2004 for violating norms of journalistic ethics. The resident editor, Dainik Aaj, in his written statement dated 17.10.2004 has submitted that the news item was true and was based on facts. The respondent has submitted that the said news was furnished along with supporting evidence by their Jalaun based correspondent which substantiated the charges. He attached copies of these documents. The respondent has submitted that if the newspapers do not highlight the corruption, then it may increase. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.1.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 23.3.2006 at Lucknow Shri Pankaj Tripathi made appearance on behalf of the respondent, Dainik Aaj while the complainant, Shri Shatrughan Singh Chaluhan remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent reiterated that the news report was true and was published on the basis of factual information. Many persons had complained in writing about the activities of the complainant. The paper was only doing its duty by exposing the persons who were causing damage to the country for personal gain.

217 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the material on record and the oral submissions advanced before it by the representative of the respondent, the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor in his written statement dated 17.10.2004 had defended the publication on the ground that the complainant by writing letters to the Gram Vikas Minister against the Junior Engineer, was building pressure on him to compel him to grease the palms of the complainant. A copy of the written statement duly supported by evidence was sent to the complainant. The complainant neither filed counter to the written statement nor had he appeared before the Committee to defend his case. On merits of the case, the Committee felt that the respondent had some documentary evidence in his possession at the time of publishing the impugned news report and therefore could not be faulted for carrying the impugned report. The Committee, 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

64) Shri Surender Sharma Versus The Editor Bijnore Dainik Shah Times Uttar Pradesh Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 1.3.2004 has been filed by Shri Surender Sharma of Bijnore against “DAINIK SHAH TIMES”, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh for publishing an allegedly false, biased and concocted news item in its issue dated 22.2.2004 captioned “={É bÉBÉEPÉ® ciªÉÉBÉEÉÆb àÉå xɪÉÉ àÉÉäbà ’’ (Sub-post office Chowkidar’s murder case takes new turn). “It has been reported in the news item that in a sensational matter of murder of a guard and robbery in sub-post office, Surender Sharma, Akram and Rekha were arrested by the Police. As per police sources, after inquiry, Akram was released from custody whereas Surender Sharma and Rekha were kept in custody. Surender Sharma claims that he is office bearer of Loktantrik Party and resident of Muzaffarnagar”. The complainant has submitted that his name and the name of Akram was falsely incorporated. The complainant submitted that due to publication of false news item, his reputation in society has been lowered. The complainant has stated that Akram was released after intervention of higher officers, as he 218 was innocent. The complainant has further stated that he is a worker of Samajwadi Party and he had resigned from Loktantrik Party in June, 2004. A letter dated 3.3.2004 was written by him to the editor, informing about the real facts and with a request to publish contradiction but in vein. The complainant has requested the Council to take action against the respondent editor. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the editor, Shah Times on 2.7.2004. The respondent editor failed to file his written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006 neither the complainant nor the respondent was represented before it. However, the complainant Shri Surender Sharma vide his affidavit dated 1.3.2006 submitted that since he had settled the matter with the respondent editor, Dainik Shah Times, he did not wish to pursue the matter. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee In view of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the respondent editor, the Inquiry Committee while expressing its unhappiness over the failure of the respondent to file its reply, recommended to the Council to close the complaint as settled and 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

65) Dr. S.R. Niranjan Versus The Editor Managing Director Dainik Bundelkhand Kranti Sun India Pharmacy (P) Ltd. Hindi daily Orai (Jalan), U.P. Orai, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 23.4.2004 has been filed by Dr. S.R. Niranjan, Managing Director, Sun India Pharmachy (P) Ltd., Orai (Jalan), U.P. against “Dainik Bundelkhand Kranti”, Orai regarding publication of a series of false, fabricated, frivolous and misleading news items which read as follows:-

219 S.L. Caption Dated 1-2 Sankramak Rog Phailane Mein Juta Hai 17 & 18.3.2004 Sun India Group. (Sun India Group is busy in spreading disease) 3. Kabhi Bhi Talabandi Ho Sakti Hai Sun India 24.3.2004 Group Mein (Lock out is inevitable in Sun India Group) 4. Parihar Ko Bahar Nikalane Ki Taiyaari Ho Gayi 13.4.2004 Sun India Mein. (Ouster of Parihar from Sun India is on anvil)

It has been stated in the first two news items that complainant company and its subsidiary, Sun Foods, manufacturing spices, were spreading several diseases by pollution through its waste products. It has also been stated that big exhaust fans of the factory are blowing heavy dust of yellow colour which settles on the roofs of the houses of residents of the area polluting the atmosphere which is causing the spread of diseases like cough, coryza and other breathing diseases. In the third news item published on 24.3.2004, it has been stated that the residents of Ram Nagar, where the Sun India factory is situated, can any time speed up their agitation to the extent of forcing the lock out in the factory. Not only this, the public can even opt to take legal action in the court against Sun India Group if the administration does not provide justice to them. In the last impugned news item it has been stated that the complainant did nothing to solve the problems of the residents of Ram Nagar and instead he started making preparation for ouster of his manager Parihar alleging his failure in media management. The complainant has stated that all the news items are false and have been published to tarnish the image of the company in the eyes of the public. The complainant stated that publication of the news items is due to non- fulfilment of the demand of money of the respondent. He has stated that the news items are totally false and baseless. The complainant stated that from the date of origin of the company, Shri Parihar is Manager of the company and under his supervision the company is growing day by day. The news published by the respondent is intended to defame the company. The complainant alleged that the sole motive of the respondent newspaper by publishing these false, fabricated and frivolous news is to harass them and to get money by way of advertisement by exerting pressure. The complainant has submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent on 19.5.2004 towards the impugned news items but the respondent did not publish contradiction.

220 Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 28.6.2004. The Resident Editor, “Dainik Bundelkhand Kranti”, Hindi daily in his written statement dated 13.7.2004 while denying the allegations has submitted that the news items were true and based on facts. The respondent has submitted that concealing the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint to tarnish the image of the journalists. The respondent has submitted that the allegation of the complainant to harass/defame and extort money from rich people is wrong as no such evidence has been provided by the complainant. The respondent has submitted that a complaint under the leadership of Ex. MLA, Block Chief and Social Worker has been filed before the District Magistrate has been filed by the residents of Mohalla Ram Nagar from where the business of pearl spices was started by the complainant, alleging that the waste products of Sun India Group and Sun Foods is spreading contagious diseases. Due to seriousness of matter, the D.M. had ordered an inquiry on 18th March by the Magistrate in the matter, which is continuing at the time of filing this written statement. The allegation of forcefully asking for advertisements is also wrong. In fact, the payment of advertisements bills was still pending. The respondent has submitted that the statement of the complainant that he has no relation with Sun Foods Khadi Gramydyog Samiti is also wrong since the complianant had himself clarified that the protest was politically motivated. The respondent has submitted that the complainant is a very rich person and his statement that he has no relation with Sun Food, is also wrong because this firm is also run from the same house but has been shown as a tenant of the premises. The respondent has stated that they have also published the version of the president of Bhartiya Kisan Union on 19th March and the version of former District President of B.J.P. which were also in favour of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the news item captioned “Ouster of Parihar from Sun India is on anvil” was based on the statement of the complainant given before him in his office in the presence of Shri Arvind Saigar, Congress leader. The respondent has submitted that on 19.5.2004 the complainant sent his clarification for publication, which was also published. The respondent has submitted that the allegation of the complainant that the newspaper and the editor of the newspaper are behind the complainant is also wrong. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.7.2004 for information. Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant in his counter comments dated 11.8.2004 has submitted that the reply of the respondent is far from the truth. The complainant has submitted that the respondent has biased attitude against him. Due to biased attitude, false and misleading news items were published by the respondent.

221 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006, Shri Surinder Aggarwal, correspondent was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper while no one appeared for the complainant. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the respondent newspaper submitted that the news report was true and was published in public interest. Dozens of people in the area held procession and gave memorandum to the District Magistrate on 17.7.2004 against pollution being spread by the factory. The District Magistrate had ordered inquiry on 18.7.2004. He added that clarification and interviews of three persons, which was in favour of the complainant, was also published by the newspaper. He further added that the newspaper had been closed since last eight months. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral submission put forth by the representative of the respondent before it. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor asserted that the publication was in public interest. He had submitted that on a memorandum given by the residents of the area, the District Magistrate had ordered inquiry. This fact had not been refuted by the complainant in his counter to the written statement. The Committee thus opined that the respondent had some material in his possession at the time of publishing the impugned news report. Moreover, the Committee observed, the respondent had published the clarification of the complainant also. It was also to be noted that the paper was not now being published. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that no further action was warranted in the matter. 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.

66) The Regional Manager Versus The Editor (PR & Publicity) Saral Sahara Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) Unnao, U.P. Zonal Office, Kanpur Uttar Pradesh Complaint The Regional Manager (PR & Publicity), Life Insurance corporation of

222 India (LIC), Zonal Office, Kanpur (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 15.4.2004 against “Saral Sahara”, Hindi weekly, Unnao (U.P.) for publishing baseless, biased, concocted and fictitious news items captioned “£ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ ¤ÉÉÒàÉÉ BÉEä VÉÉäxÉãÉ BÉEɪÉÉÇãÉªÉ àÉå £ÉÉ®ÉÒ PÉÉä]ÉãÉÉ-§É­] A´ÉÆ ¤Éä<ÇàÉÉxÉ +É{ÉEºÉ®Éä uÉ®É |ÉSÉÉ® BÉEɪÉÇ àÉå £ÉÉ®ÉÒ BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxɤÉÉVÉÉÒ ºÉä ÉÊxÉMÉàÉ BÉEÉä BÉE®ÉäbÃÉå BÉEÉÒ FÉiÉÉÒ” ( Heavy scam in the office of LIC Zonal Office – Huge loss in crores to the Corporation due to heavy commission in PR work by the corrupt and dishonest officers) and “ AãÉ.+ÉÉ<Ç.ºÉÉÒ.uÉ®É |ÉSÉÉ® BÉEɪÉÇ àÉå £ÉÉ®ÉÒ PÉÉä]ÉãÉÉ - ÉÊxÉMÉàÉ BÉEä +É{ÉEºÉ®Éå ´É |ÉSÉÉ® BÉEà{ÉxÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉÉÄ~-MÉÉÄ~ ºÉä BÉE®ÉäbÃÉå BÉEä |ÉSÉÉ® vÉxÉ BÉEÉ ¤Éxn®¤ÉÉÆ] ¶ÉÖ°ô/ÉÊVɪÉÉå àÉä®ä BÉÖEÆ´É® ºÉÉcä¤É MÉÖ°ô” (Heavy Scam in PR work by LIC officers of the Corporation and PR Company connived to share crores of rupees meant for PR - (live long my Kunwar Saheb Guru) in its issue dated April 10- 16, 2004 and 17-23 April, 2004. The impugned news items have highlighted the activities committed in the alleged scam indulged into by the senior officers. It is alleged in the impugned reports that under the supervision of the senior officers, the officers have committed the scam in the advertising work in the Zonal Office of LIC. Names of the allegedly dishonest officers have also been mentioned in the impugned report, who had damaged the Corporation. It is further stated that the officers are dishonest and corrupt and with the collusion between the officers/employees and advertising company, the corruption is flourishing. Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the photos of the officers and logo/symbol of LIC have been published to defame the Corporation and its officers and the allegations regarding scam are untrue and without any basis. The sole aim of publication of the impugned news items was to defame the corporation and to put the corporation to business loss and discredit corporation amongst the Insurance Companies. According to the complainant each and every job in the P.R. & Publicity Department is routed through a high level Committee consisting of three senior officers, which is reconstituted almost every year. The Zonal Manager acts on the advise/suggestions, recommendations of the committee, which is reconstituted almost every year. Not even a single proposal can be entertained at individual level. There are no chances of imparting favour to any particular advertiser. Apart from this, all the works/job completed in the Department are checked/scrutinized on yearly basis by the Inspection Department of their Central Office. Also, an Audit team from another zone visits the department yearly and carries out of thorough investigation. The ratings given by Inspection and Audit to the department has been very good and excellent. The complainant has submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent-editor vide letter dated 20.4.2004 but received no reply. He has

223 requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent editor for tarnishing and maligning the image of the Corporation. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 9.8.2004. The Chief Editor, Saral Sahara in his written statement dated 4.10.2004 while denying the allegations has submitted that the news items in question are true and based on facts. The respondent has submitted that the news were published for the awareness of the public. Regarding the language used in the news item the respondent has submitted that the news item was published in regional language. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had not received any notice from the complainant; otherwise a proper reply could have been given to the complainant. The respondent submitted, that the newspaper had done its duty and the action ought to be taken against corrupt officers. Complainant’s Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.10.2004 has submitted that after publication of misleading and false news item the respondent declined to receive the notice addressed to him to save himself from the legal action The complainant has submitted that he had written six letters to the respondent but all these letters were received back from the postal authority. The complainant has submitted that a complaint has also been filed before the District Magistrate which was forwarded to Assistant Director, Information Department by the District Magistrate vide his letter dated 19.5.2004 for inquiry. In the report-dated 27.5.2004 the Assistant Director, Information Department has submitted that the respondent editor is habitual of publishing false news item for his own benefit. In the report it has also been mentioned that the newspaper was not accredited by the State Government or by the Press and the newspaper was not being published regularly. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 14.3.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. S/Shri Anup Gurnani, Advocate, Pawan Kumar, Manager Legal and Ram Prakash, Regional Manager appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the respondent had published baseless news item in order to defame Life Insurance Corporation of India. The news item was false and baseless. Before publishing the news report

224 no reporter contacted any officer of the Corporation. The language used in the news item was also objectionable. He added that the respondent had not produced any material to substantiate the allegations made in the news report. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments put forth by the counsel of the complainant. On perusal of the news report the Committee noted that the respondent editor had levelled sweeping allegations of corruption by the Officers of the Corporation. The photographs of the Officers of the Corporation were also published along with the logo of the LIC which was irrelevant and against the journalistic ethics. In the opinion of the Committee, the press has a duty to highlight corruption in public offices, but this has to be based on irrefutable evidence and couched in dignified language. The respondent published a series of reckless news report without verifying the facts at pre-publication stage. The respondent editor in his written statement dated 10.04.2004 had defended the publication on the ground that it was true and based on facts but the respondent had not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his averments. The language employed in the reports was also not in good taste. Thus, the Committee felt that the respondent editor had violated the norms of journalistic conduct with regard to pre-publication verification and defamatory writings. For above infractions for the norms, the Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and warn the respondent newspaper “Saral Sahara” published from Unnao (U.P.), for publishing a series of news reports having tendency to defame the LIC and its officials. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

67) Shri Kishore Virwani Versus The Editor Proprietor Jan Inquilab M/s Laxmi Water Industries Indore, M.P. Indore, M.P. Complaint Shri Kishore Virwani, Proprietor, M/s Laxmi Water Industries, Indore vide his legal notice dated 25.4.2003 issued to the Chief Editor, Jan Inquilab, Hindi weekly, Indore with a copy endorsed to Press Council, objected to the publication of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items as follows:

225 S.No. Captioned Date 1. Sale of Amrit Mineral Water alias poison in Indore 27.3.2003 2. Why polluted water in the name of Amrit Mineral 8.5.2003 Water at wine shop? 3. Malpractices of factory producing Amrit Mineral 5.6.2003 Water running in residential area. The news items alleged that on inspecting the factory of Amrit Mineral Water, bore-well and drainage water may be found mixed. This dirty, polluted and foul smelling water was frequently sold under the name of Amrit Mineral Water. It was also alleged in the news item that the State Government had not granted any licence to the company, which was distributing poison and life killing product. The report questioned why pouches of this water were being sold at wine shops. Denying the allegations made in the impugned news item, the complainant vide his letter dated 9.6.2003 asserted that he had got licence from Bureau of Indian Standards, which granted ISI mark only after being duly satisfied with the requisite standard in factory premises. He also submitted that open drainage system was not prevailing in their locality and he had obtained four water supply connections from Indore Municipal Corporation. The water for the purpose of treatment was stored in neat and clean tanks. The complainant submitted that the news item regarding mixing of drainage and bore well water was grossly false. He also alleged that the respondent had published the impugned news item to blackmail him without due verification or ascertaining the truth. He further submitted that the respondent refused to receive the notice served upon him and also gave no reply to it. Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Jan Inquilab, Indore vide Council’s letter dated 6.8.2003. In his written statement dated 30.8.2003 the respondent editor, Jan Inquilab submitted that the news items in question were published to draw the attention of the officials in public interest without being prejudiced or malicious towards any one. The respondent stated that the factory named in the impugned news item was located in the residential area and residents of the area apprised the newspaper about their grievances. They had earlier filed complaints with the Government Departments and when they failed to receive any response they complained to the newspaper. As a responsible and alert newspaper, it published the news item in public interest, soon after it received. He also averred that during the period the city was facing acute water shortage and the

226 complainant could not have easily got so much water for packaging. It was therefore possible that impure water may have been mixed with potable water. Regarding the allegation that the newspaper had published the news items to blackmail the complainant, the respondent submitted that before publishing the news item they tried to contact the owner of the factory but the person present there refused to provide any information. On the contrary he used unparliamentary language and stated that they do not bother about the publication of any news in print media about them. Later, after the publication of the news item, the complainant first lured and later threatened the respondent on telephone. The respondent submitted that his newspaper was being published for the last 30 years and enjoyed the reputation of impartial and responsible reporting. The respondent further stated that the validity of the certification granted to the factory by the ISI was due to expire on 4.9.2003. Thus anticipating objection by ISI in extending its certification due to the publication of impugned news item, the complainant had filed the complaint in order to use it as a tool for obtaining extension of validity from ISI. This itself showed that the complainant used the Press Council for his own benefits. A copy of written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 9.10.2003. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 24.11.2003 raised objections on the written statement filed by the respondent. According to the complainant the respondent editor was trying to divert the attention of the Council from real issue and avoiding reply to material contentions of the complaint. The complainant further submitted that the respondent had again published derogatory news in its editorial dated August 25-31, 2003 under the caption “Injurious poisonous material in pouch of water-Amrit Mineral Water within ambit of doubt-People representatives demanded investigation from Municipal Corporation and Health Department”. According to the complainant, publication of further false news item after service of show-cause notice was certainly an attempt at discouraging him from raising his voice against delinquent-editor before the Council. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent-editor. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor on 7.1.2004 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter was next listed for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Delhi on 30.06.2005. Kumari Laxmi Virwani, Advocate, represented the

227 complainant and filed further papers to establish that the factory was duly licensed and granted ISI certificate since 2001 which had been renewed even after the impugned reports. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. As the service record of the notice of hearing vis-à-vis, the respondent was not complete; the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter in order to afford one more opportunity to respondent editor to defend his case. IInd Adjournment When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 17.11.2005 there was no appearance before it from either side. The complainant had vide a letter dated 11.11.2005 requested for adjournment on the plea that he was suffering from Jaundice and was advised bed rest. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter to be listed before it in one of its future meetings directed that in future the request of adjournment on the ground of illness must be backed up by a Medical Certificate. Matter Relisted When the matter was relisted for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006 neither the complainant nor the respondent was represented before it despite service of notice of hearing to both the parties. The respondent editor, however, vide his letter dated 24.4.2006 submitted that after publication of the news reports the Municipal Corporation of Indore, had taken samples of water from the factory and initiated the process to seal it. The District Administration had also banned the sale of the water of the Amrit Mineral Water”. The penalty imposed by the corporation in May-June 2005 proved that the impugned publications were true. He requested that Committee may decide the matter on the basis of documents submitted by him. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Committee considered the material available on record. It noted that in the impugned article the respondent had alleged that M/s Laxmi Water Industries was selling polluted water and that the industry was not granted license by the State Government. The respondent editor knew at the time of publishing the impugned reports that the Factory had a valid license and certification of the ISI as admitted in his written statement dated 30.08.2003 whereby he had submitted that the license was due to expire on 4.9.2003 and taking of sample and process for sealing the factory was consequential to the publication of the news. He had also averred that with the acute scarcity of water there was the possibility of potable water being mixed with drainage water. Thus the impugned reports were apparently based on conjectures and surmises. Thus, the Committee held that the news report was baseless and

228 recklessly published without verifying the facts. The respondent editor had also failed to give to the complainant an opportunity to place his version before the Public. For breach of the above norms the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to reprimand the respondent newspaper, Jan Inquilab, published from Indore and directed it to publish, under intimation to the Council, the version of the complainant within two weeks of the receipt of the adjudication. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

68) Shri T. Pitchandi, IAS Versus The Editor Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Dinakaran Chennai Chennai Complaint This complaint dated 29.5.2003 has been filed by Shri T. Pitchandi, IAS, Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai against “Dinakaran”, Tamil daily for publication of allegedly false and incorrect news item captioned “The teachers announced that they have postponed their strike and returned on 6th due to Government’s coercion and threatening” in its issue dated 16.9.2002. Excerpts of the impugned news item read as follows:- “The Government is in fear that the students will start agitation in front of Jayalalitha in any place either in Madurai or in the Government function organised in Andipatti Constituency. Because, Mellur College and Meenakshi College are situated in Madurai District where Lathi Charge and police excess was witnessed. The students have already announced that the strike would continue. In this circumstance, it was stated that warning was given to prevent the agitation in front of Jayalalitha. 3000 police force including the Task Force, Special Protection Forces are being posted for security. Crores of Government money is being spent on Government functions.” The complainant alleged that the news item contains false and incorrect reports intending to bring disrepute to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. According to the complainant, the District Collector, Madurai in his press release dated 15.9.2002 stated that the intelligence inputs received indicated that a section of the students of Madurai Meenakshi Government College for Women and Mellur Government Arts College had plans to resort to continuous strike which was likely to cause violence and that in order to avoid any untoward incidents and to maintain Law and Order, the District Administration had recommended for

229 the closure of these two colleges from 16.9.2002 to 22.9.2002. He added that based on this recommendation, the Directorate of Collegiate Education had declared holidays from 16.9.2002 to 22.9.2002. The complainant alleged that the impugned news item published by the respondent was baseless and against the standards of journalistic ethics and public taste. He requested the Council to take appropriate action against the respondent under Section 14 of Press Council Act, 1978 for having published the said news item, which contained unwarranted exaggerations and embellishment published with an intention to malign the reputation of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics and public taste. The complainant vide his letter dated 30.10.2003 submitted that the question of taking action against the respondent daily was examined by the Government and the delay in writing to the Press Council was due to administrative reasons. He requested to condone the delay as the matter had to be examined taking into consideration the legal implications involved. The complainant further informed that a letter dated 12.9.2003 was written to the respondent editor pointing out the falsity of the news item and calling upon him to tender an unconditional apology but to no avail. He requested the Council to take appropriate action against the respondent-editor. Later the complainant vide his letter dated 20.1.2004 informed that a reply was received from the respondent which was not convincing or acceptable. Delay of approximately 4 ½ months was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman vide his order dated 4.12.2003 and a show-cause notice dated 7.1.2004 was issued to the respondent editor, Dinakaran. Written Statement The respondent editor, Dinakaran in his written statement dated 24.1.2004 submitted that the news as such reflects the statement issued by the Collector of Madurai and the news item was based on the various details gathered by them. However, by way of abundant caution the newspaper also published the Government version, which had been given by way of Press Release. Thus there was nothing scandalous about the news report since the Government’s Press Release itself was included in the news content. In fact the closure of the colleges was at last minute synchronizing with the visit of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, adds the respondent. According to the respondent the translation given by the Government was a mutilated version of the news content. He also furnished a copy of the English translation of the news contents pertaining to the present issue.

230 The respondent further alleged that the Government was harassing them by repeated belated complaints. According to the respondent rather he should have filed a complaint against the State Administration for behaving in a discriminatory manner. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 23.2.2004 for information/counter comments. No reply has so far been received. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Thiruvananthapuram on 31.8.2005. Shri S. Senthil Nathan, Additional Government Pleader for State of Tamil Nadu was present for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent before the Committee. On the request of the representative of the respondent the Committee adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. IInd Adjournment The matter was posted for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 18.11.2005. Shri Senthil Nathan, Additional Government Pleader was present on behalf of the complainant while a letter dated 11.11.2005 was received from the respondent requesting for adjournment on the ground that the old management had not yet handed over the papers pertaining to the case. On the request of the respondent the Committee adjourned the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings. It, however, noted that if the respondent desired to seek adjournment, it should have informed the complainant also of the same to save their expenditure of travel and time from Chennai to Delhi. It directed that no further adjournment would be granted on any ground. The proceedings of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties vide office letter dated 13.2.2006. Matter Relisted The matter again came up for final hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006 Shri S. Senthil Nathan, Advocate was present on behalf of the complainant while there was no appearance before the Committee on behalf the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the press release issued by the District Collector, Madurai was published in a truncated manner. It defeated the purpose for which the release was given. On the recommendation of the

231 District Administration and to avoid any untoward incidents, the Directorate of Education had declared holidays from 16.9.2002 to 22.9.2002 in Madurai Meenakshi College for Women and Mellur Government Arts College. The impugned publication incited the students to agitate before the Chief Minister during her visit to Madurai. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the material available on record and the oral arguments of the learned counsel of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee perused that the respondent Dinakaran had through the impugned report, covered a matter of public interest. The agitation launched by the teachers was an event affecting the educational and political scenario in the state and the actions decisions of the Chief Minister on the issue were of importance. If the newspaper felt that the action of the State administer on the eve of the visit of the Chief Minister had a nexus with the latter, it had the right to make such comment and analysis. The Committee noted that the paper had also been careful to report the government press release on the issue. Thus leaving it open to the readers to form their own opinion in the matter. The Inquiry Committee did not find fault with the publication of the impugned news report, as it was not violative of any norm of journalistic conduct and only the facts were quoted in the publication followed by the paper’s views on the same. Thus the Committee was not inclined to uphold the complaint. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

69) Ms. R. Chandra Versus The Editor Vice President Dinamalar All India Democratic Tiruchirappalli Women’s Association Tamil Nadu Trichy District Committee Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu Complaint This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council, on 28.9.2004 has been filed by Ms. R. Chandra, Vice President, All India Democratic Women’s Association, Trichy District Committee, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu against “DINAMALAR”, a Tamil daily newspaper published from Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu for publication of allegedly defamatory, baseless,

232 misleading, distorted news items: ‘Did the cinema directors rape? What is the background of Trichy Girl’s complaint?’ and ‘Nisha matters wanes! AIDWA Retreats!’ in its issues dated 21.7.2004 and 3.8.2004 respectively. The complainant alleged that the reporting was parochial, deliberately made with derogatory and defamatory comments about their organisation. According to the complainant, on 12.7.2004, three reporters brought a girl named Nisha @ Rahmanthunisha, aged 19 years to the complainant’s organisation. She suffering from multiple injuries and was in a depressed state. The girl alleged that she was forced into prostitution by her mother and brother with the connivance of flesh trade pimps and brokers and also named some VIPs who had exploited her sexually. The victim girl further alleged that her mother and brother physically and mentally tortured her and she was made to starve till she acceded to continue the trade but somehow she escaped from her house and went to the local police station at Woraiyur. The officer-in-charge of the station reportedly drove her away for preferring a complaint against her family members. Thereafter she went to the City Police Commissioner’s office to seek the help of Anti Vice Squad Inspector whom she knew already. As per the instructions of the A.V.S. Inspector, she, with the help of the three reporters, went to Woraiyur Police Station and preferred a complaint in this regard. Thereafter she was admitted to Government Hospital, Trichy on police memo. She was discharged from the hospital at 10 p.m. on 12.7.2004 and she sought the help of the complainant. After providing the girl with immediate medical relief through a gynecologist and a psychiatrist, they forwarded the complaint of the victim girl to the Inspector General of Police and the City Commissioner of Police on 13.7.2004 demanding fair and unbiased investigation by a special team of police. As per the proceedings of the Commissioner’s Office a special police team headed by Shri Radhakrishnan, A.C.P. was formed and they started investigation and as a result, the police arrested as many as 10 persons. Since the victim girl pointed accusing fingers against some of the celebrities of the Tamil film industry, the issue attracted media’s attention. The complainant alleged that the respondent covered the issue in two news articles by distorting the facts involved in the main issue and spraying scurrilous remarks and contumacious comments against the complainant organization and their office bearers. The complainant’s organisation marked protest and issued clarifications on 23.7.2004 and 7.8.2004 with request to publish the same in the paper, but to no avail. The complainant alleged that the respondent ingeniously implicated their strong views as that of the police, prominently projected the so-called grievances alleged to be that of the local police who alleged that they were not given sufficient time to look into the issue by their higher officials due to the complainant’s undue influence and pressure. According to the complainant, the respondent neither gave the names

233 of the police officers who alleged these views nor verified the same with the higher police officials like the Investigating Officer or the City Police Commissioner who were the competent authorities to speak about the case nor inquired about them from whom against these charges were made. The complainant alleged that the second article proclaimed that “Nisha’s issue wanes” and thereby created a wrong impression in the mind of the readers as though the entire case was a false one. The complainant also alleged that the respondent exceeded the norms of fairness and decency by not obtaining the views of the petitioner organisation over the comments, and the press note issued by them did not find a place in the respondent’s newspaper. She also alleged that the respondent accused the complainant of deliberately branding the victim girl as an insane person in order to escape from the future consequences as the issue failed without any basis. She stated the fact that on the victim’s request and on the advice given by the Gynecologist, the complainant organisation requested the D.G.P for shifting the victim to Chennai for further medical treatment. The complainant further alleged that the respondent published the photograph of the victim without her written consent or masking her face in the impugned news article in violation of the rules and guidelines of the Press Council. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dinamalar, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu on 23.12.2004. Written Statement The respondent editor, Dinamalar in his written statement dated 27.1.2005 denied the allegation that the news items in question were derogatory or defamatory comments had been made about the complainant’s organisation. According to the respondent the news items in question published on 21.7.2004 and 3.8.2004 were infact news analysis. It was the outcome of pure investigation. The allegation that Nisha @ Rahamathunisa was brought to the complainant’s organisation on 12.7.2004 by three reporters with multiple injuries and in a depressed state, were all false. The allegation that Nisha @ Rahamathunisa named some VIP, who exploited her sexually, was nothing but false. The allegation that the Nisha @ Rahamathunisa went to the local police station at Woraiyur and the police officer incharge of the station reportedly drove her away for preferring a complaint against her family members was specifically denied as false, added the respondent. Giving details, he submitted that Nisha @ Rahamathunisa on 10.7.2004 had gone to the Woraiyur Police Station and preferred a complaint against her mother and brother for assaulting her and compelling her for prostitution. The offence complained by Rahamathunisa @ Nisha was a non-cognizable offence. At the time when she preferred the complaint one Mr. Narayanasamy, Head

234 constable No.326 was incharge of the Police Station. He received her complaint made an endorsement in the register as complaint No.180/2004 and issued a receipt to her. The said Head Constable also gave Rahamathunisa a Hospital Memo in Memo No.75/B-7 PS/TRC/2004 and also asked her to go to the Government Medical College Hospital for treatment and examination. Accordingly, she also went to the hospital. Subsequently the complaint was taken by one Mr. K. Balusamy, S.I. of Police, Woraiyur Police Station for investigation. The said K. Balusamy met Rahamathunisa on 12.7.2004 at about 8 a.m. along with her complaint. He made an initial enquiry and after satisfying himself that the mother and brother of Rahamathunisa committed an offence, he recorded a statement and filed an FIR against Rahamathunisa’s mother Jegara Begam and brother Syed Ameer in Crime No.651/2004 on the file of the Woraiyur Police Station, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. He registered a case under Section 5(1)(d) of I.T.P. Act read with Section 323 IPC. Immediately the matter was taken over for further investigation by Mr. A. Sundararaj, Inspector of Police (L&O) Woraiyur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli. He immediately arrested the mother Jegara Begam and brother Syed Ameer Amsa and produced them before the concerned Magistrate and they were remanded to judicial custody. This was the true state of affair. A perusal of the first complaint dated 10.7.2004 clinchingly established that Nisha @ Rahamathunisa never preferred any complaint against any VIPs who were alleged to have been exploited her sexually. If she was really in depressed state of mind it was not known how she went to the Woraiyur Police Station and preferred the complaint. The Doctor who examined her at the first instance never said that Nisha was in a depressed state of mind. The allegation that the officer incharge of the police station drove her away was nothing but false. The allegation that she went to the City Police Commissioner’s office to seek the help of Anti-Vice Squad Inspector and as per his instructions she went to the Woraiyur Police Station and thereafter she was admitted in the hospital on police memo were all denied as false. Nisha @ Rahamathunisa approached the A.V.S. Inspector on 9.7.2004 itself and made a complaint to him. The A.V.S. Inspector Vijayakumar qustioned her. She made contradictory statements. Since she made contradictory statement which were inconsistent with each other he could not initiate action immediately. Hence he gave her a sum of Rs.50 and asked her to go back in an auto and promised to take action after a proper enquiry. This was the true state of affairs and this fact was published by them on 3.8.2004. The respondent stated that as the complainant admitted that Nisha approached their organisation in the morning on 12.7.2004 itself immediately after discharge from the hospital. They had sufficient time to enquire about the matter. Without enquiry, hurriedly, they sent a telegram to the Home Secretary levelling allegations against the A.V.S. Inspector Vijayakumar. Due to the acts

235 of the complainant’s organization, the A.V.S. Inspector Vijayakumar was relieved from the charge of Anti Vice Squad and transferred to a Rural Police Station. This news analysis appeared in a box on 3.8.2004 in their newspaper. There was nothing wrong in the news analysis. The box news never levelled any allegations against the complainant’s organisation and had not violated any code of conduct. The respondent clarified that both the news analysis were not published immediately i.e. 13.7.2004 or on 14.7.2004. The first news analysis was published on 21.7.2004 and the second news analysis was published only on 3.8.2004 after investigation. The respondent submitted that there was doubt that the victim gave a detailed complaint on 13.7.2004 along with the covering letter of the complainant’s organisation. A thorough reading of the complaint of the victim established that it was drafted with the help of experts namely with the help of Advocates who were associated with the complainant’s organisation in the Legal Aid Centres. The complaint of Rahamathunisa dated 13.7.2004 ran into 11 pages. It was accompanied by the complainant organisation’s covering letter dated 13.7.2004 addressed to the Commissioner of Police. The victim’s complaint dated 13.7.2004 categorically stated that the Film Director Cheran raped her on 11.6.2004 in Room No.311 at Jennys Hotel, Tiruchirappalli. In the complaint itself the complainant Nisha categorically stated that she was raped by another Film Director, who, directed the Tamil film “Thendral”. The victim while preferring the complaint on 10.7.2004 admittedly had not levelled any allegations against the Film Directors. She had also not spoken about the same while Sub-Inspector Balusamy and Inspector Sundararajan enquired her. She stated the same only before the complainant’s organisation Legal Aid Centre. According to the respondent, it was not fair on the part of the complainant’s organisation which was a responsible institution to accept charges levelled against important personalities without ascertaining the truth. It appeared that the complainant’s Legal Aid Centre miserably failed to look into the all aspect and hurriedly drafted the complaint and filed the same before the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli. The respondent submitted that when the allegations were levelled against VIPs it should have been carefully looked into but the complainant’s organisation without ascertaining the truth, hurriedly issued a telegram also to Home Secretary finding fault with the police. This showed that the intention of the complainant’s organisation was very clear that they wanted to make police officer to yield to their demands. The respondent further stated that the complainant’s organisation also gave Press Release on 16.7.2004 divulging the name and address of the victim. If really they were interested in the welfare of the victim especially in her future, why did they issue press release. They could do it silently, but they wanted to attract the attention of the media. If they wanted to do so and enjoy the pleasure they should also accept

236 the criticism from the media. From the comments and criticism they should correct themselves and should render better service to the affected public. They should have the spirit to accept the criticism and comments. The respondent stated that the complainant’s organisation wanted to register a case against the two film directors without any enquiry. Such action was commented in the news analysis. There was nothing wrong on their part in analysing the news in such a way. There was no bias or prejudice on their part in publishing the same. Regarding the allegation that the impugned article were clogged with unjustified surmises and conjectures of the reporter and it had no substratum of truth, the respondent denied the charges as false. According to him, the news analysis never accused the complainant’s organisation. The news analysis said what was told by the police. As per respondent, the acts of the complainant was nothing but a make believe affair. It was a stage managed show. There was nothing wrong on their part in publishing the true state of affairs. The allegation that without ascertaining the truth they allowed their imagination to run riot and caused irreparable injury to a registered women organisation by causing degrading remarks were all false. The respondent further denied the allegation that the disparaging and scandalous remarks calculatively spinned and sprayed throughout the impugned articles against the complainant’s organisation and lowered their esteem in the minds of their readers. Regarding the allegation that the photograph of the victim without her written consent or masking her face in the second impugned article was published in violation of the rules and repeated guidelines from the Press Council, the respondent while denying submitted that he had never violated any rules. Moreover the complainant had no locus standi to question the same especially when Nisha the victim herself was keeping quiet. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.3.2005 for information. Ist Hearing The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Thiruvananthapuram on 1.9.2005. Shri V. Srinivasan, advocate was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper while the complainant vide her letter dated 27.8.2005 expressed her inability to appear before the Committee due to her sudden illness. She requested that the matter if possible may be taken up at Chennai for the convenience of the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the articles were the outcome of investigative journalism and were based on facts. He offered to bring witnesses to prove the truthness of the articles.

237 At the outset the request of the complainant for hearing at Chennai was not acceded to by the Inquiry Committee. The matter was, however, adjourned for being listed before the Inquiry Committee at one of its future meeting. As the learned counsel for the respondent wished to produce witnesses to show the correctness of the impugned articles, the Inquiry Committee directed him to do so, if desired, but at the cost of the respondent. The respondent was in the alternative at liberty to file the affidavits of the witnesses. IInd Hearing When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 18.11.2005 Shri V. Srinivasan, advocate appeared for the respondent newspaper. The complainant vide their letter dated 11.11.2005 requested for adjournment due to the wedding of the daughter of Ms. Chandra and reiterated the request for hearing at Tamil Nadu. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the subject matter of the impugned publication was in respect of the criminal complaint filed by one Nisha @ Rehamatunisha with the help of the complainant. Two cases were pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Tiruchirapalli contended the counsel. He filed papers in support of this contention. Matter Adjourned The Committee, in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter was sub-judice, decided to adjourn the case to afford the complainant an opportunity to reply to the same. It also decided on ex- parte disposal of the case if the complainant was not represented before the Committee at the next hearing. Complainant’s Response In response to respondent’s contention of the matter being sub-judice, the complainant vide her reply dated 14.3.2006 admitted the pendency of the criminal cases before the J.M. No. 4 and initiation of the Criminal O.P.s before the High Court of Judicature Madras of Madurai Bench. She however, averred that the same does not in any way pertain to scope of the complaint filed by her against the respondent. The complainant further submitted that those cases were not pending at the time of she had filed the complaint to the Council against the respondent and they are only a consequential affect of the criminal complaint filed by the victim girl Nisha @ Rahamathunisha. The complainant further stated that the complaint filed by her against the respondent is in respect of scurrilous, unwarranted, baseless, allegation made by the respondent against the complainant organization and they had not filed any defamation suit for damages against the respondent.

238 Final Hearing The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. Shri V. Srinivasan, advocate appeared before it on behalf of the respondent newspaper while the complainant remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the respondent newspaper argued that the impugned publications were news analysis and were published after proper investigation. He contended that two cases were pending regarding the reported matter before the Judicial Magistrate at Tiruchirappalli. On being asked as to why the photograph of the victim girl was published, the counsel explained that the publication was not deliberate. He added that the girl had never objected to the publication and the complainant did not enjoy any locus to raise the issue. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments of the counsel for the respondent newspaper. While it noted that the subject matter being sub-judice, the role of AIDWA was also likely to be raised before the courts. It therefore decided to refrain from deciding on the comments pertaining to complainant’s role in the episode. However, the Committee was not convinced by the defence of the learned counsel that the publication of the photograph of the victim girl was unintentional. It observed that the norms of conduct as well as the rulings of the Supreme Court clearly direct refrain in publishing the photograph of the victim of sexual abuse. The paper had thus grossly violated the mandate of the Apex Court banning the publication of the photograph of the rape victim. The Council in a number of adjudications had cautioned that the photograph of a sexually abused girl should not be published. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent newspaper, Dinamalar, through its counsel appearing before the Committee, to take remedial steps by publishing within 15 days from the receipt of the adjudication of the Council an apology, for publishing the photograph of the victim of sexual abuse, violating journalistic ethics and the direction to the Supreme Court and undertake that such conduct will not be repeated in future. It may not mention the name of the victim in the said apology so as not to revive the public memory and cause further grievance to the girl. The respondent was further directed to send a copy of the issue of newspaper where apology had been published to the Press Council as well as the complainant, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint with the directions to the respondent newspaper. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly. 239 70) The General Secretary Versus The Editor Dayanand Anglo Vedic Punjab Kesari College Trust Delhi and Management Society New Delhi Complaint Dr.M.L.Khanna, General Secretary, Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi has filed this complaint dated 9.10.2003 against ‘Punjab Kesari’, Delhi for publication of a series of allegedly baseless, misleading, fabricated and defamatory news items for the past two years. The complainant has alleged that the respondent has been continuously publishing false news items on every Monday with the malafide intention to tarnish the image of the Trust as well as the office bearers of DAV College Managing Committee. Some of the latest impugned news items based with the title “vÉàÉÇ iÉ¤É +ÉÉè® +ÉvÉàÉÇ +ɤɒ’ quoted by the complainant are as follow:

Sl.No. Captions Date 1. “vÉàÉÇ iÉ¤É -+ÉÉè® xÉɮɪÉhÉ º´ÉÉàÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ +ÉɪÉÇ ºÉàÉÉVÉ BÉEÉä ºÉàÉÉÌ{ÉiÉ 19.5.2003 cÉä MɪÉä +ÉÉè® +ÉvÉàÉÇ +ɤÉ-bÉÒ.A.´ÉÉÒ.BÉEÉÒ SÉÉä®ÉÒ +ÉÉè® ºÉÉÒxÉÉVÉÉä®ÉÒ” (Religion then – and Narayan Swamy dedicated himself to Arya Samaj And sin now – DAV at fault yet aggressive 2. bÉÒ A ´ÉÉÒ ´ÉÉãÉÉä BÉEÉÒ {ÉÉäãÉ JÉÉäãÉxÉÉ VÉ°ô®ÉÒ cè, iÉ£ÉÉÒ àÉÖÉÎBÉDiÉ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉÒ 5.5.2003 (Religion then& sin now) It is necessary to expose of DAV for emancipation. 3. “ vÉàÉÇ iÉ¤É +ÉÉè® +ÉvÉàÉÇ +ɤÉ-bÉÒ.A.´ÉÉÒ. ´ÉÉãÉÉä—{É® É˶ÉBÉEVÉÉ 15.9.2003 BÉEºÉxÉä BÉEÉä iÉèªÉÉ® cè ¶Éc®ÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉºÉ àÉÆjÉÉãɪɒ’ (Religion then and Sin now-) Urban Housing Ministry ready to tighten the noose on DAV 4. (vÉàÉÇ iÉ¤É +ÉÉè® +ÉvÉàÉÇ +ɤÉ-VÉcÉÄ VÉ®É £ÉÉÒ VÉMÉc ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ bÉÒ.A.´ÉÉÒ. 22.9.2003 ´ÉÉãÉÉä xÉä BÉE¤VÉÉ BÉE® ÉÊãɪÉÉ) (Religion then and Sin Now) DAV encroaches at every opportunity The news item dated 19.5.2003 reported that a renowned poet, bhajan singer and rishi, follower of Arya Society Pt. Satyapal Pathik was asked to pay Rs.2 lakhs in connection with admission of two children of his close relatives

240 in Hansraj Kulachi Model School, Delhi. It was also alleged that the then Purohit Shri Rajinder Ji was beaten and got arrested for raising objection to consumption of liquor by some Baratis in the Satsang Hall of Arya Samaj, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and about two-three months after the incident, the Purohit was expelled from the Arya Samaj by the DAV people. It was alleged in the news item dated 15.9.2003 that the Ministry of Urban and Human Resource Development issued a notice to the DAV College Management for not fulfilling the conditions of allotment of land. It was also alleged that the DAV’s management put away the idols of DAV founders Mahatma Hansraj Ji and Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati Ji, and not only the students but the teachers are also being tortured. It was also reported in the impugned news item that after the revelation of DAV Public Schools of Delhi, working as shops, DAV College management committee’s head Shri Gyan Prakash Chopra went underground and the management is also alleged to have violated all the rules framed by the Education Directorate. As per a complaint before the government authorities, the entire Nursery wing of DAV Public School, Dayanand Vihar was constructed on the land under unauthorised possession, DAV Public School, Kailash Hills and Masjid Moth have covered about four acres of encroached land, DAV Senior Secondary School Chander Nagar, Janakpuri also has a number of rooms constructed on encroached land, S.L.S. DAV School, Mausam Vihar, DAV Centanary Public School, Paschim Enclave, DAV Public School, Reserve Bank Enclave, Outer Ring Road, DAV Public Schools Pushpanjali Enclave and many more of the DAV schools in various parts of Delhi are constructed on encroached lands. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari, Delhi on 7.1.2004. Written Statement The respondent No.3, Shri Ashwini Kumar, Managing Director, Hind Samachar Limited, Delhi and Resident Editor, Punjab Kesari, Delhi has filed his written statements dated 5.2.2004 and stated that the complaint is nothing but a result of political vendetta by certain interested persons who are at the helm of affairs of the DAV society. He also stated that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous and does not reveal any dispute to be decided by the Press Council as the allegations made in the complaint are baseless and unfounded and the same are denied in toto. He has alleged that the President of the complainant society, Sh. G.P. Chopra and his associates, through their manipulations to usurp the DAV society, has tried to remove him (Sh.Ashwini Kumar) from the membership of the DAV society in order to serve their nefarious designs as certain facts were published in the newspaper about the mismanagement of the society. For that reason, the complainant had taken a

241 lame excuse to remove him (Sh. Ashwini Kumar) from DAV society illegally, arbitrary and without any valid cause, added the respondent. He has added that the action of the complainant have been challenged in the Delhi High Court in Suit No.1084/2003 and requested the Council to dismiss the complaint being sub-judice. Shri Vijay Kumar, Editor in Chief, Punjab Kesari, Jallandhar has filed his written statement dated 2.3.2004 and submitted that he is not responsible for the impugned news item as the same was published in the Delhi edition only, which is printed and published under the illegal control of its Resident Editor, Shri Ashwini Kumar. He has submitted that Shri Ashwini Kumar not only disobeyed the orders and instructions of the management and the owner of the company, but also acted wilfully and intentionally against the policy of the management. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 26.4.2005, the complainant has stated that the respondent had not submitted the point wise reply to the complaint, neither replied nor denied most of the contents and averments made in the complaint, which amounts to admission of the allegations levelled in the complaint. He has alleged that even after filing the instant complaint, the respondent have not stopped their activities but are continuously publishing against the complainant, its society, the DAV College and institution in order to defame the organisation. The complainant further submitted that the pending suit before the Hon’ble High Court is on different point and is clearly distinguishable and has nothing to do with the present controversy. He added that the suit is filed by the respondent just to harass the complainant and malign their image and also to challenge the resolution of expulsion passed by the General Body of the society. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. S/Shri Rakesh Mahajan and Prabhat Ranjan, Advocates represented the complainant while Shri Mohinder Khanna, news editor entered appearance on behalf of the respondent editor. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant submitted in their oral and written submissions that it was incorrect to say that the civil suit pending in the court involved the same dispute as the one involved in the complaint before the Press Council. The said suit was filed by the respondent challenging the withdrawal of his membership of DAV College Trust and Management. The subject matter of the suit was not the news items. He added that their complaint was about the

242 derogatory and false news reports in the Delhi edition of Punjab Kesari. All the reports were malicious and published due to personal vendetta. The respondent in the written statements did not deny any averments made in the complaint. The representative of the respondent newspaper submitted that the news reports were published on the basis of the complaints received from some persons. The reports related to wrong activities of the Management of DAV College and were not against the institution as such. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the record and the oral arguments by the representative of the complainant and the respondent held that the impugned news reports appeared to be outcome of the personal interest of Shri Ashwani Kumar, the editor of Delhi edition of Punjab Kesari in the DAV management and his removald from the Trust and Management of DAV. He had filed a Civil Suit in the High Court challenging his removal from the DAV Trust. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the impugned reports, that were likely to malign and damage the reputation of an educational institution, appeared to have been written to ventilate his personal grudge. The Inquiry Committee noted with regret the way the respondent editor was using the columns of the newspaper for personal gains. The Inquiry Committee was not convinced with the defence taken by the respondent that the news reports were based on the complaints of some person. The respondents were unable to substantiate this defence by producing any documentary evidence. The Committee felt that the press had the right to comment on the working of public institutions and highlight their short-comings but these should be fair and bonafide and supported by tangible evidence. Further the attempt of the press should be to so shake up the institutions as to improve their working, not to destroy them or the public confidence in their working. The Inquiry Committee thus felt that the respondents had violated the norms of journalistic ethics regarding pre-publication verification and defamatory writings and also the most basic journalistic ethic of not using the columns of the paper to settle personal scores. For the reasons aforesaid the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and recommend to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper, Punjab Kesari, Delhi edition, its editor and the concerned reporter who filed the news report. It further recommended that copies of the Council’s adjudication be sent to DAVP, Registrar of Newspapers for India and Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Delhi for such 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

243 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

71) The Chief Administrative Office Versus The Editor Indian Veterinary Research Institute Amar Ujala Bareilly, U.P. Bareilly, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 20.3.2003 has been filed by the Chief Administrative Officer, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly (U.P.) against “Amar Ujala”, Bareilly (U.P.) for publishing the following false, baseless and defamatory news items in the issues indicated against each: -

S.No. Captions Dated 1 ´ÉèYÉÉÉÊxÉBÉEÉå xÉä BÉEcÉ-+É´ÉÉbÇ +É{ÉxÉÉå BÉEÉä ®ä´ÉbÃÉÒ - 12.10.2002 +ÉÉ<Ç´ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®+ÉÉ<Ç ÉÊxÉnä¶ÉBÉE xÉä BÉEcÉ-”®ä´ÉbÃÉÒ xÉcÉÓ |ÉÉäiºÉÉcxÉ”

2 ¶ÉÉävÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ÉÊxɪÉÖBÉDiÉ, {É® ´ÉÉcxÉ, º]Éä®, JÉäãÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA 15.10.2002 ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ®! +ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉ cÖ<Ç iÉÉä BÉEÉä+ÉÉÉÌbxÉä]® xÉÉàÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ*

3 jÉ@hÉ ãÉäBÉE® PÉÉÒ {ÉÉÒ ®cÉ cè +ÉÉ<Ç´ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®+ÉÉ<Ç - JÉÉän BÉEä MÉÉbäà 20.10.2002 MÉA BÉEäÉÊàÉBÉEãÉ, ãÉÉJÉÉå BÉEä PÉ{ÉãÉä BÉEÉÒ +ÉɶÉÆBÉEÉ, VÉÉÆSÉ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ*

4 BÉEäÉÊàÉBÉEãÉ PÉ{ÉãÉä BÉEÉÒ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ* 21.10.2002

5 ÉÊ®ºÉSÉÇ cbÃ{ÉxÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉàÉãÉÉ MÉ®àÉɪÉÉ-+ÉÉ<Ç´ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®+ÉÉ<Ç àÉå ¶ÉÉävÉ 4.11.2002 ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ ªÉÖ´ÉÉ ´ÉèYÉÉÉÊxÉBÉEÉå xÉä, xÉÉàÉ U{ÉÉ <ÆSÉÉVÉÇ BÉEÉ*

It was alleged in the first impugned news item that Shri M.P. Yadav, Director, IVRI had within a year, awarded 134 scientists, of which half were such scientists to whom there was no justification for giving the award. It was further alleged that the award-receiving scientists are also members of the Selection Committee. It was also stated that the Institution had not done any important research work over the last two-three years, which could make it eligible for the awards. The second news item stated that eleven scientists had been deployed for non-scientific work viz. Incharge of vehicle, store, security, estate, guest- house, finance and accounts officer, head of office etc. in violation of the established administrative norms.

244 The third impugned news item alleged irregularities in purchasing instruments worth lakhs of rupees. It was also alleged that chemicals purchased from the money taken from the World Bank were being buried in the land. The impugned news item published on 21.10.2002 stated that chemicals worth thousands of rupees were found in the ditch. It was also stated that chemicals, which were buried into the ground of Paracitalogy Department of IVRI had been excavated. The impugned news items also alleged misuse of grants by way of purchase of chemicals and subsequently disposing of without using the same. The last impugned news item alleged that research was done by one youth scientist and name published was of the Incharge. The impugned news item further alleged that the IVRI is a political place and their workers are being harassed. Denying the allegations levelled against the Institute, the complainant stated that the impugned news items were mischievous, baseless and far from the truth and due to publication of the impugned reporting the image of the Institute had been damaged in the country as well as abroad. The complainant further stated that the name of all the scientists mentioned in the impugned news items, as Administration-Incharge of the Institute was totally false and misleading. He submitted that the respondent published the impugned publication without verifying the facts from the Institution. The complainant vide his further communication alleged publication of three more false and defamatory news items in the issues of the newspaper “Amar Ujala” dated 4.8.2003, 18.8.2003 and 20.8.2003 under the heading “+ÉÉ<Ç´ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®+ÉÉ<Ç BÉEä {ÉÉÄSÉ ÉÊ´É£ÉÉMÉÉå BÉEÉ BÉEn PÉ]É”, “=SSɺiÉ®ÉÒªÉ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ +ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉ<Ç´ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®+ÉÉ<Ç àÉå ” and “+ÉÉ<Ç´ÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®+ÉÉ<Ç àÉå ¤ÉbÃÉ ÉÊ´ÉBÉEä] ÉÊMÉ®xÉä BÉEÉä ÉÊ{ÉSÉ iÉèªÉÉ®” respectively which too according to him had been published by the respondent with a view to defame the Institution. The complainant vide his two letters dated 22.10.2002 and 4.11.2002 requested the respondent-editor to remove the concerned correspondent and appoint a skilful correspondent in his place and also restrict publication of such false and misleading reporting. Comments Comments of the respondent-editor, Amar Ujala, Bareilly were invited on 25.8.2003. In his comments dated 7.12.2003 the counsel for the respondent denied the allegations levelled against them in the complaint. According to the respondent, the news items in question were perfectly balanced and published fairly without any prejudice to any person or Institution. The respondent submitted that the publications were fair and bonafide and had been made in public interest, within the norms and latitude of freedom of press. The respondent

245 contended that nothing libellous was published by the newspaper against the Institution. The respondent also furnished documents on the basis of which he published the news items in question. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 5.4.2004 for his counter comments, which are still awaited. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 26.4.2005, Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, advocate appeared for the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala. The complainant had sent a communication dated 20.4.2004 requesting for adjournment on the ground that a meeting of Official Language Parliamentary Committee was scheduled at Solan. Matter Adjourned The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request of the complainant adjourned the matter to be placed before it at one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.6.2005. S/Shri Satish Kumar, advocate, Kundan Singh, Nodal Officer and Pushpa Nayak, Senior Administrative Officer appeared for the complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent, by a fax dated 28.6.2005, requested for adjournment on the ground that he had to perform the last ritual of his deceased father on the day of hearing. Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant Institute was a premier Institute where research was conducted by the Scientists. The respondent newspaper published a series of news report as a vilification campaign against the Institute and its Director with the motive of gaining cheap publicity. The news reports were totally false and baseless. The Director of the Institute (IVRI) controverted every news but to no avail. He contended that many research books and papers have been published by Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI). It is the norm in every institutional research that several people assist but it is credited to authorized person. Further, if some persons had been assigned additional administrative duties, it was not at the cost of their assigned duty. Another item carried innuendoes by saying in the headline that ‘a big wicket ready to fall’. The Inquiry Committee enquired from the counsel as to what chemicals were burnt or buried, The counsel stated that only particle chemicals with expiry date were destroyed. Regarding rewards to the scientists, the learned counsel explained that the awards were being given on the basis of the research work done by them.

246 Matter Adjourned On consideration of the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it on behalf of the complainant the Committee opined that as the respondent had levelled serious allegations against the Institute, the matter was required to be considered with in-depth discussion. As the respondent was not present the Committee adjourned the matter for being placed before it at its next meeting. The complainant was directed, through its counsel, to submit the following documents, before the next date of hearing, to the Council for consideration: 1. The details of research work/publications by IVRI in 2001 and 2002, particularly who had given the project and the value thereof. 2. Names of the persons who were members of the committee nominating persons for awards and the list of persons short-listed for consideration and those selected for award. 3. The list of publications of the persons who were given awards, and 4. The criteria followed for giving rewards. The complainant was also directed to file an affidavit refuting the allegations made in the press reports. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on November 17, 2005. S/Shri Usman Ali Khan, Advocate, Dr. V. Ravi Prakash, Principal Scientist, Pushanayak, Senior Administrative Officer and Amit Bhaskar appeared on behalf of the complainant while Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena represented the respondent newspaper. Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant filed before the Committee an affidavit containing a number of documents in compliance with the directions of the Inquiry Committee given at the time of last hearing. He also requested for adjournment to which the representative of the respondent did not object. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter to be listed before it in one of its future meetings expressed its unhappiness over the delay in filing the documents. A copy of the documents submitted by the complainant was handed over to the representative of the respondent newspaper for counter if they so desired. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again posted for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at

247 New Delhi on 4.5.2006. S/Shri Kundan Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Pushpanayak, Senior Administrative Officer and Amijit Mazumadar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant while Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, advocate represented the respondent newspaper. Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant submitted that, as per directions of the Inquiry Committee on the last occasions, all the documents had been filed with a copy to the respondent. They averred that they only desired that they may be given an opportunity to place their clarification before the public. The counsel for the respondent contended tha the copy of the Annual Report pertained to 2000-2001 where as the matter related to 1999. Thus, the documents were irrelevant. He added that the version of the complainant was also published in the news report. He added that the clarification given earlier by the complainant was vague and if now the complainant gives specific clarification of the allegations in the news report that will be published. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee Having heard the parties, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send a point wise clarification specifically referring to the allegations in the news report. It directed the respondent to publish the same with due prominence within a fortnight of its receipt. The respondent was further directed to forward to the Press Council and the complainant a copy of the issue carrying the clarification. With the above directions to the parties, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

72) Shri Manibhushan Tiwari Versus The Editor Inspector Nazar Ki Nazar Food & Supply Delhi Government of Delhi Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 18.8.2005 has been filed by Shri Manibhushan Tiwari, Inspector, Food & Supply, Delhi Government against Nazar Ki Nazar a Hindi weekly for blackmailing, extortion and publication of objectionable news items under the captions “®É¶ÉxÉ n{ÉDiÉ® ºÉBÉEÇãÉ - 51 bÉÒãÉ®Éå ºÉä àÉÉc´ÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉÆvÉBÉE®

248

249 submitted that being an editor, he always published articles, which are accurate, correct and genuine. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 22.12.2005 along with a copy of the letter dated 25.11.2005 received from Shri V.B. Saxena, Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 3.3.2006 has submitted that the respondent editor has nowhere in his written statement denied the factor of demanding and receiving money from Shri Het Ram and Shri K.K. Sharma and the conversation recorded by them. The complainant has submitted that from the transcript of the recorded conversation it is clear that the respondent editor received money from Shri Het Ram and Shri K.K. Sharma and further demanded Rs. 1000/- monthly for not reporting against him as long as he received the said money. The respondent editor admitted before the above said two persons that he has extorted money from several persons in the similar fashion. He had named few persons also. The complainant has submitted that the respondent editor is misusing the name of press and has indulged in the business of extorting money from innocent citizens. The complainant has submitted that the respondent editor was arrested on 25.10.2005 and was bailed out on 31.10.2005. On inquiry from Investigating Officer, he was told that the matter is still under investigation and charge sheet has not been filed as he is waiting report from CFSL. The respondent has submitted that when the police arrested the respondent editor, the entire Hindi print media and television media covered the story. The complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has submitted that his complaint is genuine and bonafide and the respondent editor is blatantly misusing the name of press and using it for extorting money from innocent citizens by blackmailing them and threatening to harm their reputation in the society. The respondent editor is running the newspaper Nazar Ki Nazar for the sole purpose of extorting money by putting innocent citizens under fear of false and defamatory publication. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 1.2.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. S/Shri Rajender Kumar Jena, Advocate and Sumit Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondent while the notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back unserved.

250 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the respondent stated that the complainant had filed a suit in the Court of metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court as case No.453 of 2005 against the news item which was the subject matter before the Council. The matter was thus, contended the counsel sub-judice. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and oral submissions of the counsel for the respondent the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in his counter comments had admitted that the respondent editor was arrested on 25.10.2005 and was bailed out on 31.10.2005. The Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

73) Shri Jagdish Deol Versus The Editor General Secretary Punjab Kesari DAV College Managing Committee New Delhi Karamchari Union, Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 22.3.2005 has been filed by Shri Jagdish Deol, General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee Karamchari Union, Delhi against Punjab Kesari, New Delhi for publication of an anonymous letter of Class-III and IV employees of DAV Managing Committee, New Delhi captioned “bÉÒ.A.´ÉÉÒ |ɶÉɺÉxÉ iÉÆjÉ +ÉÉÉʶÉBÉEÉå BÉEä cÉlÉ àÉå” (DAV administration in the hands of lovers) in its issue dated 15.2.2005 in the column ‘Your Platform’. The impugned publication alleged that one of the administrative officer of DAV Managing Committee in Delhi, on transfer from Punjab is a specialist in misplacing the files and is kind to lady Principals. One of the lady teachers had threatened him for not making her Principal, as she had refused his proposal to “respond to his love with love”. The impugned publication suggested the Delhi residents should take steps to replace that corrupt officer with an honest officer otherwise the souls of Mahatama Hansraj and Mahrishi Dayanand would curse the institution. The impugned publication suggested that the crores of rupees spent on self campaign in the name of spreading of principles of Arya Samaj, would have been better spent on the employees, who are hand to mouth.

251 The complainant has submitted that the impugned publication was reportedly published on the basis of a complaint by a third or fourth-class employee, on the condition of anonymity against the management of the DAV College. The complainant has submitted that due to publication of the news report, the DAV Managing Committee and all its employees felt insulted. The complainant has submitted that a meeting was convened on 16.2.2005 where it was disclosed that no such letter had been sent and all the employees including Class-III & IV condemning the impugned publication passed a resolution. The complainant submitted that a letter dated 18.2.2005 was issued to the Chief Editor, Punjab Kesari, Delhi annexing the resolution dated 16.2.2005 that the employees denying the allegations had condemned it but the newspaper neither published the contradiction nor gave reply. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari, Delhi on 11.7.2005 followed by a time bound reminder dated 6.1.2006. The respondent failed to file its written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. S/Shri Rakesh Mahajan, Advocate, and Prabhat were present on behalf of the complainant. The respondent remained unrepresented before the Committee. Submission before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on being ousted from the management of DAV Trust, Shri Ashwani Kumar, the Chief Editor of Punjab Kesari, Delhi, was adopting modus operandi of publishing fictitious letters against a reputed institution, DAV Trust who was running 700 institutions. He is out to defame the organization. The employees of the DAV Trust passed a resolution condemning the publication. A copy of the resolution was sent to respondent editor who neither filed the reply nor published the contradiction. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the oral arguments put forth before the Committee by the learned counsel of the complainant, the Committee noted with concern the callous attitude of the respondent editor in failing to file the written statement in response to the show-cause notice dated 11.7.2005 of the Council and in not being represented before the Inquiry Committee despite receiving the notice of hearing. In the absence of the written statement, the charges levelled by the complainant remained unrebutted lending credence to the averments of the complainant that the respondent editor published a fictitious

252 letter out of malafide. The Inquiry Committee noted that the news item accused one of the members of the Managing Committee of administrative irregularities and dubious character. The complainant has also established that the editor had personal motive for trying to settle the scores. Even notwithstanding this, the publication in the column ‘Your Platform’ is indeed meant for the readers to ventilate their grievances, but it is necessary from the journalistic angle to establish the veracity of the grievance from the concerned authorities or at least obtain their version. No such effort had apparently been made. Subsequently, when the employees of the institution categorically denied having written any such letter, the respondent failed to rectify the error by not publishing the clarification of the complainant denying them the right to reply. The respondent, the Committee opined, had violated the norms of journalistic conduct regarding the pre-publication verification, defamatory writings and right to reply and appeared to have committed the cardinal sin of using the columns of his paper to settle personal scores. For breach of above noted norms of journalistic conduct, the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper Punjab Kesari, Delhi edition, and its Chief Editor, Shri Ashwani Kumar. It further recommended that the copies of the Council’s adjudications be forwarded to DAVP, Registrar of Newspapers for India and Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Delhi, for such 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

74) Shri Y. Anil Kumar, IPS Versus The Editor Deputy Inspector General Janamabhumi of Police (Admn.) Malayalam Daily Police Headquarters Kochi, Kerala Vazhuthakkad Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Complaint Shri Y. Anil Kumar, IPS, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Vazhuthakkad, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) has filed this complaint dated 26.11.2004 against “Janambhumi”, Malayalam daily alleging publication of false and defamatory news item captioned “Immoral activity: High level inquiry against D.I.G.” (English translation) in its issue dated 2.6.2004.

253 The impugned report alleged that the DIG, Thrissur (a post complainant was holding at that time) was reported to have indulged in immoral activities at Guruvayoor Devaswam Guest House and that a confidential inquiry was being conducted in the matter but some high officers were protecting the DIG. Important parts of the impugned news item cited by the complainant are as follows: “There are allegations against the DIG for his alleged use of the Guruvasyoor Devaswam Guest House for immoral activities. High ranking police officers have already started secret inquiries into the said allegations taking into account the anonymous letters received by the officers, including Thrissur S.P. and other superior officers. The visit of Thrissur Range DIG to the Guruvayoor Devasam Guest House, a few days back has led to controversy. The trouble started when the employees of the guest house happened to see the DIG under suspicious circumstances. The employees raised protest against the utilization of the guest house for immoral activities, which is intended for the accommodation of the pilgrims. The employees confined the DIG within the Guest House without knowing his identity. Later, on the communication sent by the DIG, a Dy. S.P., who reached there from Malappuram, the neighboring district, rescued this high ranking officer. Anonymous letters were received by the high ranking officers of the Intelligence, DGP, Addl. DGP, Zonal IGP and the SP, Thrissur. A senior police officer said that there are limitations for inquiry, as the complaint was not official. However, the secret inquiry is going on. Everybody is waiting to see the outcome and the action that will be taken by the DGP in this matter, as there is no official inquiry. There are strong sentiments and discontentment amongst the police, against the protective nature of the superior officers to save this high-ranking officer against whom accusations are pending. There are complaints that officers subjected to accusation of corruption and who were controlling the police, during the previous regime of the government are controlling the police even now. There are complaints to the affect that many high ranking officers are neglected, on the advise of an officer having secondary rank”. The complainant submitted that at the time when the news item was published in the newspaper, he was serving as DIG, Thrissur. Denying the charges the complainant submitted that though the news item had not identified him by name, the report clearly implied and referred to him, since there was no other person serving as DIG, Thrissur during the said period and there was no other post of DIG at Thrissur. According to the complainant, the language employed in the impugned news item was in bad taste, scurrilous, defamatory and vulgar. It was further alleged that the news item was published with malicious motive to cause

254 irreparable damage to the reputation of the complainant, who is a senior police officer in Kerala State with remarkable track record. The complainant emphasised that the media is intended to protect the dignity of the individuals, the rights of the citizens and the lofty ideals of our democracy. But such misuse of the fourth estate is deplorable and only amounts to blackmailing with an intent to achieve their dubious questionable motives. The complainant alleged that the false news item, maliciously published by the Janambhumi caused severe mental agony, distress, hatred, ridicule, contempt and irreparable injury to the reputation and his standing in the society and in the service. The complainant submitted that he issued notices to the respondent but neither received any reply nor an apology. It was, therefore, evident that the respondent had purposefully published the news item to injure the petitioner, forgetting the legal, professional and moral restrictions imposed upon them, knowing fully well that to publish such false, deliberate, malicious and defamatory news item, amounts to misconduct on their part. The protective cover of the press freedom must not be thrown open for such wrong doings. The publication of the news item was improper, mischievously false, illegal and abuse of liberty for which appropriate punishment is highly essential, added the complainant. The delay in filing the complaint was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman on 14.6.2005 keeping in view the reasons furnished by him. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Janambhumi, Malayalam Daily, Kochi on 17.6.2005. Written Statement The respondent-editor, Janambhumi in his written statement dated 9.7.2005 while denying the allegations submitted that the complaint was not maintainable in law or facts. The respondent submitted that in the news item, the respondent never mentioned the name of the concerned officer, the complainant, Mr. Y. Anil Kumar. In the impugned news item, it had to be noted that , several designations of the police officers were mentioned. There was no reason for the complainant to come forward and say that the person concerned was he himself. The respondent submitted that the Guruvayur Sri Krishna Temple is one of the famous temples in South India. A number of police officers visit the temple and the Sreevalsam Guest House regularly. There are a number of DIGs serving in the Police. In the Trissur range itself a number of DIGs have served in the last few years. Almost all of them have visited the Guruvayur temple and the guest house. Then it was yet to be understood as to why this DIG had come forward with the averment that the person mentioned in the report was he himself. According to the respondent, immediately after the receipt of the complainant’s legal notice, he approached the complainant and tried to convince him about the facts. After the discussion, the respondents felt that the

255 complainant was satisfied with their version. With regard to the facts of the news, the respondent submitted that he came to know that an inquiry was ordered by the higher officials in the Kerala Police as mentioned in the news item. They just published that facts. There was no intention to malign any individual, especially the complainant police officer. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 12.8.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.9.2005 submitted that the written statement filed by the respondent editor was devoid of any merit and made without any bonafides. Reiterating his contention, the complainant submitted that the respondents were in fact attempting to instigate and arouse feelings of hatred amongst the members of the Hindu Community and the public at large to turn against him specifically and towards the law and order machinery of the State in general, alleging immoral traffic and corruption by way of abusing the powers and misusing the temple guest house of the Guruvayur temple, especially since the temple security vests with the police force. The complainant stated that the written statement filed by the respondent was only a sheer abuse of process of law, and procedures by simply expressing ‘sorry’ which was never intended as an unconditional apology as demanded by him and hence the same could be accepted. The complainant requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent for publishing baseless, concocted and motivated news items with dubious intentions. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 4.10.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was listed for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006, Shri C.K. Sasi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the complainant, while the respondent editor remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averment in the complaint. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record. It noted that in the impugned news report, the DIG, Thrissur, had been alleged to have used the Guruvayu Dvaswam Guest House for immoral activities. The complainant who claims to be the only DIG of the area during the relevant period, was thus portrayed as a man of doubtful character. The complainant

256 had categorically denied all the allegations. The respondent editor in his written statement had taken the defense that the name of DIG was not mentioned in the news report and that many DIGs had served in the Thrissur range. The Inquiry Committee was not convinced with this defence, as it was admitted fact that there was no other DIG in the area at that point of time. The Committee also noted that over the past one and half years since the impugned report had been carried, there were no records of any inquiry into the matter. The respondent on whom rested the onus for substantiating the manifestly defamatory charge had been unable to establish any basis for the report. The news reports targeted the complainant, the Committee held. The Inquiry Committee opined that even if the respondent had received any such information, the report has been recklessly published without properly verifying the facts from authentic sources. For the above infractions, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent newspaper Janambhumi, Malayalam Daily, Kochi. It further recommended that the respondent may be directed to publish the apology tendered by it to the complainant in the columns of the paper with the same prominence as the impugned report within four weeks of the receipt of the adjudication and furnish copies to the Council and the complainant. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

75) Shri S.S. Sharma Versus The Editor Joint Secretary Dainik Pudhari National Commission for Solapur Scheduled Castes Maharashtra Government of India New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 14.3.2005 has been filed by Shri S.S. Sharma, Joint Secretary, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Government of India, New Delhi against Dainik Pudhari, Marathi daily, Solapur, Maharashtra for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “®É­]ÅÉÒªÉ +ÉxÉÖºÉÚÉÊSÉiÉ VÉÉÉÊiÉ +ÉɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉnºªÉÉ ºÉÉå. ºÉÖ®äJÉÉ ãÉÉƤÉiÉÖ®ä ºÉÉÊciÉ iÉÉÒxÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊxÉãÉƤÉxÉ” (Hindi translation) in its issue dated 27.2.2005. The news item reported on the basis of a press release allegedly issued with reference to an order of the Union Home Ministry that Smt. Surekha

257 Lambture, Hon’ble Member, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, along with two others namely Dr. Ramdas Durgadas Dehle and Shri Raibal Singh Parihar also referred to as members of NCSC have been suspended from the Commission and an inquiry has been ordered against them by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The complainant Commission has submitted that a perusal of the news item makes it obvious that not only is it based on false press release but is also defamatory in nature. The complainant has submitted that Smt. Surekha Lambture has been a member of the Commission since 24.2.2004 and no inquiry whatsoever has been ordered against her. There is no one by the name of Dr. Ramdas Durgadas Dehle or Shri Raibal Singh Parihar functioning as member of the Commission. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Pudhari on 21.6.2005. The Management Advisor, Daily Pudhari in his written statement dated 5.7.2005 has submitted that immediately coming to know that someone had mischievously circulated a fake circular said to have been issued by Central Home Ministry, they have duly published a corrigendum expressing their regret. The respondent has submitted that the original news item was published on 27th February 2005 and the correction was promptly made on 2nd March 2005 within three days. The respondent has submitted that as explained by Smt. Surekha Lambture in her letter dated 4th March 2005 to the Hon’ble Chairman of National Commission for Scheduled Castes, an allegedly, false press release carrying usual outward number of the Govt. of India, was first published some where else and the said news item was exhibited on the notice board of Medical College, Solapur. Based on this Press Release, the reporter published news though without verification. The respondent has submitted that believing that the document was genuine, the news item was published. The respondent has submitted that they express regret for the incorrect publication of the news item, which was carried solely relying on the alleged Govt. Press Release. The respondent has submitted that more care should have been taken and a warning has been issued to the reporter to be more careful in future and not to make such reports without proper verification. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant Commission along with respondent’s further communication dated 23.7.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. However,

258 the National Commission for Scheduled Castes vide its letter dated May 3, 2006 intimated that the Commission member desired that the reporter may be warned and that no further action in the matter need be taken. He requested that the matter may be closed. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted from the written statement dated 5.7.2005 that the respondent on coming to know the falsity of the news report promptly published the corrigendum expressing regrets. The concerned reporter was also warned by the newspaper management to be careful in future and to verify the facts before publishing any news report. In view of the corrective measures taken by the respondent the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the case with a word of caution to the respondent to thoroughly verify the facts at pre-publication stage. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

76) Shri Suresh Murlidhar Melwani Versus The Editor Ulhasnagar Ulhas Champion Maharashtra Hindi Weekly Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra Complaint Shri Suresh Murlidhar Melwani, Ulhasnagar,( Maharashtra) through his advocate forwarded to the Council a copy of his legal notice dated 23.4.2003 issued to the Editor, Ulhas Champion, Hindi Weekly Ulhasnagar (Maharashtra) for publication of allegedly false news articles captioned “Chandra Cloth Centre” and “Rahul Collection’s owner had grabbed lakhs of rupees of the business” in the issue dated 27.3.2003 In the impugned news item the complainant had been described as a famous cheater allegedly grabbing a number of peoples’ money amounting to lakhs of rupees. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant had grabbed lakhs of rupees from the different business people and taken commission of Rs.500/- even from a Painter and that he earned lakhs of rupees by not making payment of registration fees. It was alleged that the complainant had misappropriated the funds of the Panchayat. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the respondent earlier also had published such malicious news reports as follows: -

259 S.No. Captions Dated 1 Suresh Melwani steals stamp duty worth February 27-March 5, rupees 25 lakhs 2003 2 Whether Suresh Melwani embezelled March 13-19,2003 stamp duty worth Rs. 25 lakhs – Whether Suresh Melwani will answer? 3 Why Suresh Melwani was removed from March 20-26, 2003 the post of Secretary? 4. Suresh Melwani misused his post. March 20-26,2003 5. Chandra Cloth Centre & Rahul Collections March 27-April 2, 2003 owner Suresh Murlidhar Melwani had grabbed lakhs of rupees of the business community. Suresh Melwani misused his post. 6. Suresh Melwani embezzled Rs. 6 lakhs. April 10-23, 2003 The complainant submitted that the respondent had been deliberately publishing the same article against him by using different words. The respondent editor was misusing the newspaper by publishing false news to extort money from the innocent people. The complainant alleged that the respondent had been publishing the defamatory news articles against him for personal benefit in order to extort money. The complainant’s notice to the respondent for withdrawing the allegations and the false statements evoked no response. No Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Ulhas Champion on 7.1.2004. Editor failed to file written statement. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri M.K. Sharma represented the respondent newspaper. The respondent editor had expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to his illness. The representative of the respondent newspaper expressed his inability to contest the case on its merits and requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request, adjourned the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings with direction to file the reply to the Show cause notice. A copy of the complaint was also handed over to the representative of the respondent with directions to file the written statement immediately. But no written statement has been filed despite reminder dated 29.5.2006

260 Matter Relisted The matter was again listed for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. Shri Vinod Kumar Gaur respondent editor was present before the Committee while the complainant was not represented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent editor in his written submissions before the Committee stated that he had reported that the complainant made the purchase deal of a shop only on Rs.20/- stamp paper. All the news items were based on facts. Yet if the complainant produced evidence to show that these facts were incorrect, he was ready to publish the contradiction. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that at the last meeting of the Inquiry Committee on 7.2.2006 at Pune, the complainant was not present before the Committee. The complainant even now neither requested for adjournment nor he was represented before the Inquiry Committee despite received the notice of hearing. Under the circumstances the Committee had no reason not to proceed on the premise that the complainant was not interested to pursue the matter. The Committee, thus, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

77) Shri Nanikram Sidhwani Versus The Editor Ulhasnagar Ulhas Champion Maharashtra Hindi weekly Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 12.2.2004 has been filed by Shri Nanikram Sidhwani, Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra against “ULHAS CHAMPION”, Hindi weekly, Ulhasnagar for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Nanik Sidhwani’s three illegal shops will be demolished” (English translation) in its issue dated 22.1.2004. It is alleged in the news item that Nanik Sidhwani had constructed three illegal shops which were causing problem of passage for the general public. Thus Shri Tony Lalwani of Ulhasnagar Journalist Union had demanded

261 demolition of these shops but till date these shops were not demolished. It has also been reported in the news item that Tony Lalwani had told “Ulhas Champion” that if these three illegal shops are not demolished by 30.1.2004, he will file a Writ Petition against Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation in High Court. The complainant while denying the allegations has submitted that the impugned news item is highly objectionable and published with the sole motive to blackmail him, as the respondent editor had demanded a gratification of Rs. 6000/- per month from him and on his refusal to pay the same, the editor spoiled his name by publishing the impugned news item. The complainant has submitted that his shops are totally legal. The complainant has submitted that if the shops were illegal then UMC would have demolished them long back. The complainant has submitted after the impugned publication, since he was the President of Shopkeepers Association, Gajanand Market, Ulhasnagar, each and every shopkeeper was asking about the news item causing embarrassment to him. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Ulhas Champion on 02.07.2004. The respondent editor in his written statement dated 29.07.2004 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable in law. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint as a weapon to extort money other than for any genuine relief. The respondent has submitted that the complaint is filed to harass the journalists and create fear and terror in the minds of the professional journalists. The respondent has requested to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 16.8.2004 for information. Matter Adjourned When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006, there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri M.K. Sharma represented the respondent newspaper. The respondent editor had expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to his illness. The representative of the respondent newspaper expressed his inability to contest the case on its merits and requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee acceding to the request, adjourned the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings.

