34th 2012-2013 Annual Report
April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013
Press Council of India, New Delhi PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
Compendium of Adjudications (April 1, 2012- March 31, 2013)
New Delhi Printed at : Chandu Press, D-97, Shakarpur, Delhi-110 092 Contents
Preface
Index of Adjudications of the Council for -- 1 the Period April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013
Adjudications of the Council -- 16
PREFACE
The Press Council of India is required under the statute not only to promote the standards of the press but also to protect it from any onslaught or threats to its freedom. Such threats normally emanate from the authorities of the governments. The Press Council of India enjoys adjudicatory jurisdiction over any decision/action of the government that may be, or may even perceived to be, an attempt to control the freedom of journalists. In its adjudicatory function it also considers the complaints made by public or governmental authorities against the Press for violating the ethics in journalism.
I am happy to state that I have, in keeping with the mandate of the Press Council attempted to inculcate the ethos of ethics (rather than punishment) by attempting settlement between the parties or allowing the respondents to make amends for their lapses. This, I feel, is how the Council should function as mediation is, in my opinion, the democratic approach. Adjudications rendered by the Council, including those in which principles of far reaching importance to guide the conduct of the press and the authorities were laid down, during the period under review have been comprehensively covered in this Compendium which I hope and trust the readers will find useful and informative as the earlier ones.
Markandey Katju Chairman Press Council of India
Index of Adjudications of the Council for the Period April 1, 2012- March 31, 2013
Sl. Parties Date of Decision No. Harassment of Newsmen 1 Complaint of Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Correspondent, April 26, 2012 Black Tiger, Hindi Daily, Khiri, U.P. against Shri K.P. Singh, Forest Ranger, Gola Range, Khiri, U.P. 2 Complaint of Shri Kamlesh Trivedi, Correspondent, Rahat ,, Times, Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. against Shri Yogender Singh, S.H.O., Police Station-Gola, Khiri, U.P. 3 Complaint of Ali Mohd., Journalist, Apradh Today, ,, Sitapur, U.P. against Shri R.P. Sahi, SHO, Sardar Harmeet Singh and other local police authorities, Sitapur, U.P. 4 Complaint of Choudhary Ved Prakash Chahar, City Chief, ,, Aaj, Agra, Uttar Pradesh against local police authorities and anti-social elements. 5 Complaint of Shri Anil Shukla, Reporter, Aaj, Lakhimpur ,, Khiri, Uttar Pradesh against the Forest Officer, South Forest Department, Khiri, U.P. 6 Complaint of Shri Anand Singh, District Representative, ,, Aaj, Hindi Dainik, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh against District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. 7 Complaint of Shri Lallan Prasad Gupta, Correspondent, ,, Amar Ujala, Mau, U.P. against anti-social elements. 8 Complaint of Shri Vijay Prakash, Representative, Sharp ,, Reporter, Azamgarh, U.P. against the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, U.P. 9 Complaint of Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Correspondent, ,, Maya Awadh, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh against Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. 10 Complaint of Shri Ramanand Singh Chandel, District ,, Correspondent, Saral Sahara, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh against the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh.
1 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 11. Complaint of Shri Omprakash Baghel, Editor, Duniya Ek April 26, 2012 Nazar Main, Aligarh, U.P. against anti-social elements, Aligarh, U.P. 12 Suo-motu inquiry initiated against the Government of ,, Uttar Pradesh regarding arrest of Muzaffarnagar based journalist. 13 Complaint of Shri Ashok Rawat, Chief Editor, Braj ,, Kranti, Hathras, Uttar Pradesh against the Divisional Joint Education Director, Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. 14 Complaint of Shri Rajiv Yadav, Journalist, Amar Ujala, ,, District Farukhabad, U.P. against local police authorities. 15 Complaint of Shri Shashi Bhushan Dubey, Bureau Chief, ,, Vindhya Bharat, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh against the local police authorities and liquor mafia, Mirzapur, U.P. 16 Complaint of Shri Sudhir Jain, Journalist, Swadesh, Jhansi, ,, Uttar Pradesh against Additional District Magistrate, Mauranipur and SHO, Mauranipur, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. 17 Complaint of Shri Ganesh Kumar Shukla, Reporter, ,, Adarsh Panchayati Raj, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh against (i) Shri Akhilesh Pandey, CO, (ii) Shri Mahesh Singh, SHO, Rajapur, (iii) Shri Nandlal Singh, SHO, Pahari, U.P. 18 Complaint of Shri P. Dillibabu Reddy, Editor, Asha Jyothi December 21, & Vice-President, Andhra Pradesh Working Journalists 2012 Federation, Chitoor (A.P.) against Shri I.Y.R. Krishna Rao, Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams, Tirupati. 19 Complaint of Md. Hashim Azad Khan, Chief Editor, ,, Azad Par Julm, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 20 Complaint of Shri Suresh Gandhi, Correspondent, Dainik ,, Hindustan and Dainik Aaj Tak Channel, Bhadoi, Uttar Pradesh against Shri R.K. Singh, Inspector and Shri Rambali Saroj, Chowki, Nai Bazar, Bhadoi, U.P.
2 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 21 Complaint of Shri Santosh Kumar Dixit, Correspondent, December 21, Amar Ujala, Jaunpur (U.P.) against Shri Ram Chander 2012 Gautam, S.H.O., Sarpatahan, Jaunpur, U.P. 22 Complaint of Shri Sanjay Kumar ‘Punnu’ Journalist and ,, President, Shobha Club, Rohtas (Bihar) against Shri Ranjit Mishra, City Superintendent of Police, Darbange, Bihar. 23 Complaint of Shri Ramanand Soni, Bureau Chief, Dainik February 18, Patrika, Bhind, M.P. against Shri Chanchal Shekhar, 2013 Superintendent of Police, Bhind, M.P. 24 Complaint of Shri Jaiprakash Bhardwaj, Correspondent, ,, Chetna Manch, Sahibabad, Gaziabad, U.P. against Shri Chandev Ram Jatav, Ration Dealer, Ghaziabad. 25 Complaint of Shri Amlendu Upadhyay, Assistant- Editor, ,, Swabhiman Times, Ghaziabad, U.P. against Shri Banvari Lal Kushwaha, CMD, Garima Milk Industries and Swabhiman Times and Shri Nirmalendu Saha, Editor, Swabhiman Times, Delhi. 26 Complaint of Shri C.S. Kalra, Editor, University Today, ,, New Delhi against the Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Facilities to the Press 27 Complaint of Shri Shishir Kumar Gupta, Publisher, April 26, 2012 Hukoomat Express, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh against the DAVP, New Delhi. 28 Complaint of Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain, Chief Editor/ August 27, 2012 Publisher, Daily Urdu Action, Bhopal against the DAVP. 29 Complaint of Shri Veerbhadrappa Lingappa Jherkunte, ,, Editor, Jantadhish, Latur, Maharashtra against the SDM, Udgir and RNI. 30 Complaint of Dr. Ravi Rastogi, Editor/Publisher, December 21, Himalaya Aur Hindustan, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand against 2012 the Director General, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
3 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 31 Complaint of Shri Jai Prakash Tamkoria, Publisher/ February 18, Correspondent, Chhattisgarh Vaibhav, Korba, Chhattisgarh 2013 against The Directorate, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 32 Complaint of Shri Subhash Jain, Chief Editor, Aaj ,, Ki Janta, Indore, M.P. against Department of Public Relations, Government of Madhya Pradesh, M.P. 33 Complaint of Shri Raghunath Singh, Dy. General Manager, ,, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur against the Mayor, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. 34 Complaint of Shri Raghunath Singh, Dy. General Manager, ,, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur against I&PRD, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
Principles and Publication 35 Complaints of Chairman, Employment Promotion Council August 27, 2012 of Indian Personnel, Mumbai against the Editors, Global Jobs (Times of India), Mumbai, Assignment Abroad Times, Mumbai and Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai 36 Complaint of Ms. Suchita Kumbhar, General Secretary, ,, Network by People Living with HIV & AIDS, Mumbai against the Editor, Mid Day, Mumbai 37 Complaint of Shri Narayan S. Navti, Joint Chief Electoral ,, Officer, Panaji, Goa against the Editor, Navprabha, Panaji, Goa 38 Complaint of Shri Abu Asim Azmi, (Ex-M.P.) and then ,, MLA, Maharashtra, Mumbai against the Editor, The Urdu Times, Mumbai 39 Complaints of Shri P.P. Kapur, Haryana State Convenor, December 21, Labour Organization IFTU, Haryana against the Editors 2012 (i) Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar, (ii) Dainik Bhaskar, Panipat and (iii) Dainik Jagran, Panipat. 40 Complaint of Shri Shamsher Singh, State General ,, Secretary, Indian Justice Party, Ambala, Haryana against the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Ambala Cantt., Haryana. 4 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 41 Complaint of Shri Lokesh Kumar Malik, Advocate, December 21, Sonepat, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, 2012 Panipat, Haryana. 42 Complaint of Shri N. Konda Reddy, Indian National ,, Congress Worker, Kadapa District, A.P. against the Editor, Sakshi Daily, Hyderabad, A.P. 43 Complaint of Prof. M.K. Vasantha, Chairman, Akashdeep ,, Enclave Residence Welfare Society (AERWS), Roorkee, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Haridwar 44 Suo-motu actions on reference from Election Commission ,, of India against Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Jagran, Prabhat Khabar, Aaj, Rashtriya Sahara, The Hindustan Times, Purvanchal Ki Raah, and Dainik Udyog and Vyapar Times for publication of allegedly ‘Paid News’ during election in the grab of news. 45 Complaint of Shri Sushanta Swain, Orissa against the ,, Editor, Sambad, Bhubaneswar, Orissa. 46 Complaint of the President, NRI Group Housing Palam ,, Vihar, Condominium, Gurgaon, Haryana against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi. 47 Complaint of Shri Aroon Kumar Sen, New Delhi and others ,, against the Editor, Community Samvada, New Delhi. 48 Complaint of Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, ,, Anti Corruption Committee, Thane against the Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata 49 Complaint of Shri Ratnesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate, Patna, ,, Bihar against the Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Patna, Bihar. 50 Complaint of Shri Riyaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate, Badayun ,, against the Editor, Health Plus, Delhi. 51 Complaint of Shri Ramesh Pakhale, Indore, M.P. against February 18, the Editor, Patrika, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2013 52 Complaint of Shri Onkar Singh, Balaganj, Mandsaur, M.P. ,, against the Editor, Dashpur Darshan, Mandsaur, M.P. 53 Complaint of Shri Manmeet Singh Goindi, Administrator, ,, Sports Authority of India, Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range, New Delhi against the Editor, Hindustan Times, New Delhi. 5 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 54 Complaint of Shri Anil Subramanium, Under Secretary February 18, to Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi 2013 against the Editor, Real Politik, English Magazine, New Delhi. 55 Complaint of Shri Asgar Hussain, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar ,, Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Press and Defamation 56 Complaint of Shri Mahender Tripathi, Chairman, Press April 26, Club Ayodhya, Faizabad, U.P. against the Editor, Shri Ram 2012 Janam Bhumi, Faizabad, U.P. 57 Complaint of Shri Vimal Chandra Srivastava, Managing ,, Director, Uttar Pradesh Minorities, Financial and Development Coporation Ltd. Alpsankhyak Vittya Avam Vikas Nigam Ltd., Lucknow, U.P. against the Editor, Daily News Activist, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. 58 Complaint of Shri Syed Mustafa Husain Naqvi “Aseef ,, Jaisi”, Lucknow, against the Editor, Avadhnama, Lucknow, U.P. 59 Complaint of Shri Ram Bahadur, Lecturer Rampyare Shiv ,, Shankar Inter College, Bahraich, U.P. against the Editor, Hindustan, Lucknow 60 Complaint of Shri A.K. Yadav, Managing Director, ,, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Kanpur, U.P. 61 Complaint of Dr. Vijay Agarwal, Secretary/Director, ,, Education Council of India, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Patna, Bihar. 62 Complaint of Shri R.B. Gupte, Secretary/Registrar, ,, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Financial Services against the Editor, Voice of Lucknow, Lucknow, U.P. 63 Complaint of Shri Shivam Sharma, Advocate, Lucknow ,, against the Editor, India Today, Magazine, New Delhi. 64 Complaints of Dr. J.N. Pandey, Chairman, Central Women’s ,, College of Education, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against the Editors, (i) Amar Ujala (ii) Hindustan (iii) Dainik Jagran, Uttar Pradesh.
6 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 65 Complaint of Shri Kanubhai Jethabhai Desai, Editor/ August 27, Owner/Publisher/Printer, Hello Khelaru weekly, Mehsana, 2012 Gujarat against the Editor, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad 66 Complaint of Dr. Lisa Warden, Director, DOGSTOP, ,, Ahmedabad, Gujarat against the Editor, Ahmedabad Mirror, Gujarat 67 Complaint of Shri Yusuf Hakim, Chairman, Iqraa Charitable ,, Foundation, Ahmedabad against the Editor, Ahmedabad Mirror, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 68 Complaint of Ms. Nicky R. Singh, Rajkot, Gujarat against ,, the Editor, Sanj Samachar, Rajkot, Gujarat 69 Complaint of Shri Dharmesh Thakkorbhai Patel, Surat, ,, Gujarat against the Editor, Jang-e-Gujarat, Gujarat 70 Complaint of the Chief Executive Officer, Ichalkaranji ,, Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited Kolhapur, Maharashtra, against the Editor, Daily Lokmat, Kohlapur, Maharashtra 71 Complaint of Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, ,, Anti Corruption Committee, Thane, Maharashtra against the Editor, Loksatta, Mumbai 72 Complaints of Shri Sandesh D. Karkhanis, Thane, ,, Maharashtra against the Editors (i) Loksatta, (ii) Sakaal and (iii) Navshakti, Maharashtra 73 Complaint of Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, Chartered Accountant, ,, Nagpur against the Editor, Sales Tax Review, Mumbai 74 Complaint of M/s Fullerton Indian Credit Co. Ltd., Mumbai ,, against the Editor, Singrauli Ka Tufan, Singrauli, M.P. 75 Complaint of Shri Dilip Kumar Gokulchand Sananda, MLA, ,, Khamgaon Constituency, Buldhana, Maharashtra against the Editor, Prashnakal, Evening Daily, Maharashtra 76 Complaint of Shri Sunil Madhusudan Golkonda,President, ,, The Barshi City Goldsmith Association, Barshi, Solapur, Maharashtra against the Editor, Barshi Uday, Solapur, Maharashtra 77 Complaint of Shri Quari Mohd. Shahnawaz Quadri Rizvi, ,, Thane, Maharashtra against the Editor, Ek Aur Jung, Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra
7 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 78 Complaint of Shri Sanjay Sanyal, AGM (HR), Nuclear August 27, Power Corporation of India Ltd., Thane, Maharashtra 2012 against the Editor, Jagat Bharti, Thane, Maharashtra 79 Complaint of Ms. Irene Dhar Malik, Mumbai against the ,, Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai 80 Complaint of Shri Om Prakash, Secretary, Information December 21, Technology, Rural Development, Panchayati Raj and 2012 Cooperation, Government of Uttarakhand against the Editor, Shivalik Blitz, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 81 Complaints of Col. Sanjay Dikshit, Colonal General Staff, ,, Northern Comd. GS (IW) and Shri K. Skandan, Joint Secretary (K), Ministry of Home Affairs against the Editor, Kashmir Times, Jammu (J&K). 82 Complaint of Col. Sushil Mann, Colonel General Staff, ,, Northern Comd GS (IW) against the Editor, Kashmir Times, Jammu. 83 Complaint of Shri Amrik Singh, DIG (Retd.), Moga, Punjab ,, against the Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh. 84 Complaint of Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS, Divisional ,, Forest Officer (P), Hissar, Haryana against the Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh 85 Complaint of Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS, Panchkula, ,, Haryana against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Chandigarh. 86 Complaint of Shri R.N. Manchanda, Spokesperson, Sales ,, Tax Department, Government of Haryana, Sonepat, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Panipat 87 Complaint of Shri R. N. Manchanda, Spokesperson, Sales ,, Tax Department, Governmnt of Haryana, Sonepat, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Panipat. 88 Complaint of Shri Vaidya Jagjit Singh, Chandigarh ,, Ayurvedic Centre, Chandigarh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jalandhar. 89 Complaint of the Registrar, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi ,, University, Katra against the Managing Editor and Reporter, Early Times, Jammu.
8 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 90 Complaint of the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur December 21, District, Hamirpur H.P.) against the Editor, Aap Ka Faisla, 2012 Hamirpur. 91 Complaint of Shri V.K. Javad, Kerala against the Editor, ,, Chandrika Daily, Kerala. 92 Complaint of Ms. Pooja Bandu Patil, Karnataka against ,, Shri M.D. Mulla, Press Reporter and the Editor, Sakal, Marathi Daily, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. 93 Complaint of Miss Annamma Verghese, Kottayam against ,, the Editor, Zymin Ryotu, Nellore. 94 Complaint of Prof. Y.R. Hara Gopal Reddy, Ex-Vice ,, Chancellor, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur against the Editor, Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad, AP. 95 Complaint of the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, ,, Guntur, A.P. against the Editor, Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad, AP. 96 Complaints of Shri Ram Sewak Verma, Lucknow against ,, the Editors, (i) Dainik Hindustan and (ii) Amar Ujala, Lucknow. 97 Complaint of Dr. Jagdish K. Dadhich S.E.O., Mumbai ,, against the Editor, Mid-Day, Mumbai. 98 Complaint of Lt. Col. A.B. Sawarkar, Retd. Secretary, ,, Army Welfare Cooperative Housing Society, Pune against the Editor, Daily News & Analysis, Pune Edition, Pune. 99 Complaints of Ms. M.C. Borwankar, Commissioner of ,, Police, Pune, Maharashtra against the Editors, (i) Pune Mirror, Pune and (ii) Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai. 100 Complaint of M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd, Mumbai against ,, the Editor, Business India, Mumbai. 101 Complaint of Shri Naveen Jindal, M.P. (Lok Sabha) against ,, the Editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi. 102 Complaint of Shri Mitanram Premi, Sub Inspector (Retd.), ,, U.P. Police against the Editor, Aj, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 103 Complaint of Smt. Manorama Ghildiyal, Principal, Primary ,, School, Kathola, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
9 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 104 Complaint of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, Gwalior against December 21, the Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. 2012 105 Complaint of Dr. R.K. Kotnala, Secretary, Society for ,, Scientific Values, New Delhi against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi. 106 Complaint of Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, ,, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane against the Editor, Tarun Bharat, Kolhapur. 107 Complaint of Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, ,, Anti Corruption Committee, Thane against the Editor, Bhoomi, Jamnagar, Gujarat 108 Complaint of Shri Parshuram M Diwanad, Pune, ,, Maharashtra against the Editor, Swarvihar, Pune, Maharashtra. 109 Complaint of Dr. Prabhjot Kaur, Guru Nanak Hospital, ,, Karnal, Haryana against the Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh. 110 Complaint of Shri Inderpal Singh, Registrar, Engineering ,, College Cell, Directorate of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh against the Editor, Hindustan Times, Mohali. 111 Complaint of Shri Manoj Monga, Authorised Signatory, ,, M/s. Videocon Industries Limited, Okhla, New Delhi against the Editor, Raj Express, Bhopal, M.P. 112 Complaint of Shri Jawahar Shankar Kumar, Executive ,, President, Bihar State Stenographer/Clerk Union, Samastipur, Bihar against the Editor, Prabhat Khabar, Patna, Bihar. 113 Complaint of Shri Vijay Kumar Ojha, Deputy Director, ,, Department of Mines and Minerals, Ranchi against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 114 Complaint of Dr. Ashok Kumar Tomar, Retired Principal, ,, National Inter College, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jhansi. 115 Complaint of the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Malkangiri ,, (Orissa) against the Editor, Nai Dunia, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. 10 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 116 Complaint of Smt. Laxmipriya Behera, Jajpur, Orissa December 21, against the Editor, Sambad, Orissa. 2012 117 Complaint of Shri Dilip Kumar Singh, Vice President, ,, Heritage Institute of Hotel & Tourism, Agra against the Editor, Aj, Agra. 118 Complaint of Shri Inderjeet Bishnoi, Member, District ,, Council, Sriganganagar against the Editor, Sandhya Border Times, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. 119 Complaint of Shri Yushu Narang, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan ,, against the Editor, Kanoon Ke Rakhwale, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 120 Complaint of Shri K.L. Soni, Ex-District President, BJP ,, Unit, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Guru Express, Mandsaur, M.P. 121 Complaint of Rameshwar Soni, Member, Patient Welfare February 18, Committee, Kushi, District Dhar, M.P. against the Editor, 2013 Nai Duniya, Indore, M.P. 122 Complaints of Dr. Smriti Ratan Mishr, BRCC, Janpad ,, Siksha Kendra, Dhar, M.P. against the Editors, (i) City Blast (ii) Sandhya Dainik 6 PM, Indore, M.P. 123 Complaints of Dr. Beena Singh, Head, Department of ,, Zoology, Government of K.R.G., PG College, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh against the Editors (i) People’s Samachar (ii) Dainik Bhaskar (iii) Rajasthan Patrika (iv) Nai Duniya. 124 Complaint of Shri Shrikant Choudhary, Civil Judge, Damoh, ,, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 125 Complaint of Shri Daya Shankar Shrivastava, Additional ,, Programme Officer, MGNREGA, Dindori, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Raj Express, Jabalpur, M.P. 126 Complaint of Dr. Anil Kumar Bhargava, M.P. against the ,, Editor, Shabd Dot Com, M.P. 127 Complaint of Shri Balchand Jain, Kareli, District Narsingh ,, Pur, M.P. against the Editor, Haribhoomi, Jabalpur, M.P.
11 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 128 Complaint of Shri S. Faheem Ahmed, General Manager, February 18, Government Opium & Alkaloid Works, Ministry of Finance, 2013 Department of Revenue, Neemuch, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. 129 Complaint of Shri Akhilesh Jha, IPS, Superintendent of ,, Police, Panchmadhi, M.P. against the Editor, Raj Express, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 130 Complaint of Shri P.V. Sudhakaran, Administrator, Universal ,, Institute of Legal Studies, Bhopal, M.P. against the Editor, The Hindustan Times, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 131 Complaint of Smt. Neeta Jain, Advocate, President, Water ,, Works Department, Durg, Chhattisgarh against the Editor, Dainik Navbharat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 132 Complaint of Dr. Devender Singh, Senior Medical Officer, ,, District Hospital, Sidhi, Hospital Road, Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Navbharat, Bhopal, M.P. 133 Complaint of Shri Sukhdev Singh Jangid, President, ,, Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Brahmin Mahasabha, Indore, M.P. against the Editor, Lord Vishvakarma International, Tonk, Rajasthan. 134 Complaint of Shri N. K. Jain, Bhopal, M.P. against the ,, Editor, Raj Express, Bhopal, M.P. 135 Complaint of Shri Umashankar Prasad Thakur and others of ,, Patna, Bihar against the Editor, Aaj, Patna. 136 Complaint of Shri Lalit Srivastava, Kanpur, U.P. against the ,, Editor, Aaj, Kanpur, U.P. 137 Complaint of Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Telecom District ,, Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Swatantra Bharat, Kanpur, U.P. 138 Complaint of Shri Narender Kumar Parmar, Programme ,, Assistant and Shri Shyam Sunder Solanki, Additional District Planning Coordinator, Common Education Programme, Jalore Rajasthan against the Editor, Divya Damak, Jalore, Rajasthan.
12 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 139 Complaint of Dr. Chanderpal, District Basic Education February 18, Officer, Mau, U. P. against the Editor, Dainik Manyavar, 2013 Jaunpur, Varanasi, U.P. 140 Complaint of Shri Avdesh Kumar Singh, Gurgaon (through ,, his advocate) against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Gurgaon, Haryana. 141 Complaint of Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma @ Kalu, ,, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against the Editor, Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. 142 Complaint of Shri Sukhdev Sharma, President, Jangid ,, Bhraman Mahasabha, Chandni Chowk, Delhi against the Editor, Sanjha Lokswami, Ujjain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. 143 Complaint of Dr. Sudha Singh, Chairman, Unique Institute ,, of Management & Technology & Education, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Janvaani, Meerut, U.P. 144 Complaint of Shri Prashant Gautam, Patrakar, Pratyakshi/ ,, Coordinator, Bahujan Samaj Party, Meerut, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Janvani, Meerut, U.P. 145 Compliant of M/s Unicorn Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ,, against the Editor, Karneshwar, Karnal. 146 Complaint of Shri R.S. Rana, General Secretary, ,, International Spiritual Organization, New Delhi against the Editor, Sandesh, Gujarati Daily, Gujarat. 147 Complaint of Shri K.V. Singh, Advocate & Manager, Smt. ,, Tasvir Kunwar Girls Inter College, Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Swatantra Bharat, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 148 Complaint of Dr. Vivek Chaurasiya, Senior Child Specialist, ,, Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 149 Complaint of Shri Naresh Kumar Verma, District Basic ,, Education Officer, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Samay Bhaskar, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.
13 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 150 Complaint of Shri Surya Prakash Pandey, Assistant Teacher, February 18, Kisan Inter College, Rasulpur, District- Basti, Uttar Pradesh 2013 against the Editor, Swatantra Chetna, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. 151 Complaint of Shri Ram Dayal through its Advocate Sy. ,, Zulfikar Husnain Naqvi, Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 152 Compalint of Shri Malkhe Dikshit, Senior Sub-Inspector, ,, Police Station, Mahroni, Lalitpur, U.P. against the Editor, Lalit Mashal, Lalitpur, U.P. 153 Complaint of Shri Amitabh Thakur, IPS Officer, UP Cadre ,, and Dr. Nutan Thakur, Lucknow against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Lucknow. 154 Complaint of Shri Bhawanji Ramji Gala, Mumbai against ,, the Editor, Bombay Samachar, Mumbai. Press and Morality 155 Complaint of Shri B.M. Rai, Mumbai against the Editor, August 21, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai 2012 156 Complaint of Ms. Pratiba Naitthani, Mumbai against the ,, Editor, Outlook, New Delhi 157 Complaint of Shri Vikram Emmanuel Amolik, Advocate, ,, Pune against the Editor, The Times of India, Pune 158 Complaint of Ms. Anita Verma Singh, Member Secretary, ,, Uttar Pradesh State Women Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, The Times of India, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 159 Complaint of Shri Nalin Kant Vajpai, General Secretary, February 18, M.P.W.I.U., Bhopal, M.P. against the Editor, Balaghat 2013 Today, Balaghat, M.P. 160 Complaint of Dr. Arvind Jain, Bhopal, M.P., against the ,, Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal, M.P. Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Anti Religious Writings 161 Complaint of Dr. I.A. Khan Anzana, President, Khankaha August 27, Sufi Didar Shah Chishti, Thane, Maharashtra against the 2012 Editor, Saptparni, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh
14 Sl. Parties Date of No. Decision 162 Complaint of Shri Sohan Das, State Secretary, Haryana December 21, Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Rohtak, Haryana against the Editor, 2012 Dainik Jagran, Hissar, Haryana. 163 Complaint of Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Dhanbad, Jharkhand ,, against the Editor, Public Magazine, New Delhi. 164 Complaint of Shri S.C. Kapoor, Wing Commander (Retd.), ,, Noida, U.P. against the Editor, The Times of India, New Delhi. 165 Complaint of Shri Rubabudin Sheikh, Ujjain, M.P. against February 18, the Editor, Swadesh, Indore, M.P. 2013 166 Complaint of Prof. N. K. Jain, Registrar, Doctor Harisingh ,, Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, M.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran.
15 Adjudications of the Council
Harassment of Newsmen
1) Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla The Chief Secretary Correspondent, Black Tiger Government of Uttar Khiri (U.P.) Pradesh Lucknow The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow (U.P.) Versus The District Magistrate Khiri (U.P.) The Superintendent of Police Khiri (U.P.) Shri K.P. Singh Forest Field Officer Gola Range, Khiri Lucknow (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Correspondent, Black Tiger, Hindi evening Daily, Khiri (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 10.6.2009 against Shri K.P. Singh, Forest Field Officer, Gola Range, Khiri (U.P.) who had threatened and abused him in June, 2009 after publication of a critical report in Back Tiger under the caption “Vishva Paryavaran Divas Ke Purv Sandhya Par Gola Rager Ke Naak Ke Niche Hua Katan”. He added that the respondent given threats to implicate him in false case. The complainant requested the Council to take action in the matter.
Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Government of U.P. on 17.11.2009. Shri K.P. Singh, Forest Officer, Gola, (Khiri) in his comments dated 10.12.2009 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant against him and submitted that the complainant demanded Rs.4,000/- for publication of advertisement but he refused to pay and apprised that he is not authorized to give any advertisement to the newspapers. Annoyed with this, the complainant had published the news item
16 against him without taking his version. Shri R.K. Bhardwaj, Superintendent of Police, Khiri in his comments dated 20.6.2010 filed a report dated 1.6.2010 conducted by the Area Officer, Khiri Police. It was stated therein that the complainant had demanded money for publication of advertisement from the Forest Officer on the occasion of environment day but he refused to pay. On inquiry the allegation were found false.
The complainant filed his counter and reiterated his version. He submitted that the respondent Forest Officer has filed baseless report and the allegation of demanding advertisement was false.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow when both the parties were present. The complainant reiterated his grievance while the representative, Shri Manoj Singh Chauhan, for the respondents submitted that the complaint is frivolous. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the complainant had failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his charge of threats even to the extract of having filed any FIR with the police. It thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
2) Shri Kamlaesh Trivedi The Chief Secretary Correspondent, Rahat Times Government of U.P. Lakhimpur, Khiri (U.P.) Lucknow The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow Versus The Superintendent of Police Lakhimpur, Khiri (U.P.) Shri Yogendra Singh. SHO, PS-Gola Khiri (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
Shri Kamlesh Trivedi, Correspondent, Rahat Times, Lakhimpur Khiri (U.P.) in his complaint alleged that Shri Yogendra Singh, SHO, PS-Gola, Khiri threatened
17 to implicate him in false cases due to publication of critical writings. According to the complainant, he published many news items in his newspaper against the police authorities. Annoyed with this, the respondent registered a false case No.960/096 under Sections 384/420 IPC against him with the help of a person. The complainant further stated that the Hon’ble Court disposed of the case on 25.8.2009 and passed orders that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the said case. Ignoring the Court’s directions, the respondent arrested him on 30.8.2009 without any reason and kept him in custody like a criminal but after interference of some reputed journalists he was released. The complainant submitted that when he approached the higher authorities, the respondent was transferred from Gola Police Station to Dhorhara Police Station, which was also in Khiri district but no action was taken against the respondent. According to the complainant, all journalists of the district gave a memorandum against the respondent to the District Magistrate and higher authorities. Annoyed with, the respondent gave contract to some criminals for his murder. The complainant while apprehending danger to his life requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.
In response to Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 30.11.2009, the Superintendent of Police, Khiri vide his written statement dated 22.10.2010 informed that an inquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Gola, Khiri, who in his report dated 7.10.2010 submitted that an FIR of accident was registered by one Shri Mewa Lal against one Shri Charanjit Case No.978/09 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC and another Case No.960/09 under Sections 384/420 IPC against Shri Charanjit and the complainant. The case was placed before the Hon’ble Court on 28.8.2009 which was pending consideration. The respondent denied the allegation of the complainant that he was again arrested on 30.8.2009 despite Court’s releasing orders. The respondent has further submitted that the complaint was totally false and incorrect.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow and recorded that since the complainant is not present to press the matter the complaint be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
18 3) Shri Ali Mohammad The Chief Secretary Journalist, Apradh Today Government of Uttar Pradesh Sitapur (U.P.) Versus Lucknow (U.P.) The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow (U.P.) The Superintendent of Police Sitapur (U.P.) Shri R.P. Sahi S.H.O., Sitapur (U.P.) Sardar Harmeet Singh Sub-Inspector, Kotwali Sitapur (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
Shri Ali Mohammed, Journalist, Ápradh Today, Hindi monthly, Sitapur (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 31.8.2009 against Shri R.P. Sahi, SHO, Shri Harmeet Singh, ASI and constable who had beaten up his family members and snatched jewellery and cash due to publication of critical writing in November 2008 issue encationed “Police, Mafiaon Aur Rajnetaon Ke Sanrakshan Mein Chal Rahe Hai Deshi katte, revolver aur pistol banane ke karkhane”.
Notices for statement in reply were issued to the Government of U.P. on 1.2.2010. Shri Harmeet Singh, S.O.G., Sitapur in his comments dated 10.3.2010 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant against him and submitted that the complainant’s father and brothers have criminal background and many cases are registered against them. The respondent has alleged that the complainant, his brother along with two other person entered on 22.8.2009 the clinic of Dr. Avnish Jaiswal and misbehaved and abused the workers of the hospital. When Dr. Avnish stopped them from their act, they threatened to kill him. The respondent has stated that an NCR No.228/09 under Sections 504/506 IPC was registered against them and challan under Sections 107/116 Cr. P.C was filed before the court of law. He further submitted that the complainant has filed this complaint in advance to prevent action in that case. The Superintendent of Police, Sitapur in his comments dated 19.3.2010 also filed similar reply. Shri Gyan Singh, Special Secretary, Government of U.P. vide letter dated 28.10.2010 has submitted the detailed report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur in which the statement of the S.G.O., Sitapur has been repeated.
19 The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow and recorded that since the complainant is not present to press the matter, the complaint be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
4) Ch. Ved Prakash Chahar The Chief Secretary City Chief, Aaj Agra Government of U.P. (U.P.) Versus Lucknow Shri Vikram Singh Yadav The Secretary Sr. Correspondent, Aaj Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow (U.P.) The Sr. Superintendent of Police Agra (U.P.) The S.H.O. Station New Agra Agra (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 29.12.2009 is filed by Ch. Ved Prakash Chahar, City Chief, Aaj, Agra against the police authorities for implicating their correspondent Shri Vikram Singh Yadav in false cases due to publication of critical writings in the issues dated 10.10.2009, 12.10.2009, 13.10.2009, 15.10.2009, 23.12.2009, 27.12.2009, 29.12.2009. According to him, a dispute was going on between the villagers and Dayalbagh. Their correspondent, Shri Yadav was reporting the incident without any partiality along with his cameraman. Annoyed with publication of critical writings the police registered a false FIR Crime No. 681 on 22.12.2009 under Sections 427/395/147/148/323/504/506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(1) of SC/ST Act at New Agra Police Station against the Correspondent Shri Vikram Singh Yadav in connivance with one Shri Bhuri Singh.
In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 27.4.2010 Shri Naveen Chander Tirpathi, Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. in his comments dated 6.7.2010 has submitted that a dispute occurred on 22.12.2009 between the villagers of Sikanderpur, Lalgadi and followers of Radha Swami and a case Under Sections 427/395/147/148/323/504/506 IPC and under Section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act 20 was registered at New Agra Police station. Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Journalist who was deputed to cover the incident is also one of the accused. He has submitted that the inquiry has been conducted by Area Officer, Hariparvat Agra and found no evidence of suppressing/threatening to press regarding publishing the news. Enclosing the report dated 22.5.2010 of Area Officer, Haripravat, Agra, he has submitted that since the inquiry against Shri Vikram Singh Yadav is still in progress, it will be too early to declare him innocent.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow and recorded that since the complainant is not present to press the matter the complaint be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
5) Shri Anil Shukla The Chief Secretary Reporter Government of U.P. Aaj, Hindi daily Versus Lucknow, U.P. Lakhimpur Khiri (U.P.) The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow, U.P. The Superintendent of Police Lakhimpur Khiri (U.P.) The Forest Officer South Forest Department Lakhimpur Khiri (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat of the Council on 5.5.2009, was filed by Shri Anil Shukla, Reporter, Aaj, Lakhimpur Khiri (UP) against the Forest Officers, forest mafia and police alleging attempt to kill him due to publication of critical writings in “Aaj” newspaper exposing felling of green trees. According to the complainant, Lakhimpur-Khiri is a profusely rich bowl of forest products. Therefore, a perpetual nexus between police, forest mafia and forest officers had always been on rampage to exploit this valuable inheritance to puff up their coffers. The complainant further submitted that this land had another 21 distinction of growing a breed of honest and upright citizens like Madhumita Manjunath, Manoj Gupta and likes who do not mind their lives to fight for a cause which create a lighthouse of inspiration for coming generations. The complainant stated that he also, contributing his mite to the cause of this society. In one such track of enquiry about constant felling of green trees, he invited the ire of forest mafia who tried to kill him on 1.4.2009. He however, had a providential escape with some injuries only. The complainant further stated that the powerful nexus of police, forest department and forest mafia is not allowing any inroad into the case and his life is in constant danger as unidentified persons are moving around his house and following his family members when they go out. He has requested the Council for inquiry and security to him and his family.
In response to Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 5.6.2009, the respondent-Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Khiri vide his written statement dated 9.7.2009 informed that the matter was inquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Khiri, who in his report dated 5.7.2009 revealed that some unknown persons attacked the complainant and an FIR was filed by the complainant in this regard against three unknown persons in Police Station- Kotwali Sadar on 1.4.2009 Case No.1135/09 under Sections 324/504 IPC. The respondent further informed that there was no information about any attackers, however, the Circle Officer, Sadar was directed by him to take action on merit. The respondent stated that the other allegations of the complainant could not be proved.
The Deputy Secretary, Govt. of U.P vide his letter dated 3.5.2010 informed that the instant matter was duly investigated and the allegations of the complainant were found baseless on investigation.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. Shri Ankesh Kumar Srivastava, Range Forest Officer appeared for the respondent. The complainant informed the Committee that the police had not taken any action on his F.I.R.
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The complainant has alleged that he lodged an FIR in Kotwali Sadar on 1.4.2009 but no inquiry officer called him for his statement and no proper investigation was done. It was held by Supreme Court in Sakira Basu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case that if the police refuses to register FIR or having registered FIR does not do proper investigation then the complainant has the option to approach the Magistrate. If the Magistrate finds that some prima facie case is made, the Magistrate can issue notice to police. He can also direct the police to lodge FIR, to investigate and monitor, although the Magistrate cannot investigate.
22 As the F.I.R has already been registered, the complaint be dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach Magistrate under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
6) Shri Anand Singh The Chief Secretary District Representative Government of U.P. Aaj, Hindi daily Versus Lucknow Faizabad (U.P.) The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow The District Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.) The Superintendent of Police Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 4.2.2009 is filed by Shri Anand Singh, District Representative, Aaj, Hindi daily, Faizabad (U.P.) against District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar for filing false report against him allegedly at the behest of educational mafia under political pressure. According to the complainant, an FIR was registered by the government officers and one victimised person Shri Anil Kannojia against a mafia-Shri Omprakash regarding illegal encroachment in educational institutes. The complainant has further informed that he also exposed these illegal activities of the mafia through his newspaper. Annoyed with these, with a view to implicate him in false cases under a conspiracy they made a false report through the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar stating that he is also the associate of the educational mafia-Shri Omprakash. According to the complainant, he is resident of Village. Harivanshpur Pithapur, Police Station-Akbarpur, Ambedkarnagar which is 26 km far away from Shri Omprakash’s residence but the administration forcibly linked him with the said mafia with a view to implicate him in false case under a conspiracy. The complainant alleged that the respondent-DM and SP filed a false report to the Administration 23 under political pressure. The complainant further alleged that the respondent also tried to kill him. The complainant denied having any relation with Shri Omprakash and Shri Kannojia. The complainant while apprehending danger to his life requested the Council to enquire into the matter so that he is able to discharge his duty without any fear or hindrance.
In response to Council’s notice for statement in reply dated 29.6.2009, the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar vide his written statement dated 7.8.2009 while referring to report dated 8.2.2009 filed by the former S.P., Ambedkar Nagar to the District Magistrate in the matter submitted that the complainant had indirect relations with Shri A.K. Kannojia and he was originally resident of Village Harivanshpur. Therefore, the previous report dated 24.12.2008, which mentioned the residence of complainant as Village Madhupur, Meeranpur was false. The respondent submitted that the former SP requested the DM to incorporate these facts in the report. He has requested the Council to dismiss the case.
The District Magistrate, Barabanki vide his letter dated 28.1.2010 while reiterating the contents of the above said written statement stated that the complainant and his profession was not affected by him directly or indirectly and also no conversation was ever made between them. The respondent further stated that the complaint was totally incorrect and not acceptable. He has requested the Council to dismiss the case.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.2.2010 while reiterating his complaint stated that the written statement of the SP was false and baseless. The complainant further submitted that the respondent filed his report directly to the DM, Ambedkar Nagar with the help of DGP, Lucknow instead of Chief Secretary of U.P. which had no justification.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. Both the sides were present. Shri Anand Singh, complainant stated that he is aggrieved due to mentioning of his name with criminals having dozen of cases. Shri Jitendra Singh, appearing for respondent submitted that they had made necessary correction in the FIR and no action is taken against the complainant. The Inquiry Committee finds no cause of action in the complaint and recommends to dismiss it.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
24 7) Shri Lallan Prasad Gupta The Chief Secretary Correspondent Government of U.P. Amar Ujala Versus Lucknow Mau (U.P.) The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow The Superintendent of Police Mau (U.P.) The District Magistrate, Mau (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
Shri Lallan Prasad Gupta, Correspondent, Amar Ujala, Mau (U.P.) in his complaint dated 11.3.2010 alleged that some miscreants misbehaved and threatened to implicate him in false cases due to publication of critical news item. According to the complainant, he published a news item in Amar Ujala under the caption “ncaxksa us Fkkus esa [khapdj nfyr ;qod dks ihVk” on 23.2.2010. Due to publication of said news item, a case was registered against the culprits. The complainant alleged that annoyed with these on 25.2.2010 one Shri Abhay Singh and his associates misbehaved with him and also threatened to implicate him in false cases. The complainant stated that he filed an application to the SHO, Chirrayakot police station in this regard but neither he filed any FIR nor took any action against the culprits. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter so that he is able to discharge his journalistic duty without any fear or hindrance.
In response to Council’s letter dated 1.6.2010, the Superintendent of Police, Mau in his comments dated 20.7.2010 informed that an inquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Mohammadabad, Mau, who in his report dated 17.7.2010 submitted that an incident of assault occurred on 22.2.2010 with one Shri Ashok Kumar and an FIR was filed in this regard in Chirrayakot police station on 23.2.2010. The respondent further submitted that a news item of the incident was published in Amar Ujala on 23.2.2010. In this connection, Shri Abhay and others misbehaved and threatened the complainant and he gave a written information in Chirrayakot police station on 26.2.2010 but no action was taken by the SHO. The respondent informed that an FIR NCR No.31/10 under Sections 504/506 IPC was registered on 17.7.2010 against the culprits by the Investigative Officer on the basis of complainant’s application and they also initiated action against the culprits under Sections 107/116 Cr. PC and Section 110 Gunda Act. Then the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Court on
25 8.3.2010. The respondent further informed that the concerned SHO was also warned to be cautious in future.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 14.10.2010 while expressing his dissatisfaction on the comments of the respondent stated that the said filing of NCR against the culprit was different from that incident. The complainant alleged that no further action was taken by the police as yet and Shri Abhay Singh and his associates were pressurising him to withdraw the case. He apprehended that the respondent may cause any untoward incident due to which he is unable to do his journalistic duty.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. Both the parties were present. Shri Lallan Prasad Gupta, complainant submitted that he was threatened due to publication of critical report about miscreants. The complainant further submitted that he had written to SP but no action was taken.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sankar, Addl. Supt. of Police, Mau on behalf of Supt. of Police, Mau and Shri Ramayan Chauhan, representative on behalf of DM appeared for respondent submitted that NCR under Sections 107/16 was registered and after open inquiry the preventive action was taken.
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The complainant has alleged that he lodged an FIR in Kotwali Sadar on 1.4.2009 but no proper investigation was done in that case and details communicated by the Government pertain to a different case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sakira Basu case” has held that if the police refuses to register FIR or, on registration of FIR, does not make investigation and if the Magistrate finds that some prima facie case is made out the Magistrate can issue notice to the police. He can also direct the police to lodge FIR, investigation and monitor but the Magistrate cannot investigate.
The complaint be dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
8) Shri Vijay Prakash Versus The Superintendent of Representaive, Sharp Reporter Police, Azamgarh Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 9.1.2010 has been filed by Shri Vijay Prakash, representative, Sharp Reporter against Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, U.P. for 26 allegedly misbehaving and threatening him in his office on 8.1.2010 when he went to collect some information from him.
Notices for statements in reply dated 3.6.2010 were issued to the Chief Secy, Govt. of UP, Secy. Home (Police) Deptt. and S.P. of Police Azamgarh. In response, the respondent Shri Bhagwan Swarup, S.P. of Azamgarh in his comments dated 15.6.2010 has informed that the respondent, Shri Ramit Sharma is now SP of Rampur and the notice for statements in Reply was sent to Shri Sharma at Rampur vide letter dated 26.8.2010. Deputy Secretary, UP Government vide his letter dated 5.8.2010 has stated that an inquiry of the case was conducted by Dy. Inspector General of Police, UP and no allegations of the complainant could be proved.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. The respondent Shri Ramit Sharma, SP, Shahjahanpur then SP Azamgarh was present. Since the complainant was not present despite notice, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
9) Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta The Chief Secretary Correspondent, Maya Awadh Government of Uttar Pradesh Hardoi, (U.P.) Versus Hardoi, Lucknow The Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow (U.P.) The District Magistrate Hardoi (U.P.) The Superintendent of Police Hardoi (U.P.) The Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Harodi (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Correspondent, Maya Awadh, Hindi monthly, Hardoi (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 26.9.2010 against the Chief Medical
27 Officer, Hardoi (U.P.) who threatened to kill him or implicate him in false cases due to publication of critical writings. The complainant has alleged that he exposed the irregularities, misdeeds and corruption of the hospital in his newspaper. Annoyed with the critical writings, the respondent called him to his office and when he reached there with his photographer, the CMO abused them and threatened to kill him.
Dr. J.P. Upadhyay, Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi in his reply dated 10.7.2010 submitted that the complainant pressurized him to issue the advertisements of Rs. 5,000/- to his monthly Maya Awadh. When he refused to pay the money, the complainant published the news items and filed the motivated and false complaint to Press Council.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. The respondent Shri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, ADM, Hardoi and Shri R.K.Srivastava (IPS), SSP Hardoi were present. Since the complainant was not present despite notice, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
10) Shri Ramanand Singh Chandel The Superintendent Distt. Correspondent, Saral Sahara Versus of Police Unnao, U.P. Unnao, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 9.1.2010 has been filed by Shri Ramanand Singh Chandel, Distt. Correspondent, Saral Sahara, Unnao against Superintendent of Police, Unnao, U.P. alleging threats to kill him due to publication of critical news items against the police in his newspaper exposing inaction of police department. In response to Council’s notices for statement in reply dated 10.5.2010, the respondent- Shri A.K. Shukla, S.P. of Unnao in his comments dated 12.7.2010 has submitted that the allegations were false and fabricated as the complainant being a correspondent of Saral Sahara has been reporting against Govt. officers and Departments for the Director General of Police, U.P., for blackmailing purposes. It has also been mentioned by respondent that on probe the allegations as levelled by the complainant could not be proved.
Copies of both the comments of Police Department were forwarded to the complainant vide letters dated 2.8.2010 and 2.2.2011 for information/counter comments. 28 The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. The respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra, Addl. Superintendent of Police on behalf of Superintendent of Police, Unnao, U.P. was present. Since the complainant was not present despite notice, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
11) Shri Omprakash Baghel Versus Anti-Social Elements Editor Aligarh Duniya Ek Nazar Main Aligarh
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 10.4.2010 has been filed by Shri Om Prakash Baghel, Editor, Duniya Ek Nazar Main, Aligarh for threatening their Associate Editor, Shri Kumar Sen Lodhi, due to filing of a complaint against one allegedly characterless woman, Pushpa Devi, who is also wife of his younger brother. According to the complainant they also published a news item in their news paper issue dated 6.3.2010 under the caption “dy;qxh iRuh us voS/k laca/kksa esa ck/kd ifr dh djkbZ gR;k” and forwarded to the police authorities. Annoyed with this the respondents threatened to kill him. In his another letter of same date the complainant complained against Shri Satender Pratap Singh, Block- Incharge, Primary Education Department, alleging threats due to a complaint made by them to the District Education Officer, Aligarh regarding corruption and publication of a news item under the caption “ckS[kyk;sa Ldwy çHkkjh lksyadh dh ç/kku lEiknd dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh” in their newspaper issue dated 28.2.2010. The complainant alleged that the respondent threatened him to face dire consequences.
