Decisions Rendered by the Press Council Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
£ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ |ÉäºÉ {ÉÉÊ®•Én Press Council of India ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ £É´ÉxÉ, 1,2 +ÉÉè® 3,(iÉãÉ), {ÉEäºÉ 4, 8 ºÉÉÒ.VÉÉÒ.+ÉÉä BÉEÉìà{ÉãÉäBÉDºÉ, ãÉÉävÉÉÒ ®Éäb, xÉ<Ç ÉÊnããÉÉÒ-110 003 Soochna Bhawan, 1st, 2 nd & 3 rd, (floor), Phase 4, 8 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 É24366745-749 Ext. 103 & 327 Sl No. File No.14/303/03-04-PCI 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. 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. Recommendations 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 release 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 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 Council 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. £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ |ÉäºÉ {ÉÉÊ®•Én Press Council of India ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ £É´ÉxÉ, 1,2 +ÉÉè® 3,(iÉãÉ), {ÉEäºÉ 4, 8 ºÉÉÒ.VÉÉÒ.+ÉÉä BÉEÉìà{ÉãÉäBÉDºÉ, ãÉÉävÉÉÒ ®Éäb, xÉ<Ç ÉÊnããÉÉÒ-110 003 Soochna Bhawan, 1st, 2 nd & 3 rd, (floor), Phase 4, 8 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 É24366745-749 Ext. 103 & 327 Sl.No. F.No. 14/558/04-05-PCI 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”. 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 females 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 insurances 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.