262 Matter Relisted The matter was again listed for hearing by Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. Shri Vinod Kumar Gaur respondent editor was present before the Committee while the complainant was not represented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent editor in his written submissions before the Committee stated that it had been widely reported in the media that there were many illegal constructions going on in Ulhasnagar. If the complainant could produce papers to show that his shops were legal he would publish the contradiction. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record, the Inquiry Committee noted that at the last meeting of the Inquiry Committee on 7.2.2006 at Pune, the complainant was not present before the Committee. The complainant even now neither requested for adjournment nor he was represented before the Inquiry Committee despite receiving the notice of hearing. Under the circumstances, the Committee had no reason to believe that the complainant was not interested to pursue the matter. The Committee thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

78) The Authorised Signatory Versus The Editor Vivekanand Education Society The Times of India Mumbai Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 31.10.2003 has been filed by the Vivekanand Education Society, Mumbai objecting to two news items captioned “Student molested by school peon, others” and “NGOS come to the aid of assaulted girl” published in The Times of India issue dated 4.9.2003 and 6.9.2003 respectively. It was reported in the impugned news item that : “an eight year old student of Chembur’s Swami Vivekanand School, Chembur, was sexually abused several times between June and August by the school peon and other men from a nearby slum. The incident occurred during school hours in a hut outside the campus, the victim’s parents said in a police

263 complaint.” On one occasion, the girl has been marked absent for 10 consecutive days even after her father personally dropped her to school …..and the girl had identified the peon as one Gulab.” The complainant has submitted that the respondent newspaper neither checked the facts of the case, nor did they contact the school authorities to cross-check the veracity of the story. The complainant has submitted that the school authorities immediately contacted the concerned Police Station to set the record straight and they simultaneously wrote to the newspaper to publish the correction but the respondent ignored the same. The complainant has submitted that their legal counsel as well as the parent of the victim girl wrote a letter on 10.9.2003 to the respondent, The Times of India but to no avail. The complainant has submitted that the respondent failed to comply with the code of conduct and professional ethics, therefore the Secretary of the Society addressed a letter on 20.9.2003. The complainant has submitted that the respondent published a clarification in Chembur Ghatkopar plus supplement on 8.10.2003, which was mischievous. The statements attributed in the clarification to the office bearers of the Vivekanand Education Society were in fact never made by them. The complainant has objected that the original news was published on page 3 of the Bombay edition and the clarification had been carried only in the Chembur Ghatkopar plus supplement. The respondent thus failed to maintain standard of journalistic ethics and committed professional misconduct. The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter and conduct hearing. No Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India on 8.7.2004. The respondent did not file written statement. Hearing Adjourned When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006 S/Shri J.P. Wadhwani and Laxman P. Kanal advocate appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, The Times of India.Reiterating the averments made in the complaint, the representative of the complainant added that the incident was not in their knowledge and only after the impugned publication, their attention was drawn to the incident in which their school was not involved. The mother of the girl sent a letter to The Times of India clarifying the facts which was not carried by the newspaper. The legal notice was also ignored by it. The counsel for the respondent contended that in the FIR filed by the parents of the girl it was stated that the incident of sexual harassment took place outside the school but the news reports created an impression as if the school management was guilty

264 and the incident took place in the school. None of the employees of the school was involved. On coming to know about the involvement of the bus driver, the bus contractor was changed on the earlier occasion. The Inquiry Committee felt that it needed more facts in the matter before taking any view. The Committee opined that the allegations made in the news report were of serious nature and were required to be controverted by the complainant with relevant documents including the FIR and the English translation of the mother’s statement. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter to be placed before it at one of its future meetings directed the complainant to file all documents in support to show that the allegations in the news report were wrong and to explain the action taken on the earlier complaint of the parents of the girl. The counsel for the complainant, vide his letter dated 20.03.2006, has complied with the direction of the Inquiry Committee and filed the copies of FIR No.66 dated 19.02.2003, FIR No. 261 dated 18.08.2003. The school authorities had made inquiries from the bus contractor and pursuant to the said inquiries has forwarded vide letter dated 24.02.2003 by Sugam Travels informing the complainant that the driver was dismissed from the service. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. There was no appearance before it. The complainant had, however, vide his letter dated 26.6.2006, requested for consideration of the matter on the basis of material on record. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record, the Inquiry Committee at the outset expressed its displeasure over the above conduct of the respondent paper. On merits of the case, it noted that the mother of the girl had filed an FIR on 19.2.2003 regarding the sexual abuse of the child with the police and on that basis the driver of the bus was arrested for interrogation. It was also an admitted fact that the school authorities also made inquiries and a letter was sent to the transporter whose bus was deployed by the school for the school children. The transporter dismissed the driver from the services. In another statement given by the parents of the girl, there is a mention of a bank chowkidar as well as unknown rickshaw puller. The school authorities also failed to inform the parents of the girl when she was continuously marked absent for 10 days. The responsibility of the school towards a child being sent by parents having full faith in the school cannot be denied. The respondent had also published the rejoinder sent by the girl’s parents, though it would have been advisable to have published it in the main paper instead of the supplement. The paper erred on this count.

265 It recommended to close the case accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

79) Shri J.T. Wadhwani Versus 1. The Editor President Metro-Chembur-Mid-Day The Vivekanand Education Society Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra 2. The Editor Lok Satta Mumbai Complaint The Vivekanand Education Society, Mumbai filed these complaints against Metro Chembur-MID-DAY Mumbai and Lok Satta, Mumbai, Maharashtra for publishing allegedly untrue, mischievous and defamatory news reports as follows:-

S.No Caption Newspaper and issue 1. “Teacher hits girls with duster” Metro Chembur-Mid Day September 3-9, 2003 2. “Swami Vivekanand parents to form Metro Chembur-Mid-Day panel” September 10-16, 2003 3. “Appointing ayahs not our job: Swami Metro Chembur-Mid-Day Vivekanand Management” September 17-23, 2003 4. “Suspense of complaint of Sexual Lok Satta Assault in school” September 12, 2003

The complainant submitted that the news items regarding a case of alleged molestation of a minor girl published by the respondent-editors were baseless, false, vexatious and misleading. The complainant alleged that the respondent newspapers neither checked the facts nor contacted the school authorities to cross check the veracity of the story. According to the complainant the newspapers were not fair in publishing the impugned news reports. Giving the factual position about the incident of hitting a girl, the complainant submitted that the said girl bunked the classes along with few other girls and did not join the class despite sending them two messages. This admitted act of indiscipline deserved punishment and the connected teacher gave the punishment of a light

266 tap with the duster. This was a matter of internal discipline and necessary action as per inquiry was started on 27th August 2003. The complainant alleged that the small trivial incident had been blown out of proportion and the respondent reporter with ulterior motive had created the sensational story. Regarding the news article about sexual abuse of a girl connected with the story, the complainant clarified that no school peon was involved in the matter nor anything happened in the school premises. The complainant submitted that the school authorities wrote to the respondent editors vide their letter dated 24.9.2003 to publish the correction but failed to receive any reply despite issuance of reminders. The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter and to take necessary action against the respondent editors. Show-cause notices were issued to the respondent-editors, Metro Chembur-Mid Day, Mumbai and Lok Satta, Mumbai on 13.1.2004. Written Statement of Lok Satta The respondent-editor, Lok Satta in his written statement dated 2.6.2004 submitted that the complaint was frivolous and baseless and filed only as an afterthought to intimidate the press and suppress coverage of a crime. The respondent editor submitted that the news report was carried in good faith, in public interest, believing it to be true and correct, based on information received from reliable sources within the school management after further verification with police records and without any malice towards anybody. According to the respondent, the complaint was without any cause and liable to be dismissed. A copy of the written statement received from the editor, Lok Satta was forwarded to the complainant on 9.7.2004 for information. Metro Chembur-Mid Day did not file written statement. Hearing Adjourned When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006 S/Shri J.P. Wadhwani and Laxman P. Kanal advocate appeared for the complainant, Shri L.M. Shahil, advocate was present for the respondent newspaper Metro Chembur-Mid Day while Lok Satta remained unrepresented. The counsel for the respondent, Mid Day requested for adjournment on the ground that he did not have a copy of the complaint and that he was not aware of the facts of the case. The representative of the complainant stated that they sent the clarification, which was not published by the respondent newspapers. He contended that in the FIR filed by the parents of the girl it was stated that the incident of sexual harassment took place outside the school but

267 the news reports created an impression as if the school management was guilty and the incident took place in the school. None of the employees of the school was involved. On coming to know about the involvement of the bus driver, the bus contractor was changed on the earlier occasion. The Inquiry Committee felt that it needed more facts in the matter before taking a view. The Committee opined that the allegations made in the news report were of serious nature and were required to be controverted by the complainant with relevant documents including the F.I.R. and the English translation of the statement of the girl’s mother. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter to be placed before it at one of its future meetings directed the complainant to file all documents in support to show that the allegations in the news report were wrong and to explain the action taken on the earlier complaint of the parents of the girl. A copy of the complaint was handed over to the advocate of the respondent newspaper, Mid Day. The counsel for complainant vide his letter dated 20.03.2006 complied with the directions of the Inquiry Committee and filed the copies of FIR No.66 dated 19.02.2003, FIR No. 261 dated 18.08.2003. The school authorities had made inquiries from the bus contractor and pursuant to the said inquiries forwarded a letter dated 24.02.2003 by Sugam Travels informing the complainant that the driver was dismissed from the services. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters were again listed for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. Shri N.B. Joshi, advocate was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Lok Satta while the other respondent, Metro Chembur- Mid Day remained unrepresented. The complainant vide his letter dated 26.6.2006 had expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to financial constraints. He had, however, requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of material on record. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for Lok Satta submitted that the complainant had impugned the publication on three counts, namely, the newspaper did not check the facts; it did not contact the school’s authorities to cross check the veracity of the facts and non-publication of their clarification. Referring to the news item he pointed out that the news report itself contained the statement of Mrs. Vaswani, Executive Secretary of the School. Whether the incident took place or not, it was for the police to find out with whom the parents had lodged an FIR. It was also a fact that doctors of J.J. Hospital who treated the girl had confirmed the incident. He pleaded that the report was extremely balanced and was based on facts. The mother of the victim had named the school peon. He

268 further stated that the school authorities never sent any clarification except a legal notice. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material on record and the oral arguments of the learned counsel for Lok Satta. The Committee observed that it was an admitted fact that the parents of the girl had lodged an FIR narrating the incident. Thus, the Committee held that the news report was not without basis. Secondly, the version of the Executive Secretary was also published in the news report itself. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that Loksatta had published the report keeping in mind the ethics of journalistic conduct. It, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint being without substance. The Committee felt that the complaint against Mid-Day also had to be treated similarly. It however, expressed its displeasure over the callous attitude of the Mid-Day in not responding to the show cause notice of the Council dated 13.1.2004 and remaining absent before the Committee after seeking adjournment at the last hearing. It recommended to the Council to advise the paper to ensure due representation 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

80) Shri Madhusudan Versus The Editor Media Co-ordinator/ Ghati Ka Bharat, Hindi Weekly Protocol In-Charge Dehradun Uttaranchal Power Corporation Dehradun, Uttaranchal Complaint This complaint dated 3.5.2005 has been filed by Shri Madhusudan, Media Co-ordinator/Protocol In Charge, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun, Uttaranchal against Ghati Ka Bharat, a Hindi weekly published from Dehradun for publication of an allegedly false and misleading news item captioned “Big Scandal of Crores of Rupees over the distribution of advertisements by Madhusudan, employee of Power Corporation” in its issue dated 25.3.2005. The complainant has submitted that he has no right to release advertisements and the question of receiving commission/bribe does not arise. The complainant has submitted that he had issued a registered legal notice dated 20.4.2004 to the respondent editor asking him to provide proofs, on the basis of which the false and misleading news item was published but nothing

269 had been heard from the respondent. The complainant has submitted that instead of giving proofs, the respondent editor addressed a letter dated 26.4.2005 to the Chairman & Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation requesting him to provide detailed information about the complainant. This act of the respondent editor proves that he had no knowledge about the complainant and had published the news item in question without any proof in hand. The complainant has submitted that after publication of the news item in question, the respondent wrote a letter dated 1.4.2005 to his Department asking for advertisement. The complainant has submitted that the respondent editor is habitual of publishing sensational news items. The complainant has requested the Council to take action in the matter. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 20.5.2005. In his written statement dated 13.6.2005 the respondent editor, “Ghati Ka Bharat” has submitted that the news item in question was published in public interest and the same was based on true facts. The respondent has submitted that no defamation has been caused due to publication of said news item. The respondent has submitted that the news was published to draw the attention of the officers of Power Corporation, Information & Public Relations Department and the Chief Minister to the manner of working of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that a large number of journalists of Dehradun have been harassed by the complainant. The journalists from time to time have passed resolution against the complainant and sent them to the Government as well as C.M.D., Power Corporation. The respondent has submitted that in response to the complainant’s notice he had sent a reply but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authority with the remarks “BÉEÉ{ÉEÉÒ àÉÉãÉÚàÉ BÉE®xÉä {É® |ÉÉ{iÉBÉEiÉÉÇ BÉEÉ {ÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ SÉãÉÉ ÉÊãÉcÉVÉÉ ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ |Éä­ÉBÉE BÉEÉä”. The respondent editor has submitted that he had to send reply at the address of Uttaranchal Power Corporation. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has misused his official position by distributing advertisements among his own favourite journalists instead of to the newspapers recognized for advertisements. The respondent has submitted that due to publication of news in Ghati Ka Bharat, the Government became cautious in issuing advertisements involving huge amount. The respondent has further submitted that being a recognized newspaper for advertisements, he has a right to ask for advertisements. The respondent has submitted that the compliant has been filed by the complainant to save himself from the inquiry to be conducted by (L.I.B.) Local Intelligence Bureau. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for information on 23.6.2005.

270 Complainant’s Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 19.7.2005, while denying the allegations levelled by the respondent has reiterated what he had submitted in his complaint. The complainant has submitted that on inquiry the cashier of National Union of Journalists, Dehradun has denied having passed any resolution dated 26.2.2005. The complainant has submitted that all the so- called resolutions were passed after filing the complaint. The complainant has submitted that the respondent in his written statement has referred to a letter written by the political leader to C.M.D. regarding advertisements scam but the name of the political leader has not been mentioned. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 20.10.2005 for information. Hearing Adjourned The matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 18.11.2005. The complainant was present in person while Shri Krishan Gopal represented the respondent newspaper. The respondent filed his written counter statement to the rejoinder of the complainant along with a number of documents a copy of which was handed over to the complainant. The complainant in his oral arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and added that he was employed in the Corporation on contract basis. He had no role in deciding who was to be released advertisements and he only worked as a media co-ordinator. He added that the respondent was habitual of publishing false and defamatory news report with the sole aim of blackmailing others. The charges of amassing properties/vehicles were baseless. He lived in a rented house. After the publication was forwarded to higher authorities, an inquiry was held by the D.G.P. He requested that the report of the DGP may be called for. The respondent editor contended that the impugned publication was factually correct. The complainant was distributing advertisements according to his wish and was taking 50% commission. They were not following any advertisement policy. The news was in public interest to expose the corruption going on in the department. He added that a case was pending before the Lok Ayukata. As the respondent editor had filed the written statement with a number of documents in support of his case, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter to afford an opportunity to the complainant to file his counter, if any. Accordingly, the Committee directed the complainant to file his counter within fifteen days from the date of hearing i.e. 18.11.2005 with a copy of the respondent.

271 Counters of the Parties The complainant vide his counter comments received in the Secretariat of the Council on 23.12.2005 had denied all the allegations levelled by the respondent vide his reply dated 18.11.2005 and requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent editor and has demanded the cancellation of his registration number. In response to complainant’s counter comments dated 23.12.2005 the respondent vide his reply dated 10.3.2006 while reiterating his written statement had denied all the allegations and informed the Council that the news item published is authentic. The respondent had filed a list of newspapers to whom the advertisements were distributed by the Department in last four years. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the letter dated 10.03.2006 filed by the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide office letter dated 28.03.2006 for information. IInd Adjournment When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006 the complainant appeared in person while the respondent editor by his letter dated 1.5.2006 requested for adjournment on medical grounds. The request for adjournment was backed by the medical certificate. The complainant filed some additional documents to substantiate his complaint. The report of inquiry sought from the DGP, Uttaranchal had also not been received. On the request of the respondent editor the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter. Final Hearing The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. The complainant, Shri Madhusudan was present in person while S/Shri Krishan Gopal and U. Goyal represented the respondent newspaper, Ghati Ka Bharat. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent editor submitted that they have collected documentary evidence which proved that the complainant was fully authorised to issue Release Orders (Ros) for issuance of advertisements. He had issued advertisements worth lakhs of rupees to one newspaper in a day. Many newspapers who were not in the approved list of newspapers for release of governments advertisements were given advertisements by the complainant. At the time of publication of news there were bungling in the corporations. Many persons complained against the complainant. He added that he had met the Chairman and Managing Director who had assured action against the

272 complainant but nothing happened. He further submitted that the complainant was a very powerful and resourceful man. He could easily get the copy of any document. He stated that a letter was written to the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of the corporation for release of an advertisement for their Samarika issue, the CMD marked the letter to Deputy General Manager and Deputy General Manager to Media Co-ordinator. This was a proof that the complainant was authorised to release advertisements and that he was very powerful. The editor however agreed that Release Orders (Ros) are signed by DGM. The editor summed up by saying that their only grievance was that the advertisements should be issued to only those newspapers who were approved by the Government to receive the advertisements. The complainant reiterated his complaint and pleaded that subsequent to his filing complaint with the Press Council, the respondent editor approached every forum with the complaint against him trying to bring pressure on him. Reiterating to the averments made in the complaint, the complainant added that the complaint made before Lokayukt, Uttaranchal by the respondent editor was dismissed by the Lokayukt on 20.01.2006. Even recently on 19.5.2006 the respondent editor published defamatory news against him. The respondent editor countering the statement of the complainant submitted that the Lokayukt had asked them to file an affidavit but he did not have the copy of the document with him here. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material available on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the parties. The Committee noted that in the impugned news report dated 25.3.2005, the editor had alleged that Madhusudan who had become a very powerful man was involved in scam of crores of rupees in release of advertisements. He was also alleged to take 50% commission from the journalist’s and the complainant’s visits to the Chief Minister’s residence was also questioned. According to the respondent the complainant was fully authorised to release advertisements. The complainant had categorically stated that his job profile among other works included preparation of Release Orders (Ros) after the approval of and under the directions of his senior officers. The Release Orders were issued only after signatures of DGM. Among the various documents filed before the Committee by the respondent editor document No.7-8 detailed the jobs assigned to Shri Madhusudan, the complainant. It was clearly indicated that one of the job assigned to the complainant was preparation of Ros on order of CMD/JMD/ Director (HR). This clearly indicated that the complainant had only powers to prepare the Ros and as admitted by the respondent also, the RO was released

273 only after the signature of the DGM. There was nothing on record to establish that the complainant enjoyed the authority stating in the news report. The Inquiry Committee was, thus, of the considered opinion that the impugned news report was published recklessly without verifying the facts and was per se defamatory to the complainant. The respondent was persistently publishing news reports against the complainant, without having in his possession any documents to substantiate the charges. The Committee found the respondent guilty of violating the norms of journalistic conduct regarding verification of facts and defamatory writings. For violation of the above said norms of journalistic conduct the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper, Ghati Ka Bharat, Hindi weekly published from Dehradun and its editor. It further recommended that the copies of the adjudication of the Council be sent to Registrar of Newspapers for India, DAVP, I&PRD, Government of Uttaranchal and District Magistrate, Uttaranchal for such action as deemed fit by them. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly. Note: Shri Keshav Dutt Chandola, member did not participate in the proceedings of the case as his newspaper had been cited as one of the beneficiaries of advertisements from the Uttaranchal Power Corporation.

81) Shri Rajender Singh Versus The Editor Secretary Punjab Kesari District Red Cross Society Ambala Rewari, Haryana Haryana Complaint This complaint dated 13.6.2005 has been filed by Shri Rajender Singh, Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Rewari, Haryana against “Punjab Kesari”, Ambala edition for publication of an allegedly false news item captioned “Fraud in Fund Raised for Tsunami Victims” “Cheap bed sheet purchased and sent” in its issue dated 17.4.2005. It was reported in the news item that for Red Cross Society which is known world over for helping the poor, downtrodden and helpless people has become a way of earning money for the officials of Rewari district. According to sources, a Committee was constituted by the District Administration to help the Tsunami victims. In this Committee, 274 District Red Cross Secretary, Mr. Rajender Singh, D.E.T.C. and S.D.M. were included as a members. With the help of the people, a sum of Rs.17,53,175/- were received to this Committee for the help of Tsunami victims. The Committee decided to send essential commodities after purchasing from the market with this amount. When some people came with dry ration i.e. rice, dal, sugar etc. to deposit with the society, then Secretary refused to take these items and asked the people to donate cash only. The members of said Committee reached Panipat and contacted the same Firm from where the Deputy Commissioner Panipat had already purchased the bed sheets and the members finalised to purchase 5000 bed sheets @ Rs. 175/- per bed sheet. Sources say, after that Sh. Rajinder Singh, Secretary, Red Cross Society went alone to said Firm of Panipat and purchased 5000 bed sheets @Rs.40/- per bed sheet and got these loaded in a truck and sent it whereas this item was to be sent through other members and city Magistrate. Sources say that Secretary has earned a lot in this transaction. In the society which was formed during the regime of Bhajanlal Government, Rajinder Singh was promoted from Assistant Secretary to Secretary in the year 1989. The vigilance team found Rajinder Singh guilty in their inquiry conducted at Jind in purchasing of 250 tricycles. Recently, Secretary Rajinder Singh being in the grade of 8000/- has got higher grade of Rs.10000-325-13900 which is given to a employee who has earned good reputation and achievements on completion of 15 years service. But, here, Municipal Council has taken over the Working Women’s Hostel being run by the Red Cross Society in Sati Colony; D.C. Office has taken over a canteen of the Red Cross Society in premises of D.C. office, Bal Bhawan has taken over the Astha Kunj, General Hospital/Health Department has taken over the blood bank, X-ray Films and medical examination for grant of driving license etc. On the whole all the projects under Red Cross Society have been closed. The question is how the higher grade was given to Secretary ? Sources say that Secretary got this grade with the connivance of then Deputy Commissioner, C.R. Rana. Secretary got money from the Society for his father’s treatment from A.I.M.S. New Delhi who was suffering from cancer three years ago. About one year ago, the son of Secretary was arrested for having wrong challan of a Judge posted at Narnaul. The cost of 5000 bed sheets @ Rs. 175/- per bed sheets comes to Rs.8.75 lacs while Secretary Rajinder Singh says that these 5000 bed sheets were purchased for Rs.3.35 lacs only. According to reliable sources in actual these 5000 bed sheets were purchased for Rs.2 lac @ Rs.40/- per bed sheet. Thus it is clear that Secretary has earned (embezzled)

275 a huge amount amounting to Rs.6.75 lacs out of the fund collected for help of victims of Tsunami. Truth may come out after conducting a high level inquiry. To know much about it, we tried to contact the Secretary but he was not available for his version. In this regard Deputy Commissioner Shri Mohinder Kumar says that higher grade given to Secretary is as per rules and norms. He refused to comment on the past losses and achievements of the society saying that he has recently joined at Rewari. He further said that all unspent amount/fund (after deducting the cost of bed sheets) collected for help of Tsunami victims has been deposited with PM’s Relief Fund.

The complainant has submitted that the news item is false and misleading and published to defame him in the society.

The complainant submitted that he sent detailed clarification to Punjab Kesari but it was neither published nor replied. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent newspaper.

Written Statement

A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 19/12/2005. In response the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari submitted that the news item published by the newspaper is factual and has been published in the ordinary course of the publication of the newspaper and without any ill-will, malice or malafide towards anybody. The respondent has submitted that the news item has been published only as news sent by their district level News Reporter in the interest of the general public and for no other reason. The respondent has submitted that despite this without admitting the correctness of the complaint, they have carried the necessary clarification in Punjab Kesari, Ambala issue dated 31st December 2005. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the respondent editor on 2.3.2006 for his reply.

Counter Comments

The complainant has filed his counter comments dated 29.5.2006 and expressed his dissatisfaction with the publication of the rejoinder on 31.12.2005 and submitted that he is disappointed on reading the written statement of the respondent who refused to admit that the impugned news item is false. The complainant has stated that he issued a letter dated 27.4.2005 to the respondent drawing their attention to the news item in question, which levelled false and baseless allegations against him. The respondent not only declined to publish the rejoinder but also did not even care to give its reply.

276 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. The complainant Shri Rajinder Singh was present in person. Shri N.C. Soni, Advocate, represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the respondent in his oral arguments submitted that according to the complainant, the headline of the news report was objectionable. The news was published to convey that Tsunami victims were not treated badly as the Committee had been set up to purchase bed sheets costing Rs.175/- per bed sheet but actually the bed sheets @ Rs.67/- were purchased. This fact had been admitted by the complainant himself. He added that there was no concoction in the news. It might be that some of the facts had been exaggerated. However, the clarification of the complainant was published, though the newspaper stood by the report. The complainant stated that the Red Cross Society purchased 5000 bed sheets of the same quality as the Panipat Administration had purchased. Apart from the allegation of purchase of bed sheets and making money out of the deal, many other false and misleading charges of personal nature were published in the news report. He added that the Red Cross Society was helping the victims directly as well as contributing to the government funds. After publication of such misleading news, people would hesitate to come forward to donate to the Red Cross Fund and ultimately the sufferers would be the victims. The complainant added that a detailed clarification was sent and the same was published in a way which repeated the allegation again. The savings were sent to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The counsel for the respondent argued that the complainant did not use the funds properly. The savings at the cost of quality were not proper. He added that earlier also in the purchase of tricycles, inquiry was held and the complainant was warned. He further stated that the complainant held a public post and, therefore, he should be open to criticism. He, however, stated that they were not supporting the news or the reporter, but since the news report come to the notice of the reporter who was not traceable, the counsel offered to publish the clarification of the complainant in a proper manner. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments put forth before it. The Committee felt that the respondent newspaper had published the impugned news report without taking the version of the concerned at pre-publication stage, on the charge that the bed sheets were purchased for Rs. 40/- each. Further, the rejoinder did not in any manner

277 identify the report to which it was related, thus negating its impact. The Inquiry Committee expressed its deep displeasure over the manner the respondent newspaper Punjab Kesari had published the impugned news report. However, as the counsel for the respondent had offered to publish the clarification of the complainant in proper form, the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent newspaper to publish the clarification of the complainant already available with them within 15 day of the receipt of the adjudication of the Council with due reference to the impugned report, and to forward a copy of the issue carrying the same to the complainant and the Press Council for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the above directions of the respondent newspaper. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

82) Shri Vijay Kumar Khetrapal Versus The Editor Secretary Hira Times Western U.P. Advertisers Meerut Association, Meerut Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint Shri Vijay Kumar Khetrapal, Secretary, Western U.P. Advertisers Association, Meerut, U.P. has filed this complaint dated 20.3.2002 through his advocate against Hira Times, Hindi daily, Meerut for publication of false, biased and misleading news item captioned “Hoarding Theke Ke Sambandh Mei Bogus Sansthan Ke Bogus Adhyaksh Ne Conference Boolayee” (Bogus President of bogus organisation called a Press Conference in connection with hoarding contracts) in the issue dated 17.12.2001. In the news item it has been reported that “a bogus President of bogus organisation called a Press Conference in connection with hoarding contracts. It is interesting that Ajay Rastogi who organised the Press Conference posing himself to be the President of that organisation, is not even registered. When the journalists posed questions on this, the President along with other people started looking blank. Ajay Rastogi, being the bogus President of Western U.P. Advertisers Association organized this Press Conference at Maharaja Agarsen Bhawan situated at Purva Mahaveer Delhi Road. According to the sources, Western U.P. Advertisers Association is not registered. On

278 receiving complaints of irregularities against this organisation, its registration had been cancelled. Due to this cancellation the people, who were using this organisation for their self-interest, got irritated and made all efforts to get it registered so that they could fulfil their vested interests. When it was proved that Western U.P. Advertisers Association was a bogus organisation, its office-bearers applied before Divisional Commissioner for its registration but they could not succeed due to charges of irregularities in the organisation and fulfilling vested interests/ personal gains against its office bearers and the registration was not granted by Divisional Commissioner. In spite of all this, Ajay Rastogi, bogus President of bogus organisation, organised a press conference to throw dust in the eyes of the journalists. The Press Conference called in connection with removal of hoardings was insignificant because Municipal Corporation removed the hoardings keeping in view the orders of the Supreme Court. According to the sources, despite the fact that the Western U.P. Advertisers Association was bogus organisation, its office- bearers are engaged in fulfilling their vested interests.” The complainant has submitted that he and the Association member are engaged in the business of advertisement by fixing hoardings etc. within Meerut for more than 20 years. Earlier the opposite party was also a member of this Association and is doing the business of advertisement separately from their Association along with the printing of newspaper “Hira Times”. According to the complainant the opposite party got a tender of whole of Meerut Advertisement business from Nagar Nigam, Meerut which was challenged in Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad by them and this tender was quashed being illegal. The petitioner association called a press conference on 16.12.2001 in Meerut against the illegal removal of hoarding material of association member in respect of which a press note was published in “Dainik Jagran”, Meerut, “Rashtriya Sahara” and “Amar Ujala” in their respective issues of 17.12.2001 edition. On 17.12.2001 the opposite party who is also in the business of advertisement and got Monopoly Rights from Nagar Nigam, Meerut for advertisement for three years within Meerut, published a news in his own newspaper “Hira Times” against the president and association. The complainant has alleged that the respondent has used Hira Times newspaper for their personal gains and against the public interest. The complainant has informed that a legal notice had been served on the respondent but there has been no response. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the editor Hira Times on 30.05.2003.

279 The respondent editor in his written statement dated 16.6.2003 has submitted that the complaint is based on wrong facts and has been filed with prejudice to misuse the legal procedure. The respondent has submitted that the news item published in Hira Times on 17.12.2001 is true and based on facts. The respondent has submitted that the registration of the Western U.P. Advertisers Association was cancelled by the Deputy Registrar vide his order dated 8.11.2000 on receiving complaints of irregularities against this organisation and the appeal filed against the order of Deputy Registrar dated 8.11.2000 before the Divisional Commissioner, was dismissed. The respondent has submitted that a Special Leave Petition regarding the contract of hoarding was pending in the Supreme Court and calling Press Conference on the issue was contempt of court. The respondent has submitted that a copy of the written statement was directly served upon the complainant but the said has been received back from the postal authority with the postal remarks “Receiver could not be traced despite repeated search”. This proved that the organisation is bogus.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.7.2003 but the same has been received back in the Council from the postal authority with the remarks: “left”. However, a copy of written statement was also forwarded to Shri Lankesh Kumar, counsel for complainant which is not received back.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14th July, 2006 there was no appearance before it from either side. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with the postal remarks : “Addressee has gone somewhere after selling the house.”

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant did not inform the Council about his new postal address due to which the notice of hearing could not be served on him. Thus, the Committee proceeded on premise that he was not interested in pursuing his complaint and recommended to the Council to close the case for non-prosecution.

Decision of the Council

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

280 83) Shri Sandeep Gupta Versus 1. Editor Kansal Health Care Public News, Hindi weekly Delhi Pitampura, Delhi

2. Editor Indo Europe News Rohini, Delhi

3. Editor Fashion India, Hindi weekly Pitampura, Delhi

4. Editor Krishna Avtar Rohini, Delhi

5. Editor Rashtriya Hindi Samachar Patra Rohini, Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 24.1.2005 has been filed by Shri Sandeep Gupta, Proprietor, Kansal Healthcare, a Chemist shop, Delhi against local press. According to the complainant, in the month of September-October 2004, Shri Hukam Chakleshwar Singh and Shri Abhay Pal Singh visited his shop and introduced themselves as Editor-in-Chiefs of about 20 presses, offered membership of their press with press card on payment of Rs. 2000/- per month. A couple of days later, two other persons namely Shri Varun Singh and Shri U.S. Singhal visited him in the same fashion stating that they are running 20-22 press in the city. On refusal to the offer, the respondents started sending fictitious complaints against his Chemist shop to various authorities, thereby causing him great inconveniences, loss of business and reputation, harassment, mental torture and agony, alleged the complainant. The complainant has submitted that these local and small press people are misusing the weapons provided by the government by issuing press membership cards on payment, thereby expanding the scope of crime and corruption in the society. Written Statement Show cause notices were issued to the six respondent editors on 1.3.2006. The respondent editors of Krishna Avtar, Fashion India and Public News in their joint written statement dated 12.3.2006 have submitted that the allegations levelled against them are false and has no foundation. The respondents have

281 submitted that the complainant has not mentioned the names of 20 newspapers. The respondents have also submitted that they do not know about Shri Abhay Pal who has no concern with any of the newspaper of their group. The respondents have submitted that Shri Hukam Chakleshwar Singh is son of Ex. Member of Parliament and has good reputation in the society and is not a marketing executive of the press. The respondents have submitted that all the allegations levelled against Shri U.S. Singhal are false and groundless, as Shri Singhal never met the complainant. The respondents have denied the allegation that Shri U.S. Singhal and Shri Hukam Chakleshwar Singh demanded Rs. 2000/- per month from the complainant. The respondent has submitted that if the allegation of demanding of Rs. 2000/- is true the complainant should have made complaint to the police. The respondents have submitted that they received some complaints against Kansal Medical Store and the same were forwarded to various authorities for proper verification and investigation. The respondents have submitted that the complaint has been filed to harass them and to harm the dignity of the press and their newspapers. The respondents have submitted that the complainant has mentioned the names of Indo-Europe News and Rashtriya Hindi Samachar Patra in his complaint, which have no concern with their group. The respondents have submitted that no news was published against Shri Gupta in any of their newspaper and thus no harm was caused to the reputation of Shri Gupta. The respondents have submitted that the complainant and his associates gave a threat of kidnapping to their representative Shri Hukam Chakleshwar Singh for which they have made a complaint to DCP (N/W), Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner (Vigilance), Joint Commissioner (Crime). The respondents have submitted that the complainant has tried to mislead the Council and has attacked a noble drive, which is run by their group for redressal of public grievance and has tried to destroy the dignity and reputation of their newspapers. Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.4.2006. The complainant in his counter comments dated 15.5.2006 has submitted that the complaint of Shri Kanchan Singh annexed with the written statement. It was only to extract handsome money by way of blackmailing. The complainant has submitted that Shri Kanchan Singh along with his brother Shri Balbir Singh was tenant in their house and they remained with them for more than a decade. Shri Kanchan Singh was in need of money for his business and had made his request to his brother (complainant’s brother) for the same, which was given to him. The complainant has submitted that on the due date he refused to return the money. The Bank returned the cheques given by Shri Kanchan

282 Singh. The complainant has submitted that thereafter his brother filed a recovery suit in the court of law on the basis of bounced cheques. Shri Kanchan Singh was not appearing before the Court and as such, the Court issued non-bailable warrants against Shri Kanchan Singh. The complainant has submitted that being prejudiced with the action of his brother, Shri Kanchan Singh approached the respondents for redressal of his grievances. The complainant has submitted that the respondents having full knowledge of facts started coming to his brother’s shop as well as of his own and made illegitimate demand on one pretext or the other. On their refusal to fulfill their illegal demands they started sending fictitious, self-made and untenable complaints to various Govt. agencies to cause loss to their business and reputation, harassment and mental torture and thereafter they started blackmailing the complainant. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondents. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that the notice of hearing had been duly served on the complainant. Despite that, the complainant neither appeared before the Committee nor had he requested for adjournment. Further, there was nothing on record to show that following the alleged pressurizing tactics, the respondents had used their newspaper to harm the reputation of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, thus, recommended to the Council to dismiss 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

84) The Principal Versus The Editor Government Women College Mahamedha, Hindi newspaper Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana Complaint This complaint dated 28.12.2004 has been filed by the Principal, Government Women College, Gurgaon against Mahamedha, Hindi newspaper, New Delhi for publication of an objectionable and defamatory news item in its issue dated 23.12.2004 captioned “Allegation of Exploitation of Girls on

283 Lecturer” and in box “Allegation – In order to increase his connection he was instrumental in sexual exploitation of girls”. The respondent newspaper reported that levelling allegation of exploitation of girls had begun against some lecturers and clerks of Govt. College at Mehrauli Road. It was not clear how far these allegations were correct, but a complaint, which was some time ago sent to President of India Prime Minister, Governor, Chief Minister, and Education Minister to the department of Higher Education and CBI in this regard, had raised many questions on the working style of accused lecturer and clerks. It was published that one or two inquiries had also been conducted on these allegations that got clean chit by taking advantage of high connections. This lecturer was a terror to the extent that when this complaint came for inquiry, he got a memorandum signed from the male as well as female lecturer of the college regarding his being innocent and clean. An Advocate had filed a complaint against a lecturer of Political Science and Clerk Raj Pal for lowering the educational moral values and had levelled allegation that this lecturer was exploiting the girls with the help of the clerk and even used the girls to establish relations with the officers. In the complaint this lecturer was termed as sex maniac. Many lady lecturers were also scared of this lecturer who calls himself Raja. It was believed that he had a hand behind the complaints of two Rajya Sabha MPs against a lady teacher. The MPs had complained against a lady teacher levelling allegations of scams in the hostel, on which decision had been taken in favour of lady teacher. The highconnection of this lecturer can be established by the fact that he was posted in this college for the last 20-22 years. Even if he was transferred to another college of the city, he was successful in coming back to this women college situated on Mehrauli Road. In the complaint the reasons for his long stay had been described as his sex related working style. The complainant has submitted that the false, fabricated, malicious and defamatory news item was published to tarnish the good reputation of the lecturer and sincere clerk under a conspiracy hatched by one mischievous lecturer Shri S.C. Sapra in connivance with press reporter, as Mr. N.S. Yadav, a senior faculty member was signatory to college Council resolution dated 27th November 2004, condemning the objectionable behaviour of Mr. S.C. Sapra towards the then Principal, Smt. Rekha Rani Goyal and Mr. Yadav was a member of a Committee which recovered university examinations sheets from the possession of Mr. Sapra. Similarly, Mr. Raj Pal did not play to the tune of Mr. Sapra in helping him in carrying out his nefarious designs of abetting copying in the examinations. The complainant has submitted that the reporter of Mahamedha, Shri Arvind Saini was disgruntled against Mr. N.S. Yadav as his unauthorized entry into the college premises and attempts to talk to girls and taking their photographs was not allowed. The complainant has submitted that both Mr. Sapra and Mr. Saini

284 entered into a criminal conspiracy to defame Mr. Yadav. The complainant has submitted that when to stop Mr. Sapra in his nefarious design of copying in the exams to help his favourites, he was not allowed to enter into the examination centre on 24th March 2004; he misbehaved with her, and on her complaint Mr. Sapra was transferred from the college on 27th March 2004 and later on placed under suspension w.e.f. 27.4.2004. Angered by this, Mr. Sapra in connivance with reporter accelerated his defamation campaign against this college and planted defamatory news item in Hindustan, Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran, Dainik Bhaskar and Mahamedha. The complainant has submitted that the false, fabricated, malicious and defamatory news item was planted in Mahamedha on 23rd December 2004, about five months after the inquiry into the complaint of the said advocate basing the entire news item on the pseudonymous complaint with the ulterior motive of defaming Shri Yadav a reputed lecturer of high moral character and sincere clerk in particular and this prestigious college and its innocent girls in general. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Mahamedha on 18.11.2005. The Editor, Mahamedha in his undated written statement while taking preliminary technical objections has submitted that he never received the letters addressed to the editor by the complainant. Had such a letter been received, the remedial actions would have been taken immediately. The respondent has submitted that the news item published is not a part of any conspiracy to defame the college nor it was fabricated one. The respondent has submitted that nowhere in the news item the word sexual exploitation was used. Hindi meaning of which is “ªÉÉèxÉ ¶ÉÉè­ÉhÉ” different from ¶ÉÉè­ÉhÉ . So far as the adjectives used by the complainant with reference to political science lecturer are concerned, it may the view of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that mentioning of a conspiracy by the complainant reflects that there was something definitely wrong happening in the college involving the lecturers of the college. So far as the name of Shri N.S. Yadav is concerned the same was nowhere mentioned in the news item. The respondent has submitted that the complainant herself agreed that there were some allegations and on such allegations a high level police enquiry was conducted. The respondent submitted that the news item was not at all derogatory as alleged. The respondent has submitted that whole news item was in connection with certain complaints against one lecturer and clerk and scam in hostel. The respondent has submitted that the complainant in the capacity of Principal is more interested in Shri S.N.Yadav and Shri Rajpal but not the college. The respondent has submitted that the newspaper had not added any thing to the report on its own and was willing to come forward for finding

285 a solution to the matter in an appropriate way so that sentiments of any person are not hurt. The respondent has submitted that when the matter came to the knowledge of the management, the concerned reporter left the job of Mahamedha. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.1.2006 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 20.2.2006 while reiterating the allegations has submitted that the written statement of the respondent is a bundle of falsehoods and does not address the complaint and objections raised by her. The complainant has submitted that she had not only sent the contradiction/clarification of the impugned news item to Shri Shekhar Kapoor through Regd. letter dated 28.12.2004 followed by Regd. reminder dated 7.1.2005 but also to four other persons connected with the newspaper namely, Shri Pappu Bhati, President, Mahamedha Parivar, Shri Rakesh Mohan, Owner & Printer, Dr. Sharad Johri, Publisher, Mahamedha and Shri Raj Kaushik, News Editor, Mahamedha. The complainant has submitted that before publishing the impugned news item, the reporter did not try to know the version of the college Principal and the affected Pol. Science lecturer and clerk Shri Rajpal. Thus the impugned news item was published under a deep-rooted conspiracy to defame the prestigious women college, its reputed teacher of Pol. Science and sincere clerk. In the caption highlighted on the top left side, the highly defamatory allegation was published, “In order to increase his connection was instrumental in bodily exploitation of girls!” The complainant submitted that the identification of Shri N.S. Yadav as N S when lecturer of Pol. Science was malafide. Further the so called complaint filed by one advocate was a pseudonymous complaint made by Shri Sapra in connivance with the reporter of Mahamedha to harass and blackmail Shri N.S. Yadav. The complainant has submitted that planting of the defamatory news item about three-four months after the conclusion of the inquiry and even after having the knowledge of the same, in itself speaks of a deep-rooted bias and conspiracy. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item adversely affected the image of the institution as a whole. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 28.2.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 14.7.2006 at New Delhi. S/Shri N.S. Yadav and J.P.S. Chauhan appeared on behalf of the complainant, while Shri Vinay Kakkar, Advocate, represented the respondent newspapers.

286 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant in his oral arguments stated that Mahamedha published news alleging harassment and exploitation of girl students by one teacher and clerk of the college. The allegations were totally false and published without verifying the facts from the college authorities. He further stated that the clarification sent to various persons and by different modes was not published by the respondent. He then reiterated the averments in the complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary technical objection on the maintainability of the complaint. On merits, the counsel contended that it was not said that the girl students belonged to the complainant’s college. They could be of some other college. The news was published on the report of the correspondent who was not a party here. He added that as the matter related to girl students, he would not like to discuss the matter in detail. The counsel summed up by saying that the clarification of the complainant was not received. Had they received the clarification of the complainant, the same would have been published. The counsel then offered to publish the clarification. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee At the outset, the Inquiry Committee overruled the objection under the provisions of the Inquiry Regulations. On the objections of the counsel that the reporter was not made a party, the Committee observed that under the PRB Act, 1867, the editor was responsible for all publications in a newspaper. The Inquiry Committee was also not convinced with the argument of the counsel for the respondent that the complaint was not maintainable as it was filed by the Principal who was the In-charge of the college and he/she has to look after the interest of the college as well as the staff. On merits, on consideration of the record and oral submissions made before it on behalf of the complainant and the respondent, the Inquiry Committee noted that the report had been filed on the basis of the material provided to the reporter of the paper who had since left the job. The main grouse of the complainant was non-publication of the clarification. In view of the offer of the learned counsel for the respondent for publication of the complainant’s clarification, the Committee directed the complainant to send the clarification of the college to the Council, and the respondent to publish the same within a fortnight of its receipt from the Council. The respondent was also directed to send a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the Council and the complainant for record. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report

287 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

85) The Principal Versus The Editor Government College Dainik Bhaskar Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Haryana

Complaint

This complaint dated 22.12.2005 has been filed by the Principal Government College, Gurgaon, Haryana (returned on 31.1.2006) against Dainik Bhaskar, Gurgaon for publication of false, malicious and defamatory news report in its issue dated 2.12.2005 captioned “Government College inquiry started again”. The complainant submitted that Shri Amit Nehra, Bureau Chief, Gurgaon in connivance with the editor of Dainik Bhaskar, Gurgaon has printed and published a false, malicious, mischievous and defamatory news report with the motive of defaming and degrading the reputation of the prestigious women college, its Principal and staff.

As per the complainant the impugned news report levelled false allegations of copying during annual examination, harassment of male and female lecturers, running of benami canteen of hostel mess by a college clerk have been levelled. False allegation of answer books of house examination being checked by students are also levelled.

The complainant submitted that she sent her clarification on 6.12.2005 to the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar to publish with prominence but till date the same was not been published.

The complainant pointed out that earlier she had filed complaints against The Hindustan Times, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran on 13 impugned news reports and the Council in its decision dated 7.10.2005 censured The Hindustan Times and instructed Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran to publish clarification with prominence. The complainant submitted that as a repercussion of this decision, the same elements joined hands with the Bureau Chief of Dainik Bhaskar, Gurgaon. Further the Bureau Chief of Dainik Bhaskar filed a complaint before the D.C., Gurgaon making the 13 news reports published in The Hindustan Times, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran as base for reiteration of grievance against the reputed lecturer Shri N.S. Yadav and sincere clerk Shri Raj Pal knowing very well the fact that the Council has already pronounced its decision on these news reports.

288 Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar on 3.3.2006. The Bureau Chief, Dainik Bhaskar in his written statement dated 13.3.2006 submitted that the complainant has already filed a complaint of blackmailing against the correspondent of Dainik Bhaskar before the D.C., Gurgaon and the D.C., Gurgaon has taken cognizance on the complaint. The respondent has submitted that the D.C. has ordered an inquiry on 1.12.2005 regarding the activities of Government College, Gurgaon. To cover up her misdeeds the complainant filed this complaint before the Press Council of India. The respondent submitted that Dainik Bhaskar does not believe in yellow journalism. Further the complainant retired on 31.1.2006 and while writing this letter she has tried to mislead the Council. Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.4.2006. The complainant in her counter comments dated 17.5.2006 submitted that in the written statement dated 13.3.2006 Shri Amit Nehra, Bureau Chief, Dainik Bhaskar had given distorted version about his reporter Shri Dhirender Mishra. Shri Dhirender Mishra, a reporter of Dainik Bhaskar had planted totally false, baseless news item in Dainik Bhaskar dated 24.7.2005 with the object of defaming the college. The complainant has submitted that reacting to this false news item, a complaint dated 27.7.2005 was made to the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Noida under intimation to the Press Council of India and the D.C., Gurgaon. The complainant has submitted that some local reporters of Gurgaon had let loose a vilification campaign against this college in connivance with a tainted and mischievous Lecturer, Mr. S.C. Sapra. The complainant has submitted that the complaint dated 1.12.2005 filed before the D.C., Gurgaon was a coordinated conspiracy of Shri Amit Nehra and tainted above mentioned Lecturer Shri Subhash C. Sapra. The complaint was based on 13 impugned news items, which had already been decided by the Press Council of India on 7.10.2005 as false, misleading, twisted and defamatory. The complainant has submitted that it is totally false and misleading that the allegations contained in impugned news item dated 2.12.2005 were different from the allegation levelled in the 13 impugned news items decided upon by the Council on 7.10.2005. The complainant while reiterating the allegations levelled in the complaint has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 7.6.2006.

289 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. S/Shri N.S. Yadav and J.P.S. Chauhan were present on behalf of the complainant while Shri Kulbhushan Bhardwaj, advocate represented the respondent, Dainik Bhaskar. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant reiterated that last year 13 false news reports were published in some newspapers in which the Press Council of India in its decision dated 7.10.2005 had censured one of the newspapers and two newspapers were directed to publish the clarification. The clarification was sent to them thrice under intimation to the Council but the newspapers did not publish the same. Based on these news reports Dainik Bhaskar again carried false and defamatory news report wherein all the allegations were reproduced by Dainik Bhaskar. He reiterated other averments in the complaints. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that in the earlier complaints Dainik Bhaskar was not a party. Whatever had been published was based on facts gathered by their reporter. The complainant had already filed a complaint against the correspondent of Dainik Bhaskar before the Deputy Commissioner who had ordered an inquiry. The complainant also filed complaint with the Press Council of India and Lok Sampark Samiti. The college authorities had also misbehaved with a lady journalist. A Resolution condemning their behaviour was passed in the meeting at the Press Club. The Centre Superintendent A. K. Malik gave his report that copying was being done during examination by taking money. A special observer was appointed by the University who sent his report, which was lost.The University changed the Examination Centre. He stated that this news was published. The Food Department on a complaint raided the canteen. This news was also published. One Mr. Ashok Gahlot had filed complaint against Prof. N.S. Yadav regarding exploitation of girls mentioning the name of the girl. An inquiry has been instituted which the complainant was trying to stop. The representative of the complainant submitted that there was no advocate by the name of Ashok Gahlot. The complainant was fictitious. The correspondent of Dainik Bhaskar fully knew the outcome of the inquiry. The news reports were published without verifying the facts. The clarification sent was also not published. The counsel for Dainik Bhaskar stated that the impugned report was based on available evidence. Therefore, no further publication was necessary by way of clarification.

290 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the representatives of the complainant and the respondent. It observed that before publishing the impugned news report containing allegations of serious nature, the respondent did not care to verify the facts from the college authorities. The respondent had also breached the norm regarding right to reply by not publishing the clarification of the complainant dated 6.12.2005 sent to Dainik Bhaskar. The Inquiry Committee, thus, decided to recommend to the Council to warn the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar for violation of above norms of journalistic conduct. To afford the complainant right to reply, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send the factual clarification to the Press Council of India which the respondent editor may be directed to publish within 15 days of its receipt from the Council with its own stand, if necessary, but without any counter-allegations, and to forward a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the Press Council of India and the complainant for record. The Inquiry Committee also noted inter alia the submissions of the complainant that the Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran had grossly flouted the directions of the Council by not publishing the clarification of the complainant. It recommended that cognizance of these submissions may be taken in the relevant file for appropriate follow up 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly. F.N.: Shri P.T. Shah, Member did not participate in the deliberation for the reason of his interest in the Bhaskar Group of Publication.

86) Dr. T.B. Singh Versus The Editor Joint Director (Admn.) Rashtriya Sahara Institute of Human Behaviour & New Delhi Allied Sciences Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 17.3.2004 has been filed by Dr. T.B. Singh, Joint Director (Admn.) Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS), Delhi against Rashtriya Sahara for publication of and allegedly false and misleading news item in its issue dated 11.3.2004 under the caption

291 “|ɶÉɺÉÉÊxÉBÉE ={ÉäFÉÉ BÉEÉ ÉʶÉBÉEÉ®

292 Matter Adjourned As the service report of the notice to the respondent was not complete, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to allow the respondent due and fair opportunity of defending its case. The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. Dr. T.B. Singh, Joint Director (Admn.) the complainant, along with Shri Bharat Bhushan, Assistant Administrative Officer, Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences, Delhi was present in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again listed before the Inquiry Committee for hearing at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. Shri M.M. Sharma, Assistant Administrative Officer represented the complainant while Shri Gyan Prakash, staff reporter appeared for the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He added that the Institute was earlier under the Delhi Government. After it became autonomous body, they got the quarters vacated but still some persons who were not their employees did not vacate the quarters. The wards and the hospital was got cleaned by out sourcing facilities. Steps were being taken to have the dangerous quarters evacuated. He further stated that no new construction was going on as alleged in the impugned publication. The reporter did not verify the facts at pre-publication stage. He denied the Director having given any statement. Shri Gyan Prakash, appearing for the respondent filed the written submissions of the respondent editor. It was submitted therein that the news report was based on facts and was published after proper verification by the reporter. The news report contained the version of the Director of the Institute also. Despite that the version of the complainant was carried in the issue dated 29.3.2006. It was further submitted, that many leading national dailies published news about the worse condition of the Institute. The news was meant to highlight the difficulties of the patients, doctors and other employees of the Institute. In his oral submissions the representative of the respondent repeated the defence taken in the written submission of the respondent editor. He added that many other newspapers published similar reports and that the paper stood by the correction of the report. The situation remained the same till date. He claimed that the matter was carried in public interest.

293 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the representative of the complainant and the respondent. It noted that the impugned report tried to present the facts as witnessed by the reporter and being a premier health institute highlighting any shortcomings could not be taken as an attempt to malign the institute but only to shake up the Institute and motivate it to give more marked attention to corrective measures. It opined that the news item was in public interest, as it was meant to bring to the notice of the authorities, the pathetic condition of the patents and the staff of the Institute. The Committee observed that the news was published with proper pre-publication verification and the paper subsequently carried the version of the Director of the complainant Institute. Though it would have been advisable to have given due reference to the impugned report in this rejoinder, the respondent had complied with the norm of right to reply by publishing the clarification of the complainant promptly. Thus, the Committee did not find that the respondent had erred, in publishing the impugned news report. The Inquiry Committee, 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

87) Shri Ajay Kumar Versus The Editor Director The Times of India Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering New Delhi Civil Aviation Department Government of India New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 11.6.2004 has been filed by Shri Ajay Kumar, Director, Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering, Civil Aviation Department, Government of India, New Delhi against The Times of India, New Delhi for publication of an allegedly false, biased and misleading news article under the caption “GET OFF TO A FLYING START’ in its issue dated 24.5.2004. The objectionable portion of the impugned article reads as follows: “Aviation industry is among the fastest growing industries in today’s time. One branch of aviation industry, which offers a scope for a bright and secure future is aircraft maintenance engineering….

294 Unfortunately, coaching centers are taking the students for a ride, by claiming to be recognized by the DGCA and promising a degree on completion of the course. In fact the aircraft maintenance-engineering course is not a degree course but a ‘license course’, to be imparted by only the DGCA recognized institutes. These recognized institutes teach the approved syllabus of DGCA and after completion of the course conduct internal examination. On the basis of the performance in these internal examinations, the results of successful candidates are forwarded to the DGCA for license examination. Thereafter, the aircraft maintenance engineer licenses are handed out. …To attract more and more young people, these institutes give attractive scholarships to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- per annum, to the deserving and meritorious students in addition, there are attractive amenities for girls candidates.”

Denying the allegation, the complainant has submitted that where the newspaper’s edition “Education Times” is required to publish unbiased, sincere and honest views for the millions of admission seekers, it was unfortunately found publishing biased statements, expectedly at the patronage of some Institute’s management. The article ridiculed the other competitive institutes and glorified the one at the behest of which it was published. The complainant has submitted that the cheap publicity should not be permitted in leading newspapers more so when people take their articles as true. Instead of biased views, it is duty of the newspaper that they should always publish honest facts.

The complainant has submitted that the impugned article speaks the language of a particular management stating that all the institutes owned by it as the only prominent institute in India and terms all other competitive institutes approved by DGCA (Director General of Civil Aviation), Government of India, as merely coaching centers, whereas there are 27 such institutes in India some with better reputation than those mentioned in the article. The impugned article even down plays their policy of merit scholarship and ridicule their policy of girls’ promotion. The complainant has alleged that the respondent merely to cater to the interests of a particular management has published the impugned article.

The complainant has submitted that he expressed his objection to the respondent vide his letter dated 27.5.2004 and subsequent reminder dated 10.6.2004 with the request to publish a corrigendum but to no avail.

Comments

Comments of the respondent editor, The Times of India were invited on 11.1.2005.

295 The respondent in his comments dated 18.01.2005 has denied that the said article was published at the behest of some person or educational institute or it was biased, as alleged. The respondent has submitted that the said article was published for the benefit of the student’s community at large. He has submitted that the newspaper carries articles on various educational institutes and courses conducted by them. The respondent has submitted that in this particular instance, the newspaper probably focused its attention more towards a particular educational institute. The very purpose of this newspaper is to give maximum information to the student community, who are the major readers of this particular newspaper, and the newspaper caters to their needs. The respondent has submitted that some coaching centers are taking the students for a ride, by claiming to be recognized by the DGCA and promising a degree on completion of the course. In fact, the aircraft maintenance-engineering course is not a degree course but a “License Course”, to be imparted by only the DGCA recognized institutes. These recognized institutes teach the approved syllabus of DGCA and after completion of the course conduct internal examinations. On the basis of the performance in these internal examinations, the results of successful candidates are forwarded to DGCA and maintenance engineer licenses are handed out. The respondent has submitted that by reading in between the lines, a common man can understand that his newspaper has not stated anywhere that the other institutes recognized by the DGCA are coaching institutes It is the complainant who has stretched his imagination in thinking otherwise. The respondent has submitted that as a responsible newspaper it becomes the duty of the newspaper to caution its young readers from falling into traps of various institutions who are fly-by-night operators. A word of caution is advised to students to check before enrolling with such institutes before they join these courses otherwise they will suffer the consequence of being taken for a ride by such institutions. The newspaper has not published the name of any institute stating that they are good or bad but the names of some prominent ones were given just to highlight the issue. It appears that the only grudge of the complainant is that the newspaper Education Times has not named their institute and it seems to be only grievance of the complainant or probably to put pressure on the newspaper, so that any future article appearing on the issue would include the name of their institute.

The respondent has submitted that a letter dated 27th May 2004 was received and efforts were made to contact the complainant on telephone, so that his views could be taken but none were there to oblige the newspaper’s queries. The newspaper made several efforts to contact the institute/complainant to take their view and publish the same, but the complainant/institute refused to entertain the calls.

296 A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 9.3.2005 for information. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. There was no presence either from the side of the complainant or the respondent. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to give one more opportunity to parties to present their case. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor in the comments dated 18.1.2005 filed through his advocate, defended the publication. It was also stated that efforts were made to obtain the version of the complainant but the complainant as well as the Institute refused to take their calls. A copy of the comments was sent to the complainant. The complainant neither filed counter to the written statement nor was he represented before the Committee, despite duly receiving the notice of hearing, to pursue the case. Under the circumstances the Committee had no alternative but to proceed on the premise that the complainant was not interested in contesting case. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

88) Shri Om Prakash Srivastav Versus 1. The Editor Editor Dainik Lok Mitra Brij Vimla Vani, Hindi Weekly Pratapgarh, U.P. Pratapgarh, U.P. 2. Distt. Information Officer Pratapgarh, U.P. Complaint Shri Om Prakash Srivastav, Editor, Brij Vimla Vani, Hindi Weekly, Pratapgarh (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 11.6.2003 against “Dainik Lok Mitra”, Pratapgarh (U.P.) for publishing allelgedly false, misleading and

297 defamatory news items captioned “ÉʤÉxÉÉ BÉEɪÉÇ BÉEä cÉÒ £ÉÖMÉiÉÉxÉ BÉEÉ àÉÉàÉãÉÉ-ªÉÖ´ÉÉ BÉEãªÉÉhÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ BÉEä ºÉJiÉ ®´ÉèªÉä ºÉä {ÉjÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä àÉƺÉÚ¤Éä ÉÊ´É{ÉEãÉ” (Case of payment without doing any work-Journalist’s plans failed due to strictness of Youth Welfare Officer) and “{ÉEVÉÉÔ iÉÉÆÉÊjÉBÉE BÉE® ®cÉ cè {ÉjÉBÉEÉÉÊ®iÉÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉbà àÉå ãÉÚ]-ÉÊVÉãÉä BÉEÉÒ {ÉjÉBÉEÉÉÊ®iÉÉ BÉEÉä ãÉMÉÉ ®cÉ cè BÉEÉÉÊãÉJÉ” (Fake Tantrik is looting in the guise of journalism-Stigmatising journalism of the district) in the issues dated 29.3.2003 and 20.5.2003 respectively. In the impugned news items, the complainant is described as a cheater and trickster. It was alleged in the impugned news item dated 29.3.2003 that the complainant who was also owner of a printing press had presented a fictitious bill amounting to Rs.18,000/- regarding supply of stationary items to the Yuva Kalyan Vibhag (Youth Welfare Department) but failed to avail the amount due to vigilance of the officer. In the second news item, the complainant is called a deceitful hypocrate journalist who was bringing out the newspaper with the only intention to blackmail the district higher authorities and political leaders by his magic spell. The complainant has submitted that his newspaper is being published regularly and is approved by the Central and State Governments for the purpose of issuance of advertisements. Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that impugned reports had been published deliberately with the sole intention to defame him. The complainant denied the allegation that District Magistrate had ever issued him a notice. The complainant submitted that a legal notice dated 23.8.2003 issued to the respondent editor has evoked no response. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent-editor. The complainant also alleged that the respondent in connivance with the DIO had tried to stop the publication of his newspaper by publishing defamatory news items. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Lok Mitra on 3.12.2003. Comments of the District Information Officer (DIO), Pratapgarh (U.P.) were also invited vide Council’s letter dated 3.12.2003. Comments of District Information Officer, Pratapgarh The District Information Officer, Pratapgarh in his comments dated 17.1.2004 submitted that the DIO had no role to play in publication of newspapers of the District or for that matter the “Lok Mitra” (respondent- newspaper). As per availability of the newspaper and register maintained in this regard in the department and the receipt book, a regularity report was being sent to the Information Department of U.P. The respondent submitted that the allegation of threat made in the complaint was false, baseless and unfortunate and on the contrary it was the complainant who tried to pressurise the DIO using different means at his disposal.

298 Written Statement-Dainik Lok Mitra The respondent editor, Dainik Lok Mitra in his written statement, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 13.2.2004, submitted that the allegations made in the complaint were false, baseless and malicious. According to him, the complaint had been filed deliberately as the complainant was prejudiced towards him. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s name was not mentioned in the impugned report dated 29.3.2003. The second news report dated 20.5.2003 was based on the facts disclosed by the complainant himself to the other persons and on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the then District Magistrate, Pratapgarh against the complainant. The respondent stated that no contradiction was received from the complainant or from the District Magistrate. The respondent has submitted that he is ready to publish the contradiction, if received. The copies of the comment of the respondent District Information Officer, Pratapgarh and the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.2.2004 and 8.4.2004 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 23.3.2006 at Lucknow. Shri Om Prakash Srivastav, the complainant was present before it in person while Shri Santosh, editor represented the respondent newspaper, Dainik Lok Mitra. S/Shri Rajinder Kumar Pandey and R.B. Singh, District Information Officers, the second respondents also appeared before the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He added that in the impugned news report he was levelled a “tantrik” without any basis. The respondent editor had no proof to substantiate the allegations made in the news item. He also alleged that the two respondents were acting in connivance with each other to harm his reputation and publication and to wrongly benefit Lok Mitra. The respondent editor stated that from the day he got accreditation from the government, the complainant was keeping ill will against him. The complainant was also indulging in Tantrik work and was cheating the innocent people. Some people of the area, who were the victims, had complained about the cheating of the complainant. He added that he could get written statements from those persons. The DIO submitted that he did not at any point of time favour the paper Lok Mitra and he sent the regularity report as per norms in respect of both the

299 papers. He also produced the receipt book of the department. He submitted that contrary to the complainant’s claim that a paper could be certified as regular when it was 80% regular, the criteria was of 75% regularity. The complainant challenged the above statement. Matter Adjourned The Inquiry Committee, in order to obtain complete and correct facts, directed the DIO to file documents to establish the criteria for certifying the regularity of a publication. This it felt was necessary to establish whether the DIO was wrongly favouring the paper Lok Mitra. The Committee directed the authorities to file the requisite documents within a week from the date of hearing and adjourned the matter, granting the parties exemption from appearance at the next hearing. As per directions of the Inquiry Committee the respondent DIO, Pratapgarh vide his comments dated 24.3.2006 has submitted that the publication of “Lok Mitra” was treated as regular on the basis of Section 22(6) of the Advertisement Rules 2001 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The DIO, has further submitted that the name of the complainant alongwith all other Accreditation cards of the journalists were submitted before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh for renewal, but Accreditation card of only two journalists were renewed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. The matter of renewal of Accreditation of six journalists was placed before the Sub-Committee on 21.6.2003 and again on 11.11.2003 of the full bench of U.P. Press Accreditation Committee which decided to renew the Accreditation of six Journalists along with the complainant. After that the Press Accreditation was immediately issued/ handed over to the complainant. The respondent DIO has submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is baseless and far from the truth. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. The complainant Shri Om Prakash Srivastav was present in person while Shri Santosh represented the respondent newspaper, Dainik Lok Mitra. The respondent, Shri R.B. Singh, the second respondent was also present before the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated what he had stated in the complaint. The respondent editor stated that the news was based on the complaints given by some persons and as they were afraid of the complainant, their names

300 were not mentioned. He, however, offered to publish the clarification of the complainant. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee Insofar the issue of action taken by the DIO was concerned, the Committee recommended to the Council to close the matter on the basis of the clarification provided by the DIO. With reference to the impugned report by Respondent 1, the Inquiry Committee noted the respondent editor’s offer to publish the clarification of the complainant and directed the complainant to send his clarification, without any counter allegations, to the respondent and the respondent to publish the same along with an apology within 15 days of the receipt of the clarification from the complainant. The respondent was further directed to forward a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for record. With the above directions to the parties the Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

89) Shri Dharambir Singh Versus The Editor Former Block President Amar Ujala Haldor (Bijnore), U.P. Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 3.10.2003 has been filed by Shri Dharambir Singh, Former Block President, Haldor (Bijnore) against Amar Ujala, Agra edition for publication of an allegedly false and misleading news item captioned “ Car and Pistol of former Block President of Haldor stolen – police suspicious about veracity of story” in its issue dated 24.9.2003. The news item reported that the Police was suspicious about truth of the story regarding theft of a car and pistol of the former Block President. It felt that the story was cooked up with a conspiracy to implicate someone. The S.P. had informed that an FIR had been lodged and inquiry would be conducted. The complainant stated that he had lodged an FIR and the police found the car but the Pistol and other items were missing from the car. The complainant alleged that the news item was misleading. He sent his version to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Agra on 1.10.2003 but he neither received any reply nor was his version published. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

301 Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 27.5.2004. The respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his written statement dated 6.10.2004 submitted that there was no malice against the complainant and whatever was published was based on the information received from the Kotwali Police Station. The respondent submitted that the complainant has not informed in what manner the news item was objectionable and which part of the news item was false. The respondent has submitted that the allegation of the complainant against the reporter of the news item was ill founded, baseless and defamatory. They have not violated any ethics of journalism. The news item was published bonafide and in public interest without having any intention to defame the complainant. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.1.2005. Ist Hearing The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006 S/Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Sharad Tandon were present on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala while there was no appearance for the complainant. The complainant, Shri Dharambir Singh, however, vide his letter dated 22.3.2006 requested for adjournment. He further requested that the matter may be taken up at Delhi. On the request of the complainant the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings at Delhi. Matter Relisted The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. The complainant, Dr. Dharambeer Singh, appeared in person, while Shri Sunil Kumar Awastai, Advocate present on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant stated that Amar Ujala was out to defame him and his family by publishing false and baseless news reports for the last ten years. He had suffered economically as well as socially. He added that after publication of the news, he met Shri Ashok Madhu who promised to publish the clarification, but he did not do so. About the recovery of the car and loss of the revolver, the police had taken necessary action and registered a case, stated the complainant. The counsel for the respondent stated that no clarification was received by them and if they had received the clarification, they would have published

302 the same. On being asked by the Committee as to whether he would be satisfied if the respondent publishes his clarification, the complainant replied that at this stage no fruitful purpose would be served if his clarification was published. The counsel for the respondent stated that the news was published on the basis of the FIR registered by the police. Many other leading newspapers published similar news reports. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth before it. It noted that similar news report had been published in other leading newspaper also. Moreover, in the news report, the source of information was also quoted. The Committee also noted that the news was based on the FIR registered with the police. The Committee was thus not satisfied that the report was malafide. The complainant did not wish to avail of the opportunity of publication of his version. Thus, the 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

90) The Superintendent of Police Versus The Editor Pithoragarh Amar Ujala Uttranchal Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 27.1.2004 has been filed by the Superintendent of police, Pithoragarh against Amar Ujala for publication of an allegedly false and misleading news item in its issue dated 23.1.2004 captioned “Team arrived to put restriction on mine-mafia, under controversy” (English translation). The impugned report charged the team sent by the S.P. for inquiry of corrupt practices to help the accused. The complainant has submitted that the SOG team had intercepted only three vehicles and two were found carrying mines illegally and one of them had all the documents pertaining to mines. The complainant has denied having taken any money from anyone by the staff. The complainant has submitted that he sent contradiction on 23.1.2004 but the newspaper did not carry the same adversely affecting the image of the police.

303 Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala on 17.5.2004. The counsel for the respondent newspaper Amar Ujala in the written statement dated 30.6.04 has submitted that there is nothing which could be said to be libellous to any person or organization in the news item in question. The respondent has submitted that the news was perfectly balanced and published fairly without any prejudice to any person and in general public interest. The respondent has submitted that the contents of present complaint are trifle and appear to have founded upon faddist substratum. The complainant revealed wrong information for the purpose of present complaint against them. The respondent has submitted that it is matter of fact that Special Operation against mine mafia was launched at the cost of public. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has not maintained any proceeding register showing the record of their operation(s) and proceedings thereof which could manifest the actual trucks taken into custody and powers were used as unruly horse. The respondent has submitted that it is impossible that there were only three trucks at mining place especially when there had been a peak time of mining of sand and stones. The respondent has submitted that the complainant failed to establish the motive and made vague submissions to snap the freedom of the Press. The respondent has submitted that the media is only hurdle in their way and the present complaint is made with intent to curb the acts of police. The respondent has submitted that they have not received any fax from the complainant. The respondent has further submitted that on 22.1.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. the police checking took place within local limits of Police Station, Berinag. The Police have taken in custody number of trucks at Bans Pathan and Chaumanya. There was queue of trucks loaded with Bazri/Bazarpur (small stones and sand). The respondent has submitted that the police was procuring money for physical release of loaded trucks. The respondent has submitted that the protest might be an evil for them, because they were threatened for seizure of their goods and vehicles, which would result into their criminal prosecution. The respondent has submitted that persons under trap were also informed about procedural complications of seizure resulting into physical pains, financial losses at different stages with or without results. The respondent has submitted that the police officials were explaining the occupiers of trucks not to involve in legal actions and to adopt easy access. The respondent has submitted that some persons were challaned, who refused to pay demanded money. The respondent has submitted that the complainant is well known for abuse of his office. The respondent has submitted that it is a matter of fact that many people were seen bagging before Police team for exhonerating the wrongdoers. The respondent has reiterated that they have received two press notes on 22.01.2004. The

304 respondent has submitted that the impugned news was published fairly and bonafidly without any ulterior design against any person including the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the news item in question was fair and published with all diligence and necessary verifications and is well protected under the law of land being fair and bonafide. The respondent has submitted that they had no intention to malign/tarnish the image of any person or organization in the estimation of right thinking persons and abuse or misuse of power is always subject to open criticism. The respondent has submitted that the reality of facts cannot be glossed over by the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the purpose of instant complaint is malafide, whereby, the complainant is intending to create atmosphere in his favour so as the press would assist his acts by suppressing the facts of general public interest and being a public servant the complainant has no organizational locus standi. The respondent has submitted that the defence of the complainant is founded by making false accusation on them. The respondent has submitted that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs to them. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 9.8.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006 Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with the postal remarks “address incomplete.” Matter Adjourned As the notice of hearing could not be served on the complainant, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter and asked the learned counsel for the respondent to trace the correct address of the complainant and inform the same to the Council. The Government may also be addressed to inform whether it wished to pursue the matter as a State complaint. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to both the parties vide Council’s letter dated 22.5.2006. But no response has been received despite reminder dated 24.7.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, was present before it for the respondent newspaper, while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.

305 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the complainant was not present before the Inquiry Committee on last occasion also. He was not coming forward to contest his case. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Committee noted that the notice of hearing sent to the complainant for the hearing on 23.3.2006 was received back unserved and again the notice had been received back with the remarks ‘transferred’. The Committee expressed its unhappiness over the complainant’s failure to inform the new address to the Council. The State Government had also failed to respond to the Inquiry whether this was a State complaint. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

91) Shri Ganesh Singh Versus The Editor M.P. (Lok Sabha) Samaria Express Satna, Madhya Pradesh Satna, M.P. Complaint This undated complaint received on 14.10.2005 has been filed by Shri Ganesh Singh, Member of Parliament, Satna, Madhya Pradesh through his Lawyer against “Samaria Express” Hindi weekly, for publication of a series of false and baseless news items dated 17.8.2004, 23.8.2005, 6.9.2005 and 13.9.2005 as under:- 1. MÉhÉä¶É ~ÉäÉÊBÉEªÉÉ ºÉä ÉÊàÉãÉä& {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ SÉÉèBÉExxÉ Dated 17/8/2004 Ganesh met Thokia: Police Vigilant 2. ºÉÉƺÉn MÉhÉä¶É É˺Éc BÉEÉä ABÉE +ÉÉè® àÉÆjÉÉÒ xÉä vÉÉäªÉÉ Dated 23/8/2005 Ganesh Singh, MP gets clean sweep from one more Minister 3. xɶÉä àÉå vÉÖiÉ ºÉÉƺÉn xÉä ®ÉiÉ àÉå lÉÉxÉÉ PÉä® ÉʺÉ{ÉÉcÉÒ BÉEÉä ºÉº{Éähb BÉE®ÉªÉÉ Dated 6/9/2005 Drunken MP gheraos the police station to get one constable suspended. 4. BÉDãÉäBÉD]® =àÉ®É´É xÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® ºÉÉƺÉn MÉhÉä¶É É˺Éc BÉEÉä vÉÉäªÉÉ Dated 13/9/2005 Collector Umrao gives yet another clean sweeps to Ganesh Singh, MP.

306 The complainant submitted that the editor of Samaria Express is a confused minded person and failed to appreciate the good work done by any Member of Parliament or politician. The complainant submitted that he had made written request on 22.7.2004 to the Railway Minister, Government of India for operating some trains from Riva, Satna and recommended stoppage of some enroute trains, but the editor misconstrued and misunderstood the letter written to Railway Minister and published the news on 23.8.2004 putting him in bad light as if all his recommendations were brushed aside. Regarding the news item dated 6.9.2005 the complainant has submitted that the same was published with ill intention to increase the sale in the market. Regarding the news item dated 13.9.2005 the complainant submitted that it was published only to damage the image and popularity of the elected Member of Parliament from his home constituency, Satna. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter as deemed fit and proper. The complainant in his letter dated 14.9.2005 asked the editor to publish the contradiction which was not done. Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Samaria Express on 19.12.2004. The respondent editor, “Samaria Express”, in his written statement dated 27.12.2005 has denied having damaged the complainant’s reputation. The respondent has submitted that Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta has listed the complainant as corrupt and accused and the list can be seen in website of M.P. Lokayukta, Bhopal. The respondent has submitted that the cases are pending against the complainant in the court of special A.D.J. Satna under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 20 & 120 (B), 511/34-IPC & Anti Corruption Act 1988 under Section 13(1)(D), 13(2) & 15. The respondent has submitted that the Court of Judicial Amarpatan, District Satna has issued an arrest warrant against complainant in a criminal case No. 16/04 under Sections 420,467,217, & 166 IPC alleging forgery. The respondent has submitted that M.P. High Court Jabalpur had removed the complainant from the Chairmanship of Zila Panchayat Satna by an order dated 14.9.2004 in petition No. 3497/04 filed by Shri Ramphal and Ram Singh resident of Village, Aber, District Satna. The respondent has submitted that an inquiry of CBI was ordered against the complainant by the forest department in corruption case. The respondent has submitted that a murder case against the complainant is also under investigation by the local police and the said case was discussed in the Vidhan Sabha. The respondent has submitted that the complainant had dialogue with dacoit Thokia on his cell phone No. 9425172508 bwtween May 2004 to March 2005. the respondent has submitted that the news items were true and based on facts.

307 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 31.01.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. Shri S.L. Patel, Advocate represented the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Matter Adjourned The counsel for the complainant requested for adjournment on the ground that the Senior Advocate who was to appear in the case was not available. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to be listed before it in one of its future meetings with the direction that no further adjournment would be granted on any ground. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to both the parties, vide Council’s letter dated 24.7.2006. Rejoinder of the Complainant The complainant filed his rejoinder dated 8.8.2006 in response to the written statement of the respondent editor reiterating his complaint and stating that the respondent has totally misconceived the facts nurturing bad feelings and was continuously trying to tarnish his image in the public by finding faults, collecting materials of the proceedings without any base. The respondent having no conclusive proof tried to forecast or imagine the contingencies and cooked- up a false story. The respondent acted in malafide manner though he was expected to be a responsible and impartial and duty bound not to take undue advantage of the freedom of the press. The respondent actively worked to disturb peace by playing with public opinion and norms of democracy. The complainant further stated that the documents attached with the written statement naming him as an accused in the case under Section 166, 218, 420, 467, 467(a) IPC have nothing to do with the act committed by him and allegations made in the complaint herein that were based on the documentary proof. The complainant has submitted that as far as removal from the post of Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Satna was concerned it was matter of record as he could not hold two posts. The complainant was elected as Chairman of Zila Panchayat and later on the complainant was elected Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, Satna, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant further stated that reply of the respondent was wrong, false, misconceived, malafide and hence denied. The complainant submitted that for the betterment of his constituency for the welfare of public he had written to the Railway Ministry on 22.7.2004.