In his comments dated 11.4.2011 the Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow submitted that the complainant and his associate indulged in yellow journalism and they are pressurizing one Smt. Pushpa Devi for vacating his house and land and they also do not want to give her share. The respondent furnished a copy of report of SSP who got conducted the inquiry in to the matter through Circle Officer.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. Both the parties were present, namely, Shri Om Prakash Baghel for the complainant and Shri Jahangeer Ahmed, Assistant Information Director for the 29 respondent. The parties informed the Inquiry Committee that the matter has been settled. In view of this Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
12) Suo-motu inquiry initiated against the Government of Uttar Pradesh regarding arrest of Muzaffarnagar based journalist
ADJUDICATION
The Press Council of India has come across a news item under the caption “vigj.k dks ysdj ,d fgjklr esa] nwljk vigrkZvksa ds Qans ls fudyk” published in the issue dated 21.4.2008 of Jansatta, Hindi Daily, New Delhi edition reporting that the journalists were again targeted in U.P. State. While on 21.4.2008. Allahabad- based journalist Shri Shyamendra Kushwaha had escaped from the clutches of the kidnappers, who kidnapped him on 5th April, 2008, another senior journalist, Dr. Mehruddin Khan was also arrested on 5.4.2008 and remained in jail for 15 days as he was stated to be involved in a kidnapping case. The U.P. Working Journalist Union condemned the arrest of Dr. Mehruddin and harassment of his family and that the citizens of Muzaffarnagar were shocked due to this incident. Dr. Mehruddin Khan in his letter dated 13.5.2008 alleged that the police had severely harassed him and his family. The victim journalist alleged that on 5.4.2008 the police officials attacked his house at 9.30p.m. and misbehaved with him and female members of his family and arrested him and his son without any reason. Their arrest was shown in the morning on 6.4.2008 at 6.00 a.m. At the police station, he came to know that his brother’s son had kidnapped a girl, named Pinki and he was accused of sheltering her for a night. The complainant denied all the allegations levelled by the police and requested that stringent action be taken in the matter.
Reports were called from the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar on 6.5.2008. A copy of complaint dated 13.5.2008 received from Dr. Mehruddin Khan was also forwarded to the respondents on 10.5.2008 for their consolidated comments in the matter.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar vide letter dated 27.8.2008 furnished detailed comments of the S.P., Muzaffarnagar wherein it was stated that Pinki, daughter of Shri Vijaypal was kidnapped by some miscreant and a case No. 159/2008 under Sections 363/366/368 IPC was registered. The kidnapped girl was not yet found. It was alleged in the report that Dr. Mehruddin Khan and his family members were found guilty of having given shelter to the kidnapped girl
30 and they were arrested under Section 368 IPC. It was further stated in the report that Dr. Mehruddin Khan filed the complaint to pressurize the police in the garb of journalism. He was released along with his son on 2.5.2008, on bail by Sessions Judge on personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- each.
In his counter comments, dated 26.5.2009 Dr. Mehruddin Khan denied the allegations levelled by the respondent and submitted that the girl named Pinki eloped with Mehtab on 17.3.2008 and a report of which was filed with Police Station only on 27.3.2008. The police had arrested the accused Sanjay and two innocent persons, namely, Kayyum and Ansar, and tortured them. Dr. Khan submitted that being a journalist, he published the news item in Shah Times on 4.5.2008 regarding the illegal arrest and torture of the Muslim youths. Annoyed with the news, the police arrested him and his son forcefully, handcuffed in the police station on 5.4.2008, and sent them to jail on 6.4.2008, alleged Dr. Mehruddin Khan and added that the charges of hatching conspiracy of kidnapping and given shelter of the kidnapped girl was totally false and baseless. He further submitted that no one had given any statement against him, as alleged by the police. He has requested to take action against respondent police officials.
The Superintendent of Police, Allahabad in his letter dated 16.10.2009 stated that a case was registered under Section 364 IPC in the complaint of brother of Shri Shyamendra Singh Kushwaha, Editor, Dainik Jagran that his brother had been kidnapped. A team of police officials tried to trace the concerned editor but did not succeed. When the police team did not trace Shri Kushwaha, President of Press Club of Allahabad, leaders of political parties held protest against the inaction of police authorities. After some days Shri Kushwaha returned home and revealed that he was not kidnapped but he himself had gone for monasticism. The final report in this regard had been submitted in the Court on 14.7.2008 and Shri Kushwaha was not harassed.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar in his letter dated 22.10.2009 stated that instant matter was investigated by the C.O., Kairana. While forwarding a copy of the Inquiry Report the respondent submitted that the allegations could not be substantiated during the inquiry.
The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.5.2010 at New Delhi. Dr. Mehruddin Khan the affected journalist appeared in person. Shri Udai Singh, S.D.M., Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. and Shri Alok Priyadarshi, C.O., Sadar, Muzaffarnagar appeared for the respondent State Government of Uttar Pradesh and police authorities of Muzaffarnagar District respectively. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar vide his fax dated 29.5.2010 informed that the criminal case No. 159/2008 filed under Sections 363/366 IPC against the
31 complainant was listed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Muzaffarnagar for the final hearing on 31.5.2010. On enquiring from the complainant about the case and after getting affirmative answer from him, the Inquiry Committee decided to await the decision of the Court and adjourned the matter. The police authorities were directed by the Committee not to harass the complainant.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.10.2010 at New Delhi when there was no appearance but Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar (respondent) in a letter dated 21.10.2010 requested for adjournment which was granted. The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter on 19.8.2011 at New Delhi when there was no appearance from complainant’s side while Shri R.P. Singh, S.I., Police Station, Kairana, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. representing for respondents sought adjournment. He informed that the next date of Fast Track Court case is fixed for 13.9.2011 and handed over letter dated 19.8.2011 of Shri Subhash Chander Gangwar, S.P., Kairana, Muzaffarnagar wherein he had expressed his inability to attend meeting. The complainant, Dr. Mehruddin Khan too vide letter dated 3.8.2011 sought adjournment in view of the matter pending in court of law awaiting decision. The Inquiry Committee decided to await decision of ADSJ, Fast Track Court, Muzaffarnagar and adjourned the matter.
The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. None of the parties appeared before it. The Inquiry Committee held that the incident of harassment is four years old, hence without going into merits of the case directs the Government to ensure that the freedom of the press is protected and no hindrances placed in the discharge of journalistic functions. It recommended to the Council to drop further action in the matter with service of these directions on the Chief Secretary, Secretary, Home and DGP, Lucknow, Government of Uttar Pradesh for strict compliance.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case adopts and accepts the report of the Inquiry Committee as above.
13) Shri Ashok Rawat The Divisional Joint Chief Editor Versus Education Director Braj Kranti Mahamayanagar, Hathras Hathras, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 9.4.2008 has been filed by Shri Ashok Rawat, Chief Editor, Braj Kranti, Hathras, Uttar Pradesh against the Divisional Joint Education 32 Director, Hathras alleging misbehaviour and being abusive against him and Shri Duregesh Sharma, News Bureau of Star News magazine when they were collecting news from the respondent. According to the complainant, when he approached the respondent and sought information regarding irregularities and corruption prevalent in the institutes, he was not only deprived of the information but suffered misbehavior.
A notice for comments dated 15.4.2009 was issued to the respondent Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Joint Education Director, Agra. In response the Divisional Joint Education Director, Agra vide letter dated 11.5.2009 has submitted that the matter is related to the then Joint Education Director, Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay who stood retired since 28.2.2009. Then again, the Divisional Joint Education Director, Agra was asked vide letter dated 13.8.2009 to file their department’s comments in the matter. On receiving no response, Notices for statements in reply dated 8.4.2010 were issued to the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Divisional Joint Education Director, Agra.
Having received no comments, reminders dated 4.10.2010 were issued to the respondents and in response, Shri Sanjay Yadav, Divisional Joint Education Director, Agra vide letter dated 14.10.2010 requested to provide detailed documents in the matter, which were furnished vide letter dated 1.2.2011. So far, no comments have been received in the matter.
The matter came up for first hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.2011 at New Delhi. A letter dated 16.8.2011 was received from the complainant seeking adjournment due to ill health of his wife, while Shri B.K. Sharma, Principal, Kiran Rajkiya Inter College, Aligarh appeared for the respondent. The respondent in a letter dated 28.7.2011 addressed to the complainant with an endorsement to the Council requested for a copy of the complaint stating that while their department has received only notice for hearing but no copy of the complaint was received, and, therefore, they are not in a position to give any clarification in the matter. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter with the direction to the respondent to obtain copy of the complaint and submit reply within four weeks.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. Shri Durgesh Sharma and Shri Harish Kr. Sharma, Senior Clerk on behalf of J.D Education, Agra and Shri B.K. Sharma, Principal, Kiran Rajkiya Inter College, Aligarh and Shri Ahi Baran Singh, Joint Director, Aligarh appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee initially decided to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution in the absence of the complainant. However, the complainant entered appearance
33 late and requested consideration of late appearance due to traffic jam. Upon hearing the complainant, Inquiry Committee opined that the complaint being trivial, does not merit action under Section 14 of the Press Council Act. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
14) Shri Rajeev Yadav Versus Police Authorities Journalist U.P. Amar Ujala, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 3.3.2010 has been filed by Shri Rajeev Yadav, Journalist, Amar Ujala against the Police Department, Govt. of U.P. for pressurizing him not to publish news relating to the functioning of Police Deptt. He apprehended danger to his life and liberty due to misbehaviour of the Station House Officer who abused him following publication of critical news items in 2009.
In response to the notice for statements in reply dated 8.3.2011, the respondent Sub-Inspector, Shri Vinod Kumar in his undated comments has submitted that all the allegations levelled upon him were false and fabricated as the complainant was trying to avoid pressure in a court case against his brother. The Suptd. of Police, Fatehgarh in his comments dated 25.4.2011 has submitted that an inquiry was conducted in the matter in which the allegations of the complainant could not be proved.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. The complainant was not present while Shri Abhay Kumar Gupta, Dy. S.P. on behalf of Addl. S.P. SR, V.K. Mishra, Fatehgarh appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that complainant is not present and hence recommended to dismiss the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
34 15) Shri Shashi Bhushan Dubey The Chief Secretary Bureau Chief/Special Correspondent Government of U.P. Vindhya Bharat Lucknow Mirzapur. (U.P.) Versus The Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of U.P. Lucknow District Magistrate Mirzapur (U.P.) Shri K. Satya Narayan, IPS, Superintendent of Police Mirzapur (U.P.) Station House Officer Lalganj, Mirzapur (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 25.1.2011 was filed by Shri Shashi Bhushan Dubey, Bureau Chief/Special Correspondent, “Vindhya Bharat”, Hindi Daily, Mirzapur (U.P.) against police authorities and liquor mafia for harassment and threats to implicate him in false cases due to publication of critical writing in his newspaper. According to the complainant, he published news items on 24.9.2010, 16.11.2010 and 30.1.2011 against liquor mafia with regard to the death of dozens of people due to spurious liquor and threats captioned “dbZ lkyksa ds ckn Hkh fcd jgh tgjhyh 'kjkc”, “lekpkj Nius ij 'kjkc ekfQ;k us nh /kedh”, and “'kjkc ekfQ;k ds pxaqy esa iqfyl” respectively. Annoyed with this, the supplier of spurious liquor-Shri Bachchelal Sonekar and his son threatened him that they will implicate him in false cases. The complainant further submitted that he made written/oral information to the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur on 29.10.2010 and before that to the Chief Secretary to Government of U.P., IGP and DIG on 21.10.2010. The Superintendent of Police forwarded his FIR to the SHO, Lalganj for inquiry but neither he filed any inquiry report nor took any action. The complainant alleged that instead of taking action against the liquor mafia, the police tried to implicate him in false cases with the connivance of the liquor mafia. The complainant submitted that he filed a case Writ C.No. 7596/2011 before the Hon’ble Court of Allahabad, who vide its Order dated 10.2.2011 passed an order for providing him security and for initiating action against the guilty. Annoyed with this, instead of providing security to him, the DIG/ 35 SP, Mirzapur with a view to implicate him in false case under a conspiracy with the connivance of one BSP MLA registered an FIR on 1.3.2011 against him and was thereby continuously harassing him. The complainant, apprehending danger to his life, requested the Council to enquire into the matter so that he was able to discharge his duty without any fear or hindrance.
In response to the notice for statement in reply dated 8.7.2011 the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur in his comments dated 7.8.2011 submitted that the matter was investigated by the Station House Officer, Lalganj and found that the complainant indulges in yellow journalism and has taken money from one Shri Bachche Lal Sonekar for his son’s job in Railway, but failed to get him one and when they demanded the money back the complainant threatened and misbehaved with them. A case was filed by the respondent against the complainant under Sections 419/420/467/468/504/506 IPC and 3(1) under SC/ST Act. When the complainant came to know that the respondent Shri Bachche Lal Sonekar lodged complaint against him he lodged counter complaint against him that he is a liquor mafia and against whom various cases are registered in different areas, but after inquiry it was found that there was no case registered against him.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 9.9.2011 stated that the allegations levelled by the respondent are false. He alleged that the police after taking bribe did not initiate action against the liquor-mafia. The complainant also alleged that the police did not honour the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in which the Hon’ble Court directed them to provide gunner but till date no gunner has been provided to him and his life is in danger.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012. Dr. Daya Shanker Tiwari on behalf of the complainant and Shri Lallan Rai, Addl. S.P. (OD), Shri Ramesh Chaubey, Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Dy. Collector, Mirzapur for the respondent appeared before the Inquiry Committee. The complainant filed affidavit that he is satisfied with the action taken by the respondent and does not want to press his complaint. The Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint as being withdrawn.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to close the matter.
36 16) Shri Sudhir Jain Additional District Magistrate Journalist Versus Jhansi Swadesh Uttar Pradesh Jhansi SHO Mauranipur Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 22.3.2010 is filed by Shri Sudhir Jain, Journalist, Jhansi alleging threats by Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi and SHO, Mauranipur, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh following publication of critical news-items in ‘Swadesh’ newspaper. The complainant apprehended that he will be implicated in false cases and sent to jail. In reply to the notice, the ADM, Jhansi filed a report dated 21.7.2010 that the complainant was not pressurized by police/administration at all and the allegations levelled by the complainant were false and misleading. The administration had taken preventive action to maintain communal harmony, law and order in the city.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. Shri Mahendra Pratap Tahsildar, Mauranipur, Distt. Jhansi and Shri Sukhram Bharti, C.O. Mauranipur on behalf of the respondent were present. Since the complainant was not present, the Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
17) Shri Ganesh Kumar Shukla Circle Officer Reporter Rajapur Adarsh Panchayati Raj Versus Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot Uttar Pradesh SHO Rajapur Police Station Uttar Pradesh SHO Pahari, Chitrakoot Uttar Pradesh
37 ADJUDICATION
This undated complaint is filed by Shri Ganesh Kumar Shukla, reporter, Adarsh Panchayati Raj, Chitrakoot (Uttar Pradesh) against Circle Officer, Rajapur; SHO, Rajapur and Pahari, Uttar Pradesh alleging harassment and threats. The complainant has submitted that he was covering news of a protest in village- Khatwara on 23.3.2010 about a gang involved in the trade of human body parts. There the Circle Officer, Rajapur; SHO, Rajapur and Pahari, Uttar Pradesh stopped him from covering the news and taking photographs and also threatened him not to publish the news in his newspaper. The complainant has further submitted that on 28.3.2010, the respondents called him in police station, Rajapur and snatched his mobile, press card, Rs.667/- and other documents under the direction of Circle Officer. He has also alleged that he was also threatened, beaten up and stripped by the Circle Officer and implicated in a false case under Sections 147-148, 283, 341, 904, 506 of IPC and Section 255/10 of 7 Cr. PC. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.
Notices for statement in reply were sent to the respondent, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 9.6.2010. In response, the SHO, police station Murkundi (then SHO, Rajapur) in his comments received on 17.9.2010 submitted that he got an information on 23.3.2010 on his mobile that about 50-60 people were sitting with lathies in front of Power House, Khatwara Village and blocking the road. Then the police force reached at that spot and directed the mob to clear the road. The people began to abuse and manhandle the force. The respondent has submitted that Shri Ganesh Kumar Shukla was playing the main role in provoking the demonstrators to aggressive and obstructive conduct. Further, the police had not snatched mobile phone/press card/money as alleged by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the police was not aware that the complainant is a media person. The respondent has also submitted that the police authorities are strongly in favour of freedom of press and safety of journalists. The complainant has made this complaint against them to dilute the cases registered against him.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. The respondent Shri Arun Chandra, C.O. Rajapur, Shri Nand Lal Singh, D.C.R.B., Chitrakoot and Shri Mahesh Singh from Police Karyalay were present. Since the complainant was not present, the Inquiry Committee recommended dismissal of the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly. 38 18) Shri P. Dillibabu Reddy, Shri I.Y.R. Krishna Rao, Editor, Asha Jyothi & Versus Executive Officer, Vice-President, APWJF, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams, Chitoor (A.P.) Tirupati.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 28.12.2010 has been field by Shri P. Dillibabu Reddy, Editor, Asha Jyothi and Vice-President of Andhra Pradesh Working Journalists Federation (APWJF), Chitoor district (Andhra Pradesh) on behalf of the journalists of print and electronic media of Tirupati Devastanams (TTD), Tirupati, Chtoor District alleging attack on the media in Tirupati due to publication of critical reports. According to him, the attack on the media in Tirupati by the respondent is sequel to the exposure of murky dealing going on the Department of TTD.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.2.2012 at Chennai. S/Shri P. Dillibabu Reddy, P. Jaya Chandra Reddy, Journalists, Asha Jyothi appeared for the complainant. Shri M. Dorairaj, Advocate appeared for the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams(TTD), Andhra Pradesh. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent has not filed its comments. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file comments within a month and complainant may supply a copy of the complaint to the respondent for filing written statement. The matter stands adjourned.
In response to the directions of the Inquiry Committee the respondent, Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Agricultural Marketing & Co-operative Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh through his advocate filed his comments on 23.4.2012. The respondent submitted that he was working as EO/TTD from June 2009 to June 2011 and at present he was not the Executive Officer of the TTD. The respondent submitted that all the allegations levelled in the representation are false and baseless. He submitted that the media in Tirupati as well as at Tirumali is very active and if there are any mistakes or omission in administration, they highlighted the issues and the administration took corrective action immediately. The respondent submitted that as public frequent unregulated entries disturbed the office functioning of the Administrative Building of TTD, it was suggested that they may not enter without taking a proper pass from the security personnel in the Administrative Building. The respondent submitted that freedom of press cannot be a license to do anything without restrictions. The respondent further submitted that he never used any unparliamentary language against media nor he developed any grudge against media.
39 Report
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 29/8/2012 at New Delhi. Sh. M. Dorai Raj, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Since the complainant is not present, the Inquiry Committee recommend the Council that complaint be dismissed for default.
Held The Press Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decides accordingly.
19) Md. Hashim Azad Khan, Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Chief Editor, Versus Asstt. Regional Transport Officer, Azad Par Julm, Kanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 1.8.2009 has been filed by Md. Hashim Azad Khan, Chief Editor, Azad Par Julm, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh against Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur for alleged harassment. According to the complainant, there had been reports on some newspapers that irregularities being committed in the transport department and when he went to meet the respondent Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur for gathering information of illegal transfer of vehicles, the respondent officer threatened to implicate him in false cases. The complainant has alleged that on 5.12.2009 at around 2.30 PM, the Station House Officer (SHO), Chamanganj Police Station visited his house with police force and threatened him. The SHO again called him on 5.12.2009 over the telephone, to the police station and he was again threatened by the police officer. The complainant has alleged that the respondent was trying to implicate him in false case in connivance with the police. The complainant had drawn the attention of the Chief Secretary and other authorities of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 18.8.2009, but received no response.
The respondent Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Shri Sanjay Tiwari in his comments dated 3.4.2010 submitted that a dispute between Shri Dinesh Kumar and Shri Ajay Sachan in respect of transfer of ownership of a truck needed judicial disposal. However, the complainant described the dispute as fake and intervened in the matter. The respondent alleged that the complainant was involved in brokerage as he was a tout in the transport department. The respondent stated that it was eminent from the news clipping that the touts were annoyed with him because he had written
40 to Divisional Commissioner to remove unauthorised encroachment by touts at the office of the Transport Department. He further submitted that the news clipping furnished by the complainant would reveal that the respondent had tried to curb the tout system. The respondent denied the allegations of threatening stated that the complaint was filed with a motive to malign his image and reputation.
The District Magistrate, Kanpur in his comments dated 30.4.2010 has submitted that the Additional District Magistrate, (City) had already enquired into the matter. The Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur in his enquiry report dated 20.8.2009 has stated that the complainant Md. Hashmi Azad Khan has nothing to do with the alleged transfer of vehicle, which was between two different parties, though he has the right to seek information through proper channel. He has stated that the complainant, Chief Editor of Azad Par Julm once worked as an agent (Dalal) at the office of the Regional Transport Officer and he removed from it for some irregularities and now, with vengeance he filed a complaint against the officials with an oblique motive of levelling false allegations.
The complainant vide his counter dated 9.7.2010 has reiterated that he has been threatened by the respondent Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur for publication in his weekly newspaper Azad Par Julm, on the irregularities prevailing in the office of the Transport Department, Kanpur prompting the concerned authorities to inquire into it. He also stated that he had given his statement in written dated 28.4.2010, to the Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur City in the matter.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.9.2011 at New Delhi. The complainant in a letter dated 10.9.2011 informed that due to marriage of his daughter, he was unable to attend the hearing and requested for adjournment. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur, U.P. appearing in person requested that his oral arguments may be recorded and he may be exempted from personal appearance in next hearing. The respondent submitted that the complainant never met him and there was no question of threatening the complainant. So far as transfer of vehicle, the respondent submitted that the complainant had nothing to do with the transfer of vehicle, which was between two different parties and if they had any objection they could go in for judicial review. The respondent denied the charges leveled by the complainant which had made with ulterior motive as the complainant was a broker and misusing the newspaper. The respondent also denied the charge of fake transfer of the vehicle and reiterated that it was open for the parties to go in appeal. The respondent further submitted that the charge of bashing up the TV crew by the respondent was also false. He submitted that his officials were counting approx. 30-40 lakh cash as per routine collection
41 and they forcibly entered the cash chamber and when he came to know about it, he simply prevented them from sensitive department. The respondent requested to dismiss the complaint which is frivolous. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the respondent decided to adjourn the matter with liberty to him to attend or not to attend the next hearing.
The complainant vide his another letter informed the Council that he is receiving threats from the respondent and they are pressurized him for withdrawing the case. The complainant further submitted that the respondent is habitual of doing illegal activities and an FIR was lodged by one Shri Santosh Diwedi, Editor, Kalp Kaya in the Barra Police station on 5.8.2006 u/s 323 and 506.
At the next hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.1.2012 at New Delhi, the complainant appeared in person while Shri R.P. Yadav, Senior Assistant represented the respondent Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh. The Inquiry Committee directed that the respondent Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Assistant Regional Transport Officer should be personally present before it at the next hearing.
Report
The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, ARTO, respondent appeared in person and record his submissions. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant was not satisfied of sufficient ground for action against the authorities for threats to press freedom. The complainant had also failed to respond to the notice of hearing and therefore, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and decides to dismiss the case.
20) Shri Suresh Gandhi, Versus The Chief Secretary, Correspondent, Government of U.P., Dainik Hindustan and Lucknow. Dainik Aaj Tak Channel, The Secretary, Bhadoi, Sant Ravi Das Home (Police) Department, Nagar, Government of U.P., Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow.
42 The Superintendent of Police, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, U. P. Shri R.K. Singh, Station Inspector, Station-Bhadoi, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 12.2.2010 has been filed by Shri Suresh Gandhi, Correspondent, Dainik Hindustan and Aaj Tak Channel against Shri R.K. Singh, Inspector, Bhadoi now posted in District Sonebhadra and Shri Rambali Saroj, Chowki Nai Bazar for allegedly implicating him in false cases due to publication of critical news items. The complainant has submitted that he had exposed the irregularities of the police in his publications dated 29.6.2009, 30.6.2009 and others. Annoyed with the critical writing the respondent registered false cases against him under Section 504 and 506 of IPC. He further submitted that he has also exposed an incident (rape case), which was called ‘Santoshi-Gulam, in his newspaper. Annoyed with the critical writing Gulam Rasul with connivance of two police officials issued notice and threatened to implicate in false cases. The complainant has further stated a dispute had arisen between Hindu and Muslims on the occasion on ‘Tazia Dafan’ on 28.12.2009, he visited there and covered the news. The higher police officials were there and police registered an F.I.R. in which the complainant’s name was included. The complainant denied the allegation that he was present at the time of the incident. The complainant has stated that both the parties (Hindu-Muslims) gave affidavit that Shri Suresh Gandhi was not concerned with the incident.
The Superintendent of Police, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadoi vide his comments dated 30.6.2011 submitted that they have got the matter investigated and found that the complaint of Shri Suresh Gandhi is untrue and baseless. He has submitted that the incidents of Santoshi-Gulam Rasool and Tazia Dafan cannot be taken together. The 1st incident occurred in January 2008 and is in consideration of the Civil Court while the 2nd incident of Tazia Dafan was held after about two years i.e. 28.12.2009. It is incorrect to say that the respondent has implicated the complaint in this case deliberately. The FIR was written on facts which were brought before them at the time of incident.
Report
Following one adjournment of 26.3.2012, the matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant was 43 represented by Shri Virendra Kumar Rai. Shri Surender Kumar Shukl, Sub-Inspector, Bhadoi appeared for the respondent police authorities. The complainant apprised the Committee that the erring police inspector has been transferred by intervention of DIG and now the police authorities was cooperating with him. Therefore, he does not want to pursue the case further as the matter has been mutually settled. The Inquiry Committee took on record the statement of the complainant and decided to dismiss the complaint being settled.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint as settled.
21) Shri Santosh Kumar Dixit, The Chief Secretary, Correspondent, Government of U.P., Amar Ujala Lucknow. Jaunpur (U.P.) Versus The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Ram Chander Gautam, S.H.O., Sarpatahan Police Station, Tehsil Shahganj, Jaunpur (U.P.)
ADJUDICATION
Shri Santosh Kumar Dixit, Correspondent, Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily, Jaunpur (U.P.) has filed this complaint dated 10.3.2010 against Shri Ram Chander Gautam, S.H.O., Sarpatahan, Jaunpur (U.P.) who had threatened to kill and implicate him in false cases. The complainant has alleged that he had exposed the irregularities and corruptions of the local police in his newspaper. Annoyed with the critical writings, the respondent threatened to stop such publication failing which he would be implicated him in false cases.
Shri Ram chander Gautam, Sub - Inspector, P.S. Sarpatahan, Jaunpur(U.P.) in his comments dated 28.5.2010 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant
44 against him and submitted that no such threats was given by him and the complainant has levelled the motivated allegation against him.
The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur vide comments dated 11.6.2010 and submitted a report dated 8.6.2010 conducted by the Additional Superintendent (City), Jaunpur. On investigation of the matter, none of these allegations levelled by the complainant were found correct.
In his counter comments dated 18.6.2010 the complainant has stated that the comments filed by the respondent Shri Ram Chander were false and misleading. The respondent Shri Ram Chander has been transferred but before the transfer, he had pressurized the witnesses to back out from their statement which was apprised by him to the investigating officer and higher officials.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. Shri Santosh Kumar Dixit, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Shailendra Kumar Rai, Deputy Superintendent of Police appeared on behalf of the respondent police officials. The complainant reiterates the charge of threat and states before the Inquiry Committee that he was, as late as the day before the hearing threatened on his mobile through SMS.
The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to file an affidavit and of his witnesses on the charges within a month. Further, counter affidavit may be filed by the respondent within a month thereafter. In response to the directions of the Inquiry Committee the complainant Shri Santosh Kumar Dixit, Correspondent, Amar Ujala vide his letter dated 16.4.2012 has furnished copies of the affidavit of S/Shri M.hd. Ahmad Pappu, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Vikas kumar Vind, Ramesh Vind and Mulayam Singh Yadav to substantiate his allegations.
Report
The matter was again taken up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Santosh Kumar Dixit, Press Reporter appeared in person. Shri Ram Chandra Ram, Sub-Inspector, Azamgarh and Shri Ranjan Singh, Circle Officer, Jaunpur appeared for the respondent police authorities. The complainant reiterated that the police had taken the statement of witnesses in a wrongful manner and did not take his statement.
The respondent police officer present before the Inquiry Committee assured the Committee that no such incident shall occur in future. The Inquiry Committee took on record the assurance given by the respondent and report submitted by the Superintendent of Police directed the police authorities to ensure that the complainant is not threatened in any manner failing which strict action will be taken against the 45 erring police officer. It held this, that no further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to close the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to close the complaint.
22) Shri Sanjay Kumar ‘Punnu’ Shri Ranjit Mishra, Journalist and President, Versus City Superintendent of Police Shobha Club, Rohtas (Bihar) (Darbanga), Sasaram, Rohtas (Bihar)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 13.10.2009 has been filed by Shri Sanjay Kumar ‘Punnu’ Journalist and President, Shobha Club, Rohtas, Bihar against Shri Ranjit Mishra, City Superintendent of Police (Darbanga), the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar alleging threats to kill him with the connivance of anti-social elements. According to the complainant, he has been harassed by Shri Ranjit Mishra, ASP when he was in the Sasaram city for the coverage of a news item on the dispute of land of Bijli Shaeed Dargah. The complainant has submitted that Shri Ranjit Mishra described him a fake journalist having a fake i-card and asked him to show i-card of any Journalist Union. As the complainant was not a member of any Journalist Union, Shri Ranjit Mishra forced him to be a member of the Journalist Union as named by him. The complainant further stated that he has been again harassed by Shri Ranjit Mishra many times on different occasions.
The respondent, Shri Dherender Mohan Jha, Under Secretary, Government of Bihar vide his letter dated 18.8.2010 filed the reply dated 28.7.2010 of Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna and also the reply dated 12.7.2010 of Shri Ranjit Mishra, City Superintendent of Police (Darbanga) and the then Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, Sasaram, Bihar in which he has denied the allegation levelled by the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the complainant was asked to show his ID card and the complainant show his old ID card which was verified and found fake. The respondent further submitted that no such other incident occurred as alleged by the complainant.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant sent a letter 46 dated 21.9.2012stating that he does not want to pursue his case further on the ground of health and financial problems. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to close the case. It recommended the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to close the complaint.
23) Shri Ramanand Soni, Shri Chanchal Shekher, Bureau Chief, Versus Superintendent of Dainik Patrika, Police, Bhind (M.P.) Bhind (M.P.)
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 18.11.2010 has been filed by Shri Ramanand Soni, Bureau Chief, Dainik Patrika, Bhind (M.P.) against Shri Chanchal Shekher, Superintendent of Police, Bhind (M.P.) for allegedly implicating him in a false case thereby harassing his family members after publication of articles against him in the newspaper under the caption “Delhi tak faila karobaar” in the issue dated 6.7.2010 in which the photo of the Superintendent of Police was also published counting notes. The complainant has alleged that the respondent implicated him in a false dowry case with the help of his younger brother’s wife and after getting bail from the Court in the dowry case, the respondent kept threatening him and his family members to implicate them in false cases. The complainant further alleged that the respondent is preparing a criminal record against him with the help of Shri A.K. Dikshit, T.I., Bhind Police Station. The complainant submitted that he has written many complaints against the Superintendent of Police/ The Director General of Police (M.P.), The Secretary Home (Police) and The Inspector General of Police, Chambal Range, M.P. but received no response.
The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal where none of the parties entered appearance. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dismiss the complaint for default. 47 Held
The Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
24) Shri Jai Prakash Bhardwaj, Shri Chandradev Ram Jatav Correspondent, Ration Dealer, Chetna Manch Versus Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 12.10.2010 has been filed by Shri Jai Prakash Bhardwaj, Correspondent, Chetna Manch & Ganga Mahima against Shri Chandradev Ram, Ration Dealer for harassing him due to the publication critical writings. The impugned news item depicted the manner in which black marketing of the products was going on in the respondent’s shop. It has been stated that around 101 quintal wheat was illegally loaded in the Tata 407 to sell in black market in the night of 15.8.2010 and the same incident was also reported to the police by him.
According to the complainant, he had exposed the illegal activities i.e. black marketing of ration by the dealers in his newspaper Ganga Mahima in its issue dated 21.8.2010. The complainant submitted that annoyed with the critical writings, the respondent attacked him and tried to kill him which amounted to attacking the freedom of press. He further submitted that the respondent also tried to implicate him in a false case under SC/ST Act. The complainant vide letter dated 6.10.2010 drew the attention of the Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad for action in the matter.
The Senior Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 9.2.2011 has submitted his comments and stated that an investigation in the matter was done by the Assistant Superintendent of Police and it was found in the investigation that after the publication of the alleged news item, the management has cancelled the license of the ration shop of Shri Chandradev Ram Jatav and against which a case no. 1362/10 u/s 3/7 was registered in the Police Station. He stated that legal action was initiated u/s 107/116 of IPC against both the parties. He further submitted that they have been directed not to take any action in the matter till the investigation is going on.
Report of the Inquiry Committee Dated 21.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Jaiprakash Bhardwaj, Complainant 48 For the Respondent: Shri Nawal Kant Tewari, A.D. Information, Ghaziabad, Representative of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad (U.P.).
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The grievance of the complainant is that the police authorities have not registered his FIR. According to the police authorities as per the IO report the matter is settled between the parties which was denied by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee notes that the remedy for the complainant is to approach the appropriate court of law and he can register a criminal case against the respondent under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., if he so desires. The Magistrate will decide the matter expeditiously. The Inquiry Committee, with these observations decided to dismiss the case.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
25) Shri Amlendu Upadhyay, Versus Shri Banwari Lal Kushwaha Assistant Editor, CMD,Garima Milk Industries & Swabhiman Times, Chief Editor, Swabhiman Times, Ghaziabad, U.P. Delhi. Shri Nirmalendu Saha, Editor, Swabhiman Times, Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 21.3.2011 has been filed by Shri Amlendu Upadhyay, Assistant Editor, Swabhiman Times, Ghaziabad against Shri Banwari Lal Kushwaha, CMD & Chief Editor, Garima Milk Industries & Swabhiman Times and Shri Nirmalendu Saha, Editor, Swabhiman Times. The complainant has alleged that Shri Banwari Lal Kushwaha, the owner of Garima Milk Industries, Dholpur threatened him over telephone for not publishing photos of inauguration of his milk plant at Dholpur on front page of the newspaper. The complainant took up the matter with the Delhi based editor i.e. Shri Nirmalendu Saha of the newspaper asking for clarification but received no reply. The complainant alleged that that CMD threatened him and also used vulgar language over the telephone. The complainant has further submitted that he has no connection with the Dholpur edition of the newspaper. However, the
49 respondent threatened him with stern action over telephone many times which is curtailment of the freedom of press.
The CMD Garima Milk Industries and Nirmalendu Saha, Editor Swabhiman Times vide their replies dated 1.6.2011 submitted that the allegations of the complainant are false and baseless. Previously too the complainant has also levelled such false charges on them intentionally for his own purpose. The allegations are unfounded and frivolous.
In his counter-comments dated 3.8.2011 the complainant reiterated his complaint and alleged that the respondents are misleading the Council and he was not satisfied with the comments.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Amlendu Upadhyaya, Complainant For the Respondent: None
The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant in person. It noted that the allegation in the complaint is about the verbal threat given to the complainant two years ago. No evidence is available to substantiate the same and the investigation for verification is beyond the scope of the Press Council. Accordingly it recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach the law courts if so advised.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
26) Shri C.S. Kalra, Versus Vice-Chancellor, Editor, University Today, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 27.11.2011 has been filed by Shri C.S. Kalra, Editor, University Today, New Delhi against the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi alleging threats over telephone through lawyer for publication of news item in their fortnightly concerning retraction of articles charged of suspected plagiarism. The complainant alleged that the Jamia Millia University follows a 50 discriminatory policy by letting people charged of serious offences like plagiarism to go, but punishes others who did not belong to minority community. According to the complainant, he learnt that one Dr. Deepak Kem, Associate Professor in JMI was removed from service for alleged plagiarism but for a similar act Dr. Sharief Ahmed, Professor of Chemistry has not been penalized so far and has even been allowed to continue as Head of the Department. The complainant has submitted that he sent two communications, one to the respondent - VC and the other to Professor Sharief Ahmed. He submitted that Dr. Ahmed has not replied yet while the respondent - VC first made his lawyer, one Mr. Atyab Siddiqui, to speak with and threatened him telephonically on 21.11.2011. The complainant has further submitted that despite assurance by him that he does not have any malafide intentions and that the VC can clarify his position as he deems fit, the VC, through his lawyer, sent an e-mail with an attachment of three pages of pure gibberish which has nothing to do with “University Today”. According to the complainant, one letter after the two pages communication (actually a threat of legal action designed to “kill” the news story) is addressed to M/s Parryware Ltd. for defective commode purchased at a grand sum of rupees 5,000/- only which is absolutely unrelated to the issue. The complainant has alleged that the respondent betrayed a clumsy attempt to brush an ugly truth under the carpet. According to the complainant, he further sent a letter dated 24.11.2011 to the respondent but he has not cared to answer the queries.
The Registrar, Jamia Millia Islamia University submitted his comments vide undated letter and stated that the Institute and it’s the then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Mushirul Nasan had in the year 2008 filed a suit for recovery of damages arising out of malicious libel against the complainant. He also stated that Shri Najeeb Jung was not the Vice-Chancellor at that time. The complainant had time and again, telephonically or otherwise, sought the withdrawal of the said litigation. He submitted that the respondent has also sought advertisements from the University vide letter dated 24.10.2010 but the same was declined and due to this the complaint preferred by Shri C.S.Kalra should be perceived. He further stated that Mr. Kalra tries to misuse the authority of his paper to browbeat and defame institutions and individuals. He stated that the issues framed by the complainant vis a vis the respondent are frivolous and wrong. It is incorrect to allege that correspondence through a lawyer was a threat.
The complainant submitted his counter comments vide his letter dated 11.06.2012 and stated that the suit filed by the respondent seeking damages of 50 Lakhs from University Today is pending adjudication and not warrant any comments. The real intent of the respondent is to harass, humiliate and put University Today to avoidable monetary burden. He further stated that they were both ready to settle this matter outside the court and a drafted letter dated 26.11.2009 was handed down 51 to the advocate of JMI in this respect as suggested by Mr. Najeeb Jung who assured that the EC of the University would meet shortly and he would get the matter resolved but, as per the complainant, it was just a ruse to later blackmail him. The complainant further denied of having called Mr. Najeeb Jung time and again. He stated that he tried to contact him only once. He further stated that there is nothing wrong in seeking an advertisement for Special Annual Number 2011 of University Today as the advertisement was sought not from the personal pocket of Mr. Najeeb Jung. The complainant further stated that he took care to seek the version of Mr. Najeeb Jung who answered not himself but through his counsel which itself is an indication of how brazenly Mr. Jung treats University Today. The respondent further did not understand that what the complainant is trying to convey through the issues of University Today dated 15.01.2012 & 01.02.2012. Therefore, the complainant stated that the comments received from the Registrar of Jamia Millia Islamia are not admissible both in law and spirit and deserved to be dismissed and the PCI should proceed as though the respondent has chosen not to respond at all fired by his personal arrogance.
Report Dated 21.1.2013 of the Inquiry Committee
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri C.S. Kalra, Complainant For the Respondent: Shri M. Atyab Siddiqui, Advocate
The complainant has stated that the respondent has sent three legal notices to him and by this act he is trying to threaten him. The counsel of the respondent denied having given any threat to the complainant as they had just sent a legal notice to him.
The Inquiry Committee carefully examined the letter written on behalf of the respondent on 24.11.2011 which stated that “Take Note that in case, you publish and print, anything which is derogatory, defamatory and/or puts to disrepute the Jamia and its functionaries, our client makes it unequivocal, that you and the University Today (along with all joint tortfeasors) shall be liable to damages, and even penal action, for which you shall be entirely responsible as to costs and consequences.” The Inquiry Committee finds the notice of prospective legal action could not be perceived as threat to freedom of the press. The Inquiry Committee therefore, finds no merits in the case and accordingly decided to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint.
52 Facilities to the Press
27) Shri Shishir Kumar Gupta Versus DAVP Publisher, Hukoomat Express New Delhi Moradabad, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 18.11.2009 has been filed by Shri Shishir Kumar Gupta, Publisher of Moradabad based Hindi Daily “Hukoomat Express “against the DAVP for non-empanelment of his newspaper for Government advertisements alleging discrimination. DAVP vide its letter dated 14.9.2009 while rejecting his application cited the grounds of repetitive reproduction of editorials in 12th & 13th January, 2009 to which he objected that DAVP rules require debarring news/articles but not editorial. In another letter dated 27.10.2009, the DAVP gave the following reasons: (1) Name and address of printing press/publisher is different as shown in RNI registration certificate and published in imprint lines and application form/RNI Registration Certificate not submitted or not proper (2) poor printing (a) matter not readable (b) smudgy/no photographs (c) cut paste/computer printout.
The DAVP failed to file any reply to the complaint.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow and recorded that since the complainant is not present to press the matter, the complaint be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
28) Dr. H.M. Majid Hussain Versus The Director General Chief Editor, Dainik Urdu Action, Directorate of Advertising & Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Visual Publicity, New Delhi
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 1.5.2008 has been lodged by Dr. H.H. Majid Hussain, Chief Editor/publisher, Daily Urdu Action, Bhopal against the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity, New Delhi alleging denial of payment of the advertisement bill dated 13.1.1997 to the tune of Rs.3,547/- regarding publication of display advertisement received from the DAVP. The complainant has stated that after publishing the said display advertisement as per DAVP RO.No.3013/ 0003/1996, he
53 had submitted the bill No.3588 dated 13.1.1997 requesting for payment but despite reminders the payment remains pending.
In response to the Notice for statement in reply dated 10.5.2010 the respondent Director, DAVP vide his written statement dated 2.6.2010 submitted that due to technical fault a number of Release Orders were deleted from the data base and as a result the bill of the complainant was rejected as the data was not available. The respondent further stated that on receipt of request, the matter was scrutinized and Release Order was re-loaded on DAVP’s data base on 9.10.2002. The respondent submitted that there were many circulars issued by DAVP from time to time requesting publishers to submit duplicate bills for the clearance of their outstanding bills. The respondent denied having received any duplicate bill dated 30.9.2004 from the complainant and submitted that if the complainant submits duplicate bill through PCI, the payment will be made as per norms.
The complainant filed his counter comments on 23.6.2010 and submitted that the statement of the respondent DAVP that he has not submitted duplicate bill is not correct. According to him, the said bill in new format R.O. issued by DAVP on 30.9.2004 was submitted on 1.11.2004 in the office and also to J.D., Accounts and to the Director General. He further submitted that he had received a letter from Director, DAVP to submit duplicate bill and the same along with necessary clarification had been sent to the DAVP.
The matter first came up for hearing before Inquiry Committee on 18.11.2011 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri N.V. Reddy appeared before the Committee and reiterated the reply already filed by him.
“The Committee observed that the government had withheld payment due to the newspaper for the services rendered by it almost 14 years ago. By now, had the amount been with the newspaper, it would have grown four times. The government should file its reply within three weeks, why it should not now pay the amount with interest which, would not be a penalty but a natural accrual on the amount due. To be listed with reply of the authorities.”
The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the parties on 3.2.2012. In response to Council’s letter dated 3.2.2012 the respondent Director, DAVP, vide his reply dated 10.2.2012 intimated the Council that the payment has already been made in the month of September, 2010 vide cheque No.223618 dated 17.9.2010 to the complainant and it was also confirmed by the publisher over the phone on 24.11.2011.
The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. None of the parties were present. It appeared to the Inquiry Committee that the
54 complainant who has been provide a copy of the DAVP reply by the Council, was satisfied with the action taken by DAVP. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to recommend the Council to drop the proceedings.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
29) Shri Veerbhadrappa Lingappa Jherkunte The Registrar Editor, Jantadhish Weekly R.N.I. Latur, (Maharashtra) Versus New Delhi The S.D.M. Udgir
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 18.2.2011 has been received from Shri Veerbhadrappa Lingappa Jherkunte, Editor, Jantadhish Weekly, Latur against the Registrar, RNI and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udgir for not issuing certificate of declaration. The complainant alleged that he received title verification letter from R.N.I. on 17.3.2008 and Declaration from S.D.M., Udgir on 2.9.2009 and started publication of his weekly newspaper. He has alleged that due to popularity earned by his newspaper, he has received a letter on 12.11.2010 from R.N.I. that his registration has been cancelled due to non registration of his newspaper within a period of two years and RNI directed him to apply afresh. The complainant alleged that he has submitted all the relevant documents and Declaration to the office of the SDM, Udgir but he has not forwarded the same to the RNI.
The respondent in his comments dated 13.4.2011 has submitted that the complainant has filed application on 22.5.2008 for certification of his declaration of his weekly Jantadhish. After scrutiny of the application his declaration was certified and issued to him on 26.5.2008, he submitted two copies of the certification of declaration to the District Magistrate, Latur. The respondent further submitted that the complainant filed another application on 31.1.2009 and requested to issue fresh certification of declaration of his weekly Jantadhish as he changed his name. He further added that certification of declaration were issued to him on 2.2.2009 and similarly copies of certificate to declaration were submitted to the District Magistrate, Latur on 3.2.2009. He has stated that the application of the complainant, Certificate of Declaration issued to the complainant within 4-5 days and there was no delay on his part.
55 In response to the Council Notice for comments dated 24.3.2011 the respondent Deputy Press Registrar, RNI New Delhi vide his comments dated 27.4.2011 submitted that the title ‘Jantadhish’ was issued to the complainant on 17.3.2008. The respondent submitted that the complainant vide his letter dated 27.8.2010 once again requested for issuance of same title code. He has further submitted that after due scrutiny it was found that the complainant has not registered his newspaper within a period of two years and the title was deblocked/cancelled in the office record on 17.3.2010 and intimation was given to the complainant.
The complainant vide his letter dated 7.7.2011 while reiterating his complaint charged that the respondents RNI and SDM, Udgir wanted to close down his newspaper under a conspiracy. The complainant further submitted that he has furnished all the relevant papers on time to the office of the SDM, Udgir but he has not forwarded the same to the RNI for Registration. He has also submitted that he is not satisfied with the comments of the respondents and requested for necessary action.
In response to the Council’s notice for statement in reply, the respondent District Magistrate, Latur in his comments dated 27.9.2011 submitted that the ADM, Udgir on 26.5.2008 and on 3.2.2009 submitted two copies of declaration of the complainant to their office for information. The respondent has further submitted that they were under impression that the SDM, Udgir must have submitted that copies of the newspaper title Declaration directly to the RNI, as the SDM, Udgir was expected to submit those copies of the Declaration directly to the RNI but it seems that it did not happen. The respondent has also submitted that their office is not supposed to submit the declaration as far as Latur district is concerned.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Shri C.K. Singh, Assistant Press Registrar, RNI, Mumbai and Shri Pathan L.I., Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udgir appeared for the respondent. Since the complainant was not present to press the matter, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
30) Dr. Ravi Rastogi, Director General, Editor, Himalaya Aur Hindustan, Information & Public Relations Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. Versus Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
56 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 9.2.2010 has been filed by Dr. Ravi Rastogi, Editor/ Publisher, Himalaya Aur Hindustan, Hindi fortnightly, Rishikesh (Uttrakhand) against Director General, Information & Public Relations Department. Government of Uttrakahnd, Dehradun alleging non-issuance of advertisements regularly and non-payment of his advertisements bills. According to the complainant, his newspaper is duly approved for advertisements by the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity but the respondent I&PRD passed an order dated 8.11.2009, 13.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 for stoppage of advertisements to his newspaper on the ground of irregular publication of the newspaper. The complainant has submitted that he is regularly submitting copies of the issue of his newspaper through post to the Directorate of I&PRD, Government of Uttrakhand. The complainant has further submitted that he has not received satisfactory reply from the respondent authorities despite repeated requests. The complainant has alleged that this biased and malafide attitude of the respondent shows not only curtailment of the freedom of press but it has also financially pressurized his newspaper. He has further alleged that due to malafide intention of the respondent no advertisement is being issued to his newspaper despite regularly sending copies of his newspaper issue to the I&PRD. His pending bills have also not been cleared till date by the respondent. The complainant requested the Council to direct the Government of Uttrakhand for issue of advertisement to his newspaper and also clear his pending bills.
The respondent Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Uttrakahand, Dehradun in his reply dated 1.10.2010 submitted that the allegations leveled by the complainant are totally false and malicious. The respondent submitted that the complainant did not publish his newspaper regularly and had also not submitted copies of his newspaper in the Directorate of I&PRD on time so his newspaper has been listed as irregular. He further submitted that the complainant admitted that those newspapers which are no received by the I&PRD may lost in transit but the complainant may also note that as per PRB Act, two copies of the newspapers should reach the Directorate of I&PRD within 24 hours free of cost, which is also not done by the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the complainant has not published advertisements on time due to irregularity of the newspaper so the advertisements are not release to his newspaper.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 31.12.2010 submitted that the action of the respondent department was totally biased and unjustified. The complainant submitted that they regularly submit copies of the newspaper to the Directorate of I&PR Department Government of Uttrakahand issue advertisements to their newspaper only on special occasions and tender and other advertisements are not issued to them. He concluded with that it is the duty of the respondent
57 department to provide advertisements to the Small & Medium Newspaper for their survival and existence.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant has sent a letter dated 23.9.2012 intimating his inability to attend the hearing as his father was unwell and requested to decide the case on the basis of available records. Shri Nitin Upadhyaya, Information Officer, Uttrakhand State Information Centre, New Delhi appeared on behalf of the respondent. The representative of the respondent contended that State Government issued advertisements to only those newspapers which had regular publication i.e. the newspaper must have to be 80 percent regular as per the Vigyapan Manyata Niyamavali. The respondent informed that advertisements were released to the respondent newspaper initially but they failed to publish them on time and due to which the advertisements lost significance. Thus the Government stopped releasing advertisement to the complainant.
The Inquiry Committee noted that the grievance of the complainant is that advertisement were not issued to his newspaper despite regularly sending copies of his newspaper issue to I&PRD and his pending bills have also not been cleared till date by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the records of the case directed the respondent to make the payment of the bills of the complainant which are due as per entitlement strictly in according with the rules. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the complainant may approach the Court for any further legal remedy. It decided to dispose of the matter and recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the matter.
31) Shri Jai Prakash Tamkoria, The Director, Editor/Publisher, Information & Public Dainik Chhattisgarh Vaibhav, Relations Department, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Versus Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Jaiprakash Tamkoria, Editor/Publisher, Chhattisgarh Vaibhav, Korba, Chhattisgarh. 58 For the Respondent: Shri Umesh Mishra, Joint Director, Public Relations, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 16.5.2011 has been filed by Shri Jai Prakash Tamkoria, Editor/Publisher, Dainik Chhattisgarh Vaibhav, Korba, Chhattisgarh against the Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur alleging non empanelment of his newspaper in the list of Government Advertisements. According to the complainant he publishes the Dainik Chhattisgarh Vaibhav while his brother Shri Ajay Kumar Tamkoria is owner of the evening paper. Despite giving affidavit that both the brothers have separate setup, the Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Chhattisgarh rejected empanelment of his newspaper in the State Government approved list of newspapers for release of the advertisements stating that both the newspapers have same office, telephone nos. and printing press and as per the new advertisement policy of the State, he cannot claim for the empanelment. He challanged the advertisement policy of the State Government which debarred state government advertisements to the second of a family publication. Para 10(3) of the Advertisement Rules, 2010, which reads as follows:
“Where a family publishes more than one periodical in the same language with different names, eligibility of publishing advertisement will be generally given to one newspaper only. On getting any information/complaint regarding publication of one or more periodical in a family there in that cases the final decision will be taken by Commissioner/Director Public Relations for inclusion or exclusion of the newspaper in the list after necessary inquiry”.
According to the complainant, by incorporating the above clause in their Advertisement Policy, the State Government not only totally ignored the Model Advertisement Policy framed by the Press Council of India, provisions of the PRB Act but also the constitution of India. The complainant requested the Council to set aside the provision of the advertisement policy of the State Government of Chhattisgarh and get accreditation of advertisement for his newspaper.
The respondent Director, Information & Public Relations, Raipur filed reply dated 27.6.2011 and submitted that Dainik Chhattisgarh Vaibhav and Sandhya Samikshak published by one publisher from Korba. The respondent also stated that the screening Committee also noted that the editorial of both the newspapers along with headlines are word to word same and the newspapers published on alternate basis. When the Committee enquired about the number of copies sold per day the
59 agency also could not give satisfactory reply. The respondent denied the allegation levelled by the complainant that the Advertisement Policy, 2010 framed in hurry as this clause was also in the old policy {Rule 14(3)}.
The complainant submitted that the respondent have not given any proper answer and just forwarded a copy of the decision taken on 25.11.2010 in Accreditation Committee Meeting. The complainant submitted that his request is to dismiss or change the Rule 14(3) which is not done by the respondent. According to the complainant there are many other newspapers which are published by same publisher and run by brothers. The complainant stated that the News Agencies provides material to the newspapers in composed manner and the same is published word to word, if this is illegal then State Government should not pressurize the newspapers to take services of the such news agencies.
The matter is placed before the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee noted that in this case the complainant has challenged the legitimacy of Clause 10(3) of the Advertisement Rules, 2010 of Chhattisgarh Government. The said rule reiterated her for clear understating of its implication: “Where a family publishes more than one periodical in the same language with different names, eligibility of publishing advertisement will be generally given to one newspaper only. On getting any information/complaint regarding publication of one or more periodical in a family there in that cares the final decision in will be taken by Commissioner/Director Public Relations for inclusion or exclusion of the newspaper in the list after necessary inquiry”. The Inquiry Committee prima facie is of the opinion that Rule 10(3) violates Article 14 of the Constitution. For example, if there are two family members who published separate newspapers in Hindi language then according to rule 10(3) only one gets the accreditation. The Inquiry Committee opined that it is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory because each family member is a citizen of India and both are separate entity. Merely because of the fact of being member of same family another should not be denied advertisement. However, Rule 10(3) does not make this distinction. Hence, the Inquiry Committee holds that it is prime facie violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and no policy can override the Constitution. Since the Press Council does not have the power to strike down the rule and it can only make observations, it therefore, dispose off the case with these observations. The complainant may approach the appropriate Court of Law for appropriate action, if so desire.
Held
The Council has accepted and adopted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided to dispose of the case with these observations.
60 32) Shri Subash Jain, Department of Chief Editor, Versus Publication Relation, Aaj Ki Janta, Government of Madhya Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Pradesh, M.P.
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Subhash Jain
For the Respondent: Shri Lajpat Ahuja, Additional Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Shri Prakash Gaur, OSD & AMD, Department of Public Relations, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 8.2.2012 has been filed by Shri Subash Jain, Chief Editor, Aaj Ki Janta, Indore, Madhya Pradesh against Department of Public Relation, Government of Madhya Pradesh alleging stoppage of advertisements to his newspaper. The complainant has stated that the Department of Public Relations has been continuously releasing advertisements to his newspaper for the last 30 years but now they stopped releasing advertisements just because the newspaper Aaj Ki Janta does not propagate the views of RSS (BJP) through their newspaper. The complainant further alleged that Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan’s government is releasing advertisements to those newspapers that spread the views of RSS (BJP). He has stated that he has been harassed by the government by denying the advertisements to the newspapers. The complainant had written various letters to the respondent authorities since2007 but no response was received.
The matter was considered by the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. The complainant submitted that the Department of Public Relations had a policy that advertisement will be released on application. The complainant applied for advertisements but in vain. He said his newspaper is 41 year old.
The respondent has submitted that advertisement cannot be given on every application but the newspaper was being given one advertisement almost every month. He also submitted that no application had been received from the complainant since last four months. He also asserted that in the 2007 High Court had held that the courts cannot interfere in the policy matter of the Government. He however, assured careful scrutiny of the case whether to give advertisement or not.
The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent Shri Lajpat Ahuja, Additional Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh has stated that the allegations in the complaint are baseless but they will 61 consider the application of the complainant for advertisement on merit and there will be no discrimination in issuing of the advertisement. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the matter in terms of the assurance given by the State Government and recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the matter.
33) Shri Raghunath Singh, The Commissioner, Deputy General Manager, Versus Jaipur Municipal Corporation Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, Rajasthan Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Appearance For the Complainant: S/Shri Mahesh Vijay and Gopal Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent: Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma, Advocate
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 7.4.2011 has been filed by Shri Raghunath Singh, Dy. General Manager, M/s Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Kesargarh, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur against the Mayor, Jaipur Municipal Corporation alleging illegal and unjustified stoppage of advertisements to their newspaper ‘Rajasthan Patrika’. The complainant has stated that the respondent had been releasing advertisement to his newspaper on regular basis but the Corporation from the last seven days has not released any advertisement to his newspaper vis-a-vis other newspapers. It was further stated by the complainant that the Corporation is playing a discriminatory role in releasing the advertisement to his newspaper because Rajasthan Patrika had published some scams in their newspaper which had direct allegation against the Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 31.3.2012 requesting resumption of the advertisements but to no avail. The complainant also addressed the State Development Department on 30.4.2012 with a copy to the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Jaipur for necessary action but no satisfactory response was received.
Notice for statement in reply was issued by the Council to the respondent, Jaipur Municipal Corporation on 6.7.2012 for comments but no reply was received. 62 The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The respondent was unable to present his defence. The Inquiry Committee after perusal of the records of the case was therefore, satisfied that stoppage of the advertisement to the complainant newspaper by the respondent was unjustified. The Inquiry Committee accordingly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to release all due advertisements to the complainant including the backlog. It recommends to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Council has accepted and adopted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
34) Shri Raghunath Singh, The Chief Secretary, Deputy General Manager, Government of Madhya Rajasthan Patrika, Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P. Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Versus The Commissioner, Kesargarh, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Directorate of Public Jaipur – 302 004. Relations, Jansampark Bhawan, Tagore Marg, Banganga, Bhopal, M.P.
Appearance For the Complainant: S/Shri Mahesh Vijay and Gopal Shamra, Advocates
For the Respondent: Shri Lajpat Ahuja, Additional Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Shri Prakash Gaur, OSD &AMD, Department of Public Relations, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 23.12.2011 has been filed by Shri Ragunath Singh, Deputy General Manager, Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, Jaipur against the Government of Madhya Pradesh and its department, namely Directorate of Public Relations alleging discriminatory policy in the matter of release advertisements to Rajasthan Patrika. The complainant has stated that their circulation is approx 7.5 lakhs but in spite of that the Share of the advertisements in other newspapers is much more. The complainant had written to the Commissioner, Directorate of Public Relations, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh on 11.01.2012 but no response.
63 The Council issued notice for statement in reply to the respondent on 2.2.2012. In response Shri Anil Mathur, Dy. Director (Advertisements), Madhya Pradesh filed comments on 7.3.2012 and denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that there was no discrimination against Rajasthan Patrika in the matter of release of advertisements. The respondent has stated that they had given maximum number of advertisements to the Rajasthan Patrika, Bhopal in the current financial year while all other newspapers were provided less number of advertisements. So, in order to balance this difference, less number of advertisements was given to Rajasthan Patrika in last two months. According to the respondent, they never discriminated with Rajasthan Patrika in releasing the advertisements.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee has been informed that the complainant is getting due advertisement from the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Inquiry Committee is thus not inclined to take any action on the complaint. It recommends to the Council to close the complaint.
Held The Council accepted and adopted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to close the matter.
Principles and Publication 35) The Chairman The Editor Employment Promotion Council of Global Jobs Indian Personnel Versus (Subsidiary of Times of Mumbai India), Mumbai The Editor Assignment Abroad Times, Mumbai The Editor Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai
ADJUDICATION
These three separate complaints dated 9.9.2009, 8.2.2011 and 2.2.2011/ 16.2.2011 have been filed by the Chairman, Employment Promotion Council of Indian Personnel, Mumbai against (1) Global Jobs (2) Assignment Abroad Times and (3) Mumbai Mirror for alleged publication of advertisements regarding overseas jobs by unauthorised foreign Employers/Recruiting agents in its issues dated 2.9.2009, 5.2.2011 and 30.1.2011/13.2.2011 respectively. 64 The complainant stated that the impugned advertisements inserted by some companies advertised for requirement of several vacancies abroad. Whereas only the Registered Recruiting Agents and Genuine Foreign Employers with valid permit are allowed to advertise and recruit Indian citizens for overseas jobs. It is also mandatory for Registered Recruiting Agents to display their registration certificate numbers in the advertisements for recruitment and similarly foreign employers should also indicate their permit number while inserting the advertisements. No one can issue such advertisement without obtaining Registration Certification from Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs under Emigration Act, 1983. The Act also casts a responsibility on the press to comply with these provisions. The Press Council has on its part issued, in an adjudication guidelines specific to the issue for the benefit of the press. The complainant has alleged that the respondents by publishing such advertisements violated the relevant Section of Emigration Act, 1983 and decision rendered by the Council on 12.7.2006.
Show-cause notices were issued to the respondents-(1) Global Jobs (2) Assignment Abroad Times and (3) Mumbai Mirror on 10.2.2010, 23.5.2011 and 11.8.2011 respectively.
In response the respondent-Assignment Abroad Times in his written statement dated 1.6.2011 submitted that on receipt of letters from the complainant they started insisting for permit number from all foreign employers for release of advertisement in his newspaper and has not published any ads of foreign employers without permit number for a period of two months. While informing that all other newspapers had been continuously publishing such ads has requested the Council to issue orders to all the newspapers to comply with the Emigration Rules.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 6.6.2011 on the reply of the respondent-Assignment Abroad Times has stated that the respondent’s reply is an admission of violation of PCI guidelines and consequently has taken remedial measures by insisting for Permit Number from all Foreign Employers to release Advertisement. Admission on the part of newspaper office does not absolve them from the wrongful act of contravention of Emigration Act.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. The complainant is not present. For the respondents only Assignment Abroad Times is represented by Shri T. Shreehari, General Manager (Marketing). The Inquiry Committee noted that the Council has already considered the matter upholding similar advertisement to be against the interest of public by leaving them at the mercy of unregistered recruitment agents and other unscrupulous elements. It had therefore drawing upon the provisions of the Emigration Act 1983 drawn up check
65 points for the guidance of the press accepting overseas employment advertisements. These guidelines had been widely circulated through press notes as well as circulated through newspapers organizations. Despite above, the appearance of these advertisements is a matter of concern. The press as a custodian of public interest is expected to keep these requirements in mind. It is also necessary that not just the editorial but even the advertisement department of the newspaper be attuned to these provisions. While recommending to the Council to uphold the complaint the Inquiry Committee decided to relist the guidelines as below for the benefit of the press.
“Model Guidelines for Publishing Overseas Advertisements in Accordance With Emigration Act 1983”
The Information and Broadcasting Ministry requested the Council to issue guideline for the publishers in wake of advertisements of overseas jobs being published in various newspapers in contravention of Emigration Act, 1983. The Council in consultation with the Protector General of Emigration adopted the following model guidelines.
1. As per the provisions of Section 16 of the Emigration Act, 1983, no employer can recruit any citizen of India for employment in any country or place outside India except (a) through a recruiting agent competent under the Act to make such recruitment, or (b) in accordance with a valid permit issued in this behalf.
2. Section 10 of the Emigration Act, 1983, provides that no recruiting agent shall commence or carry on the business of recruitment of Indian citizens for overseas employment except under and in accordance with the certificate issued by the registering authority, i.e., Protector General of Emigrants in the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs.
3. Similarly, a foreign employer or a project exporter can recruit Indian citizens for employment abroad only after obtaining permit from the Indian Mission in the country of employment or the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
4. It is mandatory for the Registered Recruiting Agents to display their registration certificate number while inserting advertisement for recruitment. Similarly, Foreign Employers and Project Exporters will also have to indicate permit number while inserting advertisements.
5. A copy of the registration certificate in case of recruiting agents and permit letter in case of foreign employers and project exporters may be asked to be attached with the advertisement form as proof of their being genuine persons.
66 6. All advertisers may be asked to mention the following in their advertisement:
a. Registration Certificate Number/Permit Number; b. Full address with Telephone Number, Post Box Number, e-mail address (These could be given in addition to the full address but not as the mode of communication); c. 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.
7. 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.
8. Also clarifications may be sought from the Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi or from the eight Offices of the Protector of Emigrants located at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin, Chandigarh and Hyderabad.
9. The list of registered recruiting agents can also be seen in the website of the Ministry of Overseas Indian affairs, i.e. http://moia.gov.in
The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to forward these adjudications to the concerned Ministry of the government for wider publicity. The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
36) Ms. Suchita Kumbhar The Editor General Secretary Mid-Day Network by People Living Versus Mumbai with HIV & AIDS Mumbai
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 26.8.2010 has been filed by Ms. Suchitra Kumbhar, General Secretary of the Network by People Living with HIV & AIDS in Mumbai against the editor, Mid Day, Mumbai for publication of an objectionable “Public
67 Notice” in its issue dated 15.5.2010 with photograph of one Mr. Afsar Shaik (along with his photograph) identifying him in a HIV positive person and cautioning the public in its dealings with him.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 16.12.2010, the counsel for the respondent editor, Mid-Day in his written statement dated 13.1.2011 has submitted that his client received around three thousand advertisements/public notices daily for publication and hence it is humanly impossible to check or keep a track on each advertisement/public notice. He has submitted that public notice dated 15.5.2010 was received for publication by Mr. N. Khaleel who gave an affidavit to this effect that they would be responsible for the said notice and Khaleel’s name also appeared below the Notice accordingly. He has further stated that Mr. Afsar Shaik about whom the said public notice is published has neither raised any objection in this regard nor he approached the Press Council of India or the complainant. He has stated that there is no question of violation of rights of privacy of any person of HIV/ AIDS affected people as alleged by the complainant because the said public notice is not about HIV/AIDS affected people in general but it is about a particular person namely Mr. Afsar Shaik who has never expressed any grievance about the same.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Shri Shiv kumar Verma, Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, Head Administration and Shri Vipul Bilvewere present for the respondent. Since the complainant was not present and the impugned publication was advertisement/ public notice, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint with reiteration of the guidelines developed on HIV/AIDS reporting stressing that as socially responsible media, the press contributes vitally to the removal of prejudice and stigmas to public mind.
The Press Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
37) Shri Narayan S. Navti, The Editor Joint Chief Electoral Officer Navprabha Panaji Versus Goa Goa
ADJUDICATION
A communication dated 11.10.2010 has been received from Shri Narayan S. Navti, Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Panaji, Goa forwarding therewith an article dated 10.10.2010 published in Navprabha, a Marathi Daily for examination of the Council. The article is encaptioned “Only final stamp required on Vishwajeet victory”. According to the complainant, the article favouring a Congress candidate 68 Shri Vishwajeet, a week before the bye-elections of Valpoi constituency, appears to have been published either by taking money or under influence of the candidate.
In response to the show cause notice dated 30.11.2010, the respondent editor, Navaprabha, in his written statement dated 19.12.2010 has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that the article in question is a neutral analysis of the political situation during that week. The respondent further submitted that it is unbiased and an attempt to analyse the political situation in Goa’s Sattari Taluka and the bye-election later proved that the observations were true. The respondent intimated that the complainant was previously an employee of their company i.e. Navhind papers and publications and it seems that the complaint itself is biased.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 25.1.2011 has submitted that the reply of the respondent is not convincing as no justification appears to have been given by the editor. The complainant has stated that the caption of the news feature published in the newspaper is indicative of declaration of the victory of the particular candidate before actual election takes place, raising a doubt on the impartiality of the newspaper. The respondent in his further communication dated 16.2.2011 has contended that no complaint against the impugned report had been received by the local Paid News Committee. He also contended that the newspaper had given due coverage is every political party/ candidate and the impugned publication was their analysis of the situation.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Shri Sushil Nimbkarwas present for the respondent. Since the complainant is not present and there was no material before the Committee to establish that it was paid news, the Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
38) Shri Abu Asim Azmi, (Ex-MP) The Editor Mumbai Versus The Urdu Times Mumbai
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 20.2.2010 is filed by Shri Abu Asim Azmi, Former MP and then MLA, Maharashtra, Mumbai against the editor, The Urdu Times, Urdu daily, Mumbai for publication of allegedly nefarious, objectionable, false, vexatious, fictitious and obnoxious news items under the captions: Secret of Samajwadi Party
69 and Shiv Sena-BJP’s underground friendship and Absence of Samajwadi Party’s Municipal Councillors during the Mayor’s election – Result of Alliance with communal Forces Librahan Commission’s Report-useless-row over Babri Masjid issue – It can be only solved by Court-Urdu Time’s Special conversation with Azam Khan” in its issues dated 3.12.2009 and 4.12.2009.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Shri Farooq Ansari, Chief Reporter was present for the respondent, though no defence had been filed in response to the show cause notice. Since the complainant was not present, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
The Press Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
39) Shri P.P. Kapur, The Editors, Haryana State Convenor, Punjab Kesari, Labour organization IFTU, Jalandhar Haryana. Versus Dainik Bhaskar; Panipat. Dainik Jagran, Panipat.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.10.2009 has been filed by Shri P.P. Kapur, Haryana State Convenor, Labour Organization IFTU, Haryana against the editors, Punjab Kesari, Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Jagran for publication of false and misleading news items/articles in favour of one candidate in the election of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana. The complainant submitted that the respondents take huge amounts from the candidates and publish the reports in their favour to mislead the general public. The news items/articles are totally false and a part of yellow journalism.
Notices for statement in reply were issued to the respondents on 16.4.2010.
In response to the Council’s Notice dated 16.4.2010, the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari, Ambala Cantt vide his comments dated 19.5.2010 while denying allegation of the complainant, challenged his locus standi to make the complaint. The respondent has further submitted that the complaint is encroachment on the freedom of press and violative of Article 19(1) of Constitution of India. According to him, the complaint is misdirected and the complainant is viewing the newspaper with a jaundice eye for some personal motive and reason. The respondent has submitted
70 that the impugned material are advertisements published in the ordinary course of its business. The newspaper has taken special caution to ensure that impugned advertisements are boxed and printed in a font different from the newspapers regular font and has also ensured that the size of the text is not the same as the regular text of the newspaper. The respondent has further submitted that the advertisements have been carried at the bottom of the newspaper pages like the other advertisements as per the usual practice. The newspaper has taken utmost care and steps in distinguishing the advertisements from the regular news items and to ensure that the readers are able to clearly discern the usual news items from these ads. According to the respondent, the impugned advertisements fully satisfy guidelines laid down by the Press Council of India as provided in Rule 36 of Norms of Journalistic Conduct- 2005. The respondent mentioned that advertisements regarding elections and their candidates are also carried by all regional and national newspapers and this is a general practice with every newspaper.
The complainant on 13.10.2010 challenged and expressed his disappointment with the reply.
The other respondents i.e. Dainik Jagran and Dainik Bhaskar failed to file their replies.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.1.2012 at New Delhi. Shri P.P. Kapur appeared in person. Shri B. K. Mishra, Advocate appeared on behalf of Dainik Jagran. The respondents Punjab Kesari and Dainik Bhaskar sought adjournment of the matters due to elections in the States. The complainant submitted before the Inquiry Committee that headlines of the news reports published in all the newspapers are same and contents matches line to line and it looks that it is a paid news.
The Inquiry Committee adjourned all these cases in view of the prayer for common hearing made by Punjab Kesari and Dainik Bhaskar.
Parties were informed vide Council’s letter dated 9.4.2012 about the adjournment.
Report
The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. S/Shri Rajesh Kumar Dube, Manager (Legal) appeared for Dainik Jagran and B.C. Sahani, Advocate & Madan Mohan Thapar, Section Head appeared for Punjab Kesari. None appeared on behalf of Dainik Bhaskar.
71 The respondents submitted that impugned material were advertisements and not the news items and informed the Committee that they are following the guidelines on Paid News framed by Press Council of India in 2010. The Committee examined the case on merits and noted that the allegations of Paid News related to the year 2009, since then, guidelines have been laid down by the Press Council in 2010 on the issue it therefore directed the respondents to give an undertaking in writing that they will follow the guidelines on Paid News laid down by the Press Council of India in 2010. Similar directions were given in absolute to Dainik Bhaskar with these observations, the Committee recommended to the Council to close the matter.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to close the matter.
40) Shri Shamsher Singh, The Editior, State General Secretary, Punjab Kesari, Indian Justice Party, Versus Amballa Cantt. Amballa, Haryana. Haryana.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 26.9.2009 has been filed by Shri Shamsher Singh Arya, State General Secretary, Indian Justice Party, Haryana against the editor, Punjab Kesari, Amballa for publication of series allegedly wrong and misleading news items between 4.10.2009 to 12.10.2009 during state assemble election:
The complainant alleged that the impugned news items published as news are actually advertisements and published just to mislead the general public in elections. The complainant submitted that the newspaper published false and baseless news item in favour of a candidate who is contesting in elections. The newspaper did not publish news of a poor candidates unable to pay thousands of rupees for the advertisements. The complainant further submitted that the newspaper owners employed non-qualified persons.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 16.4.2010, the editor, Punjab Kesari vide his written statement dated 19.5.2010 while denying allegations of the complainant has submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The respondent has further submitted that the complaint is encroachment on the freedom of press and violative of Article 19(1) of Constitution of India. According to him the complaint is misdirected and the complainant is viewing the newspaper with a jaundiced eye for some personal motive and reason. The 72 respondent has submitted that the impugned advertisements have been published in ordinary course of its business and the newspaper has taken special caution to ensure that impugned advertisements are boxed and printed in a font different from the newspapers regular font and have also ensured that the size of the text is not the same as the regular text of the newspaper. The respondent has further submitted that the ads have been carried at the bottom of the newspaper pages like the other ads as per the usual practice. The newspaper has taken utmost care and steps in distinguishing the ads from the regular news items and to ensure that the readers are able to clearly discern the usual news items from these ads. According to the respondent, the impugned ads fully satisfy guidelines laid down by the PCI as provided in Rule 36 of Norms of Journalistic Conduct. The respondent has mentioned that ads regarding elections and their candidates are also carried by all regional and national newspapers and this is a general practice with every newspaper. The respondent has denied the allegations of the complainant that the owners of the newspaper exploit their reporters and submitted that the newspaper has never availed the services of the complainant and as such, he is not expected to know the working of their organization which has always faulted the evil and made great sacrifices for upholding truth and ideal principles of journalism and journalism ethics.
No counter comments were filed by the complainant. Argument The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. Shri N.C. Sahani, Advocate & Shri Madan Mohan, Section Head appeared on behalf of the respondent. None appeared on behalf of the complainant. However an adjournment application from the complainant stating that he is unwell was received without any medical certificate. Thus the Committee declined the request of adjournment and dismissed the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
41) Shri Lokesh Kumar Malik, Versus Editor, Advocate, Dainik Bhaskar, Sonepat, Haryana. Panipat, Haryana. ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 13.3.2008 has been filed by Shri Lokesh Kumar Malik, Advocate, Sonepat, Haryana against Dainik Bhaskar, Panipat, Haryana for 73 publication of allegedly vulgar and objectionable news items captioned ‘14 Ki Umar Mein Britney Ne Kiya Tha Sex’ and ‘Servajinik Roop Se Komarya Nilam Karegi Chhatra’ in its 5th and 15th September 2008 issues respectively. According to the complainant after the publication of the first news article, he wrote to the respondent editor vide letter dated 5.9.2008 but instead of taking corrective measures, the second news article was published. He has alleged that the news items in question are having great impact on the teenagers of the society and affected their development overtly. Neither the news items were acceptable nor the newspaper has been declared as an adult one, stated the complainant and alleged that the respondent newspaper intended to destroy the social and cultural values.
The Executive Editor, Dainik Bhasker in his comments dated 16.1.2009 stated that the impugned news items were published to inform the public that how children got out of control in their teenage and also to depict the plight of a poor girl who was craving for money to fund her studies.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 12.3.2009 has countered the respondent that the news items were published for information and awareness purpose.
Following one adjournment of 18.8.2011, when no party was present, the matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh, when the Committee recommended to the Council to close the matter.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
42) Shri N. Konda Reddy, Versus The Editor, Indian National Congress Worker, Sakshi Daily, Kadapa District, A.P. Hyderabad, A.P.
ADJUDICATION
The Chief Electoral Officer & Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide his letter dated 19.5.2011has forwarded a copy of the letter dated 23.3.2011 received from the District Collector Y.S.R. District, Kadapa forwarding therewith a copy of the complaint of Shri N. Konda Reddy, Indian National Congress Worker against Sakshi newspaper for publishing series of false allegations about Shri. N. Varadarajula Reddy, the contesting candidate for Kadapa local authorities constituency in its issues dated March 2, 2011 to March 11, 2011.
74 In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 27.7.2011 the respondent editor, Sakshi, Telugu Daily in his written statement dated 24.8.2011 has stated in respect of all the reports that there is nothing objectionable and false. The respondent submitted that all the news reports are general and in public interest. In all the news reports only those issues are highlighted which are concerned with the general public and comments of the various leaders of the parties are also incorporated which are not in bad taste. The respondent has stated that none of the reports in question, can be countered even remotely that it has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste. There is nothing to show in these reports that they committed any professional misconduct and on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has further stated that the reports in question have been published in good faith and without malice with due care and attention and after verification of facts in public interest.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.2.2012 at Chennai. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri P. Subhash, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee adjourned that matter as a last chance to the complainant.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on27.8.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from the complainant side. Sh. P.Subash, Advocate was present from the respondent side. Since the complainant is not present, the complaint deserved to be dismissed for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
43) Prof. M.K. Vasantha, The Editor, Chairman, Versus Dainik Jagran, Akashdeep Enclave Residence Haridwar. Welfare Society (AERWS) Roorkee (Uttar Pradesh).
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 11.10.2008 has been filed by Prof. M.K. Vasantha, Chairman, AERWS (Akashdeep Enclave Residence Welfare Society), Roorkee
75 against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Haridwar for alleged publication of false, baseless and distorted news item captioned “½ããäԕ㪠¦ããñ¡ Àã¦ããòÀã¦ã ½ãÊãºãã ãä‡ãŠ¾ãã Øãã¾ãºã” in its issue dated 5.10.2008 regarding demolition of a non-existing mosque and resulting in demonstration of thousands of Muslims in the area.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.2011. The complainant in a letter dated 1.8.2011 informed about his inability to attend the hearing and expressed concern over non filing of written statement by the respondent. Shri B.K. Mishra, advocate appeared for respondent and contested that the complaint was factually incorrect as the mosque “Akbari Masjid” was very much in existence which was demolished overnight by some anti-social elements. He also asserted that many other newspapers, i.e. Rashtriya Sahara, Amar Ujala and Hindustan Times had published the news report. He requested for time to file written statement. The Inquiry Committee having noted the contents of the complainant’s letter dated 1.8.2011 and in order to afford an opportunity to the respondent, adjourned the matter with the direction to the respondent to file written statement within four weeks.
The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri R.K. Dubey, Manager Legal appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had requested for decision on the basis of record. The respondent sought adjournment The Inquiry Committee granted adjournment as a last chance.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.8.2012. There was no appearance from either side. Since the complainant is not present and has not countered the written statement the complaint deserves to be dismissed for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
44) Suo-motu action on reference from Election Commission of India against the Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Jagran, Prabhat Khabar, Aaj, Rashtriya Sahara, Hindustan Times, Purvanchal Ki Raah, and Dainik Udyog and
76 Vyapar Times for publication of allegedly ‘Paid News’ during election in the grab of news.
ADJUDICATIONS
The Election Commission of India vide its letter dated 31.5.2011 has sent a statement of cases of “Paid News” during General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Bihar – 2010. These reports are based on the observations of district level Media Certification and Monitoring Committee, District Election Officer and Expenditure Observers appointed by the Election Commission. The Council took suo-motu cognizance against the following newspapers Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Jagran, Prabhat Khabar, Aaj, Rashtriya Sahara, Hindustan Times, Purvanchal Ki Raah, and Dainik Udyog and Vyapar Times for publishing allegedly “Paid News” as follows:
1. Dainik Hindustan
S.No. Caption Dated 1. ¶ãÀ‡ãŠã䛾ãã ½ãò ‡ãŠãâØãÆñÔã ‡ãŠãè ÊãÖÀ-Ôããñ¶ãî 21.10.2010 2. ãäÌãÌãñ‡ãŠ ‡ã슽ããÀ ÖãòØãñ ¶ãØãÀ ãäÌã£ãã¾ã‡ãŠ 22.10.2010 3. ½ãì•ã¹ã‹¹ãŠÀ¹ãìÀ ½ãò ¶ããèãä¦ãÍã ÊãÖÀ, ÔãìÀñÍã Íã½ããà ÖãòØãñ ãäÌã£ãã¾ã‡ãŠ 23.10.2010
2. Dainik Jagran
S.No. Caption Dated 1. ºãÔã¹ãã ‡ãŠãè ¶ãÖãè ãä‡ãŠÔããè Ôãñ Êã¡ãƒÃ 13.10.2010 2. ªÀãõªãè àãñ¨ã ‡ãŠã ‡ãŠÁâØãã ãäÌã‡ãŠãäÔã¦ã - ¹ãƼãì¶ãã©ã 19.10.2010 3. ºããè†Ôã¹ããè ‡ãŠã Êãàã ÔãÌãÕã¶ã ãäÖ¦ãã¾ã ÔãÌãÕã¶ã - ¹ãƼãì¶ãã©ã 20.10.2010 4. ½ãñÀãè Êã¡ãƒÃ ãä‡ãŠÔããè Ôãñ ¶ãÖãè - ¹ãƼãì¶ãã©ã 24.10.2010
3. Prabhat Khabar
S.No. Caption Dated 1. ÞããÀãò ¦ãÀ¹ãŠ ÞãÊã ÀÖãè Öõ ºãÆ•ãñÍã ‡ãŠãè ÊãÖÀ 8.10.2010 2. ºãÆ•ãñÍã ¶ãñ ØããâÌããò ‡ãŠã ¼ãƽã¥ã ãä‡ãŠ¾ãã 16.10.2010
4. Dainik Aaj
S.No. Caption Dated 1. ªÀãõªã ‡ãŠãè •ã¶ã¦ãã ‡ãŠã ÔãñÌã‡ãŠ ºã¶ã‡ãñŠ ‡ãŠã½ã ‡ãŠÁâØãã ÍããÔã‡ãŠ ºã¶ã‡ãŠÀ ¶ãÖãé - ºãÆ•ãñÍã 20.10.2010
77 5. Rashtriya Sahara
S.No. Caption Dated 1. ‡ãŠãâØãÆñÔã ‡ãñŠ ¹ãàã ½ãò ÖÌãã - Ôããñ¶ãî 14.10.2010 2. ¦ãñ•ããè Ôãñ •ãì¡ ÀÖñ ‡ãŠãâØãÆñÔã ‡ãñŠ ¹ãÀ½¹ãÀãØã¦ã ½ã¦ãªã¦ãã 15.10.2010 6. Hindustan Times
S.No. Caption Dated 1. Paswan’s chopper cuts through dais, 8 injured 25.10.2010 2. Patna road gets Nitish credit 25.10.2010 3. Muslim mood divided in Saran 25.10.2010 4. Nitish is our hero but his candidates are zero 25.10.2010
7. Purvanchal Ki Raah
S.No. Caption Dated 1. Various news items (total 32) 1-2.10.2010
8. Dainik Udyog Vyapar Times
S.No. Caption Dated 1. ¡ã. ¼ãÀ¦ã ãäÔãâÖ ‡ãñŠ Ôã½ãéã¶ã ½ãò ØããùÌã-ØããùÌã ªãõ¡õ Ôã½ã©ãÇ㊠8.11.2010 2. ¼ãã•ã¹ãã ¹ãƦ¾ããÔããè ‡ãŠã ¦ãî¹ãŠã¶ããè ªãõÀã, ª•ãöããò ØããâÌããñ ½ãò ½ããâØãñ Ìããñ› 9.11.2010
The Election Commission of India submitted that in all the cases notices were issued to the candidates concerned and in response to notice, the candidates included the expenditure incurred by them on account of these ‘news’ in their accounts of election expenses. According to the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, Bihar the newspapers has published news for payment and he has provided zerox copies of the acceptance letters of the candidates for Paid News Advertisements.
The Council issued show cause notice to the respondent newspapers on 22.7.2011(Prabhat Khabar, Rashtriya Sahara and Udyog Vyapar Times), 22.9.2011(Dainik Hindustan, Hindustan Times, Dainik Jagran, Dainik Aaj and Purvanchal Ki Raah)
Written Statement of Prabhat Khabar
In response to the show cause notice dated 22.7.2011 the respondent editor, Prabhat Khabar in his written statement dated 9.8.2011 has submitted that they
78 have not published paid news as alleged by the Election Commission of India. The Election Commission of India has no proof of Paid News and if Election Commission of India has any such document the same may be forwarded to them. The respondent further stated that if the ECI has no proof of paid news published by them, PCI is requested to acquit from the charge levelled against them by the ECI. The respondent concluded that if the ECI has proved the charges by sending the documents in support of their contention they will apologies for the allegations levelled against them i.e. publication of paid news.
Written statement of Rashtriya Sahara
In response to the show cause Notice dated 22.7.2011 the respondent editor, Rashtriya Sahara in his written statement dated 30.8.2011 submitted that the news items in question published in his newspaper were not Paid News as alleged by the ECI and they have not violated the rule of either PCI or the Election Commission of India.
Written statement of Dainik Udyog Vyapar Times, Aligarh
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 22.7.2011 the respondent editor, Dainik Udyog Vyapar Times, Aligarh in his written statement dated 28.10.2011 submitted that they have not published any Paid News till date and it is not in their work culture. The respondent submitted that if any newspaper published any news item same as they have published it does not appear that it is a Paid News. The respondent further submitted that it is also a fact that other newspapers hack their computer site and publish the same news. He assured the Council that in future they will take care of this.
Other respondents i.e. Dainik Hindustan, Hindustan Times, Dainik Jagran, Dainik Aaj and Purvanchal Ki Raah have not filed their written statement.
Hearing before the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee considered the matters on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. S/Sh. B.K.Mishra & R.K.Dubey from Dainik Jagran, Rajendre Tiwari, from Prabhat Khabar, P.M. Pocdayy Prabha Nah Yadav, counsel from Rashtriya Sahara, Aniruddha Singh Rajavat, Delhi from Hindustan Times, Prabhadeo Narayan, Correspondent from Purvanchal Ki Raah and Manoj Jadaon from Dainik Udyog Vyapar Times appeared before the Committee and denied that the publication made by them were paid news. The representative of Prabhat Khabar submitted that their newspaper was the first newspaper to campaign against the paid news. He further submitted that the candidate had also denied it.
79 Report
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and hearing, the respondents noted that these are bunch of cases relating to paid news against Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Jagran, Prabhat Khabar, Dainik Aaj, Rashtrya Sahara, Hindustan Times, Purvanchal Ki Raah, Dainik Udyog Vyapar Times. In all these cases, except Prabhat Khabar, the candidate in question admitted before the Election Commission of India that he paid for impugned material. Hence, the Inquiry Committee found no reason to disbelieve the Commission or the candidate. The Inquiry Committee finds that the impugned material were presented to the readers as news reports with no indication of their being advertisement/self promotion material of the candidate. The action is clearly in violation of the guidelines of the Press Council as contained in Report on Paid News and, having being published after the Report was presented and released to the public, is a reflection of the disregard of the newspapers of their duty towards the public and the principles of democracy enshrined in our constitution. The Inquiry Committee recollected that the Council’s report on Paid News had observed: The Phenomenon of “paid news” is a serious matter as it influences the functioning of a free press. The media acts as a repository of public trust for conveying correct and true information to the people. However, when paid information is presented as news content, it could mislead the public and thereby hamper their judgment to form a correct opinion. The phenomenon of ‘paid news’ can cause double jeopardy to the Indian democracy by adversely impacting the free functioning of the media and on the free and fair election process. Thus, there is an urgent need to protect public’s right to correct and unbiased information.” Following due consultation with all stakeholders the Council had defined Paid News as “Any news or analysis appearing in any media (Print & Electronic) for a price in cash or kind as consideration”.
The Election Commission of India on the recommendation of the Press Council of India has taken several steps to curb paid news. It has expanded the ambit of Section 127 A (3) (b) of RP Act which defines ‘election pamphlets or posters’ to include “Paid News” under the definition of “other document”. Thus if the advertisement is with the consent of the candidate, it has to be accounted for in his/her election expense. Despite sincere efforts by various stakeholders, the phenomenon continues and unless urgent steps are taken, the ultimate looser will be the people of India. With these observations, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council that in view of campaign launched by Prabhat Khabar against paid news, and the denial by the candidate concerned, the newspaper may be cautioned for future. In respect of other newspapers namely; Dainik Hindustan, Dainik Jagran, Dainik Aaj, Rashtriya Sahara, Hindustan Times, Purvanchal Ki Raah, Dainik Udyog Vyapar Times; which are guilty of having carried news reports that were in fact self- promotion material provided by the candidate in the fray, the Inquiry Committee
80 recommended to the Council to hold them of guilty of violation of journalistic conduct and responsibility under Section 14 (i) of the Press Council Act 1978, and award them the highestpenalty of censure under the provision thereof.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to censure/apology accordingly.
45) Shri Sushanta Swain, The Editor, the then Sarpanch, Sambad, Goutmi Gram Panchayat, Versus Bhubaneswar, Goutmi (Ganjam) Orissa. Orissa.
ADJUDICATION
Facts
This complaint dated 7.3.2012 has been filed by Shri Sushanta Swain, Orissa against the editor, Sambad, Bhubaneswar for publication of incorrect new item under the caption: “History of half century will be changed” (English translation) in its issue dated 18.1.2012. It was published in the impugned news item that the villagers of eight villages decided in a meeting to cast their vote for a particular candidate for recently held Panchayat Poll of Goutmi Panchayat. The villagers decided that people who oppose the decision of the meeting will face social boycott. The wife of the present Sarpanch was chosen as the Sarpanch Candidate but an educated lady of the village went against the decision of the villagers and filed her nomination for the post of Sarpanch. The newspaper published the photograph along with news item captioned “People will know what democracy is in”.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from complainant side. Shri Ranjit Kumar Guru, Editor, Sambad appeared in person. Since, the complainant is not present; the complaint stands dismissed for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
81 46) President, The Editor, NRI Group Housing Palam Vihar Versus Hindustan Times, Condominium, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 23.3.2011 has been filed by AVM (Retd.) J.S. Gandyok, President, NRI Group Housing Palam Vihar Condominium, Gurgaon (Haryana) against the editor, Hindustan Times, New Delhi for publication of misleading and objectionable news item under the caption “Builder in line of residents’ fire” in its issue dated 23.2.2011.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.11.2011 and 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side on both the occasions. Since the complainant is not present nor had any written prayer been filed in response to the notice for hearing the complaint stands dismissed for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
47) Shri Aroon Kumar Sen & Others The Editor, Safdarjung Enclave, Versus Community Samvada, New Delhi. New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 24.5.2010 has been filed by Shri Aroon Kumar Sen, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and others against the editor, “Community Samvada”, English monthly magazine, Delhi for publication of an allegedly incorrect, unverified and misleading news item entitled “Election Process Scuttled” in its March, 2010 issue. The impugned news item reads as follows:
“We believe that the B-4 RWA elections, scheduled for 9th March, 2010 could not take place due to unruly behaviour by some residents who rushed to the dais, snatched the mike and sabotaged the election process. The election officer rescheduled the elections for 14th March, 2010 where the above hungama got repeated again. We believe certain residents insisted on a consensus candidate. However, the general 82 feeling is that some people are trying to gain back entry in to the RWA without even filing their nomination papers.”
Denying the allegation levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has submitted that after circulation of the magazine, a letter dated 29.3.2010 duly signed by over 20 residents/members of the Resident Welfare Association was sent to the respondent-editor immediately describing therein the actual incident that had occurred, which was what was published. The complainant has further submitted that the respondent was also provided the contact numbers of the Election Officer who was authorized to conduct the election process as also the then President of RWA who was chairing the general body meeting on 7.3.2010, to verify that day’s facts with the one as published in the magazine. Besides, the incorrect statements about ‘re-scheduling of the election meeting on 14.3.2010’ and ‘the hungama got repeated again’ were also clarified stating that there was no such meeting on 14.3.2010 and hence where was the question of hungama. The complainant has alleged that the respondent has committed professional misconduct by publishing the impugned article without verifying the facts. After clarifying all these facts, the respondent- editor was requested to issue suitable corrigendum in the next issue of his magazine. According to the complainant the matter regarding publishing the incorrect news item was also brought to the knowledge of the respondent-editor by one of them individually, in his capacity as a ex-president of the RWA and a very senior resident of the colony being associated with the RWA, vide e-mail dated 4.4.2010. He was also incorporate a suitable corrigendum in the April, 2010 issue. The complainant has stated that respondent editor neither issued any corrigendum nor even acknowledged or responded.
The respondent editor, Community Samvada vide his written statement dated 30.1.2012 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that the meeting held on the March 14, 2010 ended in hungama and no records seems to have been recorded by the office bearers. Due to the clash of interest between the two groups of RWA, different stands were taken by the two groups and the magazine had just reported the confusion caused by the two groups. The respondent also stated that the mess apparently created by the two groups of RWA and the magazine is being dragged into the controversy for the reasons best known to the concerned groups.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.1.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant was not present. Shri Sharban Kumar Singh (Manager) appeared for the respondent Community Samvada and filed a copy of the written statement. The matter was adjourned to enable the complainant to file counter. 83 Report
The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Sharban Kumar Singh, Manager appeared for the respondent, Community Samvad. The Inquiry Committee perused the communication of the complainant record on 28.9.2012 in which he stated that he is not keen to pursue the two years old matter. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complainant.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
48) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, The Editor, National President, Versus Ananda Bazar Patrika, Anti Corruption Committee, Kolkata. Thane.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 20.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane against the editor, Anand Bazar Patrika, Kolkata for non publication of the report of the rally that was to be organized by their organization to protest against en incident of acknowledged closure of school reported on dated 21.2.2009 under the caption: “Start of Function to close school” (English translation). It was stated therein that on Friday at Debra, Panigardiya School had been closed without any reason. The Headmaster of Panigardiya School, Mr. Lakhanchandra Jana told that organization had assured to construct a road to link the school to the concrete road and also make provision for a bridge as a goodwill gestures. On Friday, the school was closed to announce this special cause and on Saturday also school was closed for the function.
The complainant submitted that his Committee is working all over India against corruption. He submitted that the Director General of Police, West Bengal had given permission for rally but Midnapur Police did not obey the order of DGP and tried to disrupt the rally has not mentioned of that permission and tried to defame the Committee. The complainant vide letter dated 5.3.23009 drew the attention of the respondent editor and requested to publish contradiction but received no response. Despite issuance of Show cause notice on 10.6.2010 with a subsequent reminder.
84 The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.4.2012 at Pune. S/Shri Shankar P. Patil, President, Vishvajeet. S. Diamdre, State President, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane appeared for the complainant. No one appeared for the respondent, Anand Bazar Patrika, Midnapur, West Bengal. The Inquiry Committee granted one month time to the respondent for filing written statement. A copy thereof be served directly on the complainant by the respondent.
Report
Following one adjournment of 24.4.2012 when the complainant was represented. The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the absence of any intimation from the complainant and also non clarity of reason for action against the newspaper recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
49) Shri Ratnesh Kumar Pathak The Editor, Advocate, Versus Rashtriya Sahara, Patna, Bihar Patna, Bihar
ADJUDICATION
This complaint has been filed by Shri Ratnesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate, Patna against the Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Patna alleging publication of baseless and motivated news item under the caption “Sadak Ki Gunvatta Ki Jaanch” with photograph captioned “Kholi Pol: Sadak Ki Jaanch karte Neegrani Vibhag Ke Adhikaari” in its issue dated 2.2.2010. The impugned news item stated that a technical team of vigilance department visited at site of Bankipur Mohalla on a complaint made by the villagers to assess the quality of the road constructed by the contractor and was satisfied with the quality of the road. The complainant has stated that the contractor did not construct the said road. It was constructed by Fatuha Nagar Panchayat and the case is pending before Public Commissioner regarding forgery attempted by the Government officials. He further stated that the news item published is completely false and baseless and his photograph was published without his consent. It was published to harass him. The complainant sent the legal notices to the respondent Editor on 3.2.2010 and 28.2.2012 but no response. 85 The respondent editor in his written statement dated 8.5.2010 while denying the allegations stated that the news item published was completely based on the conversation of the investigation officers at the time of investigation whose on site photographs with locals were also published with the news item. He further stated that if the news item was based on the false facts, then the investigating officers would have objected, but they didn’t object. According to the respondent, nothing published related to the application made by the complainant to the Lokayukt and the reply received from the Lokayukt.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 15.7.2010 alleged that the news published was one sided and stated that the respondent had active involvement in the local politics and produced fake documents to misguide the Council.
Report
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant in a letter dated 27.9.2012 requested to decide the matter on the basis of the material available on record. S/Shri Rajeev Saxena, Editor, Rashtriya Sahara (Delhi Edition), Nuinel S. Shehrawat, Assistant Manager along with Simranjeet Singh, Advocate appeared for the respondent.
The Inquiry Committee considered the case on merits and noted that the complainant has not been specifically named in the impugned news item published in the newspaper on 2.2.2010. The accompanying photograph was also of the officers with group of locals of whom no one was singled out. It therefore decided to dismiss the complaint and recommended to the Council, accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted reasons of the Committees and decided to dismiss the complaint.
50) Shri Riyaz Ahmed Khan, Versus The Editor, Advocate, Health Plus, Badayun, U.P. Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.11.2009 has been filed by Shri Riyaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate, Badayun against the editor, Health Plus, Delhi. The complainant has alleged that the editor published on the cover page of his magazine that next issue would be in the name of ‘Kidney and Gall-bladder stones’. Since his daughter
86 was suffering from the gall-bladder stones so he purchased the next issue of the said magazine. After perusal of the next issue of the magazine, he did not find the remedies of the gall-bladder stone. The complainant has alleged that the respondent defrauded the people into purchasing his magazine by reporting proposal coverage of the remedies of the gall-bladder whereas the article was about the disease of stones of kidney only.
No Written Statement
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Health Plus, Delhi on 11.4.2011, but no written statement was filed.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Riyaz Ahmed Khan appeared in person and reiterated his grievance, advocate represented the respondent, Health Plus. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the records of the case and arguments put forth by the parties noted that the grievance of the complainant was not satisfied on merit in the case to warrant action under Section 14 (1) of the Press Council Act and decided to recommend to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.