308 The complainant requested the Council to pass an order for cancellation of registration of Samariya Express and to pay Rs.2,51,000/- as litigation cost/ expenses of the case to the complainant. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. Shri C.M. Patel, advocate represented the complainant while Shri Sharad Audichya, respondent editor appeared in person. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the complainant in his oral argument reiterated the submissions in the rejoinder. He added that there were many newspapers in the district but the respondent, to increase the circulation was publishing defamatory news against the complainant since the day he was elected to the Parliament. He argued that till the decision of the cases by the court the respondent could not publish about the cases. On being asked by the Committee, as to whether the cases were pending against the complainant as detailed by the respondent editor, the learned counsel was unable to answer. The respondent editor stated that the news reports were based on facts and were true. The complainant had relations with the dacoit Thokia. The local administration had the records of this fact. Explaining the meaning of the word “dhoya” the editor explained that it meant ‘not accepted’. He added that other newspapers viz., Agni Ban and Dainik Jagran had also published about the complainant regarding cheating the railways. After conclusion of the hearing of the case, the counsel for the complainant stated that he wanted to file some more documents in support of the complaint and that he had the instructions to seek adjournment. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee At the outset, the Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the act of the learned counsel for the complainant in requesting for adjournment after the conclusion of the hearing. The Inquiry Committee did not grant adjournment and proceeded to dispose of the matter on merits. On perusal of the record, the Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was a Member of Parliament and a public person. Thus, his conduct and action were open to public scrutiny more than that of a private person. Based on principles of precedence, the Council has drawn up norms on reporting concerning public persons which can be reproduced here to advantage:- “Right to privacy is an inviolable human right. However, the degree of privacy differs from person to person and from situation to situation.

309 The public person who functions under public gaze as an emissary/ representative of the public cannot expect to be afforded the same degree of privacy as a private person. His acts and conduct as are of public interest (‘public interest’ being distinct and separate from ‘of interest to public’) even if conducted in private may be brought to public knowledge through the medium of the press”. Another argument raised by the complainant related to the respondent’s right to report on matters pending before law courts. The arguments was also not acceptable as the press has full rights to report on pending cases subject to condition that it did not pre-judge the issue. Norm 12(a)(i) elucidates the position thus:- Excepting where the court sits ‘in-camera’ or directs otherwise, it is open to a newspaper to report pending judicial proceedings in a fair, accurate and reasonable manner. But it shall not publish anything:- - Which, in its direct and immediate effect, creates a substantial risk of obstructing, impeding or prejudicing seriously the due administration of justice; or - Is in the nature of a running commentary or debate, or records the paper’s own findings, conjectures, reflection or comments on issue, sub judice and which may amount to abrogation to the newspaper the functions of the court; or - Regarding the personal character of the accused standing trial on a charge of committing a crime. The Committee, however, agreed with the argument of the counsel for the complainant that in the impugned articles, the respondent had not employed a temperate and restrained language. While the newspaper has a right or even an obligation to apprise the public about the actions and conduct of its elected representative, such narration did not require the use of sweeping terms employed in the impugned article, like ‘dhyoa’ which denoted that every proposal of the M.P. was being consigned to the bin. An elected representative is duty-bound to convey the requirements of his constituency to the government for its consideration, which may or may not be accepted on the ground of various components, but it is improper to run down the representative of the public on this ground. Thus, concluding its observations, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council that while the impugned articles disclosed sufficient public interest to have been published, the editor may be advised to be careful in future in selection of language to report facts or analyze them. With this, the complaint may be closed.

310 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

92) Dr. Deshbandhu Versus The Editor Principal Din Pratidin, Hindi daily Ambala Cantonment Ambala Cantonment Haryana Haryana Complaint This complaint, dated 11.4.2005 has been filed by Dr. Deshbandhu, Principal, Sanatan Dharma College (Lahore), Ambala Cantonment, (Haryana) against Din Pratidin, a Hindi evening Daily, Ambala Cantonment (Haryana) for publication of a series of allegedly malicious, concocted and baseless news items: 1. ‘Here Seminar on environment, there axe on trees’ dated 14.2.2005 (It is alleged in Ist news item that Lecturer of the S.D. College, Ambala had lodged complaints with the Chief Forest Conservator & Ministry of Forests. Vice Chancellor of Kurukshetra University and Education alleging that the green trees had been axed without any approval and sold on nominal price. This was done when the college was holding seminar on environment. It is also alleged that this was done by none other then those who were propagating for environment protection and in the process digested a heavy amount). 2. ‘S.D. College in a new state of controversy’ dated 15.2.2005 (In the IInd news item, the newspaper has alleged that the S.D. College Ambala came into the controversies for constructing a new hall costing Rs. 2 crores by demolishing the Historical Hall. According to the staff of the college the Historical Hall was heritage while the new modern Hall being was smacking constructed corruption). 3. ‘S.D College is in financial scandal’ dated 16.2.2005 (In the 3rd news item, the newspaper has alleged misuse of College Fund and scam in purchases of tree plants). 4. ‘The Principal’s way of functioning is mysterious’ dated 17.2.2005 (In the 4th news item the newspaper reiterated the allegation of scam against the Principal and further alleged that his brother, who is also a

311 Principal in SD College in Himachal Pradesh was an accused in scam and arrested by police). 5. ‘Gupta family unhappy with the attitude of S.D. College’ dated 22.2.2005 (In 5th news report, the newspaper quoted the deceased family of a Professor died during service that the Principal had no courtesy to send any condolence message). 6. ‘Big Boss took “class” of the staff’ dated 25.2.2005 (The last news report is satirical about meeting of the Principal with subordinates where the Principal discussed how to handle the respondent newspaper. The subordinate suggested that legal, notice could be issued or contradiction can be published in some other newspapers). The complainant has alleged that the impugned news items are false, baseless and defamatory to the Principal and his staff as well as members of his own family. The respondent violated the norms of journalistic ethic by publishing the news item in question without pre-publication verification and also not publishing the rejoinder sent by him thereby denying him his right of reply. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent – editor, Din Pratidin, Ambala Cantonment on 27.7.2005. Written Statement The respondent editor, Din Pratidin, Ambala Cantonment in his written statement dated 13.8.2005 alleged that the complainant tried to mislead the Council by furnishing the clippings of the news items dated 14, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 25 February 2005 and hiding the fact that another news item dated 28 February 2005 was also published under the captioned ‘Teachers have no knowledge of yellow journalism’ wherein the complainant’s letter dated 23.2.2005 along with the resolution of the Staff Council of the College was published. The respondent has submitted that they had no intention to degrade either the college or the principal and his family. The newspaper was ready to publish clarification of the college if anything wrong, is published. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for information on 4.10.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 13.12.2005 has submitted that the 13 trees that were felled had completed their maximum age and no objection certification had been obtained from the Forest Department. Moreover 77 new trees were planted. The complainant has submitted that the

312 13 trees fell down had completed their maximum age. The complainant has submitted that publication of 28th February 2005 captioned “Teacher have no knowledge about yellow journalism” was also defamatory to the teachers. The complainant submitted that the news were published in Din Pratidin only and no news of such type were published in other newspapers. The complainant while reiterating the allegations levelled in the complaint has requested to take necessary action against the respondent. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.20060. S/Shri Rajiv Chander and U.V. Singh appeared on behalf of the complainant while the respondent editor vide his letter dated 12.4.2006 had expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to personal reasons. He requested for adjournment of the case. The representative of the complainant submitted that due to ill health the Principal of the College was unable to appear before the Committee. He requested for adjournment to enable the Principal to appear before the Committee personally. He also filed some additional papers. On the request of the complainant as well as the respondent the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for being posted before it in one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee, there was no appearance before it from either side. The respondent had, vide his letter dated 21.8.2006, submitted that a settlement had been arrived at between the two parties. It was further submitted that the complainant’s version had been published in full. The editor also expressed regrets for publication of one sided news reports. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted from the record that despite service of notice the complainant neither appeared before the Committee nor had any communication been received from him. The Committee observed that after publication of the clarification the complainant may not be interested in pursuing the complaint further. Further, the respondent editor had made adequate amends by publishing the clarification of the complainant to his satisfaction and thus no further action was warranted in the matter. However, it directed that a copy of the letter dated 21.8.2006 of the respondent editor may be sent to the complainant for record.

313 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

93) Dr. Ashok Khemka, IAS Versus The Editor District Magistrate The Hindustan Times Kaithal (Late City Edition), Chandigarh Haryana New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 16.6.2005 has been filed by Dr. Ashok Khemka, IAS, District Magistrate, Kaithal, Haryana against The Hindustan Times, New Delhi Late City Edition (Chandigarh) for publication of allegedly false and misleading news items: 1. “NOCs to oil outlets spark row” ‘Khemka, Malik cross swords’ The Hindustan Times, Chandigarh 10.6.2005 2. “Hooda announces relief for dust storm victims” ‘CM gives assurance to scribes’ The Hindustan Times, Chandigarh 12.6.2005 The complainant has submitted that he was shocked to read under the sub-head, “Khemka, Malik cross swords”, where he was shown under quotes as: “..Khemka, when contacted, however, insisted he was very much within his right to withdraw the NOCs. He said Section 150 of Petroleum Rules clearly laid down that a “No objection certificate granted under Rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the district authority or the state government.” The complainant has submitted that the quote attributed to him is totally false and misleading, as no action under Rule 150 had been taken against any petrol pump till date since his joining as District Magistrate, Kaithal on 14.3.2005. The complainant has submitted that lawful action under the rules in public interest had been taken/initiated against 19 petrol pumps, which was widely appreciated, and debated during question hour in the June 2005 session of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The complainant has submitted that he was not contacted as alleged by the reporter, Mr. Surinder Miglani for taking cross version to Mr. Malik’s alleged remarks. The complainant has submitted that the

314 correspondent was contacted on 10.6.2005 and requested to issue the necessary corrigendum. The correspondent informed that the necessary corrigendum had been sent to the Chandigarh office of The Hindustan Times. The complainant has submitted that both Mr. Kanwar Sandhu, Regional Editor of Hindustan Times, Chandigarh and Mr. Vir Sanghvi, Editor of The Hindustan Times were requested vide fax message dated 11.6.2005 to correct the quote falsely attributed to him and misleading to an average reader but it was disappointing that the same had not appeared in The Hindustan Times. The complainant has submitted that instead of covering up the fault, the correspondent falsely alleged that the complainant had issued threat to him and the same was published on page 5 of the newspaper, The Hindustan Times on Sunday, June 12, 2005 attempting to tarnish his reputation. The complainant has requested the Council to direct the newspaper, The Hindustan Times to publish the denial prominently along with an unqualified apology for publishing false and defamatory news item of a threat to its reporter by the complainant. Written Statement In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 22.7.2005 for filing written statement in the matter the respondent, The Hindustan Times filed its written statement at the time of hearing on 4.5.2006. The respondent submitted that the news item published on 10.6.2005 was correct. He stated that Dr. Khemka called the reporter in his office on 8.6.2005 and gave him some facts regarding cancellation of NOCs for retail outlets issued by his predecessor. He also gave some photocopies of the documents which are with the reporter and on which Dr. Khemka scribbled some words and made some sketches and underlined and ticked several words and sentences to clarify his point. He also stated that Dr. Khemka also gave the reporter a file cover of Government of Haryana and scribbled certain points on it to elucidate his stand in his own handwriting. The respondent has submitted that the reporter once again met Dr. Khemka to take his version that he (Dr. Khemka) had power to cancel the NOC. In this regard, Dr. Khemka handed over relevant portion of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 to the reporter and in the said Rule, he has written some points towards the end. The respondent has submitted that a copy of the Petroleum Rules handed over by Dr. Khemka to the reporter can be perused by the Council at the time of hearing. The respondent clarified that Dr. Khemka had a grievance that he acted under Rule 149 and not Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rule, 2002 and the newspaper had wrongly quoted Rule 150. The respondent stated that careful perusal of the news report indicates that the reporter had not mentioned that he had acted under Rule 149 or Rule 150. The respondent further stated that above all the reporter and the local editor agreed to publish a clarification to this effect, but

315 as the complainant insisted to them to deny the facts that the reporter has contacted him, which was not possible, the contradiction could not be published. After publication of the impugned news item on 10.6.2005 the complainant threatened the reporter and the resident editor and stated that he would teach them a lesson. The respondent submitted that there is no merit in the complaint filed by Dr. Khemka and prayed to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. Shri Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate appeared for the respondent newspaper. The complainant vide his letter dated 2nd May 2006 requested for adjournment on the ground that he was posted as General Observer for the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly Elections, 2006 by the Election Commission of India from 20.4.2006 to 11.5.2006. Matter Adjourned On the request of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter for being posted before it at one of its future meetings. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide office letter dated 25.7.2006 for his rejoinder. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. S/Shri Gaurav Aggarwal, advocate and P. Mehta appeared for the respondent newspaper. The complainant vide his letter dated 19.8.2006 expressed his inability to appear before the Committee. He requested that the matter may be decided on its merits. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the respondent stated that they were willing to publish the clarification that Mr. Khemka had take action under Rule 149 and not 150 but the complainant wanted that whole report should be negated which was not possible. They had evidence in the form of Mr. Khemka’s own hand writing of his discussion with the reporter. Thus there was no question of withdrawing the report. He also produced copies of it for the Committee’s perusal. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material on record. It noted that the grouse of the complainant was over attributing to him statements he had not made. He had also denied having met the reporter. The respondent’s

316 stand had been forwarded to him which he had failed to counter. Now the respondent had produced evidence of its reporters discussion with the complainant. Apparently the complainant is unable to substantiate his case. The Inquiry Committee also observed that both the news items were balanced reports and no malafide could be attributed behind impugned publications. On the other hand, the respondent in his written statement had alleged that the complainant threatened both the resident editor and the reporter after publication of the news reports and declined to avail of the offer of publication of a clarification. It therefore, did not find any substance in the complaint. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

94) Shri Tasneem Ahmed Versus 1. The Editor Chief Conservator of Forests Lokmat, Marathi Daily Amravati Nagpur Maharashtra Maharashtra

2. The Editor Lokmat Samachar, Hindi Daily Nagpur, Maharashtra Complaint These three complaints dated 9.3.2005, 7.4.2005 have been filed by Shri Tasneem Ahmed, Chief Conservator of Forests, Amravati, Maharashtra against ‘Lokmat’, Marathi Daily, and Lokmat Samachar, Hindi Daily, Nagpur alleging publication of allegedly false and fabricated stories captioned “Three Chief Conservators of Forests of State on leave at the same time”, “CBI to look into Rahul Gopal’s Nagpur episodes, Tiger Skin missing for ten years: Inquiry afoot” and “Chief Conservator of Forests scorns State protocol”, “Spend one crore within two days” in its issues dated 24th January, 24th January, 27th February 2005 and 31.3.2005 respectively. The complainant has submitted that no case was pending against him anywhere including Government of India and during the said leave period he had not gone to New Delhi for any purpose whatsoever, as alleged in the newspaper reports. He had never certified any forest land to be “non-forest land” anytime. The complainant further submitted that no case had ever been filed in any High Court against him and he had never been fined Rs. 10,000/-

317 or any amount by the High Court as claimed by the publishers of Lokmat daily. The publishers with their wild imagination fabricated the story and mischievously printed false news to cause harm to his reputation for the reasons best known to them. The complainant submitted that similar position was with regard to other news item related to Shri Rahul Gopal, the former DIG Police, Nagpur Range. The story retaking to hunting of Tiger in Umred Forest was absolutely false, fabricated and baseless. The complainant submitted that it had no trace of truth and had been printed with the only intention to malign his image in police and among his subordinates. The complainant submitted that there was no truth in the news item related to protocol as well as published on 27th February 2005, in fact he had paid respect to the Hon’ble Minister in the morning of 24th February 2005 itself on his arrival. The complainant submitted that these facts were brought to the notice of the respondent editor vide letter dated 9.3.2005 but the respondent did not respond. The complainant submitted that the story in two dailies on 31.3.2005 about his so-called instruction to subordinates to spend the fund before close of the year was absolutely false, baseless and fabricated. He submitted that the editor only to malign his image has published it. The complainant submitted that it was absolutely false to say that a grant of Rupees One core meant for the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Buldhana remained pending in Forest Circle Office for one month, and he issued cheque of this amount to Sri Sanjiv Gaur , Deputy Conservator of Forest, Buldhana on 29th March with the instructions to spend the same before 31st March. It was also false that similar action had been taken earlier at Dharni. The complainant submitted that it was false that 99 thousand rupees were given for digging well and no work was done. This was nothing but wild imagination of the dailies for the reasons best known to them. The complainant requested that they must be called upon to furnish evidences to substantiate their contention. These facts were brought to the notice of the respondent editor vide letter dated 7.4.2005 by the complainant but the respondent editor did not respond. Written Statements Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors on 22.7.2005, 18.8.2005 and 26.9.2005. The respondent editor in his written statement dated 20.12.2005 submitted that the news item which were published in the Lokmat were based on the information received from reliable sources which are always anonymous because anonymity is basic condition of the source giving the information and it is the moral duty of the newspaper to preserve their secrecy in order to protect them from victimization. The respondent submitted that it was the primary duty of the complainant to establish that the facts mentioned in the news were false.

318 The respondent submitted that the complainant was in best position to explain as he was having custody of the relevant documents specially the audited statement of his department from which he could demonstrate whatever published was false, but he opted not to file any documents in his support and this fact alone was sufficient to draw adverse inference against the complainant and rejection of complaint. The respondent submitted that they performed their public duty by publishing the news that was not false. The respondent submitted that there was no malafide intention in publishing the same nor it was fabricated one. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 10.1.2006 for information. Ist Adjournment The matters were called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006. S/Shri O.K. Mahajan, Divisional Forest Officer (Vigilance) and N.B. Gudge, Deputy Forest Officer, Planning were present before the Committee while the respondent editor had requested for adjournment as he was unable to attend the hearing due to unavoidable circumstances. The representative of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint stated that onus of proof of substantiate the allegations made in the impugned report lies with the respondent. On being asked by the Committee as to whether it was a fact that suddenly the three officers went on leave, he replied in affirmative but claimed that this was due to personal reasons. He added that the complainant was given clean chit in the inquiry and there was nothing against him. The Inquiry Committee inquired from the representative as to when the inquiry was concluded and what were its findings. The complainant’s representative requested for adjournment to enable them to file relevant documents. As the respondent editor had also requested for adjournment, the Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter, directed the complainant, through his representative, to file all the relevant documents, he had in his possession to present his case and also file rejoinder to the written statement of the respondent with the copy to the respondent. IInd Adjournment The matters were taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. The complainant vide his letter dated 11.7.2006 requested for adjournment on the ground that the Monsoon Session of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was going on and many legislative matter needed his

319 urgent personal attention. Request for adjournment was also received from the respondent. On the request of the parties, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters were again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Hyderabad on 21.9.2006 together with the counter complaint by Lokmat. None of the parties entered appearance before the Inquiry Committee. The personnal Manager of the Lokmat in a fax dated 20.9.2006 requested for adjournment of the case due to unavoidable work. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had neither supported his case with documentary evidence sought by the Inquiry Committee at the time of first hearing nor entered appearance on previous two occasions in these matters or to the counter complaint. The Inquiry Committee thus gained the impression that the complainant was not seriously interested in pursuing his grievance. It thus decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss all the three complaints. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

95) Shri Shafi-ur-Rahman Versus The Editor Proprietor, Asha Arts The Times of India Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 15.4.2004 has been filed by Shri Shafi-ur- Rahman, Proprietor, Asha Arts, Hyderabad against “The Times of India”, Hyderabad objecting publication of a baseless, false and misleading news item captioned “Bigger is better for politics’ poster boys” in its issue dated 18.3.2004 of “Hyderabad Times”. The objectionable portion of the impugned news item read as follows:- “…Each shed rakes in a mind-blowing Rs.50 lakh during the elections. Says Rahman of Asha Arts, which recently got an order from a political party, “For Bodhan constituency in Nizamabad, I have been asked to do 1,000 cut outs, 78 hoardings, 40,000 banners and around 20,000 posters. And it

320 is still early days yet. We also decorate jeeps, cars and autos. More politicians are now keen on decorating their vehicles.” For decorating a jeep, the artistes charges around Rs.10,000, while for autos, the fee is Rs.4,000…” According to the complainant, the impugned news item is baseless and has been published without his permission. The complainant submitted that he has not given any interview for publication nor he got such an order. He has nothing to do with politics and the politician and they were never his clients. He alleged that by the false imputation the respondent has concocted false story and circulated it. The complainant submitted that he has suffered business losses due to the fact that a sizeable customer of his did not give him contracts of work thinking that he was already overloaded with work. The complainant further submitted that he approached the respondent editor and received an evasive and unjustified reply. Written Statement Filed Belatedly Show-cause notice was issued on 17.6.2004 to the respondent-editor, The Times of India, Hyderabad. The respondent did not file the written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 and 22.9.06 at Hyderabad, Shri Nissaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, Advocate, appeared for the complainant, Shri S.Diwakar Reddy, Advocate represented the respondent newspaper The Times of India. Submissions before the Committee The complainant counsel in his oral and written submissions submitted that the newspaper published a false story attributing statements to him allegedly given during an interview. The counsel denied that any order from any political party was given to the complainant. Due to the impugned news item, the complainant suffered business loss and mental agony. The respondent sought time to reply to the matter and since the written statement was also not on record, as a special concession, the Committee adjourned the matter to the next day. The counsel for the respondent filed written statement on behalf of The Times of India on 22.9.2006 stating therein that statements attributed to one Rahman of Asha Arts in the impugned report, had nothing to do with the complainant. The publication disclosed the quantum of business done by the people in the said business during election period. The respondent denied having caused any harm to the complainant by publication of the impugned news item. The counsel further submitted that the news item was not intended to

321 harm or defame the complainant. When asked by the Committee to establish the identity of another Rahman of Asha Arts, he submitted that the editor who looked after the matter at that time had since left, so they did not have complete details, but Asha Arts may have belonged to Nizamabad and not Hyderabad. He had, however, no defence to offer when it was pointed out that the impugned report was published in Hyderabad Times and credited accordingly. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, at the very outset, did not appreciate filing of written statement at such a belated stage. On merits, the Inquiry Committee opined that no credence can be given to the submissions made in the written statement that the news item did not relate to the complainant. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the impugned news item clearly identified the complainant by name together with his firm Asha Arts. The newspaper failed to bring on record the evidence to establish another establishment with the same particulars. The impugned report, therefore, apparently lacked basis and was cooked up. The Inquiry Committee felt that the compliant was bonafide and the newspaper had not been able to substantiate the defence taken. It further observed that it would have been appropriate for the newspaper to accept that its correspondent may have erred and made necessary amends. In the circumstances, the Inquiry Committee considered a fit case to uphold the complaint. Though, at this juncture, it did not find any remedial action necessary, it decided to recommend to the Council to admonish the respondent newspaper The Times of India, Hyderabad, for its incorrect and false reports vis-à-vis, the complainant. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

96) Shri J.V. Chalapathirao Versus The Editor District Public Relations Officer Yadhardha Godhala East Godavari District Sanjeeva Rupam Vaaradhi Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 24.7.2004 has been filed by Shri J.V. Chalapathirao, District Public Relations Officer, (DPRO), East Godavari District, Kakinada in the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh against “Yadhardha Godhala Sanjeeva Rupam Vaaradhi”, Telugu Evening daily, Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) for publication of a series of allegedly false stories as follows:

322 Sl.No. Caption Issue 1. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-I- 16.6.2004 Lack of co-ordination-Curse of Information Department. 2. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-II- 17.6.2004 Clutcher of Information-Curtain of embezzelement. 3. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-III- 18.6.2004 DPRO poking knee to hinder progress. 4. DPRO’s office is under shows of negligence-IV-Bills 19.6.2004 claimed for used furniture loss to exchiqure. 5. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-V- 23.6.2004 & DPRO dozing in A.C. room on pretext of computer. 24.6.2004 6. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-VI- 22.6.2004 publicity if paid coppers-otherwise sorry. 7. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-VII- 23.6.2004 Boozee Chalapathi-Lusty Dalapathi. 8. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-VIII- 24.6.2004 What happened to the loans of your sons DKPRO Ji? 9. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-IX- 24.6.2004 Transparency buried in issued of accreditations. 10. DPRO’s office is under shadows of negligence-Likes 26.6.2004 private parties-Ignores officers. The complainant denied having misused the office and submitted that by publishing these articles, the respondent damaged his reputation among the officers and public. The complainant submitted that a rejoinder to the respondent was issued but the editor neither published it nor was any reply received from him. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 7.12.2004, the respondent- editor in his undated written statement received on 7.1.2005, submitted that all the news items were true and published only with the sole aim of avoiding wastage of government funds, unnecessary expenditure, corruption that was prevailing in the office of the DPRO and to establish transparency in the government offices. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 29.4.2005 for information. 323 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. The respondent editor, Ms. Chetana appeared before the Committee. The complainant in a letter dated 16.9.2006 intimated about superannuation and inability to appear before the Inquiry Committee due to cardiac problem. The complainant requested that the proceedings may be dropped. In view of the request of the complainant to drop his complaint, the Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint being withdrawn 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

97) Smt. Qamar Jehan Kausar Versus The Editor Owner, Metro Lodge Eenadu Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint Smt. Qamar Jehan Kausar, Owner of Metro lodge, Hyderabad filed this complaint-dated 18.9.2004 against Eenadu, Telugu daily, Hyderabad for allegedly publishing a false, defamatory and derogatory article against her husband a police officer and the Metro Lodge in its issue dated 14.8.2004. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item published on 14.8.2004 in the supplement issue of Eenadu in the columns ‘Watching Eyes’ titled “Under the shadow of Khaki uniform——sexual Tales” (English translation) along with the photograph of the entrance of the Metro lodge. Though the name of the lodge was not printed, a ‘Cryptic’ detail of the location of the lodge was given in such a way that it pointed towards the lodge of the complainant. The complainant stated that her husband is a police officer and in the impugned article an impression was given to the public that the lodge belonged to him and was virtually being run as a ‘Brothel House’. The complainant further submitted that the respondent had given an impression, that his newspaper’s ‘Nigah Division’ had investigated and collected information and found out that the lodge was run by an Inspector of Police, who was working in the City Police, Hyderabad and as a result unauthorized illegal, anti-social activities were going on over there without

324 any fear and that initiation of action against this lodge was nothing, but fighting against a sword. It was stated in the impugned news item that the illegal activities going on in this ‘Lodge’ since the past several years, were within the notice of the higher police authorities, but no action was being initiated. The Lodge was a shelter for Dancers and Singers for their illegal, unauthorized and anti-social activities. It was further stated that the ‘lodge’ was virtually a brothel house and all illegal, unauthorized and subversive activities were going on there and though the police were taking action against other brothel houses, this lodge was being spared for reasons best known to them. The Lodge was enjoying unprecedented patronage from the lowest to the highest Police Officials and no one was ready to counter the illegal activities or raise an eye for the reason that the lodge is run by an Inspector. Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that impugned news item was false, created and fabricated and there was no truth in the same. Infact the ‘Lodge’ was running legally in accordance with law and not even a single case or complaint was registered against it. She alleged that the respondent without making any verification or proof created a false and concocted story without following any ethics or morals. According to her the respondent published slanderous and outrageous article only to increase their circulation which was most unethical and uncharacteristic. The complainant submitted that he had issued a legal notice to the respondent but received no reply. She requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent editor for indulging in yellow journalism and prayed that he should also be directed to publish that the news item was false and misconceived and was printed mischievously. A show-cause notice dated 10.2.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Eenadu. Written Statement The respondent editor, vide his letter dated 11.3.2005, filed his written statement in the matter. According to the respondent the allegations levelled in the complaint were false and vexatious and there were no merit in the complaint. The respondent editor submitted that the impugned publication was a factual report and a fair comment on the irregularities in the running of ‘Lodge’. He alleged that the complainant had active support of her husband, who was a police officer. The respondent submitted that the impugned news report was published in good faith, in public interest as the issue relates to a matter of public nuisance and a duty is cast upon the press to disseminate such news in the interest of public. The alleged impugned news item related to irregularities

325 alleged in the running of a lodge. He submitted that the Contributor who filed the news report made inquiries personally, as stated in the impugned publication. According to the respondent, the impugned news item was published only in public interest for public good without any malice, ill-will or any intention to defame the complainant and the same was published after making sufficient inquiries and after taking due care and caution in reporting the issue. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint in limine. The respondent also filed an affidavit of Mr. G. Narendar in support of their claim. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 29.4.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 25.5.2005 submitted that the written statement filed by the respondent was incorrect and without any substance in support of their contention. The complainant submitted that the respondent had to substantiate their claim of making such imputations of irregularities in running of the ‘Lodge’ and active support of her husband who was a police officer and they cannot get away by making a passing comment, that the report was a fair comment. According to the complainant the respondents were in the habit of making such publications defaming persons in public life only to increase their circulation in the market. The impugned publication was defamatory, derogatory and could never be termed as publication in good faith without ill-will or malice. The respondents were required to produce proof of the inquiries made by them and show how care and caution was taken by them in reporting the issue. They have to substantiate each and every allegation made by them in the article with substantial proof. In fact even the veracity of the alleged affidavit of Shri Narendra, Contributor of the news was doubtful and the respondents were called upon to prove the same, added the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the respondent colluded with the Inspector of Police, Vasusena, who due to professional rivalry was bent upon to tarnish the image of her husband. In fact as per the admission made by the respondents, it was amply clear that the respondents did collude with Vasusena, CI of P.S. Abids, which itself was sufficient to punish them. The complainant mentioned that she issued notices to Vasusena, CI of P.S. Abids, as she wanted to establish her credentials, that there was no illegality in running the ‘Lodge’. Infact the after math of the impugned article her husband, who is an Inspector of Police was placed under suspension. Had he been so powerful as suggested by the respondents, the question of his suspension would not have arisen. She further submitted that the respondents made the defamatory and derogatory publication without any proof and only to mislead the Council sent the alleged affidavit of one G. Narender and they have got no proof to substantiate their claim made in

326 the article. She requested the Council to take action against the respondent editor. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor vide Council’s letter dated 3.6.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21-22 September, 2006 at Hyderabad. Shri Deshmukh S.M., P.Ventakraman, Md. Naseer Baig, Advocates appeared for the complainant. Shri R.E.C. Viddyasagar, Law Officer, Eenadu, Hyderabad and Shri G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s counsel submitted that the respondent newspaper published the photograph of the complainant lodge with a story to show that the lodge was a brothel house, running under police patronage. The counsel denied any such activity in the lodge or patronage by the police. The respondent counsel submitted that the complainant’s lodge enjoyed under police patronage. The report in question was given by a regular contributor who had personally visited the lodge as a decay customer. The said contributor Shri G. Narendar of News Today had also sworn an affidavit dated 11.3.2005 in support of the news report. Having established that unlawful activities were going on at the lodge, the publication was in public interest. At this juncture the complainant’s counsel submitted that the newspaper cannot escape its responsibility by simply saying that an affidavit is given by the reporter. The counsel submitted that the impugned publication was intended to tarnish the image of the complainant and her husband who was in the police force. He also submitted that the impugned report had been published at the behest of a colleague of her husband who was aggrieved against him and thus inimical. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, on consideration of the records and upon hearing the learned counsels to the parties opined that the complainant had not been able to satisfy the Inquiry Committee of the alleged animosity or malafide behind the impugned report. On the other hand, the reporter had on affidavit affirmed having verified the facts personally. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the impugned report had been published bonafide after genuine attempt of verification by the reporter and disclosed sufficient public interest for being

327 published. The Inquiry Committee thus decided that no action was warranted against the respondent 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

98) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Eenadu Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 6.7.2004 has been filed by Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, Director General & IG of Prisons & Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against “Eenadu”, Telugu daily, Nellore edition for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “What is the intention in shifting to Hospital” in its issue dated 10.12.2003. English translation of the impugned news item reads as follows:- “Special Judge for ACB cases has passed orders remanding Nageswara Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chirala up to 21st of this month on being caught accepting bribe. Thus ACB officials have shifted him to district jail. Though he was healthy till he reached district jail, as soon as he entered jail premises, on the grounds of sickness he was suddenly shifted to Government Hospital. Doubts are being expressed on the performance of duties by jail staff and doctors. There are allegations that all facilities are being provided to him at present.” The complainant submitted that the news item was not only false but also defamatory and published without even verifying the allegations that were being made. He also submitted that the remand prisoner in question was confined in the prison only and he was not sent to Government Hospital on 9.12.2003. He alleged that the false news created wrong impressions in the minds of people about the prison staff and Medical Officer of Central Prison, Nellore who were discharging their duties as per rules. Regarding delay of approx. five months in filing the complaint, the complainant submitted that the Superintendent Central Prison, Nellore issued the rejoinder dated 11.12.2003 and 17.3.2004 but it was not published. The

328 Superintendent was asked to pursue with the respondent editor for the publication of the rejoinder. Thus the delay was only on account of correspondence and the same was not intentional or wilful. He prayed to condone the delay. Delay was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman vide his order dated 10.1.2005. A show-cause notice dated 18.1.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Eenadu. Written Statement The respondent editor in his written statement dated 11.2.2005 while denying the allegations submitted that the complaint was false and vexatious and there were no merits in the complaint. He submitted that the impugned publication was a factual report on the dramatic shifting of a remand prisoner, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police accused of corruption charges, to the Government Hospital and the allegations of special treatment given to him. He stated that the impugned news report was published in good faith, in public interest as the issue relates to a remand order passed against a Deputy Superintendent of Police who was arrested on charges on corruption. According to the respondent, the journalist as well as his newspaper had strictly adhered to the journalistic norms. There was no violation of norms or ethics by the journalist. He submitted that the impugned news report was contributed by Mr. Inosh Babu of Newstoday (P) Ltd., an agency which supplies news to Eenadu, regularly. The Contributor vouches that he had gathered the information personally and only after crosschecking the facts from the Anti-Corruption Bureau official filed the news item. He filed an affidavit of the Contributor in this regard and started to read it as part of this written statement with regard to the claim of the complainant about sending a rejoinder to the staff reporter, Eenadu, Nellore on 11.12.2003 and 17.3.2004. He submitted that no such rejoinders had been received by the staff reporter of Newstoday (P) Ltd or even by them. Raising objection on locus of the complainant, the respondent requested to dismiss the complaint. The affidavit of the contributors affirmed the facts and denied the receipt of rejoinder. It also offered publication of the rejoinder if received. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 18.3.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 5.4.2005 submitted that the statement of the editor was not satisfactory and infact he was trying to somehow justify his paper’s reporting. The complainant submitted that the affidavit filed by the news contributor itself stated that the prisoner in question,

329 when brought before the prison gate, felt high-tension as he was already suffering with BP and Sugar. A prisoner suffering with high BP necessarily to be provided with medical care and it could not be termed as dramatic shifting implying that the prisoner was unduly shifted to hospital. Even in the news item it was stated as dramatic shifting, added the complainant. According to the complainant, reporting of the fact is the papers duty, but false and malicious reporting attribute malafide motives. The complainant further submitted that the Superintendent immediately on noticing the news item issued a rejoinder addressed to the news reporter and market a copy thereof to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and this office, which was not published by the respondent paper. The complainant alleged that the editor had been merely attempting to shirk his responsibility and attempting to blame the news contributor and the news agency which was a sister concern of the newspaper. Thus he was trying to circumvent the proceedings. The complainant requested to proceed with the inquiry and bring the errant journalist in the case to book. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor vide Council’s letter dated 19.4.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee for hearing on 21/22 September, 06 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Addle I.G. of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. Shri G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, Advocate and Shri R.E.C. Viddyasagar, Law Officer, appeared for Eenadu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant averred that the remand prisoner was not sent to hospital at all and was confined to Jail. The rejoinder sent to the respondent evoked no response. The counsel for the respondent submitted that their contributor had filed an affidavit to affirm that he was present when the officer was shifted. This could not be proved on record because no entry of it had been made in records. The news was published after proper verification. He added that the rejoinder was not received by them. The learned counsel for the respondent offered to publish the rejoinder of the complainant. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee observed that while the records before it were not sufficient to establish the truthfulness of the report, the cannons of journalistic ethics require that the Press allows right of reply to a person or authority aggrieved by the alleging misreporting and in the instant case the respondent

330 newspaper has shown preparedness to carry the rejoinder of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send a factual rejoinder to the respondent-Eenadu within a week. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent Eenadu to publish the rejoinder and send the clipping to the Council as well as the complainant, within a fortnight. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

99) Shri P. Narasimha Reddy Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Eenadu Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 2.12.2004 has been filed by Shri P. Narasimha Reddy, DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services (I/C), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against “Eenadu” (Telugu daily) for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Humanity imprisoned in Central Prison” (English translation) in its issue dated 1.8.2004 pertaining to the Nellore prison. The impugned news item alleged the negligent attitude and the deficiencies in the foods and hospital facilities provided to the prisoners in Central Prison. Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news items are absolutely malicious, defamatory and false and it were based purely on the statement of an irresponsible person. The complainant submitted that the publication damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central prison, Nellore in particular and adversely affected the morale of the staff. The complainant further submitted that the rejoinder dated 5.8.2004 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore and also by his office on 15.10.2004 was neither published by the respondent nor any reply was received till date from him. Hon’ble Chairman, vide his orders dated 4.2.2005, condoned the delay of two months in filing this complaint keeping in view the explanation given by the complainant.

331 Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 17.2.2005, the respondent editor in his written statement dated 11.3.2005 submitted that all the allegations made in the complaint are false and vexatious. He submitted that the news item in question is a fair comment based on the facts obtained from the Jail authorities and the same purported to highlight the lack of facilities and commented about the standards in District Central Prison, Nellore. The respondent further submitted that the news report was published in good faith and in public interest for the welfare of prisoners without any malice, ill-will or any intention to defame the police department. He submitted that the news item in question was published after making sufficient inquiries and caution in reporting the news item. The respondent further submitted that maintenance of living standards in Jail and providing facilities and treatment to prisoners was a matter of public concern and a duty has been caste upon the press to disseminate such news in the interest of prisoners for their good. The complainant further while replying the allegations stated that the journalist who contributed the news report has always strictly adhered to the journalistic norms. There has been no violation of norms or ethics by the journalist. The contributor vouches that he gathered the information personally and only after cross-checking the facts from the jail authorities filed the news item. The respondent denied having received any rejoinder from the complainant. He alleged that the complainant misdirected himself about the purport of the news report. Even while making an offer of publication of rejoinder in the local edition, the respondent submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.4.2005 for information. Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant in his counter comments dated 1/6/2005 while denying the allegation commented that humanity was imprisoned in Central Prison, Nellore. Regarding the allegation that the Jail authorities were belittling the prisoners, the complainant submitted that it was not merely false but outrageous as the prisoners were treated in a humane way. He stated that the impugned news item gave an impression that the prisoners were ill treated and their medical needs were neglected which is not true. The complainant however admitted that Central Prison, Nellore is suffering with shortage of man power, in spite of which there were no security breaches nor any short fall in the service. Regarding denial or receipt of the rejoinder by the respondent, the complainant submitted that it was totally false and motivated. The complainant requested the Council to proceed further in the matter.

332 A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 11/7/2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee for hearing on 21/22 September, 2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. Shri G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, advocate and Shri R.E.C. Viddyasagar, Law Officer was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper Eenadu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the jails of Anandra Pradesh were very well maintained yet the newspaper described 7% excess prisoners in the jail as over crowding. The news was intended to damage the image of the department that the inhuman atmosphere was prevalent in the jail. The clarification sent to the respondent twice was not published, in fact they declined to accept it. The respondent’s counsel submitted that the news was general in nature and was supported by statistics and thus substantially true and thus constituted fair comment.. The jail authorities had accommodated 540 prisoners against the capacity of 500 prisoners. On the contrary the newspaper was helping the jail authorities for making improvement in conditions of prisoners as well as jail. On the advise of the Inquiry Committee, the counsel agreed to publish the rejoinder with the comments of the paper. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on perusal of records and submissions made by the parties, observed that the newspaper report about conditions of living of prisoners in the Central Prison appeared to have been made for improvement of the system. The authorities are expected to bring reforms as much as possible without being sensitive to the criticism by the Press. However, to afford the complainant right to reply the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send his rejoinder under registered cover within a week from the date of hearing to the Editor, Eenadu, Hyderabad and the respondent newspaper, Eenadu to publish the rejoinder of the complainant within a fortnight of its receipt from the complainant. The editor shall be at liberty to append his comments thereon, if so desired. It also directed the respondent newspaper to send a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the complainant as well as the Council for record. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to dispose off the complaint with these directions. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report

333 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

100) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Eenadu Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 23.12.2004 has been filed by Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, DG & IG of Prisons & Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against “Eenadu”(Telugu daily) for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Paritala blames Y.S. and Jagan as brain behind the plan of ‘Ananta’ munder case” in its issue dated 15.9.2004. The impugned news item reads as follows:- “Telugu Desam MLA Paritala Ravindra has alleged that the Congress people are indulging the committing murders in the name of Janarakshna Samithi and Red Star. He alleged that the State Chief Minister and his son Jaganmohan Reddy and the Anantapur DSP Bala Narsimha Reddy have links with these murders. He also alleged that Maddelacheruvu Suri, who is undergoing sentence in car bomb case is getting co-operation from all these persons. He disclosed this to the news persons at his native village. Suri, who is in the jail is encouraging bad elements through cell phone from the jail. If the cell phone number recorded in the cell phones of Y.S., Jagan and DSP while receiving telephones and while making outgoing calls are verified the truth and relationship between them will come out. It is responsibility to bring this information, which is available to him through reliable sources, to the notice of the police officers.” Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news item was absolutely malicious, defamatory and false and it was based purely on the statement of an irresponsible person. The complainant submitted that the publication has damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central prison, Nellore in particular and morale of the staff working adversely affected. The complainant has submitted that the rejoinder dated 15.9.2004 was issued by the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Cherlapalli but they did not receive any reply from the respondent.

334 Hon’ble Chairman condoned the delay of about 1½ months in filing the complaint vide his order dated 4.2.2005. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 17.2.2005, the respondent- Editor, Eenadu in his written statement dated 11.3.2005 denied the allegations levelled in the complaint and stated that there were no merits in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the impugned news item was a factual report on the allegations made by Mr. Paritala Ravindra in a press conference at Ramagiri Village of Venkatapuram Mandal. The impugned news item was made in good faith and in public interest on entertainment of the criminals by the police department; about usage of cellophanes in the jail premises as was evidenced in the impugned news item published in issue. According to the respondent, the journalist as well as his newspaper strictly adhered to the journalistic norms and there was no violation of such norms ethics by them. He submitted that the staff reporter who filed the report in question vouches that what all he reported was based on the information furnished in a press conference. The respondent informed that a similar publication was also made in Andhra Jyothi on 15.9.2004 (Impugned News item and its translation published in Andhra Jyothi furnished by the respondent). The respondent also submitted that no rejoinder dated 15.9.2004 was received by them and as such it could not be published. Further it was stated that Mr. Paritala Ravindra was killed recently. The respondent further stated that the complainant misguided and misdirected himself about the purport of the news report and he has no cause of action to file the petition before the Press Council. He submitted that complaint was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.4.2005 for information. Counter Comments of the Complainant In his counter comments dated 28.5.2005, the complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper attempted to take shelter under the publication of the same news by the another newspaper which clearly establishes, shifting of responsibility on the part of the respondent. He further stated that the statement of the respondent that they did not receive rejoinder dated 15.9.2004 is totally false and motivated. In fact the case originated on the basis of the rejoinder issued by the Central Prison, Cherlapalli which was not published by the respondent. The complainant further submitted that by not publishing their rejoinder the respondent not only tarnished the image of the department in public eye but also lowered down the morale of the men and officers of the department, which is detrimental to public interest.

335 A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 22.7.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee for hearing on 21/22 September, 2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. Shri G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, advocate and Shri R.E.C. Viddyasagar, Law Officer was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper Eenadu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral arguments before the Inquiry Committee denied the allegations of use of cell phone made in the news item. The respondent counsel submitted before the Inquiry Committee that the news item was a coverage of the Press Conference of Telugu Desam MLA Shri Ravindra, who has since died. It was the duty of the press to cover the comments being made by a responsible person. The authorities did not send any rejoinder to the report on merits. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee took note of the fact that according to the respondent, the person who had given the statement in the Press Conference was no more. The press was justified in covering his conference as the matter was of public interest. The Inquiry Committee was therefore not inclined to proceed with the inquiry and decided that no further action was warranted in the matter. It recommended 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

101) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor Director General & IG of Prisons & Eenadu, Telugu Daily Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Chanchalguda Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 22.8.2005 was filed by Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, Director General & IG of Prisons & Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad against “Eenadu” (Telugu daily) alleging publication

336 of a false and defamatory news item under the caption “Cherlapalli Jaillo Arachaka Rajyam” in its issue dated 1.7.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that unruliness was the order of the day in Central Prison, Cherlapalli, which was known for its controversies as prisoners were indulging in quarrelling often. It was also alleged that one week ago when a female employee entered the prison on her duty a lifer, Srinivasulu held her hand. She was shocked and complained to the Superintendent but no action was taken against the prisoner. The female employee went on leave and on the face of this insult she had been trying for her transfer. The impugned news item further stated that the same prisoner also behaved in a similar way when a woman came to see the jail and prison officers were hesitating to take appropriate action inspite of these bad incidents, which become strength for other prisoners. The news item also stated that there are only 150 staff members for 1630 prisoners and this strength was not enough to keep proper vigilance and there was no hope of increasing the staff in near future. These jail officials should contain the unruly elements while working for their reformation, otherwise the condition may become still worse. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news item was absolutely malicious, defamatory, false and baseless. The complainant stated that no such untoward incidents had occurred in the jail. It was quite common in the prison that some times hardcore prisoners indulge in hot arguments, quarrelling and the action had been taken against such prisoners at the right time. According to the complainant, the prisoner, who held the hand of a woman employee was a psychic patient and was dealt appropriately. In this incident there was no negligence on the part of the prison officers. It is fact that, there was dearth of staff, but this will be overcome soon. Hence, there was no bad situation as focused by the paper. The complainant submitted that the publication had damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central prison, Nellore in particular and adversely affected the morale of the jail staff. The complainant submitted that the rejoinder dated 1.7.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Cherlapalli was not published by the respondent till date. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Eenadu, Hyderabad on 27.9.2005 but no response was received. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee for hearing on 21/22 September 2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Additional Inspector 337 General of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. Shri G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, advocate and Shri R.E.C. Viddyasagar, Law Officer was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Eenadu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the person namely, Srinivasulu, mentioned in the news report was mentally retarded. The newspaper had vine the news report to malign the Department as no such incident as referred in the news had actually happened. The respondent also did not publish the rejoinder. The respondent submitted that the news report was a routine reporting highlighting certain irregularities as well as misbehavior with female employee in the jail premises. The crux of the reporting was to bring to the notice of the authorities that there was dearth of staff in the jail and that the prisoners were unruly. On being asked by the Inquiry Committee as to whether the said employee had asked for transfer, the complainant replied in affirmative. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the outset expressed its unhappiness over the failure of the respondent to file written statement. Thereafter, it considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the parties. It noted that it was an irrefutable fact that the prisoner, mentally retarded or otherwise, might have misbehaved with the woman employee who later on asked for transfer. The Inquiry Committee held that the impugned report was general in nature highlighting the circumstances prevalent in the jail and the paucity of staff and their problems. The Inquiry Committee did not find fault in the publication of the said report by the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee opined that as the report was factually correct, no action was warranted in the matter. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to allow the matter to be closed as the respondent newspaper had not violated any norm 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

102) Shri M.A. Basith Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Eenadu Prisons & Correctional Services Hyderabad Hyderabad Complaint Shri M.A. Basith, DG & IG of Prisons & Correctional Services,

338 Chanchalguda, A.P., Hyderabad has filed this complaint dated 8.11.2005 against ‘Eenadu’, Telugu Daily for publishing allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned ‘In Chanchalguda Prison-Smoking of Ganja smells-Prisoners Revolt as intoxication kicks headache for officers’ in its issue dated 31.8.2005. English translation of the impugned news item reads as follows: “One can not realize, till he comes across to the situation i.e. (to self). The plight of officers in Chanchalguda Jail has been like that. All these days though ganja is coming into jail in large quantity they never bothered. But, now it has become a major problem to them. This reason is the inmates are using foul language against the jail staff and revolting against them under the influence of ganja. Apprehending that it may go out of control and come to their neck the officers have identified the Gnajas addicts and shifted them to different barracks. Interestingly this barrack is where Mr. Varavara Rao & Kalyana Rao are also lodged. Some of the prisoners are kept in separate cells. Inspite of all these efforts, the supply of Ganja into jail has not stopped but increased significantly during the last week. Supply of Ganja into jail is a common thing, but this is more in Chanchalguda jail, since it is a remand jail & habituals will be coming here repeatedly. With this frequency not only the prisoners but also their relatives develop familiarity with some of the jail staff. This acquaintance with jail staff is a known fact. So when the relatives of inmates come for interviews the bring some essentials which in fact have to be checked and searched but the jail staff are not doing so. That’s why in Cherlapalli Jail which is famous as high-tech jail, cell phones were liberally used. The same thing hailed out several times. So in undivers security jail like Chanchalguda it is not difficult to send objectionable thing inside. Some prisoners while coming into the jail itself will bring their things, it is alleged. Added to it some guards on the watch towers while joining duty will bring ganja and sell to the prisoners, it is reliably learnt. Mainly this is happening in barrack No. 2 & 6 watch towers. The jail staff has got no powers to take action on APSP staff who guard watch towers, even if the officers want to take them to task. Since the jail staff also have some links with them, they are hesitating that is why the use of Ganja has very much increased in Chanchalguda Jail. As the prisoners are using foul language and revolting against the staff, the officers start taking action. Four days back a lifer in barrack No.2 was beaten and thrown in a cell when he revolted. Fearing that in the intoxication of Ganja they may resort to any untoward incidents 22 inmates were identified as addicts and shifted them to 8th barrack where

339 Mr. Varavara Rao & Kalyana Rao are confined on security reasons. The reason for keeping the ganja addicts in barrack no. 8 is to stop supply of ganja. This reduces related problems”. The complainant submitted that the impugned write up was malicious, defamatory, false and baseless. According to the complainant, it was not true that officers were neglecting to stop supply of Ganja into jail though it was increasing. The staff at the gate thoroughly search the incoming and outgoing prisoners. Whenever ganja is found during search, action is taken against the accused in accordance with jail manual. Some prisoners on medical grounds on the advise of the Jail Medical Officer and some notorious criminals are kept in different barracks for security reasons. It was true that Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad had alerted the staff when the old criminals threw the Ganja by putting it into rubber balls into barrack from highway where the APSP guards watch tower. Further, it was not true, as reported, that the convict in barrack No.2 rebelled and was beaten and shifted to cell. But the conditions in the jail were not like as reported in the newspaper, added the complainant. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication damaged the image of the department in general and that of the Central Prison, Hyderabad in particular and the morale of the staff working was adversely affected. The complainant further submitted that a clarification/rejoinder was issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad. But no response. The complainant has requested the Council to take suitable action against the newspaper for levelling false and baseless allegations and damaging the image of the department. No Written Statement A show cause notice dated 8.12.2005 was issued to the respondent editor Eenadu. No written statement was filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee for hearing on 21/22 September, 2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. Shri G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, Advocate and Shri R.E.C. Viddyasagar, Law Officer was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Eenadu. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions before the Inquiry Committee, submitted that the prison authorities had been making all possible efforts and taking security precautions against supply of drugs in the jail premises. However, the basic problem for the authorities was that the prisoners who frequently

340 moved in and out of the jail, would supply ganja in a rubber ball thrown from outside the wall of the jail into the compound. They were taking all necessary steps to check this. The clarification sent to the respondent was not published. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that smuggling ganja in the jail was not denied. The news report was substantially true and in fact the paper supported the jail staff by urging the Government to appoint more staff. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the Eenadu neither filed the written statement despite service of show-cause notice nor was it represented before the Inquiry Committee. It expressed displeasure over the callous attitude of the respondent in ignoring the communication of the Council. On merits of the case, the Committee noted that the entry of drugs in the jail has not been totally denied by the complainant. Thus, the news was not without basis, and the Committee opined, had been published after proper verification. However, in order to afford opportunity of right to reply, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send a rejoinder for publication, if so desired and the respondent to publish the same. The editor was at liberty to append a note of their stand to the clarification. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint with 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

103) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Andhra Jyothi Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh, Chanchalguda Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad filed this complaint dated 18.10.2004 against “Andhra Jyothi” (Telugu daily) for allegedly publishing false and defamatory news item captioned “Prisoners languishing in jail” (English translation) in its issue dated 16.6.2004. In the impugned article the allegedly deplorable state of treatment of prisoners was highlighted and jail authorities were charged with feeding the prisoners with stale food, foul smelling food and food with worms. It was further alleged in the impugned news item that the jail authorities were treating the prisoners like creatures.

341 Denying the allegation, the complainant submitted that the impugned write up was malicious, defamatory and false and it was based purely on the statement of an irresponsible person. The complainant submitted that the publication has damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central Prison, Nellore in particular and morale of the staff working was adversely affected. The complainant submitted that the rejoinders dated 17.6.2004 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore and also by his office on 27.8.2004 but neither any reply was received from the newspaper nor the rejoinder was published. Regarding delay of two months in filing the complaint, the complainant stated that it was only on account of correspondence with the respondent and not intentional or wilful. He requested to condone the delay. Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India condoned the delay vide order dated 30.12.2005. A show-cause notice dated 4.1.2005 was issued to the respondent editor Andhra Jyothi. Written Statement The respondent editor, Andhra Jyothi vide his written statement dated 14.3.2005 submitted that the news item in question published on 16.6.2004 based on the press note given by three women prisoners to news contributor of Online, a news agency that regularly supplies them the news. According to the respondent, such factual report published in good faith without any sort of distortion in the public interest. The respondent submitted that considerable effort was made in preparing the report and ascertaining the facts. Their news contributor visited the Nellore Central Jail and based on the observations made by him, after on the spot inquiry of the sorry state of affairs of functioning of jails, prepared the report and the same was published. He denied the allegation that the write up was malicious, defamatory and false and based purely on statement of irresponsible person. The respondent further submitted that as the news item was published on 16.6.2004 they did not publish the rejoinder as the same was sent much later on 27.8.2004 Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 4.4.2005 while reiterating his complaint submitted that the impugned reporting was not only unverified but also irresponsible and defamatory. According to the complainant the respondent ought to have verified the facts from the Superintendent of Jails

342 but he did not do so. Giving his point wise reply the complainant submitted as follows:— 1. Rice is supplied by the FCI and hence, quality of rice is not in the hands of the Superintendent. 2. Food is cooked by the prisoners themselves. Therefore the prisoners employed in cooking food will not cook rice infested with warms but would clean it before working as they also have to eat the same food. 3. All the articles of ration for cooking are issued to the members of prisoners Panchayath who check the quality and quantity. 4. The Superintendent and the Medical Officer taste the cooked food regularly. Regarding the statement made by the respondent that considerable effort was made in preparing the report, the complainant alleged that no effort was made to verify the facts and publication of such irresponsible statements without verification was against all canons of ethics. He submitted that on noticing the news item the Deputy Inspector General of Prison (RR) submitted a detailed report stating that the allegations made in the news item was false. The Chief Editor was again addressed to publish the rejoinder but there was no response from the respondent newspaper. Regarding the statement of the respondent that they had reported what was told by three released women prisoners was highly objectionable, added the complainant. According to the complainant, a responsible newspaper cannot just write what was told by some irresponsible people on the road without getting it verified with the concerned officers. Such a reporting was definitely irresponsible, damaging to the image of a Government department apart from being violative of journalistic ethics. He requested the Council to initiate action against the respondent for publishing malicious, defamatory and irresponsible reporting. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 19.4.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee for hearing on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. Shri K. Rama Chandra Murthy Editor, represented ‘Andhra Jyothi’, the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the newspaper published sensational news to tarnish the image of the Department without proper verification giving

343 credence to the statement of some unreliable person. They held an inquiry and found the charges to be false. The rejoinder was sent very next day but was ignored as was the next. He requested the Committee to direct the respondent not to publish unfounded news to falsely defame the department, as that would only strengthen the anti-social elements wanting to bring pressure on them. The respondent submitted that the reply in the matter has already been filed that the report was based on information provided by women prisoners. They tried to get an interview with the jail authorities but were refused. They offered to publish the rejoinder of the complainant who accepted the offer asserting that their only interest in filing the complaint was to protect the image of the department and publication of rejoinder would satisfy them. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the parties. At the first instance the Committee opined that the respondent newspaper did not follow the standard norms of journalistic ethics of carrying out pre-publication verification from the concerned authority. However, in view of the offer of the respondent to publish the rejoinder of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send a composite rejoinder in response to the instant matter as well as two other matters against ‘Andhra Jyothi’ heard simultaneously. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent-editor, ‘Andhra Jyothi’ to publish the rejoinder within a fortnight of its receipt and send clippings to the Council as well as the complainant for record. The Committee further observed that it had before it for consideration more than dozen complaints by the jail authorities against four well-established papers of Andhra Pradesh. In most of them, the impugned report had been published without pre-verification and in the instant complaint, the paper had averred that they had tried to interview the concerned authorities but were unsuccessful. The Committee felt that the media and the authorities are two very important pillars of our democracy and for the government to function successfully in public interest a press as responsible as watchful is an essential pre-requisite. Therefore, it would be in fitness of things if the prison authorities develop a system of systematic briefing of the media and appoint a spokesperson who could be accessed to obtain the official version of the authorities or information that the press may receive and intended publishing. The Council may consider advising the authority to examine and implement the observations. 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

344 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

104) Shri P. Narasimha Reddy Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Andhra Jyothi Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 8.12.2004 has been filed by Shri P. Narasimha Reddy, DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services (I/C), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against “Andhra Jyoti” (Telugu daily) for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Liquor, Private food can be got in government hospital prison ward by bribing, otherwise hands and legs are handcuffed”(English translation) in its issue dated 28.3.2004. The impugned news item charged the officials of prison of bribing, negligent attitude and deficiencies in the food and hospital facilities provided to the prisoners in Central Prison. It was alleged in the impugned news item that some prisoners got admitted in the prison ward of the Government Hospital, Cuddapah on the pretext of ill health and manage to get all facilities. The officials belonging to Medical, Jail and Police departments were extending their help to these prisoners by taking money. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news item were absolutely malicious, defamatory and false and purely based on the statement of an irresponsible person. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central Prison, Cuddapah in particular and morale of the staff working had also been adversely affected. The complainant submitted that the rejoinder dated 3.4.2004 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddapah and also by his office dated 29.9.2004 was neither carried by the respondent nor any reply received by them. Hon’ble Chairman condoned the delay of about seven months filing in complaint vide his order dated 2.2.2005. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 9.2.2005, the respondent editor, Andhra Jyothi submitted in his written statement dated 14.3.2005 that the impugned news item was based on the personal inquiries made by the news

345 contributor of “Online”, a news agency that regularly supplies the news. They further verified the matter and found that the news item was based on the information furnished by some prisoners. The respondent editor requested that an inquiry should be held to first determine the maintainability of the complaint before adjudication on the facts of the case. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 4.4.2005 submitted that the written statement filed by the respondent newspaper was far from facts. Regarding the statement made by the respondent that the news item was supplied to them by the news contributor of “Online”, a news agency and the matter was verified and the news item was based on the information furnished by some prisoners, the complainant stated that this stance itself was irresponsible as no journalist or newspaper can just publish any news that is passed as to it without getting it cross checked or verified from the concerned senior departmental officer. According to the complainant, if the respondent had ever made efforts to verify the facts, they would have known that the prisoners were referred to outside hospital only where investigations or in-patient treatment was felt necessary by the Jail Medical Officer and Jail Authorities could not overrule the advice of the medical officer in the interest of the health of the prisoners. The complainant further stated that the respondent newspaper was in the habit of publishing false news in the guise of sensationalism. In a bid to create sensation, the newspaper portrayed the Member of Parliament Shri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy Garu of having given bribe to the Sub-Jail Superintendent, Pullivendla which was emphatically rebutted by the member himself which speaks volumes about the irresponsible conduct of the paper. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 19.4.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. The complainant, Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad appeared in person. Shri K. Rama Chandra Murthy, Editor, ‘Andhra Jyothi’, represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the newspaper published sensational news to tarnish the image of the Department based on statement of persons of doubtful credentials. The respondent should have tried to substantiate the allegations and sought their version. He added that the clarification sent to the editor was not published.

346 The respondent submitted that the news was based on information provided by some prisoners and was published bonafide in public interest. He however, offered to publish the rejoinder of the complainant an offer which was accepted by the complainant. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the parties. At the first instance the Committee opinion that the respondent newspaper did not follow the standard norms of journalistic ethics of carrying out pre-publication verification from the concerned authority. However, in view of the offer of the respondent to publish the rejoinder of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send a composite rejoinder in respect of the instant matter as well as two other matters against “Andhra Jyothi” heard simultaneously. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent editor, “Andhra Jyothi” to publish the rejoinder within a fortnight of its receipt and send clippings to the Council as well as the complainant for record. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

105) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Andhra Jyothi Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 23.12.2004 has been filed by Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against “Andhra Jyothi” (Telugu daily) alleging publication of a false and defamatory news item under the caption “Stoppage of interviews in Central Jail: No response from officers unless money is paid : Agony of the prisoners’ relatives” (English translation) in its issue dated 2.11.2004. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the Prison Officers had stopped the interviews to the relatives of prisoners on getting to know that Addl. D.G. of Prisons was visiting Central Prison due to which relatives of prisoners waited till evening in the prison’s premises. It was further alleged that some prison officers and staff were behaving arrogantly and forcing them out 347 not even allowing 10 minutes of talk with prisoners and several alleged that they had to pay Rs.50/- to the prison staff for passing over the fruits etc. to the prisoners and that prison staff were taking away half the fruits and other articles themselves. Several people had stated that prison officers and staff were differentiating between rich people in one manner and poor. They had demanded that measures should be taken to give interviews very early for those coming from distant places.

Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news item were absolutely malicious, defamatory, false and based on the statement of an irresponsible person. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central Prison, Nellore in particular and adversely affected morale of the staff.

The complainant has submitted that the rejoinder dated 3.11.2004 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore but they did not receive any reply from the respondent.

Written Statement

In response to the show-cause notice dated 28.4.2005, the respondent- editor, Andhra Jyothi in his written statement dated 20.5.2005 while denying the allegations, submitted that the impugned news item was based on personal inquiries made by the news contributor of “Online” (a news agency that regularly supplies them the news) who verified the matter with due care and caution prior to publication. The respondent further submitted that the news contributor on 1.11.2004 had interacted with the Director General of Prisons, Hyderabad, Deputy IG of Prisons, Cuddapah and with the Superintendent of Prison in the prison premises as was evident from the letter dated 3.11.2004 written by the Superintendent to him, which proves that the news contributor had verified the matter prior to its publication. The respondent also submitted that the persons who had visited the jail on 1.11.2004 in order to meet their relatives had given written representations to “Andhra Jyothi” detailing the manner in which they were stopped interviewing the relatives by the jail authorities till evening, which corroborates their publication. According to the respondent, the Superintendent of Central Prison in his letter dated 3.11.2004 admitted the fact that interviews to the relatives of the prisoners were delayed due to the sudden and surprise visit of the Head of the Department. The respondent submitted that the thrust of the news item was to report the mental torture faced by the relatives outside the jail premises, since waiting for long hours was a psychological torture. The respondent stated that the impugned news item had been published in good faith in public interest.

348 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.6.2005 for information. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.6.2005 requested the Council to proceed further with the inquiry as the respondent had highlighted the alleged delay/mental torture faced by the relatives of the prisoner in a derogatory manner, which was against the public interest. The complainant submitted that news contributor met them but did not verify about the contents and facts of the impugned news item from them. According to the complainant, as a matter of fact during the visit of Head of the Department, the prisoners were interviewed by Head of the Department to ascertain complaint, if any, and the manner in which the prison was functioning which was in the interest of the prisoners. This obviously indicates that the news contributor and the editor were not interested in reporting that there were no complaints from prisoners during the visit but highlighted the delay in a derogatory manner and against the public interest. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 5.9.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P Narsimha Reddy, Additional I G of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. Shri K Ram Chandra Murthy editor, Andhra Jyothi appeared for the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the newspaper sensationalized the instance to tarnish the image of the Department. On that particular day the meeting between prisoners and the relatives was deferred due to VIP movement. They were later allowed to meet. The respondent should have tried to substantiate the allegations instead of publishing them without trying to find out the truth from them. The respondent submitted that the reply in the matter has already been filed and the newspaper was ready to publish the rejoinder of the complainant. The offer was accepted by the complainant saying that they had animus against the paper and only wanted the public to know of their reason for the action. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the parties. At the first instance the Committee opinion

349 that the respondent newspaper did not follow the standard norms of journalistic ethics of carrying out pre-publication verification from the concerned authority. However, in view of the offer of the respondent to publish the rejoinder of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send a composite rejoinder in respect of the instant matter as well as two other matters against ‘Andhra Jyothi’ heard simultaneously. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent editor, ‘Andhra Jyothi’ to publish the rejoinder within a fortnight of its receipt and send clippings to the Council as well as the complainant for record. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

106) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Andhra Bhoomi Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 8.12.2004 has been filed by Shri P. Narasimha Reddy, DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services (I/C), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against “Andhra Bhoomi”(Telugu daily) for publishing an allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “Stampula Skam Muddayi Raja Bhogam-Khaidulonu Khakhi Darja” in its issue dated 26.6.2004. According to the impugned news item an accused in multi-crore fake stamps scam was sent out to attend court witness in Karimnagar without any escort by Central Prison Authorities, Hyderabad and that the police officers undergoing judicial custody in jails are enjoying luxuries compared to ordinary undertrials. It was alleged that the accused appeared in the court of 2nd Addl. District Court without any escorts even though the Karimnagar police sent an escort of one S.I. and two constables to Hyderabad for the purpose of escorting to the court. It was further alleged that the accused entered the court premises without any escort and after giving evidence he left the premises in private car along with Circle-Inspector who also came to give evidence in some other case in the same court. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news item were absolutely false, malicious and

350 defamatory based purely on the statement of an irresponsible person. The complainant submitted that the publication had damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central Prison, Hyderabad in particular and adversely affected the morale of the staff. The complainant submitted that the respondent neither published the rejoinders dated 30.7.2004 and September 2004 nor gave any reply till date which were sent by their office and the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad respectively. The delay of four months in filing the complaint was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman vide his orders dated 2.2.2005 in keeping with powers conferred upon him under proviso of Regulation 3(1)(f) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 9.2.2005, the respondent editor, Andhra Bhoomi in his written statement dated 26.2.2005 submitted that while highlighting the security lapse, in public interest, they had inadvertently made a mention in the news item about the jail authorities, saying that they had not provided the escort, for which the latter had taken objection but they had carried rejoinder on 1.8.2004 captioned “Prisoner was not sent without escort”, in all fairness even though the letter from the complainant was received after an abnormal delay of 35 days after the publication of the impugned news item. The respondent stated that what had been published was a true fact, that an accused appeared in the court without proper escort and it was not denied by the authorities. The respondent submitted that they acted in good faith and in all fairness. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 4.4.2005 stated that the statement of the respondent was totally false that they had not issued any rejoinder/denial to them. According to the complainant the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad issued rejoinder on 6.7.2004. Moreover, the original news item was published on the front page in prominent location whereas the rejoinder was published in an inconspicuous location in the 3rd page, which established the malafide intention of the respondent, added the complainant. He submitted that the respondent ought to have verified the fact before publishing the news. The complainant concluded by saying that whatever has been done by the respondent is inadequate and forced unwilling act but not a rectification of the mistake. He desired to proceed further in the matter. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 2.5.2005 for information.

351 Counter of the Respondent to the Counter Comments of the Complainant The respondent in his counter dated 18.5.2005 submitted that the complainant finally agreed that they published his rejoinder which was not admitted in his original complaint. The respondent submitted that the complainant in his counter comments made some unnecessary undignified comments on the paper and also on its readers, which was most unfortunate and highly irresponsible. He reiterated that they had not received the original rejoinder and they are in no way responsible for the abnormal delay caused by the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the complainant failed to produce any evidence about receiving the original rejoinder by them. A copy of the respondent’s letter dated 18.5.2005 was forwarded to the complainant on 1.6.2005 for information. Further Communication from the Complainant The complainant in his further reply dated 21.6.2005 to the counter of the respondent submitted that the purport of the complaint before the Council is to demonstrate the irresponsible way of the respondent. The reply dated 18.5.2005 filed by the respondent had amply demonstrated his attitude. The complainant further stated that the fact of publication of the rejoinder was known to him only after its report through the Council. Moreover the rejoinder was published in the tabloid accompanying the newspaper in its Karimnagar edition which is not available in Hyderabad. The respondent cannot expect him to search all the editions of the paper to check for publication of rejoinder. He reiterated that the statement made in his original complaint is fair and true. A copy of the complainant’s communication was forwarded to the respondent on 5.7.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Additional I.G. of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad represented the complainant while Shri Ch. V.M. Krishna Rao, Chief of News Bureau was present for the respondent “Andhra Bhoomi”. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the newspaper published a false report making reference to an accused in fake stamp scam while transporting the accused to attend the Court without escort. The complainant submitted that whenever a prisoner is produced in the Court, the jail authorities requisition the police authorities to escort the accused. The jail authorities hand over the accused with warrant to the police escorts and thereafter the jail authorities did not have any responsibility of the transit. If there was any such lapse, it was on the part

352 of the police authorities. Yet the jail authorities had been maligned. The rejoinder sent by them had been published inconspicuously only in the Karimnagar edition though the original report appeared in all the editions. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had reported the fact that the accused was not being properly escorted and later carried the rejoinder of the complainant when they were informed that this was the responsibility of the police. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record and upon hearing the parties, opined that the impugned report was in public interest and its publication was justified. However, the failure in escorting the accused might have been on the part of the police administration and not the jail administration. The complainant enjoyed a clear right to have their reputation cleared. The Inquiry Committee took note of the fact that a rejoinder has already been carried by the Andhra Bhoomi on 1.8.2004 edition of Karimnagar, although it should have been published in all other editions. To this extent, the paper failed to abide by the standard of journalistic conduct. The Inquiry Committee however felt that no useful purpose would now be served by such a direction for publication of rejoinder in all editions at belated stage. However, it recommended to the Council to direct the respondent to bear these observations in mind for future conduct and 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

107) Shri P. Narsimha Reddy Versus The Editor DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Vaartha Correctional Services (I/C) Hyderabad Chanchalguda Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Complaint Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, DG & Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services (I/C), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has filed this complaint dated 8.12.2004 against “Vaartha” (Telugu daily) alleging publication of false, incorrect and defamatory news items captioned “JAILU ADHIKARULAKU MEMOLU” and “ALINGANALU…AANADA BHASPALU, SANTHOSHA SANRAMAINA CHERLAPALLI JAILU” in its issues dated 13.8.2004 and 16.8.2004 respectively.

353 It was stated in the first impugned news item that higher authorities of the jail have issued memos to 10 officers of the Central Prison Cherlapalli, Hyderabad including the Superintendent of the prison for helping the main accused in stamp scam. It was also stated that higher officers expressed their displeasure against the Superintendent for the unlawful activities in interviews and allowing the prisoners slavery to the influenced prisoners. In the second impugned news item allegation of facilitating ‘Ganjha smuggling’ were levelled against the staff and prison officer. It further stated that prison premises had become emotional as 243 lifers and short termers were released from Central prison, Cherlapalli, Moula Ali and Gachibowli Open Air Jail as per the G.O. issued by the Government. The family members of the prisoners were immersed in untold pleasure upon their release as they languished in prisons for committing crimes knowingly or unknowingly. On seeing this emotional heartily exchanges between the prisoners and their families the prison officers too shed tears. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned news item are absolutely malicious, defamatory and false and it was totally based on the statement of an irresponsible person. The complainant submitted that the impugned publication damaged the image of the Department in general and that of the Central Prison, Cherlapalli in particular and besides adversely affecting the morale of the staff. According to the complainant the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli issued two separate clarifications on 13.8.2004 and 16.8.2004 but the respondent neither published nor filed any reply. The delay of about two months in filing the complaint was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman vide his orders dated 1.2.2005 as per proviso to Regulation 3(1)(f) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. No Written Statement Show-cause notice dated 9.2.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Vaartha but no reply ws received despite issuance of reminder dated 15.7.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Addl. I.G. of Prisons, Chanchal Guda, Hyderabad, appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Vaartha published the news without proper cross-checking of facts. The complainant reiterated the

354 averments made in the complaint. He added that the respondent did not publish the clarification. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, at the very outset, expressed displeasure over non-filing of written statement by the editor, ‘Vaartha and took serious note of failure on the part of editor, ‘Vaartha’ to appear before it or deputing any representative for oral submissions. Apparently, the paper did not have any defence to offer. The Inquiry Committee observed that it is obligatory on the part of the press to make proper verification of facts before publishing a news report. The Inquiry Committee noted that the editor, Vaartha had also failed to afford the right of reply, which the department enjoyed to clarify its stand before the public. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to direct the editor, Vaartha to publish rejoinder of the department within a fortnight of the receipt of these directions and send compliance report to the Council for record. If the paper fails to comply with these directions, further action may be considered under the provisions of the Act. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

108) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor Director General & IG of Prisons & Vaartha, Telugu Daily Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Chanchalguda Hyderabad Complaint This complaint dated 23.2.2005 was filed by Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, Director General & IG of Prisons & Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad against “Vaartha”, Telugu daily alleging publication of a false, baseless and defamatory news item captioned “Khaideelaku Florin Water” in its issue dated 11.1.2005. The impugned news item reads as follows:- UT prisoners wrote a letter to the Home Minister requesting to supply metro Manjeera water inside the jail instead of supplying fluorinated water. They also pleaded in the letter for the provision of board for the Welfare of the Convicted Prisoners, Legal cell to all Central Jails and wages to the prisoners as per the labour act. They also requested for visiting of the legal counsellors to advise CT and UT prisoners.

355 Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news item was malicious, defamatory, baseless and false as the metro water works supply every day about 2-3 lakhs litters of Manjeera water into the pump of Central Prison Cherlapalli. The complainant submitted that the water from the pump is pumped to the overhead tank from which the water is being supplied to all the prisoners through the pipeline. The complainant alleged that the publication damaged the image of the department in general and that of the Central Prison, Cherlapalli in particular and the morale of the staff working is adversely affected. The complainant submitted that a rejoinder dated 12.1.2006 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapalli but evoked no reply. He requested the Council to take suitable action against the respondent editor for levelling false and baseless allegations. No Written Statement Show-cause notice dated 14.7.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Vaartha, Hyderabad. No reply was received from the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Addl I.G. of Prisons, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The respondent’s advocate vide his letter dated 19.9.2006 requested for adjournment on the ground that they did not receive a copy of the complaint. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Vaartha published the news without proper cross-checking of facts. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed displeasure over non-filing of written Statement by the editor, ‘Vaartha” and its absence at the oral hearing. Apparently, the paper had received the show cause notice and yet denied having a copy of the complaint. The conduct was taken serious note of. On merits, the Inquiry Committee noted that the main grouse of the complainant was non-publication of the rejoinder. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, declined the request of the respondent for adjournment and directed the complainant to send its factual clarification to the respondent, and the respondent editor, Vaartha, to publish the rejoinder within a fortnight of its receipt and send compliance report to the Council for record. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of

356 the complaint with above 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

109) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor Director General & IG of Prisons & Vaartha, Telugu Daily Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Chanchalguda Hyderabad Complaint Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, Director General & IG of Prisons & Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad has filed this complaint dated 16.2.2005 against “Vaartha”, Telugu daily alleging publication of false and defamatory news item captioned “Jail Adhikarula Panta Pandisthunna Mulakathullu” in its issue dated 18.1.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that rampant corruption and injustice was being done in prisoners interview contrary to the claim of higher officials that jail reforms are being brought out by them. Mainly in connection with notorious criminal cases, jail officials had been making money and giving them interviews with no time limits. Several officials of the State made it as a regular source of income. The relatives of such prisoners used to meet the officials and arrange money to secure such interviews. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the interviews were being sanctioned to the prisoners in accordance with the rules and regulations, which are in force only. According to the complainant, the impugned news item was malicious, defamatory, false and baseless and damaged the image of the department in general and that of the Central Prison, Hyderabad in particular and the morale of the staff working had been adversely affected. Moreover, the write up did not mention the names of the officials nor the details of the persons alleging corruption. He alleged that the impugned write up was nothing but based on hearsay only. The complainant submitted that a rejoinder dated 18.1.2006 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Hyderabad which evoked no reply. He requested the Council to take suitable action against the respondent editor for levelling false and baseless allegations.