51) Shri Ramesh Pakhale, Versus The Editor, Indore, M.P. Patrika. Indore, M.P.
Appearance For the Complainant: None
For the Respondent: Shri Mahesh Vijay and Swapnil Telang, Advocates
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 29.1.2010 has been filed by Shri Ramesh Pakhale, Indore against the editor, Patrika, Indore for alleged publication of false classified advertisement under the caption” ºããè. †Ôã. †¶ã. †Êã. ‡ã⊹ã¶ããè ‡ãñŠ ›ãùÌãÀ ‚ã¹ã¶ããè •ã½ããè¶ã/œ¦ããò ¹ãÀ ÊãØãÌãã¾ãñ ãä‡ãŠÀã¾ãã 25000/- Á¹ã¾ãñ ¹ãÆãä¦ã ½ããÖ ¹ÊãÔã 8.5 ÊããŒã †¡ÌããâÔã ¹ÊãÔã 20 ÌãÓããê‡ãŠã †ØãÆãè½ãò› : Ôãâ¹ã‡ãÊ ‡ãŠÀò : 09716558247, 09716557547” in its issue dated 4.11.2009. The complainant has submitted that after 87 reading the advertisement he contacted with the company and they advised him to deposit Rs. 6,800/- as security money and further Rs. 7,000/- more as Government Tax under Telecom Act, 1972. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 13,800/- into their account but the company had not provided any facility to him. The complainant alleged that the newspaper which had published this false advertisement swindled him. The complainant drew the attention of the Editor towards the impugned advertisement on 29.1.2010 but to no avail.
The Deputy Editor, Rajasthan Patrika while denying the allegation levelled by the complainant has stated that they cannot say that the classified advertisement published in his newspaper is false as it was booked by Chokas Advertisement Agency on 31.10.2009. He further stated that it was clearly written in the classified advertisement column that the readers must read all the important information before taking any action on the advertisement as the newspaper would not be held responsible for any type of claim/presentation given in the classified advertisement. Despite that if the complainant bears any loss by taking the risk, then the newspaper is not responsible for this. The respondent further stated that the complainant had not produced any evidence against them which proved that the fraud happened due to the publication of impugned advertisement. He further stated that the readers themselves have to judge the authenticity of the classified advertisement as the newspaper has no way to check the authenticity of the advertisement but to publish the warning disclaimer cautioning to carefully check all the details before taking any action.
The matter was considered by the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee noted that none has appeared for the complainant and taking note of the records of the case found no reason to proceed with the matter. It therefore, decided to dismiss the case for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee and except reasons and adopts the reports of the committee and decides to dismiss the case for default.
52) Shri Onkar Singh, The Editor, Brahma Complex, Dashpur-Darshan Dutt Mandir Road, Versus Mandsaur, Balaganj Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Onkar Singh complainant appeared in person For the Respondent: Shri Saubhagyamal Jain 88 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 21.2.2011 has been filed by Shri Onkar Nath against the editor, Dashpur-Darshan, Mandsaur for publication of the news item under caption “Rekha Baithi Aamrann Anshan Par” in its issue dated 7.2.2011. The complainant stated that the girl named Rekha Bairagi was raped by a man named Dharmender. The complainant alleged that the respondent editor published the name and picture of the rape victim in his newspaper which is against the Norm 6(ii) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010 which states that “While reporting crime involving rape, abduction or kidnap of women/females or sexual assault on children, or raising doubts and question touching the chastity, personal character or privacy of women, the names, photographs of the victims or other particulars leading to their identity shall not be published”. He further stated that if it is necessary to publish the name of the rape victim then the editor can publish a fake name in his newspaper but he published the real name.
The respondent in his written statement dated 14.7.2011 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant stated that the rape victim girl Rekha Bairagi herself sent her picture to him for publishing in the newspaper in order to put the guilty behind the bars and by publishing the name and picture of the rape victim girl, he had just discharged his responsibility. He further stated that the victim girl had given many interviews on the local T.V. channels where she requested/urged the police for arrest of the involved persons. The guilty person was finally arrested by the police after interference by the media and publication.
The complainant vide his letter dated 19.8.2011 alleged that in spite of having low circulation of the Dashpur Darshan newspaper, the editor was showing it as high for getting the advertisements from different government authorities in a fraudulent manner.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee perused the record and opined that though in this case the victim girl had herself come forward showing the picture and mentioning the name of the victim girl should normally be avoided. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to dwell on the other issues unrelated to the matter and decided to dispose of the complaint with these observations.
Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint accordingly.
89 53) Shri Manmeet Singh Goindi, The Editor, Administrator, Sports Authority of India, Hindustan Times, Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range, Versus New Delhi, New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 28.7.2011 has been filed by Shri Manmeet Singh Goindi, Administrator, Sports Authority of India, Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range, New Delhi against the editor, Hindustan Times, New Delhi alleging publication of false and misleading news item under the caption “Shooting range missing the mark” in its issue dated 18.7.2011. along with photographs.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Hindustan Times, New Delhi on 17.8.2011 but no written statement has been filed.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
None appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dismiss the case for default. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
54) Shri Anil Subramanium, The Editor, Under Secretary to the Government Versus Real Politik, of India, Ministry of Mines, English Monthly New Delhi. Magazine, New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.8.2011 has been filed by Shri Anil Subramanium, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi against the editor, Real Politik, New Delhi for publication of allegedly false and libelous news item under the caption “UPA Actors in Bellary Saga” in its issue dated August, 2011. 90 The respondent editor, Real Politik submitted his written statement vide letter dated 29.3.2012 and stated that the article was published in August 2011 and verbatim rejoinder was published in the next issue of the magazine i.e. September 2011. The respondent further submitted that the article in question was written on the basis of the documents which had not been denied by the Ministry.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
None appeared from either side. The respondent has sent an adjournment request. The Inquiry Committee notes that since none has appeared for the complainant and the rejoinder had already been published decided to dismiss the case for default. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
55) Shri Asgar Hussain, The Editor, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. Versus Dainik Jagran, Meerut, U.P. ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 21.12.2009 has been filed by Shri Asgar Hussain, Muzaffarnagar against Shri Krishan Kumar, Correspondent, Dainik Jagran, Hindi Daily, Meerut alleging publication of false and baseless news item under the caption “½ãìâºãƒÃ ‡ãŠã ‡ãŠãÀãñºããÀãè ¼ããè Öãñ Øã¾ãã ¹ãã¨ã ý” in its issue dated 30.11.2009. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran on 26.2.2010 followed by a reminder dated 28.4.2010 but no response has been received. Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013 Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate
91 None appeared for complainant. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
Press and Defamation
56) Shri Mahender Tripathi Shri Yugalkishore Sharan Shastri Chairman Versus Editor, Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Press Club, Ayodhya Faizabad, UP Faizabad, UP
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 27.1.2010 has been lodged by Shri Mahender Tripathi, Chairman, Press club, Ayodhya, Faizabad against Shri Yugalkishore Sharan Shastri, Editor, ‘Shri Ram Janam Bhumi’ Hindi weekly for publication of allegedly baseless, motivated, defamatory and vulgar news items under the caption: ‘Áyodhya ke Mahapapi’ and ‘Áyodhya ke shatir blackmailer’ in its issues dated 17.6.2009 and 1.7.2009 respectively. It has been alleged in the impugned news items that the complainant was indulging in nefarious activities and running business of blue films. He was arrested under Sections 498-A/506 IPC and put in jail where he was beaten up by the jail inmates. He was also beaten up by the general public when he was found misbehaving with a girl in public and found often indulging in blackmailing in the garb of journalism. The complainant has alleged that the defamatory news items were published in vulgar language and allegations levelled by the respondent were far from truth. As it was so vulgar, the District Administration had deemed it fit to complain to Press Council for necessary action. The complainant has submitted that he had published news articles against the respondents Shri Yugalkishore, Shri Sheetla Singh and Ms. Suman Gupta in his magazine ‘Bhartiya Lahar’ on April 2007 and June 2009 exposing their indulgence in corruption. Annoyed with these articles, the respondents had published/caused publication of the false and defamatory news items in vulgar language defaming him in the society. When he lodged complaint with the respondent personally, one of them threatened him using his status as a member of the Council.
92 In response to the show cause notice dated 12.3.2010, the respondent editor, Shri Yugalkishore Sharan Shastri raised preliminary objections and pointed out that the objection raised by the District Administration to the Council was against both (i.e. complainant and respondent) for publishing impugned articles in bad taste to settle personal scores. Therefore, action should be initiated against both and one cannot be singled out as complainant and the other respondent. However, he would have considered for any rejoinder from the complainant objecting the vulgarity in the language. He has also stated that the complainant has given false declaration as the subject matter is sub-judice in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad. There are several allegations in the complaint which are outside charter of the Press Council. The other two respondents denied any association with the respondent newspaper in causing publication of the impugned report.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on September 20, 2011 at New Delhi. None of the parties were present. However, Shri Sheetla Singh, Editor, Janmorcha, Faizabad, who had been impleaded as a respondent appeared before the Inquiry Committee and argued that the complainant being a journalist intends to settle personal scores as he along with another fellow journalist were awarded by the U.P. Government for Rs. 5 lac award for their services in journalism. Shri Sheetla Singh requested to exempt him from appearance in this matter.
The Inquiry Committee noted that as per Press Council Act, 1978 an editor or a journalist can be held responsible for publication of any impugned publication. There was nothing in record to establish their interest in the matter. It therefore, decided to delete the names of Shri Sheetla Singh and Ms. Suman Gupta from the list of respondents.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter again for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow when the respondent did not enter appearance. Shri Mahendra Tripathi, complainant appearing in person admitted the impugned report has been challenged by him before the Court.
The Inquiry Committee noted that since the criminal case is pending in the Court of CJM, Faizabad, it would not be appropriate to take the matter further till the decision is taken by the Court.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to drop the matter sine-die.
93 57) Shri Vimal Chandra Srivastava The Editor Managing Director Versus Daily News Activist U.P. Minorities, Financial & Lucknow, U.P. Development Corporation Ltd. Lucknow, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 25.5.2010 has been filed by Shri Vimal Chandra Srivastava, Managing Director, U.P. Minorities Financial and Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow against the editor, Daily News Activist, Lucknow for publication of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news item under the caption “djksM+ksa dfe'ku ns[k f[ky mBs Qwyckcw” in its issue dated 24.5.2010. It is stated in the impugned news item that Ministers and Officers of the State Government are going to sell the Minorities Financial and Development Corporation Ltd., for huge commission. It is also stated that the officers of the Institution instead of recovering the outstanding loan of the corporation wanted to sell the remaining assets of it. It has also been published in the impugned news item that the Minister gave National Integration Centre, Noida of the Corporation on lease to one of his relative and the decision in this regard was taken on 14.12.2008 under the Chairmanship of the then Secretary. The complainant alleged that the impugned publication is totally false and misleading.
In response to the show cause notice dated 7.10.2010 the respondent resident editor, Daily News Activist, Lucknow in his written statement dated 18.10.2010 while denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that the news item was based on facts. He has submitted that the contents published in the newspaper were factually correct and published with bonafide intention. The respondent further submitted that regarding the corporation building when he contacted the Managing Director to know his views he said all the formalities have been completed but acceptance has not yet been given, and the complainant did not oppose the question relating to giving out the building on lease. The respondent stated that on publishing the impugned news item all the illegal activities in the Corporation has been stopped and relevant documents will be provided at the appropriate time.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow. The complainant was not present and hence the complaint deserved to be dismissed. However, Shri Prakash Tiwari, Reporter, Shri Subhash Rai, Editor-in- Chief and Shri Arvind Chaturvedi, editor for the respondent are present and say that they were badly harassed by the officers in previous govt. This is not a complaint and if he files a complaint, the same may be processed in accordance with law. 94 The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
58) Shri Syed Mustafa Husain Naqvi Versus The Editor Aseef Jaisi, Lucknow, U.P. Avadhnama Lucknow
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 15.5.2010 has been filed by Shri Syed Mustafa Husain Naqvi, Lucknow, U.P. against the editor, Ávadhnama’, Urdu Daily, Lucknow for publication of allegedly defamatory news item in its issues dated 15.2.2010 and 20.3.2010 captioned “Ek Bahunar Maulvi Ke Kaseef Karnamey” {Dirty Deeds of a Skilful Maulvi} and ‘Ba-Hunar Maulvi Phir Ummeed se’ {Skilful Maulana again with hope}.
In response, to show cause notice dated 8.9.2010 the Bureau Chief of Ávadhnama’ in his written statement dated 20.9.2010 submitted that, taking into the seriousness of the matter, the resignation of the editor was taken and the concerned correspondent had been removed from the service. The respondent in his further letter dated 28.1.2011 stated that they had published the clarification as desired by the complainant in its issue dated 28.1.2011 which was later on forwarded to the complainant on 23.2.2011.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.7.2012 at Lucknow. The respondent Shri Syed Waqar Mehdi Rizvi, Bureau Chief was present. Since the complainant was not present despite notice and in view of the submissions in the written statement the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
59) Shri Ram Bahadur The Editor Lecturer Versus Hindustan Rampyare Shiv Shankar Inter College Lucknow Bahraich, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 18.12.2009 has been filed by Shri Ram Bahadur, Lecturer, Rampyare Shiv Shankar Inter College, Bahraich against the editor, Hindustan, Lucknow for publication of allegedly false, defamatory and objectionable news 95 item under the caption ‘Manrega mein ho rahe Ajab-Ghazab Khel’ in its issue dated 5.12.2009. The impugned publication charged the complainant with earning money by making fake job card under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.
The respondent Hindustan through its correspondent, asserted the report was published after due investigation and infact the complainant was pressurizing them for withdrawal of the report. The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 26.7.2012 at Lucknow. The respondent, Shri Anil Singh Chauhan, Senior Executive – HR - Lucknow is present. Since the complainant was not present despite notice, the Inquiry Committee held that complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
60) Shri A.K. Yadav Versus The Editor Managing Director Dainik Hindustan Ordnance Equipment Factory Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh Kanpur, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 11.12.2008 has been filed by Shri A.K.Yadav, Managing Director, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur against the editor, Dainik Hindustan, Kanpur for publication of allegedly objectionable news item under the caption ‘Phir Bhi Dala Boot Ka Tender’ in its issue dated 10.11.2008. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the Ordnance Equipment Factory gave relaxation to a company M/s. Swadeshi Corporation which has not been producing the product for the last few years and awarded tender for supply of boots. The impugned news was based on a complaint of India Rubbering and Allied Industries to the Defence Secretary, alleging tender by a company without having machinery. It was also alleged that despite capacity rejection, the financial valuation was done to award contract thus accusing the department of favouring a company by violating rules.
The complainant has stated that the news item was false and published without verifying the facts from them. The complainant issued rejoinders vide letters dated 12.11.2008 and 3.12.2008 with a request to publish clarification but there was no response. In his rejoinder, the complainant stated that there is no firm in the name of Swadeshi Corporation. However, the accusation of favouritism by two officers in awarding contract to Swadeshi Agency, the complainant submitted that the team
96 of these two officers made capacity valuation and thereafter a committee of five members had done technical evaluation and after detailed discussion and valuation, the firm was selected. The complainant submitted that the news was far from facts as the rules were followed in boot fabrication.
Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Hindustan at Lucknow and Kanpur on 15.1.2009 but no written statement was filed.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.2011. Shri Anil Asthana, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur appearing for complainant department stated that very recently their department received notice for hearing and thus he was not aware of the fats of the case. This was due to the reason that the complainant, Shri A.K. Yadav, Managing Director had since been transferred. He requested for a copy of the complaint to enable the department to pursue the case.
The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent had neither filed written statement nor entered appearance. The Inquiry Committee while adjourning the matter directed the complainant to obtain copy of the complaint and further directed the respondent to file written statement. A copy of the complaint was handed over to complainant’s representative at the time of meeting.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow and passed the following orders :-
“Although the complainant is not present, the respondent has sought adjournment. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to adjourn the matter. It finds that the respondent has not filed written statement despite several opportunities. The Inquiry Committee thus recommends to the Council to direct the respondent to publish the version sent by the complainant at the earliest to avoid action in accordance with the provision of the Press Council Act. It recommended to the Council thus.”
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
61) Dr. Vijay Agarwal Versus The Editor Secretary/Director Dainik Hindustan Education Council of India Patna, Bihar. Patna, Bihar Lucknow, U.P.
97 ADJUDICATION
In a complaint dated 4.10.2008, the complainant objected to the alleged misleading news item captioned “Is Bar Jali Degree Se Shikshak Nahin Ban Payange” published in Hindustan, Hindi Daily, Patna issue dated 27.8.2008 for including name of his Institute as one of the fake institutions whose degree is not recognized by the Government. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Education Department had received many complaints relating to fake institutions and 28 such institutions including the complainant’s institution had been pointed out whose examinations and degrees were not recognized.
Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Hindustan, Patna on 28.1.2009 but no written statement was filed.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.8.2011. Shri Anuj Goel, Co-ordinator from the complainant department appeared for the complainant while Shri Mansimran Singh, Legal Department, HT Media Ltd., appeared for Dainik Hindustan. The representative of the complainant informed that since Dr. Vijay Agarwal has been transferred, the department is not aware of the details. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter and again took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. There was no appearance on behalf of either side. The Inquiry Committee recommends dismissal of the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
62) Shri R.B. Gupte Versus The Editor Secretary/Registrar Voice of Lucknow Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow, U.P. Lucknow
ADJUDICATION
Shri R.B. Gupte, Secretary/Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow has filed this complaint dated 20.4.2010 against the editor, Voice of Lucknow, Hindi Daily, Lucknow for publication of series of allegedly baseless, misleading and defamatory news items as follows:
98 Sl. No. Caption Dated 1. Sarkari Bankon Ko Chuna Lagane Wale Defaulteron Ko 16.4.2010 Madad Pahuncha Rahe Hein DRT Pramukh (DRT Chief is helping the defaulters who deceived the Government Banks) 2. DRT Mein Setting Hai To Bank Ka Paisa Chahe Do Ya 17.4.2010 Na Do (Repay or not the Bank, if you have setting in the DRT) 3. DRT Mein Gorakhdhandha-Chaheton Ka Jor To Niyam 18.4.2010 Kanoon Kamjor (Black deeds in DRT: Rules and Regulations go weak under the pressure of favourites)
In response to the show cause notice dated 12.5.2010, the respondent editor, Voice of Lucknow in his written statement dated 28.5.2010 while denying the allegations submitted that these were absolutely false and emphatically denied. According to the respondent, the news items in question were not derogatory in any manner and presented a true picture of the working of the Presiding Officer of DRT, Lucknow. The intention behind publication was not ill but just and fair. Loss was being caused to the nationalized banks due to partiality in exercising the discretion by the Presiding Officer and the discretion being exercised in favour of defaulters by helping them in delaying the recovery of public money from them on one pretext or the other by entertaining frivolous and baseless applications moved by them. There are more than 1000 cases pending disposal before the DRT, Lucknow and the recovery of more than Rs. 10 billion was involved.
In his counter comments dated 21.6.2010 the complainant submitted that the respondent editor had set his own norms for appointing Presiding Officer in DRTs. He forwarded a copy of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal) Rules, 1998 highlighting the concerned Rules.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Narendra Prakash Sangal appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
99 63) Shri Shivam Sharma Versus The Editor Advocate, Lucknow, U.P. India Today New Delhi
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 7.2.2011 has been filed by Shri Shivam Sharma, Advocate, Lucknow against the editor, India Today, New Delhi for publication of an allegedly false, scandalous and objectionable article under the caption ‘LAW LAID LOW’ in its issue dated 13.12.2010. The complainant has alleged that the impugned publication brought disrepute to him and his family by mentioning that despite having a practice of only three years he filed Income Tax Returns to the tune of 80 Lakhs Rupees contrary to the fact that return for Rs. 2,60,000 and Rs. 3,81,000 was actually filed by him.
Show cause notice dated 12.5.2011 was issued to the respondent editor, India Today. In response, the respondent vide written statement dated 10.6.2011 submitted that there is no sufficient ground to hold an inquiry in the matter since they have not offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was informed of the publication of the said extracts by way of corrigendum and thereafter a reply to the complainant’s notice on 25.2.2011 was also given.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 18.7.2011 submitted that the allegations levelled by the respondent were absolutely false and baseless as they had published the story without verifying the facts. The complainant requested the Council to ask the respondent to publish the regrets in respect of the report detailing the full and fair facts.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow.
During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the magazine carried irresponsible comment of a whistle blower Ashok Pande of filing return of Rupees 80 Lakhs allegedly by the complainant costing aspersion on his integrity and honesty. The fact was however that the complainant in his last two years Returns were below Rs. 5 lakh. As the corrigendum published by India Today was insufficient, the complainant sought an apology by the respondent. Shri Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that they published the article on the basis of information provided by Shri Ashok Pande and a corrigendum has already been published as per norms. He, however, conceded that the complainant was not approached prior to the publication to confirm the facts.
100 The Inquiry Committee afforded opportunity to the respondent counsel to consult his client whether they are ready to publish rejoinder with apology. The respondent counsel after consultation with his client informed the Committee in positive and thus the Inquiry Committee directed the Editor, India Today to publish rejoinder with regards giving due reference to the impugned report and publish it prominently in the columns of the magazine.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
Foot Note: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Katju recused from the proceedings of the case due to his acquaintance with the family of the complainant. The hearing in the case were presided over by the senior most member of the Inquiry Committee Shri Sheetla Singh.
64) Dr. J.N. Pandey The Editor Chairman Amar Ujala Central Women’s College of Lucknow Education Versus The Editor Sharda Nagar Hindustan, Hindi Daily Lucknow (U.P.) Lucknow The Editor Dainik Jagran Lucknow
ADJUDICATIONS
These complaints dated 22.4.2010/5.5.2010 have been filed by Dr. J.N. Pandey, Chairman, Central Women’s College of Education, Lucknow against the editors 1) Amar Ujala; 2) Hindustan and 3) Dainik Jagran, Lucknow edition for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item as per detail given below:
Sl. No. Caption Newspaper Dated 1 College Ki Pol Kholi B.Ed Ke Amar Ujala 16.4.2010 Chhatraon Ne 2 Central Women Ki Chhatraon Hindustan 16.4.2010 Ne Vasuli Ka Arop Lagaya 3 B.Ed College Par Vasuli Ka Dainik Jagran 16.4.2010 Arop
101 4 Central Women College Ke Dainik Jagran 18.4.2010 Khilaf Jaanch 5 Chhatraon Ko Pravesh Na Dene Dainik Jagran 5.5.2010 Ki Dhamki
According to the new items, the College charges Rs. 50/- as late coming penalty from the students. It is also alleged that 20 days teaching schedule was prepared instead of 40 days. The college charges Rs. 3500/- from students as library fee. One student was suspended and charged Rs. 50,000/- for her readmission. When a teacher helped the student, he was suspended with allegation of sexual harassment. It has also been published that college administration has taken the signatures on a plain paper.
The complainant has denied the allegation levelled in the news items and alleged that the respondent newspaper has published the false, baseless and defamatory news items to damage the reputation of the College. He has further stated that the concerned news reporters have no evidence and they have not taken the version of the College administration. The complainant vide letters dated 5.5.2010 drew the attention of the respondent editors and requested to publish his version. He has not mentioned in the petition that any reply from the respondent editors is received or his version has been published. He has requested the Council to take action in the matter.
The respondent editor, Amar Ujala vide written statement dated 28.7.2010 while denying the allegations of the complainant has submitted that he has not offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or committed any professional misconduct. The impugned news item was objective and fair reporting made in good faith in discharge of public duty devoid of any malice and based upon facts. The respondent has further submitted that by publishing the protest of girl students in the impugned news item, he has performed its obligation and role with fullest sense of responsibility.
The respondent, Hindustan in his written statement dated 29.6.2010 has submitted that he has not violated the norms of journalistic conduct and the complainant has filed the complaint to harm their reputation. He has further stated that the impugned news item was based on the statements of students which is in their possession as evidence. He has also stated that the impugned news item also carries the versions of the Chairman of the Central Women’s College of Education, Lucknow. He has denied all other allegations and requested the Council to dismiss the complaint and to award exemplary costs for false, frivolous and fictitious complaint.
102 The respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, in his written statement dated 25.10.2011 has submitted that the complaint was false and baseless. He has stated that the impugned news item was based on the statement of student. He has further stated that impugned news item was published on the version of the Chairman of the Central Women’s College of Education. The respondent submitted that the statement of the complainant that they have acted against the norms of journalistic ethics was totally false and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 20.10.2010, 21.10.2010 and 29.10.2010 has submitted that all the newspapers Amar Ujala, Hindustan and Dainik Jagran have published false and baseless news-items with malafide intention to defame him. He has submitted that the respondents have published news without confirming from the complainant. The allegation levelled to the respondents are incorrect, unsatisfactory and confusing.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow.
Shri Trideep Narayan Pandey, Legal Advisor, Central Women College of Education and S/Shri Sunil Kr. Awasthi and P.R. Rajhans, Advocate for Amar Ujala and Shri Paritosh Mishra, Reporter for Dainik Jagran, U.P. made their submissions. Upon hearing the parties, the Inquiry Committee held that the newspapers have carried the news on the basis of allegation levelled by the students, the records of which were available. It also notes that one of the newspapers had also covered the version of the Manager of the College. Thus, the Inquiry Committee felt that the press had acted with due responsibility in highlighting the grievances of the students of an educational institute in public interest. It thus did not find merit in the complaints and recommended to the Council to dismiss the same.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
65) Shri Kanubhai Jethabhai Desai The Editor, Editor, Hello Khelaru Weekly, Versus Divya Bhaskar, Mehsana, Gujarat Ahmedabad, Gujarat
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.12.2008 has been filed by Shri Kanubhai Jethabhai Desai, editor, Hello Khelaru weekly, Mahsana, Gujarat against the editor, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad for publication of allegedly false news item. He has objected to the news item captioned: “A kidnapped girl of Satlasana turned hostile against the
103 Superintendent of Police as in a climax scene in cinema’’, “A kidnapped girl married her kidnapper within 15 days” and in a box item ‘Reporter of Khelaru is suspected to be the kidnapper’ published in Divya Bhaskar in its issue dated 29.7.2008. It was published in the news item that a girl, named Payal, daughter of Bhikhabhai Patel of Satlasana, who dropped study after class 10th met Chetan Patel in a social function and both fell in love at first-sight. When her parents opposed her proposal to get married with Chetan Patel, she eloped with him. Then the girl Payal along with her lover/ husband came to the Mehsana Police Headquarters and told the Superintendent of Police that she married her lover with her consent and was not kidnapped. When the SP told them to report to Satlasana Police Station, they disappeared. It was also published in a box item that a grey coloured car with registration No. NH 04 AX 198 found by the Bilimora Police was likely to be the car of Chetan Patel and was also believed to be used in kidnapping the girl Payal and in this connection, the police was about to interrogate Shri Kanubhai Jethabhai Desai, the editor of Hello Kheralu.
The complainant has objected to the dragging of his name into the alleged kidnapping-eloping of the girl and stated that after reading the news item in question, he had contacted the concerned police authority but they denied having information about investigation against the complainant. He had issued a letter dated 3.2.2009 to the respondent drawing their attention into the matter with request to publish a rejoinder, but to no avail.
The respondent did not reply to the show cause notice and at the opportunity of oral hearing sought adjournment on the ground of non-availability of the counsel.
The Inquiry Committee perused the records. It noted that the respondent had failed to file written statement and was even now not ready with any defence. It therefore, declined the request for adjournment and proceeded to consider the complaint on merit. It prime-facia noted that the respondent had failed to produce any evidence to establish complainant’s links with the episode and thus the impugned publication had caused great harm to the reputation of the complainant. So far as journalistic norm was concerned, the respondent editor, Divya Bhaskar failed to verify the facts at pre-publication stage from the concerned. The respondent compounded the offence by not publishing the denial of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee opined that the Editor, Divya Bhaskar appeared to have made deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the complainant in the society. It therefore found it a fit case for censuring Editor, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad. It submitted its report to the Council accordingly.
The report of the Inquiry Committee was accepted and adopted by the full Council.
104 Review Petition
On the receipt of the decision of the Council dated 30th July, 2010, the respondent filed a review dated 14.9.2010 requesting the Council to review the decision of the Press Council of India censuring the paper by the Press Council of India. According to him, the representation before the Council was presented by bonafide reason. The respondent further submitted that Divya Bhaskar has no history of violating norms prescribed by the Press Council of India. The newspaper had no malafide in publishing the impugned report, which was based on FIR. In view of the submissions of the respondent and to provide an opportunity of presentation of defence, the Council allowed Review Petition on 29.10.2010.
Rehearing
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.8.2011 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The complainant submitted that he was not at all concerned with FIR and the police never called him for any interrogation. According to him the decision taken by the Council after hearing him at Indore needs no review and review application filed by the respondent needs to be dismissed for lack of evidence. Shri Rutvik Trivedi, Deputy Editor, appeared for the respondent and submitted that the news was based on FIR and the police had informed that the car recovered was of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that the respondent had not filed written statement on merits. Since the FIR, was in Gujarati, the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file written statement on merits and also English version of the FIR. The submissions were reiterated in the written statement dated 25.8.2011.
The matter was again placed before the Inquiry Committee for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. Both the parties were present. The complainant submitted before the Committee that the police had never called him for interrogation. By publication of his name, he was defamed in the society. Shri Rajkumar. G. Singh, Advocate, for Divya Bhaskar submitted that the police called the complainant - Shri Kanubhai Jethabhai Desai, Editor, Hello Khelaru, on 28.7.2008 for interrogation and he admitted that Shri Chetan Patel, mentioned in the FIR was the journalist in his newspaper Hello Khelaru. He also submitted that the clarification had already been published in the matter.
The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties noted that only allegation of the complainant is of defamation. It is a fact that he was interrogated by the police. The Inquiry Committee also finds that the newspaper relied on the statement
105 given by the police and therefore, the subsequent made amounts by publishing a clarification. Order awarding Censure to the newspaper deserves to be withdrawn. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly. 66) Dr. Lisa Warden Editor Director, DOGSTOP Versus Ahmedabad Mirror Ahmedabad, Gujarat Ahmedabad, Gujarat
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.4.2010 has been filed by Dr. Lisa Warden, Director, ‘DOGSTOP’, Ahmedabad against Ahmedabad Mirror for publication of alleged irresponsible, short-sighted, inaccurate article under the caption: “Sterilized dog bites five after giving birth to litter” in its issue dated 4.12.2009. It was reported therein that two weeks ago, a sterilized dog gave birth to three pups and this is not an exceptional case, other sterilized dogs in the area which gave birth to litter recently. The dog bite at least six people in the area. The people have every reason to doubt the sterilization campaign run by the Municipal Corporation. The complainant working in the field of management of dog population claimed that the report was incorrect and published without verification.
The respondent in his written statement dated 14.7.2010 submitted that the impugned article is about the sterilization campaign of dogs by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC). Before writing the article, they spoke to the local residents and Municipal Councillor, Shri Imran Khadawala. The respondent has denied the allegation that he targeted any agency/organization by publication of impugned article and as no injury is caused to the complainant and asserted that the publication was in public interest and bonafide.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. Since none of the parties were present, the Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
106 67) Shri Yusuf Hakim The Editor Chairman Versus Ahmedabad Mirror Iqraa Charitable Foundation Ahmedabad Ahmedabad
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 23.6.2010 has been filed by Shri Yusuf Hakim, Chairman, H. Pir Mohd. Shah General Hospital managed by IQRAA Charitable Foundation, Ahmedabd (Gujarat) against Ahmedabad Mirror for publication of an allegedly defamatory news item under the caption: “Doctor left cloth inside me: woman” in its issue dated 22.6.2010. The impugned news item has reported that a woman alleged that the doctor at Iqraa Hospital left two gauze pieces in her left breast after an operation.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 7.10.2010 the respondent - Ahmedabad Mirror, Ahmedabad in his written statement dated 29.11.2010 submitted that he published what the doctor who did the operation had written in the operative note as to what transpired when he did the operation. It was not mentioned that whether gauze was left during earlier operation or it was there due to the negligence of the lady. He had only written that he found two pieces of foul smelling gauze in the wound which he removed and did what was required to heal the wound.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. Since none of the parties were present, the Inquiry Committee held the complaint warranted dismissal for non-pursuance. It reported thus to the Council.
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
68) Ms. Nicky R. Singh The Editor Rajkot (Gujarat) Versus Sanj Samachar Rajkot (Gujarat)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint has been filed by Ms. Nicky R Singh, Rajkot against the editor, Sanj Samachar, Rajkot for publication of an allegedly false and misleading news item on 30.6.2009. It was stated therein that a married woman from another 107 state going triple riding on an Activa at reckless speed, collided with divider. This accident was so terrible that the married woman sitting with two persons on this Activa got thrown over and knocked down on road. On happening of incident of accident, the other two persons riding on Activa filed within a moment mysteriously. The married woman shifted to private hospital and gave her name as Nicky R. Singh. The complainant submitted that the respondent has mixed up report of two different accidents in that impugned publication tarnishing her name and character in the eyes of friends, relatives and society. The paper subsequently published a clarification but no one is believing her and have broken relations with them and casting stigma on her character and become outcast.
A show cause notice was issued to the editor of the respondent newspaper Sanj Samachar, Rajkot on 30.11.2009 but no written statement has been filed.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. Since none of the parties were present. The respondent had sent a prayer that he had recently purchased the newspaper from the old owner and was thus unaware of the case. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
69) Shri Dhramesh Thakkorbhai Patel Versus The Editor Surat, Gujarat Jang-e-Gujarat Gujarat
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 11.9.2010 has been filed by Shri Dharmesh Thakorbhai Patel, Surat (Gujarat) against Shri Dhanjay Umeshchandra Jhaveri, Owner/ Editor, Jang-e-Gujarat, Gujarati Weekly for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption: “The misdeeds of the Thakore’s son” in its issue dated 14.7.2008. In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 8.2.2011, the respondent filed his written statement dated 26.2.2011 denying the allegations levelled against him and stated that the complaint was filed with a vengeance to take revenge for the complaint lodged by him against the complainant with Bharuch City, A Division Police Station vide CR. No. II 229/ 2008 for offences under Sections 504 and 506(1) of IPC.
108 The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. Shri Dhananjay U. Zayen, Editor, Jung–e–Gujarat appeared for the respondent. Since no body was present for the complainant who had not even countered the statement of respondent, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
70) Chief Executive Officer The Editor Ichalkaranji Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Versus Daily Lokmat Kohlapur (Maharashtra). Kohlapur, Maharashtra.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 12.10.2009 has been field by Shri V.N. Kulkarni, Chief Executive Officer, Ichalkaranji Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, Kolhapur (Maharashtra) against the editor, Daily Lokmat (Marathi) for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Ichalkaranji Mahila Bank Licence cancelled (Reserve Bank imposes moratorium)” in its issue dated 10.10.2009. The complainant has submitted that on 11.10.2009, the respondent newspaper carried another news item under the caption: “Ichalkaranji Mahila Bank’s licence is not cancelled” creating further confusion among the public since they did not mention that it was clarification or an apology to the wrong news item published on 10.10.2009. The complainant averred that question had the respondent published the news under the caption of ‘apology’, they would have accepted the same, but the way in which the respondent has cleverly covered up their mistake to avoid legal action is not understandable.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 11.3.2010 the respondent editor, Lokmat, Kolhapur vide his written statement dated 15.2.2012 submitted that the complainant vide his letter dated 5.4.2010 has informed that after apology letter tendered by their representative correspondent they did not want to press their complaint and treat this complaint as withdrawn.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. Shri M.G. Kulkarni, Gopinath Patil Parsik Bank, appeared for the complainant. While S/Shri Maruti N. Bhosale, Assistant Manager, HR & Admin, Raja Mane, editor, Lokmat appeared for the respondent. Both the parties informed the Inquiry
109 Committee that the matter has been compromised and the complaint may be allowed to withdrawn. The Inquiry Committee allowed withdrawn request.
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to close the matter.
71) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi The Editor National President Versus Loksatta Anti Corruption Committee Mumbai Thane
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 9.7.2009 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, Anti Corruption Committee, Thane against the editor, Loksatta, Mumbai for publication of an allegedly baseless, false and misleading news item in its issue dated 27.6.2009 under the caption: “Bhrasatachar Nirmulan Samiti Ke Karyalaya Mein Ashlil Nritya Karne Wale 22 Log Giraftaar” with a view to defame him and his association. It was alleged in the impugned news item that after receiving complaints from the local residents that in the office of the Anti Corruption Committee loud music is going on police raided the said premises and 22 persons were arrested including the President of the Committee, seven ladies, 12 businessmen and two mediators indulging in obscene dance party. It was further alleged that Salim Sadrohi, President of the Committee was also arrested along with others. It was also alleged in the impugned news item that Salim Sadrohi organizes party every night and collect a sum of Rs.3000/- per person. According to the police in the raid they seized Rs.40,000/- cash, fake currency of Rs. 1000/- to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/-.
In response to the show cause notice dated 11.8.2009 the respondent editor, Loksatta in his written statement dated 3.2.2012 has stated that the news report was published in good faith, in public interest, based on information given by a reliable source, without malice. He further stated that it was clearly mentioned in the news report that it was based on information received from the police authorities who had conducted a raid at Amboli at the premises of an organization involved in fighting against corruption, other newspapers had carried similar reports.
The respondent in his further letter dated 7.2.2012 informed the Council that they had carried a clarification (as required by the complainant) with expression of regrets, prominently at the top of the page, in their newspaper, Mumbai edition issue dated 7.2.2012. The respondent requested the Council to drop the matter.
110 The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. S/Shri Shankar Pandurang Patil, Taluka – President, Vishvajeet. S. Diamdre, State President, Anti-Corruption Committee appeared for the complainant. The representative of Loksatta stated before the Committee that there is clarification with expression of regret. However, the complainant is not satisfied as the name of their organization was incorrectly mentioned. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with direction to the respondent to publish correct clarification with expression of regret.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
72) Shri Sandesh D. Karkhanis Versus The Editors Thane, Maharashtra. (i) Loksatta (ii) Navshakti (iii) Sakaal, Mumbai Maharashtra.
ADJUDICATIONS
These complaints have been filed by Shri Sandesh D. Kharkhanis, Thane, Maharashtra against the editors, (i) Loksatta (ii) Navshakti (iii) Sakaal, for publication of allegedly false, baseless, defamatory and misleading news item in its issues dated 7.4.2009 under the caption: “ce dh vQokg ls dY;k.k vnkyr esa Hkkxe & Hkkx”. The complainant submitted that due to public Holiday on 7.4.2009 possibility of opening the Court was doubtful. According to the complainant, his case of land dispute was pending in the court and fixed for hearing on 8.4.2009 but it was published a day before to weaken his case. The complainant submitted that earlier also the said newspapers published such type of news items just to disturb him and prove that he is mentally ill because his case is pending in the court of law. The complainant submitted that he had written to the editors of the newspapers but received no reply.
The respondent editor, Loksatta in his comments dated 8.6.2010 while denying the allegations of the complainant has alleged that the complaint is vexatious, vague and incoherent and there is no ground for having any grievance made out against him. According to him, he has made inquiries with concerned photographer-Mr. Deepak Joshi, who assures him that the photograph published in “Thane Vrutant”, a supplement to “Loksatta”, Mumbai edition, is taken on 7.4.2009 and caption is factually correct. Although 7.4.2009 had been declared
111 a public holiday and the Courts were closed, the Hon’ble Judge Shri Chandrahas Mhatre received a phone call from an anonymous caller that a bomb had been planted in the court premises. Consequently, the Bomb Detection Squad of Thane Police visited Kalyan Court premises and did a thorough search. The respondent further submitted that after the co-ordinated terrorist attacks at multiple sites in Mumbai on 26.11.2008, where more than a hundred lives were lost, the Mumbai police took such threats seriously and immediately. The other respondents did not filed their defence.
The Inquiry Committee took up matters for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. The Complainant appear in person stated that he suffered mental agony by publication of news about bomb hoax in the court, where his case was under trial. He however, admitted that he subsequently come to know that the reports were correct. Shri Pavlas Mugujmal appeared for Loksatta and reiterated the reply already filed. The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the records and submissions opined that the complaints are devoid of merits. It thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaints.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
73) Shri Jai Prakash Gupta Versus The Editor Chartered Accountant Sales Tax Review Nagpur Mumbai
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 20.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, Chartered Accountant, Nagpur against the editor, Sales Tax Review, Mumbai published by ‘Sales Tax Practitioner Association’ for non-publication of his rejoinder to a write up published by the periodical in its December 2008 issue. According to the complainant, The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 came into effect from 1.4.2005. The said Act provided for compulsory audit of the registered dealers in the State having turnover of more than Rs. 40 lakh in a financial year. Whereby, the Chartered and Cost Accountants were authorized to conduct such audit, the other professionals namely Advocates and Sales Tax Practitioners claimed through representations to the Government that they too should be allowed to conduct the VAT audit. Failing in their attempt, they approached the Bombay High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court of India and their petitions were rejected. Despite this judicial rejection of their claim, the
112 Advocates and the Sales Tax Practitioners’ Association (STPAM), the respondent resorted to maligning the Chartered Accountants through Presidential, editorial and other news published in the Association mouthpiece “Sales Tax Review” over a period of three years. The complainant has alleged that height of such malafide use of the Association mouthpiece to project the chartered Accountants in bad light was reached when the magazine published a representation by the President of the STPAM addressed to the Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra in its December, 2008 issue. The impugned contents of the representation read as follows:
“It is now open secret that as the number of Chartered Accountants practicing on Sales Tax Law is negligible, majority audits are conducted by STPsand Advocates and the Reports in Form 704 on trust or on unwritten partnerships are signed by Chartered Accountants”.
The complainant has alleged that the statement of the President (STPAM) not only amounted to character assassination and doubting the integrity of the chartered accountants but also projected them as indulging in unprofessional pursuits since such practice by a chartered accountant amounts to professional misconduct inviting disciplinary action by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The complainant submitted that on 13.1.2009 he sent a letter through e-mail protesting against such conduct on the part of the President and the editor of the magazine with a request to publish the letter in the January issue of the magazine but the respondent despite reminders dated 13.1.2009 and 14.2.2009 did not publish his clarification. He protested against denial of a fair chance to not only rebut the unfair and unfounded accusations against the Chartered Accountants but also interest in promoting the interests of advocates by portraying the Chartered Accountants in bad light.
Show cause notice issued to the respondent editor, Sales Tax Review, Mumbai on 20.8.2009, failed to evoke any response.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing before 27.4.2012 at Pune. S/Shri Anil Vakharia, Member, Sales Tax Practitioner Association and Shri M.P. Bhagwat, Advocate and Member, Sales Tax Practitioner Association appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant in a letter dated 11.4.2012 requested to treat the matter as withdrawn. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint as mutually settled between parties.
113 The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
74) M/s Fullerton Indian Credit Co. Ltd., Versus The Editor Mumbai Singrauli Ka Tufan Singrauli Madhya Pradesh
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 21.10.2009 has been filed by M/s Fullerton Indian Credit Company Ltd., Mumbai against the editor, Singrauli Ka Tufan, Singrauli (M.P.) for publication of allegedly false, fabricated, frivolous and derogatory news items under the captions: “QqyVuZ bf.M;k esa py jgh xq.MkxnhZ”(Goondagardi in Fullerton India) and “çkbosV Qkbusal daifu;ksa dh tk¡p dh ek¡x mBh” (Demand for investigation of Private Finance Companies) in the issues dated 6.7.2009 and 31.8.2009 respectively. The first impugned news report alleged that in the complainant’s company, the loan percentage is not fixed and the loan procedure is also under suspicion and every now and then people are beaten up. The company has employed ‘Goondas’ and is planning to take money from people and run away. The second news item stated that the said company gives only loan like “soodkhor” and the loan interest are decided on the basis of wealth status of the individual. Further that it is also not known that whether this company is legal entity or not the District Administration should investigate the reality.
Denying the allegations, the complainant stated that Fullerton Financial Holding Pvt. Ltd., Singapore is a wholly owned subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, Government of Singapore. The complainant submitted that their company provides financial assistance to customers under two broad segments i.e. ‘Vyapaar’ and ‘Parivaar’. Under ‘Vyapaar’, they provide financial assistance to the self employed people/partnership firm/company to improve the business, lives of small business community and customized products and solutions to cater to the specific needs of business community. Under ‘Parivaar’, they provide customized products and financial assistance to cater to specific need of salaried individuals. The financial products include unsecured personal loans, two wheeler loans, home finance and loan against property. The complainant submitted that the articles contain false, frivolous, derogatory, malicious and reckless allegations which are far from truth and are published without due care and caution lowering the company’s reputation and prestige among banking companies, financial institution, members
114 of business circles and the general public at large who hold them in high esteem. The complainant further submitted that their company is a well known finance company and there are no major complaints against them; the allegations of quarrel and loose talk and recovering the installments through goondas are not only false and misleading but also mischievously stated to harass and harm their reputation. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 21.10.2009 but received no response.
Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 4.2.2010 but received no written statement despite reminder dated 19.12.2011.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 27.4.2012 at Pune. The complainant represented by Shri Vipul Bilve, Advocate, Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe submitted that the newspaper is widely circulated in the local area. It was the handiwork of their competitors to cause false publication to damage the reputation of their company. The complainant counsel confirmed the Committee that the respondent had not published their clarification.
The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record, noted that the respondent neither filed written statement nor appeared before it to defend the publication, leading to inference to the Inquiry Committee that the respondent had no defence to offer. As the allegation made in the complaint remained un-rebutted, the Inquiry Committee opined that the respondent had made unfounded allegation against the complainant company with a view to harm their reputation as well as business. The Inquiry Committee reminds the Press, that it is their duty to make fair criticism of any institution in public interest but at the same time it has to abide by the journalistic norms in making proper verification from the concerned quarter before publication of any material. Post publication, it not only failed to afford the complainant company an opportunity to place its clarification before the publication but even to reply to the Council on the charges. The Inquiry Committee finds that the editor, Singrauli Ka Tufan, breached the canons of ethics of pre- publication verification and Right of Reply. The Inquiry Committee decided to recommends to the Council to censure the Editor, Singrali Ka Tufan for acting against journalistic norms.
The Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to censure the editor, Singrali Ka Tufan, Madhya Pradesh. It also decided to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication to the DAVP, RNI and I&PRD, Government of Madhya Pradesh for such action as they deem fit in the matter.
115 75) Shri Dilip Kumar Gokulchand The Editor Sananda, MLA Prashnakal, Khamgaon, Khamgaon, Buldhana, Versus Maharashtra Maharashtra
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 22.5.2009 has been filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Gokulchand Sananda, Member of Legislative Assembly, Khamgaon Constituency, Maharashtra against the editor, Prashnakal, an evening daily newspaper from Khamgaon for publication of unfounded, baseless and scandalous news items under the following captions:
S.No. Caption Dated 1 Abuse of Chief Minister’s post in favour of illegal 6.3.2009 money lending of MLA Sananda 2 One Complaint……………………….only 7.3.2009 3 Money lending of Sananda, Congress abased before 7.3.2009 the election 4 Burning of Effigy of Petitioner and Hon’ble Chief 10.3.2009 Minister Vilasrao’
In response to the show cause notice dated 22.9.2009, the respondent editor, Prashanakal has filed his preliminary objection dated 29.10.2009 and reserved their right to file detailed reply as and when required after the decision of the preliminary objection. Holding that the preliminary objections were not maintainable, written statement on merits was called for which was not filed.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Shri Ramesh Bhattad, Advocate was present for the respondent. Since the complainant was neither present nor has he sent any communication, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decides to dismiss the complaint.
116 76) Shri Sunil Madhusudan Golkonda Versus The Editor President, The Barshi City Goldsmith Barshi Uday Association, Solapur, Maharashtra Barshi, Solapur, Maharashtra
ADJUDICATION
This complaint is filed by Shri Sunil Madhusudan Golkonda, President, The Barsi City Goldsmith Association, Barshi, Solapur, Maharashtra on behalf of its Chairman, Shri Chetan Kothari against the editor, Barshi Uday, Solapur, Maharashtra for publication of following allegedly false, filthy, defamatory and objectionable news items:
Sl. No. Caption Dated 1 The Jeweller who purchases the smuggled gold: 6.7.2009 Chetan Kothari builds a castle in the air to become an MLA 2 Chetan Kothari! Even Though you make numberless 16.7.2009 hypocritical actions by dishonest money. I will not spare you from exposure public. 3 The Ordinary & Inexperienced Worker of Barsi: 23.2.2009/2008 Chetan Kothari
It was alleged in the impugned news items that the complainant deals in stolen gold, gave shelter to thieves in his house and co-operate with the gangs of plunders. It was further alleged that the complainant was a very useless in the jewellery market making unlawful black money and was caught red handed purchasing stolen gold. It was also alleged that the complainant who is a buyer of smuggled gold dreams to be a M.L.A. and people of the Barshi Town known him as the representative of the corrupt and shameless community. The impugned news items described the complainant as a black marketing specialist businessman who had been earning money by dishonest means, fraudulent dealings & profiteering transactions.
Denying all the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant Association submitted that Mr. Kothari was a candidate in Assembly elections 2009 in Maharashtra and according to him the said news were paid news and were published to tarnish his image in the eyes of the people. The complainant further submitted that first he lodged a complaint before SDO, Solapur, who warned the respondent about his conduct, but he was not satisfied with the decision of the 117 SDO, Solapur. The complainant submitted that a legal notice dated 1.6.2009 was issued to respondent but received no reply.
The respondent editor, Barshi Uday in his written statement dated 16.3.2011 stated that the complaint is not maintainable being false, bogus and fake. The respondent stated that the complaint is filed to hide Chetan Kothari’s own misdeeds and wrong doings. The respondent further stated that he has performed his journalistic duties to being the truth before the people. The respondent stated that the complainant has filed a civil suit for compensation against him and filed a false declaration about non-pendency of matter before courts.
The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune and heard the complainant Shri Sunil Madhusudan as well as the respondent editor, Shri Appasaheb Balkrushna Pawar. The Inquiry Committee noted with great concern the abusive language employed in the news items against the complainant. Without going into the merits of the charges in view of the pendency of the suit for compensation, the Inquiry Committee decided to admonish the editor, Barshi Uday for their unethical and abusive reporting in the news and warned him against repetition of such language in future.
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of Inquiry Committee accepted the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
77) Mr. Quari Mohd. Shahnawaz The Editor Quadri Rizvi, Versus Ek Aur Jung, Thane, Maharashtra Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 5.7.2010 has been filed by Shri Quari Mohd. Shahznawaz Quadri Rizvi, Thane, Maharashtra against the newspaper “Ek Aur Jung” Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items in its various issues translated caption is of which reads as follows:
S. No. Caption Date 1 Scam of millions rupees on the name of Madarasa 5.3.2010 2 Birds of a feather flock together 12.3.2010 3 Threat to other official by General Secretary 15.3.2010 4 When will Shahnawaj Shah be behind the bars 17.3.2010
118 For how long will be Shahnawaj Shah safe from legal 18.3.2010 5 actions 6 The people of Muslim Society are angry on scam man 19.3.2010 Shahnawaj Shah
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 27.4.2012 at Pune. The complainant appeared in person and Shri Samshaed M. Ali, editor, Ek Aur Jung for the respondent appeared before the Committee. The parties intimated that the matter has been mutually settled and complaint may be treated as withdrawn. The Inquiry Committee allowed the complaint to be withdrawn.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided accordingly.
78) Shri Sanjay Sanyal The Editor AGM (HR) Jagat Bharti Nuclear Power Corporation of Versus Boisar, Thane India Limited Maharashtra Thane, Maharashtra
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 31.12.2010 is filed by Shri Sanjay Sanyal, AGM(HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, District Thane against the editor, Jagat Bharti, Boisar for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “, uihlhvkbZ,y esa 100 djksM+ dk ,yVhlh ?kksVkyk” (LTC scam of Rs.100 crore in NPCIL) in its issue dated December 17-23, 2010. In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 9.3.2011, the respondent vide his point wise written statement dated 25.3.2011 while denying the allegations has submitted that the impugned news item was correct and complainant was trying to hide the facts.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Since no one was present, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
119 79) Ms. Irene Dhar Malik Versus The Editor Mumbai Mumbai Mirror Mumbai
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 25.1.2011 has been filed by Ms. Irene Dhar Malik, Mumbai against the editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai for publication of slanderous story under the caption “Actor’s slur on gay filmmaker stirs Bollywood” in its issue dated 15.1.2011. The news item reports that an aspiring young actor, who recently acted in a film based on the theme of homosexual love, has alleged that he was molested by film director Onir. It was also reported that the director forcefully denies the charge, giving compelling reasons to suggest that his encounter with the actor was by mutual consent.
The complainant who is the sister of the director has alleged that the story was sensational piece of yellow journalism carried by other editions of TOI and even picked up by other papers. The complainant further asserted that wannabe actor who alleged that Onir molested him should have approached the cops and not a tabloid and the reporter (Bharati Dubey) should not have splashed an unsubstantiated story on cover page. Thereby the damage done has been immense, both professionally and emotionally and in gross violation of journalistic ethics. According to the complainant, the issue became more complicated since the person accused belonged to a sexual minority making it very difficult for him to fight back or defend himself since the law does not recognize his sexuality as being legitimate. This also exposed him to a lot of social censure and made him vulnerable to being targeted by unscrupulous elements in position of power. The complainant pointed out that after the concerned wrote an unconditional apology to Onir and took back the allegations, Mumbai Mirror did not apologize for the earlier article and the damage done to Onir and his family. The complainant vide emails dated January 17, 22 and 28, 2011 drew the attention of the respondent editor but received no response. The complainant has requested the Council to take action in the matter.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Since no one is present to press the case, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly. 120 80) Shri Om Prakash, Versus The Editor Secretary, Shivalik Blitz, Information Technology, Rural Development, Dehradun, Panchayati Raj and Cooperation, Uttarkhand. Civil Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarkhand.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 11.5.2009 has been filed by Shri Om Prakash, Secretary, Information Technology, Rural Development, Panchayati Raj and Cooperation, Government of Uttarkhand, Dehradun against the editor, Shivalik Blitz, Dehradun for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items as follows:
No. Captions Dates 1 Sensational Disclosure of Blitz, Challenge to Vigilance. Scam of 2.4.2009 Crores in Agriculture Directorate. Surprising play by Ex-Agriculture Secretary Om Prakash and Personal Secretary Kapoor in giving shelter. 2 The aim of avoiding Vigilance Enquiry. 2.4.2009 3 The middlemen of Agriculture Director called Press Correspondent corrupt. 9.4.2009 Unsuccessful attempt to bribe the Shivalik Blitz. 4 Growing Corruption in Agriculture Directorate. 9.4.2009
It was alleged in the impugned news items that the complainant, while serving as the Agriculture Secretary, was indulging in corrupt practices and along with his Personal Secretary Shri Kapoor, bailed out one D.K. Sharma, who was accused of being involved in purchases worth lakhs of rupees. He was alleged to be incompetent, corrupt, unethical and to have taken bribes and commissions. It was also alleged in the impugned news items that during the investigation by the newspaper, facts came to light that the Agriculture Director Shri Madan Lal and the Agriculture Secretary Shri Om Prakash, the complainant had swindled a huge amount worth Rs. 41 lakhs and that it was a big surprise that no enquiry was initiated.
Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the charges made in the impugned news items were absolutely false, misconceived, defamatory and derogatory and published without any basis. The complainant has stated that neither there had been any scam nor he ever gave any shelter to any semester nor played any game with the assistance of his Personal Secretary as alleged.
121 In response to the show cause notice dated 13.11.2009, the Chief Editor, Shivalik Blitz, Dehradun in his written statement dated 3.12.2009 has submitted that before publishing the news items in question, the entire matter was investigated and the information was re-verified by obtaining necessary further information under the RTI Act and even confirmed by the department official, Shri D.K.Sharma. He has stated that the impugned news items were published in public interest without any intention to defame any one in personal capacity. The each and every allegations levelled in their legal notice dated 11.5.2009 were duly answered and para-wise denial was given vide notice reply dated 28.5.2009. The respondent re-affirmed that the news items in questions were based on reliable source and documentary evidence without any intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. They are ready to publish the version of the complainant provided he sends it supported by authentic documents. The respondent furnished copies of various documents obtained for verification of the published materials and stated that the same reflect that the news items were not based on hearsay.
The respondent editor, vide his letter dated 20.3.2010 enquired about the progress of the case since he came to know orally that the complainant did not wish to proceed further in the matter. A copy each of the respondent’s replies was sent to the complainant on 15.12.2009 and 5.4.2010 for information. Ist Adjournment The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2010 at New Delhi when both the parties were present. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the impugned news item was published to assassinate the character of the complainant who is a very senior IAS officer and served as D.M. in Dehradun. The counsel submitted that the complaint before Lokayukt was against Madan Lal and not his client but the newspaper levelled allegations against the complainant with charges of corruption and scam of worth Rs.41 crore, alleging that the complainant- Secretary, Agriculture was sitting immune despite these corruption in front of him. The respondent editor in his oral arguments submitted that the complainant was co-accused in a complaint before Lokayukt and he had got stay from the High Court in respect of inquiry against him. According to the respondent, the matter was sub-judice and the Council was debarred from the holding inquiry. The Inquiry Committee noted that both the sides filed documents in support of their contention at the time of hearing depriving each other of their right to reply to the averments. The Inquiry Committee directed the parties to exchange the documents and file their counter within a fortnight. The matter was adjourned.
122 The respondent editor in his reply dated 6.5.2010 reiterated his oral arguments and filed a copy each of the letter dated 21.10.2009 of the Lokayukt, Dehradun & letter dated 3.10.2009 of the Director, Agriculture addressed to the Lokayukt, Uttarakhand and stay order dated 11.1.2008 of the Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. The respondent submitted that the matter is pending in Court of Law and the Council cannot consider the complaint.
Following four adjournments of 28.7.2010, 22.11.2010, 18.8.2011 and 30.1.2012, the matter again came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate appeared for the complainant. The respondent sought exemption from appearance due to ill health and expressed his unwillingness to comply with directions of the Inquiry Committee.
The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the allegation “that the complainant while serving as the Agriculture Secretary, was indulging in corrupt practices and swindled a huge amount of money was totally false and baseless. The Committee after hearing the complainant’s counsel & examining the case noted that the records did not provide any basis for allegations of corruption against complainant before the Council. Hence, the Committee therefore recommends to the Council to censure the respondent for reckless and scandalous publication.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
81) Col. Sanjay Dikhit, The Editor, Colonel General Staff, Kashmir Times, Northern Comd GS (IW), Jammu (J&K) C/o 56 APO Versus Shri K. Skandan, Jt. Secretary (K), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.7.2010 has been filed by Col. Sanjay Dikhit, Colonel General Staff, Northern Comd GS (IW), C/o 56 APO against “Kashmir Times”, Jammu, Srinagar for publication of allegedly sensational, mischievous and provocative articles under the captions “Indian Army goes Pakistan way” in its issue 123 dated 30.6.2010. The complainant vide his further letter dated 9.9.2010 alleged that the respondent again published distorted articles under the captions “India’s Brutality has Turned Kashmir into a Living Hell”, “The Bloody Streets of Kashmir have Spoken” and “Democracy Kashmir Styles I and II” in its issues dated 1.9.2010, 6.10.2010 and 12 & 13.10.2010 respectively.
Another complaint of Shri K. Skandan, Jt. Secretary (K), Ministry of Home Affairs was filed through Ministry of Information & Broadcasting on 4.10.2010 against the editor, Kashmir Times for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 1.9.2010 which directly attacks the government for imposing ban on telephone, internet and other services in the state. It also attacks the government for being insensitive, barbaric and describes them as occupational forces.
The portions objected to by the complainant read as follows:- “In this state, security forces have raped hundreds of women, killed thousands of people and have been instrumental in numerous cases of involuntary disappearance, all perpetrated under the immunity granted by AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act). AFSPA has no place in this civilized world and there is no good reason to continue with it. Yet the army describes it a Holy book”. The complainant alleged that the articles are sensational, mischievous and provocative and the allegations made against the Army therein are completely false. The complainant further alleged that the impugned articles being bereft of truth severely damaged the professional reputation of the Indian Army. The complainant has also alleged that the respondent-Kashmir Times purported to create a rift between the Executive and the Army. According to the complainant, the photograph of Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal, PVSM, AVSM**, VSM, GOC-in-C Northern Comd has been published in the respondent-newspapers insinuating a false perception. Also his designation has been wrongly mentioned as Corps Cdr instead of Army Cdr Northern Command. The articles published were malicious with distorted facts and portrays the Indian Army in adverse light. The tone, spirit and language of the articles are proactive and inflammatory. It also glorifies and encourages anti national sentiment and is downright subversive. The complainant stated that the Indian Army is nowhere involved in enforcement of the law and order in Srinagar The complainant submitted that he sent his complaint to the respondent-editor, Kashmir Times, Jammu Srinagar on 30.6.2010 and also again on 2.9.2010 through Public Relation Officer but no action was been taken. No Written statement A show cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Kashmir Times on 1.9.2010 with a subsequent letter on 20.10.2010 to file his consolidated written statement but no response received. 124 Following three adjournments on 23.11.2010, 8.8.2011 and 30.1.2012, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. Col. S.N.Dalvi, Col. GS (IW), HQ Northern Command appeared on behalf of the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
Col. S.N.Dalvi reiterated their objections. The Committee perused the newspaper publications and noted that there are three complaints by Head Quarter Northern Command against the newspaper Kashmir Times. Notices were issued but no written or oral defense has been presented. The Committee found the publications to be highly objectionable vis-à-vis the duties discharged by Indian Army. The heading “Indian Army goes Pakistan way”, states that security forces have raped hundreds of women, killed thousands of people and have been instrumental in numerous cases of involuntary disappearances, all perpetrated under the immunity granted by AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Power Act). That AFSPA has no place in this civilized world and there is no good reason to continue with it, yet the army describes it a holy book. The next news publication refers is “The ‘Holy book’, ‘holy war’ and ‘pious people’ ”. The third news is entitled “India’s brutality has turned Kashmir into a living hell”. These news items contains various allegations but without giving any basis on material for substances. The Committee noted the disclaimer published in the newspaper by the respondent that the contents of these publications are not the views of the editor but of the writer. The Committee held that this cannot be a justification for publishing such false & frivolous material against anyone which loss the defense faces of a country. Under Sec. 7 of PRB Act, 1867, the editor is responsible for publication of contents and for this he cannot throw the responsibility on any contributor of the newspaper. In the circumstances, the Committee recommends to the Council to award penalty of “Censure” to the respondent and direct him to ensure caution in future.
Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
82) Col. Sushil Mann, Versus The Editor, Colonel General Staff, Kashmir Times, Northern Command (IW). Jammu.
ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 28.10.2010 has been filed by Col. Sushil Mann, Colonel General Staff, Northern Command against the editor, “Kashmir Times”, Jammu for
125 publication of allegedly sensational, mischievous, provocative news item captioned “Democracy Kashmir Style-I & II in its issues dated October 12 and13, 2010 with respective sub-heading ‘Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), operating system of armed forces in Kashmir, is a most draconian law in the history of mankind approved by largest democracy in the world’ and ‘presenting a case against AFSPA’.
According to the complainant the articles bereft of truth severely damage the professional reputation of the Indian Army and also purport to create a rift between the Executive and the Army. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Kashmir once called as paradise on earth is shaping up a voluptuous monster with 7 lakh troops loaded with AFSPA in a population of around 7 million-an upcoming training ground for armed forces to evolve as monsters to clear the problems of increased population growth in India. Called by legal experts as most draconian law, humans have produced so far, Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) negates all the clauses of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Operational in Kashmir since last two decades, AFSPA provides license to armed forces to kill, to arrest, to enter homes without permission to torture and to do whatever they want based on their own discretion. It is described by Human Rights Watch Groups as a tool of state abuse, oppression and discrimination. Amnesty International describes it as a law that annihilates all kinds of human rights.
The complainant submitted that the articles are sensational, mischievous, provocative and allegations made against the Army are totally false. The complainant vide letter dated 15.10.2010 requested the respondent editor to publish the clarification but no action was taken by the respondent.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. Col. S. N. Dalvi, GS (IW), HQ Northern Command appeared on behalf of the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
The complainant informed the Committee that there was no factual basis for publication of the impugned news item and due to such publications the image of the Indian Army has been damaged. He further stated that all these news items contain various allegations but without giving any basis on material for substances. The argument/plea of the editor that the contents of these publications are not the views of the editor but of the writer did not hold water as under Section 7 of PRB Act, the editor is responsible for any publication.
126 The Committee after hearing the complainant and having taken into consideration, the submission of the complainant was of the opinion that while the articles were prima-facie provocative, the editor could not disclaim responsibility for the Indian Army. In the circumstances, the Committee held that the respondent deserved censure under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 for the impugned publication and so recommended to the Council.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to censure Kashmir Times. 83) Shri Amrik Singh, The Editor DIG (Retd.), Versus The Tribune, Moga, Punjab. Chandigarh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 17.8.2009 has been filed by Shri Amrik Singh, DIG (Retd.), Moga, Punjab against the editor, “The Tribune”, Chandigarh for publication of allegedly false, incorrect and wrong news item in its issue dated 14.8.2009 under the caption “Once trade centre, village now encroachers’ paradise” alleging that several powerful and influential people are said to have illegally occupied land in the Salina Village of Moga district, Punjab. It was also alleged in the impugned news report that Gursharanvir Singh and Harsharanvir Singh, both sons of the complainant had illegally occupied 60 kanals and 176 kanals respectively, of pasture land.
Denying all the allegations the complainant stated that he is in legal possession to that land and is having all the relevant documents along with the orders of all the Revenue authorities and also the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which established them as the legal and rightful owners of this land. The complainant also submitted that the reporter never contacted him to confirm the allegation and completely misrepresented the facts in the newspaper. The complainant had written to the respondent, The Tribune on 17.8.2009 but received no reply. The complainant has alleged that the news item was published just to tarnish the image of his family in the society by terming them as encroachers.
The respondent editor in his written statement dated 17.7.2012 submitted that the news item was based on the official report of the Local Tehsildar submitted to the Deputy Commissioner dated 8.8.2009. When the respondent correspondent 127 tried to take version of the complainant sons instead of explaining their position they asked him to forget the issue. The respondent editor-in-Chief also submitted that the entire news item was based on the report and there was no deliberate attempt either on the part of the author or the editor to tarnish the image of the complainant or his sons or anybody else. The respondent urged the Council that the allegations leveled in the complaint is nothing but figment of imagination and requested the Council to reject outright.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. The complainant Sh. Amrik Singh, DIG along with his counsel Shri H.S.Hundal, Advocate,is appeared. Shri Amit Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal), The Tribune, Chandigarh is appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The respondent counsel reiterated that they relied upon the documents supplied by the Patwari and official version. On behalf of the complainant, it was argued that the land was purchased in 1991, but the newspaper published the wrong news item based on a judgment passed in 1982. The Committee asked the complainant to provide the Sale Deed of the land. The complainant stated that he has provided a copy of the High Court Order to the respondent but not the Sale Deed. It was asserted that they are not encroachers but owners.
The Committee having heard the parties directed the complainant to send a copy of the Sale Deed to the respondent Editor who after establishing the genuineness of the Sale Deed should publishes the clarification. With these observations the Committee recommended to the Council to close the matter.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
84) Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS Versus The Editor, Divisional Forest Officer (P), The Tribune, Hisar, Chandigarh. Haryana.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 2.2.2012 has been filed by Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS, Divisional Forest Officer(P), Hisar, Haryana against the editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh alleging publication of highly defamatory and distorted news article
128 under the caption “State unlikely to go for CBI inquiry” in its issue dated 16.1.2012. It was stated in the impugned news item that the Haryana Government was unlikely to ask the state police to register an FIR and then issue a notification for investigation by the CBI into the allegations levelled by an Indian Forest Service officer, Sanjiv Chaturvedi regarding irregularities and embezzlement of funds in certain projects. The Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF) had conducted an inquiry into the allegations of Chaturvedi. The Inquiry report had upheld the contentions of Chaturvedi and quashed the charge sheet against him. However, the State Government had rejected the report and had urged the ministry to have a re-look into the matter…… Chaturvedi stopped the movement of vehicles for the construction of the canal, which was a prestigious project of the State Government, on the plea that it was a violation of the Supreme Court order. Issue was also examined by the CEC (Central Empowered Committee) which did not recommend any action…. Chaturvedi without getting the matter properly and legally examined, drew his own conclusion that the land was private and stopped the work…The CEC did not find any irregularity in this case also…. Department had already charge-Sheeted 40 officials after the first investigation…. Chaturvedi too had spent Rs.42.14 lacs under afforestation programs in Jhajjar, when he was posted as DFO there. He said, the department had asked the Government to initiate action against him as well as another DFO, Mr. M.S. Malik.”
Denying the allegations, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news item was not only highly defamatory but also full of distorted facts. According to the complainant, in his nine years of service, he worked with utmost sincerity and honesty in the best interest of the State, despite severe harassment at the hands of high and mighty of the State. Even in his present posting, he gave revenue of Rs.9 crore against a target of Rs.5.5 crore. For his honesty and dedication, he was given various awards over the years. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news item caused irreparable damage to his reputation and the respondent/concerned correspondent did not deem fit to take his version before publishing the impugned news item. The complainant has further alleged that the concerned correspondent- Mr. Yoginder Gupta had earlier also published similar defamatory news items against him. The complainant has submitted that he sent a clarification on 16.1.2012 to the Editor-in-Chief, The Tribune but received no reply.
In response to the Council show cause notice dated 15.3.2012 the respondent Editor-in-Chief, The Tribune, Chandigarh vide his written statement dated 6.4.2012 submitted that the newspaper carried the January 16, 2012 report in accordance with the ethics of the journalism which stipulate that the columns of a newspaper should be open to all parties to a dispute. He submitted that if the report published
129 on January 12, 2012 concerned the allegations levelled by the complainant, the January 16, 2012 report was a reply by the State Government. The respondent submitted that there was nothing defamatory in the impugned news item. The respondent further submitted that entire case of the complainant was based on an enquiry report submitted by two officers of the Union Ministry for Environment and Forests, who recommends quashing of the charge sheet issued by the Haryana Government against the complainant to the President of India and also urged the Central Vigilance Commission to advise what further action should be taken. But the Government of Haryana had rejected the report. The respondent further stated that the Department of Personnel and Training had categorically observed that the Ministry of Environment & Forest was not competent to order an inquiry in the mater and therefore, institution of an inquiry in the matter was ultra vires of their powers and hence devoid of any force of law. The respondent submitted that the so called report on which complainant had relied has already lost its value in view of the categorical finding recorded by DoP&T vide order dated 17.2.2012 and such is inconsequential. The respondent further submitted that the news item being objected by the complainant is not the first one on the issue but The Tribune was covering the issue since its inception, this reflect the objectivity with which the Tribune handled the issue.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 16.7.2012.
Argument
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh wherein the complainant requested for adjournment. Shri Amit Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The Committee heard the respondent and also examined the matter on merit. The Committee found that the report in The Tribune was in accordance with the norms that require verification and due right of reply. It was therefore not satisfied that the matter required action under Section 14 (1) of the Press Council Act. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
130 85) Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS The Editor, Panchkula, Haryana. Versus Amar Ujala, Chandigarh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.11.2010 has been filed by Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS, Panchkula, Haryana against the editor, Amar Ujala, Chandigarh alleging publication of false, misleading and defamatory news items under the captions “Conservator Ki Report Se Hua Khulasa-Hansi Ke Jungalon Se Kate Ded Crore Ke Ped”and “Do Afsaron Ki Jung Ka Natiza Hai Ped Katne Ki Report” in its issues dated 30.10.2010 and 17.11.2010. The complainant alleged that the respondent reporter namely, Shri Surender Dhiman has published these false and defamatory news items without verification of facts from him.
It has been alleged in the impugned news articles that as per report of Shri V.K. Jhajharia, Hisar Conservator Territorial, trees worth rupees one and half crores were carved illegally from the jungle of Hansi Range and sold out. The inquiry was held by flying squad and found that Chaturvedi and his staff were responsible for the same. The complainant alleged that the story was published on the front page of the newspaper, hence before publishing the impugned news article the respondent should have done a thorough objective investigation. The complainant submitted that after publishing the impugned news article he has sent a letter on 31.10.2010 to the editor with correct facts but received no reply. The complainant further alleged that once again the impugned news article was published on the same issue on 17.11.2010 without bringing out main facts mentioned by him particularly the role of Mr. Jhajjharia and without carrying out any investigation at all. The complainant also stated that the respondent also published his version but it was never given by him. The complainant further submitted that the impugned articles are totally defamatory and based on non-existent records only to defame him without carrying out any objective investigations at all. The complainant requested the Council to take strict action against the concerned reporter and editor to avoid recurrence of such incidents.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 10.3.2011 the respondent Amar Ujala vide his written statement dated 12.4.2011 while denying the allegations of the complainant has submitted that the impugned news item was published in good faith in discharge of public duty devoid of any malice. The respondent has further submitted that the impugned news item was neither objectionable nor he offended the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or committed any professional misconduct. According to the respondent, before publication of the 131 news item dated 30.10.2010 a reasonable precaution was taken by him by publishing the version of all concerned i.e. Shri V.K. Jhajhariya Conservator of Forest, Hisar, Shri Sanjeev Chaurvedi (complainant) and Dr. Parvez Ahmad, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Haryana were published along with news item. The version of the complainant was given in the following manner : “ãä¹ãœÊãñ †‡ãŠ ÔããÊã ½ãò ½ãñÀñ Ôã½ãñ¦ã 7 ¡ãè.†¹ãŠ.‚ããñ. ¦ãõ¶ãã¦ã ÀÖ Þãì‡ãñŠ Öõ ý †ñÔããè ‡ãŠãõ¶ã Ôãñ ½ãÍããè¶ã Öõ •ããñ ¾ãÖ ºã¦ãã ªò ãä‡ãŠ ½ãñÀñ ‡ãŠã¾ãÇãŠãÊã ½ãò ¾ãÖ ‚ãÌãõ£ã ‡ãŠ›ãƒÃ ÖìƒÃ Öõ ý ½ãö ¹ãŠÀÌãÀãè ½ãò Þãã•ãà œãñ¡ Þãì‡ãŠã ©ãã ý ‚ãºã 8 ½ãÖãè¶ãñ ºã㪠ãäÀ¹ããó› ‡ã‹¾ããò ¼ãñ•ããè Øã¾ããè - Ôã•ããéÌã Þã¦ãìÌãóªãè”. The respondent has denied that he made any comment against the complainant. According to him, the impugned news item dated 17.11.2010 , complainant version was also given in the following manner “Þã¦ãìÌãóªãè ¶ãñ ¢ãã¢ãã䡾ãã ãäÀ¹ããó› ¹ãÀ ÔãÌãããäÊã¾ãã ãä¶ãÍãã¶ã ÊãØãã¾ãã Öõ.....Þã¦ãìÌãóªãè ‡ãŠãè ªÊããèÊã Öõ ãä‡ãŠ ÖãâÔããè Àò•ã ‡ãñŠ ºã¶ã ªÀãñØãã Ö¶ãì½ãã¶ã ªãÔã ‡ãŠãñ ãä¶ãÊãâãäºã¦ã ‡ãŠÀ ã䪾ãã Øã¾ãã ©ãã ý „Ôã‡ãñŠ ãäŒãÊãã¹ãŠ Þã¦ãìÌãóªãè ¶ãñ ¹ãñ¡ ‡ãŠ½ã ¹ã¾ãñ •ãã¶ãñ ¹ãÀ ¹ãìãäÊãÔã ½ãò ½ãã½ãÊãã ª•ãà ‡ãŠÀã ã䪾ãã ©ãã.....“ The respondent also denied the allegations of the complainant that he had not investigated the facts properly or published the news item in correctly. The respondent has pointed out that a statement of imputation of misconduct against the complainant was also issued by government of Haryana. According to the respondent, he has promptly published the news item on 22.1.2011 with the caption “vkbZ,Q,l latho prqosZnh dh pktZ’khV okil” and thus the allegation of the complainant that reporter is working on agenda of Mr. Jhajhadiya and published a news item to defame him is totally false.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 9.5.2011 has reiterated that the impugned news items, particularly the news items published on 30.10.2010 were a mischievous act and the aim was to defame him at the behest of Mr. Jhajhadiya whose misdeeds had been exposed by him. The complainant has denied the allegation levelled by the respondents.
In response to the complainant’s counter comments the respondent Vide his letter dated 14.7.2011 refuted the contents of the complainant point wise. He stated that the duty of the newspaper is to bring the actual aspect and true facts to the notice of public and in doing so equal opportunity has been given to all the concerned and their part of version has been carried out. The respondent also stated that the newspaper has not given its own version but the version as given by the officials of State Government and the version of the complainant have been published.
The complainant vide his communication dated 23.8.2011 stated that the respondent has failed to explain as to why he published such a false and fabricated report without any inquiry or even without simple application of mind and allotting 75% space to the version of Mr. Jhajhadiya and only 12.5% space to his version deleting various vital facts related to the case. The complainant further alleged that the impugned news item relied on the department’s committee report which was totally fabricated and without the signature of two committee members which goes 132 to show nexus between the reporter and Mr. Jhajhadiya. He also adduced a letter written by Shri Jairam Ramesh, the then central minister in his support as evidence.
Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary, Assistant Manager (Legal) appeared on behalf of the respondent. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. However, request was made to adjourn the matter.
The Committee heard the respondent and also examined the matter on merit. It was not satisfied of the maintainability of the complaint from the angle of ethical compliance with journalistic norms and recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
86) Shri R. N. Manchanda, Versus The Editor Spokesperson, Dainik Bhaskar, Sales Tax Department, Panipat. Government of Haryana, Sonepat (Haryana).
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 30.11.2010 has been filed by Shri R.N. Manchanda, Spokesperson, Sales Tax Department, Sonepat, Haryana against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Panipat for alleged publication of the wrong, false, baseless and one sided impugned news item under the caption “†‡ãŠ ÔããÊã ½ãò 10 ‡ãŠÀãñ¡ ¹ã¾ãñ ºã¤ãè ãäºããä‰ãŠ ‡ãŠÀ ‡ãŠãè ‚ãã¾ã - ƒ¡Ô›Èãè „ØãÊã ÀÖãè Öö £ã¶ã” in its issue dated 28.11.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that Sales Tax Department of the State earned a huge amount through sales tax. In the District every month 45 crores were earned only through sales tax. It was stated that the revenue jumped 30% in last six months which is a record. Report states that LG and Samsung India are the two big giants who pay sales tax of Rs.2 crores to 5 crores every month. In the impugned news item it has also been stated that big entrepreneurs register their name at the gate, for which no government orders have been passed and they have to pay bribe (Suvidha shulk) to obtain Form “C” and Form 38.
133 The complainant averred that in the last one year the department earned more than 133 crores and not just 10 crore; every month the department earned more than 55 crores against projected figure of Rs. 45 crore; in the Sonepat District there are 17000 businessmen; ITC Limited, Kundli and Hindustan Unilever are the highest sales tax payers in the state i.e Rs.7 crore and Rs. 5 crore instead of LG and Samsung as reported in the impugned news item. The complainant also submitted that there are many facilities which are extended to the businessmen in the past one year and nobody complained about the bribe. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication personally and the respondent editor assured him to publish the counter but till date no response has been received.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar on 23.5.2011 but no response was filed despite issuance of reminder dated 9.7.2012.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. The complainant appeared in person. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The Committee heard the complainant and also examined the case on merits regarding incorrect facts. It found that the issue to be of trivial nature not warranting action against Dainik Bhaskar under the Press Council Act.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
87) Shri R. N. Manchanda, Versus The Editor, Spokesperson, Sales Tax Department, Dainik Jagran, Government of Haryana, Panipat (Haryana). Sonepat (Haryana).
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 13.6.2011 has been filed by Shri R. N. Manchanda, Spokesperson, Sales Tax Department, Government of Haryana, Sonepat against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Panipat alleging publication of false, wrong, imaginative and defamatory news item under the caption “›õ‡ã‹ÔãÞããñÀãè ½ãò ¦ããè¶ã Øãã䡾ãã ¹ã‡ãŠ¡ãè” in its issue dated 13.6.2011. It was stated in the impugned news item following reports by the newspaper that three vehicles of the same transporter (evading tax) were caught by
134 the sales tax department whereas only one vehicle of that company was caught and other two vehicles were of other transporters caught by a different team at a different point. He also contended that the department was itself activate. The complainant also submitted that he was not contacted before publication of the impugned news item. The complainant submitted that impugned false and defamatory publication lower the image of the Sales Tax Department in the eyes of the public.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, DainikJagran, Hissar, Haryana on 30.8.2011 but no written statement was filed.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. The complainant appeared in person. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The committee heard the complainant and also examined the case on merits and founds no merits in the complaint. It, accordingly dismissed the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
88) Shri Vaidya Jagjit Singh, Versus The Editor, Chandigarh Ayurvedic Centre, Dainik Jagran, Chandigarh. Jalandhar.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 18.4.2010 has been filed by Shri Vaidya Jagjit Singh, Chandigarh Ayurvedic Centre, Chandigarh against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Jalandhar for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item captioned “Ìãõª •ãØã•ããè¦ã ‡ãŠãñ ¹ãÆãä¦ããä¶ããä£ã ºã¶ãã¶ãñ ¹ãÀ Àãñ‡ãŠ” (Ban on appointment of Vaid Jagjit Singh as representative) in its issue dated 29.3.2010. It was alleged in the impugned news item that a member of Central Council of Indian Medicine(CCIM) approves the policies on Ayurvedic educational colleges, had to pay the price of Air Travel facility availed on wrong information. In a letter issued by the Secretary of CCIM, New Delhi due to non- payment of Rs.7,78,349/- recoverable from Vaid Jagjit Singh, Member from Punjab, an FIR has been registered in Hari Nagar Police Station, New Delhi and also orders
135 have been issued by the Chairman, Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, Punjab to ban the appointment of Vaid Jagjit Singh as representative on the Board.
Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the respondent published false and defamatory news item as no FIR was registered by Delhi Police. The news item was published on the basis of false information given by his opponents. The complainant has submitted that his reputation and clean image has been tarnished by the respondent by publishing false, fabricated and manipulated news item. In response to the show cause notice dated 15.6.2010 the respondent Manager- Legal (Dainik Jagran) submitted that the version of the complainant was duly given weightage and was made part of the news item. According to therespondent, before publication of the impugned news item all the relevant documents were procured and giventhoughtful considerationwhich included the letter of the Secretary, Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi regarding recovery of amount, the minutes of 149th meeting of Executive Committee of Central Council of Medicines, New Delhi held on 18.12.2008 at New Delhi. Moreover, a complaint to the SHO, Hari Nagar, New Delhi was also made by Central Council of IndianMedicinethroughShri Sube Singh, Assistant Secretary (Admn.), on behalf of Secretary. The respondent stated that there was no personal enmity of the concerned reporter of the newspaper with the complainant and the impugned news item was published on the basis of the material on record and the version given by the authorities and the version given by the complainant was incorporated in the impugned news item. Report The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. Shri K.K.Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and Shri Ram Sharan Dass appeared on behalf of Shri Vaidya Jagjit Singh, the Complainant. Shri Ram Sharma Dass representative of the complainant filed an application of the complainant requesting for adjournment due to ‘unavoidable circumstances’. The Committee observed that the expression ‘unavoidable circumstances’ is not the sufficient ground for adjourning the matter. The adjournment was declined and the Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the matter for default. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
136 89) Registrar, Versus The Managing Editor, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Early Times, Katra (J&K) Jammu (J&K)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 28.3.2012 has been filed by the Registrar, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University against the Managing Editor and the Reporter of the ‘Early Times’ Jammu for publication of an allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items under the caption “Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (SMVDU) fast losing sheen, VC under scanner” on 25.1.2012 without verification of factual position. The complainant stated that the respondent had published a series of defamatory and misleading news items and launched a malicious and vilification campaign against the University authorities in the past on different dates viz.16th May, 31stMay, 2nd Sept., and 2nd Oct. in the year 2011. The impugned news item stated that some of the aggrieved officers working in the University have submitted a complaint to the State Raj Bhawan with copies to the President of India, the Prime Minister of India and the Congress Party Chairperson, Sonia Gandhi, alleging that due to the inefficiency of the VC, University has got a lukewarm response to MBA seats to be filled through CAT. Only 145 forms have been sold through bank and online as compared to overwhelming response from the aspirants for this course in the past. It was also stated in the complaint that in order to give benefits to the branch manager of UCO Bank branch Transport Nagar, the VC of the University has passed instructions to deposit the University fees through this branch though two nationalized banks have their branches inside the University campus. The decision has been taken deliberately to give undue benefit to the UCO bank Branch Manager who happens to be a closed relative of the VC. The complainants further alleged that the VC misused the vehicles allotted by Government of India for sponsored project that had failed and the log books of these vehicles are not updated regularly which caused financial loss to the Government of India as well as the University. The complaint demanded highlevel probe for maintaining the same professor as in- charge of another government of India project – INSPIRE, where he again hired two vehicles at the charges of Rs. 1500/-per day but produced the bills of Rs.3000/- per day.
Denying the allegations the complainant has stated that the MBA programme has been conducted on the basis of CAT, CMAT and MAT scored followed by GD and Personal Interview. The complainant submitted that till now they have received 139 forms on the basis of valid CAT score and the admission proves is still in progress as last date for receiving application is 11th May, 2012. Regarding the
137 University fee, the complainant submitted that whether it is online or offline the same has been collected from the students through the campus branches of J&K Bank Ltd., and Oriental Bank of Commerce, respectively. Denying the changes the complainant stated that the mandate assigned to SMVDU for the pilot phase was met and did not fail. Regarding the misuse of the vehicles, the complainant denied the fact and submitted that the vehicles were handed over to IITR (Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee) on 8.1.2012 along with all the accessories which was duly verified and received by IITR. The complainant also denied the fact that the vehicles were hired from the local market but after obtaining quotations from different travel operators by the Event Management Committee and the vehicles were hired at the rate of Rs.1400/- per day (non AC) and Rs.1600/- per day (AC). The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor on 27.1.2012, 30.1.2012, 31.1.2012 and on 3.2.2012 but the respondent refused to accept all the times.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 5.6.2012 the respondent vide his written statement dated 3.7.2012 submitted that the allegations levelled against him are totally false and baseless. Giving parawise reply the respondent submitted that the complainant nowhere came up with a specific answer to meet out the contents of the news item in reference in the present complaint and is rather evasive on the issue. The respondent submitted that if the news item in reference, as per the complainant was without basis and background then why the complainant engaged itself in an explanation mode instead of simply taking a position that the news in reference are per se false and frivolous. Then what restrained from the authorities be in the SMVD University coming up with instant official press statement to cancel out the falsity of the news item in reference. The respondent further submitted that the complainant neither cited the details of use and expense of the vehicles in reference not annexed any document concerning therewith along with the complaint and still on the basis of the self-serving justification, denials and statements and nothing beyond, the complaint has ventured to seek censure against the news item in reference as if the freedom of press is supposed to serve the praise and pleasure of the authorities be of SMVD University. The respondent submitted that there were repeated cell calls made to the concerned functionaries of SMVD University at all relevant point of time to elicit their response on the issues covered in the news item in reference but the response was either bureaucratically arrogant and evasive or simply not picking of calls. The respondent submitted that SMVD University is too important an institution for the region of Jammu in particular and of State of J&K in general and that any shortcoming in its working and affairs cannot be kept away from public domain and that is what the respondents have ventured to do bearing no personal malice or motive against SMVD University or its authorities. 138 Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. ShriSahil Gupta, Advocate accompanied by Shri Rajesh Sharma, SO(Legal) appeared on behalf of the complainant. ShriSumit Sharma, Crime Journalist appeared on behalf of the respondent editor.
The Committee heard both the parties. On examining the case records the Committee observed that the impugned report was based on a written complaint. The existence of such complaint had not been denied by the complainant. They had also reportedly not availed of the opportunity to provide their version at pre- publication stage. Being a public authority, it is necessary for such institution to accept at the evaluation of their findings. The Inquiry Committee was thus not satisfied of sufficient ground for upholding the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided to reject the complaint.
90) The Deputy Commissioner, The Editor, Hamirpur District, Versus Aap Ka Faisla, Hamirpur (H.P.) Hamirpur (H.P.)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 12.6.2010 has been filed by Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur District, Hamirpur (H.P.) against the editor, Aap Ka Faisla, Hamirpur for publication of allegedly false & baseless news item by the respondent Aap Ka Faisla in its issue dated 12.6.2010 under the caption “Ö½ããè¹ãìÀ ½ãò Ôããè½ãò› ºãöÞããñ ‡ãŠãè ŒãÀãèª ½ãò Üããñ›ãÊãã”. It was alleged in the impugned news item that advertisement for the purchase of 30 Cement Benches were given in the newspaper on June 20, 2009 and the last date of receiving the tender was July 15, 2009. But the Administration received two quotations before publishing the advertisement and also included the quotations in comparative statement. It was also alleged in the impugned news item that again Dy. Commissioner, Hamirpur vide his letter dated September 4, 2009 gave tender to the same contractor instead of issuing fresh advertisement for additional purchase of 70 Cement Benches. The purchase Committee opened bids twice however, it opened only once in the presence of all the applicants or their representatives.
139 Denying all the allegations, the complainant submitted that advertisement for the purchase the Cement Benches were given in the newspaper and after receiving all the tenders a three member Committee headed by then ADM selected the tender which was lowest in price and as per norms. The news report was based on comparative statement which was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. The complainant stated that all the information was provided to the respondent reporter under the RTI Act and also informed about this in detail by showing the all relevant record, but the respondent published this false, malicious and ulterior motive news item to defame the District Administration. The complainant submitted that the whole act is completely baseless.
In response to the show cause notice dated 18.10.2010 the respondent correspondent, Aapka Faisla, Hamirpur in his written statement dated 11.11.2010 submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant are totally false. The respondent submitted that the news item was based on information sought under RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the version of the Deputy Commissioner has also been published in the end of the story, with full details.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 25.11.2010.
Argument The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. There was no appearance from either side, nor was any adjournment application received. Therefore, the Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint for default.
Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
91) Shri V.K. Javad, Versus The Editor, Kerala. Chandrika Daily, Kerala.
ADJUDICATION This complaint is against the publication of an allegedly defamatory, untrue and objectionable news item under the caption “Supper with Nazeer in the house of NDF Leader-Kodiyeri in Dock” in its issued dated 12.12.2009. The impugned report 140 alleged that complainant is a financial source of NDF a terrorist outfit and Nazeer is a terrorist.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.2.2012 at Chennai when neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared entrance. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent had not filed any reply nor chosen to appear before the Inquiry Committee. The matter was adjourned as a last opportunity to the respondent to file written statement. In response the respondent filed written statement on 10.4.2012 and submitted that the news item referred was published as they had received the reliable information for the same but they have no intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. The respondent submitted that it is totally false to say that they offended against the standards of journalistic ethics and Committed professional misconduct. The newspaper had no intention to defame or harm the complainant and they are ready to apologies for the same. Report The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for final hearing on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. Shri Haris Beeran, Advocate who appeared for the respondent filed a joint statement dated 26.7.2012 signed by the complainant and respondent requesting to drop the proceedings as the complaint stands settled between the parties. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to close the complaint as settled and withdrawn. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
92) Ms. Pooja Bandu Patil, Shri M.D. Mulla, Belgaum, Press Reporter, Karnataka. Versus Sakal, Marathi Daily, Belgaum. The Editor, Sakal, Marathi Daily, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 22.4.2009 has been filed by Ms. Pooja Bandu Patil, Belgaum, Karnataka against the correspondent, Shri Mulla and Editor of Sakal, Marathi Daily published from Kolhapur alleging publication of false and defamatory news item
141 “Sanjay Pooja, Belgaum’s ‘Bunty Babli’, both absconding: Cheated in Belgaum as well as Goa” in its issue dated 24.12.2008. According to the complainant it is stated in the impugned news item Sanjay Kakatkar and his lover Pooja Bandu Patil gave financial shock to general public to the tune of crores of rupees under the name of Real Estate Company police informed in their investigation. He constructed a bungalow worth Rs.70 lakhs and purchased Tata Safari Through his lover Pooja, he cheated thousands of investors. It has been also repeated that Pooja (complainant) started CD/DVD shop and took loan from the bank by submitting false documents. She got an Advocate’s degree and cheated the public saying that she is practicing in court. The complainant has submitted that her father being in the Indian Army, used to be away from the family. Shri Mulla (correspondent of Sakal) who was known to her father, used to visit her house off and on and developed relation like a family friend. But when she smelt the vested interest of respondent in developing relation with her, she severed all relations and even stopped talking to him. On the contrary, Shri Mulla spread rumours in the society about her having on love affair with him. She took lead to break her family relation with Shri Mulla, who in tune ventured to take revenge against her. According to the complainant, at that time, police were investigating online dollar dealing scam, which was going on in Belgaum, Shri Mulla revengefully linked her connection with that scam and ventured to publish a cooked story in her name with photograph in the newspaper Sakal. The complainant has submitted that publication this defamatory news item ruined her personal and professional life and tarnished the image of her family. The complainant has submitted that when she approached the police, he being a powerful reporter, they proved her complaint abortive and advise her to marry Shri Mulla. She has stated the Mulla furiously threatened her of spoiling her entire life. She Approached the S.P. who also turned to be or his side.
The complainant has submitted that as her last resort, she lodged a complaint on phone with the editor of the newspaper Pudhari where Shri Mulla was working and he was dismissed from that newspaper taking cognizance on her complaint. The complainant further submitted that the said reporter from joined Sakal and continued his tirade and published against her first three consecutive days i.e. December 24- 26, 2008 saying wrongly she was absconding. The complainant further submitted that she sent a legal notice dated 30.6.2009 to draw the attention of the respondent Sakal and requested to published an apology preferably on front page of his paper. In response to the complainant notice the respondent Sakal through legal notice dated 30.6.2009 denied the allegation leveled by the complainant and acceded that the news item was published on information received from various sources and the same published in public interest and there was no ill intention.
142 The complainant vide letter dated 3.11.2009 has stated that the said reporter was monitoring her movements and threatened that if she initiated any action or pursued any legal remedy, her younger brother would be harmed. The complainant informed that the said reporter had support from the police establishment and also he had connection with anti-social elements that could have easily caused great harm to her and property. The complainant requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent correspondent.
Written Statement of correspondent
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 2.2.2010 Shri Mula the respondent correspondent, Sakal in his written statement dated 20.2.2010 while denying all the allegations leveled by the complainant and submitted that in his entire career he brought to the notice of law enforcing authorities, a number of heinous crime, illegal and unlawful terror activities, and illegal financial fraud cases and there was not a single complaint against him except this. The respondent submitted that in the online money scam one Shri Sanjay Kakatkar was involved who is close associate of Pooja Patil and presently released on bail and running a Marathi newspaper from Belgaum named Vishwa Marmik. The respondent further submitted that the impugned news item was published to bring awareness to the common public regarding doubling of money in 12 months’ time which is impossible and investing money through on-line. The respondent further stated that the allegation made by the complainant against him are false, frivolous, vexatious and oppressive in nature and filed only an apprehension and fear of intervention to escape from the misdeed done by her during the period of 2003-2008. The respondent requested the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter.
Counter Comments
In response to the Council’s letter dated 3.3.2010 the complainant vide her counter comments dated 8.4.2010 on the comments of Shri M.D. Mulla, Reporter, Sakal has submitted that she already stated in her complaint that respondent Shri Mulla who was just an acquaintance was seeking favours from her in the form of physical intimacy in return for the help extended by him. The complainant has further submitted that it is only after she refused to oblige his demands for physical relationship that he started smear campaign against her. The complainant has alleged that the statement of the respondent containing scurrilous remarks, reckless and irresponsible about her and her family members itself would be sufficient to access his lack of integrity, neglect towards professional ethics and duty of a journalist. She has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent.
143 Written Statement of Sakal (Editor)
The respondent editor, Sakal Papers Ltd., in his communication dated 5.7.2010 has submitted the news item in question was based on the information gathered by the reports from the court cases pending against the complainant in Dollar Scam and there is no defamatory statement against her.
Counter Comments
The complainant in her counter comments dated 30.9.2010 has submitted that the reply dated 5.7.2010 filed by the respondent was ridiculous and not supported by any documentary proof. According to the complainant the reply given aims at the character assassination rather than a justification for publication at the news item. The reply was irrelevant and his attitude was deplorable and reprehensible. The complainant has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent for reckless, defamatory and damaging publication.
Hearing by the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.2.2012 at Chennai. Ms. Pooja B. Patil, the complainant appeared in person and submitted that the defamatory news item published in Sakal, Marathi Daily damaged her reputation and character in the eyes of the public and her family. Shri Gopal R. Gavada, Associate Editor for Sakal stated that the services of the reporter who had filed the report have been terminated and he is no more in Sakal. However, the Inquiry Committee held that as far as defamatory report is published, not only is the reporter responsible but the editor/newspaper are also responsible for it under the provisions of PRB Act, 1867. The Inquiry Committee enquired from Shri Gavada whether his newspaper was ready to publish unqualified apology, he replied in the affirmative. The Inquiry Committee directed the Sakal to publish sincere unqualified apology for impugned item withdrawing the allegation against the complainant. Needless to say, reputation of a person is a valuable treasure not to be destroyed with a stroke of pen. Before the next hearing, the Inquiry Committee directs the Sakal to publish with prominence unqualified apology withdrawing the allegation. In the meantime, the complainant is at liberty to consult her family.
The complainant in her letter dated 20.3.2012 submitted that as her image and reputation has been tarnished due to the false and defamatory publication dated 23.12.2008, she requested the Council to direct the respondent to publish unconditional apology on the first page of Sakal Newspaper Daily in block letters
144 along with her photograph at least for 2 days making it clear that the news item published on 23.12.2008 was false and the said false information was given by Shri M.D. Mulla, Reporter. She further claimed damages from the respondents in the form of amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-(One crore fifty lakhs only).