357 No Written Statement A show cause notice dated 14.7.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Vaartha, Hyderabad. No reply has been received from the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Addl I.G. of Prisons, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Vaartha published the news without proper cross-checking of facts. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, at the very outset, expressed displeasure over non-filing of written statement by the editor, Vaartha and took serious note of failure on the part of editor, ‘Vaartha’ to appear before it or deputing any representative for oral submissions. Apparently, the paper did not have any defence to offer. The Inquiry Committee observed that it is obligatory on the part of the press to make proper verification of facts before publishing a news report. The Inquiry Committee noted that the editor, Vaartha had also failed to afford the right of reply to the complainant, which the department enjoyed to clarify its stand before the public. It, therefore, recommended to the council to direct the editor, Vaartha to published rejoinder of the department within a fortnight of the receipt of these directions and send compliance report to the Council for record. If the paper fails to comply with these directions, further action may be considered under the provisions of the Act. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

110) Shri M.A. Basith, IPS Versus The Editor DG & IG of Prison & Vaartha Correctional Services Hyderabad Hyderabad Complaint Shri M.A. Basith, IPS, DG & Inspector General of Prison and Correctional

358 Services, Chanchalguda, A.P., Hyderabad has filed this complaint dated 31.8.2005 against “Vaartha”, Telugu daily for publishing allegedly false, baseless, malicious and defamatory news item captioned “Bail Vachina Veemukthiledu” in its issue dated 9.6.2005 alleging irregularity in the matter of grant of bail to accused persons on the pretext that bail case had been received late. However, the rich and influential persons had been able to get their people released by the jail authorities even they come late with bail covers. Denying the allegations the complainant has submitted that a separate box has been arranged to receive the bail covers and bail can be entertained till 5.30 p.m. There was no scope for any irregularity by the prison staff. The release of prisoners for whom bails had been received after 5.30 p.m. is affected on the following day even if it is a holiday. As lockup process starts at 5.40 p.m. bails are entertained only upto 5.30 p.m. According to the complainant, complaint in regard to the release of prisoners on bail had not been received. Hence there was no truth in the news item published by the newspaper. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item had damaged the image of the department in general and also of the Central Prison. It also adversely affected the morale of the staff. The complainant further submitted that the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cheralapalli issued a rejoinder to the respondent editor with a request to publish the same. But received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take suitable action against the respondent newspaper for levelling false and baseless allegations. No Written Statement A show-cause notice dated 27.9.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Vaartha, Telugu daily under Regd. A/D but no reply was filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Addle I.G. of Prisons, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Vaartha published the news without proper cross-checking of facts. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, at the very outset, expressed displeasure over non-filing of written statement by the editor, Vaartha and took serious note of failure on the part of editor, ‘Vaartha’ to appear before it or deputing any

359 representative for oral submissions. Apparently, the paper did not have any defence to offer. The Inquiry Committee observed that it is obligatory on the part of the press to make proper verification of facts before publishing a news report. The Inquiry Committee noted that the editor, Vaartha had also failed to afford the right of reply to the complainant, which the department enjoyed to clarify its stand before the public. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to direct the editor, Vaartha to published rejoinder of the department within a fortnight of the receipt of these directions and send compliance report to the Council for record. If the paper fails to comply with these directions, further action may be considered under the provisions of the Act. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

111) The Principal Versus The Editor Chirec Public School Deccan Chronicle Hyderabad Secunderabad Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Complaint The Principal, Chirec Public School, Hyderabad has filed this complaint dated 5.5.2005 against “Deccan Chronicle” for publishing two news items captioned “40-year-old found murdered at CHIREC” and “Another man found murdered near CHIREC” on two consecutive days i.e. 3rd and 4th April, 2005 linking the name of their educational institution with unrelated heinous crimes in order to sensationalise the reports. The complainant submitted that in the first news item besides mentioning the name of the school in the headline, it was mentioned that the body was found at the school in Kondapur outskirts. In the second news item a scurrilous and damaging statement was made that the area surrounding CHIREC School seems to have a knack of attracting dead bodies. The complainant alleged that the news headlines as well the matter printed under them on two consecutive days appeared to be deliberate to defame and denigrate the image of their institution viz. CHIREC Public School as there was absolutely no need to drag the name of the school into these items. The complainant submitted that the headlines were untrue and published with the sole intention to sensationalize the news report by using the name of a premier educational institution of the twin cities. According to the complainant, the truth was that the body had been found on a vacant plot about half-a-kilometre from the school and on the opposite side of the road. He objected to the use of the preposition ‘at’ as it

360 clearly implied that the body was found in the school premises, whereas it had nothing to do with the school. In the second news item, the truth was that the body was found in the Botanical Garden, a public place and a local landmark which was two kilometres away from the school. There was no need of using the name of the school in the headline, as mentioned. The Botanical Garden itself would have been sufficiently relevant and apt as it was a landmark by itself. But the respondent “Deccan Chronicle” chose to ignore the fact and used the name of the school in the headlines. Moreover, the unfortunate death had been linked to the school on the sole basis of both being in the same vicinity i.e. outskirts of Kondapur. By using the word ‘Another’ in the second news headline the respondent also tried to link the murder on the previous day. The complainant further alleged that the impugned publication implied that the school was located in an unsafe area and that the staff and students were under some kind of constant threat and this impression had been damaging to the reputation and the image of an educational institution. The complainant further stated that the respondent in the past had studiously ignored any mention of the name of the school while regularly publishing news items regarding events of national importance conducted by the school. The complainant submitted that on the one hand the Deccan Chronicle finds it necessary to associate the name of their school with heinous crimes completely unrelated to it, while on the other hand it felt free to ignore the name of their school while reporting events of national importance conducted by them. The complainant submitted that the reporter of the newspaper Ms. Sheetal Vyas met the Headmistress and the PRO of the school on 4.4.2005 immediately after publication of the impugned reports and expressed her intention of making a story out of the school’s reaction to both the murders. Ms. Vyas’s reaction was a testimony to the fact that everyone who read the reports believed that the school had a link with the murders. It also represented the misrepresentation of the facts that the reports were able to achieve. Ms. Vyas was embarrassed and surprised on hearing the truth that the school had no connection with the murder and chose to depart without further communication. The complainant submitted that both the reports and the misrepresentation was brought to the notice of Deputy Editor through a letter dated 4.4.2005 and a personal visit by the Headmistress and the PRO of the school who claimed that the information had been given to them by the police, whereas the fact was that the other newspapers did not try to sensationalise the news by unnecessarily linking the name of the school with the murders. The respondent also claimed that they had not done any wrong as they had the license to write ‘at’ in place of ‘near’ if they had a constraint of space for the headline as happened in the case of first report. Strongly protesting against the misleading headlines and misrepresentation of facts in these news items, the

361 complainant requested the Council to initiate necessary action against the respondent to epitomize sensationalism with verification. Show-cause notice was issued to the Editor, Deccan Chronicle, Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh) on 28.7.2005. Written Statement The respondent-editor, Deccan Chronicle in his written statement dated 1.12.2005 submitted that their newspaper was neither hostile nor acted irresponsibly by publishing the news relating to death of a young person, whose body was found near ‘Chirec Public School’. The school authorities lodged a malafide and false complaint before the Press Council, since in the past, this newspaper highlighted the gross criminal negligence on the part of the management of the school, relating to the death of a young boy, Mithil Singh, a class VII student. On account of this report published in their newspaper after thorough investigation, the school authorities were exposed. Now by raising arguments by distinguishing between words ‘at’ and ‘near’, it has lodged this complaint, added the respondent. The respondent further submitted that the Chirec Public School was established a decade back or so, on the outskirts of the city which falls within the jurisdiction of Kondapur village of Range Reddy district, which is a rural area. On account of Hitech City developed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and with other establishments having come up in the nearby area, the city has expanded in the past five-six years and the area has now become a part of the urban agglomeration and it is called Cyberabad district. However, in the immediate surroundings of the school and on the sides there is vast vacant land where the body was found. In this area, there was not even a single building worth the name other than Chirec Public School. Therefore, any incident of this nature, if it had to be reported or communicated by word of mouth, then normally Chirec Public School would be referred to for giving an idea about the location of place in question. In fact, the police authorities themselves gave the school’s name to indicate the place where the dead boy was found. He also filed a copy of FIR No.87/2005, issued by Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad district as a relevant record. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint being malafide and meritless. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 8.12.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 26.12.2005 submitted that the reply of the respondent “Deccan Chronicle” was not vague and unconvincing but also a misrepresentation of the acts and the FIR copy in Telugu was wrongly translated by the respondent to convey a totally wrong picture.

362 The complainant also filed a copy of the FIR (official translation). As per the police report, the body was found in the bushes at short distance from the road outside Chirec Public School on land bearing survey number 13. Infact, the name of the school in the FIR had been properly used as a reference point only. Nowhere it was said in the report that the body was found at the school. The general impression created in the minds of the readers of the Deccan Chronicle by its headline of 3.4.2005 was that the body was physically found in the school premises. Therefore this was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Reiterating his grievance the complainant alleged that there seems to have been a deliberate attempt by the Deccan Chronicle in their reply to mislead the Press Council through gross misrepresentation of facts. Regarding the death of Mithil Singh, the complainant clarified that it was an unfortunate accident. On 17.2.2004, a class VIII student of Chirec, Mithil Singh developed complications while swimming during a regular class and later passed away after receiving first aid at the area hospital where he was rushed by the school. The news of this incident was published in the Deccan Chronicle and for days the paper kept on publishing misleading information about the school inspite of their school representatives meeting the Chief of Bureau on 18.2.2004 and the reporter concerned at the Deccan Chronicle office and clarifying the facts. The same news was also reported by the other media but was in a factual manner without any sensationalisation. According to the complainant, the reference to Mithil Singh’s death seems to be an obvious attempt to intimidate the school into silence. In the event that the school had any malafide intentions or any other axe to grind with the paper on account of the alleged ‘negligence/exposure’ on the part of the management, it would not have made attempts to take up a stand against the Deccan Chronicle and escalating the issue by taking it up with the Press Council. It also would not have continued giving its advertisements for admissions and staff recruitment in the paper, which it did till the time these reports (of the 3rd and 5th April 2005) appeared in print. He submitted that newspaper is a means and method of portraying true facts and circumstances to the general public and by no account can take on the role of an adjudicating authority. The Deccan Chronicle by its actions had taken upon itself to come to a conclusion without verifying the actual facts thereby attempted to bring disrepute to the impeccable reputation enjoyed by the school. The complainant while standing by his complaint requested the Council to pass appropriate orders directing the respondent to publish their rejoinder and clarify the truth. A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to the respondent on 3.1.2006 for information. Further Communication from the Complainant The complainant, vide his further communication dated 11.3.2006, has

363 drawn the attention of the Council towards another article published in “Deccan Chronicle” issue dated 21.2.2006 captioned “Boy’s death falls through cracks”. He alleged that the respondent completely misquoted the name of the school regarding the tragic death of a student Mithil Singh in the school swimming pool two years ago. The complainant submitted that they issued a press release to all the newspapers including “Deccan Chronicle” after Mithil Singh’s death clarifying that Mithil Singh had been their student right from the nursery class and began learning swimming when he was in Class III and developed good skills of swimming in course of time. The complainant alleged that the respondent did not check with the school management before publishing the recent article. He submitted that a letter was sent to the respondent newspaper on the same day i.e. 21.2.2006 with the request to publish the correct facts but the newspaper did not publish their point of view. A copy of the letter dated 11.3.2006 received from the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 17.3.2006 for his information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 21.9.2006 at Hyderabad. The complainant, Smt. Pameila Khanna, Headmistress, Chirec Public School, Kondapur, Hyderabad and Shri Ravi Kumar, Advocate, Shri Mahmood Ali, Advocate appeared for the Respondent, ‘Deccan Chronicle’. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the Chirec, Children Recreation Camp, is a 16 years old Public School with 2000 children and enjoys a good reputation. The respondent, ‘Deccan Chronicle’ carried two news items on two consecutive days with wrong headers giving an impression that the murders took place in the school premises. The second newspaper article in its body writing gave emphasis that the area surrounding Chirec School seems to have a knack of attracting dead bodies. The complainant submitted that these two murders had nothing to do with the school and linking it to the school had given sleepless nights to the parents of the children who on the very next day starting pouring into the school with query whether the school was involved in the murders. It had become kind of ghost stories for the children. They were required to take immediate steps to pacify the parents and allay their fears. Respondent’s own reporter came to their school next day for a follow up and refused to believe them that the murder had actually taken place elsewhere. The respondent dismissed their request for clarification saying that their grievance was imagined. The complainant submitted that the newspaper had carelessly published the news item to sensationalize it and mar the reputation of the school.

364 The respondent counsel submitted that the meaning of ‘at’ and ‘near’ in Telugu language word usage is the same. The counsel submitted that other periodicals had also reported that the dead bodies were found near Chirec. In the FIR, it was mentioned that the body was found opposite Chirec. They had no intention to harm the reputation of the school and the only intention was to give the readers an idea of where the crime had taken place. He offered to publish the clarification for the benefit of the public and the school’s reputation.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the records of the case and heard the parties. The Committee observed that it was an undisputed fact that both the murders took place at other than the school premises and the murders had nothing to do with the school. The newspaper should have realized the sensitivity of the matter while reporting about school and giving emphasis repeatedly to project that the school surrounding had a knack of attracting dead bodies, which might cause fear factor amongst the school kids.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the respondent newspaper erred in its reporting by replacing ‘at’ with ‘near’ and over-emphasizing the proximity of the school to the murder, which was not desirable. The fact that the psyche of children and the fears of the developing minds are important factors in making such references, had been lost sight of. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, felt that it would be in fitness of things to direct the respondent newspaper, ‘Deccan Chronicle’ to publish the rejoinder of the complainant school clarifying that the reference to the school in the report was only to identify the area and the school had no connection to the murders. The Inquiry Committee also directed the complainant to send her rejoinder to the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee also directed the editor, Deccan Chronicle to publish the rejoinder of the complainant with same prominence as the impugned news items published by the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee further directed the respondent to forward a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the Press Council and the complainant for record. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

365 112) Secretary Versus The Editor Ootacamund Club The New Indian Express Tamil Nadu Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu Complaint This complaint dated December 2, 2005 has been filed by the Secretary, Ootacamund Club, Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu against the New Indian Express, Coimbatore for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory article captioned “Bad man at social club drives tourist to tears” with a picture of two British tourists on the front page in its issue dated 17.11.2005. The objectionable portion of the impugned news article reads as follows: “……after a gap of six decades, the senior citizen of London expected a warm welcome awaiting him at the Ooty club. But his dignity was severely hurt when he entered the Ooty Club. A servant of the club shouted on him and told him to get out of the club premises. Later, there was some consolation for the father and daughter as they were allowed inside to take rest for some time” According to the complainant, the impugned article has been published by the respondent without verifying the facts and is full of prevarications. The complainant has submitted that the British tourist and his daughter are not members of their club and have no right to enter the club premises. Thus the alleged remarks of the tourist are untrue. He has submitted that the report is contradictory, for at one place it says that a servant of the club shouted at him, and at another place it says father and daughter were allowed to take rest for sometime. The complainant further submitted that the inquiry with the club staff clearly shows that they were never allowed inside the club and alleged that the whole news was a fabrication and an exercise in sensational journalism, which damaged the reputation of the Queen of Hills. He added that the concerned reporter of the article admitted in writing that he had not verified the true facts before publication of the same. The complainant further alleged that the rejoinder dated 22.11.2005 was published in diluted version in the ‘Letters to the Editor’ column on 25.11.2005 which amounted to adding insult to the injury caused to the club. He wanted the rejoinder to be published in full with unconditional apology from the respondent. The matter was closed on 30.12.2005 and reported to the Council on 9.2.2006 for lack of ground for action after sufficient amends being made by the respondent with the publication of the rejoinder. The complainant vide letter dated 16.2.2006 requested the Council to review its decision to close the matter as the publication of the unverified and false report was an insult to the club and the rejoinder was published in an

366 edited version. In order to get a final view on it, the respondent was called upon on 16.3.2005 to file its comments and to consider the publication of the full facts as furnished by the complainant so as to fully redress his grievance. Show Cause Notice Since no response was received despite due service on 21.3.2006, the respondent was issued a show cause notice on 3.8.2006 in accordance with Regulations 5(1) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979, as to why the Press Council should not take action under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978. Written Statement The respondent editor, the New Indian Express has filed its written statement dated 26.8.2006 and submitted that the news item in question was published on the information given by the two foreign nationals and a Kerala Tourist Guide who visited the complainant. They proceeded to publish the same as the report came from the affected and it was published in good faith and added that they nowhere gave their comments on the correctness or otherwise of the various allegations/statements made by the foreigners. Being a responsible newspaper, immediately on receipt of the letter from the complainant they carried the complainant’s version in the newspaper under the ‘letters to the Editor’ column in the issue dated 25.11.2005 and subsequently they published a box in The New Indian Express-Coimbatore Edition issue dated 17.12.2005 in which it was made clear that in publishing the impugned report their intention was not to hurt the image of Ooty club or the sentiments of its respected members and that they held the club in high esteem. The respondent further submitted that the main grievance appears to be the rejoinder not being published in its entirety, and added that it is well established that the editor has a right and prerogative to edit the rejoinder and publish the same and hence the complainant cannot have a grievance that the entire rejoinder was not published since they had already published the version of the complainant in the newspaper issue dated 25.11.2005 and 7.12.2005. The respondent denied the allegations that they have offended the standards of journalistic ethics, public taste and committed professional misconduct. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 8/ 9/06 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri T Niranjan Reddy, Secretary, Ootacamund Club, Tamil Nadu appeared in person. Shri K S Prabhakar, Senior Personnel Officer, represented The New Indian Express, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

367 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the Ootacamund Club was a private club and no one except the members of the club were allowed into it. He stated that the tourist guide had misled the foreign tourists by leading them there. They were only stopped from entering as per rules of the club. However, a distorted version of the incident was carried by the newspaper. He added that the reporter had apologised after two days of the publication of the news report. The rejoinder published was not proper as it had been badly edited and clarification of 25.12.2005 was inconspicuous. He further prayed that the respondent should be directed to publish the rejoinder again. The representative of the respondent submitted that the newspaper held the club in high esteem and the news was published on the information given by foreign tourists in good faith. They had no intention to harm the reputation of the Club. The clarification of the complainant was also published. He assured that the club activities in right spirit will be focused in the future reporting. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the material on record and the submission made before it by the parties. It noted that the impugned report had been published on the information provided by the affected person as a box on page 2 of the paper captioned ‘Bad man at social club drives tourist to tears’. Similar prominence was given to the photograph of the tourist with the caption “In a heaven on Earth among Devils”. The paper had apparently gone somewhat over board with the headings, more so because the version of the club had not been taken at this stage despite the apparent standing and reputation of the club, being at stake. Subsequently, however, the paper tried to make due amends by publishing the rejoinder of the club, which despite editing, carried the sum and substance of the rejoinder, and its own boxed clarification. The Committee, however, observed that even in these two amends, the former did not mention that the rejoinder was of the club. It only mentioned the name of the president as the writer of the letter. The clarification also though boxed was devoid of any heading thus making it inconspicuous. Having observed this, however the Committee felt that directing the paper to publish any further rejoinder at this stage was not warranted and instead the paper should attempt to make amends for the above shortcomings by focussing on the activities of the club in future as offered by their representatives before the Committee. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to allow the matter to rest with the above observations. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report

368 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

113) Sh. Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Versus The Editor Wadiyar Lankesh Patrike Bangalore Bangalore Complaint Shri Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, Bangalore has filed this complaint dated 28.4.2005 through his advocate against “Lankesh Patrike”, Kannada Weekly, Bangalore alleging publication of a scandalous and defamatory news report under the title “Kamangi Arasana Salingi Koota” (Buffoon King’s Homo Team – English translation) in its issue dated 6.4.2005. According to the complainant, the impugned publication contained the following offending features:- 1. “The complainant has been called by name and called ‘Kamangi’ which colloquially means ‘Buffoon’. 2. The false accusations have been made against the complainant of visiting certain hotels, bar, pubs and cabarets joints named in the publication. 3. Accusation has been made that the complainant being in the midst of certain girls, without reference to the context of fashion show regarding promotion of silk apparels . 4. The complainant is surrounded by persons who are gay and he too presumed to be of such category. 5. Certain photographs figuring the complainant at a fashion show have been borrowed from other newspapers and certain photographs have no nexus, been published to give a false impression to the public. 6. The false and baseless news about the alleged misunderstanding between the complainant and his spouse was published with a view to give false publicity and defame the members of the Royal family of Mysore.” The complainant submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned report that he was fond of watching animal sex was nothing but a cheap invention of the respondent editor. The allegation that he was habitual visitor of the five star hotels was solely with a view to maliciously assassinate his character. The complainant alleged that wrong particulars had been incorporated in the news

369 report clearly indicate the false and reckless nature of the publication intended solely to defame him. According to the complainant, the respondent had invaded into his privacy without any rhyme or reason or any justification. The complainant alleged that the respondent was habitual of indulging in publication of defamatory and scandalous material without any basis against important personalities with a view to gain cheap publicity and circulation of the weekly magazine. According to the complainant, the impugned publication was not only defamatory and scandalous but also offended the standards of journalistic ethics and public taste. The complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent by issuing a legal notice dated 12.4.2005 but did not evoke any reply. Show-cause notice dated 15.6.2005 was issued to the respondent-editor, Lankesh Patrike. Written Statement The respondent editor, Lankesh Patrike in his written statement dated 18.7.2005 while denying the allegations made in the complaint submitted that the complaint was without any basis, far from truth and it was nothing but a created story of the complainant to wreck vengeance against him. According to the respondent he had not committed any breach of rules and regulations as enunciated by the Council. The respondent alleged that the complaint had been brought by the complainant only in order to wreck vengeance against him. Regarding the allegation of indulging in professional misconduct, the respondent submitted that the same was only imaginary thought of the complainant as there was no iota of truth in the allegation. According to the respondent the complainant had taken undue advantage of his position of a former Member of Parliament and erstwhile Royal family of Mysore to draw the sympathy. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint for lack of merits. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to complainant, vide Council’s letter dated 26.7.2005. Rejoinder The complainant in his rejoinder dated 20.8.2005 submitted that the written statement filed by the respondent was vague, unspecific and evasive. Denying the allegation that the complaint was lodged in order to wreck vengeance against respondent, the complainant submitted that the misconduct on the part of the respondent was apparent from the publication itself. The intemperate and foul language employed by the respondent speaks for itself. The complainant submitted that the contention of the respondent that expression “Kamangi” used in the article against the complainant does not

370 mean ‘Buffoon’ was false to the knowledge of the respondent. The respondent having employed the expression ‘Buffoon’, in the offending article, had miserably failed to indicate the meaning of the said expression in the written statement, which clearly indicates that the written statement was evasive and unspecific. The respondent simply denied the specific allegations in the complaint and attempted to avoid answering the real issues involved in the complaint. According to the complainant the respondent had not denied or disputed the English translation of the publication produced along with the complaint. The respondent had not produced any other translation of the article, but denied the contents without intending to bring on record the translation produced. The respondent by merely denying the complaint and by alleging that the averments in the complaint were false cannot get away from the acts of misconduct on the face of the publication effected. The complainant submitted that further proceedings be held to bring to book the misconduct on the part of the respondent and the unethical practices throughout being adopted by him. A copy of the rejoinder was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 9.9.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri A.S. Ponnanna appeared for the ‘Lankesh Patrike’, respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant hailing from the highly respected royal family of Mysore enjoys a very good reputation in the society and had been elected Member of Parliament thrice. The respondent has published a totally derogatory, defamatory and scandalous news report using highly objectionable language with insinuations and innuendoes about his personal life and habits. His presence at public functions or gathering had been misrepresented to paint him in a bad light. The complainant was invited as a guest at a fashion show where he was posed for photograph with the models. The respondent published the photographs with a highly sensational heading which showed the intention of the respondent editor. He pleaded that the respondent newspaper Lankesh Patrike, should be awarded severest punishment. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent did not defend the publication, but admitted that the newspaper had exceeded certain limits while publishing the impugned news report. He, however, pleaded that there was no

371 malafide behind the publication and their only intention was to urge that a person of his stature should set standard of morals. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the impugned photograph and the news report was of the firm opinion that the respondent, ‘Lankesh Patrike’ in its issue dated 6.4.2005 published most offending write- up against the complainant throwing all norms of the journalistic caution to wind. The news report was per se defamatory and had the tendency to tarnish the reputation of the complainant among the society and his family. While the Council has laid down that persons in public life should not be too thin skinned, this is not to say that they should be immune to undue castigation. The Committee was extremely dissatisfied with the way the respondent had attempted to insinuate the character of the complainant, juxtaposing the statements with unrelated photographs. The language employed was also in very poor taste as the respondent had himself admitted. The Inquiry Committee felt that this was a fit case of awarding major penalty under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act on the erring Lankesh Patrike, Bangalore, for offending the standards of journalistic ethics and public taste and caancelling the accreditation of the papers’ editor/journalist. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper and its editor. The Inquiry Committee also recommended that a copy of the adjudication be sent to the DAVP, RNI and State Government of Karnataka 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

114) Tr. Sandeep Rai Rathore, IPS Versus The Editor Superintendent of Police Naveena Netrikan Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu Chennai, Tamil Nadu Complaint Tr. Sandeep Rai Rathore, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin has filed this complaint dated 11.6.2005 against “Naveena Netrikan”, Chennai (Tamil Nadu) alleging publication of false, baseless and misleading news items captioned “Kakki Corner” under sub-title “S.P. Rathore in Rajasthan Pasam” and “Kakki Corner” in its issues dated 13.5.2005 and 10.6.2005 respectively. The impugned news items narrating acts and conduct of the complainant had highlighted the allegation of favouritism besides an attempt to create a wedge with his superior officer.

372 It was stated in the first article that the complainant had been pretending to be a forthright officer for public and being a direct IPS officer he could not be controlled by the conferred IPS, viz DIG, Gopalkrishnan. It is further alleged that he can go to the extent of giving his life if the officers or accused belongs to Rajasthan State. He could even help the criminals by breaking the law in case the accused belongs to Rajasthan State, as he did not take action against one Rathanlal Daga who was alleged to have engaged in wholesale of narcotics substances namely, Ganjha, opium, Hasish in cheap price inspite of receipt of complaints from public and from higher authorities and that the public and the communist party staged ‘Road Roko’ and pasted posters connecting him in the above issue and he instructed the Special Branch not to take speedy action. It was further alleged in the article that only after the SB CID brought out the above evil things and his fanatic character, he sent a police party for name sake to the house of Rahanlal Daga and conducted seizure of narcotic substances and informed the higher ups. The policemen belonging to Camp office of DSP, Thondiraj, Thiruchendur has been openly accepting that the said Rathanlal Daga at the complainant’s grace, has loaded the narcotic substances worth several crores of rupees in boats and they were floating. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the contents of the article in toto were false, baseless and per se defamatory. He was always sincere and duty conscious and had been rendering service in a forthright manner according to law. According to the complainant, the illegal and infrinching publication had demoralized him before his superior officer and tarnished his image. The complainant submitted that he had never gone against the will of his superior officer and the allegation that his superior officer could not control him was nothing but a tissue of falsehood. As regard to the bomb culture, the complainant submitted that this was the first time in years that this district had witnessed unprecedented action against those indulging in manufacturing, storing and using explosive substance illegally. All the crimes whether it was murder, dacoity, robbery etc. had come down during his tenure. Regarding the allegation that he was favouring officers and accused if they belong to Rajasthan State, the complainant submitted that actually there was no nexus between him and Rathanlal Daga or Rajasthan State. The above allegations were intended only to tarnish his image and reputation in the eyes of public as to depict him as a fanatic and as a supporter of gangs involved in drugs trafficking. Clarifying his position the complainant submitted that for the first time in six years, he motivated his staff and formed a special party to detect narcotics. After painstaking, sincere and hard work they developed information and on further and deep inquiry, it was found that the driver of the said Rathanlal Daga was involved in sale of intoxicating drugs and immediately he was arrested by the police and investigation in the above case to find out the

373 real culprits is going on. He alleged that the respondent twisted the facts and the entire publication was intended to mislead the people and to misguide the investigation. It was alleged in the other news item published on 10.6.2005 that the complainant was spoiled by Inspector of Special Branch Mohamed Ghouse Khan Ghori and that unless the Training ASP Kannan was not transferred to any other place, the complainant will spoil him. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent editor vide letters dated 12.5.2005 but the editor refused to receive the letter. The complainant issued another letter on 11.6.2005 but received no reply. He requested to take action against the respondent editor for publishing unfair, vexatious and defamatory articles as the same have demoralized him before his superior officer and tarnished his image. No Written Statement Show-cause notice dated 22.7.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Naveena Netrikan, Chennai but the editor did not file written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. S/Shri P. Subash, and L. Ravichander, Advocates appeared on behalf of the complainant, the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative reiterated the averments made in the complaint. On being asked by the Inquiry Committee whether the respondent had any animosity against the complainant, he replied in negative. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on a careful perusal of the complaint noted that the respondent editor neither filed written statement in response to the show cause notice dated 22.7.2005 of the Council nor was he represented before the Inquiry Committee to rebut the allegations of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee thus proceeded on the premise that the respondent editor has no defence to substantiate the allegations made in the news items. In the circumstance, the Inquiry Committee opined that the respondent editor, “Naveen Netrikan”, Chennai had published reckless allegations against the complainant without proper verification and thus offended against the standards of journalistic ethics. The respondent compounded the offence by not publishing the clarification of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee decided to

374 recommend to the Council to censure the editor, “Naveena Netrikan”, Chennai for violation of the above noted norms of journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee further decided that as per the standing decision of the Council a copy of the Council’s adjudication be sent to the DAVP, RNI and I&PR Department of the State Government of Tamil Nadu for such action as they may 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

115) Shri S.M. Pasha Versus The Editor Convenor Deccan Chronicle Shariath Protection Council Chennai, Tamil Nadu Chennai, Tamil Nadu Complaint Shri S.M. Pasha, Convenor, Shariath Protection Council, Chennai in his complaint dated 20/6/2005 against “Deccan Chronicle”, Chennai alleged publication of a false letter of one Shri A. Faizur Rahman in the “Letters to Editor” column of his newspaper issue dated 31.5.2005 criticising the survey report conducted by their Council. According to the complainant, they conducted a State-level sample survey to ascertain the views of the public in general and in particular regarding the model Nikhanama issued by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The complainant submitted that the result and finding of said survey was announced by them in their Press Meet held on 27.5.2005 and the respondent’s staff reporter was present at the said Press Meet. Subsequently the respondent-newspaper published a report about the sample survey on 28.5.2005 followed by a letter to the editor on 31.5.2005 criticizing the said survey and levelling serious and defamatory charges against him and his Council. The said letter, while referring the report published on 28.5.2005, stated that the survey on the model Nikahanama conducted by the “Shariat Protection Council” is not known in Muslim circles and its findings cannot be taken at face value. However, a cursory glance at the survey will show that its findings cannot be taken seriously, for as many as 1,042 persons among those interviewed were either illiterate or semi-educated apart from 116 being non- Muslims. It further stated that almost 45% of those interviewed lacked competence to take a discerning view of the issues they were questioned about. The impugned letter also stated that the survey conducted by the SPC is totally flawed, as it does not reflect the ground reality, therefore no significance should be attached to its findings.

375 The complainant’s rejoinder dated 3.6.2005 followed by a reminder dated 7.6.2005 to the respondent evoked no response. He requested the Council to direct the respondent to tender an unqualified apology to him for causing mental agony and loss of reputation to his organisation; publish his rejoinder prominently and also pass such other order as deemed fit and necessary. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Deccan Chronicle, Chennai on 15.7.2005. Written Statement In response, the resident editor, Deccan Chronicle, Chennai in his written statement dated 5/8/2005 submitted that following publication of their report dated 28.5.2005 regarding survey on the modern Nikhanama, a letter was also published carrying opinion of the readers. Since they carried routinely letters from their readers on a variety of issues written about in their columns it was done in a routine manner. Further, he personally called the complainant and asked him that his previous letter had not been received by him and asked for another letter. Since he did not receive any other letter from the complainant, the question of publishing complainant’s letter did not arise. He requested the Council to consider the matter in the light of facts presented by him. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 24.8.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 30.8.2005 alleged that the respondent by denying having received his letter, tried to wriggle out of the ugly situation. The complainant submitted that he sent afresh, as desired by the respondent, a copy of his rejoinder through e-mail. He requested the Council to call upon the respondent to publish his rejoinder along with an unqualified apology for hurting and harming the fair reputation of their Council. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 6/10/05 with the request to intimate the Council whether they published the rejoinder of the complainant but no reply was received from the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance before it from either side. The complainant had however sent a letter dated 10.09.2006 requesting for taking up his matter as a first item to enable him to attend Jummah but he did not turn up before the Inquiry Committee.

376 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee decided to proceed on the basis of the material on record. The Inquiry Committee perused the letter of one Shri A. Faizur Rahman published under the caption “flawed” in Deccan Chronicle on 31.5.2005 in response to the report dated 28.5.2005 encaptioned: Most People for new Nikahnama: Study” saying that the survey conducted by SPC (Shariath Protection Council) did not reflect the ground realities and therefore no significance should be attached to its findings. The Inquiry Committee held and reiterated its guidelines that the Press in India enjoys freedom of the speech and expression which also includes the right of the readers to express their views. The guiding principles for carrying letter to the editor are that an editor who decides to open his columns for letters on a controversial subject, is not obliged to publish all letters received in regard to that letter. However, while selecting the letter, the editor should make honest endeavour to ensure that what is published is not one-sided but represents a fair balance between the views for and against with respect to the principle issue in controversy. In the instant matter, the principle issue originated with the publication of the survey by the complainant Shariath Protection Council, which elicited the reaction of a reader which the respondent newspaper, Deccan Chronicle accommodated in letters column. The Inquiry Committee did not find it a fit case for carrying on the debate by the newspaper, when both sides of the issues were before the public. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council not to take any action in the matter and close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

116) Fr. Paul G. D’Cunha Versus The Editor Parish Priest Mathukathe Our Lady of Victories Church, Nagar Bangalore, Karnataka Shimoga, Karnataka Complaint Fr. Paul G. D’Cunha, a Roman Catholic Priest, who had been under the control of the Bishop of Shimoga has filed this complaint dated 24.3.2004 against “Mathukathe”, Kannada monthly magazine, Bangalore (Karnataka) for publication of allegedly false, malicious, scandalous and defamatory articles under the respective captions “Arajkatheya Kappu Neralalli Chickmagalore” and “Father Paul D’Cunha-Bayalu Seemeyalli Karavali lylu” in its January and

377 April 2003 issues with a view to disturb the religious tolerance among the multilingual catholic faithful of Karnataka. In the impugned publications, the complainant had been described as an eccentric man and due to his act the people were suffering and published with an avowed intention of scandalising his character and reputation for the metaphors words, phrases, adjectives and epithets employed were as noxious and slang Kannada colloquies. Further that the complainant was denigrated at all places wherein he had served was a figment of pure imaginations. Highlights of the impugned publication as translated by the complainant read as follows:- “The Parish of Holy Family Church in Chitradurga is suffering being caught in a strange and wild whirl pool… The people are beseeching God day and night to provide them with a tranquilliser to save themselves from the eccentric acts of this person (Fr. Paul D’Cunha) in the same manner Fr. D’Cunha himself consumes tranquilliser often for his eccentricity…This senior Priest Paul D’Cunha, who is supposed to possess a vast experience, is inexperienced and unable to manage properly a small parish containing only ninety families…He has seen more number of Parishes than any of his contemporary priests has seen. Don’t be mistaken that this is because of his talent! The reason is, he is being shunted out quite often from one place to another even before completing his full term of office in any place…Having been tired of wiping out the spits that he got on his face at every place of his postings, he has now landed up in Chitradurga…Earning the love and affection of the people by dealing with them in a polite and peaceful manner has never been his nature… ‘When people approach him for any thing, he will either collapse by yelling at them or sit down quietly holding his chest’ – say the agitated people… He is an expert in recreating people by cracking jokes concerning below the waist line of the human body…He has never helped any local boy or girl to reach Seminary of Nunnery. Never ever he helped any one for studies by maintaining them in his house (priest’s house). If at all he has helped anybody; it is to his own family members only… The eccentricity of Fr. D’Cunha has reached its Zenith – he got removed the picture of Holy Cross appearing on the Progress Reports of Nursery School Children. Explanation of Fr. D’Cunha for the above act is, he is frightened of RSS people… If he was to remove the picture of Holy Cross appearing on the progress reports,

378 the people question! What should happen to the Cross standing on the rooftop of the Church?… Being fed up with his skilful drama, people insist that he should be transferred from there... Wherever he was, he used to keep one or the other person belonging to his family allowing him to squander money beyond any limits… There are many instances and examples of Fr. D’Cunha’s eccentric acts. His problem filled history has recurred in Chitradurga also… It has never been in his nature to adjust with any situation in a given place. His family back ground seems to be the cause of his mental imbalance.” The complainant alleged that the respondent magazine had been engaged in publishing false, scandalous, defamatory and scurrilous articles against the Roman Catholic religious hierarchy in the State of Karnataka, more particularly against the Bishops and Priests. By publication of such false and scurrilous articles, the respondent aimed at provoking innocent people to cause unrest and linguistic intolerance. According to the complainant, the impugned articles against the Catholic Priests and Bishops of Karnataka were distorted, untrue and offensive. Under the guise of freedom of press, the respondent’s action were devoid of any journalistic ethics, public taste and responsibility. The complainant submitted that the allegations were not based on any established fact. He alleged that the allegations had not only lowered his status and reputation in society, but also cast serious doubts about his integrity and efficiency in the eyes of Church authorities. According to the complainant, the impugned articles published without ascertaining the truth, had not only lowered his moral, social and intellectual character in the estimation of others, but had also caused him severe mental agony and irreparable loss of his good reputation. The complainant further stated that a legal notice dated 10.11.2005 had been issued to the respondent but received no reply. The complainant vide his letter dated 28.6.2004 requested to condone the delay of approximately eight months in filing the complaint, which was condoned by the Hon’ble Chairman in view of power exercised by him under proviso to Regulation 3(1)(f) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 vide order dated 5.1.2005. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Mathukathe, Kannada monthly, Bangalore on 11.1.2005. Written Statement Denying the allegations, the respondent President of Sanchalana Trust, Publisher of Mathukathe, submitted in her written statement dated 24.1.2005

379 that the complainant was totally defensive in character and trying to protect himself at the cost of catholic community. According to the respondent, the articles in question were not defamatory, as the author had expressed the views of the catholic community in good faith and in public interest. Giving parawise denial, the respondent submitted that the statement of the complainant that the main intention in publication of the magazine was to disturb the religious tolerance among the multilingual catholic faithful of Karnataka is far from truth. Priests like Fr. D’Cunha and others in authority have always wanted all the corruption and misappropriation be swept under the carpet and they have investigated misappropriation of huge funds in various Christian institutions and have pulled them out with documentary evidence, like the audit reports and such other documents. Denying the statement of the complainant that they were against any linguistic section of priests, the respondent submitted that in fact they had always appreciated the positive aspects of different Christian organizations and a number of articles had been published condemning the fundamentalism either within or outside the Christian Community and thus fostering communal harmony. According to the respondent the impugned article was in narrative form and it had included what several people in the parish narrated to their reporters. Everything reported in the article was either what had happened in the Mass (Christian religious ritual) where all the people of the said parish participated or in the meetings of the respective councils of the parish. The people who walked out of such meetings due to Fr. D’Cunha’s arrogant or otherwise uncalled behaviour had spoken to the reporter of the magazine. The respondent further submitted that in most of the places where Fr. D.’Cunha had served, the people of the respective parishes had taken complaints against him to the Bishop. The track record of Fr. D’Cunha clearly showed that he was prematurely transferred from most of the parishes and the reasons for this had been reported in the article. As per the respondent, the translation provided by Fr. D’Cunha was exaggerated and not accurate. The language used to write the article was light and plain, which was the dialect of the local people and not a language with strict traditional usage as most often used by the elite and polished people. The English version infact could have a different impact, but the local language in which the article was written goes in style and tongue of the local people. The respondent further pointed out that after two months of the publication of the article, the Bishop transferred Fr. D’Cunha prematurely from Chitradurga and posted him outside the District. Moreover, the contention and intention of Rev. Fr. D’Cunha was more in knowing the names of those involved in making the article itself. The respondent submitted that their intentions were purely in the interest of the people and peace in the parish church. According to the respondent, the

380 allegation in Rev. Fr. Paul G. D’Cunha’s statement was too general and vague. It did not indicate anywhere the particular aspect that were defamatory. Moreover, there was nothing defamatory in the article for it had only conveyed the views expressed by the local people. She submitted that the impugned publication was absolutely based on the version given by the people and it had been published in good faith in the benefit of the people of the particular community. This article could not be described to disturb any religious tolerance, much less, multilingual catholic faith in Karnataka as alleged by the complainant. The respondent submitted that it is the duty of the press to place the facts before the people because they have right to information. If the truth goes against a particular individual it could not affect the community more. Hence, the allegations of the complainant was absolutely baseless and a figment of imagination, for the intention in publishing the impugned article was in public interest. She stated that if the complainant has the courage of conviction to deny the facts which were stated by the people by no stretch of imagination it could be defamatory and she was willing to tender apologies if desired by the Council. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint, as the complainant was totally defensive in character and trying to protect himself at the cost of catholic community.

A copy of the written statement has been forwarded to the complainant on 3.1.2006 for information.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 22.2.2006 while refuting the veracity of the written statement submitted that the affidavits filed by the respondent were got up documents in their vain bid to cover up their misdeed/ lapses. The complainant reiterated that the impugned articles were published deliberately to malign his reputation. He alleged that there appears to be some powerful and wild force behind the screen in publishing such articles. He requested the Council to render justice to him.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 3.3.2006 for information.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 3.3.2006 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri Rev. Fr. Paul G.D’ Cunha appeared in person while Ms. Rita Rini, publisher represented the respondent Magazine, Mathukathe.

381 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent magazine published false and malicious article targeting him personally to ruin his reputation. The complainant denied any kind of irregularity during his tenure. The magazine levelled allegations without any basis and since this was a local paper, it badly affected his reputation and standing amongst the local as a priest. The representative of the respondent submitted that the article in question was written in right spirit. The respondent further submitted that many valuable trees belonging to the Parish of Thirthaholli had been uprooted without bringing it to the notice of the Parishioners, which caused resentment. She added that there were many complaints of irregularities by the complainant. She added that the affidavits of S/Shri Shanth Kumar S/o Shri Chowrappa and Shri Santh Raj S/o Shri Anthraj of Chitradurga sworn on 24.1.2005 substantiate that the facts reported in the article was narrated by them. The article was published in good faith and in public interest. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent magazine had defended the publication of the article on the grounds that the members of catholic community had some grievance against the complainant and that the article was meant to report their resentment in public interest. The Inquiry Committee observed that the articles in question in Mathukathe, though at the instance of local people of catholic community, were libelous and tended to denigrate the complainant though their foul language. The editor failed to exercise his editorial discretion by editing out libelous statement and also filed to observe the salutary norm of journalistic conduct regarding pre-publication verification on such damaging remarks. The reporter should have taken the version of the complainant before causing publication of the article. Moreover the respondent failed to produce any material to substantiate these charges. The Inquiry Committee held that the respondent magazine offended against the journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to recommend to the Council to admonish the editor, Mathukathe, Kannada Monthly magazine, Bangalore for this infraction. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

382 117) 1. Dr. V.B. Tharakeshwar Versus The Editor, Lecturer Hai Bangalaore Department of Translation Studies Bangalore, Karnataka 2. Ms. J. Vijayalakshmi; and 3. Ms. B.G. Kalavathi 4th Semester Students (Literature) M.A./Ph.D. integrated Course Kannada University Hampi, Karnataka Complaint Dr. V.B. Tharakeshwar, Lecturer, Department of Translation Studies, Ms. Vijayalakshmi and Ms. B.G. Kalavathi, 4th Semester students (Literature), M.A./ Ph.D. integrated course, Kannada University, Hampi, Karnataka have filed three separate complaints dated 7.4.2004 against “Hai Banagalore”, Kannada weekly for publishing defamatory story captioned “Death in Hampi University: Lord and Master of many women (Bahuvallabha) Tharakeshwar and Victim-of- hanging (Nenige bidda) Indramani” with cover page headline “A girl’s suicide in Hampi University; How many lovers does the killer teacher have”? along with their photos in its issue dated 19.3.2004. It was alleged in the impugned news report that Dr. Tharakeshwar had physical relationship not only with the deceased girl but also with other female students. About the students, Ms. Vijayalakshmi and Ms. B.G. Kalavalthi it was alleged that they had physical relationship with their teacher. As per the impugned report “35 year old unmarried Tharakeshwar had many sensual sexual exploits. He is an expert in manipulating literary texts and girls. He was using his house in M.P. Prakashnagar as training/taming ground for such activities. Tharakeshwar, who gets handsome salary throws four parties a month. One is for girl students, one for teachers, one for employees association and another for those in the close, closer, closest of close category. By throwing such parties he has become a man wanted by many. First Vijayalakshmi and Surekha, next Indramani, in this way, Tharakeshwar, who has coolly enjoyed himself, has gone on increasing the list of his closest of close. All of these three were sidelined when Chandrakala (name changed) became close to Tharakeshwar. More than others it was Indramani who had experienced maximum hurt in this matter. She came to an end before her life flowered”. The complainants alleged that the respondent had done a great injustice by unnecessarily linking their name in a case of suicide and tarnished their image by writing baseless stories. According to the complainant the impugned article completely perverted in its approach and made sexual comments causing

383 harassment to them in the society. It had almost put a full stop to both the students for further studies in the university and jeopardized their career. The complainants submitted that they had written to the respondent editor asking for publication of clarification or a fair report based on facts, but received no reply. The complainants further submitted that many others had also written letters to the editor about the falsely of the report but he has ignored all of them, which amounts to violation of the principles and ethics of journalism. The complainants have requested the Council to take action against the weekly and provide justice to them. {It is pertinent to mention here that many lecturers and students of the Kannada University also filed complaints with the Press Council of India on the instant issue and stated that they had written letters to the respondent editor expressing their anguish over the false and defamatory news report but he had ignored these. They requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent editor for publishing one sided, false and defamatory story. Since the affected parties already filed the complaints, they were informed vide Council’s letter dated 25.5.2004 that they do not enjoy locus standi in the complaints}. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Hai Bangalore on 25.5.2004. No written statement has been filed by the respondent. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri V.B. Tharakeshwar, Ms. Vijayalakshimi J. and Ms. Kalavathi B.G. appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Hai Bangalore. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant Dr. Tharakeshwar submitted that a Committee was constituted by the University to look into the allegations made in the impugned news stories and the said Committee had given its report. In the Report, no such complaint was found against him. As regards publication of the photograph of the girl students along with the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the girls had participated in a play and the photographs taken at that time might have been used by the respondent newspaper. The complainant submitted that the girl students reported upon and photographed in the impugned publication had also lodged complaints with the Press Council of India. The complainant further submitted that the language in Kannada used by the

384 respondent newspaper was extremely derogatory. The future of the girls with dreams of educational excellence had been destroyed. On being asked by the Inquiry Committee whether the newspaper had any animosity, the complainant reported in negative. He added that he had no knowledge as to what was the intent of the newspaper in publishing such a sensational and scandalous story defaming the complainant and his students. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the complainant and perusing the record, noted that the respondent-editor, Hai Bangalore neither filed the written statement nor was he represented before the Committee to defend his case. In the absence of any defence from the respondent the Inquiry Committee decided to proceed on the premise that the respondent had nothing to say in defence of the impugned news report and the photograph. On merits, the Committee opined that the impugned publications were extremely objectionable and targeted the complainant and his students. There was no basis for the news as established by the Inquiry report. The news was per-se defamatory and couched in bad language. The aim appeared to be to create sensation to boost the circulation of the newspaper. It was nothing but a piece of yellow journalism. It had no news value and offended public good taste. The Inquiry Committee further noted that no attempt, whatsoever, was made by the respondent editor to verify the facts before publishing the news report. The editor also denied the complainants their right to reply by not publishing the clarification of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent editor, Hai Bangalore. The Council may further send a copy of the adjudication of the Council to DAVP, RNI and I&PRD of Government of Karnataka 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

118) Shri Om Prakash Versus The Editor Inspector General of Police Hai Bangalore Northern Range Bangalore Belgaum, Karnataka Complaint Shri Om Prakash, Inspector General of Police (Northern Range), Belgaum has filed this complaint dated 10th July, 2004 against “Hai Bangalore”, Kannada Weekly for publishing an allegedly baseless, inaccurate, misleading,

385 malicious and defamatory news item captioned “A Thief in the Khaki Clad ! Inspector General of Police, Om Prakash, First Information Report” in its issue dated 9th July, 2004. Highlights of the impugned news report read as follows:- “It may not be difficult for the Chief Minister to transfer the most corrupt IPS Officer from the post he is occupied… His name is Om Prakash a pure Bihari IPS Officer. Three years lapse after occupying the post, apart from sleeping and sitting the people have seen him only in the posture of eating... Om Prakash has fixed at least a sum of Rupees fifty thousand to revoke a suspension of a Sub-Inspector… Any one can go and grease the palm of Om Prakash by going to his house on club road…He travels in Club Roads at nights by taking girls in the Maruti Car.” Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that the impugned article was published with malicious intention to defame him in public life. The complainant submitted that the ‘heading’ and ‘sub-headings’ themselves were objectionable and misleading. According to him, whatever was published in the article was provocative, sensational and without pre-publication verification. An attempt had been made to hide the truth and publish the false allegations to disrepute him. The complainant alleged that the impugned article was sensational, provocative and biased without respecting the truth. The complainant submitted that he had successfully served in the police department in various posts and also an awardee of President’s Police Medal for Meritorious Service on the occasion of Republic Day, 2000. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor demanding him to publish the contradiction with an unconditional apology but to no avail. A show-cause notice dated 27.7.2004 was issued to the respondent editor, Hai Bangalore. Written Statement The respondent editor, Hai Bangalore in his written statement dated 3.8.2004 submitted that the report in question was based on the authentic information from their reporters and the very appointment of the complainant, Shri Om Prakash, IPS as Transport Commissioner of Government of Karnataka, an administrative post reserved for an IAS officer, was arranged by the complainant. The respondent editor stood by his report. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.8.2004 for information.

386 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.09.2006 at Hyderabad. S/Shri C.R. Sridharan, Sarmesh and Sriniwas Reddy, Advocates appeared on behalf of the complainant. There was no appearance for the respondent, Hai Bangalore. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant submitted that the entire news item was defamatory of the complainant. The newspaper was given a notice for publishing contradiction but no response was received from the respondent. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee has carefully examined the material on record. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor filed an evasive reply and did not come forward to defend the impugned publication despite opportunity of hearing given to the editor. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the impugned news item “A Thief in the Khaki clad”, in the issue dated 9.7.2004; observed that the respondent newspaper made reckless allegations in the entire news item about the complainant. The editor failed to substantiate the allegations published in the news item by any documentary evidence. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and to censure the editor, Hai Bangalore, Bangalore for publishing the defamatory and derogatory news item against the complainant without verifying the facts and for not publishing the clarification of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee also recommended to the Council to send the adjudication of the Council to DAVP, RNI and Government of Karnataka 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

119) Shri S. Putswamy KAS Versus The Editor Bangalore Lankesh Patrike Karnataka Bangalore Complaint This complaint dated 30.12.2004 has been filed by Shri S. Putswamy KAS, Bangalore against “Lankesh Patrike”, Kannada weekly alleging publication of defamatory, baseless and slanted article under the caption “Collection Putswamy at the service of Siddarmaiah” (English translation)

387 published in its issue dated 29.12.2004. The gist of the impugned article read as follows:- “The name of the collection expert K.A.S. officer is S. Putswamy. This fellow, the Personal Secretary to the Deputy Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah was identified as ‘Collection Putswamy’ only. Though Siddaramaiah is in politics for several years, he was not corrupt. Though he lived amidst the corrupt people he had no bad name. Infact, the only leader who had some honesty and morality, both amidst these worst politicians this Siddaramaiah. How such a man appointed a person like collection Putswamy as his Personal Secretary, god only knows…Putswamy, who got lands worth crores of rupees in Benami from the innocent farmers on the pretext of Notification when he was the D.C. of Urban land ceiling, when he became the Director of Social Welfare, looked after his welfare only. When he became Personal Secretary to the Ex-Minister A. Krishnappa, the whole Vidhana Soudha was astonished to look at the way Putswamy engaged in an eating spree”. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned article was totally false, baseless, inaccurate and published with the intention to blackmail him. The complainant stated that the respondent published the impugned news article to make a sensational story without proper pre-publication verification with an intention to mislead the public with distorted materials. According to him, the respondent with the distorted material misled the public and thereby violated the norms of journalistic conduct. The complainant further stated that he wrote a letter to the respondent editor but no response received. He requested the Council to take suitable action against the respondent for publishing derogatory, scurrilous and distorted article. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 9.2.2005, the counsel for the respondent in their written statement dated 28.3.2005 denied the allegations and at the outset submitted that the complaint was totally false, frivolous and deserves to be dismissed in limine. The respondent submitted that the Lankesh Patrike had no intimation regarding the complaint lodged by the complainant as earlier editor, Lankesh Patrike Ms. Guari had suppressed the same and upon coming to know about the lodging of the complaint we had sent interim reply dated 21.2.2005 reiterating that what had been published with regard to the complainant was and there was nothing defamatory. The respondent further stated that during the complainant’s tenure as Deputy Secretary of Bangalore Development Authority, many out of turn 22 allotments of stray sites came to

388 be allotted to the persons who were not eligible under the rules. He further stated that during the complainant’s tenure as Chief Executive Officer of Bangalore Urban District Zilla Panchyat, he summarily suspended 22 Grama Panchayat Secretaries only to reconstitute them within 15 days. If there was any cause of reason to keep an employee under suspension and consequential imposition to punishment. The complainant reported to be knowing a vast stretch of land measuring 112 at Holanarasipura and the land had been kept in the names of the relatives in order to escape notice from regulatory authorities like income tax. The respondent alleged that the complainant was indulging in collection of money and therefore known in public circle as a collection agent. The respondent further stated that the complainant while lodging the complaint against Lankesh Patrike, apart from stoutly contending that what has been published therein was false but no explanation has been tendered to substantiate that the allegations were untrue. Mere bald assertions and denials would not retract the facts from its veracity and truth. Referring to the long standing reputation of the concerned journalist responsible for publication of such news item it was stated that it is in the public interest that such nefarious activities on the part of the politicians are brought to the knowledge of the public, so that the society is free from such corrupt entities officials who are eating the very vitals of their society. The respondent stated that they are at liberty to expose the misdeeds of people who are in power and who for the personal glory misuse the power to make undue pecuniary gains to themselves. If only the liberties given to the press are curbed, there will not be any vibrant democracy. The article in question was published only after gathering the facts by the journalist. He concluded by saying that the complaint is nothing but a crude and blatant attempt to divert the attention of the public to his (complainant) well-known misdeeds and also accumulation of ill gotten wealth. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 3.5.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri A.S. Ponnanna, Advocate appeared for respondent, ‘Lankesh Patrike’. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel of the respondent submitted that the complaint was frivolous and deserve to be dismissed. The respondent also submitted that after publication of the news and several other similar charges, the complainant had resigned. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and observed

389 that the complainant did not appear before the Committee despite service of notice of hearing on the complainant. The Inquiry Committee felt in view of the oral submissions before it that the complainant was not interested to pursue the complaint and therefore, the complaint deserve to be dismissed. The Inquiry Committee accordingly decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non- prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

120) Shri Amarender Kumar Singh Versus The Editor Bareilly Amar Ujala Uttar Pradesh Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh Complaint Shri Amarender Kumar Singh of Bareilly, U.P. has filed this complaint dated 18.12.2004 against Amar Ujala, Bareilly edition for publication of allegedly baseless and sensational news item as per details given below: Sl. Caption 1. {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEä MÉãÉä xÉcÉÓ =iÉ®ÉÒ ºÉÉèàªÉÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉEcÉxÉÉÒ - VÉÉxÉiÉä cÖA £ÉÉÒ ãÉÉ¶É BÉEÉä {ÉcSÉÉxÉxÉä ºÉä

390 his daughter. The complainant submitted that the deceased Ajay Kumar was a person of bad character and had entered into his house on/in the night of 28-29 April 2004 (in the absence of the complainant and his wife) and the deceased finding Kumari Saumya alone in the house, entered into the house to victimise Kumari Saumya, when he was killed. The complainant submitted that his clarification had not been published by the respondent. Written Statement Filed Belatedly Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala on 18.5.2005. The respondent filed written statement after IInd hearing. Matter Adjourned When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006, Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, advocate represented the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with the postal remarks “addressee out of station since long”. As the notice of hearing could not be served on the complainant, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter. IInd Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper, while the complainant remained unrepresented. Learned counsel for the respondent newspaper was questioned on the identification of girl allegedly involved in the incident in view of the submissions of the complainant-father of the girl vis-à-vis, the social milieu. He submitted that the news was published on the basis of an FIR which carried her name that the case was pending in the court. He further stated that the complainant had also filed a case in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, which was dismissed. As the notice of hearing could not be served on the complainant and the respondent had not filed any written statement, wherefore the complainant had not had any opportunity to controvert the submissions now being made before the Committee, the Inquiry Committee, while adjourning the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings, directed the respondent editor, through his advocate, to file the written statement enclosing all the relevant documents concerning the matter. The respondent was further directed to forward a copy of the written statement to the complainant.

391 Written Statement of Amar Ujala The respondent filed written statement dated 22.8.2006 stating that all the four news items in question were perfectly balanced and published fairly without being prejudiced to any person. According to the respondent the news item relating to suspicious death of one Shri Ajay was published on the basis of FIR and it was the outcome of preliminary investigation. The respondent further stated that the news item dated 30.04.2004, related to arrest of teacher, who had confessed the guilt and was arrested by the police and the publication dated 01.05.2004 related to the facts, which Km. Saumya had made before police during interrogation. According to the respondent the complainant has not reflected the exact words, phrase or sentence, which stood contrary to the facts and have caused legal injuries to him. According to the respondent brief facts of Ajay’s murder case were as follows: “During the intervening night of April 28/29, 2004 Shri Ajay was murdered in the premises of complainant house. The victim Ajay was resident of village Kurawali in Mainpuri. The complainant while serving in Mainpuri was neighbour of Shri Ramendra, the father of deceased Ajay. Both the families were in close proximity. During this period, Ajay and Saumya extended their affairs and Ajay used to visit Bareillyoff and on. He came to meet Saumya on the unfortunate night, the complainant and his wife went to Mainpuri and they left the security of house at Bareilly to his neighbour Shri Vijay (younger brother of Shri Ravi). Shri Vijay slept in house of complainant with his brother’s licensed gun. Ajay met with Saumya and Vijay woke up in the night. He fired on Ajay in presence of Saumya. Ajay died due to fire injuries. Despite of having full knowledge of identity of person, Saumya concealed the material facts and fabricated a false story. According to her, the deceased was stranger and he entered in her house with intent of theft. Subsequently, police investigated the matter and brought out the facts of love story between Saumya and Ajay. Vijay and Ravi were also implicated in murder case. Saumya was also implicated in aforesaid case under Sections 201/304 & 193 of IPC. Saumya had been released on bail.” The respondent submitted impugned publications were fair and bonafide and, in public interest without prejudice and these were within the norms and latitude of freedom of press. The respondent further informed that the complainant had filed a case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for defamation w.r.t. alleged publications but on going through the contents of the case, Hon’ble Court had

392 dismissed the complaint on preliminary inquiry. The respondent further stated that the complainant had no reason to proceed against the respondent. This fact was deliberately concealed by the complainant. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of written statement filed by the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 4.10.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, appeared for the respondent, Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the Amar Ujala placed reliance on contention in the written statement and submitted that the complainant had filed a defamation suit before the Additional CJM for alleged publications which the Hon’ble Court had dismissed the complaint on preliminary inquiry. The counsel submitted that the publication was bonafide and the naming of the girl in question was without any malafide. He assured the Inquiry Committee that in future the paper would follow the norms relating to identification of women victims or accused. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record of the case and submissions made before it by the learned counsel for the respondent newspaper in the absence of the complainant. It observed that the respondent newspaper carried a series of news items relating to an incident of killing of Shri Ajay and while reporting on the incident, repeatedly identified the daughter of the complainant by name. The case in hand has to been seen in the context of the Press Council’s guidelines on right to privacy and caution against identification of women victims of assault. It is well laid down, that the Press should not intrude or invade the privacy of an individual, unless outweighed by genuine overriding public interest, not being a prurient or morbid curiosity. For this an explanation is given that the things concerning a person’s home, family, religion, health, sexuality, personal life and private affairs are covered by the concept of privacy excepting where any or these impinges upon the public or public interest. Coming to the aspect of the caution against identification, the press is advised not to publish names, photographs or other particulars leading to the identity of the victim of the crime involving rape, abduction or kidnap touching the personal character and privacy of women.

393 Irrespective of the fact that the girl, in question i.e. daughter of the complainant herein referred to in the impugned news items dated 20.04.2004, 30.04.2004, 1.5.2004 and 19.6.2004 was victim or impleaded as an accused, the Inquiry Committee finds that mentioning the name of the girl in an incident relating to a crime was likely to affect her social standing and the newspapers are expected to report on such matters by changing the name of the girl involved. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, while accepting that there was no malafide on the part of the respondent, cautions the respondent Amar Ujala to be careful in future that wherever a report relating to crime involving a woman is published, the newspaper shall follow the guideline of changing the name of the girl/ women involved in the incident. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these observations, and directions to Amar Ujala. 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.

121) Shri Rajeev Srivastava Versus The Editor Secretary Amar Ujala Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bareilly Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint In a complaint dated 18.4.2004, addressed to the Editor, “Amar Ujala”, Bareilly and copy endorsed to the Press Council of India, the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit (U.P.) has alleged publication of false, baseless and defamatory news items in “AMAR UJALA”, issues dated April 15 & 16, 2004 under the captions “{ÉDãÉÉä® ÉÊàÉãÉÉå àÉå vÉbÃããÉä ºÉä xÉà¤É® 2 BÉEÉÒ JÉ®ÉÒn” and “BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç BÉEÉÒ VÉMÉc ¶ÉÖ°ô BÉEÉÒ ãÉÉÒ{ÉÉ{ÉÉäiÉÉÒ”. The first impugned news item alleges that outside the Adarash Mandi, many city-based flour mills were openly purchasing the wheat in black market against the rules and regulations in connivance with Mandi Administration and thus evading trade tax. In the second news item, allegation of selling of Government sacks/bags is levelled. Trucks were queuing up for a long period. Market tax was being charged by issuing 9 R Form. The loss of lacs of rupees is being caused to the administration. The complainant has submitted that the respondent published these false and defamatory news items with the sole motive of harming his reputation and also lowering the image of their Samiti. The respondent did not verify the facts from their office before publishing the impugned news items. The complainant stated that the respondent neither responded to his letter dated 18.4.2004 nor

394 published any clarification. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent newspaper. Show-cause notice was issued to the Editor, Amar Ujala on 12.7.2004. The respondent however filed written statement at the time of IInd hearing. Hearing Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 23.3.2006. Shri Rajeev Srivastava was present on behalf of the complainant, while Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, advocate, represented the respondent newspaper. The counsel for the respondent requested for adjournment on the ground that he received the notice very late and as he was out of station and could not locate the file relating to complaint due to shifting of his office. The complainant informed the Committee of the change of his address which was taken on record. The Inquiry Committee expressed its unhappiness over the attitude of the respondent and agreed to grant the adjournment subject to the respondent bearing the cost of boarding, lodging and travel of the complainant for the next sitting. Adjourning the matter, the Inquiry Committee directed the counsel for the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant at the time of next hearing towards the cost of his travel and stay, etc. The respondent was further directed through its counsel to file the written statement with a copy to be served on the complainant. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 3.8.2006 submitted that the news item was true and it was published without prejudice to any person or organization. The newspaper had never received any written version to refute the contents on merits. It was evident from the news that the complaints were lodged by the President, Khadyaan Arhati Kalyan Samiti & Samajwadi Party spokesman Shri Manoj alias Sappu and press notes have also been issued by them. These press notes made it clear that there existed some arbitrariness/ mischief. The news was fair and made in general public interest. The respondent also submitted that the complainant was charge sheeted under departmental inquiries for grievous charges. The publication was within the norms and latitude of freedom of press. The respondent stated that the paper did not receive any written refutation of the contents from the complainant, so there was no question of publication of any corrigendum. Further the complainant being public officer was accountable for his deeds. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.

395 IInd Adjournment The matter was again called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, advocate represented the respondent newspaper while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The learned counsel for respondent editor submitted that the news was based on facts and after the publication of the news the complainant was found guilty and was removed from services. As the respondent had in the written statement defended the impugned publication a copy of which was not sent to the complainant, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for service of documents. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Rajeev Srivastava, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi appeared in person while Shri Subodh Kumar Saxena, Advocate represented the respondent Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant produced before the Committee a copy of his counter comments dated 5.10.2006 refuting each and every averments made in the written statement. The complainant intimated that he had sent its copy to the Amar Ujala on 6.10.2006. In his oral arguments, the complainant submitted that the impugned news items in Amar Ujala was outcome of rivalry in the Mandi. The newspaper had made no attempt to verify the facts. The complainant submitted that all the trucks were being recorded in the register and the tax in the entire U.P. was paid at one point and the only entry of trucks are recorded on other check posts. The complainant further submitted that the Mandi Samiti provides land and it has no role in any kind of purchases. The complainant stated that inquiry conducted into dishonouring the cheques of trucks and action under N I Act had no relevance with the news items. The learned counsel for the respondent Amar Ujala submitted that the complainant is a public officer and has no locus to file the personal complaint. The respondent counsel submitted that the clarification of the oral complainant had been published on 16.4.2004. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was charge sheeted under department inquiry on various charges including dishonouring of the cheques given by traders which he had taken into account to cover-up his annual target. The respondent submitted that the entire news was focussed on the Mandi Samiti and there was nothing which tantamount to personal defamation. The respondent counsel however offered to carry the version of the complainant.

396 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the material on record and heard the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent Amar Ujala proceeded to publish one sided version of the President of Khadyaan Arhati Kalyan Samiti on the basis of Press Notes. The newspaper taking advantage of the allegations made in the Press Notes focussed the entire news in such a manner to give an impression that there were many lapses on the complainant’s part. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the Amar Ujala had published the lopsided version of the complainant in 16.4.2006 issue under the heading: “Cover up (ãÉÉÒ{ÉÉ{ÉÉäiÉÉÒ) started in place of action” which was not in accordance with journalistic norms, as it was a part of the impugned report and was used to level further charges. The Inquiry Committee, however, taking note of the offer of the respondent’s counsel, noted that its publication would be in consonance with norms of right of reply. It recommended to the Council to direct the complainant to send his specific rejoinder to the respondent Amar Ujala and respondent to publish the clarification of the complainant with the same prominence within 15 days of the receipt of the specific rejoinder from the complainant. The clippings carrying the rejoinder be sent to the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for record. Compliance by Respondent The Council while considering the Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee also noted that the respondent Amar Ujala had since vide letter dated 1.11.2006 intimated the publication of the complainant’s rejoinder in 31.10.2006 issue under the heading: “Objection to the news by the Secretary of Mandi Samiti” in Amar Ujala. The Council further noted that the complainant expressed dissatisfaction over publication of his rejoinder in as much as the respondent did not accept its mistake nor mentioned that it was published on the direction of the Press Council of India. The Council found that the rejoinder published by the respondent Amar Ujala was in keeping with the direction given by the Inquiry Committee. The Council therefore while agreeing with the report of Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint.

122) Shri Hari Shankar Shukla Versus The Editor Commercial Superintendent Paripurna Railway Eastern Railway Samachar Basti, Uttar Pradesh Kalyan, Mumbai Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 23.1.2004 has been filed by Shri Hari Shankar

397 Shukla, Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Basti, (U.P.), against “Paripurna Railway Samachar” Kalyan, Mumbai, Maharashtra alleging publication of defamatory news report in its issue dated 1st October—15th October, 2003 captioned “§É­]ÉSÉ®hÉ àÉå +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå BÉEä càɺÉ{ÉE® cé ´ÉÉÉÊhÉVªÉ +ÉvÉÉÒFÉBÉE/ ÉÊxÉ®ÉÒFÉBÉE £ÉÉÒ “Commercial Superintendent/Inspector, partners in corrupt practice with officials”. The complainant has objected to the use of derogatory language in the news report. It is alleged in the news report that the complainant Pandit Harishankar Shukla is habitual of lodging false complaints with the superiors and threatening the staff of issuing memo. For the sake of money, the work is done against the rules. In case of need Pandit Ji can sell his mother. The impugned report also charges the complainant with financial irregularities. Written Statement

Show-cause notice was issued to the editor, “PARIPURNA RAILWAY SAMACHAR”, Kalyan Mumbai, Maharashtra on 25.5.2004. The respondent editor in his written statement dated 1.6.2004 submitted that immediately on receipt of the notice from the complainant, the clarification along with apology was published in the 1-15 December 2003 issue of his paper. The respondent submitted that publication of clarification along with apology is major punishment for an editor and they have already apologized for publication of unparliamentary sentence in the news report. The respondent further submitted that the reason behind the annoyance of the complainant was not the publication of unparliamentary sentence about his mother, the reason of annoyance was that in the news report, the corrupt practices of the complainant had been highlighted. The respondent stated that a case against the complainant shall be filed in Mumbai court for calling them yellow journalist. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.6.2004. Complainant’s Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.7.2004 submitted that he has worked with the railways honestly and with complete integrity. Due to one of his corrupt subordinates, the impugned publication was brought out. The complainant further submitted that the said official was working with a crime magazine prior to joining the railways on compassionate ground after the death of his father. The complainant submitted that the respondent did not disclose the source of information. Rather, the respondent threatened to file a case in Mumbai court against the complainant. The complainant requested the Council to take action.

398 A copy of the counter comments dated 18.7.2004 of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 10.8.2004. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Lucknow on 24.3.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with postal remarks “shifted”. Shri Suresh Tripathi, the respondent editor in his letter dated 10.3.2006 submitted that as soon as the objectionable words used in the impugned news report came to his knowledge he took action against the erring person, and the Gorakhpur Bureau Chief was sacked immediately and written apology was published in the newspaper on 1.12.2003 stating the factual position. He had further submitted that he had no intention to insult anyone and the mistake was due to oversight. He also expressed his inability to appear before the Committee. Matter Adjourned As the notice of hearing could not be served on the complainant, the Inquiry Committee in order to afford him one more opportunity adjourned the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. Shri Suresh Tripathi, editor was present for the respondent newspaper. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back with the remarks “has retired”. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee In the written statement filed before the Committee at the time of hearing the respondent editor submitted that the news was printed in “Paripurna Railway Samachar” on October 01/2003 on page no.3. The draft was prepared by Gorakhpur Bureau Chief, regarding corruption in commercial department in N.E. Railway. Basically the news was correct, but the Gorakhpur Bureau Chief used unparliamentary words in his report about Shri Hari Shankar Shukla. These lines escaped his attention through oversight and the whole article of Bureau Chief of Gorakhpur was printed without editing. After printing of newspaper these lines attracted his attention. Taking immediate action the Gorakhpur Bureau Chief was sacked with immediate effect and published written apology in “Paripurna Railway Samachar” publication of 1st December, 2003 edition mentioning the factual circumstances. It was further submitted that he had no intention to insult anybody and this news and mistake was purely accidental and through oversight for which he again apologizes to Shri Shukla. As an

399 editor of Paripurna Railway Samachar, he was extremely sorry for the above mistake which was only through oversight and nothing else. He requested that considering the facts and circumstances he may please be excused. He again admitted the mistake. In his oral submissions, the respondent editor stated that since he had admitted the mistake and published the clarification also he may please be excused to be present before the Committee at the next meeting. Matter Adjourned Having considered the remedial steps taken by the respondent, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings with directions to the Secretariat of the Council to call upon the office of the complainant to supply the new address of the complainant and also to forward a copy of the letter of the respondent editor to the complainant for his comments, especially for establishing whether he was satisfied with the amendments made by the respondent editor. Accordingly a letter dated 8.9.2006 was issued to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Basti, U.P. to provide the present address of the complainant, but no response. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 17.10.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The editor, Paripuran Railway Samachar in a letter dated 13.10.2006 stated that he had presented his side of version before the Inquiry Committee in the last hearing and tendered regret with publication of clarification. The editor further requested that he may be exempted from appearing, as granted in the last hearing. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had since retired and the attempt made by the office to serve the notice of hearing on him had failed. It was incumbent on the part of the complainant to inquire the progress of his case and intimate his current address. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the respondent editor, Paripuran Railway Samachar had already made sufficient amends by publishing the clarification with regret. In view of the above, the Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

400 123) Shri Vir Bahadur Singh Versus The Editor Superintendent of Police Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily Baghpat, U.P. Meerut, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 19.3.2005 was filed by Shri Vir Bahadur Singh, Superintendent of Police, Baghpat (U.P.) against “Amar Ujala”, Hindi daily, Meerut (U.P.) alleging publication of series of defamatory news items. The captions and date of issue of which along with English translation read as follows:-

S.No. Captions Dated

1({ɺÉÆnÉÒnÉ lÉÉxÉÉ {ÉÉxÉä BÉEÉä ºÉÉ~ cVÉÉ® ÉÊnA, BÉDªÉÚÆ xÉ ãÉÚÆ ÉÊ®¶´ÉiÉ) 5.12.2004 Paid bribe of sixty thousand to get posting of choice then why should I not take bribe ? 2(VÉxÉ{Én BÉEä {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ +ÉÉìÉÊ{ÉEºÉ®Éå BÉEä àÉÉxÉÉå cÉå~ ÉʺÉãÉ MɪÉä) 5.12.2004 District Police Officers Dumbfounded 3(AºÉ{ÉÉÒ xÉä +ÉÉ®Éä{É ÉÊxÉ®ÉvÉÉ® ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ) 5.12.2004 S.P. terms the charges levelled as baseless. 4(lÉÉxÉÉ ÉʤÉBÉEiÉÉ cè ¤ÉÉäãÉÉä JÉ®ÉÒnÉäMÉä) 5.12.2004 Police Stations sells interested in purchasing? 5(<ÆSÉÉVÉÉç BÉEä ÉÊãÉA nÖvÉÉâó MÉÉªÉ VÉèºÉÉ lÉÉxÉÉ ÉʤÉxÉÉèãÉÉÒ) For incharge’s Binoli P.S. is akin to a milking cow. 5.12.2005 The impugned publication relates to one Shri G.L. Kureel, Station House Officer, Binoli Police Station, Baghpat, who was caught red handed by the vigilance department accepting the bribe, disclosed that he gave Rs.60,000/- to the complainant in order to get posting as Incharge of the Binoli Police Station besides this paying Rs.25,000/- every month. Denying the allegations, the complainant-Superintendent of Police stated that the respondent newspaper “Amar Ujala” published self-contradictory articles. The complainant submitted that the respondent on the one hand, informed about tight-lipped attitude of the police officers and on the other hand his denial was published by him in his newspaper. The complainant submitted that the impugned articles are related to the arrest of Shri G.L Kureel, the then Station House Officer, Binoli in a bribe case but his name has been dragged without any reason whatsoever by the respondent. The complainant denied having any role in a bribery case pertaining

401 to Shri Kureel and submitted that the defamatory news had lowered his reputation and caused irreparable loss. The complainant alleged that the respondent published totally false, baseless, concocted and malicious news items with the intention to defame him in the society and more particularly in his department. He further alleged that the respondent published the impugned news items without any basis and the same were concocted for illegal gains. The respondent by doing so violated the norms of professional misconduct. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 7.1.2005 through his advocate to the respondent newspaper and demanded publication of apology as well as compensation for damages of Rs.10 lacs. The respondent’s counsel in his reply dated 24.1.2005 submitted that they had already published complainant’s version and there was no reason for tendering apology or pay the damages. The respondent’s counsel further stated that they have no personal grudge or vendetta against the complainant and the news items in question had been published objectively in utter discharge of pious duty of the press towards the public. The delay of 1½ months in lodging this complaint had been condoned on the complainant’s request by the Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India vide order dated 28.10.2005. Show-cause notice dated 17.11.2005 was issued to the editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut (U.P.). Written Statement In response, the respondent newspaper “Amar Ujala” in his written statement dated 13.12.2005 denied the allegations levelled against him by the complainant and submitted that the news items in question were not objectionable nor the newspaper or editor offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that the editor committed any professional misconduct. He further submitted that the version of the complainant was also published in his newspaper under the caption “AºÉ.{ÉÉÒ. xÉä +ÉÉ®Éä{É ÉÊxÉ®ÉvÉÉ® ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ” as admitted by the complainant himself. The respondent stated that the news items were based on the statement of Shri G.L. Kureel, the then S.O., Binoli before the press reporters that he paid money to the S.P. in allotment of postings for selected police stations but later on due to pressure of senior police officers he changed his statement and in the court he differed entirely. According to the respondent, before publishing the impugned news items they tried to contact different police officers to have their versions but they were avoiding any comments with the press, however, lateron the version of S.P. (complainant) was obtained and the same was published in their newspaper in which it was clearly stated that the complainant informed that the S.O. had made false

402 statement and the complainant never asked for any money from any S.O. who gave the statement just to save himself and all the allegations of S.O. were false and baseless. The respondent submitted that by publishing the substantially true news item the newspaper performed only its duty and did not bring any disrepute to the complainant. He further stated that they neither had any motive nor any interest in the affairs of the complainant except that of inquistive urge of journalist to know some matter concerning public importance and report the same in free and fair manner for welfare of people. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had not stated the correct facts and concealed several facts. At the instance of the complainant several cases of defamation under Section 500 IPC were filed in different courts in respect of the same news item, some of which are pending and some had been decided. The complaint case No.199/05 titled Gauri Shankar Vs. Ashok Madhup and others was filed by one Mr. Gaury Shankar by SHO, Kotwali, Naziabad in respect of the same matter i.e. news item dated 5.12.2004, which is the subject matter of the present complaint, which was dismissed by J.M. Naziabad vide order dated 8.4.2005. Similarly one complaint bearing No.77/05 titled Mahendra Singh Yadav Vs. Ashok Madhup and others was filed by Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav the then SHO, Afzalgarh, Bijnor and the said complaint is still pending and was filed in respect of the said news item i.e. 5.12.2004. Thus in respect of the impugned news item the proceeding is pending in the court of law and this fact was concealed by the complainant hence the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 6.1.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Vir Bahadur Singh, Superintendent of Police appeared in person while Shri Sunil Awasthi, Manager Legal appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the Amar Ujala published totally defamatory and damaging news reports levelling allegations of taking bribe on baseless disclosure of an officer under arrest. Such news reports were not published by any other newspaper. The complainant submitted that the respondents tried to contact him before publication but he was on field duty and he immediately contacted the newspaper at late night and gave his categorical denial, which found place along with the impugned news report. The complainant further submitted that he had not taken this matter to the court of law.

403 The counsel for the Amar Ujala submitted that the SHO, who had been arrested, had given the statement of imparting bribe to the complainant. The newspaper had not given its opinion. The newspaper tired to contact the complainant as per their journalistic duty and the detailed version of the complainant was also published the very same day along with the news report. The respondent counsel further submitted that other police officers had filed criminal complaint in respect of the same news item and the criminal complaints have been dismissed by the court. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the documents on record and oral arguments advanced before it by the parties. It observed that the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala, relying on the statement of a subordinate police officer, accused of corrupt practice caused publication of the impugned news reports levelling serious allegations against the complainant, the then Superintendent of Police, Baghpat. The respondent newspaper despite knowing that the complainant had refuted all the charges against him, published the charge on the first page, while his refutation was published inconspicuously on page 10 with other related reports. The Inquiry Committee opined that the respondent newspaper by publishing the impugned news reports had denied the complainant a fair opportunity of response to charges, the reasonable basis of which was yet to be established. The Committee observed that while the press as a representative of public interest, had an obligation to bring to light the malpractices in public offices, the reports should not be such as would shake the faith of the public in the system itself and demoralize the workforce. The Inquiry Committee in the circumstances of the case decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and caution the respondent newspaper, Amar Ujala to publish reports only with proper verification of facts and fair presentation of versions of those affected and concerned. 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.

124) Shri V.K. Sahasrabudhhe Versus The Editor Deputy General Manager Gujarat Mitra ICICI Bank Ltd. Surat, Gujarat Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 7.6.2003 has been filed by Shri V.K. Sahasrabudhhe,

404 Deputy General Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Mumbai against Gujarat Mitra, Surat based Gujarati daily for publication of an objectionable news item captioned “Rumours of ICICI Bank insolvency in Valsad: Queues at ATM at midnight” and a second headline “Over Rs. 40/- lacs withdrawn! According to the Branch Manager – no financial crisis in Bank” in the issue dated 11.04.2003. It was stated in the impugned news item that there were strong rumours in Valsad around 8 p.m. that the private sector ICICI Bank had become insolvent. Due to such baseless rumours, people of Valsad made long queues at ATM machines to withdraw cash and within no time Rs. 40/- lacs were withdrawn from the ATM machines. It was also stated in the news item in question that as per the information from bank officials from Surat, Bank is safe as of now. The complainant has submitted that the figure of Rs.40/- lacs mentioned in the impugned news item is incorrect. The complainant has submitted that the so-called quote from ‘Bank officials at Surat’ that “Bank is safe as of now” is mischievous. The complainant has submitted that the concluding paragraph which reads “looking to the rush at Valsad today, if the account holders start withdrawing money tomorrow at Surat and other centers in Gujarat, it will cause trouble to the Bank” was wishful thinking and provoked people to withdraw their money quickly. According to the complainant, the news item was motivated and it was surprising that the editor allowed it to be published. The complainant has submitted that in the guise of reporting a so-called rumour of ICICI Bank’s insolvency, the impugned news item has in fact lent credence to and spread such a rumour. The news item in question is full of innuendoes and half-truths and added that the readers are left with the impression that there is something wrong with ICICI Bank and if it has not yet collapsed, it is likely to do so. The complainant has submitted that the news item has lowered the image of ICICI Bank in the minds of the readers of the respondent newspaper and in the minds of the Bank’s customers. The complainant further submitted that they have issued a clarification and the respondent published the same on the very next day i.e. 12.4.2003 under the caption “ICICI Bank to open eight new branches & 35 ATMs” and on 13.4.2003 it published details given by the Reserve Bank regarding the complainant’s bank under the caption “Rumours spread in Gujarat spoiled the Bank’s position – Reserve Bank compelled to declare sound position of ICICI Bank”. The complainant has submitted that the two more news items of 12th and 13th April 2003 are in furtherance to the impugned article based on rumours, which were detrimental to its image, and prestige, which has the affect of the undermining public confidence in the liquidity of the Bank. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Gujarat Mitra on 6.4.2004.

405 The Manager, Gujarat Mitra in his written statement dated 19th April 2004 has submitted that the Gujarat Mitra has not started the rumour in Valsad but it had reported the panic that had spread in Valsad about the possible closure of the ICICI Bank. The respondent has submitted that it has faithfully reported what had happened as a consequence of the rumour that had spread in town since the noon and how it had caused apprehension that led the large number of people to line up at two ATMs of the Bank at its Teethal Road Branch and how people had withdrawn large sums of money. The respondent has submitted that the Gujarat Mitra had also tried to verify whether similar kind of panic had spread in other neighbouring towns also and had reported faithfully that no such rumours were spread in Surat and Vapi and there was no panic there. The respondent has submitted that report has also said faithfully and correctly that the Bank management in Valsad had made arrangements for money and seen that people get money. The respondent has submitted that the report has also quoted the Bank officials in Surat that there was no cause for worry and bank was solvent and was not facing any financial trouble. In reporting that Banks in Surat had not received remittances from RBI is also a factual report after verification. The respondent has submitted that the Banks not meeting the demands of customers for large sums was the basis of the rumour has also been pointed out. The respondent has submitted that the bona fides of the paper was further established when it published a news item that Bank was to open new branches and set up new ATMs. The respondent has submitted that they have also published the statement of the RBI that ICICI Bank was safe. The respondent has submitted that the main intention in publishing the item was to point out how rumours can cause panic. The respondent has submitted that it was in no way intended to damage the credibility of the Bank as the news item has no where questioned the solvency or financial health of Bank or had even suggested in any direct or indirect way that the ICICI Bank is in trouble. The respondent has submitted that the purpose of news item was merely to educate the people that such rumours can play havoc and unnecessary stress to people. The respondent has submitted that the Bank Management is trying to read too much and that too out of context for making this complaint. The respondent has submitted that nowhere the bank has denied that no such rumours were prevalent in Valsad on the said day nor has it denied that there were long queues at its two ATMs at the Teethal Road Branch. Nor has it been denied that remittances in January and February were received in time. The respondent has submitted that the ICICI Bank cannot speak for other banks that were not meeting demands for large sums in that period. The respondent has submitted that the Bank Management and its lawyers are barking at a wrong tree instead of searching the cause and locating the persons who had succeeded in spreading such rumours and taking proper action, the Bank is trying to malign the Gujarat Mitra that has a reputation of maintaining the high standard of journalism for

406 125 years. The respondent has submitted that they replied to the Bank Lawyer’s notice dated 28th May 2003 on 7th June 2003. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint and pull up the Bank for false and wrong complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 13.5.2004 for information. Matter Adjourned When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 7.2.2006, Shri Rahul Risbud, advocate was present on behalf of the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Gujarat Mitra. The paper however filed its written submissions vide its letter of 1.2.2006. Shri Rahul Risbud, advocate stated that the senior advocate who was to contest the case was arguing a matter before the Mumbai High Court. He requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee adjourning the matter for being listed before it in one of its future meetings informed the representative of the complainant that no further adjournment would be granted in future. It was also decided that a copy of the written arguments of the respondent may be forwarded to complainant. Further Written Statement of the Respondent Shri C.K. Purohit, Manager of the respondent newspaper, in his note of written arguments dated 01.02.2006 submitted that they merely reported the facts and while doing so also published the ICICI Bank officials positive statement. In the news item their own assessment pointing that rumour generated panic among ICICI account holders was also published. It was further submitted that: 1. Gujarat Mitra did not spread the rumour, it only reported what happened consequent upon the rumour spreading around. 2. Performing a role of a helping hand, Gujarat Mitra checked at other centers in South Gujarat and reported that there existed no panic among ICICI account holders at other centers. 3. Gujarat Mitra also reported Valsad Bank Manager’s claim that arrangements were made to meet with the cash requirement at Valsad ATMs. 4. Gujarat Mitra also reported that bank officials in Surat claimed solvency. 5. As a gesture of goodwill SBI officials’ claim that RBI had failed to meet with the cash requirement of the region was linked to the

407 incidents in Valsad so as to indicate that shortage of cash was not in any way connected to ICICI Bank’s solvency. 6. Gujarat Mitra also published two statements: One from RBI asserting solvency of CCI Bank and the other from ICICI Bank declaring its intentions to open new Branches & ATMs in Gujarat. 7. Intention behind the publication was to show the ill effect of such rumours, which can be seen from the heading of the item. There was no intention either to malign the bank or question its solvency. 8. ICICI Bank has never denied that rumours pertaining to its financial position were prevalent in Valsad that day not has it denied the fact that there were long queues at its own ATMs in Valsad and these happened before publication of news by Gujarat Mitra. By lodging the present complaint ICICI Bank is trying to infringe on the right of the media to report these happenings. 9. Instead of hiring the investigative agency to locate the source that had caused the panic by spreading the rumour, the Bank seems intent to flogging the wrong horse. It is clear case of misguided enthusiasm. 10. It can be verified with the that there was indeed a short supply of currency note to Surat region at the time mentioned in the report. The complaint was not against the Bank but the fact was to point out the shortage of currency notes in the area. The written submission of the respondent dated 01.02.2006 was forwarded to the complainant vide office letter dated 09.05.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006. Ms. Rajashree Rastogi, Advocate, represented the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Reiterating to the averments in the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that the statement in the newspaper created panic among the public. The statement that ‘Bank is safe now’ was mischievous and gave an impression that the fate of the bank was uncertain. The figure of 40 lacs withdrawal in a day was also incorrect. Subsequent to the publication of the news and as a consequence thereto, 107 crores was withdrawn within a span of

408 three days. It was also incorrect that the Reserve Bank of India did not fund the ICICI Bank during that period. It was incorrect that persons willing to withdraw a crore from their account was allowed withdrawal of Rs. 25 or 40 lacs. The respondent should have published that the bank had sufficient funds. She added that before publishing the news on rumours the respondent ought to have checked the facts from the bank and not carried the impugned report. She asserted that the clarification published was also incorrect on several counts. Matter Adjourned The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the learned counsel for the complainant, and noted that at this stage it felt that the paper had not contributed to the rumours through its report and may have in fact helped the bank to carry its assurances to the public. Insofar as the charge of incorrect or incomplete clarification is concerned, it felt that the bank statement itself was not very specific. In order to afford it an opportunity to substantiate the statement that at no point of time Reserve Bank of India short funded the bank, the Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings, with directions to the complainant, through its counsel, to file specific point-wise statement with documentary evidence in support of the contention that during the period in question there was no short funding by the Reserve Bank of India, within a month from the date of hearing i.e. 13.07.2006. Compliance from the Complainant The complainant’s counsel vide her letter dated 1.9.2006 furnished a copy of the Press Release dated 12.04.2003 of Reserve Bank of India captioned: “ICICI Bank’s financial position sound: RBI”, stating therein that “there are reports in some sections of the media that based on rumours of ICICI Bank facing liquidity problems, depositors are withdrawing cash at its ATMs and branches in Gujarat. The Reserve Bank of India is monitoring the developments and has arranged to provide adequate cash to ICICI Bank to meet the demands of its customers at the branches/ATMs. It is clarified that the ICICI Bank has sufficient liquidity, including in its current account with the Reserve Bank of India, to meet the requirements of its depositors. The ICICI Bank’s financial position is also sound.” Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Shachin Chandarana, Advocate appeared for the complainant-bank while there was no appearance from the respondent side.

409 Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant-bank, reiterating the averments made in the complaint, submitted that the statement in the newspaper had created panic among the public. The report in Gujarat Mitra about the insolvency of the ICICI Bank was suggestive and instigating and lowered the image of the ICICI Bank in the public. The newspaper published the news that if the public withdraw the money from Surat and other centers in Gujarat, it will cause trouble. Due to publication of the news, the Reserve Bank of India was compelled to issue a press release declaring sound position of ICICI Bank. The counsel for the complainant further stated that before publishing the news based on rumours the respondent ought to have checked up the facts from the bank and this was the ethics of journalism. The publication created a media hype due to which the customers rushed to withdraw huge sums of money. The counsel for the complainant desired that the newspaper should have published a public apology and Press Council of India should warn the respondent newspaper- Gujarat Mitra. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the material on record and oral arguments made before it, noted that the rumours were reported to have started early in the night, and by midnight Rs.40 lakhs were reported to have already been withdrawn. Therefore, there was no way the paper’s report of the next day could have prompted this reaction. In fact, the paper had been careful to have carried the assurances of the bank in the headline itself as well as the body content, followed by another report on the stand of the bank. The Inquiry Committee was thus of the opinion that no negative role was played by the newspaper and ethics of journalism were also not violated. The Inquiry Committee, however, felt that this case represented a very delicate question of country’s economy, and it was incumbent for newspapers to play a positive role during such crisis faced by banks of credible status, and so focus the report as to lay stress on the lack of basis for the rumours. The Inquiry Committee also felt that a conscious approach should be adopted by the newspapers in such circumstances to scotch the rumours likely to affect the economic stability of the country, qua, its financial institutions. The Inquiry Committee, while tendering this advice to the newspapers in general, emphasized that the bonafides of the respondent in the instant case were not in doubt, and the complaint did not deserve to be upheld. It recommended to the Council to close the complaint accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report

410 of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

125) Smt. Atul Sharma Versus The Editor Secretary Dainik Aaj, Hindi daily Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Kendra Bareilly, U.P. Meerut, U.P. Complaint This complaint-dated 1.3.2004 has been filed by Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary, Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Kendra, Meerut, U.P. against Dainik Aaj, a Hindi daily from Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh for publication of objectionable news item captioned “Rashtriya Manawadhikar Sangathan Ke Naam Par Lakhon Ke Golmal Ka Padadhikariyon Ka Ek Dusre Par Arop” (Allegation of bungling of lakh of rupees on each other by the office bearers of National Human Rights Organisation) in its issue dated 24.2.2004. In the impugned publication, the allegations against the complainant was that she had been functioning in arbitrary manner and she had expelled the members including President, O.P. Singh, and taken fake resignation letters on the record. She had allegedly usurped the post of President and given the charge of Treasurer to her husband and opened new bank accounts. Several other charges of arbitrary actions had been levelled against her. As per heading of the news item, the office bearers of this organisation were levelling allegations of misappropriation of lakhs of rupees against each other. The complainant denied the allegation that she had not opened any new account with her husband. The complainant submitted that Shri O.P. Singh was expelled in the meeting held on 20.11.2002, in her presence, but he had been tampering with the records of the so called meetings dated 19.11.2002, 30.11.2002 and 1.1.2003 which were never attended by the complainant. The complainant alleged that when she sent the version to Aaj, the respondent demanded Rs.5,000/- for its publication, which the complainant refused to pay. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Aaj, on 26.3.2004. The respondent editor, Aaj, Bareilly in his written statement dated 7.4.2004 submitted that the news item was not published with the purpose to defame or hurt any one. The respondent furnished a bunch of documents such as letter of Superintendent of Police, Meerut to SHO of the area, letter or Press Release of National Amnesty Protection Organisation, letter of Shri O.P. Singh, President, Sankalp Shiksha Prasar Samiti and notice issued by Shri O.P. Singh, which were received as evidences from his district representative in support of the news item. 411 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 17.5.2004. Matter Adjourned The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. Both the complainant and the respondent requested for adjournment. As the matter had come before the Inquiry Committee for the first time, the Committee in order to afford one more opportunity to the complainant to present their case adjourned the matter to be listed before it at one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Ajay Sharma, Office Superintendent appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri Sunil Taneja represented the respondent editor, Dainik Aaj, Bareilly. Shri O.P. Singh also made appearance before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper in its news report dated 24.2.2004 had made allegations of bungling of lakhs of rupees in the garb of human rights activities. The complainant’s representative submitted that the allegation had been levelled by the newspaper at the instance of Shri O.P. Singh who had been expelled from the membership of the society. Shri Sunil Taneja, representative for the Dainik Aaj, Bareilly, submitted that newspaper had made attempt to cross check the facts from the complainant but that could not yield any response. However, after publication of the impugned news report the complainant had levelled allegation of extorting money. Respondent’s representative denied having received any contradiction from the complainant. Shri O.P. Singh, the reported member of the society appeared before the Inquiry Committee as witness for the respondent and submitted that the organisation had been registered in the year 1999 as a Trust before Registrar of Society and he was bonafide member of the society. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee prima facie finds that the impugned news report dated 24.2.2004 in the respondent Dainik Aaj had been published recklessly without proper verification from the complainant

412 and making a serious allegation of bungling of lakhs of rupees which was not even released by the government authorities. The impugned report was a one- sided report carrying the information provided by an interested party and thus biased against the complainant. The Inquiry Committee held that respondent newspaper had published the impugned news report in breach of the norms in respect of pre-publication verification and travelled beyond the contents in making reckless allegation in the headline of misappropriation when no amount was released by the government. The rejoinder sent by the complainant and also provided by the Council with the show cause notice had not been published. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to censure the editor, Dainik Aaj, Hindi Daily, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, for publishing the impugned news report without proper verification and subsequently denying right of reply to the complainant. Copy of the adjudication may be sent to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, DAVP and RNI 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.

126) Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta Versus The Editor Deputy Director,Information Sahara Samaya Government of Uttar Pradesh New Delhi Agra, U.P. Complaint This complaint dated 6.2.2004 has been filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Deputy Director, Information, Agra (U.P.) against “Sahara Samaya”, Hindi Weekly, New Delhi for publication of an allegedly false, misleading, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “ ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉºÉ BÉEɪÉÇ ÉʺÉ{ÉE® iÉÉä ]Éä{ÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉEºÉBÉEä ºÉ®” ! (Development work zero, whose responsibility) in its issue dated 20.12.2003. It has been alleged in the impugned news item that one member of the Monitoring Committee constituted on the directions of the Supreme Court of India for supervising the development works in Agra City and the ex-officio Chairman/Commissioner are at loggerheads. Shri D.K. Joshi, the member of the Committee has sent a complaint letter to Chief Secretary for irregularities to the tune of 400 crore rupees in development works in the city and has alleged that Shri B.M. Meena, the Commissioner and Chairman of the Committee is responsible for all this. Shri Joshi, in his complaint has alleged that neither his

413 objections are being looked into nor his suggestions are being complied with. Commissioner is ignoring him and there is no co-operation from him. Making personal allegations against Commissioner, Shri B.M. Meena, Shri Joshi has said that almost in all development works the directions of the Supreme Court are being flouted by ignoring the standard norms. It has also been alleged that the compliance of the Supreme Court’s order now depends on the whims of the Commissioner. According to the news item Shri Joshi stated that no “no objection certificate” of the Pollution Control Board has been obtained by Agra Development Authority in sewer related works. It has also been alleged in the box column that, “the complaint of irregularities in the development works of Agra City has reached Lucknow. The seriousness of the issue had increased because the nominated member of the constituted Committee has levelled allegation against the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner is putting blame on the subordinate officers just to save himself. Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the impugned news item is false, baseless and defamatory. The complainant has alleged that the respondent newspaper levelled false allegations against the Chairman/ Commissioner, Shri B.M. Meena with intention to defame him. The complainant has submitted that the Committee set up on the directions of the Supreme Court of India has been considering every point and none of the members had raised any objection. The allegation made by Shri Joshi and made public by the newspaper are malicious and published with malafide intention. The newspaper should have obtained the factual version about the contents published. The complainant has submitted that due to the publication of the false news item the image of the Administration has been lowered. The complainant asked the respondent editor vide his letter-dated 24.4.2004 to publish the contradiction but received no response. The complainant has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the editor, Sahara Samaya on 28.6.2004. The respondent editor did not file written statement. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. There was no appearance before it from either side. The Deputy Director, Information, Agra, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 26.6.2006 had requested for adjournment on the ground that the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh was to visit Agra on 15.7.2006 and he was assigned the responsibility of overseeing the matter. As the respondent was also not present before the Inquiry Committee, it adjourned the matter.

414 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Deputy Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Agra, appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Sahara Samaya. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant made a brief submission intimating that the officer concerned, Shri B.M.Meena, against whom the allegations had been made in the impugned news report had since been transferred. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee took note of the fact that the complaint lodged by the Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Agra, pertained to the publication dated 20.12.2003, which was a very old case and the officer against whom the respondent Sahara Samaya had reported has since been transferred. Further, the report was a critique on the discharge of the official functions of a public servant whose actions are open to public scrutiny. Under these circumstances, the Inquiry Committee felt that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the inquiry. It, therefore, decided to close the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

127) Shri Vishwas Kumar Garg Versus The Editor Bhatinda Dainik Pilot Punjab Bhatinda, Punjab Complaint This complaint dated 31.05.2004, has been filed by Shri Vishwas Kumar Garg, Bhatinda, Punjab against Dainik Pilot for publication of allegedly false and baseless news item captioned “Adalat Se Huye Fraud Ko Dabane Ka Prayas’ (Attempt to suppress the fraud played with court) in its issue dated 24.05.2004. It was alleged in the impugned news item that in order to grab a property worth Rs.50-60 lakhs, the complainant, Shri Vishwas Kumar forged his mother’s fingerprint. He was alleged to have played a fraud with his own brother Shri Harbans Lal. The complainant has submitted that the news item in question is highly defamatory, malafide, baseless and false. His mother had already given an

415 affidavit as well as statement to the police that she herself put her thumb impression on the Vakalatnama. The complainant has submitted that the police did not find that the complainant had committed any fraud with his brother. The complainant has alleged that on 28.5.2004 the respondent editor of Dainik Pilot, himself told the complainant that they have made false complaint against the complainant knowingly and intentionally to get him implicated in false criminal cases and to defame him. The complainant further alleged that the respondent threatened him to publish more such defamatory news item with his photographs in future if he fails to give the respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- within a week. The complainant has alleged that the respondent is habitual of publishing defamatory news item against honest and reputed citizens. The respondent published a defamatory news item on 21.5.2003 captioned “£ÉÉ<ǪÉÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉɪÉnÉn cbÃ{ÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA £ÉÉ£ÉÉÒ xÉä ºÉÉºÉ BÉEÉ VÉÉãÉÉÒ +ÉÄMÉÚ~É ãÉMÉɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® £ÉÉ<Ç xÉä ¤ÉÉäMÉºÉ ´ÉBÉEÉãÉiÉxÉÉàÉÉ ´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉ{ÉiÉ +ÉnÉãÉiÉ àÉå {Éä¶É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ (Sister-in-law put fake thumb impression of mother-in-law to grab the property of brother and the brother filed bogus Vakalatnama through advocate) and published the similar story on 21.05.2003 and carried its retraction captioned “80 ´É­ÉÉﻃ àÉÉiÉÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉäMÉºÉ +ÉÄMÉÚ~É ãÉMÉ´ÉÉBÉE® £ÉÉ<ǪÉÉä-£ÉÉ<ǪÉÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉɪÉnÉn ¤É]Éä®xÉä BÉEä +ÉÉ®Éä{É BÉEÉä ÉÊxÉ®ÉvÉÉ® ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ - +ÉÄMÉÚ~ä BÉEÉÒ VÉÉÄSÉ BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä àÉÉÉÊc® +ÉÉÊxÉãÉ BÉÖEàÉÉ® MÉÖ{iÉÉ BÉEÉä +ÉnÉãÉiÉ {ÉcãÉä cÉÒ +ÉÉʴɶ´ÉºÉxÉÉÒªÉ PÉÉäÉÊ­ÉiÉ BÉE® SÉÖBÉEÉÒ cè (The allegation of putting bogus thumb impression of 80 years old mother and grabbing brother’s property was baseless. The Court has already declared the finger print expert Anil Kumar Gupta as undependable)) only after an assurance of giving a sum of Rs.2500/-. The complainant sent a registered letter dated 14.7.2004 to the respondent requesting him to publish clarification but instead of giving any reply or publishing the clarification the respondent has published another defamatory news item under the caption: “+ÉnÉãÉiÉ àÉå ¤ÉÉäMÉºÉ +ÉÄMÉÚ~ä ãÉMÉÉBÉE® ÉÊnªÉä MɪÉä ´ÉBÉEÉãÉiÉxÉÉàÉä {É® ãÉMÉä +ÉÄMÉÚ~ä BÉEÉÒ VÉÉÄSÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉàÉ ¶ÉÖ°ô and “+ÉnÉãÉiÉÉÒ {ÉEÉ<ãÉ {É® BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ ®ÉäBÉExÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA VÉÉÒ £É® BÉE® ãÉÖ]ɪÉä VÉÉ ®cä cVÉÉ®Éå °ô{ɪÉä (Inquiry started into bogus thumb impress and Vakalatnama filed in court) and (Thousands of rupees being spent to stop further action on the court files). Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Pilot on 11.1.2005. The respondent in his written statement dated 20.1.2005, while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant, submitted that the complainant was once the reporter of Dainik Pilot but later on he was dismissed for his undesirable activities and this is the only grouse for which the present complaint is lodged. The respondent has submitted that the complaint is false and baseless and amounts to misleading the Press Council as the complainant tried to grab the properties of his real elder brother by committing fraud in the

416 Hon’ble Judicial Court by filing false Vakalatnama through his hired counsel with the forged thumb impression of his mother Smt. Luxmi Devi to win the case. But on coming to know of the fraud, the aged mother of the complainant executed an affidavit in which she exposed the acts of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the complainant was asked to contradict the allegation by showing some evidence but he failed to do. The respondent has further submitted that the allegation of demanding money is false, baseless and motivated. The respondent never visited the shop of the complainant and the question of demanding any amount does not arise. The respondent denied having received complainant’s letter dated 14.7.2004. The respondent has submitted that the complainant while filing the complaint has concealed the facts that the contents of the complaints are the subject matter of the cases pending before the judicial courts. The respondent has submitted that the complainant wanted to stop the publication of news which are correct and based on record. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has filed a petition before the local judicial court with the prayer for issuing stay order on publication of news but the court has not yet granted stay and the case is still pending in the court. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has not even mentioned single name of social worker, who has ever been harassed by him.

Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.5.2005. The complainant in his counter comments dated 27.5.2005 while reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint, has submitted that the impugned news item was published by the respondent in connivance with Mr. Subhash Garg, elder brother of the complainant, without having any reliable information, knowledge or proof with a motive to blackmail the complainant. The complainant has submitted that he has filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC and civil suits against the respondent editor and Shri Harbans Lal (elder brother of the complainant) but those do not relate to the subject matter of the present complaint. The complainant has submitted that the respondent has published two different baseless, false stories with different subject matter to pressurise and blackmail him. The complainant has submitted that the subject matter of the judicial process are the false and baseless stories published by the respondent on March 27, 2004 onwards i.e. of 31.3.2004,1.4.2004,3.4.2004, 5.4.2004, 9.4.2004, 14.4.2004, 17.4.2004, 25.5.2004, 29.5.2004, 31.5.2004, 1.6.2004, 5.6.2004,7.6.2004. The complainant has submitted that in the issue of 29.5.2004 and 1.6.2004 the respondent published his photograph with the heading “Shatir Apradhi Vishwas Kumar & Natwar Lal Vishwas Kumar” and in the issue of 5.6.2004, the respondent published photograph of his 85 years old father on

417 front page calling him with a bad name. The complainant has submitted that the present complaint relates to the news item published by the respondent on 24.5.2004, which is not the subject matter of any judicial proceedings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. The complainant was present in person. Shri Mohan Nagpal, editor appeared for the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint, added that the respondent editor had published a number of news items using filthy and abusive language against him. Regarding court cases, he submitted that the matter in the court related to property dispute and earlier reports and not the news item in question. The respondent editor, however, stressed that the subject matter i.e. the property dispute was pending in the court. The matter was, thus, sub-judice. He stated that whatever had been published was true and based on facts. He further stated that he would furnish the papers from the court showing that the contents of the news report were the subject matter pending before the court. Matter Adjourned For ascertaining whether the matter was sub-judice or not the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file all the relevant documents along with an affidavit swearing that the subject matter of the complaint before the Press Council was the same as pending in the Court within a fortnight from date of hearing i.e. 14.7.2006. The matter was accordingly adjourned for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. Reply of the Editor In compliance of direction of the Inquiry Committee, the respondent editor, Dainik Pilot vide his letter dated 17.7.2006 furnished an affidavit in support of his claim that the subject matter of the complaint is pending before a court of law. The respondent has admitted that the disputed news of Dainik Pilot dated 24.5.2004 in response to claim of the respondent editor/deponent that the news under reference is subject matter of judicial court of Shri A.L. Khichi, PCS Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, which was filed by Smt. Luxmi Devi (mother of the complainant Vishwas Kumar) and Dr. Subhash Garg (elder brother of complainant Vishwas Kumar) with prayer to register u/s 420/467/ 468 IPC for fabricating and producing forged documents Vakalatnama in the

418 court with the fake thumb impression of Luxmi Devi (mother of the complainant, Vishwas Kumar). The respondent has further informed the Council that the matter is listed before the Judicial Court and is fixed for 8.8.2006. A copy of the letter dated 13.7.2006 along with affidavit filed by the respondent was forwarded to the complainant vide Council’s letter dated 28.8.2006 for his reply thereto to know the veracity of affidavit filed by respondent. Reply of the complainant In response to affidavit dated 17.7.2006 filed by respondent editor, the complainant filed his reply dated 10.10.2006. The complainant submitted that the contents of para No.1 & 2 of the affidavit are correct and rest of the paras of the affidavit are wrong and hence denied. The complainant submitted that police repeatedly held in various inquiries conducted by I.P.S./P.P.S. Officers that the accusation of playing fraud with Harbans Lal by the complainant and withdrawing Rs.10 lakh from his bank account were false. The police had recommended proceeding u/s 182 IPC against Harbans Lal for making false complaints. The complainant further submitted that he had also instituted civil & criminal proceedings against the said Harbans Lal for making such false and defamatory charges against him. Regarding the allegations of putting bogus thumb-impressions of his mother by the complainant to grab a house the complainant stated that the allegation was false. The mother of the complainant had made a statement before the police and had also given an affidavit to the effect that she had put her thumb impression on the Vakalatnama. The report submitted by the handwriting & finger print expert Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and his statement dated 10.9.2005, falsifies the version given by the respondent in the news-item in question. The complainant further submitted that the allegation that SSP, Bhatinda ordered registration of an FIR against a woman and Vishwas Kumar (complainant) was absolutely false. The complainant submitted that no such order was ever made by the SSP, Bhatinda. The complainant further submitted that allegedly false order of SSP, Bhatinda referring the documents having bogus thumb-impression to the forensic lab, Phillaur and the complainant not allowing this order to be implemented, the whole story was a cruel joke being played by Shri Mohan Nagpal upon his readers and also upon the complainant. The complainant further submitted that if he accepted that the matter was sub-judice for argument sake, the newspaper should have correctly reported

419 the proceeding of the court. In this case the respondent completely ignored the version of the complainant and had not bothered to obtain the complainant’s version. The complainant alleged that the respondent had published another news- item to suggest that a fraud has been played in the court and it is being suppressed. The complainant stated that there was nothing on the record to this effect. The respondent made a false presentation of news, to sensationalize the loss caused of reputation to the complainant. The respondent had not specifically mentioned that this heading was part of any court proceeding. The complainant further stated that the essence of his complaint is that the news item published on 24.5.2004 by the respondent in his newspaper is false and has been published maliciously by him with the intention to defame and humiliate the complainant publicly. The respondent had not specifically denied it anywhere in his affidavit. The respondent had taken the false excuse of the matter being sub-judice, merely to escape punishment by Press Council of India. Even if a matter is pending in the court, the respondent does not get a license to peddle lies and fabrications about it in his paper to spoil the reputation of the others. The complainant further stated that the affidavit filed by the respondent, Shri Mohan Nagpal is false. The said item published by the respondent in the Daily Pilot dated 24.5.2004 is not the subject matter of any court case. The complainant prayed that strict action be taken against the respondent for publishing a false, fabricated, malicious and baseless news item against the complainant with the intention to defame and dishonour the complainant in public and blackmailing the complainant. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Vishwas Kumar Garg, the complainant and Shri Mohan Nagpal, representing the Daily Pilot, appeared in person. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent editor, Shri Mohan Nagpal, had published slanderous news to defame him and was taking refuge under technicalities that the matter was sub-judice. This was not so. The respondent had published the news item in the year 2004 whereas now an FIR was filed in the year 2006. The complainant further submitted that the respondent editor was misusing the columns of his newspaper in publishing family feud projecting it as a national issue. The complainant requested that the editor may be asked to apologise for the false and baseless news-item published on 24.5.2004 causing defamation to the complainant and his family.

420 Shri Mohan Nagpal, the respondent submitted that the complainant was accused in a case u/s 420-IPC and he was on bail. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had played fraud with his brother and also with his mother. There were two different cases of fraudulent practices against the complainant and he was on bail in the forgery case. He accepted that the complainant was his erstwhile employee. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material on record and heard the submissions made by the parties. It felt that the respondent newspaper had published the impugned news item at the instance of an interested party and the facts as reported therein was one sided. No attempt had been made to present alongside, the version of the complainant though being an erstwhile employee he would be known to the respondent. He compounded the violation when instead of publishing the clarification of the complainant he published further news reports reiterating the allegations made in the impugned news report. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent newspaper on an earlier occasion in 2003 had also published the similar news and subsequently retracted which exhibited that the newspaper not acting bonafide and systematically bringing into public domain a private family issue that involved no public interest. The newspaper as a watchdog of the society must ensure that its reports are properly verified from the person concerned and in even of rejoinder or clarification from the person concerned, the newspaper as a principal should give due space to the views of the other side. In the instant case, the Inquiry Committee found that the editor, Dainik Pilot, Bhatinda failed to observe the basic principles of the journalism. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and to admonish the editor, Dainik Pilot, Bhatinda for infraction of journalistic norms. 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.

128) Smt. V. Usha Rani, IAS Versus The Editor the then Commissioner Telegu Weekly Municipal Corporation Vijayawada Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) Presently: Collector & DM Mehboobnagar, A.P. Complaint This complaint dated 17.10.2004 has been filed by Smt. V. Usha Rani,

421 IAS, the then Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh), since posted as Collector & DM, Mehboobnagar (A.P.) against “The Editor”, Telugu weekly, Vijayawada alleging publication of false, incorrect and defamatory news items in its issues dated July 21-27, 2004 and July 28-August 3, 2004 respectively under the captions “A 22 lakh scam of tree guards in Bezwada Corporation – Payment within 15 days without 3rd party certificate – Officers surrendered to contractor – Higher official colluded with officer in- charge of Horticulture” and “Ammo…Vigilance – Officers in Vijayawada scared!! – One side IAS-the other side Vigilance” respectively. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that all the statements made in the impugned news items were aimed at and targeted her with false, baseless, incorrect, untrue and defamatory allegations by the respondent only to demoralize her in public. The complainant vide her further letter dated 3.12.2004 informed that the respondent repeated the same news item in its newspaper further issues dated August 18-24, 2004, September 15-21, 2004 and September 22-28, 2004. The complainant submitted that she had issued a notice to the respondent on 29.9.2004 denying the allegation and demanding unconditional apology and to withdraw the allegations but she did not receive any reply from the respondent. Written Statement In response to the show-cause notice dated 29.4.2005, the respondent in his written statement dated 16.5.2005 while denying the allegations, submitted that there was widespread news from the corporation and other public frequently attending the corporation to their connected matters that Horticulture Officer had managed to accept a tender of about Rs.11 lakhs towards purchase of 5000 tree guards without mentioning in the tender notice that reputed manufacturing firms, SSI units could also quote tenders for it. Thus it gave room to accept a tender filed by a civil contractor and payment was made within 15 days on condition imposed by the contractor which was not usually practicable while accepting other tenders. The respondent further submitted that following the new procedure, payment was also made within 15 days which violated the procedure. He stated that the impugned news items were not imaginary and it was in fact speaking of the irregularities committed by the horticulture department with the connivance of the contractor. He stated that there are number of unauthorised constructions in the city, and no action appeared to have been taken by the Corporation despite being brought to the notice of authorities. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s husband, Mr. Kanta Rao was posted as Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement and it was said by the public that she brought her husband to

422 Vijayawada after she joined as Commissioner. Subsequently it was noticed by the public that there were irregularities in corporation, vigilance had not allowed entering, but in small matters of omissions and commissions in administrations, she used to threat that she will place the persons before the vigilance. This resulted in commotion among the officials giving rise to expressions like “Ammo Vigilance” which was published. The respondent stated that there was no personal abuse to the Commissioner but the impugned news items spoke only the public opinions regarding the loopholes and disorders of the Commissioner’s peshi. Further these were the feelings and opinions of the employees and public. The respondent further stated that the impugned news items were considered bonafide, believed to be for the good and made without malice and in public interest only. They had not defamed the complainant and they did not cause any damage to complainant’s reputation. According to the respondent the impugned publications were made with an intention to bring to the notice of the complainant the misdeeds and irregularities committed by the subordinates of different heads of the corporation to safeguard public funds and public interest as a true journalist. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.6.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 17.6.2005 while reiterating what she had submitted in her complaint alleged that the respondent cannot escape from the responsibility of proving the contents/allegations as alleged by him in his written statement. She further submitted that the publications made by the respondent attract the provisions under Section 500 IPC since the intention can be construed as to defame the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and also to defame the other officials of the Institution by bringing down the reputation and the dignity of the public institution. The complainant submitted that the respondent published the impugned news items recklessly and irresponsibly and aim of these publications was suspected to be nothing but to extort money. She requested that the respondent should be dealt with strictly to save the prestige and respect of the journalism and also to save the innocent public servants. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 21.6.2005 for information. Matter Adjourned When the matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee on 21.06.2006 at Hyderabad there was no appearance before it from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted the contents of the letter dated 20.09.2006

423 received from the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada that the complainant Smt. V Usha Rani, IAS had been transferred as Commissioner and D.M. to Mehboobnagar, (A.P.). The Inquiry Committee noted that service on the respondent was also not complete and in order to afford one more opportunity to the parties, decided to adjourn the matter for being listed before it at one of its future meetings. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant despite service of notice at her present posting did not intimate whether she wished to pursue the matter. The Inquiry Committee felt that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the case. It therefore decided to close the complaint for non prosecution 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.

129) Sh. D.S. Murthy, IAS Versus The Editor Commissioner & Director of Marketing Andhra Jyothi Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Hyderabad Complaint Shri D.S. Murthy, IAS, the then Commissioner & Director of Marketing, Marketing Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad filed four separate complaints dated 10.12.04, 28.2.05, 4.6.2005 and 12.7.05 against “Andhra Jyothi’, Telugu daily, Hyderabad for publishing allegedly false, distorted, reckless and one-sided series of impugned news items. The caption and date of the impugned news items read as follows:-

Caption Date “Good Fodder to Marketing Department – Misery to farmers”. 10.12.2004 “Whatever that IAS want he will do”. 28.2.05 “Vigillance action on D.S. Murthy”. 16.6.05

424 A Palanquin for allegations –· • Irregularities in Endowments Calendars • Pressure way on- Inquiry Officer 3.6.2005 • Regular inquiry to be conducted-Vigilance • Even though-A clean chit for D.S. Murthy Does not move – Does not leave 15.6.2005 Dismissal Notice 21.6.2005 Government ordered to implement G.O. 770 22.6.2005 G.O. Falsehood-Counselling falsehood 27.6.2005 NGO’s sore over past times in marketing – Agitation 28.6.2005 against irregular transfers If counselling is adopted it will take one year 30.6.2005

In the impugned publications allegations of corruption and irregularities have been levelled against the complainant. Denying the allegations, the complainant stated that the adverse impugned news items published by the respondent were one sided and totally incorrect. He alleged that it was a deliberate attempt of the respondent to twist facts and present a distorted picture and an attempt by vested interests to somehow scandalize him and prevent him from joining APAT. The complainant submitted that he issued rejoinders on the dates of the publication of impugned news items but the respondent did not bother to publish any of his rejoinders. Regarding the news item published on 16.6.2005 the complainant submitted that these issues had already been published several times in newspapers and clarifications by way of numerous rejoinders issued but none of them was published. The complainant submitted that on refusal to publish the rejoinder issued by the Department, the Marketing employees had issued an advertisement in the newspaper spending Rs. 24,850/-. It also contained the rejoinder and it was published in the Andhra Jyothi on 18.6.2005. The complainant alleged that in fact the newspaper had indulged in blackmailing to increase their income through this sort of system and resorting to yellow journalism. Written Statement Show-cause notices were issued separately to the respondent-editor, Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad on 27.4.2005, 14.9.2005, 27.09.2005 and 17.10.2005 respectively. In response to the show cause notice dated 27.4.2005

425 the respondent editor submitted in his written statement dated 20.5.2005 that the report in question was occasioned by the severe misery of the farmers due to the mal-practices by the staff of Market Yards. The crisis was of particular significance as the livelihood of a large number of farmers who were engaged on agriculture had been adversely affected due to the mal-practices by the staff of market yards. He denied that the news item contained false, reckless and cooked up information. He also denied that wild and reckless allegations were made without verification of cross checking and was published with ulterior motive. The respondent submitted that the news contributor was well aware that the news item was substantially true and the same was published with bonafide intention in good faith in public interest. He further submitted that they published the rejoinder of the complainant on 11.12.2004 which is evident from the complaint itself, which indicated their bonafides. The respondent further submitted that the news item in question published by them was based on facts which were ascertained and verified by their news contributor prior to publication with due care and caution. He stated that the focus of the article was on the corruption, which was rampant and has adversely affected the plight of the farmers. The respondent denied having any malafide motive or intention. In other three complaints no written statement had been filed by the respondent editor. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 12.8.2005, the complainant submitted that the denial published by the respondent was general, evasive and without any supporting evidence of material/documents and he was trying to wriggle out by giving abstract replies which could not be accepted. Further, no specific instances had been cited by the respondent in support of their arguments. Merely stating that the facts were verified before publishing the impugned report is not acceptable, added the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the rejoinder published by the respondent was insignificant and indicative of the biased reporting. He alleged that the news item in question was published with the malafide intention and to blackmail the department for obvious reasons. Matters Adjourned The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri K. Ramachandra Murthy appeared for the Andhra Jyothi. The complainant in a fax dated 20.09.2006 requested for adjournment of the cases. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the complainant and decided to adjourn the cases. No Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters were again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee

426 on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. However, the complainant filed his further reply dated 30.11.2006 reiterating that the issues reported by the respondent Andhra Jyothi were false, concocted and imaginary. The respondent printer/publisher, editor and reporter aimed at defaming him in particular as the Head of the Department i.e. Commissioner and Director of Marketing, joining hands with his adversaries and disgruntled subordinates who could not get their unreasonable requests complied with by him. He alleged that the respondent reporter had been involved in the villification process and got huge monetary gains by joining hands with the disgruntled group of subordinates of Marketing Departments. The complainant, alleged that the respondent reporter had vested interests in reporting falsehood against him and defaming him by publishing no news value for the general public. The complainant further alleged that the respondent Andhra Jyothi had taken up a special agenda to defame him by publishing reckless, misleading and incorrect news items so that he could not join the new posting as Member, A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The complainant asked the Council to provide him documents relating to his own complaints as according to him these were not traceable by him. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records of the cases and noted that the complainant had sought adjournment on the last occasion, despite the fact that the matter was taken up at Hyderabad City, where the complainant was residing. Yet another opportunity given to the complainant to argue his case which was not availed by him and the complainant again sought further adjournment on lame excuses that he needed a copy of documents relating to these complaints, which were already available with the Department from where he had been superannuated. The Inquiry Committee observed that the complainant was seeking adjournment on one pretext or other which was not appreciated. Moreover, the complainant was a public servant whose acts and conduct in discharge of his duties were open to public scrutiny. The rejoinder of the complainant had been published on one occasion and subsequently also the respondent should have allowed the complainant to place his version before the public. However, in view of repeated absence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee decided to close all the four complaints 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.

427 130) Shri S. Rakesh Versus The Editor S/o Shri Siddaramaiah Lankesh Patrike Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka Bangalore Bangalore Complaint This complaint dated 2.7.2005 has been filed by Shri S. Rakesh, S/o Shri Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister, Karnataka against “Lankesh Patrike” for publication of allegedly baseless, misleading and defamatory news item under the heading “Father Deputy-Son a Vagabond” and sub-heading “Father a socialist, son a bane to the society” (English translation) in its issue dated 15.6.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that in an incident, which took place about eight months back in the house of the Deputy Chief Minister, Shri Siddaramaiah at Basaveshwaranger, the father, screamed and thrashed his grown up son with belt and abused him. The son, unable to withstand the blows, hid under the dining table, and added that the father rushed there also, and when he was about to drag the son out and crush under the feet, then the mother came in between and wept. The complainant is alleged to be the boss of the Bangalore’s notorious gang, an addict, running a chain of bars and eloped with a girl against his parent’s approval. He is also alleged to have involved in extortion. It was also stated in the impugned news item when the complainant’s name first appeared in kidnap case of two girls of KLE College, he was only twenty years old, he used to camp at Sandhya Lodge and in the room of Shakhikla Louli, a notorious woman, alleged to have misled the complainant. According to the complainant, the impugned story was published in absolute violation of norms of journalistic conduct, principles and ethics framed by the Council, with malicious intention of vested interest. He also stated that the story is highly defamatory, attacked his privacy and planted to sensationalize the news. The complainant further submitted that the news story is totally baseless, graceless, misleading and spreading the unjustified rumours without proper pre-verification and attempt to hide the truth from the public. The complainant issued a rejoinder (date not mentioned) giving para- wise remarks, demanding unconditional apology, but to no avail. Show-cause notice issued to the respondent on 20.7.2005. Written Statement The respondent-editor, Lankesh Patrike filed his written statement dated 14.8.2005 and submitted that the complaint is baseless and is full of distortions

428 and the same has been lodged with ulterior motives and to cover up his misdeeds. He has added that the article published by him is not malicious and does not contain any statements, which defame the complainant, his family and friends. The respondent further submitted that it is false to allege that his story is highly defamatory and attacked the privacy of the person, as it is based on the actual information gathered and on the facts and circumstances that really exist and for publishing a true story in the interest of equity and justice action may not be take against him. He added that the story published by them is not baseless, graceless, misleading and spreading the unjustified rumours and further without proper pre-verification as tried to be made out by the complainant. The respondent further stated that upon proper verification and after ascertaining the truth and with great restraint they published the story, which has not violated the norms of journalistic conduct, principles and ethics. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.8.2005. There was no response to this. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri A.S. Ponnanna, Advocate appeared for respondent, “Lankesh Patrike” while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant had not been served on him. The Committee in order to afford one more opportunity to the complainant to pursue the matter, decided to adjourn it. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was again no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Ajay Verma, Advocate appeared for the respondent, Lankesh Patrike. The Inquiry Committee noted that the notice of hearing on the complainant had been received back undelivered with postal remarks “No such person at this address-Returned”. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had not intimated his present address and thus he was presumably not interested to pursue his case. The Inquiry Committee therefore 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.

429 131) Shri Rejendra P. Chitale Versus The Editor Managing Partner Indian Express M.P. Chitale & Co. Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra Maharashtra Complaint Shri Rajendra P. Chitale, Managing Partner, M.P. Chitale & Co., Mumbai has filed this complaint dated 31.8.2004 against Indian Express, Mumbai for publishing allegedly slanderous and unverified article titled “Change of Auditors” in its issue dated 8.8.2004. Columnist Sucheta Dalal published the impugned article under the column “Different Strokes”. It was reported in the impugned article that M.P. Chitale & Co. has been statutory auditors or special auditors of Global Trust Bank in the financial year 1999-2000 and the RBI had cast serious aspersions on their reported audit and audit report for the year. Denying the allegation, the complainant has submitted that neither M.P. Chitale & Co. nor its partners have ever had any professional relationship with Global Trust Bank, since its incorporation till date. Consequently the possibility that the RBI could have ever had any adverse remarks against M.P. Chitale & Co. cannot arise. The complainant has submitted that they had vide letter dated 9.8.2004 drawn the attention of Management to the error. The newspaper had carried a correction and apology the very next day i.e. 9.8.2004 in Delhi edition and on 10.8.2004 in Mumbai edition, but the correction was carried in a place and page materially obscure compared to the place and prominence with which the impugned article was carried by Indian Express. Moreover, the correction did not even refer to Ms Sucheta Dalal, the columnist who wrote the slanderous impugned article. The complainant has submitted that even the correction was neither complete nor mentioned in the correction as M.P. Chitale & Co. The name of the other firm mentioned in the correction, was Mukund M. Chitale & Co. and not M.M. Chitale. The complainant has submitted that the attempt seems to have been to dismiss or trivialize the error as a simple typographical mistake, which in fact was not so at all. The complainant has submitted that the impugned article was written without checking the facts and correction was also issued without checking the facts. The complainant has further submitted that the columnist Ms Sucheta Dalal’s article also published in Divya Bhaskar, Gujarati daily and contents of the impugned articles also appeared prominently on her own website

430 www.Suchetadalal.com under the heading “Investors Beware”. The complainant has submitted that a separate letter dated 9.8.2004 had also been written to Ms Sucheta Dalal asking her to disclose the list of all newspapers and other publication to which she may have contributed the impugned articles but she did not file any reply. She did not carry either a clarification or a correction or an apology in her next ‘Different Strokes’ column published in Indian Express on 15.8.2004. The complainant has submitted that this itself shows that the impugned article is written with malice towards M.P. Chitale & Co. According to the complainant, the Indian Express carried the correction before they issued the same which itself showed that not only the article was published without verifying the facts but the correction was also carried out without checking the facts. The complainant has submitted that M.P. Chitale & Co. has an impeccable professional reputation built over two generations spanning over the last 57 years and the contents of the impugned article have been manifestly injurious to reputation of their firm. The complainant has requested the Council to take action against the respondent for violating the Press Council’s guidelines and to remedy the injustice and prejudice caused to M.P. Chitale & Co. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 12.10.2004 for filing written statement. The editor, The Indian Express, Mumbai in his written statement dated 1st November 2004 has submitted that the names of two chartered accountant firms, M/s M.P. Chitale & Co. and M/s M.M. Chitale & Co. were similar, there was a genuine mistake. The respondent has submitted that the confidential report of RBI mentions at one place the name of the firm merely as “Chitale”. The respondent has submitted that there was a simple and genuine typographical error – it is possible to make a mistake between M.M. Chitale, and M.P. Chitale. The respondent has submitted that there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the columnist Ms. Sucheta Dalal or the newspapers to make an error. There is demonstrably a total absence of malafides on the part of Ms. Dalal, the newspaper and the editor. The respondent has submitted that the newspapers (Delhi and Mumbai) editions have acted promptly carrying the corrigendum, in the very next issue, i.e. 9.8.2004 and 10.8.2004 respectively. The respondent has submitted that the corrigendum and correction have been carried prominently, on the business pages, as the column complained of was also carried on the business pages of he newspapers. The respondent has submitted that it is extremely important that the column was carried on Sunday in the business page, which is less likely to be read by business people; while the corrigendum was carried on Monday morning on the business page, prominently, which is more likely to be read by business persons; and the correction Tuesday

431 morning. The respondent has submitted that the newspapers have expressed regrets and apologized respectively for the error. The respondent has submitted that the complainant had not written any letter to him nor did he write any letter to Ms. Coomi Kapoor, who is the editor of The Indian Express, Delhi edition, prior to filing of the complaint, as required under clause 3(c) of the Press Council l(Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. The respondent has submitted that in the absence thereof, no complaint can lie against the newspaper in respect of publication/non publication. The respondent has submitted that care has been taken to carry the correction in the column of Ms. Sucheta Dalal “Different Strokes” and subtitled “Change of auditors” on the web site of the newspaper, i.e. the column clearly mentions “M.M. Chitale” as the auditor against whom adverse remarks were made in the RBI inspection report. The respondent has submitted that similarly if anyone should access the said column through the archives of the newspaper’s web site, the auditor’s name has been corrected to “M.M. Chitale.” The respondent has submitted that Ms Sucheta Dalal has also carried on her website, the correction to her column “Different Strokes” where she clearly expresses her regrets. Significantly, the correction and regrets still appear on her website. The respondent has submitted that the other editions of The Indian Express, which had carried the column of Ms. Sucheta Dalal, had also carried the correction with apology/corrigendum with regrets on the business page of the respective editions. The respondent has submitted that Ms. Sucheta Dalal had prepared the column on the basis of information received at that time. She had done so in good faith and the newspaper had carried the column in good faith and without malice towards the complainant or anybody else. The respondent has submitted that the contents of Ms. Dalal’s columns deal with matters of public interest and concern and the information in the column was true and correct i.e., that RBI’s confidential report had strictures against a Chartered Accountant firm re GTB. The respondent has submitted that unfortunately, it incorrectly mentioned the name of the firm as M.P. Chitale instead of M.M. Chitale and unfortunately linked Rajendra Chitale’s firm to that of M.M. Chitale. The respondent has submitted that the newspaper tries as far as possible to contact the persons or companies against whom any allegations or news is received, so as to carry their comments and version of events in their news reports. The respondent has submitted that this complaint relates to a column – it is a senior journalist’s article commenting on important or current issues on the financial and capital markets for newspapers. The respondent has submitted that while writing a column or an editorial, columnists or the editor does not contact persons or companies covered to carry their comments. The respondent has submitted that it is unfortunate that the complainant wants the publication of yet another apology from Ms. Sucheta Dalal and the newspaper which significantly does not mention M.M. Chitale nor Mukund M. Chitale or that the correction and apology/regrets were carried by the newspapers

432 immediately, and Ms. Dalal has on her website carried the correction and regrets which still appear there. The respondent has submitted that the newspaper and Ms Dalal have published the correction, as soon as the inadvertent mistake was discovered, promptly, prominently and adequately, without waiting for the complainant or anyone else to point out the same. The respondent has submitted that by way of abundant caution he has checked the guidelines drawn up by the Press Council of India. That provide: “Corrections When any factual error or mistake is detected or confirmed, the newspaper should publish the correction promptly, with due prominence and with apology or expression of regrets in a case of serious lapse.” The respondent has submitted that they have complied with the guidelines in practice and spirit. The respondent has submitted that there exists no circumstances for the Press Council of India to warn, reprimand or admonish the editor or Ms. Sucheta Dalal for the newspapers. Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.12.2004. The complainant in his counter comments dated 3.1.2005 has submitted that the very starting point of Indian Express’s reply is false, and an attempt to deflect the attention from a malicious, irrespsonsible and grossly negligent act of Indian Express’s columnist Sucheta Dalal, and trying to pass off the whole issue as a “typographical error” of “M.P. Chitale” instead of “M.M. Chitale”. The complainant has submitted that on a prima facie reading of the item “Change of Auditors”, it would be self-evident that the focus of Sucheta Dalal’s item was not the RBI confidential report on some chartered accounting firm, but was clearly about unraveling the reasons as to why M.P. Chitale & Co. refused the special audit assignment given to M.P. Chitale & Co. by RBI in connection with the moratorium on GTB and its consequential merger of GTB into Oriental Commercial Bank. The complainant has pointed out that in fact as per the impugned report “the RBI may have dug up the long buried audit report of 1999-2000 (including the confidential notes) and discovered that M.P. Chitale was in fact the auditor of GTB that year. Not only that, the RBI inspection report makes some extremely negative remarks about the role of the audit firm. In fact, it said, amongst other things “there was no transparency of the observations of auditors on the affairs of the Bank, particularly the correctness and adequacy of provisions. No divergences in asset classification and provisioning were furnished to the Bank by the auditors in writing”. The inspection report specifically mentioned that the Bank’s proposal to reappoint

433 the auditor “needs to be examined in the light of the above”. Soon after, the firm stopped auditing GTB.” The complainant has submitted that the written statement is mischievously misleading and patently false when it states that the focus of Sucheta Dalal’s item was about RBI’s confidential reports on GTB auditors. It can be seen that Sucheta Dalal has talked about RBI report only to malign ‘M.P. Chitale.’ But for the unverified assumptions made by Sucheta Dalal of irresponsibly linking M.P. Chitale & Co. to the audit of GTB for the financial year 1999-2000, there would have been no context for the elaborate reference to the RBI report. The complainant has submitted that the respondent repeatedly talks of the similarity between the names M.P. Chitale & Co. and M.M. Chitale & Co. when, the factual reality is that the name of the other firm referred to by The Indian Express as M.M. Chitale & Co. is actually Mukund M. Chitale & Co. The complainant has submitted that by repeatedly mentioning the name of the other firm as M.M. Chitale & Co. instead of the correct name of Mukund M. Chitale & Co., the respondent takes shelter under yet another basic factual mistake to justify the gross irresponsibility on the part of Ms Sucheta Dalal of writing the item without having performed the basic professional journalistic duty of verification of elementary facts. Further the respondent goes on to yet another falsehood by stating that Ms Sucheta Dalal inadvertently linked Shri Rajendra Chitale, the Managing Partner of M.P. Chitale & Co. with M.M. Chitale. This is patently false and untrue when Ms Sucheta Dalal’s item itself mentions that Shri Rajendra Chitale is the Managing Partner of M.P. Chitale & Co. The complainant has submitted that Ms Sucheta Dalal and Shri Rajendra Chitale are known to each other for the past several years, which fact can be easily verified by the respondent from Ms Sucheta Dalal. The complainant has submitted that Ms Sucheta Dalal and Shri Rajendra Chitale have both been common members of a Committee appointed by the Government of India under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The complainant has submitted that the respondent has stated that Ms Sucheta Dalal is one of their foremost journalists whose column comments on important or correct issues on financial and capital markets, and given her seniority, the editor does not contact persons or companies covered to carry their comments. The complainant has submitted that this is the very reason that they submit that a clear apology and correction (without errors) on the lines set out in the complaint needs to be carried by Ms Sucheta Dalal in her column in which the original malicious item/story appeared on 8th August 2004. The complainant has submitted that on the one hand, the respondent raises technical objections about maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complaint was not addressed to the Resident Editor, Mumbai, when it was addressed to Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Managing Editor of The Indian Express, the respondent tries to justify that the so called correction on Ms Sucheta Dalal’s website constitutes Ms Sucheta Dalal’s apology and correction to the readers of The Indian Express and her column ‘Different

434 Strokes’ in The Indian Express! Strange logic this, to say the least. The complainant has submitted that they reiterated his request regarding the imperative of Ms Sucheta Dalal carrying a comprehensive apology and correction on the lines set out therein.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 21.2.2005 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006. Shri Rajendra P. Chitale, the complainant was present before the Committee in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Indian Express.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant, in his oral submissions reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He added that unverified allegations had been published deliberately to tarnish the image of the Company. The clarification published was at an obscene place and was incomplete and did not undo the damage caused to the reputation and goodwill of the firm through the impugned report.

Directions of the Inquiry Committee – Matter Kept Pending

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments of the complainant. It noted that the respondent had, in the correction published, admitted that in the report it was inadvertently reported that M.P. Chitale had audited the Global Trust Bank in 1999-2000. The clarification so published did not completely undo the damage done to the goodwill of the firm, leaving the complainant dissatisfied. The Inquiry Committee felt that the remarks made by the well-established financial columnist had the potential for grave damage to the good will of the complainant. More so, as the article analysed the information sought to be conveyed. It, therefore, felt that the prayer made by the complainant for publication of duly referred clarification along with regrets was not unreasonable, even while no malafide could be attributed to the respondents. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to pass an interim order directing The Indian Express, Mumbai to publish the clarification of the complainant dated 9.8.2004, which was sent by him to The Indian Express, with a note of regret with the same prominence and with due reference to the impugned report. It further directed that a copy of the issue of the newspaper carrying the clarification be forwarded to the Inquiry Committee for record. It also decided that if The Indian Express does not publish the clarification in keeping with the above directions of the Inquiry Committee, it will be open to

435 the Inquiry committee to examine the matter for action under Section 14(1) of the Act. The matter may be kept pending to await the compliance.

The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the respondent Indian Express, Mumbai vide letters dated 5.6.2006 followed by reminders dated 23.8.2006 and 18.10.2006 but no reply was received.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter again came up for consideration by the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant in his letter dated 13.11.2006 requested for leave of absence from the hearing. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Indian Express.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee at the very outset took serious note that the respondent Indian Express despite an opportunity to make amends by publishing the clarification with a note of regret vide office letter dated 5.6.2006 followed by reminders dated 23.8.2006 and 18.10.2006, did not comply with the directions.

The Inquiry Committee disapproved the conduct of the editor, Indian Express, in not correcting the position as established by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted that primary intent and purpose of the Press Council is not to establish the guilt of and to punish the newspapers but to act as a pater familia and guide them towards correct journalistic conduct and responsibilities by accepting and admitting their bonafide errors and making amends and/or allow people to place their version before the public as the ultimate judge. To this end an interim opportunity had been afforded to the respondent to correct the position which it failed to avail. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint against The Indian Express for inaccuracies in the report and its failure to publish the version of the complainant. The respondent paper may further be directed under Section 14 (2) of the Press Council Act to publish with prominence the gist of the adjudication in the newspaper within a fortnight from the service of the adjudication of the Council.

Decision of the Council

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

436 132) Ms. Sheela Patel Versus The Editor Director The Asian Age Society for Promotion of Area Mumbai Resource Centers (SPARC) Maharashtra Mumbai, Maharashtra Complaint This complaint dated 6.9.2004 has been filed by Ms. Sheela Patel, Director, Society for Promotion of Area Resource Centers (SPARC), Mumbai against “The Asian Age” for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items under the caption, “Magsaysay Awardee lets Khar slum dwellers down” and “Residents accuse Jockin of swindling 1.2 crores” in its issues dated 17.7.2004 and 18.7.2004 respectively. In the first news item dated 17.7.2004 three accusations were levelled against Mr. Jockin, President of the National Slum Dwellers Federation and Magsaysay Awardee 2000. The accusations were that Mr. Jockin had promised housing for certain slum dwellers and then failed to deliver this to them; that he had sold 200 transit accommodations @ Rs. 4 lakhs each and made a personal profit from this; and that although SPARC claimed that 10,000 slum families had been resettled by the Mumbai Urban Transport Project, only 2000 had actually been resettled. The second impugned news item dated 18.7.2004, accused Mr. Jockin of two things i.e. Mr. Jockin had been collecting money from families resettled by SPARC along the railway lines and from various transit and permanent accommodations in Mumbai under the guise of making their electricity payments to the State Electricity Board but he actually misappropriated these funds; and he (Mr.Jockin) was deliberately withholding the title documents for the flats into which the resettled communities had moved. Giving the details, the complainant has submitted that the SPARC is one of the largest Indian NGOs working on housing and infrastructure issues for the urban poor. Since 1986 the SPARC has been working in alliance with two community-based organizations National Slum Dwellers Federation and Mahila Milan which works in 70 cities in the country. She has submitted that Mr. Jockin Arputham is the President of the National Slum Dwellers Federation and was awarded the prestigious Raman Magsaysay Award. He founded this Federation in 1974. The organization was seriously disturbed by the method of inquiry by the respondent and the presentation of false accusations, which damaged the reputation of SPARC and Mr. Jockin. The organization was aggrieved firstly, over the failure on the part of the editor, to check whether the story that was to be published had been adequately verified; and secondly, by his refusal to

437 publish their responses. According to the complainant, the respondent violated the principles of accurate, serious and fair investigative journalism. The complainant has submitted that she sent two letters dated 18.7.2004 and 24.7.2004 to the respondent in respect of the impugned news items but the respondent did not give any reply nor published the letter. However, the respondent published on 21.7.2004 the letters of three eminent citizens of Mumbai. The complainant has submitted that in the published letters there were several inconsistencies in respondent’s reply. Thus they wrote a letter to the respondent on 22.7.2004 pointing out these inconsistencies and reiterating why and how Mr. Jockin and SPARC had been wrongly accused of misconduct and theft. The complainant has requested the Council to inquire into the matter and direct the respondent to publish a public apology to both Mr. Jockin as well as SPARC and also publish both the letters from SPARC and in addition take such action against the respondent as deem fit. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 9.12.2004. The respondent editor, The Asian Age, Mumbai has not filed his written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006. Shri Sundar Burra, Adviser, SPARC was present before it on behalf of the complainant while no one represented the respondent newspaper, The Asian Age, Mumbai. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant, reiterating the averments made in the complaint, submitted that there were three accusations in the news report dated 17.7.2004, namely, Mr. Jockin had promised housing for certain slum dwellers and then failed to deliver this to them; that he had sold 200 transit accommodations @ Rs. 4 lakhs each and made a personal profit from this; and that although SPARC claimed that 10,000 slum families had been resettled by the Mumbai Urban Transport Project, only 2000 had actually been resettled. There was no evidence in support of these charges. The reputation earned over the years has been destroyed in one stroke by publishing false and defamatory news reports. The respondent did not bother to verify the facts before publishing the reports. The representative also pointed out that in the impugned reports it had stated one day that Jockin could not be contacted and the second day that he denied the charges. Further, while publishing the letters of some readers on

438 the issue on 21.7.2004, the paper appended a long reply reiterating their stand and saying that Jockin had in his comments only claimed to be a ‘saviour’. He added that the respondent did not care to publish the clarification sent by the complainant. Directions of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the representative of the complainant. At the outset the Committee expressed its strong displeasure over the attitude of the respondent, The Asian Age, in not responding to show cause notice issued on 9.12.2004 by this statutory authority and for remaining unrepresented before the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee noted that the main grouse of the complainant was absence of due pre-verification and non-publication of the clarification sent to the respondent. The Inquiry Committee in accordance with the guidelines regarding right to reply which reads as: “The newspaper should promptly and with due prominence, publish either in full or with due editing, free of cost, at the instance of the person affected or feeling aggrieved/or concerned by the impugned publication, a contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder sent to the editor in the form of a letter or note. If the editor doubts the truth or factual accuracy of the contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder, he shall be at liberty to add separately at the end, a brief editorial comment doubting its veracity, but only when this doubt is reasonably founded on unimpeachable documentary or other evidential material in his/her possession. This is a concession which has to be availed of sparingly with due discretion and caution in appropriate cases”. The Committee noted that this was a case involving larger public interest and while pre-verification of facts is an essential component of reporting, having carried the report, it was incumbent on the part of the paper to have afforded the complainant organization its right to rejoinder on the principles of fair play. The Committee, therefore, decided to pass interim orders directing the editor, The Asian Age, Mumbai to publish the clarification of the complainant dated 22.7.2004 which was already available with them and to forward a copy of the issue carrying the clarification to the complainant and the Press Council of India for record. It decided to reserve final recommendations and to await the compliance of interim orders of the Council by The Asian Age. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant in a letter dated 30.11.2006 expressed his inability to appear before the Committee due to financial constraints. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent - The Asian Age.

439 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee disapproved the conduct of the editor, Asian Age, in not publishing the version provided by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee noted that primary intent and purpose of the Press Council is not to establish the guilt of and to punish the newspapers but to act as a pater familia and guide them towards correct journalistic conduct and responsibilities by accepting and admitting their bonafide errors and making amends and/or allow people to place their version before the public as the ultimate judge. To this end an interim opportunity had been afforded to the respondent to correct the position which it failed to avail. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint against The Asian Age for inaccuracies in the report and its failure to publish the version of the complainant. The respondent paper may further be directed under Section 14( 2) of the Press Council Act to publish the gist of the adjudication in the newspaper with prominence within a fortnight from the service of the adjudication of the Council. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

133) Shri Y.N. Mathur Versus The Editor Deputy General Manager-(Legal) Chhattisgarh Reporter South-Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Complaint This complaint-dated 26.5.2004 has been filed by Shri Y.N. Mathur, Deputy General Manager, (Legal), South-Eastern Coalfields Limited, (SECL), Bilaspur against ‘Chhattisgarh Reporter’ a Hindi weekly, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh for publication of allegedly false, malicious and defamatory news item under caption “UkÉÉÒºÉMÉfà ÉÊ®{ÉÉä]Ç® BÉEÉ ºÉxɺÉxÉÉÒJÉäVÉ JÉÖãÉɺÉÉ iÉäãÉMÉÉÒ VÉèºÉÉ +ÉÉè® ¤ÉbÃÉ PÉÉä]ÉãÉÉ- AºÉ.<Ç.ºÉÉÒ.AãÉ. àÉå |ÉÉÊiÉ ´É­ÉÇ 10 +É®¤É °ô{ɪÉä BÉEÉ PÉÉä]ÉãÉÉ, ÉʺÉãÉÉʺÉãÉÉ ´É­ÉÉæ ºÉä VÉÉ®ÉÒ-ÉʶÉBÉEɪÉiÉ n¤ÉÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA =SSÉ ºiÉ®ÉÒªÉ |ɪÉɺÉ, BÉDªÉÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ <ºÉ PÉÉä]ÉãÉä BÉEÉä =VÉÉMÉ® BÉE®åMÉä ?” in its issue dated April 19-24, 2004. It was reported in the impugned news item that “the profitable SECL of Coal India is in the clutches of corrupt officers and coal mafia. There is misappropriation/manipulation of Rs. 10 Arab every year and this scam is continuing since last 15 years in which many high level ministers, administrative officers and businessmen are involved. However, an M.P. has complained to the Prime Minister against this scam with the substantial proof but it is doubtful

440 that the scam will be exposed because high-level attempt is being made to suppress it. Will the Prime Minister expose this scam?” The impugned news item further states that “the Dy. General Manager Sh. V.K. Talwar has given secret information against the General Manager Sh. Vijay Kachhroo of Sales and Marketing Department regarding fraud of Rs.200 crore to the CMD & Director, Marketing Coal India but instead of causing inquiry, Mr.Talwar has been threatened by the company to withdraw his complaint. Shri Talwar has been transferred to Dhankani in West Bengal within four days due to non- withdrawal of his complaint. The sale department in the purchase of machineries, spare parts, vehicles, explosive products, Mobil-oil, diesel, petrol and computer etc. is committing fraud. The impugned news item further stated that CMD Mahesh Kumar Thapar and G.M. Vijay Kachhroo has a very important role in the scam. A case of fraud and corruption is also pending before the CBI against Mr. Kachhroo when he was in Maharashtra Electricity Mandal for delivery of coal. The CMD Mahesh Thapar has been removing or transferring the good officials of the company, by misusing his power and deputing and promoting his own officials’ due to which the graph of corruption is continuously increasing in his tenure. The Dy. GM Talwar in his letter dated. 11.10.2002 has demanded inquiry of corruption against Shri Kachhroo but there was no result.” Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the allegation levelled against him is false, malicious and defamatory and the respondent by levelling these allegations offended the journalistic ethics and public taste and also committed professional misconduct by publishing the impugned publication. The complainant has alleged that the newspaper was distributed free in the office and residences of the employees of the company. The complainant stated that the Vigilance Department of the company, is headed by the Chief Vigilance Officer appointed by the Government of India, who in normal course takes due care to prevent any such situation. The allegations levelled against Mr. Thapar and Mr. Kachhroo are false and published with the intention to harm their reputation as well as that of the company as there is no inquiry pending against Mr. Kachhroo. All purchases are made as per purchase manual of the company. The complainant further submitted that the respondent again published another false news item on 9.5.2004 in his efforts to tarnish the image, prestige and reputation of Shri Thapar, other senior officials and the company as a whole. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Chhattisgarh Reporter, on 2.7.2004. Written Statement The respondent, Chief Editor, Chhattisgarh Reporter in his written statement dated 16.7.2004 has submitted that the complaint is false and

441 concocted and that the news item in question published on 19-24th April 2004 contained nothing that was false, malicious or defamatory news against SECL and its officials nor was it published for blackmailing. The respondent also stated that the allegation of the complainant that the newspaper was distributed free of cost and without demand, is not correct as the newspaper is being distributed through their agents. The respondent further submitted that they have never published the news item to defame the CMD Sh. M.K. Thapar, but it was published in the interest of public as well as the nation on the basis of information received from public leader and officials. The respondent has submitted that the news item in question was based on the letter dated 16.2.2004, written by Shri Ramadhar Kashyap, MP, (Rajya Sabha) to the former Prime Minister, Mr. A.B.Vajpayee, stating that within 15 years, SECL has incurred loses to the tune of Rs.1000 Crores due to involvement of big politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and coal mafia. The respondent stated that Shri Thomas Hansda, Lok Sabha Member demanded on 9.3.2004, action by the CBI against M.K. Thapar. The respondent further submitted that Sh. V.K. Talwar, Dy. Chief Sales Manager, who filed a complaint against The General Manager Vijay Kachhroo was transferred when he declined to withdraw his complaint. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 9.8.2004 for information and counter comments. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 5.8.2004 has submitted that it is clear from the impugned news item that the main object and modus operandi of the respondent is to publish false and fabricated reports against various higher officers of the company in order to blackmail them. He has stated that Sh.M.K. Thapar, Chief Managing Director, South-Eastern Coalfield Limited had joined the company on 14.5.2003 and all the allegations levelled by the complainant in his news report are prior to his joining and hence there is no question of involvement of Mr.Thapar. The complainant further submitted that writing of letters can not be the basis for publishing report, and it can be based on rumours and unverified allegations. The complainant further submitted that the petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh by Sh. V.K.Talwar can neither be the basis for publication of a news report because the pleadings have not been decided by the court and whatever may be the fact, the same has to be proved before the court. The complainant submitted that the respondent has published the news report in question without mentioning that the matter is sub-judice as he was bound not to publish the matter which was pending in the Hon’ble High Court. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 19.8.2004 for information.

442 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Y.N. Mathur, Deputy General Manager (Legal), Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Bilaspur and the respondent Shri Bhagwat Jaiswal, Chief Editor, Chhattisgarh Reporter, Bilaspur appeared in person before the Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Chhattisgarh Reporter had published false, malicious and defamatory news item in its issue dated April 19-24, 2004 to defame the company and its Chief Managing Director making allegations of large-scale corruptions. The complainant further submitted that the address of the letter by a Member of Parliament to the former Primer Minister could not be the basis for publishing the impugned news report. The paper was duty bound to verify facts at pre/post publication stage, more so because most of the charges had been levelled in a writ petition which had become infrucutous. The respondent submitted that the news report in question was published on the basis of a complaint letter of the Member of Parliament to the Prime Minister. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper tried to contact the company for verification of facts but could not elicit response. The complainant company did not send any contradiction even after publication of the news report. The respondent editor filed written submission dated 5.12.2006 stating therein that complainant company has initiated number of proceedings against him at various courts including Hon’ble High Court at Bilaspur. A civil suit had also been filed before the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur for damages. A case under Sections 499, 500 IPC is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. A criminal case No. 524/2004 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. A case No.420/2004 was registered with the Police Station, Pondi Tehsil, Baikunthpur. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint being sub-judice. The complainant in response agreed that cases had been filed against the respondent but deferred saying that these were criminal nature. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent newspaper had published the impugned news item on the basis of letter written by a public figure-the Member of Parliament to Prime Minister which showed that the newspaper had reasonable basis for publication. The 443 Committee observed that at a later date, the facts may turn out to be otherwise but if at a given time the press has reasonable grounds for publishing a matter in public interest and it has made sufficient efforts to obtain the version of all concerned, it was proper on its part to publish the said report and any stand otherwise would amount to gagging the press and its freedom to report in public interest. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the complainant company had not chosen to send a factual rejoinder to the newspaper. On the contrary, the complainant company issued a legal notice threatening to take legal action and had in fact filed such cases. Despite this Shri S.K. Gangeli, Advocate on the panel of the complainant company had filed the declaration along with the complainant affirming that the subject of the complaint was not pending in any court of law and that the Council would be informed if the matter became sub-judice. The Inquiry Committee deprecated conduct of the complainant company in filing declaration that had later become invalidated of its own choice but it concealed the fact from the Council till the respondent mentioned it before the Committee. Taking serious objection to the matter, Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to drop the proceedings in the complaint being sub-judice in accordance to Section 14(3) of the Press Council Act, 1978. 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.

134) Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma Versus The Editor M/s Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers Dainik Jagran Moradabad Bareilly Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 20.05.2004 has been filed by Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma, M/s Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers against Dainik Jagran, Bareilly alleging publication of false and baseless news item and photograph of the shop of M/s. Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers in its issue dated 1.3.2004 under the caption, ‘Disorder due to raid on the jewellers shop’ and sub-title under the photograph ‘Seohara Police reached to Adhunik Alankar Jewellers show room for inquiry and crowd gathered outside the show room’. The complainant submitted that the news item and the photograph is false and misleading as no such raid was conducted on M/s Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers. The Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers had no relation with Shri Dhiraj Kumar jewellers the adjacent shop which was raided. The

444 complainant submitted that a notice dated 18.3.2004 was issued to the respondent but did not get any response. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran on 12.7.2004. The news editor, Dainik Jagran in his written statement dated 21.7.2004 submitted that it is correct that the raid was not conducted on the showroom of Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers. The raid was conducted on the showroom of Shri Dhiraj Kumar Jewellers, neighbour of the complainant. The respondent submitted that Shri Ravi Kumar, Partner of M/s Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers is an Executive in the Jewellers Committee, Moradabad and also the neighbour of Shri Dhiraj Kumar. The police and the so called accused Shri Dhiraj Kumar were called by Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma at his showroom to discuss the matter. The other Executive of Jewellers Committee, Business Committee and shopkeepers and other people had gathered there at the showroom, of Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma. The respondent submitted that in the news item nowhere it has been mentioned that Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers has any relation with Shri Dhiraj Kumar Jewellers. The respondent submitted that the people had gathered in front of Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers, therefore, the photo of the said showroom was published. In the news item it has not been mentioned that the inquiry in the case of Shri Dhiraj Kumar was conducted at the showroom of Adhunik Alankar Bankers & Jewellers. The respondent carried a corrigendum in the next issue dated 17.3.2004 while publishing the clarification of the complainant under the caption “Police did not interrogate Me: Ravi”. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 10.8.2004 asking him to inform the Council whether he was satisfied with the publication of clarification. The complainant vide his letter dated 20.08.2004 informed that he was not satisfied with the publication of clarification as no such clarification which was published was given by him. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma appeared in person while Shri Manoj Rastogi appeared for the respondent newspaper, Dainik Jagran. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant, Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma filed a letter dated 4.12.2006 stating that the Dainik Jagran in 4.12.2006 issue has published the contradiction under the caption: “Adhunik Alankar has no connection with the police action”. The complainant expressed his satisfaction over publication of the contradiction

445 and requested that the matter may be closed as withdrawn. The respondent also intimated vide letter dated 4.12.2006 that the complainant has not pressed the complaint in view of publication of the contradiction in 4.12.2006 issue of the newspaper and thus the complaint may be closed. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the fact that the grievance of the complainant had been redressed with the publication of the contradiction in 4.12.2006 issue of Dainik Jagran and the complainant wished to withdraw the complaint, decided to dismiss the complaint being settled and withdrawn with an advise to the respondent to carefully ensure the accuracy of its report. 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.

135) Mohd. Saifi Quadri Versus Editor Pilibhit, Meerut Dainik Jagran Uttar Pradesh Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 26.7.2004 has been filed by Mohd. Saifi Quadri, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh against “Dainik Jagran”, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “So-called brother embezzled Rs. 9 lakhs of blind woman-teacher” (English translation) in its issue dated 28.6.2004. The impugned news alleged that the adopted brother who once promised to take the sister’s family on Pakistan tour and have her eyes treated today plots to kill them. He is alleged to have misappropriated Rs. 9.5 lakhs, which the sister Zeenat had got on voluntary retirement, deciving her through forged documents of a house and forged signature. It was also alleged that when Smt. Zeenat felt his cheating she called her husband from Delhi but Saifi refused to refund money to her husband. Some Samajwadi Party and its leaders rushed and talked to Saifi but no settlement could be arrived at. The husband of Zeenat made a complaint to the police station but no action was taken. Denying the allegations, the complainant alleged that the respondent sensationalized news by using false, misleading and defamatory words to tarnish his image in the society. The complainant stated that the respondent has published false and defamatory news items against him with the help of Smt. Zeenat’s husband, Shri Saleem Shirajee with malicious attitude. According to the 446 complainant, he had no relation with Smt. Zeenat Jahan. The complainant further submitted that Smt. Zeenat had complained against him before Police Superintendent and on investigation he was found innocent. Regarding the allegation of touring Pakistan and treatment of eyes, the complainant stated that Smt. Zeenat and her family is capable for treatment in Delhi where all facilities are available. The complainant also denied the allegation that he had opened any saving account of Smt. Zeenat in SBI but in fact she herself opened her account 10-15 years ago. He alleged that the respondent published the impugned news item with the motive to blackmail him. The complainant sent a point-wise contradiction/notice dated 20.7.2004 to the respondent by registered post but the respondent refused to take the same. The complainant stated that he apprised the respondent personally about the factual position but he did not care to publish the contradiction. He requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Show cause notice dated 9.2.2005 was issued to the editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 17.3.2005 denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the impugned news item was published without any malafide or intention to malign the reputation of the complainant. The respondent submitted that the impugned news item was published on the basis of a written complaint to Superintendent of Police by Smt. Zeenat Jahan in which she alleged fraud by the complainant with her. The respondent stated that the other local newspapers had also published the same news item. The respondent submitted that if the complainant placed his side in response to the matters contained in the article they were ready to publish the same in his newspaper. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.6.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Mohd. Saifi Quadri appeared in person. Shri Nirmal Kant Shukla, Sub-Editor, represented the respondent newspaper, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Dainik Jagran published a false and defamatory news alleging embezzlement, which tarnished his image in the society. The complainant stated that his health deteriorated after spreading

447 of the false news item by the newspaper and it caused him lot of mental agony. The complainant further stated that allegations made in the news item were totally false and on investigation, the police had given clean chit to him. He had requested the respondent newspaper to publish his rejoinder but this was not done. The representative of the Dainik Jagran submitted that the complainant had not given any contradiction, but had sent a legal notice only. The other newspapers also published similar reports. The respondent’s representative stated that the newspaper was ready to publish the rejoinder of the complainant. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the material on record opined that the respondent had published the immensely damaging news item against the complainant without adhering to the canons of journalistic ethics in verifying the facts from the complainant. The respondent Dainik Jagran compounded the offence by not giving the right of reply to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that it was incumbent on the part of the respondent newspaper to have cross checked the facts and followed up the news by ascertaining further development from the police authorities, which had given clean chit to the complainant after investigating the charges. The Inquiry Committee was, thus, of the considered opinion that the respondent had caused irreparable damage to the reputation of the complainant by levelling various allegations in the impugned news item. The Inquiry Committee in order to mitigate the damage recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and direct the respondent Dainik Jagran to publish the rejoinder of the complainant and append an apology on behalf of the newspaper for publishing the impugned news report without verifying the facts. It may direct the respondent newspaper to forward a copy of the issue carrying the rejoinder to the Press Council of India and 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.