Report
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 27/8/2012 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person and reiterated her submissions. The Inquiry Committee noted that C.M. Legel, Sakal in a fax dt. 24.8.2012 requested for adjournment as their authorized representatives had to attend some other official work. The Inquiry Committee expressed its extreme unhappiness is notover the trivial ground for adjournment. Adjournment request was rejected. The Inquiry Committee on a careful perusal of record finds that serious allegations against the character of the complainant had been made in the impugned publication. Despite assurance given by the respondent representative the last hearing, the newspaper had failed to honor the same. Therefore, Committee recommends to the Council to upheld the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper Sakal, Pune and direct the editor, Sakal to publish unconditional apology prominently within a month. The complainant’s prayer for damages is beyond the scope of Press Council Act, 1978 and may be rested.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to censure the respondent editor, Sakal and its their correspondent Shri M.D. Mulla. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of Maharshtra for necessary action as they deem fit.
Foot Note: Shri Rajeev Sabade, Member refused himself from the proceedings for the reason of his association with the Sakal.
93) Miss Annamma Verghese, Versus The Editor, Kottayam Zymin Ryotu, Nellore.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 8.10.2010 has been filed against publication of an allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news item causing irreparable damage
145 to the young intern aspiring to become a doctor. It has been reported in the impugned news item in vernacular that the complainant was manhandled physically and sexually by the nursing school bus driver who beat her on abdomen because of which she fell into coma stage and nursing school management scrumptiously shifted her to hospital and suppressed the issue from the public. It is also reported in the impugned publication that the nursing school management threatened the parents of the complainant not to disclose anything to anybody and got the treatment of complainant completely secretly.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Chennai on 28.2.2012. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the counsel for the complainant Shri G. Rai in a letter dated 23.2.2012 intimated that the complainant had launched proceedings in a Civil Court. The counsel requested to deal with the matter as per procedure. Shri Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the incident was widely telecast on media. Further, the matter is now sub-judice. The Inquiry Committee upon considering the complaint noted that though the matter was sub-judice it was essential to caution the media across the country against publishing names or identity of the victims of sexual harassment. The counsel for the respondent sought time to reply to the charge of identification of the victim. The matter stands adjourned.
Report The matter again came up for hearing on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. None of the parties were present. However, Dr. S.V. Krishna Reddy on behalf of the Nursing School in a fax dated 19.8.2012 that he has been authorized by the complainant to attend to the case. Dr. Ready intimated that she has filed a private complaint against the respondent and is awaiting court verdict on her compliant.
The Inquiry Committee on perusal of the record recommended to the Council that the complaint deserved to be dismissed. It however advised the media to abide by the law as well as ethical norms developed by the Press Council on non- identification of the victim of sexual assault.
Held The Press Council accepted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decides accordingly.
146 94) Prof. Y.R. Hara Gopal Reddy, Versus The Editor, Ex-Vice Chancellor, Andhra Jyothi, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Hyderabad. Guntur (AP).
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 9.8.2011 has been filed against publication of allegedly malafide, false and defamatory news items intended to bring down his reputation and tarnish his image in the eye of public. The details of publication of news items are as under:
S.No. Caption (English translation) Dated 1. Everything according to my liking: Nagarjuna University 17.6.2011 Vice Chancellor’s kingdom of his own liking 2. Only Scoda 18.6.2011 3. His way…..the wrong way 19.6.2011 4. Building being constructed without necessity 20.6.2011 Tenders given to Delhi contractor Additional tender of 30% quoted by CPW Huge commission to University authorities? Processing of examination papers-under the name of a fake organization 5. Playing with the lives of students 21.6.2011 No accountability is sought under the Right to Information Act, they say it is a costly affair
The impugned publications leveled allegations of corruption, irregularities, misuse of office and mismanagement during the tenure of the complainant. The complainant has submitted that the impugned material published against him were defamatory, wilfully intended to bring down his reputation and tarnish his image in the eye of public thereby causing irreparable loss of damage without pre-publication verification or any kind of investigation to verify the authenticity of facts. The complainant sent legal notices on 18.6.2011 & 24.7.2011 to the respondent editor to submit the proof of the allegation and unconditional written apology and withdrawing the allegations leveled against him but received no response.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.2.2012 at Chennai. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Gangadhar Prasad, Reporter, Andhra Jyoti, Chennai appeared for the respondent and filed their written statement and sought adjournment which was granted. 147 The respondent editor, Andhra Jyothi vide his written statement denying the allegations of the complainant that the impugned news articles were published with motivated agenda to defame him. The respondent submitted that all the news articles were based on thorough verification by their news contributor “ONLINE” in good faith and as this is the duty of the newspaper to publish such news in public interest. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the petition. The complainant filed counter comments on 8/8/2012 and stated that the publication of impugned item was nothing but yellow journalism and the respondent had given bald denial. Report The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant is represented by Shri Mohd. Wasay Khan, Advocate Nobody is present for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that Editor, Andhra Jyothi requested for adjournment as their authorized representatives had to attend some other official work. The Inquiry Committee recorded that this is no sufficient ground for adjournment. Hence, adjournment request is rejected. The complainant is present. The Inquiry Committee on a careful perusal of record finds that serious allegations against the character of the complainant are made in the impugned publication without giving him an opportunity to place his version before the publication at pre post publication stage. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to censure the respondent newspaper Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad and direct the Editor, Andhra Jyothi to publish their order prominently. The complainant is upheld. Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to censure the respondent newspaper, Andhra Jyothi. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI and Government of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action, as they deem fit.
95) Registrar, Versus The Editor, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Andhra Jyothi, Guntur (A.P.) Hyderbad (A.P.) ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 9.9.2011 has been filed by the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur against the editor, Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad for
148 publication of false, defamatory, malafide and frivolous news items between 17.6.2011 to 21.6.2011 with captions “Hara Vilasam – 5 Fail Cheddam Ra”(Lets Fail the Students). The complainant stated that the respondent targetted the then Vice Chancellor of the University. According to the impugned news item the university has a well-planned strategy to fail the students by one mark or so on those subjects in which they are sure of their success. In the impugned news item it was stated that the University has introduced reevaluation system some time ago and charged Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per paper.
The complainant alleged that the respondent has deliberately published the article to damage the image of the complainant University and lower its reputation and good faith in the eye of public especially the student community. The complainant sent legal notice through advocate & drew the attention of the respondent editor Andhra Jyothi to publish the rejoinder but received no response. The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.2.2012 at Chennai. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Gangadhar Prasad, Reporter, Andhra Jyothi, Chennai appeared for the respondent and filed their written statement and sought adjournment. The respondent editor, Andhra Jyothi vide his written statement denied the allegations of the complainant that the impugned news articles were published with motivated agenda to defame it. The respondent submitted that all the news articles were based on thorough verification by their news contributor “ONLINE” in good faith and this is the duty of the newspaper to publish such news in public interest. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the petition.
Report
The Inquiry Committee again took up the matter for hearing on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. Ms. Tatini Basu, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that Editor, Andhra Jyothi has requested for adjournment as their authorized representatives had to attend some other official work. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that this is not the sufficient ground for adjournment. Hence, adjournment request rejected. The complainant is present. The Inquiry Committee on a careful perusal of record finds that serious allegations against the Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, A.P. were made in the impugned publication. The allegations have not seen sufficiently established and accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent newspaper Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad and direct the editor, Andhra Jyothi to publish unconditional apology prominently in the newspaper. 149 Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and Censure the Andhra Jyothi, Hyderabad and directed the respondent editor to publish an unconditional apology prominently within a month. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI and State Government of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action as they deemed fit.
96) Shri Ram Sewak Verma Versus The Editor, Aliganj, Dainik Hindustan, Lucknow (UP) Lucknow (UP) The Editor, Amar Ujala, Lucknow (UP)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 31.8.2010 was filed by Shri Ram Sewak Verma, Lucknow against the editors, Dainik Hindustan & Amar Ujala, Lucknow for publication of allegedly one sided and defamatory news-item on 28.7.2010 under the captions “Ìããªãè ¶ãñ ‡ãŠÖã, ½ãõ¶ãñ ÔãîÞã¶ãã†ù ¶ãÖãè ½ããØããé’’ and “‚ããÀ.›ãè.‚ããƒÃ ‡ãŠã ªì¹ãƾããñØã ¹ã¡ñØãã ½ãâÖØãã“ respectively. The complainant submitted that the news-items have adversely affected his personal life by giving wrong message to the citizens of the area. In the impugned publication it has been stated that the State Information Commissioner, Lucknow directed the DIG/SSP to inquire into a matter in which an applicant sought 100 information under RTI Act in a case. The complainant further submitted that he expressed his anguish to both newspapers on 30.7.2010 and 17.8.2010 with a request to publish correct news-item but they did not accede to his request.
In response to show cause notice dated 16.12.2010, the respondent, Acting Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Lucknow vide his written statement dated 30.12.2010 submitted that the news-item in question was published on the basis of an order dated 22.7.2010 of State Information Commissioner copy of which was forwarded by the complainant himself. All the contents of the news-item was taken from this order and published to inform the public. They have no ill-will against the complainant.
The Amar Ujala newspaper vide his written statement dated 9.4.2011 submitted that the complaint is misconceived and legally not maintainable and the newspaper has not offended against the journalistic ethics. The publication of the news item was neither objectionable nor made with a view to defame the complainant. The news-item was published on the basis of order passed by Rajya Soochna Ayukt 150 dated 22.7.2010. It is further submitted that the present complaint was an attempt to restrain the fundamental right of freedom of press implicit in the right of freedom of speech and expression essential for political, social liberty and proper functioning of democracy. The complainant filed this complaint just to put pressure on the newspaper and liable to dismissed, added the complainant.
In his counter comments, the complainant while expressing his dissatisfaction on the written statements of the Respondent alleged that the respondent alleged that the Respondent published one-sided news.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow. Shri Ramsewak Verma the complainant appeared in person while Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi and Shri P. Rajhans, Advocate appeared for the respondent Amar Ujala. The complainant contended that the newspaper defamed him by projecting him as professional RTI queerest. The respondent present claimed that the identification was based on the order of the Information Commissioner which had ordered inquiry into the registration of the complainant’s organization. The Inquiry Committee adjourning the matters directed the parties to inform whether any report was given in pursuance to the direction of the Information Commissioner.
Reporter
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 28.3.2012 at Lucknow and 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from the complainant side. Sh.Vijay Kumar, Advocate from Dainik Hindustan and Sh. Anil Chaudhary from Amar Ujala were present from the respondent side. Since the complainant was not present nor had he intimated the details sought by the Inquiry Committee, it felt that the complaint warrants being dismissed for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
97) Dr. Jagdish K. Dadhich, S.E.O. The Editor, Mumbai. Versus Mid-Day, Mumbai.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 11.11.2010 has been filed by Dr. Jagdish K. Dadhich, Mumbai against the editor, Mid-Day, Mumbai for publication of false and baseless 151 and defamatory news item under the caption : “Crackdown on quack Doctors? No” in its issue dated 15.9.2010. The complainant has submitted that the article falsely alleges that he is a ‘fake’ and/or ‘dubious’ and/or ‘phony’ private medical practitioner and/or a ‘quack’ not entitled to practice as a medical practitioner. According to the complainant the article also purports to suggest that the Health Department of the Bombay Municipal Corporation is the source for alleging that he possess spurious degree and/or he is not registered with the appropriate authority and the article is deliberately misleading, inaccurate and distorted. He added that said article is manifestly defamatory and libelous against him and demonstrates the lack of basic care and verification. The complainant submitted that it has been stated in the impugned news item that in an attempt to crush a large number of quacks, the BMC has issued a list of more than 50 fake doctors practicing in the city. Mid Day in possession of the list, visited the clinic of many such alleged shams, one being a complainant. It is further stated in the impugned news item that inquiries with the local chemist shop revealed that the complainant was practicing in the area for last thee decades and had regular patients. It was also stated in the impugned news item that the complainant confessed to Mid Day that his BIMS degree was not a recognized course. He added that the Board was painted a long time ago. It was a postal course, which he had done from Delhi and does not possess any certificate for the same. It was also stated that he had done his GFAM (Graduate of Faculty of Ayurvedic Medicine) from Podar Medical College in Worli in 1971 and had a valid registration, (No.17194A) with the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine. But the Certificate the complainant showed did not have the signatures of the issuing authority, nor had he any certificates on the clinic wall, which is mandatory as per law. Moreover, the complainant boasted that he had issued cause of death certificates on behalf of BMC, which only a registered doctor can do. The complainant submitted relevant facts and events that have transpired in the matter which are as under :-
The complainant submitted that in or about May 2010, Dr. Madhusudan, a BMC Inspector along with a team of BMC social worker attended his clinic and asked to produce registration and some other certificates. He immediately showed certificates of his son and daughter-in-law (both doctors) whom are practicing with him at his clinic. He informed the team that his registration and other certificate were not available with him and requested for some time to show the certificates but the BMC inspector insisted to show the certificate at that moment. The complainant further submitted that in the first week of the August one Mr. Lokhande, Inspector, Sahar Police Station called him and stated that he had received a letter of enquiry against him and to check my medical registration and he forwarded his registration certificate along with graduation certificates to the Inspector. The complainant
152 stated that on 13.8.2010 one Mr. Vinod Kumar Menon (Correspondent) accompanied by colleague visited his clinic and requested for copies of the certificates entitled to practice medicine. He immediately produced all the relevant documents but Mr. Menon choose a duplicate certificate dated 9th January, 1990 issued by the Maharashtra Council of India Medicine certifying that he did a registered under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 read with Section 17 of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970, in Part 1 of the Register. The complainant submitted that the allegation that the certificates shown by him did not have the signature of the issuing authority is totally false. The complainant submitted that despite his objection, Mr. Menon and his colleague photographed him and the said photograph has also been published on Page 4 as part of the said article by the respondent newspaper. The complainant submitted that he informed the said Mr. Menon that he has all the relevant certificates/documents in this behalf but they refused to verify the same. He also apprised the said correspondent that the certificate for the BIMS Course along with other documents was destroyed due to water logging which took place in or about July, 2005.
The complainant submitted that he has apprised the respondents vide letter dated 5.10.2010 through his advocate about the relevant facts and events and requested the respondent to publish a retraction and apology with equal prominence as the said defamatory article in the next issue of the Mumbai edition of the Mid Day. In response to the complainant advocate’s letter dated 5.10.2010 the respondent in his reply dated 18.10.2010 submitted that all the facts and events published in the impugned news item are true and without prejudice.
The complainant submitted that the said article violates all norms of fair and ethical journalistic conduct and published with the intent to harm his reputation, without pre-publication verification. The complainant requested the Council.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Mid Day, Mumbai on 28.12.2010.
Written Statement
In response to the Council’s show-cause notice dated 28.12.2010 the respondent vide his written statement dated 28.1.2011 denied the allegations leveled against him. The respondent submitted that the article published on true facts and information received from Health Department of Mumbai Municipal Corporation and hence the article published is neither misleading, inaccurate, distorted nor defamatory and libelous. The respondent further submitted that they published the news story after duly verifying the facts from authentic sources and hence there is no question of violating norms of fair and ethical journalistic conduct including the
153 norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India. The respondent further submitted that they always remained with their powers and have always respected for the lives and reputation and goodwill of public in general and they have not committed any offence under the said Act of any other statute and refused to publish retraction/apology of the story.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 28.4.2011 retreating his complaint and alleged that the respondent violated all norms of fair and ethical journalistic conduct and offended the standards of journalistic ethics and public taste. He has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent.
Hearing before the Inquiry Committee
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2012 at Pune. The complainant appeared in person along with Dr. Aman J. Dadhich. Shri Shivkumar Verma, Head Administration, Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, Shri Vipul Bilve, Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe. The complainant states that he did his GFAM (Graduate of Faculty of Ayurvedic Medicine) in 1971 and holds valid Regulation No.17194A. It was misplaced and thereafter he applied for duplicate certificate and the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine issued it on 9.1.1990. A duplicate certificate cannot be labeled a fake certificate. He was practicing for the last 40 years and all the factual position was made available to Mid-Day yet they maligned him. Shri Vipul Bilve, Advocate for Mid-Day asserted that his name figured in the government list of fake doctors as provided by BMC under RTI Act.
Since the Inquiry Committee was not satisfied that the list formed a part of the RTI reply by BMC, it in order to ascertain the authenticity of the list provided under RTI and produced by the respondent decided to issue notice to State of Maharasthra to substantiate as to whether such list was given in reply to RTI and also the authenticity thereof. The government of Maharashtra may also inform whether the complainant is holding a valid certificate of practice. The respondent’s request to file supplementary reply was allowed. The Inquiry Committee further decided that on receipt of the reply from the Government of Maharashtra, a copy be sent to the parties for filing supplementary rely within a month.
In response to the directions of the Inquiry Committee Registrar (Incharge), Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine, has informed that Dr. Dadhich Jagdish K. is enrolled on Reg. No.I-7194-A. This certificate was issued to him on 31.71971 on the basis of his qualification GFAM passed from Faculty of Ayurved & Unani System of Medicine Bombay in the year 1971.
154 Report
The matter was taken up for hearing on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. Shri Shiv Kumar Suri, Advocate represented for the respondent. The complainant was not present, the Inquiry Committee declined to adjourn request of the complainant on ground of advanced age and made its report; The Committee has perused the record of the case. The respondent had published news report that the medical degree of the complainant was fake. The Committee directed the State Government to check whether the degree is fake or not and the State government have confirmed that the degree is genuine. Hence, the Committee is satisfied that the impugned report was incorrect, more so whether it was not satisfied with the document filed by the respondent. Hence, complaint is allowed. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to censure the Mid-Day, Mumbai and directs the respondent to publish clarification prominently within a month.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee to censure the Mid-Day, Mumbai and directed the respondent to publish the clarification of the complainant prominently within a month. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI and State Government of Maharashtra for necessary action as they deemed fit.
98) Lt. Col. A.B. Sawarkar, Retd., Versus The Editor, Secretary, Daily News & Analysis, Army Welfare Cooperative Pune Edition. Housing Society, Pune. Pune.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 30.12.2010 has been filed by Lt. Col. A.B. Sawarkar, Retd., Secretary, Army Welfare Co-op. Housing Society, Pune against the editor, Daily News & Analysis (DNA), Pune for publication of misleading news items to bring disrepute to the Society. The news items read as follows:
S.No. Caption Dated 1. Charges of fraud in Salunke Vihar 1.11.2010 2. One group of Salunke Vihar residents seeks 14.11.2010 transparency
155 3. Is Salunke Vihar wrongly registered as co-op society? 15.11.2010 4. Band’s order raises questions 16.11.2010
5. Salunke Vihar’s managing panel can’t explain charge 19.11.2010 6. Probe under way into stamp duty evasion at Salunke 2.12.2010 Vihar 7. Salunke Vihar must explain stamp duty violating 3.12.2010
In respondent to the Council’s show-cause notice dated 25.2.2011 the respondent resident editor, DNA in his written statement dated 28.3.2011 submitted that it was the duty of a responsible newspaper to bring before the public a controversy relating to alleged land irregularities and stamp duty evasion at the complainant’s Society (AWCHS), Pune. The respondent submitted that allegations being made by a whistle-blower, Lt. Col. (Retd.) V K Johar who was a member and resident of this housing society and the documents provided by him were scrutinized and verified by DNA and found to be in order. It has also been revealed from the documents that two other government officials supported the charges who had ordered a probe into the matter (i) Deputy Inspector General (Registration & Stamp) Shri Chintamani Joshi and (ii) Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Haveli Taluka, Pune District. The respondent further submitted that the members of the Managing Committee refused to discuss the matter while insisting that they wanted to see the documents in DNA’s possession before entering into a discussion and because the documents belonged to the whistle blower they felt that the members of the Managing Committee should approach him for the documents. He further stated that all articles carried by them are balance and wholly based on documentary evidence, correspondence between various authorities, statements of officers of relevant authorities, interviews with ex-members of the AWCHS and other members and it amply clear that they have cautious in their coverage of this pertinent issue and they have taken due care and caution while publishing the impugned news articles.
The complainant vide his letter dated 29.4.2011 filed his counter comments and submitted that respondent’s plea that he is honestly interested in fair coverage is untrue. The complainant stated that the respondent never informed their Society that the documents belonged to Shri V.K. Johar and the society should obtain them from him. He further submitted that no fraud was committed either on the member or the State of Maharashtra. It is evident that the respondent is confused between transfer of land and title of the land.
The respondent resident editor, DNA vide his rejoinder dated 20.6.2011 submitted that they have published the entire articles on documents procured by
156 the Whistle Blower through the Right to Information Act, 2005, in depth interviews with concerned government authorities and the said documents are public records and were referred to in each of the stories, and could have been procured by the complainant. But the complainant and the Managing Committee continued to use the documents as a tactic to arm twist the publication into submissions throughout the period of the coverage of the expose.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Shri S.J. Khurjekar, Advocate and Shri Brig. S. A. Deshpande, VSM, Chairman, Army Welfare Cooperative Housing society, Pune appeared for the complainant. Smt. Kinkar and Shri Prasannawmar Keskar, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The respondent sought time to file supplementary written statement. The Inquiry Committee granted one month’s time to file it.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Since the complainant was not present nor any adjournment request been filed the complaint warrant being dismissed for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
99) Ms. M.C. Borwankar, Versus The Editor, Commissioner of Police, Pune Mirror, Pune Pune, Maharashtra. The Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai.
ADJUDICATIONS Ms. M.C. Borwankar, Commissioner of Police, Pune has filed these two separate complaints dated 6.8.2011 against the editors, Pune Mirror and Mumbai Mirror for publication of allegedly false and malicious articles under the captions: “Top Police Officers in dock for alleged underworld links”, Pune Mirror and “Senior cop called Shakeel to plead builder’s case”, Mumbai Mirror, issues dated 5.5.2011 respectively. The impugned news items have averred that the DCP, Pradeep Sawant, who faced suspension during the Telgi Scam probe and even faces charges under MCOCA is now a central figure of an investigation into police underworld links.
157 The Pune police is probing if Sawant got in touch with gangster Chhota Shakeel and fugitive don Dawood Ibrahim’s cricketer relative Javed Miandad to ward off extortion threats received by a Pune business man named Anis Somji. It has further reported that the Pune Commissioner Meeran Borwrnkar and officials associated with the probe did not deny the investigation but refused to elaborate on it. Sources in Pune Police said Sawant may be called for questioning in the case. It has been alleged in the article that Sawant, on being approached by Somj, used his sources from his Crime branch days to contact Shakeel and Miandad to ensure that the extortion calls stopped. Borwankar said “Investigations are on. I cannot comments more on the matter’. Another Pune Crime branch official who did not wish to be named said “The data about DCP was forwarded to us by local police and we are in touch with them about the entire investigation and the police officer will be called for enquiry soon”. It further stated that Somji was unaware that the intelligence agencies and the Pune Police knew what was going on and how the whole issue was settled. An inquiry has been set up over the issue and Sawant has come on their radar.
Denying the impugned reports, the complainant has submitted that the impugned news reports about involvement of DCP, Shri Pradeep Sawant was totally false and malicious. The complainant has denied making any such comments that “Investigations are on, I cannot comments more on the matter” to any journalist, nor was she contacted by any one. The complainant has informed that, in fact, she was out of country during the relevant period. The complainant has submitted that the matters have been brought to the notice of both the respondent on 13.5.2011 following by a reminder dated 3.6.2011 but received no response.
The matters came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Pune on 27.4.2012. The complainant vide her letter dated 18.4.2012 has intimated her inability to appear for the reason of being deputed out of station for training from 9.4.2012 to 11.5.2012. Shri Gitesh N. Shelke, Special Correspondent appeared for Pune Mirror while there was no appearance from Mumbai Mirror side. With a view to afford opportunity of hearing, the Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter.
The respondent editor, Mumbai Mirror vide his letter dated 23.4.2012 intimated the Council that they have published a clarification in Mumbai Mirror issue dated 26.2.2012 in this regard.
Report
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. Shri Nikhil Borwankar appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Upon hearing the complainant counsel, the Inquiry Committee opined though public servants should normally learned to ignore critical reports, in the 158 instant case, since words has been put in the mouth of the complainant, she deserved a right of rejoinder The Mumbai Mirror had already done so. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, directs the Editors Pune Mirror to publish the letter of the complainant along with an apology prominently within a month. The complaint is upheld.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to uphold the complainant, issuing the above directions to Pune Mirror.
100) M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd., Versus The Editor, Mumbai. Business India, Mumbai.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 6.4.2011 has been filed by M/s Orbit Corporation Ltd., Mumbai against the editor, Business India Magazine, Mumbai for publication of an allegedly false, misleading, malicious and defamatory news item under the caption “Distress Sale” in its issue dated 6.3.2011. It has been alleged in the impugned article that the complainant company is facing a situation of distressed sale and borrowing amounts to provide an exit to sellers. The article did not contain name of any other builder/corporation except the complainant.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Shri Ashish Kabra, Advocate appeared for the complainant and Shri Rishiraj Wlvekar, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The respondent requested for time to file written statement. The Inquiry Committee granted one month time to file written statement.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Since the complainant is not present was had it sent any written prayer the complaint warrant being dismissed for default.
Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
159 101) Shri Naveen Jindal, Versus The Editor, M.P. (Lok Sabha) Punjab Kesari, New Delhi. New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 25.2.2010 has been made by Shri Naveen Jindal, M.P.(Lok Sabha) against the editor, Punjab Kesari (Delhi Edition) for publishing four impugned articles in their newspaper with headlines:
Sl. No. Caption Dated 1 Ôããñãä¶ã¾ãã ‚ããõÀ ÀãÖìÊã ¶ãñ ªì¦‡ãŠãÀ ‡ãŠÀ ÞãÊã¦ãã ãä‡ãŠ¾ãã ‚ããä¦ã „¦ÔããÖ ½ãò Êãªñ ¶ãÌããè¶ã 27-1-2010 ãä•ã¶ªÊã ‡ãñŠ ãäÔã¾ããÔã¦ã ‡ãñŠ ã䪶ã ý 2 ÀãÖìÊã ÔãŒãã ¹ãÀ Ôãºã ½ãñÖÀºãã¶ã, ãä•ã¶ªÊã ‡ãñŠ ãäÊㆠ‡ãŠã¶ãî¶ã ¦ãã‡ãŠ ¹ãÀ - ÍãÖÀ ½ãò 6-2-2010 Œã¶ã¶ã ¹ã››ñ ‡ãŠãñ ½ãâ•ãîÀãè ý 3 ¶ãÌããè¶ã ãä•ã¶ªÊã ‡ãŠãñ •ã½ããè¶ã, Ôããèºããè‚ããƒÃ •ããùÞã ‡ãŠãè ½ããùØã ý 8-2-2010 4 ÀãÖìÊã Øããâ£ããè ‡ãñŠ ãä½ã¨ããò ‡ãŠãñ •ã½ããè¶ã ...... Þããè¶ã ¶ãÖãè ‚ã¹ã¶ãñ ¼ããè Êãî› ÀÖñ Öö ý 10-2-2010 The complainant has stated that the impugned article ‘Sonia aur Rahul ne dutkaar kar chalta Kiya’ Sonia and Rahul shunted him out reprimanding] and ‘Ati utsaah mein lade Naveen Jindal ke siyasat ke din’ Political days of Shri Naveen Jindal having great enthusiasm] on 27.01.2010 which appears to be ill informed, completely motivated for some ulterior motives, highly defamatory with false & baseless allegations and published without verifying the facts from the concerned. Further it has been published without taking care & caution or for a just or reasonable cause and is not in public good in any manner and appears to be sensational, hostile and smacks of yellow journalism. The article reports that “Shri Naveen Jindal was thrown out by Shri Rahul Gandhi and Smt. Sonia Gandhi from their house”, which is totally wrong, false, highly derogatory and insinuating. Also that four cars were imported by Shri Jindal and for obtaining certain relaxations in getting clearances from the customs department, he represented that the said cars are meant for use by Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Shri Rahul Gandhi & Smt. Priyanka Vadhera. The article is further suggestive of the alleged fact that it was because of this reason that the custom officials did not raise any objection and therefore, Shri Jindal succeeded in being let off with minimum import duty.
The reporting that “....yeh charon caren unhonne videsh se mangwayi aur custom adhikariyon ko bataya ki yeh sab congress adhyaksha Smt. Sonia Gandhi ne mangwaya hai....” [These Four cars imported from abroad and custom officials told that the cars had been purchased by Smt. Sonia Gandhi] and “..... enhe bullet proof 160 bhi banwa diya aur enke upar duty bhi lagbhag na ke barabar lagi...”[ cars were made bullet proof and negligible amount of duty imposed on them] is totally without basis, contrary to records as the complainant who is required to travel extensively in naxalite area in the states of Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa had ordered armoured vehicles for safety and security which are sold as fully air-conditioned and bullet proof facilities.
The impugned article also states that Shri Naveen Jindal has acquired Government land from Government of Haryana and misusing it by converting the same as memorial in the name of his father late Shri O.P. Jindal. It further states wrongly, falsely and out of context. “Itna hi nahi....jahan baithkar vah Delhi wa Haryana ki siyasat ek sath karte hai”. The impugned article further depicts Shri Jindal as one attempting to make-believe that he belongs to Nehru-Gandhi family. Also that complainant’s earnest endeavours related to right to hoisting our national flag has also been robbed off its credit by casually describing him as trying to pose with the Tricolor as if he is Mahatma Gandhi. This kind of publication demeans not just the complainant but is also not respecting the Father of the Nation. The impugned news item carrying the title ‘Rahul Sakha Par Sab Meharban’ [All are in favour of Rahul’s friend] and ‘Jindal ke liye kanoon Tak par, seher mein khanan patte ko manjoori’ [Rules at bay for Jindal -approval for mining lease in town] followed by another news item in their edition on 8.2.2010 carrying the title ‘Naveen Jindal Ko jameen CBI janch ki maang’ [CBI enquiry demanded on Land allotted to Naveen Jindal]. The impugned article dated 6.2.2010 says that the Congress Government of the State has been so considerate for the complainant, being one of the members of youth wing of congress General Secy., Shri Rahul Gandhi, that all the rules and regulations have been ignored to grant mining lease to M/s Jindal Saw Limited. Further, every responsible officer exercised their entire power to get changed the orders of the Collector, by which the Collector had put the restrictions on mining in the area, as the matter was directly related to the interest of friend of congress General Secretary Shri Rahul Gandhi, which is totally wrong, false highly derogatory and insinuating. The impugned article dated 8.2.2010, says that approval of mining lease in favour of the complainant, being a very special industrialist and Member of Parliament friend of congress General Secy., Shri Rahul Gandhi had started to reach to Delhi. The article reports that the application of M/s Jindal Saw Ltd., for mining lease has been processed and allowed in blatant breach of provisions of applicable laws, which is false, frivolous and manipulated statement. The complainant has further stated that these articles are unwarranted and uncalled for campaign launched by some ill-informed correspondents, possibly with 161 malafide intentions and external influence to defame him. The newspaper had also brought out some defaming series of impugned articles in the year 2008 and when the complainant approached PCI, the respondent had published a rebuttal stating therein the correct facts. A show cause notice was issued to the editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi on 16.3.2010. In response to the show cause notice dated 16.3.2010, the Director, Punjab Kesari, in his written statement dated 6.4.2010 submitted that the complainant has misused his position, authority and power emanating from it by writing to the Press Council on the official letter head which seems to be an effort to misguide, mislead and bias the Council. The complainant has served defamation notices dated 2.2.2010 and 9.2.2010 to the Editor, Punjab Kesari and that the complaint as per provision of Section 14(3) of the Press Council Act, 1978 should be summarily rejected. The respondent, further, while pointing out technical faults in compliance with regulations 3 (i) concerning declaration, name, address etc. stated that it is liable to be summarily rejected.
The complainant has submitted his counter comments dated nil, received on 25.5.2010 with point wise rebuttal thereby stating that representation was made in the official letter head of M.P. etc., with the intention to bring to the notice of the Council that he being a public figure and having their support, the defending parties are intentionally and repeatedly bringing his reputation down with ulterior motive and that the Council being an independent, impartial body comprising of 28 eminent members of high repute cannot be biased on account of the complainant, being an M.P.
The mere issuance of legal notices on behalf of the complainant cannot amount to ‘Proceedings pending in Court of Law’. In fact, the said legal notices are in compliance of extant provisions of Regulations of the Council. The complainant has further stated that all the written statement are denied being wrong and misconceived in as much as all the objections raised in the written statement are technical in nature and that inadvertent omission of the complainant which was unintentional and bonafide mistake on account of being unaware about the requirement of said regulations cannot be a ground to dismiss the complaint, which is otherwise maintainable and having substance of truth, especially when the regulation 4 of the said Regulations empowers the Council to permit the complainant to rectify them. The complainant further submits that the respondent has deliberately avoided commenting on merit despite being aware about the matters complained in as much they have no reply to the averments as contained in the present complaint read with the contents of legal notices.
A copy of the counter comments had been forwarded to the respondent vide Council’s letter dated 21.6.2010 for information/reply, if any. No reply is received so far.
162 Hearing
The matter came up for first hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 19.9.2011 at New Delhi. S/Shri Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate; Rajat Jariwal, Advocate and Shashank Kumar, Sr. Manager, Legal, Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. appeared for the complainant. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that signed out of the four articles, the three articles are in the court of law they will contest only one article i.e. published on 27.1.2010. The Counsel further submitted that the article published on the above mentioned date was totally false, baseless and motivated for some ulterior motives and intended to character assassination. He submitted that the news article was published without verifying the facts from the person concerned. The article was not only defamatory but the language used by the respondent was not in good taste. The Counsel further submitted that complainant being a public figure the article published by the respondent newspaper had lowered down his image in the society. He further submitted that he drew the attention of the editor towards the article but received no response.
Shri Parvinder Sharda, Sub-Editor, Punjab Kesari appeared for the respondent and submitted that the news was published in public interest and there was no malafide intention behind it. He further submitted that news is being published to inform public about the misdeeds done by the leaders. The respondent added that they are ready to publish the version of the complainant.
The Inquiry Committee during the hearing of the case noted that the written statement filed by the respondent was not on merits and the Director, Hind Samachar Ltd., vide letter dated 14.9.2011 raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint as the matter was pending before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to file the written statement in respect of the related news item dated 27.1.2010 on merits and serve a copy of the same to the complainant for his counter, if any. It thus decided to adjourn the matter.
The directions of the Inquiry Committee were conveyed to the respondent on 14.10.2011 for information.
Following one adjournment of 30.1.2012, the matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. Smt. Shabya Sachi Patra, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Parvinder Shandra, Chief Sub-Editor, Punjab Kesari appeared for the respondent. The complainant’s counsel informed the Committee that the matter has amicably been settled between them. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, disposed off the matter accordingly.
163 Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accept reasons of the Committees and decides to close the matter as settled and withdrawn.
102) Shri Mitanram Premi, The Editor, Sub Inspector (Retd.), Versus Aj, Kanpur Edition, U.P. Police, Bansmandi, District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 22.03.2010 has been filed by Shri Mitanram Premi, Retd. Sub-Inspector, U.P. Police, District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh, against the editor, Aj, Kanpur edition alleging publication of false, baseless, defamatory news item under the caption “ÌããÖ¶ã ÞããñÀãè ‡ãñŠ ‚ããÀãñ¹ã ½ãò ãäÀ›ã¾ã¡Ã ©ãã¶ãñªãÀ ‡ãŠã ¹ãì¨ã Ìã ãäÔã¹ããÖãè ‡ãŠã ãäÀÔ¦ãñªãÀ ãäØãÀ¹ãŠ¦ããÀ”[Son of retired police officer and relative of constable arrested on the charge of car theft] in its edition dated 30.1.2010.The complainant has alleged that impugned report was objectionable and caused immense damage to his family. It was stated in the news item that the Banda police with the help of local police station had apprehended the son of retired police officer and relative of constable from Aalha Chowk on the Bolero car theft change. According to the complainant, it was carried by the reporter Shri Nayeem Ansari without giving due consideration to the facts viz. the registration, chasis number of vehicle that had been retrieved, from where the vehicle was stolen and who was the owner of the vehicle? If he had given proper consideration to these facts then such a false report would not have been published. The impugned report further stated that son of the complainant was arrested at Aalha Chowk, Mahoba which according to the complainant is totally false as his son was taken by the police on 28.01.2010 at 09.30 p.m. from his residence. The Mahoba Police in vengeance and with conspiracy of one Havaldar had given inhuman treatment to his son in police custody.
In response to the show cause notice dated 14.6.2010, the resident editor, Aaj has stated that the impugned news report published in Kanpur edition on 30.1.2010 was based on facts and the information given by the Mahoba Police. The son of retired sub-inspector Shri Mitanram Premi, who was wanted in the Banda district vehicle theft case, was arrested by the Banda Police, Mahoba. The details could be confirmed from the letter dated 3.3.2010 written by Shri Mitanram Premi to the Inspector General, U.P. Police which was sent to all the newspapers and other officials in the Mahoba District. Shri Mitanram Premi had himself stated in the 164 letter that his son Raju alais Narendra Kumar was arrested at the instance of Shri Mukteshwar Chandra Shrivastav, S.H.O., Banda Police and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was demanded for his release which was settled at Rs.20,000/-. It has been accepted by Shri Mitanram Premi that an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been paid by him to the Banda Police for release of his son. The letter also evinces many more facts. Despite these facts, Shri Mitanram Premi stated that the impugned news report was based on incorrect notions which is irresponsible and condemnable particularly he being a retired police official.
The matter came up for hearing on 20.9.2011 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant in a letter dated 3.9.2011 sought adjournment on medical ground which was granted. The matter was adjourned.
At the next hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 30.1.2012 at New Delhi, Shri Mitanram Premi, the complainant appeared in person along with Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant stated that newspaper carried an objectionable news item which had damaged his image in the society. His son was never involved in the car theft allegation. The Inquiry Committee directed that the respondent should present personally or through his counsel at the next hearing.
Report
The Inquiry Committee finally took up the matter for hearing on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. The complainant appeared in person with his Advocate, S.K. Gupta and objected that the newspaper used the word ‘arrest’ rather than ‘detained’ as his son was not arrested but was taken by the police for interrogation and tortured. The complainant submitted that newspaper had published a totally false and baseless statement that his son was arrested relying on the information provided by Mahoba Police.
The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned news item captioned “ÌããÖ¶ã ÞããñÀãè ‡ãñŠ ‚ããÀãñ¹ã ½ãò ãäÀ›ã¾ã¡Ã ©ãã¶ãñªãÀ ‡ãŠã ¹ãì¨ã Ìã ãäÔã¹ããÖãè ‡ãŠã ãäÀÔ¦ãñªãÀ ãäØãÀ¹ãŠ¦ããÀ”[Son of retired police officer and relative of constable arrested on the charge of car theft]” in its issue dated 30.1.2010 of “Aaj” and noted that while the caption of the news item suggested arrest of the son of the complainant, the newspaper in its body content of the news item clearly indicated that the police had taken away the son of the complainant on the charge of the alleged car theft. It noticed that it is an admitted fact that the complainant’s son was interrogated by the police for alleged car theft case. The terminology used by the newspaper was the main objection of the complainant and there were no serious repercussions of the contents of the incident reported
165 by the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the objectionable terminology in reporting the incident was not a malafide action therefore the newspaper cannot be held guilty on such trivial issue. It, therefore, finds no merits in the contention of the complainant and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It recommends to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committees and decides to dismiss the complaint.
103) Smt. Manorama Ghildiyal, Principal, The Editor, Primary School, Kathola, Dainik Jagran, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand Versus Dehradun. Through Uttarakhand. Shri Hari Charan Mamgain, New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 15.4.2010 has been filed by Smt. Manorama Ghildiyal, Principal, Primary School, Kathola, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand through Shri Hari Charan Mamgain, New Delhi against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Dehradun for publication of an allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news item under the caption “¦ã‡ãŠªãèÀ ‡ãŠãè ƒºããÀ¦ã ¹ãÀ ãä¹ãŠÀ ÀÖã ¢ãã¡î” along with picture of the students fetching water in its issue dated 19.3.2010. It was reported in the impugned news item that the students of the Primary School Kathola, Bangi Tahlisen Block were engaged in several works like cleaning the school, bringing water from miles away and also making mid-day meal instead of studies. Only thereafter does the study starts, due to which, future of the students becomes dark. It was further reported that the Education Officer, Shri Totaram Pokhriyal admitted that due to unavailability of peon, the students of the school were doing such work and for the purpose their department was contacting the NGOs.
Denying the allegations, Shri Hari Charan Mamgain has alleged that the impugned news item was full of rumoures and false allegations made about Primary School Kathola and especially Smt. Manorama Ghildiyal, Head Mistress of the School and a very well reputed person of the region. The complainant also alleged that the impugned news item was actioned by ill-will and the information furnished in it was not properly investigated as the motive was to disgrace the reputation of the school as well as Smt. Ghildiyal. 166 Shri Mamgain also filed a copy of the notice issued to the respondent editor Dainik Jagran, Dehradun by Smt. Manorama Ghildiyal wherein she alleged that the impugned news item was false, baseless and published with the ill-will attitude. She further alleged that the primary motive for publication of impugned news item was to demoralize and defame her. She alleged that no pre-publication verification was made by the respondent. Smt. Ghildiyal submitted that she was awarded by Hon’ble President of India in 2007. Besides that State Government Authorities also awarded her several times for her valuable services as a teacher for community. According to her, the cleanliness of school is governed by Ashram System prevalent in ancient India, and a student must clean the environment of his/her school and no selection was made for this purpose by the government authorities. This procedure was being adopted by all primary schools of the State of Uttarakhand. She further stated that the Thalisen Block Education Officer had not issued any statement to any newspaper. According to her, on 17.3.2010 it was holiday on the occasion of ‘Chetichand’ but her school was open and some students also reached there at 9.00 a.m. The respondent Pathani Correspondent reached the school and instigated the students to pose for photographer. When she contacted the concerned correspondent over telephone, he informed her that he is publishing a report in the newspaper. Smt. Ghildiyal has requested the respondent-editor to publish her contradiction prominently but no response was received.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.9.2011 at New Delhi. Shri Haricharan Mamgain, representative and Shri Ravi Ranjan, advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent and requested the Committee to give two weeks’ time to file written statement. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent had sought adjournment at the last moment putting the complainant to inconvenience. It therefore, granted adjournment with condition to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. The respondent agreed to it and the matter was adjourned.
The complainant vide his letters dated 21.11.2011 and 7.1.2012 informed the Council that the respondent have not made payment of Rs.1000/- to him.
At the next hearing before the Inquiry Committee 30.1.2012 at New Delhi, both the parties were present. The Inquiry Committee upon hearing the parties and considering the records of the case noted that in response to the news item published in Dainik Jagran dated 19.3.2010, a notice was sent by the complainant to the newspaper asserting that facts stated in the news item were incorrect. The respondent has not published this reply or its gist. Journalistic ethics require right to rejoinder to be afforded to the affected person. Hence, the Inquiry Committee directed the respondent to publish forthwith the version of the complainant or its gist at a prominent place in the newspaper. The complainant was directed to give fresh comprehensive version to the respondent.
167 Report
The matter came up for the hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. None appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri B.K. Miashra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted a newspaper clipping dated 4.5.2012 in which the version of the complainant was published under the caption “ãäÌã®ããä©ãþããò Ôãñ Ñã½ã ‚ããÑã½ã ¹ã®ãä¦ã ‡ãñŠ ¦ã֦㠕ãã¾ã•ã” (Self-service by students is according to the Ashram Pattern). The Committee perused the version of the complainant published as per direction at the last hearing. The absence of the complainant indicates that she does not wish to pursue the matter further. It therefore, recommends to the Council to close the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to close the complaint.
104) Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, The Editor, Gwalior, Versus Rajasthan Patrika, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 18.1.2011 has been filed by Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, Gwalior against the editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Gwalior for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “vuSfrd lacaèk cukvksa ugha rks------“ in its issue dated 24.11.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that Shri Satish Sharma was arrested by the police on a complaint of a lady named as Kajal (changed name) wife of an officer of Industrial Department on the allegation that the complainant threatened the lady over the mobile for establishing illicit relationship otherwise he will throw spirit on her face. It was also stated in the news item that an officer of SME department was caught red handed taking bribe of an amount of Rs.5,000/- by the CBI and after this incident the complainant started calling his wife offering to help her husband. The allegations were established in the investigation report and the complainant was sent to the jail. It was also stated in the impugned news item that the wife of the suspended officer registered a complaint with the police station regarding demand a sum of Rs. Five lakh by the complainant.
Denying all the allegations levelled in the impugned news item the complainant submitted that he is a Mechanical Engineer by profession and is against the corruption and corrupt people. He further submitted that the CBI caught six people red handed after his complaint. He also stated that some people
168 of the area with the connivance of a journalist pressurized him to take back his complaint against one Shri D.C. Sahu, when he refused they registered a false case against his factory. His factory was raided by Pollution Department and Electricity Department and registration of his factory was cancelled and also a false case of eve teasing was registered against him in the police station and he was jailed for one day in June 2010. The complainant submitted that five month old news item was published by the respondent newspaper just as if the incident has happened the day before . The complainant submitted that due to publication of the impugned news item he was outcast by the society, family and his friends and his business is also badly affected.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 1.3.2011 the respondent resident editor, Patrika, Gwalior vide his written statement submitted that the complainant has filed a false case and false declaration. The respondent submitted that the news in question has been published by the newspaper on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Police Station Mahila Thana, Padaw, Gwalior against the complainant on 16.11.2010 and the matter is pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Gwalior.
The complainant vide his counter comments dated 18.6.2011 while reiterating his complaint submitted that the written statement of the respondent is totally false and baseless.
The matter took up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 31.1.2012 at New Delhi. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Indresh Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent, Rajasthan Patrika and filed written reply. The Inquiry Committee noted that the reply has been filed by Rajasthan Patrika during the hearing and served on the complainant. The Inquiry Committee in order to give one more opportunity to the parties decided to adjourn the matter and directed the complainant may file rejoinder within three weeks.
Report
The matter was taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent, Rajasthan Patrika. The Inquiry Committee was again informed by the respondent’s counsel that the matter is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First), Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and is sub-judice. This had not been countered before the Inquiry Committee. It thus decided to drop the proceedings in the matter till the decision of the court with liberty to the complainant to approach the Press Council of India, if, so desired thereafter.
169 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to drop the complaint.
105) Dr. R.K. Kotnala, The Editor, Secretary, Versus Times of India, Society for Scientific Values, New Delhi. New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 15.11.2010 has been filed by Dr. R.K. Kotnala, Secretary, Society for Scientific Values, New Delhi against the editor, The Times of India, for publication of an allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Padma awarded part of fake institute run by IIT-Kgp Prof.” in its issue dated 30.10.2010. The impugned news item has reported that Shri Padamashri K.L. Chopra, former director of IIT-Kgp and Shri S.K. Dube were patronizing the fake institutions like Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE). It has been further reported that Shri Chopra said that a graduate of IEE is authorized and eligible to appear in GATE examination for admission in M.Tech/MS. Referring to a letter dated 24.12.1996, the impugned news item has stated that Shri Chopra accepted the offer to become an adviser to IEE. However, Shri Chopra denied the allegations claiming that the documents are forged. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item has alleged that Shri Akshay Mukul, Correspondent of Times of India published the impugned news item in unethical ways to tarnish the reputation of Padmashri Prof. K.L. Chopra, who is presently President of the Society for Scientific values. According to the complainant, Prof. Chopra was blamed on the basis of a fake letter of support without verifying its veracity. He has further submitted that the difference in fonts and a line between Chopra’s signature and the contents of the letter should have been enough to doubt it. The complainant has alleged that the respondent deliberately dragged the name of the then directors into the controversy without proper investigation or evidence. The complainant has submitted that he sent a letter to the respondent on 15.11.2010 for publication of an unqualified apology but received no reply.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 1.3.2011 the Counsel for the respondent editor, Times of India, Delhi in his written statement dated 6.5.2011 has denied and refuted in toto the allegations levelled by the complainant. He has further stated that the news item in question was published with the comments of Dr. K.L. Chopra for the information of the general public and in the public interest 170 without any malice or grudge against anyone else and carried on the basis of the information collected from the various sources. He has stated that as per the journalistic ethics his client has not disclosed the source. He has reiterated that his client has not written anything against Society for Scientific Values in the said article except that Dr. K.L. Chopra is President of the society for which publication cannot in any manner be called as casting aspersions on the society. The Counsel for the respondent has further stated that the main aim of the complainant is to put pressure on his client so that no more articles are carried on this subject in the newspaper of his client. The Counsel for the respondent stated that news/article was based on the documents available and comments of the respective parties and denied that the article in any respect was carried to sensationalize the issue.