136) Shri D.C. Pandey Versus The Editor District Information Officer Apne Log Haridwar, Uttaranchal Haridwar, Uttaranchal Complaint This complaint dated 19.7.2004 has been filed by Shri D.C. Pandey, District Information Officer, Haridwar Uttaranchal against Apne Log, Haridwar

448 based Hindi Daily alleging publication of false, baseless and misleading news item under the caption “Vivadon Main Ghire Sthanantarit Zila Soochna Adhikari Nahi Chhod Rahe Haridwar” (Controversial transferred District Information Officer is not leaving Haridwar) in its issue dated 16.7.2004. It has been reported in the impugned news item that the complainant was taking bribe for issuing advertisements to the newspapers and misleading the higher officers by deleting the names of recognized newspapers from the list of accreditation. The impugned news item further stated that the staff of Information Directorate was also being harassed by the complainant. The impugned publication further charged the complainant with corruption. According to the complainant, the impugned news item is totally false, concocted, baseless and has been published by the respondent with a view to defame him in the public. The complainant has denied the allegations of corruption levelled against him in the impugned publication. The complainant has submitted that he wrote a letter dated 17.7.2004 to the editor, Apne Log, Haridwar denying the allegations with the request to publish contradiction of the impugned news item but the respondent not only refused to accept the same but did not even give any reply. He has requested the Council to take the necessary action in the matter. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Apne Log, Haridwar on 18.1.2005 for filing written statement in the matter. In response, the respondent editor, Apne Log, in his written statement dated 2.2.2005 while denying the allegations of the complainant has submitted that the respondent nurtures ill-will against his newspaper for having exposed him for misusing of his position. The respondent has alleged that the complainant out of malafide removed the name of his newspaper from the list of accreditation but accepted the rate contract of his newspaper. The complainant has stated that the unreliable report of LIU has been made to mislead the higher authority. The respondent has alleged that the complaint smacks of malice and the complainant has been misusing his position for the last 13 months. The respondent has prayed before the Council to direct the complainant to compensate him with Rs.5 lakhs for suffering mental agony. Counter Comments of the Complainant In his counter comments dated 8.6.2005 the complainant while denying all the allegations of the respondent, submitted that the written statement of the respondent is misleading. He has submitted that he is a law-abiding officer and is doing his duties in accordance with rules and regulations. The complainant

449 has requested that he may be given justice for vulgar language used by the respondent in the news item against him. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri D.C. Pandey, District Information Officer and respondent, Shri Manoj Saini, Chief Editor, Apne Log appeared before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Apne Log had published the impugned news item with malicious intention as he had directions, inquired into the charge of inflated circulation claim of the respondent. The complainant stated that the circulation of the respondent newspaper was negligible but shown as 60,000 copies to get advertisements of the government. The complainant further submitted that the complaints on the basis of which the impugned news item was purportedly published, were all baseless. The government had not taken cognizance of these complaints since he had given oral as well as written explanation. The complainant alleged that the respondent and some of his fellow journalists of other newspapers were annoyed because the advertisement by wrong means had been stopped by him. The respondent Apne Log submitted that the complainant after assuming office as District Information Officer in Haridwar had started misusing his position and his behaviour was objected to by his staff as well as the journalist unions. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had been transferred after the resentment shown by the large number of groups. The respondent on merit submitted that the impugned news item was flashed by the ‘News Net India’ news agency, and was covered by many other newspapers. The respondent alleged that the complainant picked up his newspaper to make a complaint due to ill will. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news item dated 16.7.2004, which highlighted the arbitrary functioning of the complainant in the matter of release of advertisement to the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent Apne Log had covered the news issued by a news agency, ‘News Net India’ to its subscriber newspapers and the respondent produced documents in the form of Memorandum/complaints by Press Club, Haridwar, National Union of Journalists (Uttaranchal), Haridwar, Uttaranchal Working Journalists Union, Haridwar, and many other media persons shown resentment against the behaviour and arbitrary functioning of the 450 complainant as District Information Officer, Haridwar. These documents go on to show that the respondent Apne Log has sufficient basis for publication of the news item in question, though as per the complainant, his department had not taken cognizance of the complaints after his explained action. In the circumstances, the Inquiry Committee finds that the newspaper had reasonable basis for publication of the impugned report at the given time. Further, it must be remembered that a public functioning of a government servant is subject to scrutiny by the Press. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the respondent in this particular case did not err in carrying criticism of the complainant basing upon the news service and supported by relevant documents, though it erred in not carrying the rejoinder of the complainant. It 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.

137) Shri S. Krishnananda Chatra Versus The Editor Partner Vidhatha Durgamba Motors Kannada Weekly District Udupi, Karnataka Shimoga, Karnataka Complaint Shri S. Krishnananda Chatra, Partner, Durgamba Motors, District Udupi, Karnataka has filed this complaint dated 2.8.2004 against “Vidhatha”, Kannada weekly for publishing an allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “The unseen hand behind the death of Geetha is of her brother-in-law Jagdeesh…”(English translation) in the issue dated 21.7.2004. The impugned publication was with regard to a case of alleged murder of the deceased Geetha, who according to the newspaper had not committed suicide. In the impugned news item an accusation has been made against the complainant that the police was bribed by the complainant and others to remain silent and the inaction of the police in not tracing the culprits was due to the bribe of money and this had shut the mouth of the police. It was further alleged that the Qualis car of Krishnananda Chatra and vehicles of others, who were supporters of the heinous offence committed by the family of her husband Suresh were found moving from 10 a.m. on the date of death of Geetha. The complainant’s photograph too has been published along with the news item. The complainant, who was partner of M/s Durgamba Motors, objected to the allegedly false and defamatory publication. The complainant alleged

451 that the respondent newspaper indulged in yellow journalism and blackmailed reputed persons and extracted ransom from them by publishing defamatory news items. The complainant submitted that he issued a legal notice demanding damages of Rs.2 lacs and publication of unconditional apology to the respondent editor through his advocate but the same was returned un-served since the respondent editor refused to accept it. No Written Statement A show-cause notice dated 24.1.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Vidhatha but no reply was received. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance before it from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant despite receiving the notice of hearing was neither represented before the Committee nor had he requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee thus believed that he was not interested to pursue the complaint and recommended to the Council to drop the complaint for non-prosecution. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

138) Shri Karshan Bhai Babu Bhai Versus The Editor and others Gujarat Samachar Janjaria, Una Rajkot Gujarat Gujarat Complaint Shri Karshan Bhai Babu Bhai, Janjaria, Una, Gujarat and others have filed this complaint dated 16.12.2003 against Gujarat Samachar for publishing an allegedly objectionable and defamatory news item in its issue dated 26.10.2003 along with a photo of the “Shastriji”. The impugned news item is about Shri Pandurang Shastriji, the leader of religious seat from Junagarh, Gujarat.

452 The gist of the impugned news item provided by the complainant reads as follows: “Pandurang Shastri through his clever verbalization thrust through his listener’s throats the idea that Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta is the solution to all contemporary problems. An in-depth study of World’s Literature, simple language, excellent oratory skills and favourable consciences came to Shastriji’s help. It was the first decade after independence. People of new India needed eligible leadership for creation of a new society. The entire top judges, lawyers, doctors, chartered accountants, professors, engineers, businessmen, industrialists crowded in front of Pandurang Shastriji….After few years Shastriji started being recognized as Dada (elder brother). He started Tatvajana Vidyapeeth at Thane near Mumbai with the efforts, mind and money of Swadhyayees. On the other hand he prepared such hardcore loyalists who would do Bhaktipheri in the interiors of Maharashtra and Gujarat. This idea was truly unique. There were three conditions for those who wanted to go in Bhaktipheri. All the travelling expenses were to be borne by themselves, they have to bring food along with themselves and lastly you have to make people understand that you are expressing devotion to the Lord….This thought can be classified as unique because in every village there are problems and disputes for some or the other reasons. Swadhyayees go there and try to find out the reasons behind the disputes and resolve the differences. The whole village must help the poorest family. To keep some land in god’s name and cultivate it by the efforts of a male member of every family who would do this for the whole day once in a week or two weeks. The realization from thus cultivated land would be used to help the poorest family. If some money is still left after these efforts, it should be kept separately in god’s name. Salt miners near the sea, fishermen, odd jobbers like Vaghari were brought together in the name of Swadhyaya and were taught to take aside a pert of their earnings in the name of God….Pandurang Dada throughout the medium of Swadhyaya started creative activities like Yogeshwar Krushi, Matsyagandha, Heera Mandir, Goras, Vruskshamandir, Upvan and linked limitless people to them. He trumpeted the social revolution by taking on one hand the educated people of society and on the other hand the poorest of poor people on the pretext of Bhakti. Dada along with these radiant activities of Swadhyayees coloured fishermen, farmers, milkmen and kolis with the colour of Yogeshwar Bhakti. I am God’s child therefore HE is always with me. God is not residing in the sky but inside my heart and therefore the controller of the World would also drive my life. I am not in anybody’s obligation and I am not poor, I will

453 live my life with the wealth of Gyan, Karma and Bhakti. In this way he inculcated tremendous self confidence in thousands of Swadhayayees.” According to the complainants the impugned news item is objectionable because ironical/sarcastic remarks have been made about the guru, revered as “Dada”. The complainants have also objected for publication of photographs of Dada depicting him crying. The complainants submitted that a letter dated 16.11.2003 to the respondent editor was written but no response. The complainants have requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent editor for insulting their religious Guru and hurting their religious feelings. The comments of the respondent editor were invited on 25.5.2004 but the respondent editor did not file comments in the matter. On consideration of the complaint, Hon’ble Chairman noted that a similar complaint entitled: Rajesh B. Shah & others Versus Aarpar, Ahmebadad (F.No.14/ 511/02-03), has been adjudicated by the Council. Therefore, the present complaint may be disposed of under Regulation 8 of Inquiry Regulations. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee along with all the relevant papers on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee noted the opinion of the Chairman and agreed that the complaint of Shri Karshan Bhai Babu Bhai against Gujarat Samachar may be disposed of in view of adjudication of the Press Council of India dated 6.5.2004 in the complaint of Shri Rajesh B. Shah against ‘Aarpar’ under Regulation 8 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. 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.

139) Shri Arun Chandra Bhaumik Versus The Editor Agartala Dainik Ganadoot West Tripura Agartala Complaint This complaint dated 28.11.2003 has been filed by Shri Arun Chandra Bhaumik, Advocate against Dainik Ganadoot, Bengali daily alleging publication of false, fabricated, concocted and defamatory news items dated 29.9.2003 and 5.11.2003 captioned “A charge sheeted and a bailed out anti-social in disguise of an Advocate” and “Charge sheeted accused under different Sections

454 of IPC now on bail – Accused Arun Chandra is in the dock of the court” respectively. The complainant has submitted that the respondent had started a campaign against him imputing false charges and assassinating his character and dignity. The complainant has submitted that the respondent has published the two impugned news items with a view to defame and malign him. The impugned publications were also circulated far and wide, thereby affecting his personal and professional credibility. By his letter dated 4.12.2003, he called upon the paper to publish an apology to which there was no response. The complainant has submitted that the respondent does not permit any of his employees to leave his establishment and move on to some other publication. When one of his employees relinquished his job with Dainik Ganadoot, in the year 2002 the respondent editor filed a criminal complaint against that employee in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala charging him with false accusation. The complainant has submitted that the said employee engaged the complainant as his advocate to defend him in the court. The complainant has submitted that the respondent editor getting angry with him for defending his employee, published defamatory matter against him accusing him of financial irregularities and distributed free of cost the copies of the said newspaper among lawyers and judicial officers at Agartala. The complainant has submitted that the false publication, published in March 2002 lowered his image in the eyes of his colleagues and he filed a defamation case against the respondent editor, Dainik Ganadoot under Sections 500,501 and 502 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Agartala and the same is pending disposal. The complainant has submitted that the respondent is habitual of maligning respectable persons/dignitaries with a view to have wrongful gain. The complainant has submitted that no other newspaper published such type of news. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Ganadoot on 26.3.2004. The editor, Dainik Ganadoot in his written statement dated 11.6.2004 submitted that the complainant has already filed a criminal case bearing No. 748/02 in the year 2002 against him in respect of the news items complained of by the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the said case is still pending in the Judicial Magistrate Court, 1st Class, Sadar, Agartala. Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.6.2004.

455 The complainant in his counter comments dated 21.7.2004 denied the statement made in the written statement of the respondent that a criminal case is pending in respect of the two news items dated 29.9.2003 and 5.11.2003. The complainant clarified that a criminal case No. CR 1748/02 is pending against Sushil Chowdhury which related to the news items published in Dainik Ganadoot dated 8.3.2002 and 10.3.2002. The complainant has submitted that the Press Council has taken cognizance of the news items relating to 29.9.2003 and 5.11.2003 and the same are in no way related with the news items of 2002 and the criminal case. The complainant has submitted that the reply of the respondent is misleading and in fact he has tried to get rid of the accusations by making irrelevant averments. The complainant submitted that the reply is liable to be rejected. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 18.8.2004 for his information. Ist Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate, represented the complainant. The complainant had, however, vide his letter dated 30.12.2005, requested for adjournment citing personal work exigencies. The respondent had also sent a letter dated 24.12.2005 contending that the matter was sub- judice, and seeking adjournment on medical grounds. In view of the adjournment request from both the parties, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the case. IInd Adjournment The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. Shri K.V. Mohan, Advocate, was present on behalf of the complainant, while the respondent editor, vide his letter dated 9.8.2006, sought adjournment on the ground that while he wished to personally argue the case, he had undergone heart surgery and the doctor had advised him rest for four weeks. The respondent also contended that the impugned matter was sub-judice. He contended that the complainant had filed a case under Sections 501, 502 IPC against Dainik Ganadoot Patrika regarding the same news report as was pending before the Press Council. The complainant’s counsel averred that the impugned news report was not challenged before the law courts. As the respondent editor had requested for adjournment and as the parties needed to be afforded time to substantiate their respective stands regarding the pendency of the matter before the court, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter to one of its future meetings. Further Reply of Respondent The respondent editor, Dainik Ganadoot filed a further reply dated

456 16.9.2006 stating therein that the complaint is in respect of the news item published on 8.3.2002 for which the complainant has filed defamation case under the Sections 500 and 501, which is pending in the court. The respondent submitted that the complainant had threatened him over telephone to kill him through professional murderers, if he did not stop publishing anti-social activities of the complainant. A written complaint was lodged with the police and the Investigation Officer of local police had submitted a charge sheet (about 240 pages) against the complainant and his junior u/s 341, 506, 34 IPC in the court of CJM, Agartala. The respondent further submitted that the complainant threatened to destroy his newspaper establishment through explosives about which he complained to the police. The respondent stated that he was ready to appear before the Inquiry Committee subject to condition that the complainant bears the cost of his journey by air to and fro and hotel expenses at least in four star hotel.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. The complainant, Shri Arun Chandra Bhaumik appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. However, Shri Sushil Chaudhari of Dainik Ganadoot vide letter dated 5.1.2007 intimated that the charge sheet against Shri Arun Chandra Bhaumik is still pending in the Hon’ble High Court and thus the matter may be dropped. Shri Sushil Chaudhari also stated that he is a heart patient and therefore to hold hearing at Tripura.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that he is a practising advocate of long standing and one Shri Deepak Chakroborty was an employee of the respondent newspaper Dainik Ganadoot and had left it to join another publication namely, Dainik Sangat. The respondent editor being annoyed with ex-employee got a complaint registered with the police. The complainant further submitted that the cause of animosity of the respondent against him was due to the fact that he was a defending lawyer in the case of the said ex-employee against the respondent newspaper. The complainant further clarified that the defamation case No.CR-1748/2002 was in respect of the news published by the respondent on 8.3.2002 and 10.3.2002. The present complaint before the Council was in respect of news items dated 29.9.2003 and 5.11.2003 in Dainik Ganadoot, making allegation that the complainant assaulted the editor and tried to kill the editor with knife and the police charge sheeted the complainant. In the said news items the respondent also made allegations that the complainant was involved in financial scam relating to fund of Bar Association.

457 The complainant submitted that both the impugned news items dated 29.9.2003 and 5.11.2003 characterised the complainant as an anti-social person to lower his image in the estimation of the society. The complainant denied the allegation of committing any scam in the funds of the Bar Association. As regards FIR by the respondent editor against the complainant regarding criminal assault, the complainant stated that no sensible or prudent person could accept that the complainant in broad day light in the court premises had attacked the editor with a knife. The complainant further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR and reported in the newspaper Ganadoot were concocted, imaginary to mar his professional prospects and his acceptance by the Bar as a senior advocate. The complainant also drew the attention of the Inquiry Committee to the publication dated 18.8.2006 under the caption: “The lawyer Arun Chandra charge sheeted with different sections” in Dainik Ganadoot reiterating the allegations and demanding the Chairman, Bar Council to sack the anti-social Arun Chandra from Bar Council. The complainant raised objection to the para nine of the reply dated 16.9.2006 filed by the respondent editor stating therein that the complainant was an active member and local leader of Trinmul Congress Party which has no base in Tripura and that he is known as a registered criminal against whom 100 of news items have been published by respondent and letter is written to Chairman, Bar Council to dismiss him from Bar Council. The complainant concluded that the respondent was causing impediment in his professional work avoiding presence before the Inquiry Committee on one pretext or other and misleading the Press Council on the matters which are not sub-judice. He added that the respondent was still continuing to report against him to malign him in the public. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the records. At the very outset, the Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over misleading statement given by the respondent editor, Dainik Ganadoot that the matter was sub-judice to prevent the Council from taking steps in the compliant which was not the subject matter of any court case. The respondent failed in filing written statement on merits and was prolonging the inquiry on various grounds. The Inquiry Committee noted that the basis of the impugned news items dated 29.9.2003 and 5.11.2003 which was subject matter of present complaint was an FIR by the respondent himself in a criminal case of assault and thereafter making story in the newspaper making reckless allegations describing the complainant as an anti-social person. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent had not filed any defence to the charge of taking vengeance against the complainant for defending an ex-employee of the respondent newspaper, Dainik Ganadoot

458 against whom the respondent had filed case in the court. In the absence of any defence to the charge that the respondent had planted the false propaganda against the complainant to mar his prospects and prevent him from being elevated to senior counsel, the Inquiry Committee was, of the opinion that the respondent editor, in order to settle personal scores, indulged in the character assassination of the complainant. It must be remembered by the Press that the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the democratic set up and enjoyed by the fourth estate also casts on it a responsibility. The newspapers are not expected to use it as a tool by itself creating evidence in the form of FIR and later using the evidence to make false propaganda in its own journal. The Inquiry Committee depreciated the conduct of the editor, Dainik Ganadoot, Agartala of indulging in yellow journalism and committing professional misconduct and recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent editor, Dainik Ganadoot, Agartala. 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.

140) Shri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta Versus The Editor Ex-Chief Minister Assam Asomiya Pratidin Dispur, Guwahati, Assam Guwahati, Assam Complaint Shri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, Ex-Chief Minister Assam, Dispur, Guwahati has filed this complaint dated 5/12/2003 against “Asomiya Pratidin” for publishing unverified, false, baseless and defamatory news items in the issues dated 24th September, 2003, 29th September, 2003 and 8th October, 2003. The complainant provided English translation of the objectionable portion of the impugned news items, that reads as follows:- 1. “News item dated September 24, 2003 – Caption “ The leader who is tainted with secret killings and corruption strives for the post of President. Mahanta’s blue print with the help of five lieutenants”. Contents: The Ex-Chief Minister as well as the Ex-President of the AGP who is accused of unending corruption, profligacy, killing people secretly and entanglment in woman affairs and is deserted by the people, along with some of his close associates prepared a blue print to place themselves in the high posts of the party in order to retain their future.

459 According to this game plan these associates of Mahanta who played with the bloods of the Assamese youths by killing them secretly, want to place Mr. Mahanta in the chair of the President of the AGP and push Mr. Brindaban Goswami as the leader of the opposition. 2. News item dated September 29, 2003- Caption: “Who is he to point out finger to Mr. Gogoi: Outburst of Rockybul and Himanta against Mahanta” Contents: The State Home Minister Mr. Rockybul Hussain in his speech in the meeting under the chair of Pradesh Youth Congress President Rajiv Sharma criticizing Mahanta harshly said that grabbing other’s wife, being the boss by killing people secretly the Ex-Chief Minister Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mahanta was now trying to go to the people coming out slowly like a newly married bride after hibernating in Delhi for a long time out of shame. 3. News item dated October 8, 2003- Caption “It will be a Ramayana if we speak of potato-onion-secret killings, amorous relation with other’s wife and other stories of Mahanta’s notoriety. Contents: Praffulla Kumar Mahanta is the only politician who has got involved in highest number of scandals. He is involved with LOC, Rural Development, Potato Seeds, and secret killing scandals, and even in despicable women scandal.” The complainant alleged that the respondent newspaper was continuously publishing unverified and false stories with the only intention to malign him, smudge his public image and ruin his political career. In the impugned news items the complainant was accused of killing innocent people secretly. The complainant alleged that the respondent wanted to create an impression in the public that the killings of people by unidentified killers during his tenure were his handiworks only. The respondent daily accused the complainant as a killer womaniser and a most corrupt politician without any documentary evidence. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news items were imaginary and motivated to destroy his political image. The complainant submitted that he had written a letter dated 25.10.2003 to the respondent editor but received no reply. The complainant further stated that despite being warned by the Press Council, the respondent had continued campaign against him by publishing unverified news items. The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter and direct the respondent to stop defaming him.

460 No Written Statement A show-cause notice dated 23.1.2004 was issued to the respondent editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Guwahati but no written statement was filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Bhubaneswar on 15.1.2007. Shri Tarun Ch. Chutia, Advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance from respondent. The editor, Asomiya Pratidin in a letter dated 5.1.2007 intimated that the date of hearing clashed with the Bihu Festival which is celebrated throughout the week and thus he was unable to attend the hearing. The respondent editor requested to give another date. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant raised preliminary objection to the absence of the respondent stating, he had ensured appearance though the Bihu festival was as important for him and secondly that the adjournment had been sought without his consent or even information, wherefore he had undertaken travel from Assam to Bhubaneswar only for the purpose of hearing. On merits, he submitted that Shri P.K. Mahanta, the complainant herein had been elected and become Chief Minister of Assam twice in 1985 and 1996. The respondent Asomiya Pratidin, having nexus with Government in power had planted the impugned concocted, false and unverified reports to destroy the social and political image of the complainant. A rejoinder sent to the Asomiya Pratidin was not published. The counsel submitted that the Family Court, Guwahati in its pronouncement in 2002 in the matter : Mrs Sanghamitra Bharali Vs. Dr. Manideep Das, while allowing divorce petition did not find the allegation of extra-marital relations levelled by the husband against the complainant Shri P.K. Mahanta proved. The counsel further submitted that the Commission of Inquiry was set up under retired judge of the High Court/Supreme Court to inquire into secret killings but the inquiry report was not laid before the Legislative Assembly. The counsel cited the case of another paper Sadin which was warned by the Press Council of India for similar report of extra-marital affairs. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed displeasure over non filing of written statement by the respondent and seeking adjournment without informing the complainant. The Inquiry Committee declined the request of adjournment made by the respondent-editor. It then proceeded to consider

461 the complaint on the basis of the material available on record. In the absence of any defence, written or oral, the contentions of the complainant remain unchallenged. Therefore, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent, Asomiya Pratidin for publication of the impugned reports for violation of the ethics of journalism. 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.

141) Smt. Purnima Das Baishya Versus The Editor Editor, Hajor Batori Dainik Asam Kamrup, Assam Guwahati, Assam Complaint This complaint dated 12.3.2004 has been filed by Smt. Purnima Das Baishya, Editor, Hajor Batori, Kamrup, Assam against Dainik Asam, Guwahati for publishing a false, baseless, imaginary and defamatory letter to editor, in its issue dated 11.3.2004 under the caption “Hajo Press Club” which is as follows: “Editor Sir, One who writes as Editor and Hony. Chief Editor of Hajor Batori who misappropriated one lakh from Bhubaneswar Kalita, Ex. M.P., Rs. Fifty thousand from Kulhati – Pachgaon Panchayat in the session 2001-02 sanctioned for Hajo Press Club, Damdama and acted as in the illegal teacher appointment in 1998 and published six copies photographs to make the MLA popular (in Assamese JAIGUN) in the first June edition newspaper and distributed the same free of cost on 8th June in the function of two years of Government at Hajo constituency– who is he/she ? Who are the two members of Kamrup District Journalist Association who felicitated MLA and demanded portfolio in Ministry of MLA and acted as spokesman in the function of Government’s two years and worked as commission agent with Zila Parishad Member?” Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that the imputations were made with the sole intention to harm her reputation and lower her image. The complainant sent a letter dated 11.3.2004 to respondent editor but no reply was received. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Asam on 24.5.2004.

462 The editor, Dainik Asam in his written statement dated 5th June 2004 submitted that the impugned letter by Sambhoram Das, Promod Das and Gajen Das of Bardadhi, Hajo, Kamrup, was published as an ordinary letter to the editor since the particular item came under the distinct signatures of three local citizens. The respondent submitted that the local citizens had come up with specific charges of considerable public importance, and it was proper to publish the same. The respondent denied having received any contradiction from the complainant. The respondent submitted that they have published the letter of the complainant from the content in English translation as enclosed with the Press Council’s show cause notice dated 24.5.2004. The respondent requested the Council to take a lenient view since they did not have the least intention to damage the reputation of any body far less that of an editor of a contemporary newspaper. No Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 22.6.2004 asking her to intimate whether she was satisfied with the publication of her letter by the respondent. She did not file any response to the query despite reminders. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent Dainik Asam had published the rejoinder of the complainant, a copy of which was forwarded to the complainant inquiring whether she was satisfied with the publication of her rejoinder. As she had not responded to the Council’s communication the Inquiry Committee felt that the complainant did not wish to pursue the case. The Committee therefore decided to close the complaint. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Further Development The complainant vide her letter dated 14.01.2007 received in the Council on 29.01.2007, informed that she was satisfied with the action taken by the Dainik Asam and, therefore, did not wish to pursue 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.

463 142) Shri Jagnnath Singh Versus Hindustan Advocate Darbhanga Additional Public Prosecutor Bihar Cabinet Vigilance Investigation Bureau Patna High Court Complaint This complaint dated 8.4.2005 has been filed by Shri Jagnnath Singh, Advocate and LJP candidate in the Assembly Elections, from Hayaghat Assembly constituency, Bihar, against Hindi Daily Hindustan, Darbhanga edition for publication of an allegedly false news item in its issue dated 8.3.2005 captioned “Dalit couple beaten by the brother of L.J.P. Candidate”. (English translation). The English translation of the news item provided by the complainant reads as follows: “After defeat the LJP supporters have adopted offensive ways. They have assaulted and looted the backward caste person and on Monday they assaulted a Dalit couple causing fractures in hand being infuriated for not casting vote in their favour. Both the occurrences have been committed by the special supporters of L.J.P. According to victim Manju Devi (32) and her husband Chowkidar Tapeshwar Paswan and the eyewitnesses, today in the morning at 6.00 a.m. under the leadership of the brother of L.J.P. candidate half a dozen L.J.P. supporters surrounded the 16 years old son of Tapeshwar Paswan in the village and started asking about his father Tapeshwar Paswan. “When the father came to know he came to his son and when the LJP supporters saw him started assaulting him and when his wife Manju Devi wanted to save her husband all of them started assaulting her with lathi and danda, due to which her hand was fractured and a severe bruise in the leg. The wife and husband are being treated in Primary Health Centre Hayaghat. Being afraid of the same many Dalit families have taken shelter in Hayaghat Bajar. The police after inquiry has lodged the case of Harijan Atrocity. The Dy. S.P. also made inquiries at the place of occurrence. “It is to be noted that on 15th February, on the date of polling the brother of LJP candidate Shambhu Prasad Singh had beaten Suresh Sahni for which he had to go to jail, while he was in jail his supporters were threatening openly. After Tufan Singh was allowed bail, started beating and assault today. The victims have stated that they have been brutally assaulted by Tufan Surendra Pratap Singh, Ashok Singh, Chandan Singh, Dhirendra Prasad Singh and Hemant Kumar Singh.”

464 The complainant has submitted that the impugned news item was published by concocting a false story on the instigation of the then officer-in- charge, Hayaghat Police Station, Darbhanga because the officer-in-charge, Hayaghat was making attempt of booth capturing at re-polling camps on 18.2.2005. Being a candidate of LJP, the complainant had reported the matter to the Election Commission on telephone as well by fax and to the other authorities of the State including D.G.P., Bihar and S.P., Darbhanga. The complainant has submitted that his brother Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh was on booth No.143 to cast his vote. On seeing the illegal acts of the officer-in-charge he had objected to the same and he was taken into the custody by the officer- in-charge and also misbehaved with him for which he had also filed a complaint against the officer-in-charge before the C.J.M., Darbhanga in case No.188/05. The complainant has submitted that his brother Shri Shambhu Nath Singh received a telephone call from Sh. Subhash Singh, correspondent, Hindustan that he is going to publish a news for beating and assaulting Dalits of Ghosarama village for which an F.I.R. was also registered in the police station and demanded illegal gratification which was refused by him resulting in publication of false news. The complainant has submitted that after obtaining the C.C. of F.I.R. he came to know that there was no implication of any of his family members in the case lodged on 7.3.2005 but this all was hatched up by the Officer-in-Charge, Hayaghat by making search of his house by giving false message to public at large to malign his social prestige and tarnishing his image being a contestant of Assembly election. The complainant has submitted that his clarification has not been published by the respondent. He has submitted that only his condemnation was published by the respondent which reads as follows: “The beating up of Dalits condemned by Shri Jagnnath Singh, LJP candidate. He has stated that the LJP is mainly the Party of Dalits and upper class and assaults on Dalits is assaults on his votes. He has condemned all the actions of the persons who are indulging themselves in it. He has demanded fair inquiry in the matter by the SP” No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued on 26.12.05 followed by a reminder on 5.7.06 but no written statement was filed. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. Neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared before it.

465 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee proceeded to examine the complaint on basis of the material available on record. It noted that the complainant was nowhere mentioned in the impugned news item. It was evident from the statement of the complainant that the officer-in-charge, Hayaghat Police Station had given information which formed the basis for publication of the impugned news item. The Inquiry Committee did not find fault with the respondent newspaper- Hindustan in publishing the impugned news item as paper had reasonable basis to publish the report and the rejoinder issued by the complainant had been duly given space in 9.3.2005 issue of the Hindustan under the caption: “LJP candidate condemned the bashing up”, which was in sufficient compliance with the journalistic norms. Further, the complainant despite receiving the notice of hearing neither appeared before the Committee to contest his case nor requested for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee, thus, opined that no action was warranted in the matter. 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.

143) Shri Jitendra Narayan Singh Versus The Editor Bhagalpur Hindustan Bihar Bhagalpur, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 25.08.2005 has been filed by Shri Jitendra Narayan Singh, Mahant, Shri 108 Ram Laxman Janaki Thakurabari, Trimuhan, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur (Bihar) against the editor, “Hindustan”, Hindi daily, Bhagalpur (Bihar) objecting to a false news item under the caption “¤É®ÉàÉn AäÉÊiÉcÉÉʺÉBÉE àÉÚÉÌiɪÉÉå BÉEÉÒ {ÉcSÉÉxÉ BÉEÉ nÉ´ÉÉ” (Identification of recovered historical statue claimed-English translation) in its issue dated 21.08.2005. It was reported in the impugned news item that the villagers have identified the stolen statues of Ram, Laxman and Sita of Trimuhan village Thakurwari. The villagers had identified the said statues before the Superintendent of Police at his residence. It was further reported that the President and Secretary of Ramjanaki Thakurbari, Shri Anand Prasad Singh and Shri Mohan Prasad Singh, the ex-member of Managing Committee, Shri Binod Bihari and Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh and other villagers came at the residence of Superintendent of Police with the three stands which were found fit in the statues.

466 Refuting the statement, the complainant submitted that the respondent wrongly and intentionally published that Shri Anand Prasad Singh is the President and Shri Mohan Prasad Singh is the Secretary of Shri 108 Ram, Laxman, Janaki Thakurbari Trimuhan, Kahalgaon as both persons are the relatives of the press reporter and on that basis they had attempted to receive the stolen statues of Ram, Laxman and Janaki recovered by the local police who was investigating the Kahalgaon Police Station case No.331/04 instituted by him. Those persons on their false identification asserted their right before the S.P., Bhagalpur who did not deliver the said recovered statues to the villages and directed them to obtain the order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur as the said case is pending before the Court. The complainant alleged that such type of wrong and illegal publications used to be published on the report of the said press reporter for wrongful gain and the same had lowered down his image. The complainant sent a rejoinder to the editor on 25.8.2005 but did not receive any reply from the respondent. The complainant thus requested the Council to take suitable action against the respondent. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the editor, Dainik Hindustan, Patna, Bihar but no written statement had been filed by the respondent despite issuance of a reminder dated 9.5.2006. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 8.1.2007 requested to decide the matter on the basis of documents. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee proceeded to examine the case on the basis of material available. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over non filing of written statement and non appearance before it by the respondent Hindustan. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant claims to be Mahant of the Shri Shri 108 Ram, Laxman, Janaki Thakurbari, by way of inheritance and authorised by predecessor Mahant Shri Janaki Dass. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the subject matter of dispute between the complainant and rival group over Temple Management was pending in the court of law. In the meantime, the respondent newspaper carried the impugned news item about recovery of stolen idols and projected the rival faction as office bearer of the Temple, which reached the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur for identification of idols. But according to the complainant 467 the S.P., Bhagalpur had asked them to obtain order from Chief Judicial Magistrate and did not deliver the idols to them. The grievance of the complainant is that the persons shown as President and Secretary of the said Temple by the newspaper have been so falsely promoted by the reporter of the Hindustan, who is a relative of his opponents. The Inquiry Committee on a careful consideration of the documents opined that the impugned news item could not be considered as a malafide reporting by the respondent newspaper Hindustan, Patna. The Inquiry Committee was, however, of the view that the respondent newspaper should have been more careful in scrutiny of material under report on account of the relation of the reporter to a concerned faction. The Inquiry Committee expected that the respondent Hindustan shall exercise the advised caution in future and issue suitable instructions to its reporters so as to maintain the credibility of the paper. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these 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.

144) Shri Kumod Kumar Versus The Editor Police Sub-Inspector “Hindustan”, Hindi daily Ranchi Ranchi Complaint Shri Kumod Kumar, the Police Sub-Inspector, Ranchi has filed this complaint dated 20.7.2004 against Hindustan, Hindi daily, Ranchi for publication of series of allegedly distorted and defamatory news items between May 2004– August 2004. He also cited some other reports to support his charge that while crime news relating to his area was sensationalized, that of other areas was relegated to inner pages. The impugned and other reports are listed below: S.No. Captions Dated 1. ¶ÉcÉÒn xÉÉMÉ䶴ɮ àÉciÉÉä {Éä]ÅÉäãÉ {ÉÆ{É ºÉä ºÉɸä SÉÉ® ãÉÉJÉ BÉEÉÒ ãÉÚ]* 4.5.2004 2. xÉÉÒSÉä cäºÉÉMÉ BÉEä nÉä PÉ®Éå àÉå £ÉÉÒ­ÉhÉ bBÉEèiÉÉÒ* 20.6.2004 3. ={É® ´ÉÉãÉä {É® £É®ÉäºÉÉ BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA, VÉMÉxxÉÉlÉ{ÉÖ® {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ {É® xÉcÉÓ* 21.6.2004 4. VÉMÉxxÉÉlÉ{ÉÖ® lÉÉxÉÉ |É£ÉÉ®ÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ cÉäMÉÉÒ-®É´É* 22.6.2004

468 5. ¶ÉÉàÉ cÉäiÉä cÉÒ b® BÉEä ºÉɪÉä àÉå ºÉàÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè cäºÉÉMÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉËVÉnMÉÉÒ 23.6.2004 A´ÉÆ {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEä |ÉÉÊiÉ MÉÖººÉÉ =¤ÉãÉ ®cÉ cè cäºÉÉMÉ BÉEä ãÉÉåMÉÉå BÉEÉ*

6. ®ÉVªÉ{ÉÉãÉ ºÉä MÉÖcÉ® ãÉMÉɪÉäMÉå cäºÉÉMÉ´ÉɺÉÉÒ* 24.6.2004 7. cäºÉÉMÉ BÉEÉÆb BÉEä +É{É®ÉÉÊvÉBÉEªÉÉå BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉxÉä àÉå VÉÖ]ÉÒ VÉMÉxxÉÉlÉ{ÉÖ® 25.6.2004 {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ*

8. VÉMÉxxÉÉlÉ{ÉÖ® lÉÉxÉÉ |É£ÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉnãÉä MɪÉä* 26.6.2004 9. vÉÖ´ÉÉÇ BÉEä ¤ÉÉn xÉÉàÉBÉEÉäàÉ àÉå nÉäc®ÉÒ ciªÉÉ ºÉä ºÉxɺÉxÉÉÒ* 4.7.2004 10. c®àÉÖ {Éä]ÅÉäãÉ {Éà{É àÉå ãÉÚ] BÉEÉ |ɪÉɺÉ, {ÉEɪÉÉË®MÉ BÉEÉÒ* 6.7.2004 11. VÉä´É®ÉiÉ +ÉÉè® xÉÉè cVÉÉ® BÉEÉÒ ãÉÚ]* 11.7.2004 12. ={Ép´ÉÉÒ iÉi´ÉÉå xÉä ÉʶɴÉ-nÖMÉÉÇ àÉÆÉÊn® ãÉäxÉ {É® càÉãÉÉ ¤ÉÉäãÉÉ* 11.7.2004 13. c®àÉÚ àÉå ¤ÉéBÉE àÉèxÉäVÉ® BÉEä PÉ® ÉÊnxÉ ncɽä bÉBÉEÉ* 16.7.2004 14. ºÉn® lÉÉxÉÉ FÉäjÉ àÉå ABÉE cÉÒ ®ÉiÉ nÉä PÉ®Éå àÉå ãÉÚ]* 7.8.2004 15. ºÉÖJÉnä´ÉxÉMÉ® àÉå cÉÊlɪÉÉ® BÉEä ¤ÉãÉ {É® 1.70 ãÉÉJÉ BÉEÉÒ ãÉÚ]* 7.8.2004 The impugned reports have highlighted the allegedly deteriorated law and order situation and criticised the working of police. Denying the allegations the complainant has alleged that the reports have adversely affected the image of the police. According to the complainant the impugned reports have been published deliberately with the sole intention to remove him from his post as he had not been able to meet the reporters demand for gratification. The complainant has also charged that the respondent editor and its correspondent had not only extorted money from him through blackmailing tactics but had also threatened him. The complainant has submitted that respondent correspondent is indulging in yellow journalism and putting pressure on him. The complainant wrote a letter dated 11.8.2004 to the respondent editor, Hindustan, New Delhi with a copy to the Managing Director of the newspaper but received no reply. Comments Comments of the respondent editor, Hindustan, Hindi daily, Ranchi were invited vide Council’s letter dated 23.2.2005. The Resident Editor, Hindustan, Ranchi in his comments dated 15.3.2005 while denying the allegations of terrorising has submitted that the complainant nowhere in his complaint has stated whether the news items are false or true. The respondent has submitted that they do not have any biased attitude against

469 anybody. Further the complainant has not furnished his clarification for publication before filing this complaint. The respondent has submitted that if the complainant gives his clarification the newspaper shall publish the same. A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 28.4.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. The complainant, Shri Kumod Kumar was present in person while Shri Ajay Sharma, Senior Correspondent appeared on behalf of the respondent, Hindustan, Hindi Daily, Ranchi. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he was currently on deputation in the office of the Chief Minister, Jharkhand. When he was posted at Murhu (Khunti Anchal) Police Station as SHO in 1998, Shri Rajinder Prasad, who was a tribal reporter of Prabhat Khabar, was indulging in blackmailing and extorting money from shopkeepers. The shopkeepers made a complaint of it to the SDO and the complainant was directed to arrest Shri Rajinder Kumar under Section 164 Cr. P.C. who was later produced in the court of CJM. The present respondent editor, Harinarayan Singh who was then in Prabhat Khabar got him bail and then brought him to Hindustan with him. The complainant stated that when he was posted in Jagannathpur in 2004, the respondent editor contacted him over telephone and requested for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and promised to repay the same after 15 days. When he asked the editor to refund the money he was threatened that false news would be published. The respondent editor succeeded, stated the complainant. The complainant clarified that all the news items annexed with his complaint did not pertain to the area under his jurisdiction. These news clippings were given to exhibit as to how much space and prominence was given to his area in the respondent newspaper Hindustan. The complainant submitted that prominence was given to the news of his area to pressurise him and get him transferred. The complainant further submitted that the incident of dacoity in petrol pump and loot of Rs.4.5 lakh took place in his tenure. The report of the same was published in respondent newspaper Hindustan at front page encaptioned “Ro-Ranchi-Ro” (Weep-Ranchi-Weep). A similar dacoity had also taken place in another district and its news was published at page 4. He alleged that the same prominence was not given in that case. The contradiction sent by him was torn by the respondent. The complainant submitted that the newspaper did not appreciate his work and had put pressure on the Superintendent of Police to remove him from the post. The complainant alleged that DSP under

470 whose tenure he was removed, was recently found involved in five persons’ murder and the said DSP was extorting money from the land mafia also. The complainant further stated that he personally gave three contradictions to the respondent but all in vain. The complainant submitted that there were no departmental proceedings against him. He submitted that Shri Sambhu Thakur, DSP Hatia was protecting Shri Harinarayan, editor, Hindustan, Ranchi. The complainant submitted that all the incidents were true but published prominently in the newspapers to defame him. Shri Ajay Sharma appearing for the respondent newspaper, Hindustan submitted that the complainant was having animosity with the editor and therefore alleged demand of Rs. 10,000/- over telephone and repayment of it in 2004, was not true. The respondent’s representative submitted that when relations between the complainant and editor were not good since 1998, how could editor demand Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. The respondent submitted that the news items were based on facts. He further submitted that the looted petrol pump was of widow of the Kargil soldier, which was hardly 100 yards from the police station. When such incidents were increasing, the people started keeping watch of their own. The SSP, Shri M.B. Rao made inquiry through the DSP. The respondent submitted that was the prerogative of editor to publish the news on the front page, inner page or any other page. The representative of the respondent offered to publish the clarification of the complainant provided it was based on facts. The complainant stated that there was no use of publication of the clarification at this stage. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the record and the oral submissions made before it by the parties opined that the main grouse of the complainant was that the respondent editor manipulated publication of the incidents which happened in his area prominently on front page of the newspaper where as the incidents of similar nature happening in other areas were published in the inner pages of the newspaper. According to the complainant the motive of the editor was to get him transferred from his posting. The Committee observed that it was admitted fact that the incidents reported in the newspaper actually happened. The complainant did not contest that the reports were incorrect. The Committee did not find force in the contention of the complainant that the editor was intentionally publishing news reports of the incidents happening in his area prominently. It observed that it was the prerogative of the editor to select the space in his newspaper for publication of a particular news report keeping in mind the importance and public interest of the matter. The Committee further observed that the charges of malafide and blackmailing against the editor could not be established. Regarding lending of

471 money by the complainant to the respondent, the Committee observed that the respondent had out rightly denied having taken money from the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, did not express any opinion on this issue. The representative of the respondent offered to publish the clarification of the complainant but the complainant declined to get his clarification published at this belated stage. In light of the above observations, the Inquiry Committee decided to drop further proceedings in the matter being devoid of merits. 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.

145) Shri B.S.P. Roy Versus The Editor Retd. Joint Commissioner Hindustan Times Commercial Taxes Dhanbad/Bokaro (Adv. & Tax Consultant) Dhanbad Complaint This complaint dated 2.9.2004 has been filed by Shri B.S.P. Roy, Retd. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Adv. & Tax Consultant), Dhanbad against The Hindustan Times, Dhanbad/Bokaro edition for publication of an allegedly highly defamatory and misleading report under the title “Law students walk out over question ‘repeat’ in its issue dated 17.8.2004. The objected portion of the impugned report reads as follows: “The commotion triggered off when it was revealed that one Shilpi Rai, answering her Part II examination, was openly “copying from Books” in a single room at P.K. Roy College when her actual centre was R.S. More College, Govindpur. This was opposed by Part- I examinees aloud. The College authorities informed that Rai was expelled and handed over to the police last year (from Part I Law) from R.S. More College, Govindpur for using unfair means. She had, however, alleged that she was molested at the behest of Mr. M.S. Khan the Principal of R.S. More College, and had filed a complaint with the police. The case is pending in the High Court. Acting on her plea, the University had transferred Rai’s examination centre to P.K. Roy College for Part II examination.”

472 According to the complainant (father of Shilpi Rai) the respondent has published totally baseless, vindictive and misleading news with ulterior motives due to which prestige and career of an innocent (daughter of the complainant) has been damaged. The complainant has alleged that the respondent intentionally used derogatory and defamatory word viz. molestation to malign his daughter in the eyes of the society and his family. The complainant has submitted that this is the worst type of yellow journalism indulged in by the respondent newspaper. The complainant has submitted that there is no such case of molestation in the High Court as stated in the impugned report published by the respondent newspaper. Regarding transferring the examination centre of his daughter Ms. Shilpi Rai, the complainant has submitted that her centre was changed for specific reasons and every concerned authority was informed of this. The complainant has submitted that copying in the examination was not the reason for change of centre. The complainant has submitted that the respondent before publishing the impugned report did not verify the veracity of the report. The complainant has submitted that he has asked the respondent through legal notice dated 17.8.2004 as to why they should not file a suit against him for the damage and defamation worth a crore of rupees as their loss is incalculable and irreparable. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times, Dhanbad on 28.4.2005. The respondent editor, The Hindustan Times, Dhanbad did not file written statement. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. The complainant, Shri B.S.P. Roy appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Hindustan Times, Dhanbad. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Hindustan Times had published a totally false news item against his daughter, namely, Shilpi Rai, making allegation of copying during examination and reporting an incident of previous year of having used unfair means during examination. The complainant submitted that invigilator had not made any complaint of copying and as regards the incidence of previous year, the complainant referred to the judgment dated 29.5.2004 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, acquitting Shilpi Rai and setting aside the conviction order dated 23.8.2003 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate. The complainant further submitted that the

473 reporting about the case of molestation pending in High Court was totally false as no case by Shilpi Rai was filed in the High Court. He drew attention to the report dated 24.9.2004 published in Hindustan, Hindi daily of Dhanbad which was newspaper of the group of publication of Hindustan Times wherein it was reported that the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University had announced re- examination before Durga Pooja and that Shilpi Rai was not found guilty rather the students had forcibly stopped her from taking part in examination. The Hindustan further quoted that the Vice-Chancellor had also announced the decision that Shilpi Rai could not give examination due to uproar and, therefore, she would be allowed to again appear in the examination without fine.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed its displeasure over the failure of the respondent in fulfilling its statutory obligation of filing the written statement and in not being represented before the Committee. In the absence of any defence, the allegations of the complainant that the respondent published defamatory and false news report against his daughter go unchallenged and undefended. Therefore, the Committee noted that the respondent Hindustan Times carried a one-sided news against the daughter of the complainant flouting the norms of journalistic conduct relating to “accuracy & fairness” and “pre-publication verification”. The Inquiry Committee further noted that the complainant had given complete facts to the respondent Hindustan Times on 17.8.2004 but the respondent Hindustan Times compounded the offence by not affording “right to reply” to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee also observed that the newspaper failed to follow up the story made in the impugned news report dated 17.8.2004 citing instance of R.S. More College without looking into the judgment dated 29.5.2004 of the Hon’ble 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, acquitting the student Shilpi Rai and setting aside the conviction order of Special Executive Magistrate. It further found that the reporter of the respondent Hindustan Times not only failed in its duty to cross check the fact but indulged in irresponsible act of carelessness that resulted in maligning of the girl student. The editor could have corrected the matter by carrying the rejoinder of the concerned but this was also not done. The Inquiry Committee, in view of the above, decided to recommend to the Council to reprimand the respondent Hindustan Times and direct it to take action against the reporter for filing the impugned news report in a reckless and careless manner.

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.

474 146) Shri J.C.Mohapatra Versus Shramika Malika Chief of Communication, SAIL Oriya Weekly Rourkela Steel Plant Rourkela, Orissa Rourkela, Orissa Complaint This complaint, dated 16.6.2005 has been filed by Shri J.C.Mohapatra, Chief of Communications, SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, Orissa against an Oriya Weekly, Shramika Malika, Rourkela, Orissa for publication of allegedly false and baseless news items (English translations reproduced) of which are as follows:- 1. “All that Glitters” Editorial dated 24.4.2005 2. “Woman injured in attack by Land guards” dated 24.4.2005 3. “Sanak who does not belong to his father, whose else he can’t be” dated 8.5.2005 4. “Sanak Mishra Episode” dated 8.5.2005 5. “Who is this Napungsaka Shiromani” dated 15.5.2005 6. “Sanak Mishra Episode – the tactics is exposed” dated 15.5.2005 and 7. “Sanak Mishra’s operation” dated 15.5.2005. The complainant has submitted that the respondent editor was occupying a staff quarter of Rourkela Steel Plant unauthorisedly and by illegal means for which a proceeding and order by Estate Court under the P.P. Act was passed. Thereafter, he was evicted with due process of law. The respondent appealed against the order of the eviction and writ petition was filed before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa challenging the action of Rourkela Steel Plant which was dismissed, added the complainant. Thereafter, the respondent, having an axe to grind and exhibiting his animosity towards the Managing Director of the Steel Plant Dr. Sanak Mishra and other officers, indulged in writing and publishing article in the grab of news item in his weekly, tarnishing the image, reputation and goodwill of the complainant, other officers of the Steel Plant and its Managing Director and his family members. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news articles are absolutely baseless, false, fabricated, unfounded on facts without any merit and by no stretch of imagination can be considered as a news item. He has served notices upon the respondent editor and publisher on 23.5.2005 and stated that the reply of the respondent dated 27.5.2005 is without any merit and vague, and neither his protest nor apology was published.

475 Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 23.9.2005. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 14.10.2005 has submitted that they are ready to publish the complainant’s contradiction but so far they have received no point wise contradiction from the concerned officer in Oriya language. The respondent has further submitted that there is no unauthorised occupation of a quarter; rather the fact is otherwise, that the quarter was allotted in the name of the respondent as a journalist. To pressurise the respondent, the quarter was locked and sealed illegally in their absence when his entire belongings were inside the quarter, alleged the respondent. It was added that it is not true that the case was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, Orissa, rather the fact is that the matter is still pending before the court and when the quarter was locked and sealed, it became sub-judice before the High Court. R.S.P. is a Central Public Sector undertaking built by the tax payers money and is a public property. Therefore, it becomes the onerous duty of a journalist and newspaper to publish the news of corruption, favourism, nepotism and malafide action of the officials. The respondent has stated that the complainant should have made specific allegation and provide in Oriya language, specific contradiction to the point they object and release all information and facts. He has submitted that the news items in question are based on facts and the same have been published in almost all daily newspapers and no objection or contradiction have been filed against them by the complainant. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.11.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Adwaita Prasad Biswal, editor, Shramika Malika appeared in person before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The respondent submitted that the newspaper had reported each and every news report about SAIL very consciously. The respondent further submitted that the complainant had not given categorical denial but had sent a vague statement saying that whatever had been published in the newspaper was false. The respondent stated that the newspaper was ready to publish the contradiction, if sent by the complainant in Oriya language on specific points.

476 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was a public undertaking and its acts in discharge of official duties were open to public scrutiny. However, it was at the same time incumbent on the press to ensure that its writings were accurate and free of any bias or motive. In the instant case, a dispute about residential accommodation enjoyed by the respondent appears to be pending. However, in view of the offer of the respondent to publish a factual rejoinder of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to direct the complainant to send factual rejoinder to the impugned news report and the respondent newspaper, Shramika Malika, Oriya Weekly, to publish the same within a fortnight of its receipt. The respondent may further be directed to forward a copy of the issue carrying the rejoinder to the Press Council of India and 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.

147) Shri U.K. Thakur Versus The Editor Director (P&A) Dainik Jagran Bihar State Hydroelectric Patna, Bihar Power Corporation Patna, Bihar Complaint This complaint dated 16.6.2005 has been filed by Shri U.K. Thakur, Director (P&A), Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation, Patna (Bihar) against “Dainik Jagran”, Patna for publishing an allegedly false and defamatory news item dated 29.4.2005 under the caption “cÉ<ÇbãÉ BÉEÉ®{ÉÉä®ä¶ÉxÉ àÉå +ÉÉÊxɪÉÉÊàÉiÉiÉÉ {É® cÉ<ÇBÉEÉä]Ç BÉEÉ BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç BÉEÉ ÉÊxÉnæ¶É” (High Court’s order for action on irregularities in Hydel Corporation - English translation). The impugned news item reads as follows:- “Patna High Court on Thursday, after bringing to the notice of I.G. Vigilance and Energy Secretary, the allegations about irregularities in the Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation and misuse of his office by the Managing Director, directed them to take necessary action in the matter. A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Shri Nagendra Rai and Justice S.N. Hussain issued this direction on a PIL filed by employees of the corporation alleging that

477 the Managing Director, Shri L.P. Sinha had misappropriated Rs.100 crores. Arguing on the PIL, senior advocate, Shri Yogesh Chandra Verma alleged that this was a bigger scam than the flood relief scam because here despite spending crores of rupees not a single unit is being generated.” According to the complainant, the respondent published the impugned news item without verifying the facts with a view to tarnish his image amongst the public. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent on 29.4.2005 towards the impugned publication intimating that the writ no.4766/2005 containing allegation of misuse of position by the MD, had been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Patna. The said writ was filed by Shri Shiv Kumar, a clerk, who was claiming to be the General Secretary of Employees Union and absenting from duties since 24.3.2005. The complainant further submitted that he also intimated the respondent that the Corporation was producing 25 MV electricity since 1993 and thus the allegations are wrong. The complainant has submitted that the rejoinder issued to the newspaper did not evoke any response. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Patna on 3.3.2006. Written Statement In his written statement dated 19.8.2006, the respondent legal consultant, Dainik Jagran, Patna submitted that the impugned news item published by them was thoroughly true and correct and in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court on 28.4.2005 in CWJC 4766/2005 and no other matter was published out of context. Referring to the order passed by the court the respondent submitted that the writ petition was disposed of with observation and direction as follows:- “The petitioner should now approach before the Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Bihar as well as the I.G. (Vigilance) and produce all the relevant records and the authorities concerned will look into the matter and take appropriate action as the facts and situation warrant. The decision has to be taken expeditiously. Any decision taken by the authorities should be informed to the petitioner so that in case of any grievance, the petitioner may approach this court again.” Disposal of the aforesaid writ petition require the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities who may take appropriate action and inform him. In

478 the aforesaid background the respondent remain unconvinced as to how the writ petition stood rejected. Expressing his displeasure for issuance of show-cause notice to them, he requested the Council to ensure that in future the frivolous complaint should not be entertained resulting in unnecessary harassment. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 6.9.2006 for information. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the outset, noted the ‘advise’ of the respondent to the Press Council and expressed its displeasure over the statement coming from an established Hindi language paper which did not appear to have paid due attention to the statutory procedure of dealing with complaints by quasi- judicial authority that require statements of both the parties to be on record for disposal of the grievance brought before it. On merits, it noted that the complainant-Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation, Patna did not controvert the statement given by the respondent, Dainik Jagran, Patna that the PIL in question which formed the basis for publication in 29.4.2005 issue of the newspaper had been disposed of by the Hon’ble Patna High Court with observations and further directions. The Inquiry Committee was thus not satisfied that the impugned publications were totally without basis. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to close the complaint. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

148) Shri B.K. Sinha Versus The Editor Income Tax Officer Dainik Jagran Ramgarh, Jharkhand Ranchi, Jharkhand Complaint This complaint dated 10.2.2005 has been filed by Shri B.K. Sinha, Income-Tax Officer, Ramgarh against Dainik Jagran, Ranchi alleging publication of a false, motivated, mischievous, defamatory, inaccurate and malicious news item in its issue dated 14.12.2004 captioned “+ÉɪÉBÉE® BÉEɪÉÉÇãɪÉ

479 àÉå ÉÊ®]xÉÇ £É®xÉä BÉEä +ÉãÉÉ´ÉÉ BÉEÉä<Ç BÉEÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ” (No other work in Income Tax office except to accept the Returns – English translation). It has been alleged in the impugned news item that there has been no increase in the number of income tax payees in Ramgarh Income Tax Office as expected and the problem for issuance of P.A.N. remained unsolved. The impugned news item charged all the Income Tax officials of late coming in the office. It has also been alleged that most of the persons who go to the Income Tax office for any type of work relating to Income Tax return without doing their work due to non-availability of the officers in the office. The complainant submitted that the story, though under the same title, had varying details in the newspaper edition circulated in Ramgarh and the one circulated in Hazaribagh and, very intriguingly, the larger version of the report was chosen to be carried in Hazaribagh issue while the one that was carried in Ramgarh edition (which caters to readers of Ramgarh, the seat of Income Tax office reported upon) was small and had apparently less trivia to offer. He stated that the story, full of inanities was grossly inaccurate with unauthentic details – false and mischievous at places – with tricky snaps to accompany, smacked of total disregard, for principle of checking facts before filing the report and, secondly, of the extremely poor understanding of the present-day work-profile of an Income Tax Ward (that Ramgarh is). The complainant contended that the story was accompanied by two photographs – one of the face of the office building and other of the Return Receipt Counter. The accompanying counter photograph has a catchline “JÉÉãÉÉÒ {É½É BÉEÉÆ=]®” below it. In the main story, it was mentioned that no one was found available at Inquiry Counter for the whole day. The complainant has submitted that the story was false and showed ignorance of the functions of the Income Tax assessment wards, operating policy norms and frame of delivery. Having no insight into the performance appraisal, the correspondent did not gather even rudimentary data much less adequate and authentic data to base his comments on. The complainant alleged that the story was filed to defame an office, which is virtually free from complaints, had improved level of all round efficiency despite several constraints. He further alleged that vicious title sought to lower the office in public esteem by planting false and mischievous information about affairs of the office possibly at the instance of interested quarters. The complainant also alleged that the respondent tried to project a single individual i.e. B.K. Sinha, charge Income Tax Officer (references to other two are inconsequential) in a negative light in its own way. The complainant submitted that he during the last two years, filed four-five complaints before the Press Council against the newspaper, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi in his personal capacity

480 and it was quite possible that the impugned news item story was an act of malice and vendetta sponsored by an indignant newspaper. The complainant submitted that the story appeared with conspicuous extra details in the Hazaribagh edition when compared with one that appeared in Ramgarh edition. Curiously, the larger version was carried in Hazaribagh edition and the smaller in Ramgarh edition when the story was about IT office, Ramgarh. The complainant submitted that the newspaper chose not to carry their rejoinder dated 14.12.2006 at all, in Hazaribagh edition. The rejoinder published in 16th December 2004 issue in the Ramgarh edition under the caption “Income Tax Officer has no role in PAN Card” was so edited that clarifications on material points were conveniently left out. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi, Jharkhand on 21.6.2005. When no reply was received from the respondent, a time bound reminder was also issued to the respondent on 23.5.2006 for filing his written statement in the matter. There was no response. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. The complainant, Shri B.K. Sinha, appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Dainik Jagran, Ranchi. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent Dainik Jagran carried the impugned news item to malign the Income Tax Office. The complainant submitted that the department had done cent percent processing of the cases and in selective matters scrutiny was being done as per procedure. The complainant submitted that the work relating to issuance of PAN had been outsourced by the government 15 months back which was tied up with UTI. The respondent Dainik Jagran published a photograph of the counter of the Income Tax Office with the foot note that the counter remained empty to show that there was nobody to attend the counter. According to the complainant, their inquiry showed one Havaldar from Cantt had visited the Income Tax Office on 13.12.2004 and asked the counter clerk for a form No.12C for his superior. The counter clerk, Shri Sunil Kachhap, Tax Assistant went inside the office to get the form and in the meantime the respondents managed to take photograph of the empty counter. The complainant alleged that the respondent Dainik Jagran made adverse comments that the Havaldar was rebuked and asked to run away. The complainant submitted that he enjoys impeccable integrity and his work is appreciated everywhere. To substantiate this, he submitted that the said

481 newspaper had carried a front page story about surveys conducted by his office and it was published with the caption: “Income Tax raids in Ramgarh establishments” in 5th November, 2004 issue of Dainik Jagran. The complainant stated that he suspected that in writing the impugned report, the reporter had played into the hands of the people who were unhappy with his honesty. The complainant submitted that the rejoinder sent to the respondent Dainik Jagran was published in Ramgarh edition and not in Hazaribagh edition where the impugned report was more prominently carried. The complainant concluded that though the good work done by his office had been published in the newspaper, the adverse report without rhyme and reason, to malign the office, was not warranted. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed displeasure over non-filing of the written statement and the absence before the Inquiry Committee of the respondent Dainik Jagran, wherefore, the charges remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to consider the complaint on the basis of the material available and submissions made by the complainant. It noted the explanation advanced by the complainant regarding its smooth working as evinced by newspaper’s own report of 5.11.2004. The Inquiry Committee also took note of the fact that the issuance of PAN had been outsourced by the Government to the UTI Bank and, thus, the work could not be conducted by the complainant Income Tax Office. The Inquiry Committee was of the opinion that the impugned report dated 14.12.2004 encaptioned “No other work in Income Tax Office except to accept return”, was unwarranted. The photograph showing the empty counter, was said to have been deliberately taken when no one was there, and accepted that such moments may occur at any point of time. The Inquiry Committee observed that the respondent Dainik Jagran failed in its duty to verify the facts at pre-publication stage from the concerned or obtain their version. The respondent Dainik Jagran did not also carry the rejoinder of the complainant in Hazaribagh edition, while the rejoinder was published in Ramgarh edition. The Inquiry Committee was of the opinion that as the Hazaribagh edition had carried the larger version of the impugned news report, it was incumbent on the respondents to have published the rejoinder of the complainant in Hazaribagh edition also. The respondent thus failed to comply with the norms of journalistic conduct regarding pre-publication verification and right to reply. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, for dereliction of the above cited norms of journalistic ethics, expressed its displeasure and decided to recommend to the Council to reprimand the respondent Dainik Jagran, Ranchi. It may further direct the respondent newspaper to publish the rejoinder of the complainant in the Hazaribagh edition with note that this was being done on the directions of the Press Council.

482 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.

149) Shri Ramdev Prasad Versus The Editor Ex. Vice-President Dainik Jagran Ramgarh Cantt Council & BJP Leader Ranchi Ramgarh Cantt, Jharkhand Hazaribagh, Jharkhand Complaint This complaint dated 30.7.2005 has been filed by Shri Ramdev Prasad, Ex. Vice-President, Ramgarh Cantonment Council and BJP Leader, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) against “Dainik Jagran” for publication of an allegedly objectionable and defamatory news item captioned “SÉÉ® VÉÖ+ÉÉÉʽªÉÉå BÉEä {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ xÉä ¶É]Ç-{Éå] =iÉ®´ÉɪÉä” in its issue dated 28.7.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Ramgarh police caught red-handed four gamblers when they raided a hotel at around 9 p.m. It was stated in the news item that police humiliated them and asked them to take off their clothes. It was further alleged that one of the four gamblers was a Vice- President of Ramgarh Cantonment Council and the matter became the talk of the town. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news item was false, baseless and published without any basis and evidence. The complainant alleged that by publishing the impugned news item, the respondent damaged his reputation in the society. The complainant further alleged that the impugned news item was planted by the rival political party and caused great harm and agony to him. The complainant submitted that the police denied that any such incident took place. The complainant submitted that he sent a letter dated 30.7.2005 followed by a reminder dated 19.8.2005 to the respondent and the respondent vide his letter dated 23.8.2005 assured him to take action against the reporter besides to consider publication of his clarification but so far no response has been received. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi, (Jharkhand) on 7.12.2005 but despite issuance of a time-bound reminder dated 5.7.2006, no written statement was filed.

483 No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee examined the material on record and perused the impugned news item dated 28.7.2005 published in Dainik Jagran, Ranchi edition making reference to the Ex-Vice President of BJP, Ramgarh Cantt., allegedly caught red handed in a raid by the police while gambling in a hotel. The Inquiry Committee noted that the name of the complainant had not been mentioned in the impugned news item. However, the respondent editor in his reply dated 23.8.2005 to the complainant maintained that the complainant was not the only Ex-Vice President of BJP from Ramgarh area but there were three others who held the position of Vice-President of BJP from that area. Therefore, the Inquiry Committee observed since there were more than one persons of similar standing, the impugned report has cast doubt on all of them by not naming any one, and maligned all of them. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent newspaper neither filed the written statement nor was he represented before the Committee to rebut the allegations of the complainant. Therefore in absence, the Committee observed that the respondent should have properly verified and presented the facts to the Council, and recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and admonish the respondent Dainik Jagran for its failure to comply with the basic journalistic ethics. 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.

150) Prof. D. K. Ray Versus The Editor Kolkata Ananda Bazar Patrika Kolkata Complaint This complaint dated 17.2.2005 has been filed by Prof. D.K. Ray, Kolkata against ‘Ananda Bazar Patrika’, Kolkata for publishing an allegedly false, distorted and defamatory report against his son Dr. Partha Sarathi Ray in its issue dated 23.12.2004. The English translation of the impugned news report reads as follows: Sanchita’s 2 days: Day with Dad, Night with Mom

484 “Doctor wife Sanchita Ray will go near to Victoria Memorial Hall with her only daughter Chandrima at 10 a.m. sharp where her husband Dr. Partha Ray who is working in UK as a doctor would be coming there on time, Sanchita would hand over her daughter to her father. Again Sanchita would come back in the evening at 6 p.m. at same place and Partha will return the daughter. This will continue from December 27th to 29th. On 30th December Partha will go back to his workplace. This is not all. If the daughter was not agreeable to spend time with father she would immediately be returned to her mother. The daughter must not be taken away outside the jurisdiction of Kolkata or to any other place. This is the directive of Justice Soumitra Sen of Kolkata High Court. This is the falling out between two highly educated parents who blame each other with various allegations. As a result a divorce suit was filed and they are living separately and their daughter lives with mother, father is abroad. He has come to Kolkata on holiday. The father of Partha filed a suit in Kolkata High Court as a grandfather urging upon to give custody of his grand daughter to his son but judge did not agree. Before the departure of the father for abroad he was however, allowed to spend some time with his daughter. The ruling of the High Court enables Chandrima to spend some time with her father but Chandrima who is only six or other children who are facing similar problem would like to live with both parents. But it does not happen in reality. A tug of war continues. The court is to be informed that between two parents with whom the child is willing to live. But children cannot choose any of the parents very easily. Partha and Sanchita got married in 1993. Both are medical professionals, Partha works abroad, Sanchita after marriage got a chance to study abroad. A daughter was born in 1998. Both used to live in U.K. Sanchita came back home in 2000 along with her daughter. It is alleged that she was compelled to return home as sequel of mental and physical torture that surpassed the limit”.

Denying the allegations, the complainant alleged that the report contains deliberate and unwarranted foul comments against his son by publishing a court report. He has further alleged that besides the headline of the story the names used in the impugned publication is erroneous, in place of Chandrima, the daughter, the caption gave the name of Sanchita-the mother, which shows how carelessly the story was dealt. The complainant stated that Sanchita had been suffering from intermittent severe mental illness and made frequent physical assault to her husband which was proved in the Worcester Court of U.K. She left UK without the knowledge of her husband with the baby Chandrima. He has further submitted that a divorce petition of Dr. P.S. Ray at Worcester County Court was filed on 14.6.2000 and the Hon’ble Court pronounced the decree nisi of divorce on 22.10.01. The complainant has submitted that Calcutta High Court upheld the divorce decree on 4.10.02. The opposite party challenged the verdict of the court in the Supreme Court of India in February 2003 and as

485 usual it is pending. The complainant submitted that his son came to Kolkata to see his daughter in the month of December 2004 and an order dated 23.12.04 was passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in this regard. According to the complainant, the comments made by the respondent have shattered the image of his son and his family. Moreover, the name of Chandrima was confused with the name of Partha’s ex-wife Sanchita. The complainant submitted that due to the publication of the impugned news item his son and daughter-in- law have suffered tremendous mental agony. He alleged that the respondent had not deliberately disclosed the real state of affairs by stating the cause of divorce. He has also alleged that the respondent published the impugned news item with ulterior motive. The complainant submitted that he sent a letter dated 30.12.2004 to the respondent with the request to publish the necessary correction, admitting his offence especially confessing him guilty and also seeking apology for the mischief done by the respondent. He requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter. Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika on 8.5.05. The Secretary & Head of Legal, Ananda Bazar Patrika in her written statement dated 11.7.05 submitted that the article in question broadly reproduced the court proceedings with factual background. The respondent submitted that the text complained against relates to the allegations of the wife and the article in question categorically refers to them as allegations. The respondent further submitted that there was no malice in publishing the article and indeed, no malice had been imputed against the author of the article by the complainant. He requested to reject the complaint and dispose of the matter. A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 12.9.05. Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant in his counter comments dated 31.10.05 submitted that the impugned publication contains deliberate and unwarranted foul comments which are baseless and false and the caption of the news report “Dine Baba, Rate Ma’r Songe Sanchita’ do-din” Sanchita’s two days with Dad at day and night with mom, which is wrong. According to the complainant this should have been “Chandrima” instead of “Sanchita”, if correctly and sincerely published. The complainant submitted that such irresponsible act and callousness of a widely circulated daily newspaper is a serious offence but unfortunately on this point the respondent has stated nothing. He denied that the article in

486 question as claimed broadly reproduced the court’s proceedings with factual background. The complainant submitted that they have suffered tremendous mental agony due to publication of the impugned report. He submitted that the order dated 22nd December 2004 on which the said article claimed to have been published does not contain any such allegation against his son Dr. Partha Sarathi Ray. He submitted that the respondent has made a futile attempt to save himself by taking the plea that the text published in the article and the said plea is totally contrary to the text of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and the respondent’s plea suffers from serious contradiction and as such should not be accepted. The complainant further submitted that the reporter of the respondent under influence and in collusion and in connivance with some interested party with the sole intention to malign his son and his family in the estimation of others, intentionally, published the said article and the reason assigned on behalf of the respondent can not be accepted at all. The complainant submitted that he sent a letter dated 30th December, 2004 to the editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika requesting him in the following manner – “In the circumstances you are requested to publish a news item admitting therein your offences especially confessing your guilt and seeking apology for the mischief done by you within a period of seven days of receipt hereof, failing which I have no other alternative but to initiate legal action for recovery of damage for defamation”. The complainant contended that after specific stand the respondent cannot claim that he has not pleaded for malice against the editor of the said paper in his complaint. He requested the Council to adjudicate the matter at an early date and save his son and his family including himself and restore fame and image by directing the respondent to publish a news item confessing the guilt, the cause of divorce as held by the Worcester County Court namely, repeated physical assault by wife to her husband, child abduction, desertion from her husband and abnormal behaviour of wife. A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was forwarded to the respondent on 18.11.05 for information. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from respondent’s side. The complainant vide letter dated 1.1.2007 requested the Committee to decide the matter on the basis of the documents on record. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record, the Inquiry Committee noted that impugned news report was primarily on divorce proceedings between the parents

487 of Chandrima where the court had granted fight of access to the child as per directions. In the deliberations, the Committee noted that invasion into private matters is justified only when outweighed by overriding public interest. Further, even in such matters, the right of an individual to have his identity withheld cannot be overlooked, particularly when the matter involves a minor child who is not in a position to take decision herself or himself. The respondent appeared to have erred on both the counts. The complainant has also pointed out some factual inaccuracies in the report based on the author’s views, which warranted publication of a correction/rejoinder. The paper failed to provide this opportunity to the complainant. Therefore, the Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and advise the respondent newspaper Ananda Bazar Patrika to caution its reporter responsible for publication of the impugned news report and take corrective steps to undo the harm done by publishing the rejoinder of the complainant. 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.

151) Shri Ramesh Chandra Baleshwar Versus The Editor Lecturer (English) Dainik Bhaskar Government College, Khairwada Udaipur Rajasthan Rajasthan Complaint This complaint dated 13.9.2005 has been filed by Shri Ramesh Chandra Baleshwar, Lecturer (English), Government College, Khairwada, Rajasthan against Dainik Bhaskar, Udaipur edition for publication of the following objectionable news items. S.No. Caption Date 1. bÉãÉÉÒ JÉäiÉ àÉå +ÉÉxÉä {É® {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ® BÉEä cÉlÉ {ÉÉÄ´É BÉEÉ]å 3.7.2005 Family’s hand and foot amputated due to tree branch hanging onto farmland. 2. VÉÉxÉãÉä´ÉÉ càÉãÉä BÉEä àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå |ÉÉSÉɪÉÇ {ÉÉÊ®VÉxÉ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® 4.7.2005 Lecturer and relatives arrested in case of deadly attack. 3. +ÉÉʣɪÉÖBÉDiÉ |ÉÉSÉɪÉÇ ´É {ÉÉÊ®VÉxÉ ÉÊ®àÉÉxb {É® 5.7.2005 Accused Lecturer and relatives on remand. 4. |ÉÉSÉɪÉÇ ´É {ÉÉÊ®VÉxÉÉå BÉEÉä VÉäãÉ 6.7.2005 Imprisonment to Lecturer and relatives.

488 The complainant has submitted that his neighbours had entered his farmland and beaten up the complainant and his family members, whereafter, he lodged an F.I.R. A counter F.I.R was also lodged. On 2.7.2005, the correspondent of Dainik Bhaskar demanded Rs.25,000/- for not publishing objectionable news items. On refusal to pay the amount, the newspaper started publication of the news items against him and his family members. The complainant alleged that the respondent newspaper in league with the opponent started publication of the baseless, concocted and defamatory news items against his family members, who have not been named as accused in the F.I.R. The complainant has submitted that the newspaper presented the news in a manner to show that it was a burning issue among the public. The newspaper published the fake pictures/photographs and normal quarrel had been shown as a deadly quarrel in these publications. The complainant has stated that the F.I.Rs with regard to the incident were filed by both the sides but the newspaper published one-sided report against him. His designation had also been prominently mentioned in the news item. Due to bad publicity, the police registered the case against him under wrong Sections contrary to as provided under law. The complainant submitted that due to the news items, he and his family members suffered mental, economic and social loss. The complainant issued the rejoinder dated 11.10.2005 giving the facts that his neighbours and his family members had come to his land and beaten him up and an F.I.R under Crime No. 182/05 was registered in Kherwada Police Station, District Udaipur, Rajasthan To this, there was no response. He further stated that the opponents had also lodged a false F.I.R under Crime No. 180/05 in the Kherwada Police Station against the complainant and his family members. The complainant has submitted that both the parties were injured, but Dainik Bhaskar in connivance with the opponent, published the names of the family members, who were in no way involved in the incident. The complainant submitted that his aged father’s name was published in 3.7.2005 issue but his father’s name was not in the F.I.R. The complainant further submitted that in the news item dated 4.7.2005; it was shown that the police arrested his father. The complainant has submitted that his son namely, Prabhash was also shown arrested in the news item dated 4.7.2005, which is totally false. In the issue dated 5.7.2005 Shri Prabhash was to be shown in police remand and sent to jail on 6.7.2005, which is totally false. The complainant submitted that Shri Prabhash is engineering degree holder and the news was published to cause great loss to his future and to defame him. The complainant submitted that the newspaper described his farmland as if it was the farmland of the opponent. The complainant further submitted that the three days remand by the police, as mentioned in the newspaper was totally concocted and intended to defame him and his family. The complainant submitted that no

489 sword was used during incident and the allegations of grave injuries on eyes, hands and foot were totally wrong. The complainant submitted that the allegation of amputation was totally wrong. The pictures/photographs published in the newspaper were fake and presented to show that the injuries were grave. The complainant has submitted that a simple incident of quarrel was shown as a deadly attack and the photographs were designed to arouse ill feelings. The complainant has submitted that in the F.I.R, the opponent nowhere mentioned attempt to murder. The complainant has submitted that the truth or otherwise of the incident shall depend on the outcome of the decision of the court. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar on 21.2.2006. The Executive Editor, Dainik Bhaskar in his written statement dated 13.3.2006 has submitted that the complaint is false and baseless. The respondent has submitted that the complainant had twisted the facts and that the news items objected to by the complainant was not against the ethics of journalism, and neither against public interest. The respondent has submitted that the complainant and his family members entered the house of the opponent and beaten them up. An F.I.R No. 180/05 under Sections 452, 323/34 was registered against the complainant. After investigation of the case and medical report of the injured persons Section 307 was also added in the F.I.R. The respondent has submitted that the incident was not of a simple quarrel but was a serious matter of attempt to murder. The respondent has submitted that the police have filed the challan under Sections 308, 326, 325, 324, 323 and 452/34 in Sessions Court against the complainant, which is under consideration of the Court. The respondent has submitted that due to seriousness of the case, bail was not granted to the complainant by the Sessions Court and later on the Rajasthan High Court granted the bail. The respondent has submitted that mentioning the name of complainant’s father and use of sword instead of axe was a typographical mistake. The respondent has submitted that Shri Devchand, father of the complainant was called by the police at police station and was detained by the police and due to this fact his name was found mentioned in the news item. The respondent has submitted that mentioning the name of complainant’s son, as Prakash instead of Prabhash was also a typographical mistake. The respondent has submitted that if the objectionable part of the news items had been brought to their notice the clarification would have been published. The respondent has submitted that they have not received any clarification from the complainant for publication. The respondent has submitted that the photographs published in the newspaper were true and were taken from the hospital where the injured persons were admitted for treatment. The respondent has submitted that the

490 news regarding the filing of F.I.R by the complainant was also published in the newspaper. The respondent has submitted that the designation of the complainant was published for the identification of the complainant. The respondent has submitted that using of respectable words for accused persons is not a tradition of the newspaper. The respondent while denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that they have published the news of both sides. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.3.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.2.2007 at Udaipur. The complainant, Shri Ramesh Chandra Baleshwar appeared in person, while Shri Kirti Rana, Executive Editor, was present on behalf of the respondent Dainik Bhaskar. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted before the Inquiry Committee that he had given all the facts in his complaint. He submitted that the respondent newspaper published one-sided news item to favour the opponents. The complainant requested for appropriate action against the respondent. He added that the case which was pending before the court did not relate to impugned news report. Shri Kirti Rana, Executive Editor appearing for the respondent Dainik Bhaskar, stated that both the parties mentioned in the news involved in the incident had compromised. The respondent further submitted that the newspaper had not received the contradiction from the complainant. He stated that mentioning the use of ‘talwar’ (sword) in the news items in place of ‘dhardar’ (sharp-edged weapon) was a mistake on the part of reporter. The respondent submitted that the news items were based on F.I.R in which the name of the complainant’s son was mentioned. He was unable to explain the reason for mentioning the complainant’s father in the report. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties opined that the dispute between the complainant and his opponents had been blown out of proportion and a series of news reports was carried in respondent newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, Udaipur (Rajasthan) issues dated 3.7.2005, 4.7.2005 and 6.7.2005. The Inquiry Committee noted that the very first news item under the heading “Family’s hand and foot amputated due to tree branch hanging onto farmland” was wrongly stated that the hand and foot of the opponent’s family had been amputated. The respondent newspaper mentioned the use of ‘sword’ during attack, which was neither mentioned in the F.I.R nor was mentioned in the police recoveries, nor

491 was the father of the complainant said to be involved in the incident. It appeared to the Inquiry Committee that the Dainik Bhaskar deliberately sensationalized/ exaggerated the facts to malign and harm the reputation of complainant and his family members and compounded the offence by not publishing the version of the complainant. It must be remembered by the Press that their duty is to adhere to the norms of accuracy and fairness, and in case of factually incorrect reporting, it is incumbent to publish correction and afford right of reply to the aggrieved person. The Inquiry Committee was of the view that the respondent newspaper misused its columns for publicizing and sensationalizing a local dispute that involved no public interest. The Inquiry Committee in view of the foregoing decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and to censure Dainik Bhaskar, Udaipur edition (Rajasthan) for breach of journalistic norms. It may further require the newspaper under Section 14 (2) of the Act to publish the gist of the adjudication in its columns with the same prominence as the impugned report, within a fortnight of the service of the decision. 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. F.N.: Shri P.T. Shah, Member did not participate in the deliberations on account of his interest in Bhaskar Group of Publications.

152) Shri Hari Mohan Sharma Versus 1. The Editor Deputy Director Mewar Krantikal Bhilwara Khadi Gramodyog Board Bhilwara, Rajasthan Bhilwara Rajasthan 2. The Editor Inside Report Chittaurgarh, Rajasthan Complaint Shri Hari Mohan Sharma, then Deputy Director, Bhilwara Khadi Gramodyog Board, Bhilwara, Rajasthan has filed this complaint dated 18.6.2004 through his advocate against two Hindi Fortnightlies “Inside Report”, Chittaurgarh and “Mewar Krantikal”, Bhilwara, Rajasthan for publishing allegedly defamatory, false, unverified and one sided news items under the caption “Jaanch Dar Jaanch, Phir bhi Khadi Board upnideshak Sharma par nahin Aanch” and “Upnideshak Sharma ne lagaya karodon ka chuna - Khadi board anudan rashi main ghotala” in the issues dated 7.6.2004 and 2-15.06.2004 respectively. The respondents in the impugned news items described the

492 complainant as a corrupt officer and charged that the complainant had been involved in the financial burglings and taking advantage of the high position held by him. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the impugned news items had been published deliberately with the malafide intention, without verifying the facts which lowered his image. The complainant submitted that he had drawn the attention of the respondent editor to the allegedly defamatory and false news items but received no response. Show cause notices dated 9.2.2005 were issued to the respondent editors, “Mewar Krantikal” Bhilwara, “Inside Report”, Chittaurgarh, Rajasthan. Written Statement Denying the allegations the respondent editors, “Mewar Krantikal” and “Inside Report” vide their written statements dated 25.2.2005 and 2.3.2005 respectively submitted that the allegations against the complainant had already been published in the issue dated 28.12.2003 of “Dainik Rashtradoot” and inquiries have already been initiated in 14 matters of corruption against the complainant. The respondents submitted that keeping in view the misappropriation of funds they wanted to have information under the RTI Act, but no reply has been received in response to their letter dated 02.04.2003 which itself shows misappropriation of funds and fraudulent activities. According to the respondents the news items had been published only after verification of the facts and receiving complaints against the complainant. By highlighting the misdeeds in public interest they have only performed their journalistic duties, added the respondents. A copy of both the written statements received from the respondents were forwarded to the complainant, vide Council’s letter dated 20.05.2005. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.02.2007 at Udaipur. Shri Sunil Jathliya, Advocate appeared for both the respondents, while the complainant was unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Sunil Jathliya appearing for ‘Mewar Krantikal’ and ‘Inside Report’ submitted that the complainant had since been suspended on the charge of corruption. Before carrying the impugned report, they had solicited information under Right to Information, but it was not given by the complainant office. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant was an influential person and the news was published on the basis of documents. However, on being apprised on the guidelines on right of reply and the right of the paper to

493 append comments thereto, the counsel submitted that the newspapers would publish the rejoinder of the complainant. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of material on record and offer made by the counsel of respondent newspapers, the Inquiry Committee opined that the ends of justice would be met if the respondent newspapers carried the version of the complainant with its stand, if necessary. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council that the complainant may forward his rejoinder to the respondent newspapers and the respondents editors of ‘Mewar Krantikal’ and ‘Inside Report’ to publish the contradiction within a fortnight of its receipt in keeping with the norms on right of reply. Copies of the issues of the newspapers carrying the complainant’s rejoinder may be forwarded to the Press Council of India and 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.

153) Shri Hari Singh Rathore Versus The Editor Jodhpur Rajasthan Kesari Rajasthan Evening Daily Jodhpur, Rajasthan Complaint This complaint dated 12.6.2005 has been filed by Shri Hari Singh Rathore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan against the editor, Rajasthan Kesari, evening daily, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) for publishing false, misleading and defamatory news items on the front page under the caption “{ÉÚ´ÉÇ ¶Éc® nhbxÉɪÉBÉE BÉEä ÉÊ´Éâóu nVÉÇ àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ VÉÉÆSÉ +ÉÉ®à£É” ‘ÉÊBÉEºÉBÉEÉÒ lÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ {É]Â]ÉÒ ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ MÉɽÉÒ’ (Police inquiry started into the case registered against ex-City Magistrate. To whom belonged the care with red strip) and “ÉÊ´É´ÉÉÉÊniÉ |ɶÉɺÉÉÊxÉBÉE +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ xÉä ÉʤÉMÉÉbÉ, BÉEä¤ÉãÉ ´ÉÉãÉÉå BÉEÉ VÉɪÉBÉEÉ” (Controversial administrative officer spoiled cable operator’s case-English translation) in its issue dated 13.3.2005. In the first impugned news item it has been stated that the police have registered a case against the ex-administrative officer and have started inquiry in the matter. The impugned news item alleged that after giving irregular permission for starting a cinema hall at Jodhpur, the complainant was only transferred due to his influence despite serious allegations against the complainant. Allegations of beating, sabotage, threatening and snatching of

494 camera have also been levelled against the complainant in the impugned news item, apart from being charged with unauthorisedly using the car having VIP red light while being on ‘business leave’. The second impugned news item charged that complainant who is known for his weakness for wine, women and wealth, has committed umpteen sins and in the process and due to his weakness for women, had taken several incorrect decisions/action through administrative and police officers. When he had been trying to start the ‘cable service’ venture, he tried to put several pressures on other service providers but failed and in the process ruined an established newspaper group. The complainant objected to the statement and submitted that the impugned news items were published with the sole motive to tarnish his image and to blackmail him. According to him the respondent is habitual of publishing false and defamatory news items. He submitted that the act of the respondent is violative of the Press Council Act and the guidelines as he published the false and baseless news item without verification of facts. The complainant further submitted that due to the publication of the impugned news items he has suffered mental agony. He also stated that the respondent by publishing the impugned publication without any solid reason and pre-publication verification has damaged his reputation and this act is punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The complainant submitted that he sent a legal notice dated 4.5.2005 through his advocate to the respondent newspaper for publication of his corrigendum with regret but received no reply. Show-cause notice dated 18.11.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Rajasthan Kesari, Jodhpur. Written Statement Shri Lakshman Khatani, respondent editor/publisher, Rajasthan Kesari, Jodhpur in his written statement dated 28.11.2005 submitted that the impugned news items were based on the F.I.R filed in Basni Police Station and on the information given by a competent police officer on telephone. The respondent stated that CBI had conducted a raid in his house, office and farmhouse after filing of the F.I.R and the matter is also under investigation. The respondent submitted that all the Jodhpur based newspapers had also published the same news items. He attached the relevant documents including the copy of the complaint filed before the Chief Secretary by one Kamal Shrimali, former partner of the complainant in the cable business. He concluded by saying that the news items levelling different types of allegations against the complainant have consistently been published by the newspaper. The respondent stressed

495 that the news items in question were published on the basis of standard of journalism policy. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 19.12.2005 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.02.2007 at Udaipur. The complainant, Shri Hari Singh Rathore appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Rajasthan Kesari. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he had proceeded on five years ‘Business Leave’ and entered the media business, setting up a periodical and Drishti Channel, a cable network service. His business and political rivals lodged FIR with malice, which formed the basis of news items in respondent newspaper, Rajasthan Kesari. The newspaper distorted the facts of the FIR to defame him and alleged use of red light on the car in place of ‘red strip’. The complainant stated that there was no mention or reference to cinema hall in the FIR, which the newspaper added of its own in the impugned publication. The complainant stated that the false news items by Rajasthan Kesari had been published to defame him with charge of womanising and when he sent his contradiction, the respondent did not care to publish it. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the material on record and submissions made by the complainant, the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent had defended the publication on the ground that it was based on F.I.R filed against the complainant and other documents. That being so, respondent did not care to obtain the version of the complainant at pre-publication stage. The newspaper further compounded the offence by not publishing the rejoinder of the complainant sent subsequently. In doing so it deprived the readers of their right to know the version of the affected person’s to form an independent view. It, therefore, decided to recommend to the Council to warn the editor, Rajasthan Kesari for violating norms of journalistic conduct regarding pre-publication verification and right to reply to the detriment of its readers. 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.

496 154) Shri Hari Singh Rathore Versus Dainik Bhaskar Jodhpur Jaipur Rajasthan Rajasthan Complaint This complaint dated 28.7.2005 has been filed by Shri Hari Singh Rathore, RAS, Jodhpur, Rajasthan against Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur edition alleging publication of false news item captioned ‘Recommendations not accepted, suspension postponed’ and sub-caption ‘RAS Officer now will get only charge sheet’ (English translation) in its issue dated 18.6.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the Department of Personnel was saving an RAS officer who was putting hurdles in the government functioning. The District Collector had recommended suspension of Shri Hari Singh Rathore for his misbehaviour, causing hindrance in the government functioning and making construction in the reserved area. It was further reported that the Department of Personnel had rejected his application for a long leave and there were complaints about the properties of the complainant. It was mentioned at the end of the news item that the complainant was contacted but he refused to say anything and disconnected the phone. The complainant has submitted that the concocted and false news item was published to defame him and added that he has neither been served with any charge sheet nor there was any contemplation for suspension by the department, or his leave ever rejected. The complainant further submitted that somebody rang him up on 17.6.2005 and threatened him to withdraw the complaints filed before the Press Council and disconnected the telephone. In another complaint dated 12.6.2005, the complainant objected to the publication of older news item captioned ‘Complaint against Rathore for possessing property worth crores’ and ‘Charge of bashing up against Ex-ADM’ published by the respondent in its issues dated 13.3.2005 and 20.3.2005 respectively. He has objected to the statement that ‘Hari Singh came on the vehicle on which red light was fixed’ and also that ‘Rajasthan Administrative Service officer Hari Singh Rathore is surrounded by charges, and including those for encroaching the government land and giving approval for multiplex.’ He has alleged that the impugned publications were intended to blackmail him and he was served notices dated 20.4.2005 & 26.4.05 drawing the attention to the false publications but no response. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent on 17.10.2005 and 5.1.2006. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 17.7.2006 submitted that

497 all the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and baseless and stated that they have published the news items dated 18.6.2005, after conducting due verification. The respondent did not file his written statement with regard to the other matters of news item published on 13.3.2005 and 20.3.2005. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.8.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 26.02.2007. The complainant Shri Hari Singh Rathore appeared in person. Shri Sumit Vyas, Executive Legal Officer was present on behalf of Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he has proceeded on five years Business Leave and taken up the business of media setting up a periodical and Drishti Channel. His business and political rivals were hand in glove with respondents to harass him. The complainant stated he had not been charge sheeted as alleged and that the report of alleged cancellation of leave was attributed to Deputy Secretary Shri Meena, who had denied having met the reporter or having been contacted. The representative of respondent Dainik Bhaskar stated that they had only said that the complainant was ‘to be’ chargesheeted. As per their sources, charge sheet had been proposed but not given to the complainant. However, the matter of illegal construction was published on the basis of letter from Collector, Sirohi. The respondent submitted that it was not feasible to publish contradiction in the given circumstances. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of record and the oral submission made before it by the parties observed that the respondent Dainik Bhaskar published the news on the basis of reports available with it, but failed to verify it from the concerned quarters. The complainant was also denied his right of reply to allow the readers to form an independent view. The Inquiry Committee noted that the newspapers are not expected to judge the issue but it is their duty to inform the public all sides of issues. The Inquiry Committee, in the circumstances, decided to recommend to the Council to warn the respondent Dainik Bhaskar for infraction of journalistic norms, and direct the complainant to send his version limited to the charges levelled in the impugned reports to the respondent within a fortnight, which the respondent may be directed to

498 publish under the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Press Council Act, 1978, within a fortnight of its receipt under report to the complainant and the Press Council. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

155) Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra Versus The Editor Kamra Engineering Consultant Rajasthan Patrika Bikaner, Rajasthan Bikaner, Rajasthan Complaint This complaint dated 8.9.2004 has been filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra, Engineering Consultant, Bikaner against Rajasthan Patrika objecting to publication of allegedly false and baseless news item in its issue dated 11.7.2004 under the caption “Soorsagar samasaya ka nirakaran kuchh hi furlong door” (Solution to the problem of soorsagar in sight). According to the complainant the respondent had published wrong facts in the impugned news item. The factual position was as follows: - 1. The work is being loaned by ADB at 11% annual plus increased prices of dollars that will be about 15% annual interest rate. So Utilization of loan needs to be done transparently and proper way as ultimately this will have to be repaid by the public of Bikaner with heavy annual interest. 2. False claim of completion of half of the drainage work. Till date after three months of publication of this news, work accomplished is less than 20% and work is stand still now. 3. Excavator machine shown in the photograph of news item has nothing to do with the actual desilting work. 4. The work has already been completed in January with the help of desilting machine hired from Mumbai and returned in January. Claim of starting cleaning work in news item photograph is false. 5. After publication of the news, he tried to inquire the reasons for Rs.50 lakh expenditure for merely cleaning of 2 k.m. long drain. Several irregularities came to notice. Rajasthan Patrika staff took photographs of the site and sent to RUIDP staff to destroy the proof. The complainant has alleged that the respondent has been instrumental in suppressing the matter and for this Rajasthan Patrika has been rewarded

499 financially with funds for tree plantation by Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 3.9.2004 towards the impugned publication and requested to publish true facts but the respondent neither replied nor any factual position was published. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter in public interest. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent Rajasthan Patrika on 3.3.2005. The respondent Deputy Editor, Rajasthan Patrika in his written statement dated 21.4.2005 while denying the allegations submitted that the news item in question was published on the basis of the information received from the construction agency namely, RUIDP. Being a responsible newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika was duty bound to apprise the public of Bikaner about the development work being carried out through Asian Development Bank. The respondent submitted that the Rajasthan Patrika had published several news from time to time about the development plans. The news items were published not for the financial benefit of anyone but in public interest. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 25.5.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 26.2.2007. The complainant Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra appeared in person while Shri Rajiv Harsh, Editorial Incharge represented the respondent newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he was an engineer and had taken up the issue in public interest as it involved public funds and their proper utilization. He averred that the excavator machine shown in the news item had nothing to do with cleaning of drains. The complainant stated that the work of desilting of drain by Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project was not completed yet payment of Rs.50 lakh was made. The project was loaned by the Asian Development Bank. The complainant further submitted that the water pipeline was taken through sewer line, which was an offence. The complainant alleged that the Rajasthan Patrika was obliged by RUIDP since tree plantation work was allotted to Rajasthan Patrika. The complainant submitted that he apprised the Rajasthan Patrika of the status of the work project and scam therein to protect public interest but the newspaper did not publish his point of view. The representative of Rajasthan Patrika submitted that the complainant was an engineer by profession and aggrieved since the RUIDP did not grant

500 him project work. The respondent submitted that the Rajasthan Patrika had undertaken plantation of about 10-lakh trees of its own and were in no way indebted to RUIDP. The respondent submitted that the Rajasthan Patrika had also published the problem of Soor Sagar in September 18th 2004 issue and again recently there was heavy rain on 12.2.2007 and there was blockade which was also covered by the Rajasthan Patrika. The respondent alleged that the complainant wanted to use the newspaper as a tool for his professional gain. He added that it was not possible for them to publish whatever the complainant wanted. The complainant stated that he had no personal stake in the matter as he was not eligible for tender worth Rs. 5 crore since he had limited turn over of Rs. 5 to 6 lakh only. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee examined the records and heard the parties. In the view of the Committee, the newspaper was expected to report in matter of public interest with due care and bonafide. In the instant case the newspaper had covered the problem of Soor Sagar from time to time and the impugned publication dated 11.7.2004 was stated to be based on information gathered from various agencies and their own spade work. The Inquiry Committee was of the opinion that the newspaper had not violated any ethics in publishing the news reports and the complainant had been unable to establish any malafide. In the light of above, the Inquiry Committee did not find it a fit case for action against the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint of Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra and close the case. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

156) Shri C.M. Sharma Versus The Editor Principal Dashpur Express Government Higher Secondary School Hindi Daily Neemuch Cantt., M.P. Neemuch Cantt., M.P. Complaint This complaint dated 14.6.2004 has been filed by Shri C.M. Sharma, Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Janakpur-Morvan, Tehsil Jawad, District Neemuch Cantt. (M.P.) against “Dashpur Express”, Hindi Daily, Neemuch Cantt. (M.P.) alleging publication of false, misleading and defamatory

501 news item on the front page of the newspaper captioned “|ÉÉSÉɪÉÇ BÉEÉÒ àÉxÉàÉÉxÉÉÒ ºÉä ABÉE ´É­ÉÇ BÉEÉ ´ÉäiÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊàÉãÉÉ” (Non-receipt of salary due to arbitrary attitude of the Principal- English translation) and “30 {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ cÉ<ǺBÉÚEãÉ ÉÊ®VÉã] ´ÉÉãÉä ÉʶÉFÉBÉEÉä {É® MÉÉVÉ” (30% result in High School called for action against teachers – English translation) in its issues dated 7.6.2004 and 20.6.2004 respectively. The first impugned news item alleged that the Headmaster, Shri Rehman of Morwan Mavi School was not getting his salary for the last one year due to the personal enmity, indifferent and arbitrary attitude of the Principal of Janakpur-Morwan Higher Secondary School Shri C.M. Sharma. It was further alleged in the impugned news item that many complaints of misbehaviour with students and teachers have been filed against Shri C.M. Sharma but no action was taken by the higher authorities. Regarding the first report, the complainant submitted that he was the DDO for about 100 teachers of different schools of the area. However, the referred teacher Shri Azizur Rehman was not ready to visit his office to receive his salary, wherefore it could not be given out. The matter was in the knowledge of concerned authority which had pulled up the said teacher for his action. It was stated in the second impugned news item that an inquiry would be conducted against the Principals, Headmasters and teachers of the schools whose results were less than 30% and after investigation some of them would be suspended. The impugned news item stated the complainant’s school result as 30.4%. The complainant while denying the allegations submitted that the impugned news items were totally false and baseless and had been published to lower his prestige in particular and of the school in general. Regarding the second report, the complainant submitted that the respondent published incorrect result of their School as 30.4% whereas the actual figure was 47.7% which was carried by the other newspapers. He contended that a few teachers with vested interest were prejudiced and biased with him. The Distt. Education Officer had warned the concerned teachers for furnishing untrue information and false complaints to the senior officers which proves that the respondent had published the impugned news item without verifying the facts from him. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 10.6.2004 for demanding Rs. One lakh for damaging his image in public eye. In response to Council’s letter dated 11.2.2005, the complainant had sent the rejoinder to editor on 28.2.2005 but received no response. Show cause notice dated 21.6.2005 was issued to the respondent editor, Dashpur Express, Neemuch Cantt. (M.P.).

502 Written Statement

The respondent editor, Dashpur Express in his written statement dated 16.8.2006 denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the impugned news items were published in public interest without any malafide. The respondent editor submitted the photocopy of letter of Shri Rehman in which Shri Rehman had stated that the Principal had not released his salary for three-and-a-half months (19.1.2004 to 30.4.2004) so far. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.9.2006 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 26.02.2007. The complainant Shri C.M. Sharma and Shri Radhavallabh Goyal, respondent editor, Dashpur Express, Neemuch were present in person.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper had published totally false news. He submitted that the official letters were issued to the concerned Headmaster to take his salary but he was insisting that the salary may be given to him at his residence. He added that he was Drawing & Disbursing Officer of about 25-30 schools and disbursing salary to about 100 teachers. The concerned Headmaster had made it a prestige issue not to collect salary from his office cashier. This fact was brought to the notice of District Education Officer also and the salary had been deposited in the bank. The complainant submitted regarding incorrect pass percentage of the school, he pointed out that facts given out by the concerned authority showed higher result of his school and other papers had correctly reported it but the newspaper deliberately published the incorrect facts singling him out by name to malign him.

The respondent entered appearance after the hearing was over. The respondent submitted that the affected Headmaster had lodged complaints with various authorities including government, and on the basis of his complaints, the news was carried. He further submitted that the complainant harassed the said Headmaster and the salary was released after publication of the news in their newspaper. On being questioned over attempts to verify facts, he submitted that they sent message to the complainant to visit the newspaper office but he did not come. He had no answer for the incorrectness in the percentage of results.

503 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record and considering the submissions made before it, the Inquiry Committee noted that respondent Dashpur carried two news reports, first about alleged arbitrary attitude of the complainant and second about lower performance of the school. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent newspaper had not cared to verify the facts before publication of both the news items. It was improper for him to expect the complainant to visit their premises to give his version. It appeared to the Committee that the respondent Dashpur Express was taking sides with the disgruntled teaching community. The respondent compounded the offence by not publishing the version of the complainant even post publication. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to recommend to the Council to uphold the complaint and warn the respondent newspaper Dashpur Express for its unethical conduct and act. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

157) Dr. (Smt.) Chandra Saita Versus The Editor Assistant Director Chambal Chetna Employees Provident Fund Organisation Hindi Weekly Regional Office, M.P. Gwalior, M.P. Indore, M.P. Complaint Dr. (Smt.) Chandra Saita, Assistant Director, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Madhya Pradesh, Indore has filed this complaint dated 7.3.2005 against “Chambal Chetna”, Hindi weekly, Gwalior for publication of allegedly objectionable and baseless news item captioned “ ÉÊcxnÉÒ £ÉÉ­ÉÉ FÉäjÉ àÉå ®ÉVÉ£ÉÉ­ÉÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ BÉEä {Én BÉEÉä ãÉäBÉE® àÉSÉÉ ¤É´ÉÉãÉ” (Uproar over the post of Official Language Officer in Hindi Speaking Belt – English translation) in its issue dated 7.2.2005. The report alleged that the complainant had gained a backdoor entry to the post eight-nine years ago courtesy her husband who was also in same organistion. She was alleged to have no work. The complainant has alleged that the report had adversely affected her and her husband’s image in the eyes of the public. The news was baseless and far from facts. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Chambal Chetna Weekly on 17.10.2005. No written statement was filed by the respondent editor, Chambal Chetna.

504 Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 27.02.2007. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the complaint on the basis of material on record and noted that the respondent editor neither filed written statement nor tendered oral submissions despite sufficient opportunity afforded to him. On perusal of the impugned news item dated 7.2.2005, it noted that the news item levelled charges that were vague and unspecified. In the absence of any written statement from the respondent, the charge of the impugned report being baseless was uncontested. The Inquiry Committee while condemning the silence of the newspaper, decided to admonish the editor, Chambal Chetna, Hindi Weekly, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh for publishing baseless news against the complainant. 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.

158) Shri S.K. Taran Versus The Editor Manager Khoji Lahar Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Hoshangabad Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 26.5.2005 has been filed by Shri S.K. Taran, Manager, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh against “KHOJI LAHAR”, a Hindi weekly newspaper, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh objecting to the publication of a series of listed below news items as ‘special editorials’: S.No. Captions Dates 1. “ÉʴɶÉä­É ºÉÆ{ÉÉnBÉEÉÒªÉ : ºÉcBÉEÉÉÊ®iÉÉ BÉEÉVÉãÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä~®ÉÒ” 23.8.2004, 18.10.2004, 22.11.2004, 29.11.2004, 27.12.2004, 17.1.2005, 31.1.2005 and 7.2.2005

505 2. “£ÉÉ®ÉÒ +ÉÉÊxɪÉÉÊàÉiÉiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä VÉxÉBÉE AºÉ0BÉEä0 iÉÉ®hÉ” 21.2.2005 3. “AºÉ0BÉEä0 iÉÉ®hÉ uÉ®É £ÉÉ®ÉÒ +ÉÉÊxɪÉÉÊàÉiÉiÉÉ” 14.3.2005 4. “iÉÉ®hÉ BÉE¤É iÉ®ÉäMÉä +ÉÉè® ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉÒ VÉå¤Éå MÉ®àÉ BÉE®ÉäMÉä” 24.3.2005 5. “MɤÉxÉ-PÉÉä]ÉãÉä¤ÉÉVÉ ÉËBÉEMÉ, +ÉÉBÉEÆbÉå BÉEÉ ¤ÉÉVÉÉÒMÉ® A´ÉÆ ¶ÉÉÉÊiÉ® 4.4.2005 +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ”

According to the complainant, prior to his appointment as the manager of the bank on 17.7.2004, the bank had incurred a loss of about Rs.12.10 lakh during the years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 on unnecessary advertisements and publicity. He has alleged that due to the stoppage of such unnecessary advertisements, the respondent began vilification campaign by publication of defamatory, misleading, false and satirical news items levelling allegations of black deeds in the co-operative bank and heavy irregularities by him resulting in demoralising the officers and staff of the bank besides affecting its business. He has alleged that the respondent published totally false news about the dismissal of the complainant. The complainant has furnished copies of the legal notices issued to the respondent and the reply thereon, but stated that no clarification has been published. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 18.11.2005. Written Statement The respondent Shri Rajender Kumar Rawat, editor, Khoji Lahar in his written statement dated 8.12.2005, has submitted that he had replied to the complainant’s legal notice clarifying their stand in the matter. He has stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and baseless and whatever they have published in the newspaper was based on true facts and they are ready to face any court proceeding initiated by the complainant. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 5.1.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 27.02.2007. Shri Vasudev Bhargav, Assistant Accountant, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank appeared on behalf of the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent editor, Khoji Lahar. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s representative submitted that about 150 societies fell under the complainant’s co-operative bank. The respondent was publishing

506 two types of copies of the newspaper, one for Bhopal and another for Hoshangabad. He averred that the respondent was publishing advertisements without any release order or approval from the bank and started vilifications campaign against the bank when the payments for unauthorised advertisements were stopped, affecting the complainant as well as the credibility of the bank. The respondent also failed to publish the clarification. He added that after receipt of show cause notice from the Council the respondent stopped publication of news against the bank. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the representative of the complainant. It went through the impugned reports and felt that these had attempted to bring down the complainant in the estimation of the public through articles that were in very bad taste and defamatory. The comments did not draw on any facts or actions, but merely sermonized against so-called corrupt practices of the bank. The respondent in the written statement defended the publications asserting that the publications were based on facts, but the respondent was unable to substantiate its averments by any documentary evidence. The Committee, was thus, not convinced by the defence of the respondent. The Committee noted the charge that the impugned reports were a means to pressurize the bank to release payment of unauthorized advertisements, published in the newspaper, and held that such action was in utter violation of all ethical practices. The respondent also denied the complainant his right to reply by not publishing his clarification. In view of these facts, the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the editor, Khoji Lahar, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. It further recommended that the copy of the Council’s adjudication be sent to DAVP, RNI and Government of Madhya Pradesh for action, as they deem fit. 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.

159) Shri Anand Goenka Versus The Editor Katni Rashtriya Hindi Mail Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, M.P. Complaint This complaint dated 27.06.2005 has been filed by Shri Anand Goenka, Katni (M.P.) against Rashtriya Hindi Mail, Bhopal (M.P.) for publication of an

507 allegedly false and objectionable news item captioned Minister of Mines suspected in transaction worth Crores?” (English translation) in its issue dated 31.05.2005. It was alleged in the impugned news item that one mine mafia known by the name of Anand Goenka and State Minister exchanged crores of rupees for approval of mines contract. Excerpts from sub-heads of the impugned news item read as follows:- - Joining hands with one Mine Mafia and grabbing crores. - Illegal conversion of forest land to Revenue Land; allegation of approval of Mine lease. - Open violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. - Mines Mafia, known by the name of Anand Goenka is an infamous person. - Collector says: The decision of the State Government was followed. - Supreme Court sought report in four weeks but forest land was converted into Revenue land within 24 hours. The complainant has submitted that in the news item it he had been portrayed as being involved in financial irregularities involving public funds and was aggrieved since the respondent newspaper had published false, fabricated, defamatory news item without prior verification with malafide to defame him and lower his prestige in the eyes of society. The complainant submitted that these facts were brought to the notice of the respondent editor vide notice dated 10.06.2005 but no response. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Rashtriya Hindi Mail on 16.08.2005. Written Statement The respondent editor, Rashtriya Hindi Mail in his written statement dated 30.08.2005 denied that the impugned news item was carried to personally defame the complainant. The respondent submitted that the aforesaid publication was a factual reporting for it exposed the flagrant violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and was published in public interest. The respondent further submitted that the complainant’s objection was about the description of his name as mafia which is not justified since anything done or got done illegally is termed as “mafia” by the media. In this regard, he has submitted that in the field of journalism, a person who deals in underhand dealings is termed as “mafia”. The respondent has also submitted that rejoinder was not published

508 by them owing to the fact that legal notice issued by the complainant was not received by them. The respondent further submitted that the copy of legal notice received with show cause notice was unsigned. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 3.10.2005 for information/counter comments. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 27.02.2007. The complainant in a letter dated 19.02.2007 requested for adjournment. Shri Raj Kumar Kala, Executive Editor appeared for respondent, Rashtriya Hindi Mail. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of respondent newspaper submitted that the signature of the complainant had differed on occasions and legal notice issued by his advocate was unsigned. The respondent further submitted that it was not incorrect to use expression “Mine Mafia” for scam in mines, as this was a general practice. He however offered to publish the clarification of the complainant on the directions of the Press Council of India. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the material on record, the Inquiry Committee brought to the notice of the respondent that the norms relating to right of reply should be adhered to and in case the newspaper felt that the report was based on facts supported by documents available with it, the newspaper might append a note to the effect. The matter may then be left to the readers’ judgement. However, in view of the offer of the respondent to publish the clarification of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to send his factual contradiction to Rashtriya Hindi Mail and the respondent editor to publish the same within a fortnight of its receipt. The respondent was at liberty to append a note to the clarification if he had sufficient evidence to establish his contention. The respondent was further directed to send a copy of the issue carrying the complainant’s clarification to the Press Council and the complainant for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these directions to the complainant and 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.

509 160) Shri Mahesh Babu Saxena Versus Dainik Bhaskar Programme Officer Satna All India Radio Madhya Pradesh Rewa, Madhya Pradesh Complaint This complaint, dated 7.2.2006 has been filed by Shri Mahesh Babu Saxena, Programme Officer, Prasar Bharti, All India Radio, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh against Dainik Bhaskar, Satna edition, Madhya Pradesh objecting to the publication of the news item captioned “ÉÊàÉãÉ ¤Éè~BÉE® +ÉÉBÉEɶɴÉÉhÉÉÒ àÉå ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ |ɺiÉÖiÉBÉEiÉÉÇ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEÉ SɪÉxÉ” (Irregularities in the selection for the post of Announcer/ compere in All India Radio – English translation) in its issue dated 4.2.2006. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant, a Programme Officer, was instrumental in the selection in violation of the established rules against the post of Announcer/Compere from amongst the 90 odd candidates who applied for the Youth Programme. It was also alleged that Voice Test was conducted among the candidates for sake of formality but selection was done prior to the test. The complainant has alleged that the statement accusing him of filling his pocket in spite of the Voice Test was false and baseless. The complainant had written to the respondent on 6.2.2006 with a request to take action against the concerned reporter and to publish a rejoinder. The respondent published a small column under the caption “Soochi jari karne ka pravdhan nahin” (There is no provision for public disclosure of the list- English translation) in its issue dated 17.2.2006 without giving any reference to the news item in question. At the instance of the Council, the complainant again sent a letter dated 17.4.2006 to the respondent, Dainik Bhaskar giving point wise rejoinder for publication. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar on 2.6.2006 but no response was received. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 27.02.2007. The complainant Shri Mahesh Babu Saxena appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Dainik Bhaskar, Satna. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the respondent newspaper published

510 the impugned report to malign the image of the department. The complainant further submitted that the contradiction published by the newspaper was without any reference to the impugned report, which did not serve any purpose. After his protest, the paper also wrote to his officer to pressurise him. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed displeasure over the callous attitude of the respondent in not filing the written statement and for not being represented before the Committee. The Inquiry Committee noted that the newspaper published the impugned report without verification of version of any authorized person of the department and subsequently published the contradiction with a heading that gave the appearance of a news report without any reference in the contents to its previous report about the complainant. It observed that the respondent did not defend the publication of the impugned report. In view of the foregoing the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to warn the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Satna for breach 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. F.N.: Shri P.T. Shah, Member did not participate in the deliberations on account of his intest in Bhaskar Group of Publications.

161) Shri Lallan Ram Versus The Editor Chief Booking Supervisor Jansatta Express Northern Railway Lucknow Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 24.06.2004 has been filed by Shri Lallan Ram, Chief Booking Supervisor (G), Northern Railway, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against Jansatta Express, Hindi Daily, Lucknow edition alleging publication of false, baseless and misleading news item under the caption (Employees are not willing to quit their posting at Charbagh) in the issue dated 7.4.2004. It has been reported in the impugned news item that the employees posted at Charbagh are not ready to leave Charbagh and Zonal officers are also happy with these employees. The employees from railway office and parcel office are making mockery of rules and regulations and they are drawing their salaries without work. This matter is in the knowledge of railway officers but no one is

511 willing to interfere in the matter. Everyone gets his monthly remuneration for it and the matter is now in the hands of Chief Vigilance Officer. The impugned news item alleged that leaders of the recognized union and Chief Booking Supervisor Lallan Ram favour their favourite employees and help them in getting salary without work. The employees are working according to their wish and not by the rules and sometimes leave the office after putting signature. All this is being done right in front of Chief Booking Supervisor. The impugned news item further stated that the letter sent by employees has revealed that many employees working in the parcel office have their duties at booking offices. The Chief Booking Supervisor is charging Rs.40,000/- monthly for this favour. It was also alleged that Chief Booking Supervisor Lallan Ram had purchased a house worth Rs. 7 lakh in Avas Vikas Parishad and he was having a house in Alambagh worth Rs. 10 lakh. The employees have demanded an inquiry of the corruption prevailing at the Charbagh station.

Denying all the allegations, the complainant has stated that the impugned news item levelled numerous false and baseless allegations against him. The complainant has submitted that if any booking clerk charges more money and any passenger makes a complaint against it, then proper action is always taken against him. The complainant has submitted that he purchased a house on LIC Housing Scheme in monthly instalment of Rs. 5,600/-. The complainant has submitted that the news should not be published without any strong proof. The complainant has endorsed a copy of his complaint dated 24.06.2004 to the respondent with the request to publish the rebuttal but no reply was received from the respondent editor, Jansatta Express.

No Written Statement

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Jansatta Express on 23.11.2004 for filing written statement in the matter but the respondent did not respond.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Narendra Prakash Sanyal, editor appeared for the respondent Jansatta Express.

Proceedings

The respondent editor, Jansatta Express requested for adjournment and time to file written statement praying that he had recently joined the newspaper and the papers relating to the complaint needed to be examined by him.

512 The Inquiry Committee acceded to the request of the respondent and adjourned the matter with directions to file written statement and serve its copy on the complainant. Matter Closed After the deliberations of the Inquiry Committee, a letter dated 2.12.2006 was received from the complainant Shri Lallan Ram stating therein that his grievance had been redressed since the respondent newspapers have removed from service the reporter and the editor, who were responsible for publishing the impugned news report. In the light of the complainant’s statement that he has no complaint against Jansatta Express after action taken by the respondent, the matter stands not pressed. The Inquiry Committee considered the request in its meeting held on 27.02.2007 at Udaipur for allowing the matter to be withdrawn and recommended to the Council to close 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.

Press and Morality

162) Shri M.S. Kilpady Versus The Editor Mumbai Afternoon Despatch & Courier Maharashtra Mumbai Complaint Shri M.S. Kilpady, ‘letter writing social activist’ from Mumbai has filed this complaint dated 23.6.2005 against ‘Afternoon Despatch & Courier’ published from Mumbai for publication of an objectionable editorial by Mr. Mark Manuel Managing Editor captioned “Kill the bastard” and the publication of a painting of a couple in compromising position by Shri Sanjay Kumar in its issue dated 17.3.2003. The impugned painting published in the respondent newspaper captioned ‘A striking painting by Sanjay Kumar at Yantra’ was an artwork exhibited at Yantra by The Arts Trust of Mumbai. The complainant has submitted that the painting of the man and woman in the nude position is violative of the ethics and law and flagrant violation of the Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986, which provides that the newspaper/journal shall not publish anything that is obscene, vulgar and offensive to public taste. He did not receive any response to his letters addressed to the publication.

513 No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Afternoon Despatch & Courier on 15.6.2005 for filing written statement in the matter, but the respondent failed to file any defence. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee neither the complainant nor the respondent was represented before it. The complainant had, however, requested in writing that the matter may be considered on the basis of the documents on record. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the material available on record, the Inquiry Committee opined that the complaint was two fold. The complainant had objected to the use of a word of abuse in the headlines and also in the body content of the article. He had also objected to the photograph, which, according to him, was obscene and vulgar. At the outset, the Inquiry Committee expressed its deep displeasure over the attitude of the respondent editor “Afternoon Despatch & Courier’ published from Mumbai in not filing the written statement in response to the show cause notice of the Council dated 15.6.2005 and in not being represented before the Committee. The allegations of the complainant that the article and the headline were objectionable and that the photograph was obscene and vulgar remained unrebutted. The Inquiry Committee perused the impugned editorial and opined that the editorial was the viewpoint of the author Mark Manuel, written in the wake of the bomb blasts in Mumbai, to which he was entitled. However, it is also the duty of the writer to ensure that strong views are also couched in a socially acceptable language. The use of an abusive address in a newspaper was not proper and was in violation of nationally and internationally accepted norms as well as journalistic norms. As regards the photograph, the Committee noted that the photograph was a work of art and the artist enjoyed artistic liberty in the portrayal. However, it is to be understood that a work of art is enjoyed, judged and appreciated by the connoisseurs. The pages of a newspaper may not be the most appropriate place for the impugned painting. The Committee felt that the editor did not use his discretion very correctly in selecting the picture of the painting for publication along with the report of the exhibition. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and warn the respondent editor for the impugned publication. Decision of the Council The complainant vide letter dated 26.6.2006 addressed to Council

514 expressed desire to withdraw his two complaints against Afternoon Dispatch & Courier. The Council while agreeing with report of the Inquiry Committee allowed the complainant to withdraw the complaints.

163) Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta Versus 1. The Editor Sr. Lecturer (Commerce) The Times of India Govt. P.G. College New Delhi Noida, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Editor The Hindustan Times New Delhi Complaint These two complaints dated 18.10.2003 have been filed by Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Senior Lecturer (Commerce), Government Post Graduate College, Noida, Uttar Pradesh against the Times of India, New Delhi and Hindustan Times, New Delhi for publication of materials alleged to outrage the modesty of women. The complainant has alleged that the materials published by the two respondents in their supplements, ‘Delhi Times’ and ‘HT City’ are vulgar and obscene in nature, which corrupt male minds to encourage crimes against women. The complainant averred that the respondents were polluting the minds of the young generation who are the prospective caretakers of the nations, its heritage and culture. That they introduced several marketing strategies to increase circulation including reduction in price and they indulged in yellow journalism in the name of globalization. The complainant asserted the applicability of article 19(2) in the matter that provided for restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for public safety, tranquility, morality and decency, furnished a number of clippings of the impugned materials published by the two respondents in the issues dated 10.5.2003, 22.6.2003, 23.7.2003, 30.7.2003, 10.8.2003, 30.8.2003, 31.8.2003, 7.9.2003, 2.9.2003, 3.9.2003, 4.9.2003, 9.10.2003, 7.11.2003 of Times of India and 5.8.2003, 8.8.2003, 23.10.2003 of the Hindustan Times. The complainant sent letters dated 18.10.2003 to the respondent editors protesting against the publication of vulgar material and requesting them to stop the unethical practice but did not receive any response. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 21.5.2004. Written Statement The Hindustan Times The respondent, Hindustan Times in its written statement dated 25.3.2005 has submitted that the publication of the photographs in question are not violative of Norm No.29 of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct and therefore there is no

515 prima facie case requiring any action under the Press Council Act. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination be said, that the photographs in question are vulgar or indecent. The respondent has stated that though the norms have been laid down the test for obscenity, one may rely on certain judgements laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandrakant Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 3090 most prudently illustrate the principles in testing obscenity: - “The adults and adolescents have available to them a large number of classics, novels, stories and pieces of literature which have content of sex, love and romance. As observed in Udeshi’s case, if a reference to sex by itself is considered obscene, no books can be sold except those, which are purely religious. In the field of art and cinema also the adolescent is shown in situations which even a quarter of a century ago would be considered derogatory to public morality, but having regard to changed conditions are more taken for granted without anyway tending to debase or debauch the mind. What we have to see is that whether a class, not an isolated case, into whose hands the book, article or story falls suffer in their moral outlook or become depraved by reading it or might have impure and lecherous thoughts aroused in their minds. The charge of obscenity must therefore be judged from this aspect”. The respondent has submitted that what is considered appropriate today may have been considered to be vulgar a few years ago and the photographs in question are nothing but symbols of current day art and culture, which has the public approval and appreciation, and cannot be considered to be obscene and vulgar as it affects the sentiments of a few. It is further submitted that the Hindustan Times is an institution that has high regard to the norms and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Press Council of India and other bodies that regulate the print media. In order to ensure compliance of the said norms, the Hindustan Times has in place an internal system of checks and balances that continuously monitors the contents of the material published by it. The said departments are manned by qualified persons who are well acquainted with the norms and guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Council. On filtering the likes of the photographs in question, the Hindustan Times keeps in mind the perceptions of a reasonable reader. Merely because the said photographs are open to misconstruction or mis-interpretation by a sensitive reader, it could be impermissible to restrain the paper from publishing such photographs. The respondent further submitted that the photographs cannot be seen in isolation and branded as obscene and the same have been published in the context of the international news items (or advertisements) accompanying the same and are not mere items of pornography. There is an increasing movement towards

516 making the paper globally relevant and if we chose not to broaden the horizons, it would be difficult to have an international outlook. It may be further pointed out that today visual medium in form of television has far more effect on impressionable minds. The reach of cable TV is far more than the newspaper. As a result of contemporary developments in art, entertainment and fashion, all of which made available to the viewers through television, it would be unfair to restrain the print media from having a more contemporary outlook. The Hindustan Times has always been and still is a prominent family breakfast newspaper and is targeted to cater to the needs of readers of all age groups. It does not believe in publishing material merely to make money by titillating the basic feelings of adolescents. It is incorrect that the Hindustan Times has published the photographs in question as a ruse to increase circulation through unwholesome exploitation of the photographs for commercial gain. The market segment that Hindustan Times wishes to cater and caters to is essentially a healthy and democratic family, keen on gathering information on all fronts of life. The efforts of the paper are only geared towards giving a holistic prospective of the world to an individual reader and not publishing material merely to make money by titillating the basic feeling of adolescents. The respondent however submitted that despite the above submission, if prima facie the Council finds that the photographs are obscene and have been used in an unwholesome manner for commercial exploitation, they apologize for having published the same as it is never the intention of the paper to publish the undesirable materials and will try to defend the same before the Council. That on receipt of the letter of this Hon’ble Council, the Answering Respondent took immediate steps to ensure that such mistakes did not take place in the future. The Norms and Guidelines issued by this Hon’ble Council were once again brought to the notice of the concerned departments and all the employees were reminded of the same. It has been further directed that any suspect photograph has to be referred to the legal department for clearance. The respondent Times of India has not filed its written statement despite reminder. Matter Adjourned When these matters were taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 18.11.2005, the complainant’s request for adjournment was acceded to by the Committee. Final Hearing The matters again came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. The complainant, Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta was present in person. Shri Gaurav Agarwal, advocate represented the respondent

517 newspaper, The Hindustan Times while the second respondent, The Times of India remained unrepresented before the Inquiry Committee. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He, however, added that the Hindustan Times continued to violate the norms by publishing objectionable articles; that it has become difficult to read the paper in the presence of young children. He cited an article captioned “sex toys and single girl” published in the issue of 7th April’2006. Learned counsel for the Hindustan Times submitted that the present compliant pertained to publication of the year 2003. There has been a marked improvement in screening of such photographs and articles. There had been some aberrations in the past, which was being corrected. Insofar as the article now cited was concerned, this was an advertisement feature and should be considered in that light. Even so since 2004-2005, the paper had taken every care to ensure that no vulgar or obscene advertisements are carried in the newspaper, at times however some material escapes notice. The newspaper had set up a Screening Committee which carefully scrutinizes the advertisements and other material to be published in the newspaper. If inspite of that there were any aberration and if brought to the notice, they were acted upon. He assured that every care shall be taken to avoid publication of obscene/vulgar photographs in the newspaper. The counsel pleaded that the Council may devise a Code of Conduct and enforce it on every one. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the material on record and considered the arguments advanced before it by the complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent newspaper, the Hindustan Times. The Inquiry Committee noted that the counsel for the respondent had submitted that the newspaper had set up a Screening Committee to scrutinize the advertisements and other material to be published in the newspaper. He had also assured the Committee that in future due care shall be taken not to select such matter for being published in the newspaper. Further the newspaper in its written statement dated 25.03.2006 had also regretted the impugned publications and assured that such mistake shall not occur in future. The Committee took these assurances on record and warned the Hindustan Times to be more careful in future and abide by its assurances. As regards the second respondent, The Times of India, the Inquiry Committee noted the callousness and the irresponsible attitude of the respondent in failing to file the written statement in response to the show cause notice dated 21.5.2004 of the Council and remaining unrepresented before the Inquiry

518 Committee to present its defence. The absence of any defence, led to the inference that the Times of India had nothing to say in its defence. On merits, the Inquiry Committee noted that the Times of India had published extremely provocative and objectionable photographs and its failure to present any defence, oral or written, established that it had no justification for the impugned publication. The respondent paper has in the past also earned several strictures of the Council for similar lapses and it continued to violate the norms. The Committee thus held that the respondent, the Times of India had violated the provisions of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986 and also the norms of Journalistic Conduct universally recognized and accepted and incorporated in the code of conduct built up by the Council U/S 13(2) (b) of the Press Council Act, 1978. For above noted infractions, the Inquiry Committee decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper. The Times of India, and its editor responsible for selections of the impugned material. It further recommended that copies of the adjudication of the Council may be forwarded to the Registrar of Newspapers for India, DAVP, Information and Public Relations Department of NCT of Delhi and Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

164) Shri C.V. Narasimha Reddy Versus The Editor Editor The Economic Times Public Relations Voice Mumbai Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Complaint This complaint dated 30.6.2003 has been filed by Dr. C.V. Narasimha Reddy, Editor, Public Relations Voice, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) against “The Economic Times”, Mumbai for publication of an allegedly obscene/ indecent picture of a couple in its issue dated 30.6.2003. According to the complainant, the supplement of The Economic Times carried an article titled “Bold Statement” on the natural wealth of Jharkhand State which it claimed can be harnessed only when the necessary infrastructure is provided. Alongside this article an obscene photograph of a woman with a male partner compressing her hips has also been published which has no relevance to the article in question

519 on the State of Jharkhand. The complainant alleged that the publication of this picture amounts to indecent representation of woman and likely to deprave, corrupt and injure the public morality. The complainant submitted that such a trend in journalism be stopped and to preserve the age old moral values of Indian culture. The complainant has drawn the attention of the respondent on 16.8.2003 towards the impugned publication but received no reply from him. Written Statement In response to the show cause notice dated 2.1.2004, Shri Rajnish M. Singh, counsel for the respondent in their written statement dated 29.1.2004 denied that the picture in question amounts to indecent representation of woman, likely to deprave, corrupt and injure the public morality. The counsel for the respondent further submitted that the picture published in their newspaper was not a picture of real woman but rather a wax model and this picture of the model was widely circulated series of AFP photographs taken by Nicolas Asfouri on the Blushing wax model of Jennifer Lopez at Madame Tussaud’s-a globally acclaimed artistic creation that actually blushes when whispered to. The person on the left was a staff member of Madame Tussaud, who was seen to position the wax model of Jennifer Lopez at its inauguration in London on 21.5.2003. Regarding reference of the picture with the article, the respondent submitted that there was no question about the picture’s being based on an actual work of art as Jennifer Lopez Universal appeal lies in her poise, grace and beauty which was highlighted by her natural physical attributes. That was precisely they feel that the picture was related directly to the opening line of the story which essentially speaks of Jharkhand as a State which is ‘enviably young and well- endowed’. The respondent further stated that a picture does not necessarily have to relate always with the nuts and bolts of the story and they have for long been using mood pictures to do with its story on regular news pages and these have always been highly appreciated and regarded by readers. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.2.2004. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 11.3.2004, the complainant submitted that the statement of the respondent that a picture does not necessarily has to relate always with ‘nuts and bolts of the story’, does not stand on merit in the instant case as the body language of the male and the picture of woman were not decent and relevant. It was not even for advancing any public cause. According to the complainant, the impugned picture conforms positively to the taste of vulgarity, indecency, not relevant to the subject matter of the article

520 published. He requested the Council to take necessary action to prevent such kind of indecent representation of woman even as a wax model of a real life super model in the newspapers to protect the professional standards of journalism. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 5.4.2004 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 13.7.2006 there was no appearance before it. The complainant had, however, requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of his complaint. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the material available on record. It observed that the impugned photograph may have a relevance to the content in which it was taken but it had no relevance at all with the article in question that was a serious economic survey of the natural resources of the State of Jharkhand, especially when published in a newspaper devoted to economic and financial news aimed at a specific target readers. It was all the more objectionable when read in the context of the explanation provided by the paper for its selection and positioning i.e. “enviably young and well endowed.” The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the selection and publication of the photograph in question that it felt was an error of judgement. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

165) Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal Versus The Editor Advocate & President Cricket Samrat Desh Kalyan Samiti Delhi Moradabad, U.P. Complaint The Central Government through the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vide its letter dated 23.6.2004 forwarded a complaint dated 10.6.2004 filed before it by Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate and President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad (U.P.) against Cricket Samrat, Delhi for publishing obscene/nude photographs.

521 In his grievance before the Council, the complainant alleged that the magazine is publishing obscene photographs and indecent material. The complainant expressed concern about the growing trend in media in publishing obscene material. The impugned photograph was of a group of semi-nude female folk dancers of South Africa. It carried the caption “Folk dancers at South Africa - they may not be viewed otherwise.” The complainant submitted that the photograph in respondent magazine was not in consonance with the Indian culture and heritage and shall have negative effect specially on the impressionable minds. The complainant further submitted that such publication was also in violation of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and punishable under Sections 292, 293 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant thus requested the Council to initiate strict action to prohibit such publications. Written Statement The editor, Cricket Samrat in his written statement dated 1.6.2005 submitted that the motive of publishing the Cricket Samrat was to supply more information about the cricket to its readers. The respondent submitted that the photograph objected to by the complainant was of a folk dance of South Africa which was a part of the comprehensive coverage during the World Cup 2003 at South Africa. The respondent further submitted that the motive behind publication of the photograph was to inform the readers about the culture of South Africa and not to hurt the sentiments of any reader. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate & President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad, U.P. appeared in person. Shri Ramesh Chander Bhalla, editor, appeared on behalf of the respondent Cricket Samrat. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral arguments submitted that the Cricket Samrat in its April 2003 issue published a half naked photograph of woman which was against the law of the land. The complainant submitted that the photograph was violative of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Shri Ramesh Chander Bhalla representing the respondent magazine Cricket Samrat submitted that the publication in question was an informative piece about the culture of a particular country. It was published during World

522 Cup 2003 when the folk dance was performed. The magazine while carrying the photographs had made a categorical comment below the photograph that “they are folk dancers of South Africa- do not see this photograph from any other angle”. The representative of the respondent further submitted that the magazine did not carry any photograph in the past which could be considered obscene and assured greater scrutiny in future. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the material on record and heard the submissions made by the parties. The Committee felt that the photograph of folk dancers published in April 2003 issue of Cricket Samrat had been published in a different context and was a part of the event related festivities. It depicted tradition and culture of South Africa that was not considered objectionable amongst the tribes and was thus news worthy. The Inquiry Committee took note of the fact that the magazine had in the caption clarified the context of the photographs. The Inquiry Committee also noted the submissions made by the representative of the respondent that the magazine did not carry any objectionable picture in its publications, as it was a sports magazine. In view of the facts and circumstance, the Inquiry Committee held that the impugned photograph was well within the ambit of criteria prescribed in the ‘Hicklins test’, and thus no action is warranted in the complaint. 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.

166) Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal Versus The Editor Advocate & President Dainik Jagran Desh Kalyan Samiti Kanpur, U.P. Moradabad, U.P. Complaint The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vide its letter dated 23.6.2004 has forwarded a complaint dated 10.6.2004 of Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate & President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad (U.P.) against Dainik Jagran, Kanpur edition of publishing obscene/nude photographs. The complainant alleged that the newspapers are publishing obscene photographs and indecent material. The complainant expressed concern about the growing trend in media of publishing obscene material. The complainant submitted that the photographs in Dainik Jagran were not in consonance with

523 the Indian culture and heritage and shall have deteriorating effect specially on the impressionable minds. The complainant further submitted that such publication was also in violation of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and punishable under Sections 292, 293 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant thus requested the Council to initiate strict action to prohibit such publications. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to Dainik Jagran on 18.5.2005. In reply, the Personnel Officer, Dainik Jagran in his written statement dated 10.6.2005 submitted that by publishing the photographs their motive was not to spread obscenity. The photographs had been published on the demand and in the interest of readers. The respondent submitted that the photographs published at feature page were received from film magazines and there was no scope to change the same. The respondent further submitted that the photographs published in the advertisements are received from the advertisers and they are bound to publish the same. The respondent also submitted that their newspaper is being read throughout the world on Internet; therefore, their views are in accordance in the prevalent international tradition. The respondent submitted that the photographs published by their newspaper were better than the photographs published by other newspapers, and they try their best to keep up high standard. The respondent submitted that the photographs published by their newspaper are not covered in the category of obscenity as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Sumer Basu in 1981. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 4.7.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate & President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad (U.P.) appeared in person. Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent Dainik Jagran. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral submissions before the Inquiry Committee reiterated his complaint and referred to the impugned photographs published in various issues between 2001 to 2004 in Dainik Jagran were obscene and not in good taste. The complainant alleged that the Dainik Jagran stopped publishing his name in its news reports with regard to the news on social activities involving him after he filed complaint with the Press Council. The complainant further submitted that the Dainik Jagran had published a large

524 number of obscene photographs and allotted a column for fashion show to display vulgarity in the grab of undergarments. The complainant requested that the Council may take strict action against the respondent newspaper for violating the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and the law of the land.

The counsel for the respondent, Dainik Jagran, submitted that the publication of celebrities from different film magazines were a response to public demand but that they took care to remain on the correct side of the dividing line of ethicality of these publications. Regarding advertisement, he submitted that advertisements were not drawn up by them and they only published what was given by the advertiser. The respondent counsel further submitted Public Interest Litigation in the same matter was pending in the apex court. He added that after receiving the letter from the complainant the newspaper had not published highly offensive material.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the material on record and considered the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the representatives of the respondent had contended that these type of photographs and advertisements were being regularly displayed on T.V., internet etc. in the international contest. Therefore, strict view should not be taken, more so when publications were not intended to raise any passion or depict nudity.

The Committee observed that even though the social milieu is fast changing and what would have been unthinkable 50 years ago is today more acceptable, yet the print medium because of its inherent ability to remain before the readers as opposed to the fleeting presence of electronic media, needs to exercise greater discretion and restraint in selection of material for publication. The Committee felt that though it may not reprimand the respondent for the publication impugned before it, it reasonably hoped and expected that a family of this standard with sizable presence in northern India would be alive to the normal standards of decency and to the thin line dividing it for obscenity. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter with these 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.

525 167) Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal Versus The Editor Advocate & President Romantic Duniya Desh Kalyan Samiti Delhi Moradabad, U.P. Complaint Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate and President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad (U.P.) complained on 10.06.2004 against “Romantic Duniya”, Delhi for publishing obscene/nude photographs. Expressing concern about the growing trend in media in publishing obscene material, the complainant submitted that the photographs and language used on the cover pages and in the contents were not in consonance with the Indian culture and heritage and shall have deteriorating effect specially on the impressionable mind. The complainant produced the publication of October 2002, February 2003 and March 2003 and submitted that such publication was also in violation of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and punishable under Sections 292, 293 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant thus requested the Council to initiate strict action to prohibit such publications. Written Statement The respondent editor of Romantic Duniya- ‘a current true crime magazine’ in his written statement dated 8.8.2005 submitted that the complaint of the complainant can basically be divided into two parts. In part one, the complainant has given a general review of the latest trend adopted by the newspapers and magazines in India, which in his opinion is obscene. The complainant is also of the view that pictures of women are printed in semi- nude and sexually compromising poses. The respondent submitted that in fact, the complainant had mentioned the name of Romantic Duniya in a passing manner along with a host of newspapers, like Punjab Kesari, Amar Ujala etc. The respondent submitted that in section two of the complaint the complainant has specifically mentioned the October 2002 issue of Romantic Duniya and has charged that on page 19 nude and sexual photographs of women have been printed. The respondent submitted that this was a frivolous charge because the photographs reproduced from established newspapers and magazines were neither nude nor had shown women in sexual act. The respondent submitted that the photographs carried on other pages, which the complainant finds objectionable and sexually explicit, were neither obscene nor portrayed women in any derogatory form. The respondent submitted that no sexual names of women’s parts are mentioned in the said issue of Romantic Duniya. The respondent submitted that Romantic Duniya always maintained responsible and high journalistic standards. The respondent submitted that the photographs and sketches published in their magazine are as per the norms followed by

526 other newspapers and magazines in the business and within legal parameters of the land. The respondent submitted that the ‘Problem Solving’ column of the magazine is to help and solve the problems of the readers and it in no way uses pornographic language, as alleged by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the management takes great care in ensuring that no advertisement of any pornographic book is carried in the magazine. However, in public interest, advertisement of book imparting sex-education are sometimes carried. The respondent submitted that despite this, if any of their effort (which in their opinion is for the general awareness, interest and education of the public) has offended any section of the society then they are sorry and promise to be more careful in the future. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 30.09.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Advocate & President, Desh Kalyan Samiti, Moradabad, U.P. appeared in person. Shri Rajiv Rastogi, Proprietor, Editor and Publisher, represented the respondent magazine Romantic Duniya. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that he is a social worker and was concerned about the growing trend of publication of obscene material by the periodicals. The complainant referred to the respondent magazine Romantic Duniya issues October 2002, February 2003 and March 2003 produced before the Council with his complaint. The complainant submitted that the respondents had carried a large number of obscene photograph in the magazine. The complainant further submitted that the respondent in the issue dated February 2003 published on the cover page a collage of photographs which included the photograph of Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat with a caption ‘ SÉãÉ MɪÉÉ àÉÉänÉÒ BÉEÉ VÉÉnÚ ’ along with semi nude photograph of women with explicit captions. He added that a derogatory love story attributing to Gurudev Shri Rabindra Nath Tagore was also published by the respondent. His name was also printed in the collage on the cover page. The complainant requested that the Council should take stringent action against the respondent Romantic Duniya. The respondent editor, publisher, Romantic Duniya submitted that the article on Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat was about his success in Gujarat. He added that the publication was actual love story by Rabindra Nath Tagore. The respondent informed the Committee that he was hospitalised and the impugned publications had been published during the editorship of Shri

527 Sudama Singh, who had since been removed. The respondent submitted that they will take care in future that such type of material is not repeated. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral submissions put forth before it by the parties. The Inquiry Committee at the very outset took a serious note of identification of the Chief Minister of Gujarat and of the Great Rabindra Nath Tagore with derogatory pictures of females on the cover page of February 2003 issue. This it felt was highly objectionable and misplaced in a magazine that primarily cited to crime and sex related stories. For this grave disrespect and lack of editorial ability, the Committee felt that the magazine deserved serious reprimand. However, keeping in view the fact that the previous editor has been sacked, the Inquiry Committee opined that no further action was needed in the matter. The other impugned publication also it felt catered more to prurient interest and morbid curiosity of a section of the society and the respondent needed to give due attention to provision of law and the norms developed by the Council on the issue. It accepted the assurance of the editor of greater care in future and recommended 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.

168) Prof. D.P.S. Verma Versus The Editor Pitampura The Pioneer New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 5.12.2005 has been filed by Prof. D.P.S. Verma, former Professor of Faculty of Commerce & Business, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi against the “The Pioneer”, an English daily of Delhi alleging publication of objectionable news articles in the column ‘Saturday Sniper’ by Kanchan Gupta captioned ‘Sex? In India, 6.5 times a month-Enjoyed long through the long night in love-play-unceasing by their lusty young husbands – in an excess of passion, driving, unrelenting, women just stepped into youth – move at the close of night slowly reeling wrung-out with aching thighs……’ and ‘Premarital sex? 53% do it in India’ in its issues dated 12.11.2005 and 19.11.2005 respectively. The impugned articles stated that the 2005 Global sex survey conducted by Durex and suggests that the Indians have sex 6.25 times every month, which is marginally ahead of

528 Singaporeans who do it six times a month and nearly twice the average-3.75 bonk session-grossed by the Japanese in a month. It was further stated that the good news for Indians that they are ahead of the Japanese and bad news that they are behind everybody else, barring Singaporeans. The impugned article dated 19.11.2005 has stated that the India’s young adults indulge in pre-marital sex and study, whose findings were suppressed by Government since it did not want to confront riotous moral cops, focused on premarital sexuality and unmet contraceptive needs among school and college students, young working men and women, and young people aged 15 to 24 years. The study found that premarital sex varies from 17% among school children to 33% among young adults. The complainant submitted that the impugned news articles are not only violative of the norms of morality and in bad taste but also not based on any scientific survey. The complainant further submitted that the survey referred to in the article neither mentions the sample size nor the sample profile and further submitted that it was quite conjecture and does not have any creditable source. It was totally misleading, malicious and mischievous, alleged the complainant. The complainant had written to the respondent, requesting to look into the two pieces and judge whether they deserve to be published in the respondent paper. However, the respondent did not publish the views expressed by the complainant. The complainant alleged that the articles in question amounted to a pornographic piece and likely to impair the morality of readers particularly the younger ones. Show cause notice dated 31.03.2006 was issued to the respondent editor, The Pioneer, New Delhi. Written Statement In his written statement dated 6.5.2006 the Managing Director & Editor, The Pioneer denied the allegation levelled and submitted that both the articles were in the nature of commentaries on two sex surveys, on “Global Sex Survey” undertaken by Durex, one of the largest international manufactures of contraceptives, and the other by the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare under the Ministry of Health. The second article dealt with premarital sex in India with facts and figures and with a light heated humorous analysis. The respondent further stated that the complainant has made unsubstantiated allegation that such articles are pornographic and not in good taste. The standards of obscenity and vulgarity have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (AIR 1965 SC 881). In view of above, the respondent editor requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

529 A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 1.6.2006 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.10.2006 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri D.P.S. Verma appeared in person. S/Shri U. Hazarika, Advocate, Om Prakash Gupta, Manager-HRD, The Pioneer appeared for the respondent, The Pioneer.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

The complainant submitted that the respondent The Pioneer had published two articles in most conspicuous manner. The articles were in bad taste and did not serve any purpose. He submitted that the impugned reports were nothing but merely pieces of pornography. The complainant further submitted that the Press was expected to publish better articles. The complainant raised doubts on the authenticity of surveys, which formed basis of the news reports. He added that his letter to the editor did not evoke any response.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the newspaper carried a commentary on the factual survey conducted by a company of repute manufacturing contraceptive. The second pertained to the survey report of the Government of India. The counsel added that the news reports in question could not be considered objectionable or obscene as they were based on surveys and were meant to educate the readers.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments advanced by the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complaint had been lodged by the complainant as a conscious citizen, in respect of the presentation of global sex surveys conducted by Durex and Government of India in The Pioneer issues dated 12.11.2005 and 19.11.2005. The grievance of the complainant appeared to be that he had written to the editor, The Pioneer on 22.11.2005 drawing attention to these two news reports and asking the editor to judge whether they deserved to be published. The complainant had urged the editor not to allow the publication of stories which are not in good taste or violate the norms of public morality. According to the complainant the editor ought to have responded to his letter, which was not done in the instant matter. The Inquiry Committee felt that the matter needed to be examined from two angles. One was the authenticity of the surveys and the second was their fairness for publication in the daily newspapers. Insofar as the first issue was concerned, the Inquriy Committee found that there was no ground to suspect

530 the survey reports and touched upon serious social matters. It is expected that the agencies while conducting their surveys would have followed the laid down parameters and modalities for such surveys and made the same a part of the report. The paper, it felt, could have made such technical data a part of its report, but on that count its bonafide cannot be suspected.

With reference to the second issue of the material selected for publication, the Committee noted that whether a matter is obscene or not, is primarily to be judged in relation to three tests adopted and codified by it namely : -

(a) Is it vulgar and indecent?

(b) Is it a piece of merely pornography?

(c) Is its publication meant merely to make money by titillating the sex feelings of adolescents and among whom it is intended to circulate? In other words, does it constitute an unwholesome exploitation for commercial gain.

“Other relevant considerations are whether the picture is relevant to the subject matter of the magazine. That is to say, whether its publication serves any preponderating social or public purpose, in relation to art, painting, medicine, research or reform of sex.”

In conjunction with the responsibility of an editor in selecting material for publication, keeping in mind, the target readership cannot be overlooked. Having considered the matter from all perspective, the Committee felt, while the columnist would have been better advised to have downplayed the headlines to his articles, the contents thereof, primarily being based on authentic sources/ surveys could not be held objectionable as they were covered within the ambit of “serving social or public purpose, in relation to medicine, research or reform of sex”, as quoted above. It, therefore, was not inclined to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly.

Decision of the Council

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

F.N. : Mr. Hiranmay Karlekar, Member of the Council did not participate in the deliberations of the case due to his interest in The Pioneer, the respondent newspaper.

531 169) Shri S.R. Singh Versus The Editor Chairman Dainik Jagran Asra Samajik Sewa Sangathan Dhanbad, Jharkhand Dhanbad, Jharkhand Complaint This complaint dated 13.1.2005 has been filed by Shri S.R. Singh, Chairman, ‘Asra Samajik Sewa Sanstha’, Dhanbad, Jharkhand against Dainik Jagran, Dhanbad for publication of an allegedly vulgar & indecent picture in its issue dated 11.1.05. According to the complainant the impugned advertisement of a Homeopathic tonic called “Keep it Up” which is a sex tonic for the use of men showing a couple in compromising position is objectionable and published in violation of the Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986. The complainant submitted that such advertisement provoke lecherous attention of males. He further contended that such advertisements increase incidence of sexual harassment and defamed the women community. He has requested the Council to take action in the matter. Show Cause Notice Show cause notice dated 18.11.05 was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi but no written statement was filed by the respondent despite reminder dated 12.7.06. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Bhubaneswar on 16.01.2007. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 1.1.2007 intimated his inability to attend hearing due to financial crunch. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee proceeded to examine the complaint on the basis of the material available on record. It observed that the impugned advertisement of Homoeopathic Sex Tonic with photograph of the semi-nude couple in compromising position was vulgar and objectionable. It also offended against the provisions of Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and it was incumbent on the editor to have exercised his discretion to have not accepted the advertisement at the threshold. The editor failed to exercise his responsibility with due care and caution and, therefore, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and reprimand the respondent Dainik Jagran, Dhanbad, for carrying the impugned advertisement in 11.1.2005 issue with an advise to ensure careful scrutiny in future.

532 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.

170) Hony. Editor Versus 1. The Editor Arthik Prasanga Ananda Bazar Patrika Kolkata Kolkata 2. The Editor Desh Kolkata Complaint This complaint dated 20.4.2004 has been filed by the Hony. Editor, Arthik Prasanga, Kolkata against “Ananda Bazar Patrika” and “Desh” published from Kolkata for publication of indecent advertisements. The complainant has referred to advertisements of “Gopal Zarda” published in “Ananda Bazar Patrika” dated 6.3.2004 and 20.3.2004 under the caption “Wah! Kya Baat Hai” and similar advertisement of Gopal Zarda in “Desh” issue dated 17.3.2004. The complainant further submitted that a supplement of “Ananda Bazar Patrika” named “Patrika” had published pictures of women projecting their private parts in the issue dated 18.5.2004. The complainant has shown his concern over these type of advertisements published in the newspapers and their impact on the society. The complainant has requested the Council to take action in the matter. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors, Ananda Bazar Patrika and Desh, Kolkata on 18.5.2005. Written Statement-Ananda Bazar Patrika Ms. Savithri Parekh, Secretary & Head of Legal, Ananda Bazar Patrika in her written statement dated 6.7.2005 has submitted that the advertisements in question cannot be termed as yellow journalism. The instant issue does not relate to editorial content. The respondent further submitted that advertisements had been designed by the advertisers and placed in the various informative mediums including newspapers. In view of this, the respondent requested to drop the complaint. The respondent editor, Desh, Kolkata did not file written statement in the matter. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.01.2007 at Bhubaneswar. There was no appearance from either side.

533 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee proceeded to examine the complaints on the basis of the material on record. The Inquiry Committee, on perusal of the impugned advertisement and photographs published in Ananda Bazar Patrika and Desh, noted the defence of Ananda Bazar Patrika that the issue did not relate to editorial content and observed that under the provisions of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 the editor is responsible for all matter allowed by him in his discretion to be published, and as such, is also expected to exercise this discretion in selection/acceptance of the advertisements. It further observed that in accepting these advertisements and allowing their publication, the editor is required to bear in mind the application of various laws on the advertisement context. The Council has based on previous adjudications and drawn up a guideline which reads:- 36. Advertisements: ix) There should be total co-ordination and communication between the advertisement department and the editorial department of a newspaper in the matter of considering the legality propriety or otherwise of an advertisement received for publication. x) The editor should insist on their right to have the final say in the acceptance or rejection of advertisements, specially those which border on or cross the line between decency and obscenity. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to direct the respondents to take due note of these guidelines and bring them to the notice of the concerned staff. With this advise, the matter may be allowed 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.

171) The President Versus 1. The Editor Bharatiya Sanskriti Vikas Sansthan Rajasthan Patrika Hanumangarh, Rajasthan 2. The Editor Dainik Bhaskar

3. The Editor Punjab Kesari Complaint These complaints dated 30.4.2004 have been filed by the President, 534 Bharatiya Sanskriti Vikas Sansthan, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan against three Hindi dailies, namely, 1. Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, 2. Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur and 3. Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar for publication of allegedly indecent photographs. Details of these publications are as follows: Rajasthan Patrika Sl. No. Issues Details 1. 10.6.2003 Photograph of an assembly of seven thousand nude people under the caption: ‘Dariya Aisa Bhi’ 2. 6.5.2004 One photograph of a couple in compromising position in an advertisement of a Deo Body Spray. 3. 02.6.2004 Photograph from a body building competition 4. 19.4.2004 Couple kissing during a tournament 20.6.2004

Dainik Bhaskar Sl. No. Issues Details 1. 24.6.2004 Couple kissing during a tournament: 2. 22.6.2004 Photo of Lauren Jackson under the caption: "'Athens Dream' Ke Liye Kapde Utare"

Punjab Kesari Sl. No. Issues Details 1. 25.6.2004 Photo of semi nude women 2. 23.6.2004 Photo of semi nude women

The complainant has alleged that publications of such objectionable pictures are violative of ethics and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and are likely to adversely affect the Indian Society and Culture. Show cause notices were issued to all the three respondents on 23.7.2004. Written Statement of Punjab Kesari The respondent editor, Punjab Kesari in his written statement dated 31.7.2004 submitted that the insinuations of obscenity levelled against the paper are baseless, unfounded and reckless. The complaint is devoid of any merit, as the complainant has not pointed out as to how the publication of the photographs

535 could be considered infringement of journalistic ethics and norms. The respondent submitted that the published material is being looked at in a very conservative manner in the present day society. The storm of changing trends in the Indian Society can not be bulwarked by narrow mindedness as the Indian society is receptive to international standards of morality and the Indian girls are keeping pace with international standards of modelling. The editor added that the victory of several Indian beauty queens at the international beauty contests is a living example and answer of Indian culture to International community. Written Statement of Rajasthan Patrika The respondent Deputy Editor, Rajasthan Patrika in the written statement dated 17.8.2004 submitted that as a responsible newspaper, they have never published obscene or indecent photographs, as alleged by the complainant and such decisions depend on an individuals perception of how he views an object/ depiction. The respondent denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant and asserted that their publication were depiction of one or another event and had been published for their impact on the report and not out of any commercial consideration. Written Statement of Dainik Bhaskar The respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar in his undated written statement received in the Council on 8.9.2004 submitted that the photographs in question published in Dainik Bhakar objected to by the complainant cannot be said to be indecent as they were pictures of sportsperson and their supporters cheering the players and celebrating their victories and the same were published for the sake of news/information and entertainment. The paper has always tried to present civilized, entertaining and educative material and the definition of these changes with time. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 24.4.2005 furnished some more photographs alleged to be indecent, published by the respondent newspapers, and reiterated what he had stated earlier. He also stated that no one would like to see the picture of his or her sister, daughter or mother the way the impugned photographs were published. The complainant requested the Council to take steps to stall publication of such indecent photographs from the newspapers all over the country. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.02.2007 at Udaipur. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.