Report
Following one adjournment of 30.1.2012, the matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. Dr. R.K. Kotnala, the complainant appeared in person. None appeared for the respondent. The complainant stated that the respondent published a bold news item against President of the Institute, Society for Scientific Values. The complainant’s main objection was that the name of the Institute, Society for Scientific Values was unnecessarily dragged into the impugned news item and it had nothing to do with allegation made in respect of Dr. K. L. Chopra during his previous tenure in IIT, Khargpur. The complainant stated that Dr. K. L. Chopra, President of the Institute (SFSV) in his statement had also categorically denied the allegations leveled against him.
The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the news item and had that the publication in question was reporting against Dr. K.L. Chopra who has not approached this authority and not against the Institute, Society for Scientific Values, the complainant herein. Hence, it finds no reason to proceed in the matter further. The Committee, thus recommends to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.
106) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, The Editor, National President, Versus Tarun Bharat, Anti-Corruption Committee, Kolhapur, Thane.
171 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 4.7.2009 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane against the editor, Tarun Bharat, Kolhapur (Maharashtra) for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item in its issue dated 18.6.2009 alleging that 11 cases of robbery, murder and kidnapping etc. are registered against National President, The Anti-Corruption Committee keeps pressure to register cases against police officials and they open branches of Anti-Corruption Committee to misguide the people. Nawab Shaik of Kolhapur told that the State Government has made a separate department to act against corruption inspite of that the officers of the department having the authority to act against corruption. Many criminal cases were registered against so called bogus Anti-Corruption Committee.
The complainant has alleged that Shri Nawab Saikh, reporter of the respondent paper demanded Rs.1 lakh over mobile and threatened that he will publish false news against him and his association. The complainant has further stated that the said reporter threatened to kill him. The complainant has filed the complaint against the reporter to the Chief Minister and Police officials and requested to take action against the respondent. The complainant has submitted that the impugned news item was published to defame the image of his association and the respondent is indulging in extortion of money. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication on 18.6.2009 and requested to publish his contradiction but received no response.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent Tarun Bharat, Thane on 15.4.2010 but no written statement was filed despite repeated reminders.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 27.4.2012 at Pune. S/Shri Shankar P. Patil, President, Vishvajeet. S. Diamdre, State President, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane appeared for the complainant. Shri Dashrath Parekar, resident editor and Shri Rahul L Shinde, Admin Manager, Tarun Bharat appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter for filing of written statement by the respondent.
Report
The matter again come for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. There were no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted the lack of any intimation from the complainant. In the absence of any desire to pursue his complaint it recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for default.
172 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
107) Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, The Editor, National President, Versus Bhoomi, Anti Corruption Committee, Jamnagar, Thane.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 13.3.2009 has been filed by Shri Ravinder Dwivedi, National President, Anti-Corruption Committee, Thane against the editor, Bhoomi, a Gujarati newspaper, Jamnagar, Gujarat for publication of baseless and defamatory news item in its issue dated 9.2.2009. As per English translation of the news item provided by the complainant, private vehicle owner put board of Bureau and launch anti bribe drive, this is being misunderstood among the public Anti-corruption bureau has told that private vehicles are not allowed to use such labels and anyone using such identification will be proceed against as per law. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item was published with a motive to defame his committee. He has stated that the members/workers of Anti-Corruption Committee are working through all over India from the last 11 years against corruption and crime and the members of the Committee cannot put board on their vehicles. He has submitted that respondent published the impugned news item with a motive to damage the image of his Committee. The complainant vide letter dated 11.2.2009 has drawn the attention of the respondent and requested to publish the contradiction but received no response.
Report
Following one adjournment of 24.4.2012, where the Inquiry Committee granted time to the respondent time to file written statement, the matter again came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the lack of any communication from the complainant indicated the absence of desire to pursue the matter and thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
173 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
108) Shri Parshuram M. Diwanad, The Editor, Pune, Maharashtra. Versus Swarvihar, Pune, Maharashtra.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 20.6.2010 has been filed by Shri Parashuram M. Diwanad, State Youth Awarded & Karnataka Rajyotsava Awarded, Department of Dental Surgery, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune (Maharashtra) against Shri Ghyaneshwar Sitaram Karale, Editor, Swarvihar Weekly (Marathi) for allegedly giving threats and blackmailing the government officers and other innocent people in the garb of journalism. The complainant has alleged that the respondent has owned property worth crores of rupees and when he asked information about respondent’s organization “Manavadhikar Sangh on 12.1.2010 to Charity Commissioner, Pune he started threatening him through his subordinates to withdraw his application. The complainant has stated that he falsely implicated him in a false case and registered an FIR against him. The complainant has submitted that he met the State Information Commissioner, who assured him that he will take action against him. The complainant has also produced some copies of FIR, which were filed by local people against the respondent. According to the complainant, the respondent is the President of Manavadhikar Sangh, letter head of which is being used to blackmail the people. Manavadhikar Sangh’s registration has been cancelled by Joint Charity Commissioner. The complainant has alleged that when the Charity Commissioner filed criminal case against the trustee and issued show-cause notice to the respondent, he published a news item in its issue dated 2.8.2010 by levelling false allegations and maligned the image of a lady employee by publishing that the Superintendent has the extramarital affair with the lady and also involved charity commissioner in crores of rupees corruption. The complainant has stated the respondent has published false and defamatory news item against him and his wife, as they had not fulfilled the demands of respondent editor. The complainant further submitted that the respondent again on 26.8.2010 published that the complainant is Psychotic Soldier thereby maligning image of all brave soldiers of the Indian Army who have been sacrificing their valuable life for the nation. The complainant has alleged that the respondent never submitted audit report of his newspaper as well as copies of his newspaper to RNI. The complainant has stated that he had drawn the attention of the editor on 30.8.2010 but received no reply. 174 The respondent editor, Swarvihar in his comments dated 13.4.2011 submitted that complainant is serving in Indian Army Force and his wife Mrs. Laila Daval Shaikh is serving as a Divisional Officer in Zonal Office Nigdi. He has stated that in the period of May 2010, the office of ‘A’ departmental Zone Mrs. Laila Daval Shaikh had supplied wheat, rice, Sugar, Pamoi & Kerosene amounting to Lakhs of rupees of Shri Ashok Beliram Agarwal, Shri Ramesh Goverdhan Agarwal, Shri Naresh Goverdhan Agarwal & Shri Dilip Rambhau Bobade and helped in misappropriation and all Businessmen were arrested. The complainant and Shri R.P. Bhosale had filed a complaint against his Association on 13.10.2003 and his complaint was found false. A complaint filed against them before DCP, Pune on 18.2.2004 by the Association of National Amainesty and Mrs. Anjali Mule on 26.2.2004 has been disposed off due to lack of evidence by the Supply Department. He has further stated that the wife of complainant was made the co-accused u/Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in the offence bearing No. 495/10 by Pimpri Police Station but the complainant said that his wife is mentally disturbed.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 27.7.2011 stated that Shri Ghyaneshwar Karale is a fraudster and his personal history is of low level. According to the complainant, the respondent is blackmailing and extorting, lying and misguiding public and government.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 21.9.2011 the respondent vide his letter dated 11.10.2011 filed written statement which is in vernacular. The Council called for Hindi/English version of his written statement. But response was received.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.4.2012 at Pune. The complainant appeared in person while Shri Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Karale, Editor, Swarvihar, Pune appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the parties and prime facie found the language employed by the respondent to be highly objectionable and in violation of the standards of a civil society. It directed District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Pune to investigate and report back to the Council whether the newspaper is being used for blackmailing and on its credibility as bonafide newspaper.
Report
The matter again taken up for the hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant Shri Parsuram M. Diwanand appeared in person. None appeared for the respondent. The complainant reiterated his complaint, The Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural) in its report stated that the respondent is habitual of taking unnecessary information from government offices under RTI 175 Act with the malafide intention to blackmail and torture the government servants. He further stated that if the government officials refused to fulfill his demands then he used his newspaper against the officials by publishing false, vexatious and defamatory news items.
The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the records of the case noted that the allegations levelled by the complainant that the respondent regularly threatens and blackmails the innocent government officials are corroborated by the police report. The Inquiry Committee, thus decided to uphold the complaint and censure the respondent editor, Swar Vihar, Pune. The complainant may file case before the appropriate legal authority if so desired. It recommend to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and decides to Censure the respondent editor, Swar Vihar, Pune. A copy of the decision may also be forwarded to the State Government of Maharashtra, DAVP, RNI, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Maharashtra and District Magistrate, Pune for the action as they deem fit in the matter.
109) Dr. Prabhjot Kaur, Versus The Editor, Guru Nanak Hospital, The Tribune, Karnal (Haryana). Chandigarh.
ADJUDICATION
This undated complaint has been filed by Dr. Prabhjot Kaur, Guru Nanak Hospital, Karnal (Haryana) against the editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh for publication of an allegedly wrong, unverified and highly objectionable news item under the caption “Karnal’s doctor in the dock – RTI info exposes her claim of 60 year old having delivered twins” in its issue dated 21.6.2011. It has been reported in the impugned news item that the tall claims made by the complainant that a 60 year old woman had delivered twins 20 years post menopause through the IVF technique put her in the dock as information procured under RTI Act has revealed that the age of the woman was about 40 years. It has been further reported that on April 30 last, Dr. Prabhjot claimed to have performed a ‘miracle’ when Jagdish, hailing form Brid Amin village in Kurukshetra, gave birth to healthy twins, a boy and a girl. She had claimed that the age of the woman was 60 years. The Medical Ethics Forum, an NGO, disputed her claim as untenable and produced a copy of the photo electoral 176 roll where her age was mentioned as 36 years but Dr. Kaur stuck to her stand and produced some hospital documents to suggest that the age of the woman was 60 years. She stated that the father of Jagdish Kaur had given an affidavit stating that his daughter was around 60 year old. It also stated that the Director of Medical Ethics Form blamed the doctor for misleading the people by giving wrong age of the patient to gain cheap popularity and made a complaint to the authorities concerned for action against her and Director General (Health Services), Haryana ordered an inquiry into the matter but Dr. Prabhjot Kaur was not available for comments.
Denying the allegations, the complainant alleged that the impugned news item was unverified and highly objectionable. According to the complainant, she is running a Test Tube Baby centre at Guru Nanak Hospital, Karnal and one patient named, Mrs. Jagdish Kaur, a post-menopausal woman, was under her treatment since 2008 for infertility and after constant follow up she gave birth healthy twins without any hurdle. The complainant informed that since several relatives visited her in hospital, therefore, it also attracted the press. Accordingly, a news item was published in the Sunday Tribune issue dated 1.5.2011 and in many other newspapers and also telecast on news channels which were non-controversial. The complainant further informed that since this news reached far off areas, two persons came to her hospital on 1.5.2011, one of them introduced himself as Shri Ramesh Sharma, Correspondent of Samay Sahara news channel from Hissar and another assisted to him. The said Shri Sharma took her interview and that of her patient Mrs. Jagdish Kaur admitted in her hospital and her relatives who were present there at that time by suggesting them what to speak by way of video record. Thereafter, Shri Sharma started threatening her that he is capable of moulding the video recording as he likes and will make negative news lest she make some financial favour to him in the presence of Mr. Inder Mohan Singh and others. The complainant submitted that after receiving many threatening calls from him, she moved to the local police and filed a complaint in this regard. Thereafter, Shri Sharma even managed to flash the defamatory news item on the print media as well as on You Tube through one mischievous NGO named Medical Ethics Forum. She alleged that Shri Sharma left no stone unturned to defame her by flashing the above news and by distributing false and planned CDs to the VIPs and other public as well as by uploading it on the You Tube only for a vested interest.
According to the complainant, since the age of a patient is to be disclosed by the patient herself and she is not supposed to collect the birth certificates or any age proof from the patient. The said patient Mrs. Jagdish Kaur at the time of her first OPD in the year 2008 gave her age as 57 years and thereafter she visited several time along with her relatives and disclosed her age as 40 years some times 46 years and sometimes 49 years but lastly before her delivery she stated that they are six brothers
177 and sisters and one of her younger brother was born in the year 1958 and she is the eldest of all and her age is around 60 years. The complainant alleged that she has been defamed by the press unnecessarily on account of age of a patient whereas the act is that nobody from the press contacted her before publishing the news. The complainant mentioned that she tried to locate the address of Medical Ethics Forum and their constitution but no such address was available nor their constitution is traceable and such forum run by one Mr. Anurag appears to be fictitious body and action should also be taken against such suspicious body where as they never contacted her before flashing defamatory material against her. The complainant alleged that despite of all this the respondent-The Tribune published the impugned news item and he did not bother to contact her before publishing the defamatory news and as a result of which people from general public as well as her colleagues started keeping distance from her and there was a great loss to her clinic which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The complainant submitted that she also appealed to the respondent-The Tribune on 7.7.2011 through e-mail as well as by post but received no reply.
The respondent Editor-in-Chief, The Tribune, in his written statement dated 6.1.2012 has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. He stated that a few days after the story was published, an organization named Medical Ethics Forum contested the claim of Dr. Prabhjot Kaur and the complainant was accordingly contacted to get her version who claimed that the age of the woman was 60 years and at the same time she accused some people trying to blackmail her in a bid to extract money illegally. He stated that the version of Medical Ethics Forum was not published despite several e-mails sent by the said Forum. He further stated that the Forum sent the news along with the news published in Times of India and his reporter at Karnal tried to contact the complainant Dr. Prabhjot Kaur, who was normally instantly available, to know about the news published in the Times of India, but she avoided him despite of making his several attempts to contact her. He stated that in the journalistic spirits the versions of Medical Ethics forum was published on June 22, 2011. He stated that they have been giving good coverage and her claims and achievements were published with full coverage in the past but it is wrong on the part of the complainant. According to the respondent, the complainant filed a false complaint.
The complainant in her undated counter comments stated that she is not satisfied with the written statement filed by the respondent. The complainant submitted that the correspondent of the Tribune was well aware of all the facts that she had been blackmailed by certain vested intents yet they published the defamatory and scandalous news item. The complainant further submitted that the written
178 statement of the Tribune is self-contradictory as they initially gave good coverage about the achievements of her and later they publish the news item to defame her in a highly irresponsible manner. She stated that doctors earn the love, respect & good reputation after many-many years of hard work and after almost losing their young years working day & night for their patients and therefore it takes years to build the goodwill amongst patients & society and only few seconds to destroy the whole thing.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. Shri Indermohan Singh (Brother of Dr. Prabhjot Kaur) represented the complainant. Shri Amit Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal) appeared for the respondent The Tribune. The Committee heard Shri Amit Shamra, Deputy Manager, (Legal) The Tribune and also examined the matter on merits. The respondent contends that they had acted in sufficient compliance with journalistic duty by publishing the version of both sides. The Committee prima facie was not satisfied of merits of the complaint. However, an adjournment application received from the complainant through her representative and the representative’s late appearance with medical certificate, the Committee allow adjournment of the matter to allow for opportunity of hearing.
Report
The matter again taken up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. Dr. Prabhjot Kaur, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Amit Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal) appeared for the respondent The Tribune. The complainant reiterated her complaint and stressed that she sent rejoinder to the respondent on 7.7.2011 but was been published.
The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and noted the complainant’s main grievance against the impugned news item published on 21.6.2011 under the caption “Karnal’s doctor in the dock – RTI info “which exposes her claim of 60 year old having delivered twins” for which she had already sent a rejoinder to the respondent editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh on 7.7.2011 objecting to the aforesaid news item but in vein.
The Inquiry Committee drew the attention of the representative of the respondent towards the Norm 14 (iv) of the Norm of Journalistic Conduct, 2010 which reads as follows:
“Freedom of the Press involves the readers’ right to know all sides of an issue of public interest. An editor, therefore, shall not refuse to publish the reply or rejoinder merely on the ground that in his opinion the story published in the newspaper was true. That is an issue to be 179 left to the judgment of the readers. It also does not behave an editor to show contempt towards a reader”.
Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee directs the respondent editor, The Tribune to publish the gist of the letter dated 7.7.2011 at a prominent place in the newspaper and the editor, if desired, can append a comment there to the order should be complied within six weeks. The Committee further directs that a copy of their Order must be produced for record before the President of The Tribune. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with these directions.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and direct the respondent editor, The Tribune to publish the rejoinder in the above directions.
110) Shri Inderpal Singh, The Editor, Registrar, Versus Hindustan Times, Engineering College Cell, Mohali. Directorate of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 26.2.2011 has been filed by Shri Inderpal Singh, Registrar, Engineering College Cell, Directorate of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh against the editor, Hindustan Times for publication of an allegedly false, frivolous and highly defamatory news item under the caption “Tainted elevated to non-existent post” in its issue dated 26.2.2011 alleging that the complainant was elevated to the post of Registrar, Technical College Cell, a State Level Post. Denying the allegation, the complainant has stated that he was never elevated after October 19, 2009 and already working as a Registrar and he is still holding the same post. According to the complainant, the factual position was personally briefed to Shri Prabhjit Singh, Correspondent, Hindustan Times who came to his office in this regard on 24.2.2011 that when he was posted as Registrar at Beant College of Engineering & Technical, Gurdaspur, he was implicated in a false corruption case at the instance of some unscrupulous persons. Thereafter, some staff members having vested interest in his transfer made a representation to the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab for his transfer. The complainant has submitted that on the basis of the said representations he was transferred and posted at the head office Chandigarh and intimation regarding his
180 transfer was given to the Vigilance Department as well as to Shri Rakesh Kumar, Lab Attendant. The complainant has stated that nobody lodged any protest against his transfer at the present place of posting. However, his stand is conspicuously missing in the newspaper report in question. The complainant has alleged that these false allegations had been published by the respondent with mischievous intention to lower his image and other respondents are also involved in the conspiracy to tarnish his image. The complainant has submitted that he sent a legal notice dated 26.2.2011 to the respondents through advocate drawing their attention to the objectionable matter but received no response.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 1.7.2011 the respondent Principal Correspondent, The Hindustan Times, Mohali (Punjab) in his written statement dated 25.7.2011 submitted that complainant’s only objection was that he had not been elevated while being shifted from his parental Beant Singh Engineering College, Gurdaspur to the directorate headquarter in Chandigarh. The respondent submitted that the complainant had not challenged any other part of the story that was mainly about how a minister was sitting on a file pertaining to the sanction of the state government to the state Vigilance department for his prosecution in the corruption case. The respondent further submitted that no such post exists at the Directorate of Technical Education & Industrial Training where the complainant was shifted after he underwent imprisonment for 57 days in a corruption case and remained suspended for over five months. The complainant introduces himself as Registrar, Engineering College Cell, Directorate of Technical Education & Industrial Training of Punjab Government. The respondent submitted that it has now up to the Council to judge whether the complainant enjoyed a privilege of holding a non- existing post at the Directorate.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. The complainant appeared in person. Shri Prabhjit Singh, Principal Correspondent, Hindustan Times appeared for the respondent. The complainant contends that he was reinstated as Registrar of the Engineering College, and then transferred to the Directorate on the request of the department against an existing post of Registrar. The respondent contents that the transfer order did not mention that he was being posted as Registrar in the Directorate and therefore the complainant prayer for publication of contradiction was not tenable.
The Committee after seeing the appointment letter on record decided that further clarification is required relating to the appointment letter from the Government of Punjab through its Principal Secretary be made a party and asked to clarify the matter within 3 weeks. The respondent was also given liberty to file further documents, he desired. 181 Report
The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. The Complainant Shri Inderpal Singh, Registrar, Engineering College Cell, Directorate of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh appeared in person. Shri Rajeev Puri, Officer In-charge, Engineering College Cell appeared on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Punjab. Ms. Shachi Kaushik, Advocate for Hindustan Times entered appearance on record but left before the commencement of the case. The representative of the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Punjab filed a statement at the time of hearing affirming that “Mr. Inderpal Singh, Registrar, Beant College of Engineering & Technology, Gurdaspur was placed under suspension on 19.10.2009 as he was arrested by Vigilance Bureau Punjab in a case of bribery. He was reinstated with pending inquiry and posted as Registrar in Beant College of Engineering & Technology, Gurdaspur. But on the advice of Vigilance Department Punjab to transfer him to a distant station instead of Gurdaspur he was posted in the Engineering College Cell as a temporary arrangement which has been established in the office of Director Technical Education & Industrial Training Punjab to look after the activities of Degree Level Programme and to have proper coordination and liaison with the Engineering Colleges, MHRD, AICTE and Industry in the State, while he continued to draw his salary against the post of Registrar, Beant College of Engineering & Technology, Gurdaspur. It is also worth mentioning that there was no sanctioned post of Registrar in the Engineering College Cell established in the Directorate of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab and the list of posts sanctioned in the Engineering College Cell from time to time is attached herewith”. The complainant challenged the factual correctness of the statement made by the representative of the Principal Secretary by showing the order of his posting in the Engineering College Cell at Head Office, Chandigarh passed by the Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Government of Punjab.
The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the records of the case and written statement submitted by the representative of the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Punjab and advised the complainant to challenge the factual correctness of the statement of the letter in the law courts, if he had any grievance. A copy of the letter dated 3.10.2012 was handed over to the complainant. The Inquiry Committee held that the statement of the Government did not support the complainant, the complaint be disposed of.
182 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and dispose of the case.
111) Shri Manoj Monga, The Editor, Authorised Signatory, Versus Raj Express, M/s. Videocon Industries Bhopal, Limited, M. P. Okhla, New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 12.7.2010 has been filed by M/s Videocon Industries Ltd., through its advocates alleging that the respondent newspaper Raj Express in its issues dated 1.6.2010 and 2.6.2010 has published false and defamatory news items under the caption “Ìããèã䡾ããñ‡ãŠãù¶ã ºãñÞã ÀÖãè ½ããõ¦ã” and “Ìããèã䡾ããñ‡ãŠãù¶ã ? ºãÀÔãñ „¹ã¼ããñ‡ã‹¦ãã, ‡ã⊹ã¶ããè ½ããõ¶ã” respectively. The complainant narrates that on 13.5.2010 one Shri Prakash Patel and his wife Smt. Asha Patel died due to blast in their house at Daya Nagar Colony, Jabalpur.
The news item dated 1.6.2010 was about this incident wherein it has been alleged that the blast at the house of Patel family occurred due to product namely “Washing Machine” manufactured by the company. Again on 2.6.2010 a similar article “who video! Unrest among consumers, company silent published with ulterior & malafide motives. It really smacks of the clandestine intentions. It was made clear by the complainant that there was no question of explosion blast due to usages of washing machine.
The complainant while denying the allegations stated that their company sells lakhs of washing machines and other products and even a common man knows that no such kind of gas is utilized in manufacturing washing machine which can cause explosion/blast. Further he submitted that the deceased couple were occupied in manufacturing of fire crackers as side business which might be the cause of explosion. To verify this fact on request of the complainant, an inquiry was conducted by the experts and the machinery was found intact, as mentioned in the letter of Shri Nalin Budholia, Post In-charge, Police Station Lord Ganj dated 4.6.2010 submitted that Shri Prakash Patel and his wife Smt. Asha Patel sustained burn injuries and died, later on it is stated that initially it was reported that the incident took place due to blast in the washing machine during its operation but the finding of one investigation established that the mishap had nothing to do with the washing machine as it was found intact in its investigation by the experts.
183 Drawing attention of the respondent, the complainant write on 16.6.2010 and sought an apology but no response came. According to the complainant such irresponsible and ill reporting has badly harmed the reputation as well as sales of the company.
Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Raj Express on 24.9.2010 but no response was received despite issuance of reminders dated 16.3.2011 and 20.7.2012.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry committee on 3.10.2012 at New Delhi. Shri Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate appeared for the complainant. None appeared for the respondent.
The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the news items as well as the complaint and the later absence of defence. In view of the reports establishing the cause of the blast, it held that the newspaper had published the news with utter lack of responsibility. The Inquiry Committee is satisfied that the publication was reckless and defamatory. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to admonish/censure the respondent newspaper, Raj Express, Bhopal, (M.P.). It therefore, recommends the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to admonish and censure the respondent newspaper Raj Express, Bhopal, M.P. A copy of the adjudication be forwarded to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, DAVP, RNI, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh and District Magistrate, Bhopal for such action as they deem fit in the matter.
112) Shri Jawahar Shankar Kumar, Versus The Editor, Executive President, Prabhat Khabar, Bihar State Stenographer/Clerk Union, Patna, Bihar. Samastipur, Bihar.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 27.6.2009 has been filed by Shri Jawahar Shankar Kumar, Executive President, Bihar State Stenographer/Clerk Union, Samatipur, Bihar against “Prabhat Khabar” for publication of an allegedly false and misleading
184 news item under the caption “Íããñ‡ãŠ Ôã¼ãã ‚ãã¾ããñãä•ã¦ã” (Condolence meeting convened) in its issue dated 23.6.2009. It has been reported in the impugned news item that District & Session Judge of Samastipur, Shri S.M. Nasimuddin’s Steno, Shri Nizamul Hassan died on Monday due to heart attack in Court compound and several unions of the Court convened a condolence meeting in the court compound. The complainant has alleged that the respondent published a totally false and misleading news item causing Shri Hassan’s family and relatives mental agony. According to the complainant, the District & Session Judge, Shri S.M. Nasimuddin’s steno, Shri Nizamul Hassan is perfectly healthy. The complainant has submitted that he sent a contradiction dated 27.6.2009 to the respondent for its publication but neither he published the contradiction nor gave any reply.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Prabhat Khabar on 4.11.2009 but received no response despite issuance of reminder dated 4.5.2010.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. None of the parties entered appearance. The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the records of the case is of the noted that the impugned news item captioned “Íããñ‡ãŠ Ôã¼ãã ‚ãã¾ããñãä•ã¦ã” (Condolence meeting convened) dated 23.6.2009 had been mistakenly published by the newspaper. The officer had suffered a heart attack but recovered from it. Since the matter is three year old the Inquiry Committee is not proceed with it in the absence of the parties. However, the Inquiry Committee observed that the impugned publication would have not really caused distress to the family. The respondent newspaper should be more careful in future having information in future. However no malafide could be attributed to the respondent. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the case.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committees and decided to dispose of the complaint with observation recorded above.
113) Shri Vijay Kumar Ojha, Versus The Editor, Deputy Director, Dainik Jagran, Department of Mines and Geology, Ranchi. Ranchi.
185 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 16.3.2010 has been filed by Shri Vijay Kumar Ojha, Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Ranchi against editor, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi for publication of false and baseless news item under the caption “¼ãî¦ã¦Ìã ãä¶ãªñÍããÊã¾ã ‡ãñŠ ‡ãŠƒÃ ‚ã¹ãŠÔãÀ ãä¶ãØãÀã¶ããè ‡ãñŠ ªã¾ãÀñ ½ãò” in its issue dated 15.3.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that the complainant and other officers of the Department of Mines and Geology are under scanner of the vigilance.
Denying the impugned news report, the complainant stated that the impugned news report has allegedly damaged the reputation of the complainant, the Deputy Director of Department of Mines & Geology. The complainant vide letter dated 16.3.2010 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news report. In response the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Ranchi in his issue dated 19.3.2010 published the contradiction of the complainant under the caption “‚ããñ¢ãã ¹ãÀ ãä¶ãØãÀã¶ããè ¹ããäÀÌã㪠¶ãÖãè”, the complainant was not satisfied with this. The complainant submitted that the respondent editor has not taken any action against the concerned correspondent for levelling personal allegations against him and does not carry the complete details and the version of the complainant that a clean chit has been given by the vigilance department against the alleged tainted officers in response to the department’s letter dated 2.7.2009.
The respondent editor in his written statement dated 12.1.2011 while denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant stated that the impugned news report was based on the letter issued by the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The respondent stated that when the complainant informed him that the vigilance department has issued him clean chit they had published the same and the aim of the publishing of the impugned news report was just to inform the general public and not to harm anyone.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant, Shri Vijay Kumar Ojha appeared in person. Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent, Dainik Jagran. The complainant stated that false and baseless news item was published to malign his image in public. He further stated that the respondent did not publish his version in a proper manner. The learned counsel Shri B. K. Mishra for the respondent submitted that the impugned news item was published on the basis of the letter of Deputy Secretary, Vigilance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and when they received the version of the complainant the same had also been published.
186 The Inquiry Committee on hearing the parties noted that the complaint is regarding the impugned publication under the caption “¼ãî¦ã¦Ìã ãä¶ãªñÍããÊã¾ã ‡ãñŠ ‡ãŠƒÃ ‚ã¹ãŠÔãÀ ãä¶ãØãÀã¶ããè ‡ãñŠ ªã¾ãÀñ ½ãò” on dated 15.3.2010. It also noted that the Respondent Editor Dainik Jagran, Ranchi in his issue dated 19.3.2010 has published the contradiction of the complainant under the caption “‚ããñ¢ãã ¹ãÀ ãä¶ãØãÀã¶ããè ¹ããäÀÌã㪠¶ãÖãè”. The complainant was not satisfied with this as the version of the complainant that a clean chit has been given by the vigilance department against the alleged tainted officers was not published. The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the records of the case that the letter based on which the impugned publication was carried on of 21.5.2006 whereas the vigilance had given him a clearance on 27.11.2009. This was much prior to the date of the impugned publication and the newspaper should have take care to verify the status of a three year old case before basing its report thereof. However, it had mitigated that wrong, by immediately carrying the version the complainant. It therefore, recommends to the Council to dispose of the complaint as sufficient prompt amends are made by the newspaper.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint accordingly.
114) Dr. Ashok Kumar Tomar Versus The Editor, Retired Principal Dainik Jagran, National Inter College Jhansi. Shahpur, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 20.10.2010 is filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar Tomar, retired Principal, National Inter College, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against the editor, Dainik Jagran regarding the publication of an allegedly false and baseless news item under the caption “BHEL Shiksha Niketan ke Pradhanacharya ke khilaf jaanch ke aadesh” in its issue dated 27.9.2010 alleging therein that an inquiry was going on against the complainant for making property illegally during his tenure and also getting degree of B.Ed. without prior information to the School Management. Further allegation has been made against him that even after getting retired from the post of Principal, he worked as a Principal of BHEL Shiksha Niketan for long. The complainant contended that the report was published to malign him and his letter dated 27.9.2010 to the editor of Dainik Jagran evoked no response.
187 The respondent filed written statement dated 5.5.2011 and stated that the article published was not intended to malign the complainant rather it was published after the written orders on investigation by Shri M.L.Verma, District School Inspector, Jhansi.
The complainant in his counter comments dated 14.5.2011 stated that the article was published without taking his views on the matter and also the District School Inspector passed an order of investigation on the fake complaint which neither had date on it nor was it certified. The District School Inspector had given it is him in writing that the news was not provided to the newspaper through his office. According to the complainant, the respondent Editor having relations with a school of Jhansi had intentionally made a complaint to District School Inspector without any basis of facts and appointed Investigation Officer and caused a publication in the newspaper. He has further stated that the investigation is still under process. The complainant also stated that despite talking to the editor over the phone, the respondent editor intentionally did not publish his contradiction.
The respondent filed supplementary reply on 17.6.2011 that if the investigation is still under process then it is not the fault of the newspaper. They had published the news article only after the orders for investigation. The allegation of the complainant that the news article was published due to rivalary with the BHEL Shiksha Niketan is completely false and baseless.
The complainant filed further comments dated 8.8.2011 and stated that he had sent a letter on 27.9.2010 for publication of his contradiction, but the respondent Editor did not publish his contradiction.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant was represented by his brother Dr. Sukarmpal Singh Tomar. Shri Surender Singh, editorial-in-charge appeared for the respondent, Dainik Jagran. The representative of the complainant alleged that the respondent was also running a school and due to rivalry, a forged complaint against them was filed and the District Education Officer in turn passed the order for investigation. The complainant further contended that the Allahabad High Court has granted stay on investigation on 22.9.2010 and in spite of that the respondent published another news item on 27.9.2010. The respondent has submitted that the impugned news item was published on the basis of the order of Investigation and they did not publish that the allegations levelled on the complainant are correct rather it was published that an inquiry is going. The respondent categorically denied that they had filed any forged
188 complaint due to rivalary as the complainant’s school was 20 km far from the city and their school and in between there are so many schools and thus there was no question of rivalary.
The Inquiry Committee on careful consideration of the records of the case noted that the publication in question only mentioned that an inquiry is going on in the Court which is factually correct. Thus, the Inquiry Committee finds no merits in the case and decided to dismiss the case. It recommends to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.
115) The Principal, Versus The Editor, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Nai Dunia, Malkangiri (Orissa) Raipur edition. Raipur (MP)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.1.2010 and 25.1.2010 has been filed by Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Malkangiri (Orissa) against the editor, Nai Dunia, Raipur edition for publication of an allegedly false, fabricated baseless and defamatory news under the caption ‘dsoh ds izkpk;Z ij euekuh dk vkjksi’ an its issue dated 17.1.2010. It has been alleged that the complainant’s wife in a teacher in the KV school and on his direction she conducts all programmes of the school. Parents have alleged that she does not attend the Primary school and her behavior towards them and the students is not good. Denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the impugned news item is false and fabricated which destroyed the image and reputation on the school. The complainant has submitted that a letter dated 25.1.2010 was sent to the respondent but received no reply as yet.
The respondent resident editor, Nai Dunia, Raipur in his written statement dated 8.5.2010 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant stated that in response to the complainant’s letters dated 18.1.2010 and 25.1.2010 they were requested to send their detailed version but the complainant did not send that and filed an ill-motived complaint against them in the Council. The respondent further stated that the impugned news item was published on the basis of the Press Release issued by the Association of Parents of Kendriya Vidyalaya in good faith for the benefit of the general public.
189 The complainant in his counter comments dated 17.6.2010 stated that the editor, Nai Dunia published the impugned news item without consulting the school. The editor collected false representations from some parents and outsiders keeping the school in dark and published the false and fabricated news. The complainant requested the Council to ask the Editor to furnish proof of the false and fabricated news item published against the Principal, Kendriya Vidayalaya, Malkangiri, Orissa.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. None appeared for the complainant. Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the Counsel for the respondent who informed the Inquiry Committee that the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties. The Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the complainant and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and decided to drop further proceedings in the matter. It recommends the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.
116) Smt. Laxmipriya Behera, Versus The Editor, Jajpur, Sambad, Orissa. Orissa.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 15.3.2010 has been filed by Smt. Laxmipriya Behera, Jajpur against the editor, Sambad for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item in its issue dated 8.3.2010 under the caption “Sale of Female Child in the area of Child Welfare Minister (English translation)”. The complainant alleged that the impugned news report stated that Smt Laxmipriya Behra has sold her female child as she was unable to maintain the female child and also her husband stated that they have donated their child to their sister-in-law, Sashirekha Behera. It was also stated in the impugned news item that whether the couple have donated the child or not is a matter of enquiry as the woman named Sashirekha Behera does not exist. Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that she belongs to a well reputed middle class family and she has no financial problems and she does not need 190 to sell her own child. She further stated that the impugned news item tarnished her image in the society and brought all ill repute to her family. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor vide her letter dated 15.3.2010 but to no avail.
The Deputy General Manager (Law), Sambad in his written statement dated 1.7.2010 submitted that the complaint is out of misconception of facts and incorrect understanding of what has been published. The respondent stated that before publishing the news item in question due enquiry was made from different quarters including the complainant, her husband and others and their views were also published in the said news item. The respondent also stated that they have no intention to harm the reputation of any one much less the complainant. The news item was published in public interest and aimed at arresting the social evil. The news item in question was neither false nor fabricated as wrongly alleged by the complainant. The news item in question was published on authentic information received and gathered by their reporter and after pre-publication verification as per norms of journalistic conduct. Thus the said news item does not constitute any unfair or unhealthy news reporting.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. None appeared for the complainant. Shri Ranjit Guru, editor (Edit Page) appeared for the respondent. The respondent informed the Inquiry Committee that the complainant had filed a defamation case against them in the Civil Court which is still pending in the Court of law.
The Inquiry Committee noted the submission made by the respondent and decided to drop the case for being sub-judice. It recommends the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to drop the matter being sub-judice.
191 117) Shri Dilip Kumar Singh, Versus The Editor, Vice President, Aj, Heritage Institute of Hotel & Tourism, Agra. Agra.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 7.12.2009 has been filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Singh, Vice President, Heritage Institute of Hotel & Tourism, Agra, against the editor, Aj, Agra alleging publication of a false and baseless news item under the caption “Heritage Institute: Jaanch Ka Shikanja Kastey Hi Guru Hue Gayab” in its issue dated 28.10.2009. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the owner of the Heritage Institute of Hotel & Tourism has earned billion of rupees from students by befooling them and gone missing in a dramatic manner. Subsequently the victimized students met the Commissioner who asked the City Magistrate to carry out the investigation regarding affiliation and other documents/files of the courses run by the Institute. After investigation it was found that students were betrayed and the report was submitted to the Commissioner. Considering the seriousness of report submitted by the City Magistrate, the Commissioner ordered DM to carry out investigation. It was also stated in the impugned news item that some of the important facts came into the knowledge of the Commissioner leaving no scope for the Director, HIHT to escape.
Denying the allegations levelled by the respondent, the complainant submitted that the college is affiliated to the Punjab Technical University under Distance Education Plan and none of the student met the Commissioner. The complainant submitted that he was very well available in India/state/district and attended his office regularly except on a few occasions. The complainant further submitted that the students so far passed out courses and who are in last semester of their courses are placed in reputed and star hotels like Carson’s Group. The complainant approached the respondent editor vide letter dated 14.12.2009 and asked to publish the apology for wrong and baseless publication but received threats. The complainant further stated that these false allegations have spoiled the image of a reputed and leading college in hotel management and it’s Vice President.
The respondent editor, Aj in his written statement submitted that the news item was true and published on the facts and they have evidences for the same. The respondent further stated that the newspaper is 90 years old and responsible.
192 The complainant in his counter comments has denied the contention of the respondent. He has submitted that the documents filed by the respondent itself shows that no irregularity was found in the report. He further submitted that the impugned news item was totally false, baseless and defamatory and published only to tarnish the image of the institute.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. Shri Arun Kumar Dikshit, Administrative Officer appeared for the complainant. Shri R.B. Singh Yadav, Editor, Aaj Newspaper, Agra appeared for the respondent. The complainant contended that in the impugned news report it is stated that the courses offered by the Heritage Institute of Hotel and Tourism are not correspondence courses but Distance Learning Programmes. The respondent contended that Dainik Jagran had already published this news item a day before and they published it on 28.10.2009 on the basis of the report of the Commissioner. He further contended that the publication was general and not intended to malign the image of the Institute as well or its Director.
The Inquiry Committee heard the representatives of the parties and observed the allegations levelled in the impugned news item published in Aaj that the complainant institute has been deceiving the students and the City Magistrate after detailed inquiry found that the Heritage Institute is befooling and extorting money from the students. The Inquiry committee carefully perused the report of the City Magistrate found that there is no mention there no of heritage Institute extorting money from the students. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the respondent had sensationalized the report in violation of Journalistic Norms. Thus, it recommends to the Council to admonish the respondent Newspaper Aaj, Agra.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to admonish the respondent newspaper.
193 118) Shri Inderjeet Bishnoi, Versus The Editor, Member, District Council, Sandhy Border Times, Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Rajasthan Rajasthan
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 3.3.2010 has been filed by Shri Inderjeet Bishnoi, Member, District Council, Sriganganagar against the editor, Sandhya Border Times, Sriganganager alleging publication of false and defamatory news item under the caption “iSls gels vkSj eksgj nwljs ij] ugha pysxk” in its issue dated 15.2.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that he took Rs. 38, 00,000/- for casting vote in the election of District Ganganagar. According to the complainant the respondent reporter admitted telephonically that the indication was towards him in the impugned news item and when he demanded for the evidence. The complainant further submitted that he issued a press note in this regard on 23.2.2010, but to no avail.
The respondent editor, Sandhy Border Times in his written statement dated 18.6.2010 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the impugned news item was not about the election of the District Council or District Head. He submitted that the complainant’s contention that he talked to the concerned reporter whereby he admitted that the impugned news was about him was incorrect. The respondent also submitted that the press note issued by the complainant would have been published if the news item concerns him. Since the news item was not related to the complainant, publishing of press note is not justified.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. The complainant was represented by Shri Satyapal Bishnoi. Shri Ramprakash Meel was represented by the respondent Sandhya Border Times. The Inquiry Committee has been informed by the representative of the complainant that the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and they do not want to pursue the case further.
The Inquiry Committee took on record the statement given by the representative of the complainant and decided to dismiss the complaint as being settled.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the 194 Inquiry Committee accepted report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint as settled.
119) Shri Yushu Narang, Versus The Editor, Hanumangarh, Kanoon Ke Rakhwalie Rajasthan. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
ADJUDICATION
This undated complaint received on 10.12.2009 has been filed by Shri Yushu Narang, son of Shri Ashok Narang, Owner of Narang Hotel, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan against the editor, Kanoon Ke Rakhwale, Hindi monthly for publication of allegedly false, baseless, misleading and defamatory news items captioned “uxj ifj"kn dh lM+d ij cuk ukjax gksVy dk lsiQVh VSad & dHkh Hkh gks ldrk gS gknlk & iz'kklu gS [kkeks'k “December 1, 2009 and dksbZ Hkh fu;e ykxw ugha gksrk ukjax gksVy ij“ (Saptic Tank of Narang Hotel built on the road of Municipality may cause mis-happening at any moment-Administration is silent” and “No rule applicable on Narang Hotel”. It was alleged in the impugned news items that Narang Hotel did not follow Government rules and regulations and the staircases were touching the road boundary, the height of the building was more than prescribed limit, and illegal safety tank was built under the C.C. Road behind the hotel.
Denying the allegations, the complainant has claimed that they had obtained the necessary government permissions prior to construction. Giving details, the complainant submitted that during the Municipal elections recently held in their city they supported the candidate Smt. Prem Lata, who defeated the opponent Smt, Sunita Sethi by a big margin. Because of the non-support, Shri Sanjay Sethi, husband of Smt. Sunita Sethi got annoyed and abused his father in public. Later on Shri Pushpender Soni, Owner, Editor and Printer of newspaper Kanoon Ke rakhwale and also a good friend of Shri Sethi blackmailed his father and demanded money threatening that he would publish false news items about their Hotel. Refusing to fulfil his demand, Shri Soni gave an advertisement dated 30.11.2009 in another newspaper – “Beparda Sach” stating therein that the respondent newspaper is going to publish a report as to how the Hotel Narang was built on Hanuman Road violating government rules and regulations causing accidents. The very next day on 1.12.2009, the respondent newspaper published a front page story titled “dHkh Hkh gks ldrk gS gknlk“ (Accident may occur at any time) with full page false story insulting them with Hotels photographs.
195 It also came out with a special issue (undated) giving full page story captioned and “dksbZ Hkh fu;e ykxw ugha gksrk ukjax gksVy ij“ (No rule applicable on Narang Hotel). The complainant alleged that the special issue was the result of refusal of the respondent’s repeated demand asking for payment. The complainant further submitted that the respondent editor also circulated copies of the special issue of the newspaper in the city, to their relatives’ homes and also three copies in their home. The complainant alleged that the respondent defamed them and their hotel for his unfulfilled illegal demands by publishing false and defamatory news item. The complainant vide letter dated 30.1.2010 and subsequent reminder dated 29.4.2010 drew the attention of the respondent editor with the request to publish the contradiction but received no response.
The respondent editor, Kanoon Ke Rakhwale, Hanumangarh in his written statement dated 5.8.2010 while denying the allegations, submitted that the complaint was baseless and liable to be rejected as news items in question were based on the evidence and information gathered from the concerned departments and published in public interest. He also filed copies of the letters issued by him to the concerned authorities to avail the information. Regarding the allegations of blackmailing, the complainant’s father, the respondent submitted that these were totally false. Objecting to the word ‘blackmailer’ used by the complainant, the respondent submitted that no notice or letter had been received from the complainant as claimed by him in his complaint.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee observed that the absence of the complainant indicated he was not interested in pursuing the complaint. It recommends to the Council to dismiss the complaint in default.
120) Shri K.L.Soni The Editor Ex-District President, BJP Unit Guru Express Mandsaur, Versus Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri V.K. Ohri, Advocate for the complainant
For the Respondent: Shri Tushar Kothari, Advocate and Shri Ashutosh Naval for the respondent. 196 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 16.3.2012 has been field by Shri K.L. Soni, State Mahamantri, Madhya Pradesh Swarnkar Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Mandsaur (M.P.) against the editor, Guru Express for publication of false fabricated and defamatory news item under the caption : ‘¼ãã•ã¹ãã ãä•ãÊã㣾ãàã ‡ãŠãÂÊããÊãÔããñ¶ããè ‡ãŠãÔãõ‡ã‹ÔãÔ‡ãòŠ¡Êã ½ãã½ãÊãã’’, ‘‘¹ãƪñÍã ¼ãã•ã¹ã㠂㣾ãàã ¶ãñ ½ãâªÔããõÀ ãä•ãÊã㣾ãàã ‡ãŠãñ ãä‡ãŠ¾ãã ãä¶ãÊãâãäºã¦ã’’ - ‘‘‚ãÍÊããèÊãÔããè¡ãèÔãñ ¼ãã•ã¹ãã ½ãò Ö¡‡ã⊹ã, ‡ãŠãÂÊããÊã ¶ãñ ‡ãŠÖã ½ãö¶ãñ ¹ãÖÊãñ Öãè ªñ ã䪾ãã ƒÔ¦ããè¹ãŠã’’ in its issue dated 12.2.2011. It was stated in the impugned news item that the District President of Mandsaur BJP Unit was suspended with immediate effect by State President of BJP, Madhya Pradesh being involved in a Sex Scandal CD row. It was also stated in the impugned news item that the contents of above said CD clipping were sent from one mobile phone to other after downloading the CD contents from the internet. The BJP State President also appointed Shri Shezwar as inquiry officer and sought report within 24 hours. Shri Shezwar in his statement stated that Shri Soni has himself resigned from the post of District President, Mandsaur, so there was no hurry in enquiring into the matter. The State President of BJP also stated that if the allegations levelled against the District President are found true, he will be suspended from the preliminary membership of the BJP. The complainant further alleged that the respondent also published a series of false stories that his wife committed suicide due to his suspicious activities, grabbed a government land and built a warehouse illegally and misappropriated the money received as donation. He also stated that the respondent also published similar false stories in his newspaper on 13.2.2011 & 14.2.2011 to tarnish the image of the complainant. Also published another defamatory article along with his fabricated photo in the newspaper on 31.12.2011.
Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that the news were completely false, defamatory and published to tarnish his image and ruin his political career. The complainant stated that he had already informed the Publisher that the alleged CD was totally false, forged and fabricated. He was not removed from the District President, BJP Mandsaur but he had voluntarily resigned from the post. The complainant submitted that his wife did not commit suicide and died as a natural death. Regarding allegation of building a warehouse on government land illegally, the complainant stated that no such warehouse was built by him. As far as allegations of misappropriation of money donation, it was also false. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.1.2012 to the respondent editor, Guru Express asking him to publish rejoinder but no response was received.
The respondent editor, Guru Express stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, baseless and far from truth. No employee of the newspaper involved in making the fake Sex CD of the complainant. The respondent submitted
197 that many other newspapers and magazines had published the same story. The respondent stated that they had also published the version of the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant has filed a false and baseless complaint after 16 months of its publication which is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant denied the allegations levelled by the respondent and stated that the newspaper has damaged his reputation, goodwill in the eyes of the peers in the society. The complainant stated that other newspapers published his version properly without conceding the actual facts and had also not published false stories as published by the respondent. He further alleged that the newspaper have been repeatedly publishing the false, defamatory and fabricated story without any base. He has requested the Council to take stern action against the respondent.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee heard the parties as well as the counsel of the respondent in the meeting held on 21.12.2012. The complaint is filed by Shri K.L. Soni, Ex- District President, BJP Unit, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh and his grievance that in the Hindi newspaper, Guru Express, Mandsaur, defamatory material was published against him showing obscene and vulgar pictures about him and making allegations that he was involved in sex scandal and land scandal, etc. Comments have also been made regarding his family life. The reply of the respondent is that what they published was also published in big newspapers on the basis of a CD in which the complainant was shown in an indecent position and doing indecent acts. In this connection, we wish to state that while it is true that a person who comes into public life, whether a political figure or holding public office, does not enjoy the same level of privacy as a purely private person, once a person enters public life whether as a Politician, Judge or Bureaucrat, one does not enjoy as much privacy as a purely private individual because in a democracy they are subject to public scrutiny and the media has the right to scrutinize the functioning of a public figures on behalf of the public. However, at the same time, the reputation of a person is his valuable asset and great care should be taken by the media before attacking a person’s character. Hence, when a complaint regarding a persons’ character comes to the knowledge of the media, it is the duty of the media to make a proper inquiry before publishing the news, otherwise the reputation of such person may be irreparably damaged. In the present case when a CD came before the respondent it was his duty to send it to the forensic expert to verify its authenticity because it could be fake, fabricated or morphed. The respondent admitted that they did not send it to a forensic expert before publishing the news. In our opinion this was a grave error on the part of the respondent. The respondent’s counsel states the same news was published or reported by a large number of big newspapers. We do not find any merit in this contention. If a person accused of theft says that a large number of other persons 198 have committed theft/robbery, but have got away with it is no defense to say that he too should be allowed to get away with it. Similarly if other newspapers have published the same material, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent that he can also do the wrong. Hence, merely because other newspapers published the same material without proper inquiry about its genuiness, the respondent cannot say that he did not need to get the CD verified.