536 Shri Rajiv Harsh, Editorial Incharge, Udaipur appeared for Rajasthan Patrika and Shri Sumit Vyas, Executive Legal appeared for Dainik Bhaskar. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Rajiv Harsh, Editorial Incharge of Rajasthan Patrika submitted that the Rajasthan Patrika had published the photographs of body building competition and advertisement and other material based on material supplied by the news agencies and were topical. He however agreed that some of them may not be for children viewing and assured greater scrutiny in future. Shri Sumit Vyas, Legal Executive of Dainik Bhaskar submitted that photographs published were of news value and based on material supplied by the news agency. The events related to foreign countries and did not impact Indian Culture. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the records and heard the submissions made by the representatives of Rajasthan Patrika and Dainik Bhaskar. It noted that the events sought to be covered by the paper were no doubt topical and would have generated several moments of celebration/pictorial capture. The attempt of the press should be to ensure coverage that is in keeping with the norms of the society at large and not merely a few. It is also our duty to prevent the degeneration of culture and standards and press with its reach and impact carries on immense potential in moulding the psyche and thought process of a society. It felt that keeping in mind the above, the papers did not exercise sufficient discretion in allowing publication of the impugned material and recommended to the Council to warn the three respondents, namely, Rajasthan Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar and Punjab Kesari for it. 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, Anti National and Religious Writings

172) Shri Sunil G. Godbole Versus The Editor Mumbai-Maharashtra The Times of India Mumbai Complaint This complaint dated 23.7.2005 has been filed by Shri Sunil G. Godbole, Mumbai against The Times of India, Mumbai for publication of an allegedly

537 objectionable news item captioned “One of UK’s suicide bombers had Indian link” in its issue dated 14.7.2005. The complainant questioned the bonafide of the respondent vis-à-vis the country’s interest. It has been stated in the impugned report that one of the “Britain’s home-grown Pakistani-origin suicide bombers boasted of an important and abiding Indian link. He was married to a Gujarati girl, whose family regards India as the motherland.” The article related to the incident of suicide bombing in London on July 7, 2005. The complainant averred that the article failed to explain how the wife of the said terrorist was a ‘link’ in these attacks. The complainant has desired that the newspaper should exhibit restraint. In acts of terrorism, a link is always interpreted as source of inspiration or active accomplice. Thus, for a suicide bomber to have a wife of Indian origin does not mean a ‘link’. The complainant sent his viewpoint to the editor on 23.7.2005 but received no response. No Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India on 17.10.2005. No written statement has been filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 8.2.2006 there was no appearance before it from either side. The Committee decided to dispose of the matter on merits. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On perusal of the record the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor did not file the written statement in response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 17.10.2005 despite due service. The respondent was also not represented before the Committee to defend the case. In the absence of the respondent the Committee proceeded on the premise that the respondent had no defence to the allegations of the complainant that the respondent newspaper had published articles, which had the tendency to affect the image of the country in the world. Having examined the impugned reports, the Committee opined that the caption of the news item dated 14.7.2004 viz “One of UK’s suicide bombers had Indian link” tended to sensationalize the matter of the origins of a relative of the suspected terrorists that was immaterial to the act committed. The Committee also referred to the norms drawn up on the basis of an earlier adjudication that it felt was relevant of the case in hand it reads: “10(i) Newspapers should eschew suggestive guilt by association. They should not name or identify the family or relatives or associates of a person convicted or accused of a crime, when they are

538 totally innocent and a reference to them is not relevant to the matter being reported.” Further, it noted that the Council in a number of adjudications laid down that proactive and sensational headlines are to be avoided and headings must reflect and justify the matter printed under them. The Committee therefore held that the newspaper did not observe due care and caution in giving the impugned caption to the report in question and the sensationalism created through it was unwarranted. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to ‘warn’ the respondent editor, The Times of India, Mumbai under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act 1978 for the lack of due caution 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

173) The National Commission Versus The Editor for Minorities Hindustan Times Government of India New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 2.3.2005 has been filed by the National Commission for Minorities, Government of India, New Delhi against the Hindustan Times, New Delhi objecting to the article captioned ‘Free Speech and the Sardarji Joke’ authored by Mr. Vir Sanghvi, in the issue dated 27.2.2005. It was stated in the impugned news article that: ‘Have you heard a good Sardarji joke recently? If so, beware. You might have caused offence to the Sikh qaum. Millions of Sardarjis might have been morally offended by your laughter. ‘….Our right to freedom of expression and our right to free access to books, movies and newspapers is far, far greater than the right of sensitive not to be hurt by Sardarji jokes or of naïve Christian to deny that there may be dodgy priests. Start suspending the principle of freedom of speech to protect people’s illusions and you end up destroying the very basis of liberal society.’ The protesters have found a new kind of legitimacy in the Minority Commission, which has got into the act.’ ‘…that this current, ludicrous avatar of the Commission consist of a Chairman and members who did not utter one word of condemnation against Narendra Modi when Muslims were being massacred on the

539 streets of Gujarat. (It was left to the National Human Rights Commission to take on the mass murderer and to try and stop the genocide.)’ ‘Having failed to stand up for the minorities when it really mattered, this pathetic body is now poking its nose into Hindi cinema on behalf of the forces of intolerance while claiming to fight for minority rights’. The complainant-Commission objected that the tone, tenor and the content of the article in question has a tendency to hurt the sentiments of Sikh community, which is sensitive about the fun being poked at them through the so-called Sardarji jokes. The article seeks to legitimise this tendency, which amounted to ridicule the Sikh community. In the impugned article derogatory words are used with regard to the actions and the work of the Minority Commission. It reduces the stature of the Commission in popular public perception. The article also makes judgemental remarks about the role of the Commission during the Gujarat riots and the author appears either ignorant of facts or has chosen to ignore them, including those which were reported at that time by The Hindustan Times itself. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Hindustan Times, New Delhi on 12.4.2005. Shri V.K. Chaporia, Asst. Vice-President (Corporate Affairs, Taxation) and Company Secretary, HT Media Ltd. in his written statement dated 5th November 2005 has submitted that the editorial written by Mr. Vir Sanghvi, reflects a point of view which he entertains i.e. the Sikhs should be less sensitive to the jokes which are based on them. It is not an attempt to legitimize this tendency as alleged and with greatest respect it does not intend or purport to ridicule the Sikh community in any manner. The respondent has submitted that the entire theme of the write up is that the issue about Sikh jokes has been given a flavour as if it was an attack on the minorities, which was perhaps not correct. The crux of the write up is that we, as Indians, are not very tolerant about jokes and this is not a matter against a community because it is a minority community. The respondent has submitted that insofar as the reference to the National Commission for Minorities in the write up is concerned, the writer has taken an objection to the National Commission for Minorities espousing the cause of Christian groups to ban the Hindi film ‘Sins’. It is a viewpoint of the writer that the National Commission for Minorities may not be perhaps the best Institution to take up the issue. The respondent has submitted that the view may be wrong, but the writer is entitled to entertain and air his views. It is perfectly justifiable for any person in the country to take a view as to what role a public institution ought to be performing (and ought not to be performing). The respondent has submitted that it is not a legalistic view in the matter, but

540 only an opinion. The National Commission for Minorities may be perfectly justified in law to take up the matter, but that is not the issue here. The question is only of desirability, which is a subjective decision. The respondent has submitted that in the opinion of the writer, the National Commission for Minorities has not done enough at the time of Gujarat riots. It does not mean that the respondent is in any way biased towards the National Commission for Minorities. As accepted by the Commsssion, the respondent had reported positive aspects of the National Commission’s working during Gujarat episode. A lot of people feel that the Government is not doing enough or what it is doing is not good enough, and these views are reflected time and again, without bias, in many write-ups. The respondent has submitted that the write up raises a much larger issue i.e. tolerance and free speech. It raises a key question i.e. extent of the right of free speech in a democracy like India. The respondent has submitted that the writer feels that though he is critical of the National Commission for Minorities, it should be taken as an expression of his viewpoint in exercise of the right of free speech under the Constitution. Being critical is what free speech is all about. It is perfectly legitimate that an opinion of individual being critical of National Commission for Minorities be published. The respondent has submitted that no public institution can take a stand that a person should not publish anything that is not acceptable to it. Infact, the present complaint is exactly what the author of the article wrote to preserve i.e. free speech. The respondent has submitted that the National Commission for Minorities is aggrieved by the use of “bad words” but looking at from an over all perspective, the choice of words is a matter of opinion. A critical article would invariably use some ‘bad words’. Such criticisms should not be stiflled on the ground that it could have used relatively softer words. The choice of expression is rather relative and subjective. The respondent has submitted that any public institution in this country, including the Government of India and the States or even the courts, are put in the dock by the Fourth Estate on a number of occasions. The respondent has submitted that the intention is only to bring certain facts to the knowledge of the public. The National Commission for Minorities need not be sensitive about the criticism, which has been levelled against it for the support lent to Christian groups on a particular issue. The respondent has submitted that only one aspect of the matter has been taken up, which in the opinion of the writer need not have been given a ‘Minority issue’ flavour by the involvement of National Commission for Minorities. The respondent has submitted that they, with due respect and reverence to the National Commission for Minorities, are also most willing to publish the view of the National Commission for Minorities, if it so chooses. The respondent has submitted that they have the highest respect and regard for the National Commission for Minorities and if they have, by the publication, hurt the sentiments of National Commission for Minorities, they most respectfully

541 apologise for the same and at the same time assures the National Commission for Minorities that it was not the slightest intention of them to do so. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 14.12.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. Shri Puranjay Sharma, Legal Officer was present before it on behalf of the complainant Commission while Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Advocate represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Shri Sharma appearing for the complainant submitted that as an apology letter had been received from the respondent regarding impugned publication, the Commission did not wish to proceed with the matter. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee In view of the statement made by the representative of the complainant, the Committee recommended to the Council to close 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

174) Shri Rajesh Dutt Versus The Editor Panipat Ananda Bazar Patrika Haryana Kolkata Complaint This complaint dated 30.8.2003 has been filed by Shri Rajesh Dutt from Panipat, Haryana against “Ananda Bazar Patrika” a Bengali daily for publication of an article/story allegedly derogatory of Hindu God Ram captioned “Ram Ramani Katha” in its issue dated 3.8.2003. The crux of the article as translated by the complainant read as follows:- 1. Shri Ram was a violent King. 2. King Dashrath was having three hundred Queens. 3. Their four children were born of surrogate father. 4. All the four children had gone astray.

542 5. Vishwamitra had given to Ram the contract to get rid of quarrelsome people. 6. Ram, Lakshman attempted eve teasing Todka in the jungle and she had attacked them with stones. 7. Sita was forcibly thrown into fire and it was described as Agni Pariksha. 8. Sri Ram married other women and to hide this fact they were also named Sita. Excerpts from the impugned article are reproduced below: “In fact he was not the son of a king. The King of Ayodhya Dashrath was childless in spite of having 350 wives. Therefore, no one had any doubt about his impotency. However, during that period there was a system of “surrogate” paternity to solve such problems. A hermit named Rishyashringa was having a roaring business in this regard. He was very handsome and therefore, there was no need of forcibly locking the women with him in a room. “In order to make queens of Dashrath pregnant, Rishyashringa was invited with pomp and show. Instead of taking risk of depending on one queen, King Dashrath ordered his chief queens Kaushalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra to share the bed with Rishyashringa. Kaushalya’s only son was Ram. “….Ram was the apple of the eye of his father Dashrath. Ram and his brothers grew up being spoilt brats. They got whatever they asked for and were excused for every misdeed. Getting undue attention of the people of the state made Ram think that he was a God. “…But even though he was the crown prince, a wealthy person surrounded by sycophants, still Ram realised that he was unable to attract the opposite sex. Ram was therefore suffering from guilty conscience and jealousy and inferiority complex made him a mean person. Ram accompanied by his younger brother Lakshman had earned a name in notoriety. Therefore Vishwamitra gave Ram and Lakshman the ‘contract’ of finishing off some persons opposing the working of his ashram. When they were resting near the ashram, they saw a tribal girl collecting pieces of wood. Upon seeing her, Ram fell for her and tried to take her, by force. The girl resisted by throwing wood, stone chips etc. Rejected, Ram became angry and with the help of Lakshman, disfigured the girl named Tadaka and kept on hitting her till her lifeless, blood soaked body fell down on the ground. She was the first victim of Ram’s career of genocides. After completing the

543 action for which Ram-Lakshman had been given the contract, they went to Mithila. When king Janak was showing them the antique pieces Ram broke the historical and invaluable “Hardhanush”. King Janak was looking for a match for his adopted daughter Sita and he and his brother together had four daughters. All of them were wedded to the four sons of Dashrath. Ram got married to beautiful Sita. ……By that time there was a clash for inheritance between the four brothers and the rival of Ram was Kaikeyi’s son Bharat. Taking advantage of Bharat’s absence from Ayodhya, the Ram-Lakshman faction alongwith Dashrath staged a ‘Place Coup’ and before death of Dashrath made arrangements for coronation of Ram. But their plan failed and Kaikeyi stage a ‘counter coup’. Ram-Lakshman alongwith Sita were banished from Ayodhya. They began to stay in forest Dandakaranya where Sita used to do all the household chores day in and day out and was not allowed to venture out. One day the brothers, not knowing that the girl was a relative of King Ravana, the very powerful King of Lanka, tried to molest Surpanakha. She tried to flee. With the intention of destroying her beauty, Lakshman tried to disfigure her face but Surpanakha was able to save herself though she was injured. When the news reached Ravana, he went to Dandakaranya to take stock of the situation himself. There he madly fell in love with tear-eyed Sita and cuckooed his love to her. Sita seeing the tall and handsome Ravana shivered like a plant and offered him seat….They planned to elope. Next day Ravana released a beautiful deer in front of Sita as per the plan and unable to contain his greed Ram went after it asking Lakshman to keep a watch on Sita..Sita scolded Lakshman and said if he would not go to look for his brother, she would tell him that he had an evil eye on her. No sooner did Lakshman went out, Ravana and Sita departed by Ravana’s chariot. When they were touching each other, some of Sita’s ornaments fell down. ….Ram-Lakshman became very angry and with the help of tribals, Ram made an army of men as he did not have the courage to attack Ravana all by himself because although he had the urge to use force against the women, he never had the courage to directly fight with real fighters. In order to defeat Ravana, he took the help of Ravana’s unfaithful brother …..When unable to defeat his son Indrajeet, Lakshman with the help of Vibhishan, murdered him inside the temple. At last the heartthrob of Sita, Ravana was killed. Vibhishan brought Sita in front of Ram. As per orders of Ram all the people and tribal army assembled there. Lakshman made a pyre. In front of everyone Ram burnt alive Sita in the fire of pyre.

544 “During his return from Lanka, Ram….with the help of tribal-army defeated Bharat and became the King. Lest Lakshman became more popular, Ram made Bharat the crown prince. “….After some time when Ram was having meat and wine with his second wife he came to know that she was pregnant. Due to his inferiority complex and wicked mentality he was sure that he was not the father of the child. He ordered Lakshman to leave Sita in the dense forest on the banks of the river. Sita and her unborn child would have died due to hunger or attacks by wild animals. After that he remarried another beauty and again named her Sita. Ram arranged for a great “Ashvamedh Yagya” hoping to become masculine and at the Yagyasabha he called his third wife and questioned about her faithfulness and buried her alive in front of hundreds of spectators. “He also did not spare his all time ‘chela’ Lakshman and killed him on the banks of river Sarayu. The people of Ayodhya were fed up with harassment of women, atrocities on the tribals, conspiracies, internal coups etc. This state of affairs can be termed as “Rama Rajya”. “At last there was a revolt against Ram under the leadership of Mayawati, daughter of Tadka who took her revenge by killing Ram and throwing his body into river Sarayu.” The complainant averred that the writer of the article had married a non- Hindu and the article may have been penned by her in the frenzy or fanaticism of a neo-convert but it was unethical on the part of the respondent paper to have published the article that hurt the sentiments and religious belief of . He questioned whether the intellectual wantonness could be called secularism. The complainant submitted that he sent a copy of the complaint to the respondent but received no response. No Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued on 11.12.2003 to the respondent editor but no response was filed. 1st Hearing When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 26.4.2005 there was no appearance before it. The complainant had expressed his inability to appear before the Committee on 26.4.2005 and had requested for another date. As the respondent was also not present, the Inquiry Committee, on the request of the complainant, adjourned the matter.

545 Case Relisted When the matter was relisted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.6.2005, there was again no appearance before it from either side. The Committee noted that the Secretary and Head of Legal Department, Anand Bazar Patrika, by a letter dated 24.6.2005, had requested for a complete set of documents to enable them to draft the reply. As the complainant was also not present before the Committee and the Committee felt that the defence of the respondent on the issue was material to the consideration of the issue, it decided to adjourn the matter to be listed before it at its next meeting. It directed the Secretariat of the Council to send a complete set of documents to Ananda Bazar Patrika. IInd Hearing The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 17.11.2005. There was no appearance before it from either side. The Inquiry Committee, noting that the matter touched on the religious sentiments of a large majority of the country’s population, adjourned the matter with the directions to the Anand Bazar Patrika to file its written statement within a fortnight. It also decided that no further adjournment would be granted and if no one appeared before it at the next meeting, the matter would be decided on merits. Written Statement In response to Council’s notice for hearing dated 20.10.2005 Ms. Savithri Parekh, Secretary and Head of Legal, Ananda Bazar Patrika, the respondent vide her letter dated 11.11.2005 filed the written statement submitting that the concerned correspondent Mrs. Sharmila Bose has left the organization and she is not in a position to get comments on the article written by her. The respondent has further stated that this newspaper has a reputation in Eastern India Zone of being impartial and respectful towards all the religions. It was never their intention to hurt any religious sentiments of any class or religion. The respondent has further stated that, if any article published in Anand Bazar Patrika has hurt any religious sentiments, they extend their apologies and further assure the readers that it was absolutely unintentional without any ulterior motive. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 16.3.2006 has informed the Council of his dissatisfaction over the reply of the respondent. He has requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent, Ananda Bazar Patrika.

546 Final Hearing The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. The complainant appeared before it in person while the respondent remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant in his oral statement reiterated his complaint and urged that the respondent be directed to take responsibility for the publication. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the oral and written submissions before it and perused the impugned report. It expressed its deep anguish over the lack of sensitivity displayed by the respondent, Ananda Bazar Patrika in carrying the impugned material, the story published in the magazine section of the Sunday edition dated 3.8.2003. Insofar as the contents of the impugned article are concerned, the Committee recalled at the outset the comments of a critic over the film ‘Da Vinci Code’. “It is so unbelievable that it poses no threat to the faith.” It also recalled the reports of violence unleashed world wide in the wake of caricature published in a Danish newspaper. With reference to the author of the impugned material, the Inquiry Committee was not inclined to go into the details of the personal life of the journalist who wrote the story as cited by the complainant. However, it felt that it is the duty of every conscious citizen of the country to promote the secular principles enshrined in our constitution and promote communal peace and a journalist is expected to be even more careful of discharging this duty with the might of the pen at his/her command. Through its previous adjudications, the Council has developed a guideline for the press on the issue that reads: “Newspaper should not publish any fictional literature distorting and portraying the religious characters in an adverse light and offending the religious susceptibilities of large sections of society who hold those characters in high esteem, invested with attributes of the virtuous and lofty.” The impugned publication was in noticeable violation of this guideline. The Committee also observed that every freedom has to be subject to some reasonable limits, so must artistic and literary freedom in larger public interest and peace and harmony. Insofar as the Ananda Bazar Patrika is concerned, the Committee observed that a newspaper is expected to appreciate that a work of fiction

547 published in book is read by the discerning and the articulate. A newspaper on the other hand is accessible to all literates including the gullible and the impressionable. A newspaper thus is expected to be more careful in selecting material for publication. This was a responsibility, the editor singularly failed to discharge. The newspaper had in its written statement stated that the journalist was no longer in its employment and that it had no intention to hurt the sentiments of any reader but the expression of regret had been rendered infructuous by the lack of any positive remedial steps. For the reasons aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper, the Ananda Bazar Patrika, its editor and Ms. Sharmila Bose the author of the impugned article. It further recommended that a copy of the adjudication of the Council may be forwarded to Registrar of Newspaper for India, DAVP, I&PRD of Government of West Bengal and the District Magistrate, Kolkata 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 the report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the findings and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to censure Ananda Bazar Patrika its editor and Ms. Sharmila Bose in the matter with further action proposed. It however decides that keeping in view of the tendentious nature of the impugned material, the excerpts of the article may be deleted from the adjudication while making it available to the public. Only the parties to the case may be supplied the adjudication in full.

175) Shri Manmohan Bhalla Versus The Editor Paschim Vihar The Hindustan Times Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 14.9.2005 has been filed by Shri Manmohan Bhalla against The Hindustan Times, New Delhi for publication of an objectionable write up on the edit page captioned “A Vedic man visits” in its issue dated 26.8.2004. Shri V.V. Paranjpe, the author, has penned in it as his views on how a person from Vedic times would react if he were to visit India Today. The impugned portion of the article reads as follows: There is no Sanskrit newspaper, but I am told that the largest selling newspapers make money from matrimonial advertisements. I hear a lot of noise being made about Rama and Ayodhya. Who is this Rama? We did not have any such man during Vedic times. In any case, a man

548 who abandoned his pregnant wife on vague rumours isn’t much of a great hero and God. The complainant has submitted that the article is apparently a satire on certain political parties and their ideologies particularly with respect to their religious connotations. The complainant has submitted that by publishing the article in question a veiled and malafide attempt has been made to deliberately lower the prestige of the religious beliefs and Hindu deities. The complainant has submitted that depiction of Bhagwan Shri Ram Chandra based upon an incomplete and out of context analysis of one of the acts on His part and eventual discarding of Him as a god is totally unwarranted, mischievous, highly objectionable and greatly hurting to the sentiments and religious belief of every Hindu for whom Bhagwan Shri Ram Chandra is not only a “Maryada Purushottam” but an avtar of the Lord. The complainant has submitted that the words are highly insulting and defamatory for a deity who has been regarded as God by the majority of Indians since time immemorial. The complainant has submitted that a great act of sacrifice by abdicating his wife for the cause of upholding the tradition that a King must be above suspicion in the eyes of his subjects, has been deliberately misinterpreted to insult the Lord Sri Ram Chandra. The complainant has submitted that he issued a legal notice on 11.9.2004 to the respondents but no reply has been received from the respondents. The complainant requested appropriate action against the respondent. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondents i.e. the Editor, The Hindustan Times and Shri V.V. Paranjpe, author of the article on 9.12.2004. Show cause notice issued to Shri V.V. Paranjpe, author of the article has been received back undelivered from the postal authority with the remarks “ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ ]É<àºÉ àÉå <ºÉ +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ BÉEÉ {ÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ SÉãÉiÉÉ cè”. A Regd. A.D. reminder dated 24.2.2006 was issued to the Editor, The Hindustan Times requesting him to file written statement and simultaneously serve the show cause notice on the author for filing reply but no response was filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 4.5.2006. The complainant appeared in person while, Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Advocate represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the respondent filed the written statement a copy of which was handed over to the complainant. It was submitted therein that the editorial page of the daily newspaper Hindustan Times has basically two sections

549 viz. (1) one written by in house editors and, (2) others by guest columnists who send their contributions to the editorial team. The grievance of the complainant was against a write up written by a guest columnist Shri Paranjpe. Shri Paranjpe is a widely respected columnist with experience and knowledge, developed over years; such guest columnists have used the medium of the newspaper to convey their thoughts to their readers. The present write up essentially conveyed the views of the writer. India is a free country and a democratic and secular nation. One is entitled to his/her views on any issue, even if it is unacceptable to person who of course hold a contrary viewpoint. Similarly, one is entitled to his/her own interpretation of the political/economic/historical events. The reader, while reading the edit page, knows that this is a medium of expression of views of a writer/editor as the case may be. It is upto the reader to accept it or reject it, criticize it or commend it, remember it or forget it. It was further submitted that it is in this light that the write up in question has to be examined. What is most critical in such cases is the intention of the writer. It cannot be disputed that the write up was not in any manner intended to hurt the religious beliefs and/or sentiments of the complainant or anybody else following the Hindu religion for the matter. A perusal of the write up would disclose that the write up was intended to highlight the changes which have taken place in our social, cultural, political and economic life and life style over the ages, as seen hypothetically from the perspective of an early Vedic man. The principal grievance seems to be against one particular line of the write up. The historical (sic) fact that such an incident happened is not disputed. If the writer feels that this act of Shri Ram was not in keeping with his status as God, is not the writer entitled to his opinion? This is not a write up propagating religious hatred or demeaning Hindu religion/ gods. The penal law of the country recognizes certain prohibition under Sections 295A, 298 and 500 IPC. The said write up has to be judged on the same touchstone. The write up does not violate Norm No.22 (iv) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct 2005, as the write up is not based on fictional literature. Two people viewing the same incident may have two different opinion about it. There is no distortion in the write up. Further, the write up did not offend the religious susceptibilities of the large section of society, as no such complaint was received from anyone else. The write up was never intended to offend the religious susceptibilities of large section of society who hold Lard Ram in high esteem. In conclusion, the paper submitted that if unintentionally some damage to sentiments, religious beliefs, of the complainant has been caused, respondent apologizes for the same as it was never its intention to do so. Both the parties reiterated their written contentions in their oral submissions. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted the contention of the complainant that the

550 write up has caused grievous hurt to the beliefs of the persons who hold Lord Rama in high esteem juxtaposed with that of the respondent that in a democracy every person has the right to hold his/her views. Having perused the impugned piece, the Inquiry Committee did not per se find that the piece was intended to hurt the feelings of a section of the population. It also accepted that freedom to hold individual opinion and beliefs is the most significant strength of the Indian democracy. However, it felt that in doing so every citizen is also to ensure that his voice does not hurt another. Literary writings are expected to pass through a litmus test on this account. The world has witnessed recently a spate of violence over some caricature in a Danish newspaper that hurt the religious belief and sentiments of a particular community whose right scored the days that followed in a moot point. The literati apparently cannot just stake claim to the right of free speech without due thought to the repercussion of their writings. Having recorded this, the Inquiry Committee noted the apology tendered by the editor of the paper for having hurt the sentiments and beliefs of the complainant and expressed confidence that the paper would take sufficient care in future to protect the interest of all classes of the readers. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to allow the matter to rest with these 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

176) Maj. Ashish Nangia Versus The Editor GS 02 (PR & Media) Alsafa HQ., Victor Force Srinagar C/o. 56 APO. Jammu & Kashmir Complaint This complaint, dated 19.5.2004 has been filed by Major Ashish Nangia, GS 02 (PR & Media), HQ. Victor Force, C/o.56 APO against Alsafa, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir for publication of a news report with photograph of a woman in ‘Spot Light’ segment column in its issue dated 7.5.2004 under the caption “A dejected woman in Chhoon Beerwali whose virginity was attacked by the security forces personnel of 35 PR”. The complainant has submitted that subsequent investigation both by security forces as well as civil authorities revealed the incident to be untrue. The complainant has alleged that by publishing the incorrect report, the respondent has caused irreparable damage to the security force by tarnishing

551 and maligning their image that such immature reporting has drastically affected the morale of the troops who are constantly required to brave life threatening circumstances during counter terrorist operations, alleged the complainant and added that the investigations conducted by the security forces and civil administration have revealed that the allegations were untrue. This incident is a case in point, alleged the complainant, which exhibits the professional irresponsibility on the part of the respondent for not having confirmed the report before publishing the impugned news report. He had drawn the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news report on 15.5.2004, but received no response. In the clarification, the complainant informed the editor that the search reported in the newspaper was a routine operation in the village Chunn, Badgam based on information provided by the villagers. On learning the news, the newly elected M.P. Ms. Mehbooba Mufti offered to get the woman in question medically examined. However, the offer was evaded without any convincing explanation and the reporter accepted his mistake. No Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 20.7.2004, despite a reminder-dated 6.5.2005, written statement was not filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. The complainant, Major Ashish Nangia was present in person while the respondent editor remained unrepresented. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the publication of incorrect charge along with the photograph of the woman, likely to provoke anti defence sentiments, had tarnished the image of the security forces and undermined their morale. The allegations of molesting a woman by the army men were inquired into and were found to be baseless and false. It damaged the reputation of the defence forces. He averred that the respondent regional paper enjoyed wide circulation in the remote areas and impacted the formation of public opinion. Such reports prompted anti army opinions to the detriment of national interest. He also submitted that the army has a P R system which can be approached for information. The respondents have the PRO’s telephone number also, but no one contacted them at pre-or-post publication stage to verify facts and even the clarification issued was ignored. He added that the publication was irresponsible and thus condemnable. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the record and the oral arguments of the complainant,

552 the Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent editor neither filed the written statement in response to the show-cause notice dated 20.7.2004 which was followed by a reminder dated 6.5.2005 nor had he entered appearance before it despite due service of notice of hearing. The absence of any response from the respondent editor established that the paper had no defence to counter the averments of the complainant that the news report was baseless and incorrect. On merits, the Committee noted the submissions of the complainant that the security as well as Civil authorities had inquired into the matter and found the charges to be false. The Committee observed that the media was an important conveyor of correct and true information. The state of Jammu & Kashmir enjoys a special position in the country not just by the virtue of the constitutional provision but also due to its strategic location and concerns with the neighbouring countries. Human Rights have also been a major issue in the psychological warfare in the state since the days insurgency surfaced. The Committee recollected that as far back as 1990-92, when, given the then prevailing environment in Jammu & Kashmir, it had suo-motu examined the role and functioning of the press and the role of the authorities in dealing with the press in the state, it had also been requested to examine the reports of human rights violations by the army against the civilian population. The Committee that conducted on the spot study found that while some excess has indeed taken place, many had been grossly exaggerated or even invented. One of the most serious incident of mass rape at Kunan Poshpura had turned out to be a massive hoax orchestrated by militants group and their sympathisers and mentors as part of a sustained and concerted strategy to put human rights in Kashmir on International agenda. The Committee had obsevervd that the Press provides much of the raw material for human rights organisations, both within the country and abroad, both directly through its own reports and comments and indirectly by feeding the international media. Newspersons therefore have a double responsibility to ensure that they verify their facts as carefully as possible, present both sides, and avoid sensationalising events, especially when describing grey areas. Headlining and display too should be restrained in all such situations as emotion often feeds on itself. The Kashmir Press it found is wont to give large, bold headlines to all stories in the tabloid style. It needs to review its own norms and style, including display. It had also advised that newspapers can go wrong in the best of circumstances. But credibility and true Press freedom in terms of the people’s right to know is only upheld if corrections are carried out or the right of reply is conceded within legitimate bounds. The observations are as relevant today as they were in 1991 despite the marked improvement in situation. The Committee also recalled that as recently as April’ 06 the Chairman of the Press Council had addressed a Working Group on U.N. Sub-Committee on Human Rights on the issue of Human Rights, Freedom of Expression and terrorism wherein he had emphasised that the psychological warfare be

553 perpetrated by the militants, orchestrating human rights violation, needs careful, unbiased and thorough investigation to sift the chaff from the grain. Clearly in the instant case the respondent editor did not act so and infact compounded that the offence by failing to take any corrective measures. Therefore the Committee having considered all the facts before it held the respondent editor guilty of publishing incorrect and unverified news report, along with the photograph of the woman falsely alleged to have been molested by Army personnel, and subsequently ignoring the clarification provided by the army permeating falsehood among the public, impacting the morale of the defence forces, and adversely affecting the national interest. The Inquiry Committee of the Council therefore, being satisfied that the newspaper has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics recommended to the Council to exercise the powers under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper Alsafa, published from Srinagar, its editor and the reporter who filed the impugned news report. It further recommended that a copy of the Council’s adjudication be sent to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Defence, National Human Rights Commission, Government of Jammu & Kashmir for their record and Registrar of Newspaper for India, DAVP, I&PRD of Government of Jammu & Kashmir and the District Magistrate/Collector, Srinagar 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

177) Mohd. Abdul Rahim Quraishi Versus The Editor Secretary The Pioneer All India Muslim Personal Law Board New Delhi New Delhi Complaint This complaint-dated 28.9.2005 has been filed by Mohd. Abdul Rahim Quraishi, Secretary, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, New Delhi against The Pioneer, New Delhi for publication of an allegedly objectionable news item captioned “Muslim Board disagrees with SC”, Sub-Head ‘Constitution grants us separate legal framework’ in its issue dated 29th August 2005. The impugned report pertained to court proceedings on the jurisdiction of Darul Qaza (Islamic courts).

554 The complainant has submitted that the Headline is misleading likely to give wrong impression to its readers that All India Muslim Personal Law Board is not obeying the highest Court and has no respect of this Apex Court and intends to create ill will against the Board. The complainant has submitted that the subhead is also misleading distorting their assertion that they are within the rights and freedom guaranteed by and within limits and bounds of the Constitution. The complainant has submitted that it has been reported that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed on a petition by an advocate to issue notice to All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The complainant has submitted that the Board has not yet received this notice. The complainant has submitted that the Supreme Court has delivered no order or judgment and therefore the question of agreement or disagreement does not arise. The complainant has submitted that the Board discussed the matter on the basis on the reports, which have appeared in the press and decided to defend Darul Qaza. The Board is of considered opinion that the Darul Qaza and fatwas are within the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and are within the limits and bounds of the Constitution. This has been reported in a very distorted manner as “Constitution grants us separate legal frame work”. The complainant has submitted that this sub caption carried quite different meanings, which were never intended and not stated by the Board. Written Statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Pioneer on 30.11.2005. The respondent in his written statement dated 17th December 2005 has submitted that the instant complaint preferred by the complainant is misconceived and is an attempt to mislead the Council from the true facts. The respondent has submitted that the complainant’s quarrel with the respondent is over the caption where it is said, “Muslim Board disagrees with the SC” and which has been stated in the legal notice of 29th August 2005 as well as in the complaint. The respondent has submitted that any article has to be read in its entirety and it is not permissible to pull out any particular sentence, which will give a distorted interpretation. A holistic reading of the article clearly demonstrates that the view of the complainant have been recorded and which is no different from that carried in the other newspapers. To allege that the article is misleading is therefore contrary to the facts. The respondent has submitted that the complainant disagrees with the Supreme Court, it is plausible interpretation, especially so when the complainant is at pains to clarify that it is taking “the petition in a positive manner”. This, by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be disobeying the Supreme Court. The respondent has submitted that the question of disobeying the Supreme Court does not arise, as there has

555 been no directive by the Court in this regard. The complainant is seeing ghosts where there are none and making a mountain, of what is not even a molehill. The respondent has submitted that the headline was not misleading and did not give a wrong impression that the complainant has no respect for the Supreme Court as he was, not obeying its orders and denied creating ill will against the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the subhead was not also misleading. In the news report it has nowhere mentioned that the complainant is working beyond the constitutional framework rather it was only recording the assertion of the complainant that the mechanism through the Darul Qaza i.e. Islamic Court was within the constitutional framework. The respondent has submitted that no such notice was despatched on 29th August 2005 as claimed by the complainant of which any clarification is required to be published. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 7.2.2005 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 5.5.2006. S/Shri O.P. Gupta, Manager, HRD, U. Hazarika, Advocate and Gaurav Vutta, Advocate represented the respondent newspaper, ‘The Pioneer’ while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant vide his letter dated 26.4.2006 had expressed his inability to appear before the Committee and filed his counter to the written statement of the respondent. In his counter to the written statement of the respondent, the complainant, while reiterating to the averments made in the complaint added that “the principle to read any article in its entirety to assess its nature or its impact as far as any complaint against any article is concerned, is true, but the same cannot be applicable to news item about proceedings of a meeting. Particularly so when the headlines and some averments in the news items give a misleading and distorted version of the events. Headlines and prefatory remarks are usually penned by the editor and from the same motive and intention of the editor can and should be gathered and particularly so when such news items contain proceedings of a meeting which discussed many issues. The newspaper and its editor and publisher cannot take refuge under the plea that the report of discussion on other subject in the news item has not been complained of as objectionable. It should also be taken into consideration that the respondent in reply dated 17th December 2005 under ‘preliminary objections’ on page 2 at para No.6 has stated “The question of disobeying the Supreme Court does not arise as there has been no directive by the court in this regard”. If there was no directive by the Supreme Court where the question of disagreement with the

556 Supreme Court arises. Therefore the question that arises is what prompted the editor, what was his intention and motive to print the headline “Muslim Board disagrees with SC” and to remark “Unfazed by the recent Supreme Court’s directions, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMLB) on Sunday said it would contest the apex Court’s contention that Islamic courts were “Challenging the country’s judicial system”. From where did the editor of The Pioneer get the alleged contention of the apex court that “Islamic Courts were challenging the country’s judicial system”. The Pioneer had gravelly offended the standard of journalistic ethics by publishing this unfounded, wrong and false report and by making the comment that “Muslim Board disagree with SC”. It was also submitted that the notice dated 29th August , 2005, was received by the respondent because he states “and which has been stated in legal notice of 29th August, 2005, as well as in the present complaint” . It was submitted that the respondent even after receiving the notice dated 29th August, 2005, did not care to look into above objection and print clarification. It is also submitted that both the headlines and the opening paragraph of the news item were published with the intention and motive to defame and to bring bad name to the complainant i.e. ‘All India Muslim Personal Law Board’ and to create ill- will against it and had thus grossly violated and offended the standards of journalistic ethics and public trust. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the complainant appeared to be aggrieved by the headlines of the article. The article was based on the petition before the Supreme Court and was quotation of the Law Minister, which was quoted in the article itself. The article which was a presentation of various separate incidents should be read in its entirety. There was nothing objectionable and no derogatory remarks were given in the article. The paper had deemed it fit to co-relate all the views on the issue instead of presenting the complainant’s views in isolation and then give it a headline on the basis of its analysis. This was the prerogative of the paper, submitted the respondent. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee On consideration of the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Committee noted that the impugned article covered different views on a vital issue. However, the caption given to the report, particularly the sub-head, put in a quotation, was not justified by the body content of the article, while the article in itself was truly in public interest, sufficient caution was not observed in giving it a headline. The Committee felt that if a headline is not established by the body of the article, it tantamounts to ‘making’ news. The Inquiry Committee held that the respondent editor should have been more careful while

557 selecting the headline of the article of a sensitive nature. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to caution the respondent newspaper, ‘The Pioneer’, against selection of unjustified headline, and advise it to display greater caution in future, particularly in matters affecting the religious sensibilities of the public. 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly. F.N: Mr. Hiranmay Karlekar, a member of the Council did not participate in the proceedings of the matter due to his interest in The Pioneer.

178) Dr. Krishen Kak, IAS(Retd.) Versus The Hindu New Delhi Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 19.6.2004 has been filed by Dr. Krishen Kak, IAS (Retd.), New Delhi against The Hindu, Delhi for alleged violation of the ethics with regard to denial of right of reply.The complainant objected to the photograph of Mr. Qutbuddin Naseeruddin Ansari, a victim of Gujarat communal violence in the respondent’s newspaper dated 29.1.2004 and its description under the heading: “Qutbuddin Naseeruddin pleads for life after being surrounded by a mob of Hindu militants in Ahmedabad, 2002”. The complainant submitted that The Hindu on different occasions published different caption of the said photograph, without the slightest indication that the editor made any attempt whatsoever to cross-check or verify the authenticity of any of these descriptions. The complainant submitted that the respondent published in its issue of 7.8.2003 in a caption below Mr. Ansari’s famous pleading face clearly stating “Qutubuddin Ansari, who pleaded with the police to save him from the rioters…”. On 17.8.2003 the same photograph carried the caption “Over the past few weeks, Indian newspapers had been publishing the photograph of the 29 year-old Ahmedabad tailor, Qutubuddin Ansari, a victim of the savage Gujarat communal riots of 2002, now in the process of being rehabilitated in Kolkata. During the riots, the photograph of Ansari’s tear-stained face begging for mercy from the assailants moved the nation. Even the attackers let him go. This one photograph captured man’s cruelty to man in the Gujarat riots”. In the issue of August 31, 2003 the description had “begging for his life as his home burned and his neighbours were butchered” (Praveen Swami, “The spreading tentacles of terror”, The Hindu, August 31, 2003). According to the complainant, if Mr. Ansari was pleading his attackers, it is curious that they are

558 all, every single one, and their weapons, completely behind the photographer, and Mr. Ansari as he pleads is looking not at any of the attackers but into the camera. The complainant in his further letter dated 9th July 2004 to the Council, informed that the respondent again published another news item captioned “Lashkar fishes in troubled waters” in The Hindu issue dated 27.6.2004 which allegedly exemplifies how the unverified, unsubstantiated and inflammatory descriptions of photograph published by it, still clearly influence communal elements hostile to the Indian polity into openly fostering the violence of religious hate in the country. The objectionable portion of the impugned publication read as follows: “If the Gujarat Police are right and the Mumbai college student who was killed in Ahmedabad on June 15 was a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, she would most certainly have seen a graphic image on the organisation’s website: riot survivor Qutubuddin Ansari begging for his life. Underneath the image, the Lashkar’s site designer added a slogan: “don’t you think he should have a gun?” Like most things to do with the organization, the Lashkar’s plans for Gujarat are no secret. Even since the pogrom of 2002, the organization has been publicly calling on Indian Muslims to join its Jihad. In an article published that year on the Lashkar website, its political head, Hafiz Mohammad Sayeed, asked “The Muslims of India that they themselves rise up for their protection”. Only Jihad, he continued, “is the defence of the oppressed Muslims. The riots have proved that the Hindus are fully armed but the Muslims are badly ill-equipped to cope with such a situation.” The complainant submitted that given the much publicized communal context of the Ansari photographs, the need for responsible editorial function is imperative. He also pointed out that in the impugned report “begs to nearby police to rescue him” as circulated by Reuters which circulated the photograph, had been changed to “beggars for his life” and the latter was designed to elicit stronger emotional reaction. The respondent’s attention was drawn to its inaccuracy vide his letter dated 18.5.2004 but to no avail. The complainant has submitted that the respondent had continued conspicuously to violate Council Guidelines in the matter. Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Hindu on 14.1.2005. The Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu in his written statement dated 1st February 2005 denied the allegations and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable

559 and liable to be dismissed in limine. The respondent submitted that the alleged photograph was captured by the news agency Reuters. Neither the news agency Reuters nor its photographer, who took the alleged photograph, had been made party in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the complainant, with a view to bring disrepute to their publication, filed the present complaint leaving all other publications and electronic media that published photograph along with their respective news items. The alleged publications were carried out in their newspaper along with the photograph of the affected person in issues dated 17.8.2003, 7.8.2003, 8.8.2003, 31.8.2003 and 6.12.2003. The respondent submitted that the complainant failed to institute the alleged complaint well within the time stipulated by the Inquiry Regulations of the Press Council and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be rejected. The delay in filing the complaint is deliberate and with an intention to malign the reputation of their newspaper. The complainant should have been satisfied with the reply given by the news agency Reuters and there was no need to bring the issue before the Press Council of India, that too after a period of one year. This would suggest that the complainant has developed a misplaced grievance, hence the Council should not entertain the complaint.

The respondent submitted that the job of their newspaper is to provide extensive coverage of diverse issues of national concern, politics, and the democratic way of life, social problems, and so on in a manner that advances constitutional and human values without prejudice to the rights of any individual or group of persons. According to the respondent, the news items published by The Hindu on various occasions starting from August 7, 2003 revolved around the communal carnage, unleashed by communal fanatics and religious fundamentalists. The news report did not center on any particular community and it only centered on the communal hatred and hate politics perpetrated. The respondent has submitted that the articles published by The Hindu were neither one sided nor expressed any sentiments against any one community or religion. It has stood steadfastly against communal and hate politics when communal carnage of such a magnitude occurred in Gujarat, the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi who preached non-violence, tolerance, inter-faith goodwill, and human solidarity. The articles reported only true happenings at that point of time and by publishing the factual details, no sensationalism was resorted to by their newspaper as alleged by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the news items and articles published in The Hindu were never intended to harm any particular community, specifically Hindus and references were made only against fanaticism falsely taking and abusing the name of religion to indulge in arson, loot and targeting innocent people belonging to the minority community. Their newspaper did not publish any provocative or exaggerated statements that resulted in communal hatred or led to one community fighting another.

560 The respondent submitted that they can give proof of the truth as published by The Hindu and rely on various news agencies. The complainant, if really aggrieved by the photograph published, should have taken steps to find out the truth from the photographer rather than filing the complaint against their newspaper. The complainant had himself produced an e-mail message from Reuters giving him particulars and facts pertaining to the photographs taken and this itself is sufficient justification and proof for their newspaper to publish the actual photograph given by the news agency. The respondent has submitted that the acts perpetrated by aggressors claiming to act on behalf of the ‘majority community’ against a particular community deserved to be condemned in public and for publishing such condemnation, the newspaper cannot be held to be biased or damaging the public morale or attempting to create communal hatred. The respondent submitted that it is for the complainant to proceed against the news agency and its photographers and their newspaper cannot give its opinion on the matter. The respondent submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to question the accurate reporting of the newspapers regarding the factual reporting of the communal carnage in the State of Gujarat. Their newspaper had verified the fact about the name of the aggrieved person and the complaint is filed belatedly when there are a number of inquiries being conducted by various commissions and courts regarding the communal carnage. By raising the issue of communal clashes that brought national shame of this magnitude, the complainant wanted to fuel further communal tension. Further it was contended there is no iota of truth in the allegations made by the complainant and hence the very intention of filing the complaint is malafide and the same deserves to be rejected. The respondent has submitted that the complainant is attempting to interfere with the freedom of speech and expression and the press enshrined in the Constitution of India. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 2.5.2005. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 13th May 2005 has submitted that the rejoinder, if any, of a news agency, does not absolve the newspaper of its own responsibility and liability under the Press Council Act. The complainant has submitted that the newspaper is culpable in its own right and the joining or not of the news agency does not absolve the newspaper of its own responsibility under the Council guidelines and principles. The newspaper is expected to exercise its own functions and not blindly depend on its alleged sources. The complainant has submitted that the news agency in question has put out only one description for the photograph; it is the newspaper that has put out different and what are worse, all mutually inconsistent descriptions. The

561 complainant has submitted that in any event, if the Council opines that re- joinder is necessary, this is not a fatal defect and can be remedied under Regulation 4 or Regulation 13. The complainant submitted that the Act does not require him to file a complaint against “all other publications and electronic media that published the photograph”. He has submitted that this is clearly impossible task, since a private citizen cannot be expected nor is required to locate and keep track of “all” media. The complainant submitted that the complaint has been “deliberately” filed against The Hindu and it has not been done accidentally. It had been done after due and careful consideration, and it had been done against this particular newspaper because this is the one to which he subscribed and which he read daily. That even after the newspaper’s attention had been drawn to its different descriptions of the photograph, it again referred to the photograph on 27.6.2004 with yet again a differing description. The complainant has submitted that the point at issue here is not whether he should have been satisfied with the reply given by Reuters, the point at issue is the absence of a reply from the newspaper to his letter bringing to its attention the many different accounts it published of this photograph, and the context of such accounts. His complaint analyzed in systematic detail for the Council both the photograph and its various descriptions with reference to the Council’s guidelines and principles in regard to the reporting of communal disturbances and the newspaper had not factually rebutted a single of these points. No complaint had been made about any “article”, the complaint restricted itself to the authenticity and context of one photograph – there is nothing in the Press Council Act that bars such a complaint because the newspaper generally claims a good character for itself. His complaint is that the captions/descriptions published by the newspaper vary from the news agency account and all those of the newspaper vary from each other. The complainant submitted that the newspaper claims that the news agency e-mail to him is “itself sufficient justification and proof” that they published the actual photograph, how can a third party e-mail to him after the publication by the newspaper be a sufficient justification by the newspaper for already having published it. The complainant submitted that even if the photograph published is “actual”, why do the descriptions of it published by the newspaper vary from that given by the news agency and then why do they all contradict each other. After this was pointed out to the newspaper, it went ahead and published yet another contradicting account. Given the communally sensitive context of photograph, was it not the duty of the editor to cross-check its authenticity. The complainant has submitted that the newspaper was relying solely on a news agency dispatch. If not the area, surely the newspaper should have crosschecked at least with the news agency, especially given the ambiguities in the photograph that editors can be assumed to be professionally trained to notice. The complainant submitted that this newspaper accepts it did not do yet a news agency dispatch

562 of such a communally sensitive photograph is sufficient, it says, to publish a “condemnation”. The complainant submitted that this itself is arguable, but why should the “facts” it presents as describing the photograph vary from “condemnation” to “condemnation” published by it and from the news agency “facts” too. The complainant has submitted that if the newspaper seriously urges its argument here, then why does it need editors at all. It is accepting it published the photograph as received from its purveyor, in other words, without exercising its editorial function at all. The complainant has submitted that it does not bother to explain, even to the Council, why it did not publish or in anyway respond to his letter to it dated 18.5.2004. The complainant submitted that he has not questioned newspaper’s general reporting, he is questioning its specific reporting in regard to a specific photograph and this Press Council Act entitles him to do. The complainant submitted that the name of the person photographed is hardly the major issue; that this person is actually in the situation that the newspaper differently describes for him on different occasions is the major issue. The complainant submitted that there may or may not be other inquiries “regarding the communal carnage” does not bar the Council acting within its own jurisdiction. The complainant submitted that the newspaper’s now-evident total lack of editorial responsibility in this enormously and nationally sensitive communal matter is crystal clear and specific violations by the newspaper have been established of the Council’s guidelines and principles on the reporting of communal disturbances.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. The complainant was not present. However, an e-mail dated 3.1.2006 was received from the complainant stating inter alia that he had nothing further to add to the points he had already made and he requested the Council to examine each of the points on merit and take decision accordingly. He requested to be excused from the hearing.

Shri S. Ramanujam, Deputy Regional General Manager, The Hindu, represented the respondent The Hindu. The respondent, had vide his letter dated 5.1.2006 stated that in the above matter the letter addressed to the editor, The Hindu, Chennai, was forwarded to them and their legal advisors have advised them to file a supplementary reply in addition to the reply filed on 1.2.2005. He accordingly requested for four weeks adjournment.

Matter Adjourned

The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter in view of the request from the respondent, allowing them time to file their supplementary reply.

563 Supplementary Written Statement The respondent, Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu in his supplementary written statement dated 10.6.2006 denied the allegations and insinuations made by the complainant in the complaint and submitted that the complainant is looking at the Gujarat incident as a mere fight between the two religious communities and wants the respondent newspaper also to look at it in that light. The Hindu can not subscribe to that narrow approach. Wherever religious fanaticism, shows its ugly face, the Hindu has always taken a stand of exposing fearlessly the aggressor and setting out the true facts without being influenced by the personal religious beliefs of the editor and irrespective of whether the majority community was the aggressor or the minority community was the aggressor. The Hindu has always believed that the fanatics belong to one religion namely “fundamentalism” and they are neither Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews since no religion advocates violence. This broad perspective has been completely mined by the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the photograph of Qutubuddin Ansari in question is taken by Mr. ArkKo Datta of Reuters, a reputed International News Agency. Any news or photograph disseminated by the news agency is the property of news agency and they take responsibility for its genuineness. The respondent has submitted that the inferences made thereon are a product of the fertile imagination of the complainant. What is surprising is, instead of looking at the matter from a broad perspective and instead of culling out the essence of the news item, the complainant with no sensitiveness to the communal carnage has launched a post mortem, which has ultimately no relevance whatsoever to the main issue. The respondent mentioned that the photographs as furnished by the news agency was carried by The Hindu. It was not a doctored or a morphed photograph. The respondent further submitted that much is sought to be made out of an article written by Gangadhar that Mr. Qutubuddin Ansari was facing threat from the assailants is reconcilable with the fact that he was pleading for mercy. The substance of the matter was that a man in distress was pleading for his life. The respondent submitted that the false averments are deliberately made after being fully conscious of the true facts. The complainant is aware that the victim Mr. Ansari was on the first floor when the attackers/assailants were on the ground floor. In spite of this that the complainant averred that there was no mob/ policeman/assailants rioters in the photograph. The respondent has further submitted that it was not as if the complainant is not aware that it was reporter who met Ansari and not that Ansari had approached The Hindu. The respondent has denied that The Hindu has violated any ethical principle. The photographs belonged to a reputed news agency and it was their property. The complainant not having arrayed them as a party cannot raise the issue here.

564 The respondent submitted that the newspapers have no religion and it is denied that a one sided version bleeding anti Hindu anguish was published. The respondent also denied that the publication was a carefully grafted emotional outburst designed to justify the writer command bias and bashing of majority community. The respondent vehemently denied that the said publication was irresponsible or un-intellectual, morally and journalistically dishonest. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was again taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. Shri N Sriram was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri N Sriram requested to pass over the matter since the counsel engaged by the newspaper to argue before the Committee had got delayed up. Since the counsel for “The Hindu” did not appear before the Committee, the Inquiry Committee proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee on a careful perusal of the material on record noted that the respondent, “The Hindu” carried reports in different issues of the paper making the reference to the photograph of Shri Qutubuddin Naseeruddin Ansari with caption reports indicating that he was pleading for life during communal violence in Gujarat in the year 2002. The Inquiry Committee noted that it was the fact that the communal violence took place in Gujarat in the year 2002 and the said photograph of Shri Qutubuddin Naseeruddin Ansari was taken by a reputed international news agency, Reuters. Establishing the genuineness or otherwise of the photograph was not the intent of this inquiry. It was limited to examining whether the captions provided by the paper to the photograph over a period of time were appropriate or not and was there any deliberate intent in giving the said caption. The Committee noted that Reuters while releasing the photographs had given it the caption “AN INDIAN MUSLIM MAN SURROUNDED BY HINDU RIOTERS BEGS IN AHMEDABAD. An Indian Muslim man stranded on the first floor of his house and surrounded by Hindu rioters begs to nearby police to rescue him in Ahmedabad, the main city in the western Indian state of Gujarat, on March 1, 2002. Troops arrived in India’s riot-torn western state on Friday to crush religious violence that has killed more than 190 people in two days, the worst communal bloodshed in a decade.” The Committee also perused the various captions given by ‘The Hindu’ to the photograph. It felt that while there was nothing on record to establish any mal-intent on the part of the newspaper and even the various headings given over a period of time did not substantially differ from the sum and substance of the caption given by Reuters, the Committee observed that the

565 newspaper should have avoided mentioning the religion of the man identified in the photograph or of his attackers. This has time and again been stressed not only in the guidelines issued by the Council but even by the National Integration Council and several other apex authorities of this country. The Hindu should have exercised restraint in the matter and was expected to be careful in future. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to dispose of the complaints with these 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

179) Shri V.H. Dalmiya Versus 1. The Editor President Economic Times Vishva Hindu Parishad New Delhi New Delhi 2. The Editor The Delhi Times, (TOI) New Delhi Complaint Shri V.H. Dalmiya, President, Vishva Hindu Parishad, New Delhi filed these complaints against (i) The Economic Times and (ii) The Delhi Times supplement of The Times of India for publication of objectionable photographs projecting Lord Krishna and Lord Rama in the respective issues dated 13.2.2005 and 15.2.2005. The complainant submitted that The Economic Times published the photograph of Lord Krishna and Radha with an article on Kama Sutra by Shri Vikram Doctor captioned ‘Let’s misbehave’. Partraying the almighty thus was highly obnoxious. There is no relevance of the photograph with the article except to show Lord Krishna in bad light, alleged the complainant. Regarding the article published in The Delhi Times about Ramayana being printed in the form of a comic book under the caption ‘Dramayana 2005’, the complainant has submitted that Ramayana is a sacred scripture for Hindus and it is highly deplorable to depict such a pious scripture in the form of the comic book merely on the pretext of making it available to the children. The complainant has submitted that all Hindus worship Lord Krishna and Lord Rama as God almighty, and all Hindu religious scriptures and saints and sages talk of the same thing. Portraying them in such a way or writing a comic book on God is highly obnoxious and outrageous and is an assault on

566 the Hindu religion and culture and is bound to greatly hurt their religious sentiments. According to the complainant, such publications are an act of taking undue advantage of the spirit of tolerance in the Hindu religion. Written Statement Show cause notices were issued to the respondent editors, Economic Times and Delhi Times on 28.4.2005. Shri Rajnish M. Singh, Advocate filed written statement dated 7.6.2005 on behalf of the Editor, Economic Times and the Editor, Delhi Times, Delhi. The counsel for the respondents denied that the said picture is of Lord Krishna. He submitted that similar pictures can be found in all ancient mythological stories, and in paintings all over the country. The pictures of kings and queens can be found in large numbers especially in old paintings and ancient caves. During the Mughal period lots of paintings of kings and queens were made in very suggestive manner and positions. He has submitted that the article in question was about Kamasutra, which is an encyclopaedia of its kind, and the contents stated therein are very ancient compared to this period. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that the picture used in the article had nothing to do or was intended to do with Lord Krishna, since during the ancient period the kings had a keen interest in practice and procedures of Kamasutra, although in the current context the same is being treated as vulgar and in bad taste. The counsel for the two respondents has submitted that a newspaper has certain amount of duty towards its readers and as a responsible newspaper group his client are aware of the same and it is vehemently denied that the said picture was published to hurt the religious sentiments of any religious community. Regarding the reporting on Ramayana, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the article was written to inform the general public that a comic book called ‘Dramayana’ has been created by filmmaker Mr. Shekhar Kapoor and Mr. Deepak Chopra and the book would be in the form of a comic book strip. He has submitted that the role of responsible media is to inform its readers of current events, stories, general knowledge or current happenings or else what would be the role of media in the present scenario or is it expected from the media to stop such reporting. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the idea behind such reporting is to create interest in the younger generation as today’s youth is no way interested in reading mythological books of religious importance. He submitted that one television channel has already shown Ramayana in form of comic characters. Ramayana and Mahabharata and other stories of Hindu Gods/Goddess in comic forms are already published and are in public domain. The counsel for the respondents submitted that it would be wrong to suggest that his clients have hurt the religious feelings of any religious

567 community. The counsel for the respondents submitted that these books are quire popular with children, and the younger generation who enjoy reading these books and get valuable information from these books/comic related to religion. He submitted that his clients have no intention of hurting religious sentiments of any community. Counter Comments A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 13.7.2005. Shri V.H. Dalmia, the complainant vide his letter dated 23rd July 2005 informed that they do not agree with the comments sent by the respondents and requested the Council to take an independent view of the whole matter only after having heard views of both the parties and then take a final decision. Matter Adjourned The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 6.1.2006. Shri Rajiv Shahdher, Sr. Advocate, along with Shri Nikilesh, Advocate, represented the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee considered the impugned publications and noted that the impugned reports of Gods and Goddesses were prima facie not very appreciable. The Committee felt that the respondent was one of the market leaders in terms of circulation and its publication carried wide impact. It was, therefore, necessary to examine the relevance of the impugned photographs qua the accompanying reports. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the non-appearance of the respondent at the hearing despite service of notices. It directed the Secretariat to write to The Times of India to ensure their presence at the next meeting. The Committee accordingly adjourned the matter. The proceedings of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the respondents vide office letter dated 09.05.2006. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matters were posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 21.8.2006. S/Shri Rajiv Bakshi and Rajesh Nair were present on behalf of the complainant, while thee was no appearance for the respondents The Times of India/Economic Times. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The representative of the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He added that the impugned publications were deliberate attempts of the newspapers to hurt the religious sentiments of a particular community.

568 Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record. At the outset, it expressed it deep displeasure over the callous attitude of the respondent editor in not being represented before the Committee despite duly receiving the notice of hearing and specific direction given at the last hearing. On merits, the Committee first considered the impugned publication in Delhi Times captioned “Dramayana 2005’ and noted that the article in question reported a new project undertaken to publish mythological and other stories in a comic book form. It felt that ‘comic book’ does not mean ‘lampooning’. It primarily denotes the presentation of a story in a drama form accompanied by etching of the character to whom the narration is attributed. It is expected that even when the author tries to give a new interpretation to the story the etchings accompanying them would conform to the basics of the character envisaged. This done, there should be no scope for the freedom of expression of one hurting the sentiments of another. The Committee felt that this caution was necessary if it wished to avoid the situation that arose after the publication of some caricatures in Danish newspapers. Tested against these basic principles, the Committee felt that the impugned etchings accompanying the article did not warrant action for violation of journalistic ethics, but advised the respondent to ensure that any of its action did not contribute to adversely affecting the sentiments of any community or caste. Insofar as the impugned publication in Economic Times was concerned, it felt that the denial of the respondent that the photograph was not that of Lord Krishna had no legs to stand upon, as the persons depicted in the photograph carried all the signages associated with the Lord. On perusal of the article which the photograph accompanied, the Committee noted that it was a commentary on the marketing of brand “Kamasutra” to target a global audience, be it for promotion of books, tourism or related products. It felt that read in the context of the contents of the article, the accompanying photograph was of no relevance and was particularly irreverent in the context of the headline. This, the Committee felt was gross trivialization of journalism without taking due care to establish that the sentiments of any community were not being affected thereby. The portrayal of Radha Krishna in an article of Kamasutra brand was demeaning the sublime leela of Lord deeply revered by the Hindus. The Committee urged the respondent to appreciate that the domain of ethics is much larger than law and ethicality of an action needs to be judged from a common man’s point of view. It felt that in the instant case, though no malafide could attributed to the paper, the paper did to take appropriate care in selection of the photograph for publication with the article. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint against The Delhi Times and to uphold the complaint against

569 The Economic Times and advise the respondents to give due regard to the observations made above and regulate their actions 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 recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

180) Shri V. Krishnan Versus The Editor Ethical & Stress Management The Telegraph Consultant, New Delhi Kolkata Complaint This complaint dated 20.02.2006 has been filed Shri V. Krishnan, Ethical & Stress Management Consultant, New Delhi and others against The Telegraph, Kolkata for publishing in the issue dated 1.1.2006 an allegedly derogatory news commentary captioned “Back to the Pavilion’ with cartoons amongst others of Sankaracharya of Kanchi, Swami Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, one hand held out in blessing holding the bead string and the other behind the back holding knife dripping blood. Similar complaints were filed by 10 more persons. The commentary was an assessment of standing of various important persons during the year that had come to close the preceding day. The Shankracharya was one of the persons assessed. The impugned write up is reproduced below: Jayendra Saraswati: “His case may have been shifted out of the Supreme Court of India and into his own backyard in Pondicherry upon his plea. But critics believe it ‘s the last headline that Jayendra Saraswati will make for some time to come. ‘Just over a year ago, the Kanchi priest was widely perceived as a holy man. But arrested in the Shankara Raman murder case in November 2004, Saraswati is no longer another word for piety. Instead of leading religious discourses, he spent 2005 in and out of court rooms, demanding special treatment. ‘It was the undiplomatic way in which he presented himself under fire that took a toll on the very image he had built over the years’ says Arya Samaj President Swami Agnivesh. “Clearly, he will never regain that platform again.” The complainant has submitted that the impugned cartoon and commentary is one of those on several others but none of them have been denigrated like the one in question. The complainant sent a protest letter dated 4.1.2006 and after some days the respondent editor returned the same without any accompanying explanation.

570 Written Statement Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Telegraph, Kolkata on 30.03.2006. The respondent publisher filed written statement on behalf of the paper on 6.5.2006 submitting therein that the impugned news article was a spoof and neither the write up nor the cartoon referred to was intended to hurt the sentiments of any religious community or comment on whether his holiness Sri Jayendra Swamigal is guilty of any crime. The respondent has stated that the complainant read too much into the cartoon and article and the allegation in the instant complaint is not applicable. The respondent further stated that the complainant tried to implicate The Telegraph as per his own passion and belief but there was no intention or malice on the part of the respondent. There was also no intention on their part to excite people against His Holiness or to hold any kind of adverse opinion against him. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.1.2006 reiterated what he had stated earlier. He expressed his disappointment and distress over the written statement of the respondent. The complainant prayed the Council to give maximum possible punishment to the editor and the publisher of The Telegraph, Kolkata. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 22.8.2006. The complainant, Shri V Krishnan was present in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated the complaint. He added that the cartoon and the commentary were likely to inflame the passions of the followers of the faith and communalise the situation. He further stated that The Telegraph was habitual of publishing photographs or cartoons which could hurt the sentiments of any community. Very recently a poster depicting Sonia Gandhi as Goddess Durga was published by The Telegraph. In the present case the publication was improper, more so the case was still under trial and the charges had not been proved. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral

571 arguments advanced by the complainant before it. The Committee observed that though Guru Sankracharya was facing charges, due to his status and position he was revered by many and the impugned caricature that attempted to present two different faces of the Swami was bound to hurt their sentiments. Even while discounting any malafide on the part of the paper, the Committee felt that due regard should have been had to the above factors without contributing to the parallel trial being conducted by the media in the case. The Inquiry Committee advised the respondent newspaper, The Telegraph in particular and the press in general to observe greater restraint and caution in publishing such news/photograph/cartoon which may hurt the religious sentiments of any community. With the above observations the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

181) Shri S. Abuthalha Versus The Editor Madurai Tamilian Express Tamil Nadu Chennai, Tamil Nadu Complaint Shri S. Abuthalha, Madurai has filed this complaint dated 23.8.2005 against “Tamilian Express”, a New Indian Express Group Publication, Chennai for spreading baseless false rumours in the name of investigative journalism causing bitterness amongst Hindus and Muslims and promoting enmity between them by publishing a baseless and defamatory article/cover story on 28.7.2005 under the heading “Nehru London Naalai Madurai” (Yesterday London, Madurai Tomorrow – English translation). The complainant alleged that the impugned article was targeted against the Muslim community and a classic example of awkward communal journalism terming the entire Muslim Community as anti-social. The content of the said report drew a parallel with the bomb blasts in London with two murders in Madurai out of religious animosity. The report stated with vengeance that Muslims were planning to bomb Meenakshi Amman temple at Madurai since they had an apprehension that Meenakshi Amman temple would belittle Taj Mahal, if it is declared as one of the wonders in the world. The complainant submitted that the said statement was completely false since the majority would consider Taj Mahal as the national asset whereas Meenakshi Amman Temple is the centre of activity and source of livelihood for a large number of Muslims in Madurai. Many fancy stores, plastic stores, textile stores in and around Meenakshi

572 Amman Temple are owned by Muslims in addition to a large number of Muslim community employed as ‘Salesman’ and ‘manual labour’. Further, though the internet voting to declare Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madurai as one of the wonders of the World was farce, and a racket to enrich some communication network companies it had no authenticity. No Muslim in Madurai could even think of comparing Taj Mahal with Meenakshi Amman Temple though both are unique in their respective spheres, added the complainant. According to the complainant, the report was motivated with religious fanaticism and justified the torture committed on Muslim youths arrested in connection with murder cases, and the worst of all had even pronounced that Muslims were planning to stage bomb blast in Madurai. He submitted that in many cases, Muslims were unnecessarily dragged in cases stage-managed by the intelligentsia. In one such incident, a police informer and five others were arrested for planting crude bombs at Meenakshi Amman Temple to settle a family feud and all the persons involved in the said incident were belonging to majority community. The article further imposed indirect pressure on the police to raid Muslim dominated civilian areas. The said article was completely baseless and an example of communal journalism adapted by the respondent magazine. The complainant submitted that unless the respondents are censured for the writings in their magazine, their vicious communal propaganda promoting enmity between Hindus and Muslim would go unabated. The respondent’s writing had affected the standards of journalistic ethics by committing a processional misconduct. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Tamilian Express, Chennai on 11.11.2005. Written Statement Denying each and every averment contained in the complaint, the respondent editor, Tamilian Express in his written statement dated 20.12.2005 submitted that the article in question was published to inform the general public about the seriousness of bomb blast staged by terrorists in London and Egypt. There was no reference to the Muslim Community and it contained only reference to Muslim Fundamentalists/terrorists and their being a responsible newspaper was least likely to indulge in creating any communal problem. The averment regarding Meenakshi Amman Temple and Taj Mahal appeared in the article was based upon the information gathered from the police authorities. This information had been published only to inform the general public about the activities of Muslim Fundamentalists and not intended to create any hatred and communal clash between Hindus and Muslims. As responsible members of the Press they thought it was fit to place before the public the increasing terrorism and bomb culture in the world and the fear of terrorist attack in India since it

573 was a matter of utmost importance to the general public. The respondent denied the allegation that the magazine “Tamilian Express” was spreading baseless false rumours in the name of investigative journalism causing bitterness among Hindus and Muslims and promoting enmity between them which would precipitate into a communal clash. The respondent stated that the careful reading of the article would make it clear that the article was not directed against any community much less the Muslim community in particular but it was mainly focusing the activities of Muslim fundamentalists. There was no complaint from any quarters including the complainant about the article. Hence, the complainant’s apprehension was without any basis or foundation. The respondent clarified that the article in question was not motivated with religious fanaticism but published to inform the public about the terrorist activities. It was published based upon the criminal cases/complaints pending with the police authorities/ competent courts and on the basis of information gathered by their reporter from higher police officials and Intelligence officers. He pointed out that the criminal complaints filed in respect of some of the incidents mentioned in the article are even now pending before the criminal courts for trial. The respondent while denying the allegation that they had committed any professional misconduct submitted that the article had not affected the standards of the journalistic ethics or norms of journalistic conduct in respect of the right to reply of the complainant, as the article was not directed against him. However, if the complainant felt anything to be published in response to the matters contained in the article he could send the same and they would publish the same subject to constraints of space and editing. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 12.01.2006 for information. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 22.9.2006 at Hyderabad. Shri S.M.A. Jinha, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri K.S. Prabhakar, Sr. Personnel Officer, Express Publication Ltd., Hyderabad was present on behalf of the respondent newspaper, Tamilian Express. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant’s counsel in his oral and written submissions submitted that the respondent newspaper while reporting about bomb blast in London and the possibility of similar attacks in Madurai, projected that the Muslim Community was behind such attacks and the terrorists were giving training to the Muslim youths in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. Thereby the whole community had been maligned. The respondent submitted that the news report in question was not intended against Muslim Community and there was no reference to the Muslim

574 Community in the news report. The respondent submitted that the newspaper made a reference to the fundamentalists and terrorists and the information was published to inform the general public about the activities of the fundamentalists and it was not intended to create any hatred among the communities. The paper was very careful to ensure that it did not contribute to the communal tension and thus did not name any community. The respondent agreed on the advice of the Committee to clarify the position in the columns of their newspaper. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee perused the material on record and the submissions made by the parties. The Inquiry Committee opined that the news report “Yesterday London, Madurai Tomorrow” was about fundamentalist activities and there was no aspersion as such on the Muslim Community. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent had given a statement that the impugned news report was not intended against the Muslim Community and it was against the fundamentalists who were harming the public of the country and had agreed to publish such clarificatory note in the column of the newspaper “Tamilian Express”. The Inquiry Committee on consideration of the undertaking given by the respondent to publish the clarificatory note decided to dispose of the complaint with a direction to the respondent, “Tamilian Express” newspaper to send the clipping along with its English translation to the complainant for information and to the Council for record. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with above directions. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.

182) Shri Maongwati Aier Versus The Editor Deputy Resident Commissioner Northeast Herald, English Daily Nagaland House, New Delhi Dimapur, Nagaland Complaint This complaint dated 14.10.2005 has been filed by Shri Maongwati Aier, Deputy Resident Commissioner, Nagaland House, New Delhi, on behalf of the Govt of Nagaland against Northeast Herald, an English daily, Dimapur, Nagaland for publication of an allegedly objectionable news item captioned “Ulterior motive behind the Tobu imbroglio” in its issue dated 17.8.2005. It is alleged in the impugned news item that the carelessness and insensitivity of the DAN government in regard to the highly charged and sensitive Tobu issue has been exposed and the Rio government deliberately evaded

575 resolving the Tobu imbroglio to fulfil his hidden agenda of dividing the Nagas on tribal lines while the innocent Konyaks and Changs brothers were not aware of the game plan. It is also alleged that the Chief Minister’s pretentious appeal to the Konyaks, in the wake of the Konyak Union’s strong warning, was only to eyewash the people of Nagaland but that was his calculated creation. He however failed to realise that he was playing with fire on the tribal card. The State administrative machinery failed miserably and clearly exposed the kind of administration the State is running today under the DAN government. According to the complainant, on June 7, 2005 at around 7 A.M. certain unknown persons abducted nine persons while they were proceeding to Mon from Tobu. When the police came to know of the incident, they immediately sprang into action but in the meanwhile, four of the abducted were killed by the unknown miscreants while the remaining five were traced out. Despite best efforts of the State machinery, the abductors could not be traced out, but the government was not leaving any stone unturned in apprehending the culprits. The Tobu issue had been the bone of contention between the Changs and Konyaks for the past two and half decades and there had always been sporadic incidents of violence involving these two communities. The complainant has stated that the present Chief Minister of Nagaland, Mr. Rio has been striving to bring the two decades old conflict to an end and towards this end, has also appointed a Committee for finding an amicable solution and the report submitted by the High Level Committee has been actively considered, added the complainant. He has alleged that the impugned news item has gravely affected the maintenance of possible equilibrium between the two communities. They put the respondent paper to notice dated 7.10.2005 to rectify the objectionable news, but the respondent took no corrective step. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, ‘Northeast Herald’ on 7.12.2005 but no written statement has been filed. Acknowledgement card, as a proof of the service of the notice, is on record. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 14.7.2006. The complainant along with his counsel Shri A.P. Mukundan, appeared before the Committee. Shri Abhay N. Jha represented the respondent newspaper. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The counsel for the complainant filed before the Committee his written arguments dated 13.7.2006 reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint and filing further evidence in support of their contention. They also

576 reiterated that this was a very sensitive issue that created ethnic dispute. The government was doing what it could do to save the situation, but it was necessary to ensure that media reports did not create any further misunderstanding. The representative of the respondent newspaper pleaded that they did not receive a copy of the complaint. He requested for a copy of the complaint and for the adjournment of the matter. Matter Adjourned Even though the postal records showed that the respondent had duly received the show cause notice of the Council dated 7.12.2005 along with the copy of the complaint, another copy of the complaint was handed over to the representative of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee directed him to file the written statement within six weeks from the date of hearing i.e. 14.7.2006, with a copy to the complainant, who would be at liberty to file rejoinder within three weeks from the date of receipt of the written statement with a copy to the respondent. The Inquiry Committee decided to adjourn the matter for being listed before it at one of its next meeting. The directions of the Inquiry Committee were also conveyed to the respondent Editor, Northeast Herald vide Council’s letter dated 23.8.2006. But the paper failed to file any defence for the impugned reports. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.12.2006 at New Delhi. Shri Maongwati Aier, Deputy Resident Commissioner, Nagaland, New Delhi appeared in person, while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Northeast Herald, Dimapur. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant submitted that this was a very sensitive issue of ethnic dispute. The government had set up a High Level Team for finding an amicable solution. The police had raided 16 villages in the area to nab the culprits and exercise was on. The Nagaland government was talking with the tribal groups and wanted to save the situation but due to publication of such news articles, the image and efforts of the government had been affected. The complainant further submitted that neither the respondent newspaper published any clarification nor took any corrective steps. The complainant further submitted that in view of the delicate situation in the tribal areas, the newspapers had a duty to publish the news after proper verification but in the instant matter the respondent Northeast Herald published the objectionable news item captioned “Ulterior motive behind the Tobu imbroglio” without ascertaining correct facts. The Press Secretary, Chief

577 Minister, Government of Nagaland, Kohima asked the editor vide letter dated 8.10.2005 to publish apology and correct the allegation, but there was no response. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and oral arguments put forth before it. It noted that the respondent newspaper published the report on a sensational and sensitive issue. The government of Nagaland had appointed a High Level Committee for finding an amicable solution to the dispute, whose report was under active consideration. Publication of the impugned report at such time had the tendency to adversely affect the peace efforts. The Inquiry Committee also noted that due to publication of such critical news article the maintenance of possible equilibrium between two communities was gravely affected. The Inquiry Committee expressed its displeasure over the attitude of the respondent newspaper and noted that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the respondent paper did not take any corrective measures. Its failure to file written statement before the Press Council of India, as well as the failure to avail the opportunity to defend the charges made in the complaint established that the respondent had no defence to offer. The Inquiry Committee was of the opinion that in matters of such sensitive nature the newspaper should exercise due caution and should publish the news after proper verification from the authorities. Even at the post publication stage, corrective steps could help to remedy the situation. The respondent had failed on all the counts. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to uphold the complaint and warn the editor, Northeast Herald, Dimapur and to be careful in future in publishing unverified news reports tending to divide the communities and affect the peace process. Decision of the Council The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

183) Shri G.S.Hiranyappa Versus The Editor Bangalore The Asian Age New Delhi Complaint This complaint dated 5.2.2005 was filed by Shri G.S.Hiranyappa, Bangalore, against The Asian Age, New Delhi, alleging publication of allegedly anti-national and provocative articles in its issues dated 16.10.2004 and

578 4.11.2004 captioned “Beyond uncertainty” by Ms. Seema Mustafa, reporting from Islamabad, on the Kashmir Issue, subsequent to the meeting between Dr. Manmohan Singh and Gen. Pervez Musharaf, and “Give Afzal Justice” by Ms. Tabassum, relating to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of attack on the Parliament House in December 2001, respectively. The complainant alleged the writer/author of the impugned article Ms. Seema Mustafa is prejudiced against Hindus. Regarding the second article, he objected that the newspaper The Asian Age reprinted a translation of an appeal in ‘Kashmir Times’ by the wife of a convicted terrorist, in which the woman brazenly claims that the Judge in Delhi, who convicted her husband, was ‘communal’. The complainant stated that the tenor and contents of the impugned articles openly espouse Muslim terrorism and separatism. The complainant further submitted that such wild accusations should not go unpunished. The complainant submitted that he wrote twice to the respondent but no response has been received. He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Written Statement Show cause notice to the respondent editor, The Asian Age, New Delhi, was issued on 14.9.2005, but no written statement was filed. No Appearance The matter came up for hearing on 5.12.2006 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee noted that none of the parties had entered appearance before it to assist the Inquiry Committee in arriving at a conclusion. The Committee noted that while the role and responsibility of the media in breaking down communal fences and promoting harmony and national interest should not be undermined it was also essential to allow the citizens their freedom of speech. The press of India has necessarily to judge and decide by balancing both and it recommended to the Council to close the case with the above observation. 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. F.N.: The complainant in a letter dated 30.11.2006 received after the date of hearing intimated his inability to attend the hearing on 5.12.2006 and requested rescheduling the hearing at Bangalore.

579 184) Dr. Dharamveer Versus Dainik Jagran Secretary Panipat Paropkarani Sabha Haryana Ajmer, Rajasthan Complaint Dr. Dharamveer, Secretary, Paropkarani Sabha, Ajmer, Rajasthan in a compliant dated 8.8.2004 against Dainik Jagran, Panipat, Haryana has brought to the notice of the Press Council of India, the publication of an advertisement in the guise of news item under the caption translated as ‘Uncivilized attempt to suppress the truth’ in its issue dated 11.7.2004. The complainant averred that its contents are contrary to facts and have the tendency to hurt the religious sensibilities of the Sikh community and Arya Samaj: The advertisement condemn the alleged attempts by some miscreants to create disturbance in the religious congregation at Yamunanagar , Punjab in July 04 objecting that Guru Nanak Devji has been termed as contemporary and guru of Sant Kabir. It quotes from a book “Satyaarth Prakash” written by Maharishi Dayananad to say, Guru Nanak Devji has been described as “fool” and “fake Guru” even Guru Granth Sahib has been called a bunch of books collection from small books. The complainant alleged that the impugned news item/advertisement has the tendency to provoke hatred and ill feeling between the communities. According to the complainant, the impugned publication had been inserted by Saint Rampal Maharaj (though the advertisement could not identify the advertiser) to cause communal tension between Arya Samaj and Sikh Community. In the so-called advertisement, facts were narrated in distorted manner to express the ill will of the advertiser. The complainant issued letter dated 18.8.2004 to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran to tender apology but received no response. No Written Statement Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 10.02.2005. Despite time bound reminders dated 17.6.2005 and 24.01.2006, no written statement was filed. Appearance before the Inquiry Committee The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Udaipur on 26.2.2007. The complainant Dr. Dharamveer, Secretary, Paropkarani Sabha, Ajmer appeared in person while Shri Birendra Kumar Mishra, Legal Advisor was present on behalf of Dainik Jagran. Submissions before the Inquiry Committee The complainant submitted that the impugned advertisement published

580 in Dainik Jagran had been published without identifying their advertiser, which was against the rules. It was also presented as a news report. The complainant further submitted that the advertisement carrying incorrect facts, tended to arouse ill feeling between two communities and also to divide them. The complainant added that the advertisement was inserted by Saint Rampal Maharaj who was languishing in jail. The complainant filed clippings of the news about Saint Rampal Maharaj for flaring up communal disturbances. The complainant stated that Saint Rampal Maharaj was spending about Rs.50,000/- every day on advertisements. He concluded that the comments about Guru Granth Sahib in the advertisement were uncalled for. Shri Birendar Kumar, Advocate appearing for Dainik Jagran submitted that this was an advertisement thus they could not be responsible for its contents. He also prayed that the newspaper needed time to find out the name of the advertiser. The counsel stated that in case the advertisement offended the susceptibilities, the newspaper might tender apology. Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee at the very outset expressed displeasure over non filing of the written statement by the respondent Dainik Jagran. The Inquiry Committee proceeded to examine the impugned publication dated 11.7.2004 appearing in Dainik Jagran with footnote ‘Adv’. The Inquiry Committee observed that the respondent Dainik Jagran had faulted in the publication on the following counts: (a) the advertiser had not been identified, (b) it gave the appearance of being a news report, (c) the contents of the advertisement tended to promote ill will and disturb harmony. The Inquiry Committee noted that it was a paid news in the grab of advertisement and intended to disturb the social fabric. Perhaps for this reason, the advertiser had not identified himself and for this reason the newspaper should have observed extra caution to check the contents before accepting the advertisement out of commercial considerations. Having not done so, the paper could not disown the responsibility for allowing the publication. Of the norms developed by the Council, the following are on four with the case in hand : 36 (iii) Newspaper shall not publish advertisements, which have a tendency to malign or hurt the religious sentiments of any community or section of society. (vi) Journalistic propriety demands that advertisements must be clearly distinguishable from editorial matter carried in the newspaper. (xii) An editor shall be responsible for all matters, including advertisements published in the newspaper. If

581 responsibility is disclaimed, this shall be explicitly stated beforehand. The impugned publication offended against the above norms of journalistic ethics. In view of the foregoing, it decided to uphold the complaint and recommended to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper, Dainik Jagran, Panipat edition. It further recommended that the Council’s adjudication be sent to DAVP, RNI and 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.

q

582