The Inquiry Committee, therefore, hereby lays down the following general propositions:
Even the private life of a public figure can be enquired by the media to some extent because the media is an agency of the people and has a duty to inform the public to some extent about the private life of the public figures whether Politician, Judge, Bureaucrat, etc.. At the same time before attacking a person’s reputation, the media must make an enquiry before publishing the allegations about his character etc, otherwise irreparable harm may be caused.
Since in the present case no such inquiry about the authenticity of the CD in question was made by the respondent, the Inquiry Committee finds it fit to recommend to admonish and censure the respondent and warns the entire media to follow the guidelines laid down above. The complaint is allowed with a direction to the respondent to publish this order prominently in his newspapers. Let a copy of this adjudication be sent to the entire media, news organization including electronic media, news agencies, Union Ministry of I&B, State Information Ministers and Secretaries of State Information Department and release to the media for wide circulation.
Held
The Council has accepted and adopted the report of the Inquiry Committee records the above observation/directions in the meeting held on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal.
121) Shri Rameshwar Soni, Versus The Editor, Member, Nai Duniya, Patient Welfare Committee, Indore, Kushyi, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.
Appearance For the Complainant: Dr. Dilip Singh (Representative) For the Respondent: None 199 ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 28.5.2009 has been filed by Shri Rameshwar Soni, Member, Patient Welfare Committee, District Dhar (M.P.) against the editor, Nai Duniya, Indore alleging publication of baseless and motivated news item under the caption “¶ãÖãè Öãñ Ôã‡ãñŠ ¶ãÔãºãâªãè ‚ããù¹ãÀñÍã¶ã - ¡ã‡ã‹›À ¶ãñ ã䪾ãã Þã‡ãŠ½ãã” (Sterilization Operation could not be done – Doctor dodged) in its issue dated 18.12.2008. It was stated in the impugned news item that women who came for sterilization without having their breakfast in District Hospital, Dhar were distraught due to unavailability of doctors. Some of the women were sterilized for operation but when the doctor did not come, their health detoriated. It was also stated in the impugned news item that the doctor did not reach on time because she was at Rajgadh instead of Dhar.
Denying all the allegations the complainant submitted that the newspaper has misled the people by publishing the said news item. He has stated that 41 operations were perfomed by the doctors on 17.12.2008 which began at 4.15 p.m. at District Hospital and there was huge difference in not conducting operation and delay in conducting operation. The newspaper published a sensational news making mockery of a national programme. The complainant vide letter dated 18.12.2008 drew the attention of the respondent and requested him to publish his version at prominent place in the newspaper. In response it in their resident editor, Nai Dunia vide his letter dated 25.12.2008 intimated the complainant that the news item was published on the basis of the problems mentioned by the patients and accepted that he has not published the version of the complainant.
The respondent resident editor, Nai Dunia, Indore in written statement dated 13.5.2010 stated that the news item was published on the basis of the problems narrated by the patients in the hospital, due to non-availability of doctors which the picture shows. The respondent apprised the complainant that villagers do not know the rules and procedure of operation so they panicked and as Member of Patient Welfare Committee the complainant must help them to educate the villagers.
The complainant in counter comments dated 9.6.2010 stated that the reply of the respondent was not satisfactory as he had published the wrong and false news item regarding National Programme on Population Control. The complainant stated that he had apprised the respondent editor vide letter dated 25.12.2008 but neither he published the version nor apologized for the same.
The matter was considered by the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. Upon hearing the representative of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee finds no merits in the case as it was an accepted fact that the operations were started in the evening even though the patients had been waiting since morning and the newspaper had highlighted the matter. Accordingly it decided to dismiss the complaint.
200 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
122) Dr. Smriti Ratan Mishr, Versus The Editor, B.R.C.C., City Blast, District Education Center, Moongar Publication, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Indore, M.P. The Editor, Sandhya Dainik 6 p.m., Indore, M.P. Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain, Representative for City Blast.
ADJUDICATIONS
This complaint has been filed by Dr. Smriti Ratan Mishr, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh against the editors, City Blast and Sandhya Dainik 6 p.m. on 31.8.2009 for publication of allegedly false, misleading and basless news item under caption “ºããè. ‚ããÀ. Ôããè. Ôããè. Ô½ããä¦ã À¦ã¶ã ãä½ãÑã ´ãÀã ¹ãÆãäÍãàã¥ã ‡ãñŠ ¶ãã½ã ¹ãÀ Üããñ›ãÊãñºãã•ããè” on 20.7.2009 in City Blast newspaper and on 21.7.2009 in Sandhya Dainik 6 p.m. Newspaper. The respondent editor, City Blast filed written statement dated 24.4.2010 clarifying that the news item was published purely on the basis of the facts but alleged that the complainant is habitual of filing false complaint against the newspaper. The complainant in his counter comments letter dated 20.6.2010 prayed that Shri Sanjay Bajpayee, correspondent be impleaded in the case as he was one who reported the impugned news item. The matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee noted that complainant vide her letter dated 28.9.2012 had stated that she does not want to pursue her complaint and wants to withdraw it. The Inquiry Committee took the prayer on record and decided to dismiss the complaint.
Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint. 201 123) Dr. Beena Singh, Versus The Editors Head, Department of Zoology, (i) People’s Samachar Government K.R.G., PG College, (ii) Dainik Bhaskar Gwalior, (iii) Rajasthan Patrika Madhya Pradesh. (iv) Nai Dunia, M.P.
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri Rahul Vijay & Sunil Telang, Advocates for Rajasthan Patrika. Shri Rajeev Soni, Special Correspondent for Nai Dunia
ADJUDICATION
These four complaints dated 6.10.2010 have been filed by Dr. Beena Singh, Head, Department of Zoology, Government K.R.G., PG College, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior against the editors, People’s Samachar, Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan Patrika and Nai Dunia for publication of allegedly derogatory, biased and defamatory news items.
It was alleged in the impugned news item that not only students but professors too are harassed due to the dictatorship for HoD of Zoology in KRG College. Due to her boldness, the college administration is shying away from taking action. It was further alleged that the complainant called a professor, of the department from home, humiliated and rebuked her before students causing her to weep uncontrollably. According to the impugned news item, the students reported the incident to the Principal and the college administration had addressed a warning letter about dispute between HoD and professor of Zoology of KRG College and college also constituted a five member Committee for inquiry. It is further reported that the students under the leadership of ABVP conducted a protest demonstration outside the Principal’s office with a demand to remove her from the post.
Denying the allegations levelled against her in the impugned news items, the complainant has alleged that the news items are totally biased, aiming at maligning her hard earned image and character. According to her, there was routine matter where she admonished a junior professor for being absent from duty. But the respondents published totally different version of the incident. The complainant has further stated that she is sure that no correspondent was present at her department when the incident took place and no pre-publication verification was made before publishing the impugned material. She has submitted that she expressed her anguish and grief 202 to the respondents vide her letters dated 16.8.2010 & legal notices 25.8.2010. Neither the letters were replied nor any clarification published in the newspapers. The complainant has further submitted that she also sought information under RTI Act from the college authorities about press notes/news released by them on the issue to various newspapers. It was informed by the College Authority vide their reply that press notes/news, were not released on the issue.
Show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 9.12.2010 but no written statement has been filed despite issuance of reminders.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the record and taking into consideration the absence of the complainant finds no merits in the complaint under the Press Council Act and decided to dismiss the case.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
124) Shri Shrikant Choudhary, Versus The Editor, Civil Judge (Retd.) Dainik Bhaskar Damoh, Madhya Pradesh. Bhopal, M.P.
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 10.8.2010 has been filed by Shri Shrikant Choudhary, Civil Judge (Retd.), Damoh, Madhya Pradesh against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar for publication of critical writings regarding Bhopal Gas incident in their newspaper under the caption “Bhopal narsanghaar kaa bahupratikshit faisla- sazasirf 2 saal, 12 me se 8 doshifarar- saza ke baad fauran zamanat” in its issue dated 8.6.2010. It was questioned in the impugned news item why the accused of Bhopal Gas incident got only two years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,01,750/- each. It was also stated that just few minutes after the judgment in the case seven accused get bail on a small amount of Rs. 25,000/- only and 30 days time granted to them to appeal in the Higher Court.
203 Denying the allegations leveled by the respondent in the impugned news item, the complainant stated that the word “Narsanghaar” (massacre) used in the heading of the news item was inappropriate as it can be used at the time when a person or some person killed on mass scale in a brutal way and when an incident occurred due to the carelessness or negligence of some person or any other, then the use of that word is not correct. The complainant allegedly stated that the heading of the article misrepresented as if the Court has given an ordinary sentence to all the accused and intentionally gave bail to the accused. He asserted that the accused comes under the Section 389 of Cr. P.C of bail in which if the accused appeals for the bail then as per the law, Court can give bail to the accused on a particular amount of bond. According to the Section 304(A) of I.P.C. the maximum imprisonment is of two years then how could Court give higher sentence to the accused. He alleged that the editor nowhere mentioned the maximum imprisonment allowed as per the Sections 304(A), 338 & 337 of I.P.C. is of two years and due to this an impression was to the readers of the newspaper that an ordinary sentence was given by the Court to the accused for such a huge Narsanghaar (Massacre). The complainant further contended that the newspaper tried to malign the image/ goodwill of the Court before the public by publishing such type of article with inappropriate heading. He wrote to the editor on 30.6.2010 regarding this matter but received no response.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 10.12.2010 but no written statement filed despite of reminders.
The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal and in the absence of the complainant did not find it fit to proceed with the matter. It, accordingly decided to recommend to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the case.
125) Shri Daya Shankar Shrivastava, Versus The Editor, Additional Programme Officer, Raj Express, MGNREGA, Jabalpur, Dindori, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Daya Shankar Shrivastava in person For the Respondent: None 204 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 17.1.2011 has been filed by Shri Daya Shankar Shrivastava, Additional Programme Officer under MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act), Dindori (M.P.) against the editor, Raj Express for publication of false, misleading and baseless news articles. It is stated in the impugned news item that the officers working in the District Panchayat under National Rural Employment Guarantee Act are committing irregularities in the data feeding and playing a game of top-up in their own way. It is further alleged that Shri Daya Shankar Shrivastava, Additional Programme Officer threatened the Secretary and Sarpanch of the village and took a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- from them. It is also alleged that Shri Daya Shankar Shrivastava purchased 12 pieces of mobile phones from the money and irregularities were found in the Indra Aawas Yojna.
Denying the allegations leveled in the news item, the complainant has stated that news items published are completely false, baseless and misleading and published to malign his image. The complainant had sent a notice through his advocate on 24.12.2010 to the editor of the newspaper Raj Express with the request to publish clarification and an unconditional apology but to no avail.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 28.2.2011 but no written statement was filed despite issuance of reminder on 19.10.2012.
The matter was considered by the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant in person. The Inquiry Committee noted that none appeared from the respondent nor had any written statement been filed by them though notices were served repeatedly on the respondent. The complainant is the Additional Programme Officer in MGNREGA and the allegations published in the newspapers are claimed to be baseless. There is no response to the complaint despite issuances of notices. The Inquiry Committee was left with no option but to accept the charge of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee therefore, upholds the complaint, admonishes and censures the respondent newspaper, Raj Express and directs the respondent editor to publish the version of the complainant at a prominent place. A copy of the adjudication be sent to the DAVP, RNI, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh for action as they deem fit in the matter.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to admonish and censure the respondent editor, Raj Express. 205 126) Dr. Anil Kumar Bhargava, Versus The Editor, Bhopal. Shabd Dot Com, Bhopal.
Appearance For the Complainant: Dr. Anil Kumar Bhargava For the Respondent: Shri Ram Mohan Yadav, Printer & Publisher, Shabd Dot. Com
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 16.4.2012 has been filed by Dr. Anil Kumar Bhargava, Bhopal against the editor, Shabd Dot Com, monthly magazine, Bhopal for publication of allegedly false, baseless, derogatory and defamatory news item under the captions “¼ããñ•ã ãäÌãÍÌããäÌã£ããÊã¾ã ‡ãŠãñ ‚ãØãìãäÊã¾ããò ¹ãÀ ¶ãÞãã¦ãã ‚ãã¹ãÀñ›À Ìã ‚ããä¶ã¾ããä½ã¦ãã‚ããò ½ãò ãäÔãÀ½ããõÀ ‚ããä¶ãÊã ¼ããØãÃÌã ¶ãñ ¹ãöÔãã ¼ããè ‡ãŠ½ã ¶ãÖãè ‡ãŠ½ãã¾ãã Öö” in its issue dated 1.12.2011. It was alleged in the I mpugned news item that without having the desired qualification the complainant is appointed as Computer Operator in the University and drawing salary in the pay scale which was not approved by the Government of India. The complainant also alleged that the newspaper published false news regarding his appointment in the Bhoj University as regular employee instead of contract basis and also made allegation of theft of university drafts, absenting from the university for a long time and once suspended. The newspaper also published that the complainant had earned money from illegal means and purchased a mini bus and land in his hometown.
Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that he was having desired qualification for the post of computer operator and drawing salary in accordance with the prescribed rules of Government of India. The complainant also submitted that it was clearly mentioned in the Bhoj University Act that only permanent employee will be employed and not on contract basis and though no draft scam as highlighted as drafts are in the name of Registrar and directly deposited in the bank. He also denied the allegation that he was absent from duty without informing the office or even suspended from the service. The complainant stated that neither he earned money from illegal means nor he purchased mini bus and land. Regarding the publication of news item of transfer from Bhopal to Reva the complainant submitted that according to the University rules no one can be transferred from one university to another. The complainant submitted that all the allegations are published just to malign his image in the society, friends and family.
A show cause notice was issued on 5.6.2012 to the respondent editor, Sabd Dot Com, Bhopal but no written statement has been received.
206 The Inquiry Committee heard the parties on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The complainant has alleged that very serious allegations about his personal character published in the monthly magazine, Shabd Dot Com, Bhopal and no reply to show cause notice has been filed. The respondent has admitted that before publishing the said news item, the newspaper did not contact the complainant for his version and also did not publish his version along with news item. Journalistic Ethics laid down in Press Council Norms 2 (i) Pre-Publication Verification requires that “On receipt of a report or article of public interest and benefit containing imputations or comments against a citizen, the editor should check with due care and attention its factual accuracy apart from other authentic sources- with the person or the organisation concerned to elicit his/her or its version, comments or reaction and publish the same alongside with due correction in the report where necessary. In the event of lack or absence of response, a footnote to that effect may be appended to the report”. This was admittedly not done in this case.
On the fact and the circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee disposed of the case with the directions to the complainant to provide his version to the respondent within 10 days from the date of hearing and further directed to the respondent to publish the complainant’s version at a prominent place in the next issue and report to the Council.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the matter.
127) Shri Balchand Jain, Versus The Editor, Kareli, Hari Bhoomi, District-Narsinghpur Jabalpur, M.P. M.P.
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Balchand Jain For the Respondent: Dr. Shishir Upadhyaya, Bureau Chief, Madhya Pradesh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 18.8.2009 has been filed by Shri Balachand Jain, Kareli (M.P.) against the editor, Haribhoomi, Hindi Daily, Narsinghpur Edition for 207 publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “¼ããèÓã¥ã ›‡ã‹‡ãŠÀ - ›È‡ãŠ ‚ããõÀ ½ããÂãä¦ã Ìãõ¶ã ½ãò ãä¼ãü¡¦ã, 1 ½ãð¦ã, 1 Øã½¼ããèÀ” in its issue dated 1.8.2009. It was stated in the impugned news item that one person died and one injured in an accident between a truck and a Maruti van. Shripal Jain S/o Dalchand was admitted in the hospital in serious condition. It was also published that according to the eyewitness, the two persons of the van took their dinner in a dhaba and consumed large quantity of liquor before driving and due to overdose the accident took place at around half a km far from Kareli city.
The complainant has submitted that his son never takes liquor and the publication of news item was intended to defame the image of his son and his family members. Although the respondent has published the contradiction on 3.8.2009 but had not expressed regret for the same. The complainant has stated that he is not satisfied with the contradiction as the impugned news item was published on the front page with photographs of the incident but the contradiction was published in a small column inside of the newspaper without any regret.
The editor, Haribhoomi has filed reply on 1.10.2012 and submitting that the newspaper has already prominently published the clarification on 3.8.2009 and the news item was published completely on the basis of the information gathered by the correspondents of the newspaper from the eyewitnesses and police. He further stated that there was no malafide intention of maligning the image of the complainant behind the publication of the news item.
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal and noted that while the report was based on eyewitnesses account, the version of the complainant that his son was not under the influence of liquor had been published in the very next day edition of the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee accordingly decided to dispose off the case. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to close the matter.
128) Shri S. Faheem Ahmed, The Editor, General Manager, Dainik Bhaskar, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Works, Ratlam, Ministry of Finance, Versus M.P. Department of Revenue, Neemuch (M.P.)
208 Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Gupta and Akash Telang, Advocates
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 16.12.2009 has been filed by General Manager, Government Opium & Alkaloid Works, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Neemuch (M.P.) against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Ratlam alleging publication of false and unsubstantiated news items in its issues dated 21.11.2009 and 22.11.2009 under the caption “Ôããè›î ¶ãñ œñ¡ãè ¶ããÀ‡ãŠãñã䛇ã‹Ôã „¹ãã¾ãì‡ã‹¦ã ‡ãñŠ ãäŒãÊãã¹ãŠ ½ãìãäֽ㔠(Citu launches campaign against Narcotics Dy. Commissioner) and “½ããäÖÊãㆠ„¦ãÀ ‚ããƒÃ Ô㡇㊠¹ãÀ” (Women came out on road) respectively. It has been alleged in the first news item that the Dy. Commissioner Narcotics abused and threatened the employees of the organization. Further the charge of violation of Factory Act has also been levelled against the Dy. Commissioner. The second impugned news item charged the complainant with mentally and physically harassing the employees of the factory.
According to the complainant the respondent has been regularly publishing the malicious news items against him with the sole intention of maligning the management, which is doing its job with utmost care, honesty and efficiency. The complainant has alleged that one Mr. Rakesh Son without verifying the facts and ground realities indulged in rampant news reporting with the intention of helping out with disgruntled elements.
A show cause notice was issued to the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Ratlam on 5.2.2010 but no written statement has been filed despite reminder.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The complainant in a letter requested to decide the case on the basis of material available on record. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the complaint and did not find merits in the case for action under the Press Council Act. It accordingly recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
209 129) Shri Akhilesh Jha, IPS Versus The Editor, Superintendent of Police, Raj Express, Panchmadhi, M.P. Bhopal (M.P.)
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri Mahesh Sharma, General Manager, (Admn.)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 7.6.2010 has been filed by Superintendent of Police, Police Training Centre, Panchmadhi against the editor, Raj Express, Bhopal for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “ªìØãóÍã Ö¦¾ãã‡ãŠãâ¡ - ¹ãìãäÊãÔã ‚ã¹ãŠÔãÀ ¼ããè •ããùÞã ‡ãñŠ ÜãñÀñ ½ãò - ãäØãÀ¹ã‹¦ããÀ ÖãòØãñ †Ôã ¹ããè ¢ãã ý” (S.P. Jha likely to be arrested) and “¹ãîÀãè Àã¦ã ºãã¦ã ‡ãŠÀ¦ãñ ÀÖñ ¹ã›ñÊã Ìã †Ôã ¹ããè” ( Patel and S.P. talked whole night) in its issues dated 24.5.2010 and 3.6.2010 respectively.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Raj Express, Bhopal on 18.10.2010 but no written statement has been received.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The complainant vide his letter dated 17.12.2012 intimated that the complaint is very old and his reputation was badly tarnished by the respondent newspaper and inquiring at this stage is futile. The complainant thus withdraws his complaint. The Inquiry Committee perused the letter received from the complainant and allows the matter to rest.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
130) Shri P.V. Sudhakaran, Versus The Editor, Administrator, Universal Hindustan Times, Institute of Legal Studies, Bhopal (M.P.) Bhopal (M.P.)
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri Rahul Noronha, Principal Correspondent 210 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 14.7.2009 has been filed by Shri P.V. Sudhakaran, Administrator, Universal Institute of Legal Studies, Bhopal (MP) against the editor, Hindustan Times, Bhopal for publication of allegedly false and misleading news item under the caption “Neeti in Law entrance test top slot” in its issue dated 16.6.2009. It is stated in the impugned news item mentioning names of all higher rank inter alia One Mr. Chitrakshi Jain 99th rank holder who had received coaching at Career Launchers at Bhopal. Challenging the factual accuracy of the impugned news item, the complainant has submitted that they are engaged in imparting coaching to the CLAT aspirants in Bhopal and after declaration of CLAT result inst., the respondent has published an impugned news item on 16.6.2009 which unfortunately contained a factual error which has caused considerable damage to their interest. The complainant has further submitted that it was stated in the impugned news item that a student named Chitrakshi Jain of Bhopal has obtained 99th rank and she had received coaching at Career Launcher at Bhopal but the fact is that Chitrakshi Jain was not at all a student of that institute at any time in the past and she was solely a student of UILS, Bhopal. She had not taken any educational/CLAT coaching from Career Launcher. He alleged that the impugned news item was totally misleading piece and unethical. Due to which, Career Launcher had taken/received undue mileage at their cost. The complainant has stated that he approached Shri Rajesh Pahuja of Hindustan Times, who assured factual reporting as a corrective measure. On 1.7.2009 he approached the respondent authority in person but no corrective measures were taken.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. Shri Rahul Noronha, Principal Correspondent, Hindustan Times appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that none appeared for the complainant and recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
211 131) Smt. Neeta Jain, Advocate Versus The Editor, President, Dainik Navbharat, Water Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 5.6.2010 is filed by Smt. Neeta Jain, Councilor and President, Water Works Department, Durg, Chhattisgarh against the editor, Dainik Navbharat, Raipur for publication of false, baseless and misleading news items against Durg Municipal Corporation.
According to the impugned news report, the women of Deepak Nagar ward protested against Ward Councilor Smt. Meena Singh as the tankers sent to the ward were filled with dirty toilet water supplied by the Municipal Corporation. The officers of the Municipal Corporation had refused to accept it when they were informed of it. The in-charge of the Water Works Department (the complainant) had earlier said that it was a false complaint but later she said that it might have been done in the night intentionally pouring the toilet waste inside the water tanker by someone. In the news item dated 16.4.2010, the complainant clarified the fact that she had not made any statement that someone intentionally poured the toilet waste inside the water tank in the night. The Water Works Department of the corporation provides filtered water to the public. It may be some kind of conspiracy against them. The Municipal Corporation and its officers are responsible if the dirty water is provided to the public and she has made a proposal to make the boundary wall around filter plant.
Denying all the allegations leveled in the impugned news items, the complainant has alleged that the newspaper is habitual of publishing the same news item relating to water tank intentionally to malign the image of the complainant in the public. The complainant has stated that she is nowhere related to this issue in any way and she is mentally disturbed with these false and baseless publications. The Councilor issued a letter to the editor on 15.4.2010 to publish her version but they had carried a false publication on 16.4.2010 under the caption “½ãõ¶ãñ †ñÔãã ¶ãÖãè ‡ãŠÖã - ¶ããè¦ãã” with her photograph. She also sent a notice to the editor on 30.4.2010 and requested to publish her version but in vain.
212 A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 6.10.2010 but no response was filed despite issuance of reminder on 10.9.2012.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee considered the case on merits and found that the complainant was a public person and the newspaper having carried the version of the complainant did not deserve action under the Press Council Act. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Council has accepted and adopted the report of the Inquiry Committee records the above observation/directions in the meeting held on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal and decides accordingly.
132) Dr. Devender Singh, Versus The Editor, Senior Medical Officer, Navbharat, District Hospital, Bhopal, Seedhi, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri Sanjay Payasi, Editor
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 25.6.2010 has been filed by Dr. Devender Singh, Senior Medical Officer, Seedhi, Madhya Pradesh against the editor, Navbharat, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for publication of false and baseless new item under the caption “½ããäÖÊãã ¡ãù‡ã‹›À ¶ãñ ½ãã¶ãÌã¦ãã ‡ãŠãñ ãä‡ãŠ¾ãã ¦ããÀ-¦ããÀ ¹ãÆÔãÌã ‡ãñŠ ãäÊã¾ãñ ¼ã¦ããê ½ããäÖÊãã ‡ãñŠ Ôãã©ã ‚ã½ãã¶ãÌããè¾ã ̾ãÌãÖãÀ ‡ãŠÀ ½ããõ¦ã ‡ãñŠ ½ãìÖã¶ãñ ¹ãÀ ¹ãÖùìÞãã¾ãã” on 18.6.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that Dr. Manju Singh w/o Dr. Devender Singh performed delivery operation of Smt. Sunita Devi in such a way that the head of the child stuck inside the stomach of the lady and the rest part of the child came out. After this incident, Dr. Devender Singh had shown his anger on the relatives of the patient and forced them to move out from the hospital and treated them in a very offensive and wrongful manner. It was also alleged that the doctors refused to operate further on the lady patient whose life was in danger at that time and referred to Reva medical college for further treatment.
Denying the allegations levelled by the respondent in the impugned news item, the complainant alleged that the news item was published to blackmail and 213 extort money from him. It was completely false and baseless as the child was already dead in the stomach of the lady around six-seven days ago and the infant had many inherent diseases which endangered life of the lady. By giving around four-five bottles of blood, the doctors saved the life of the lady. The complainant further stated that he has filed a criminal case against the four journalists in Seedhi Court under Sections 156(3), 34, 501, 294 & 506 of IPC on 13.7.2010 for abusing and threatening to kill him for which the Court directed the police authority to file a criminal case against the journalists. He has sent a letter on 25.6.2010 to the editor of Navbharat and other newspapers to publish his rejoinder but in vain.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 6.12.2010 but no response has been received despite issuance of reminder on 8.3.2011.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee noted that none has appeared for the complainant. It therefore decided to dismiss the case for default and recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
133) Shri Sukhdev Singh Jangid, Versus The Editor, President, Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Lord Vishwakarma Brahmin Mahasabha, International, Indore, MP Tonk, Rajasthan.
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Sukhdev Sharma For the Respondent: None
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 15.10.2009 has been filed by Shri Sukhdev Singh Jangid, President, Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Brahmin Mahasabha, Indore against the editor, Lord Vishwakarma International, Hindi Fortnightly, Tonk, Rajasthan for publication of false and misleading news items under the caption “½ãÖãÔã¼ãã ‡ãñŠ ¹ãÆ£ãã¶ã ¹ãª Ôãñ Öãè ¼ããƒÃ ‡ãŠã ¦¾ããØã¹ã¨ã - ºãðֶ㠽ãìºãâƒÃ ½ãÖã¶ãØãÀ Ôã¼ãã ¶ãñ ãäÌãÍãñÓã ºãõŸ‡ãŠ ½ãò ãä‡ãŠ¾ãã ¹ãƼãìÀã½ã ãä‡ã⊕ãã ‡ãŠã ‚ããä¼ã¶ã¶ª¶ã” and “¦ãª©ãà Ôããä½ããä¦ã ‡ãŠã Ø㟶㠹ãÆ£ãã¶ã ¹ãª ‡ãñŠ ¹ãì¶ã: Þãì¶ããÌã - 20 ãäÔã¦ã½ºãÀ ‡ãŠãñ ÀãÓ›Èãè¾ã ‡ãŠã¾ãÇãŠããäÀ¥ããè ‡ãŠãè ºãõŸ‡ãŠ” in its issues dated September 1-14 and September 15-30, 2009 respectively. It was stated in the 214 impugned news item that Shri Heeru Bhai, National President of Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Brahmin Mahasabha has resigned from his current post and election will be held on 7.2.2010 and meeting of the working Committee will be on 20.9.2009. The complainant alleged that the impugned news items are totally false, baseless and published to malign the image of the Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Brahmin Mahasabha, New Delhi.
Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items the complainant submitted that the resignation of Shri Heeru Bhai was not accepted. The complainant further alleged that the new date of the election was yet not declared then by the Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Brahmin Mahasabaha but the respondent published the same without verification. The complainant vide letter dated 15.10.2009 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication and requested him to stop publication of the news about the Association, but received no response.
The respondent editor vide his written statement dated 22.1.2010 has submitted that the news items published are true and based on the facts and nothing is published to harm or malign the image of the Association or any person. The respondent submitted that the complainant is involved in many illegal activities and cases are registered against him in Badwani Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 24.11.2006 stated that the complainant ‘seems to be a criminal nature’. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was involved in many financial misdeeds in the elections of the Association. The respondent concluded that the complainant registered many complaints for the various public programmes which is in his habit.
The complainant vide his counter comments dated 15.3.2010 while denying the allegations levelled by the respondent submitted that the news items were published just to malign his image. The complainant also submitted that the upper court had reversed the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badwani.
The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant in person on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee on carefully perusing the record of the case is of the opinion that the issues involved are deep-rooted elsewhere as both parties belongs to the same community and the respondent is a community target publication. Therefore, the remedy for the complainant lies elsewhere. The Inquiry Committee thus, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the case.
215 134) Shri N.K. Jain, Versus The Editor, Bhopal (MP) Raj Express, Bhopal (MP)
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri N.K. Jain in person For the Respondent: Shri Mahesh Sharma, General Manager, (Admn.)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 1.10.2011 (PIL) has been filed by Shri N.K. Jain, Bhopal against the editor, Raj Express, Bhopal for publishing of an allegedly inaccurate, baselss, graceless and misleading news item under the caption “ÀØãâÀñãäÊã¾ããù ½ã¶ãã¦ãñ ÀÖñ ¡ãù‡ã‹›À, ½ãÀ¦ãñ ÀÖñ ½ããÔãî½ã ” in its issue dated 4.8.2011. It reports about negligence of the doctors in the MY Hospital due to which three infant died in just 12 hours. The hospital functions on the strength of junior doctors and they are not doing their duty properly and thus the public suffers.
Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant, who is father of one of lady doctor mentioned in the report, submitted that the M.Y. Hospital is very big hospital in M.P. and there is an administration in the hospital which looks after all the working. The child ‘Prince’ was admitted in the hospital in serious condition and properly looked after by the doctors who were on duty at that time. A Committee was appointed to look into allegations of negligence at MY Hospital and the Committee after conducting an enquiry found that no negligence on the part of doctors was proved and clean chit was given to them.
The respondent editor, Raj Express in his written statement dated 16.5.2012 has stated that the news item was published on the statements of the relatives of the deceased infant and nothing was published from their side. After the death of the infant, a large number of people gathered in the hospital and they made allegations against the Doctors and Hospital which were published in the impugned news item. The respondent further stated that news item was published in newspapers about the negligence of doctors and administration in the M.Y. Hospital.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant as well as the representative of the respondent, Shri Mahesh Sharma, General Manager of Raj Express. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that mere allegation by relative of a deceased should not form the basis of a report, unless it has been cross checked from competent 216 authority. Further the use of the word “rang-raliyan” (Merry making) was improper and offensive in the context, especially when the lady doctors had been named. The Inquiry Committee therefore decided to warn the respondent newspaper with advice to be cautious in future. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose off the complaint in the above terms.
Held
The Council has accepted and adopted the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
135) Shri Umashankar Prasad Thakur Versus The Editor, and Others, Aaj, Patna, Bihar. Patna, Bihar.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 20.8.2009 has been filed by Shri Umashankar Prasad Thakur and others, Patna, Bihar against the editor, Aaj, Patna edition for publication of an allegedly false, misleading, concocted and defamatory news item under the caption “ãäºãÖãÀ Ô‡ãîŠÊã ‚ããù¹ãŠ ¾ããñØãã ½ãâìØãñÀ ‡ãñŠ ãäÊㆠã䪌ããÌãñ ‡ãŠãè ÌãÔ¦ãì - Øãì ‡ãñŠ ¶ã‡ã‹Íãñ ‡ãŠª½ã Ôãñ ºãÖì¦ã ªîÀ Ô‡ãîŠÊã ‚ããù¹ãŠ ¾ããñØãã ‡ãñŠ ‡ãìŠÊã¹ããä¦ã” in issue dated 10.7.2009. The impugned news item has described the misdeeds of Paramhans Swami Niranjan, Chancellor of Munger based Yoga School. It has also been reported that the disciples of the Swami are living joyous life in the Yoga School.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Aaj, Patna on 27.10.2009 but no written statement has been filed despite reminder.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. “None appeared for the sides. The Inquiry Committee adjourned the matter.”
The directions of the Inquiry Committee were communicated to the parties vide Council letter dated 2.1.2013 and summons dated 10.1.2013 was issued.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
217 None has appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to keep the matter pending. It decided to dismiss the case for default and recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
136) Shri Lalit Srivastava, Versus The Editor, Kanpur (UP) Aaj, Hindi Dainik, Kanpur (UP)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint has been filed by Shri Lalit Srivastava, Kanpur against the editor, Aj, Hindi Dainik, Kanpur for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “À㹦ããè ÔããØãÀ ½ãò ãä¼ã¡ñ ¾ãìÌã‡ãŠ, †‡ãŠ ‡ãŠãñ ãä‡ãŠ¾ãã ½ãÀ¥ããÔã¸ã” in its issue dated 10.1.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that during the fighting between two groups, Shri Lalit Srivastava (complainant), R/o Baba Mohal, Pukhraya was badly injured.
The respondent vide his written statement dated 11.6.2010 has admitted that the name published in the impugned news item Lalit was of the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the complainant made the complaint just to escape from the case registered by Shri R.P. Bhimsen.
The complainant vide his counter comments submitted that the written statement of the respondent is fabricated due to publication of the impugned news item GRP noted the name, caste etc. from his house. In support of his contention the complainant submitted Affidavit of some of the noted personalities in the area.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 at New Delhi. “The Inquiry Committee was informed that a telephonic message has been received from the complainant requesting for the adjournment. The Inquiry Committee was not happy over the casual adjournment request and directed that the adjournment should be sought by proper application with reason. A copy of the order be forwarded to the complainant. The Committee in order to afford one more opportunity to the parties decided to adjourn the complaint”.
218 Report of Inquiry Committee Dated 21.1.2013 Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
None has appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dismiss the case for default. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
137) Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Versus The Editor, Telecom District Manager, Swatantra Bharat, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 13.7.2009 has been filed by Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, Swatantra Bharat, Kanpur for publication of all allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items under the caption “ÞããÀ ÔããÊã ½ãò 18 Ö•ããÀ Ôãñ 18 Ôããõ ºãÞãñ ºãñãäÔã‡ãŠ ›ñãäÊã¹ãŠãñ¶ã’’ ºããè†Ôㆶã†Êã ‡ãŠãè Ô©ãã¶ããè¾ã ƒÃ‡ãŠãƒÃ ½ãò £ãâã£ããØãªãê - ½ããõ•ãîªã ›ãè¡ã膽㠂ã•ã¾ã ¹ããÊã ãäÔãâÖ ‡ãŠãè Êãã¹ãÀÌããÖãè Ôãñ ¹ãÞããÔã ÊããŒã Øã¾ãñ ¹ãã¶ããè ½ãò’’ and ‘’¹ããäÀ½ã¥¡Êã ½ã쌾㠽ãÖã¹ãƺ㶣ã‡ãŠ ‡ãŠã¾ããÃÊã¾ã ½ãò ØãÊã¦ã ãäÀ¹ããñ›Ã ªñ ÀÖã Öõ ›ãè¡ã膽㔠in its issue dated 26.5.2009, 27.5.2009 and 28.5.2009 respectively.
Show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Swatantra Bharat on 9.11.2009 but no response has been received.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 3.10.2012 and 21.1.2013 at New Delhi.
Since none appeared from both the sides on both the occasions, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint for default. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the 219 Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
138) Shri Narendar Kumar Parmar, Versus The Editor, Programme Assistant, Divya Damak, Common Education Programme, Jalore, Rajashtan. Jalore, Rajasthan.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 22.9.2009 has been filed by Shri Narender Kumar Parmar, Programme Assistant and Shri Shyam Sunder Solanki, Additional District Planning Coordinator, Common Education Programme, Jalore (Raj.) against the editor, Divya Damak, Hindi Fortnightly, Jalore alleging publication of series of baseless, motivated and defamatory news items in 2009.
The respondent editor, Divya Damak, Jalore in his written statement categorically denied the allegation levelled by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the allegation of the complainant that he demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as ransom is totally false and baseless. In response to the written statement the complainant was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent.
The matter was therefore listed for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 and 21.1.2013 at New Delhi.
Since none appeared from either the side on both the occasion, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint for default. It recommends to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
139) Dr. Chanderpal Versus The Editor, District Basic Dainik Manyavar, Jaunpur Education Officer, Varanasi, U.P. Mau, U.P.
220 ADJUDICATION
This complaint has been filed by Dr. Chandrapal, District Basic Education Officer, Mau, U.P. against the editor, Dainik Manyavar, Jaunpur, Varanasi, U.P. for publication of false, misleading and baseless news item under caption “Prashashnik Transfer Ki Saazish Me Fir Pite BSA Sahab” on dated 25.7.2009 about his alleged illicit relationship with student.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 29.10.2009 no written statement has been filed.
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 4.10.2012 and 21.1.2013 at New Delhi. Since none appeared from both the sides on the both occasion, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint for default. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
140) Shri Avdesh Kumar Singh, Versus The Editor, Gurgaon (Haryana) Dainik Jagran. Gurgaon (Haryana)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 28.8.2009 has been filed by Shri Avdesh Kumar Singh, Gurgaon against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Gurgaon City Edition for the publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item caption “Êãã¹ãÀÌããÖãè ¶ãñ œãè¶ã Êããè ¼ããƒÃ - ºãֶ㠇ãŠãè ãä•ãªâØããè” Ôãâ㶦ãÌã¶ãã ªãè ¹ãÀ ¶ãÖãè ã䪆 ¹ãŠãèÔã ‡ãñŠ Ôããõ ¹ã¾ãñ in its issue dated 31.7.2009. It was stated in the impugned report that the death of two out of three children of one Vijay Kumar namely Atul (eight months) & Tanu (two & a half years old) in General Hospital, Gurgaon due to negligence of the duty doctors and staff.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 6.12.2010 but no response has been received despite issuance of reminder dated 7.4.2011.
221 Report of Inquiry Committee dated 21.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate
None has appeared from the complainant side. The Inquiry Committee thus recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
141) Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma (alias Versus The Editor, Kallu), Thanvi Muzaffarnagar District Muzaffarnagar, Times, Uttar Pradesh. Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 2.7.2010 has been filed Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against the editor, Thanvi Muzaffarnagar Times for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Meerapur Shetra Ke Gaon Kaillarpur Mein Shiv Hotel Par Afeem, Charas, Sulfe, Dodo Ve Sharab Ki Bikri, Pura Gang Karta Hai Avaidh Kaaraya (English Translation- There is a unauthorized sale of Opium, Charas, Sulpha, Poopy Dodha and Wine at Shiv Hotel in Meerapur Area at Kaillarpur Village, full gang does illegal activities)” in its issue dated 14.6.2010.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor on 7.10.2010 but no written statement has been filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
None has appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dismiss the complaint for default. It recommended to the Council accordingly. 222 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
142) Shri Sukhdev Sharma, Versus The Editor, President, Sanjha Lokswami, Madhya Pradesh Ujjain, M.P. Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Bhraman Mahasaba, Delhi.
ADJUDICATION
This compliant has been file by Shri Sukhdev Sharma, President, Madhya Pradesh Akhil Bhartiya Jangid Bhraman Mahasabha against the editor, Sanjha Lokswami, Ujjain for publication of baseless and defamatory news article under the caption “Lakdi Chor v Pad Se Nishkashit Sukhdev-aaj dilayenge nai karyakaarini ko shapath” with his photograph under which “Lakdi Chor Sukhdev” was written, in its issue dated 13.6.2010 of Sanjha Lokswami.
Show cause notice was issued to the respondent for written statement on 6.12.2010 but no written statement has been received.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.1.2013
None appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dismiss the case for default. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
143) Dr. Sudha Singh, Versus The Editor, Chairman, Unique Institute of Dainik Janvaani, Management & Technology & Meerut, U.P. Education, Gangnahar, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
223 ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 1.8.2011 has been filed by Dr. Sudha Singh, Chairman, Unique Institute of Management & Technology & Education, Ghaziabad, U.P. against the editor, Dainik Janvani, Meerut for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “¹ãîÌãà Àãӛȹããä¦ã ‡ãñŠ ¶ãã½ã ¹ãÀ £ããñŒãã” (English Translation- Fraud In The Name Of Ex-President) ” in its issue dated 19.7.2011.
It has been stated in the impugned news item that a wrong publication was made in the magazine of a College which is situated in Muradnagar. The publication in the magazine was that a Lifetime Achievement Award was given to the Chairman of the College by the current President of India (i.e. Shri A.P.J. Abdul Kalam) on 24.8.2007 in a function of the College, but in the R.T.I application filed by one Advocate it was found that the tenure of Shri A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was over on 25.7.2007 and he had not attended the programme of the college on 24.8.2007.
Denying the allegation levelled in the news item, the complainant has stated that the news item published was completely false, baseless and defamatory and it was published to malign her image in the public at large. The complainant has submitted that by mistake, the word ‘Ex’ was not published with the name of the President and after detecting this, the correction was made in the issue of the magazine of year 2008-09. The complainant sent a letter to the editor along with his version requesting the respondent to publish the same in the newspaper on 21.7.2011 but in vain.
The respondent vide his written statement dated 8.5.2012 has denied the allegation and submitted that the name of the college was nowhere published in the impugned news item and the news was published on the basis of RTI reply. The award given by the President of India Shri A.P.J. Abdul Kalam on 24.8.2007 while at that time he was not the President of India. The respondent further stated that the news item published was not false and defamatory as it was published on the basis of the information received under RTI by an Advocate. Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: Dr. Sudha Singh, Complainant For the Respondent: Shri Neeraj Tyagi, Advocate
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. It has been admitted by the 224 complainant that by human error, the word ‘Ex’ was omitted from the list of award mentioned in the college publication. This had been subsequently covered and did not in any manner implicate deliberate attempt to mislead. The respondent has agreed to publish this clarification. The matter may be disposed off accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
144) Shri Prashant Gautam, Versus The Editor, Candidate/Co-ordinator Dainik Janvani, Bahujan Samaj Party, Meerut (UP). Meerut (UP).
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.10.2011 has been filed by Shri Prashant Gautam, Meerut against the editor, Dainik Janvani, Meerut for publication of allegedly false, baseless defamatory news item under the caption “ãä‡ãŠÊãã ºãÞãã¶ãñ ‡ãŠãñ •ãÌããºããè ¹ãì¦ãÊãñºãã•ããè” in issue dated 6.10.2011. It is alleged in the impugned news item that effigy of the complainant was burnt by Shri Yogesh Verma, MLA in Mawana and Hastinapur Districts. In response to that the complainant also burnt the effigy of Shri Yogesh Verma, MLA and Munkad.
In response to show cause notice the editor and respondent in his written statement denied that the impugned news was published to tarnish his image.. The complainant in his counter comments dated 5.6.2012 stated that no names of the persons were disclosed in the article by whom his effigy was burnt and also the respondent did not disclose the places where this incident happened. Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Neeraj Tyagi, Advocate
None appeared from the complainant side. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to dismiss the complaint for default and recommend to the Council accordingly. 225 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
145) M/s Unicorn Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Editor, New Delhi. Karneshwar, Karnal, Haryana.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 7.2.2011 has been filed by M/s Unicorn Securities (Pvt.) Ltd., New Delhi against the editor, Karneshwar, Karnal based Hindi fortnightly alleging publication of false and defamatory news item in its issue dated January 15, 2011 under the caption “¾ãî¶ããè‡ãŠãñ¶ã ‚ããä£ã‡ãŠããäÀ¾ããò ¹ãÀ £ã½ã‡ãŠãè ‡ãŠã ‚ããÀãñ¹ã” (Allegation of levelling threats on the officials of the Unicon). It has been stated in the impugned news item that the official of Unicon Securities (P) Ltd. had given threat to a woman. It has also been stated that in an arbitration proceedings initiated by a woman and conducted before the sole Arbitrator (retired Justice Mahmood Ali Khan) at NSEIL, the C.E.O. of the complainant company was found guilty. The complainant has submitted that the true fact is that on going through the award passed by the Hon’ble Arbitrator, it is clear that the C.E.O. of the company was in no way found to be guilty. The complainant has further stated that he drew the attention of the respondent on 23.2.2011 but received no reply.
A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Karneshwar, Karnal on 5.4.2011 but no written statement has been received so far.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: None
The Inquiry Committee heard the Counsel for the complainant. None appeared for the respondent although Notice should served. In the absence of no defence, the allegations levelled in the complaint to be treated/admitted to be correct. The Inquiry Committee allowed the complaint and recommended to the Council to admonish the respondent newspaper.
226 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides accordingly.
146) Shri R.S.Rana, Versus The Editor, General Secretary, Sandesh, International Spiritual Organization, Gujarat. New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 29.12.2009 has been filed by Shri R.S. Rana, General Secretary, International Spiritual Organization against the editor, Sandesh, Gujarat for utterly irresponsible reporting and publication of false and manipulated story against Sant Asaram Bapu under the caption “Asaram was seen having sex in Jaipur Ashram ” (as translated by the complainant itself) in its issue dated 10.11.2009.
The respondent editor vide his written statement dated 14.7.2010 while denying the allegations leveled by the complainant has stated that the complaint is ex-facie devoid of substance and truth and deserves to be discarded in toto. The respondent, prayed not to entertain such complaint and take no further proceedings against them. Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
Since none has appeared from either side, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the case for default and recommends to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
227 147) Shri K. V. Singh, The Editor, Advocate & Manager, Swatantra Bharat, Smt. Tasveer Kunwar Girls Inter Versus Kanpur, U.P. College, Jalaun, U.P.
ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 4.9.2010 has been filed by Shri K.V. Singh, Advocate & Manager, Smt. Tasveer Kunwar Girls Inter College, Jalaun against the editor, Swatantra Bharat, Kanpur for publication of allegedly false, baseless, malicious and defamatory news item under the caption “Ôãâ¦ã ؾããÔããèÊããÊã ‡ãñŠ ºã㪠‚ãºã †Ôã›ãè‡ãñŠ ‡ãŠãè œã¨ãã Êãã¹ã¦ãã” in its issue dated 29.8.2010. It is alleged in the impugned news item that after Sant Gyasilal one girl student from Smt. Tasveer Kunwar Girls Inter College absconded from the school and the school management do not know anything about it.
A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Swatantra Bharat on 9.12.2010 but no written statement has been received.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
Since none have from either side, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the case for default and recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
148) Dr. Vivek Chaurasiya, The Editor, Sr. Child Specialist, Dainik Jagran, Fatehgarh, Farukhhabad. Versus Kanpur, U.P. U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 12.7.2010 has been filed by Dr. Vivek Chaursiya, Sr. Child Specialist, Farukhhabad against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Kanpur for 228 publication of allegedly false and misleading news item under the caption ‘’vQlj dh dqlhZ ij futh MkDVj dks ns[k fcQjh Mh ,e‘’ in its issue dated 4.7.2010.
Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned publication the complainant submitted that the news item is totally false and misleading and published just to malign his image in the society and friends.
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Kanpur on 13.10.2010 but no written statement was filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: For the Respondent:
The respondent is present. The Inquiry Committee has been informed by the respondent that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. It accordingly recommend to the Council to dispose of the case as settled.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
149) Shri Naresh Kumar Verma, Versus The Editor, District Basic Education Officer, Samay Bhaskar, Ferozabad, U.P. Ferozabad, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 13.4.2011 has been filed by Naresh Kumar Verma, District Basic Education Officer, Ferozabad against the Chief Editor/Owner/ Publisher, Samay Bhaskar, Ferozabad for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news items alleging deteriorating in quality of education due to corrupt practices .
The respondent Editor-in-Chief, Samay Bhaskar vide his written statement dated 25.6.2011 has stated that the news items published were based on reliable sources and evidences.
229 Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: Shri Abhishek Mishra
Since none appeared for the complainant, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
150) Shri Surya Prakash Pandey, Versus The Editor, Assistant Teacher, Swatantra Chetna, Kisan Inter College, Rasulpur Gorakhpur (U.P.) Basti (U.P.) ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 8.7.2010 has been filed by Shri Surya Prakash Pandey, Assistant Teacher, Kisan Inter College, Rasulpur, Basti (U.P.) against the editor, Swatantra Chetna, Gorakhpur for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “¹ãŠ•ããê ãä¡ØãÆãè ‡ãñŠ ‚ãã£ããÀ ¹ãÀ ºããèÔã ÌãÓããó Ôãñ ¶ããõ‡ãŠÀãè”in its issue dated 5.7.2010. Concerning his appointment on leave vacancy as Assistant Teacher on the basis of fake degree.
A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Swatantra Chetna on 13.10.2010 but no written statement has been filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013 Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: None
Since none of the parties were appeared before the Inquiry Committee, the Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to dismiss the complaint for default.
230 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint for default.
151) Shri Ram Dayal, Versus The editor, through its advocate Amar Ujala, Sy. Zulfikar Husnain Naqvi, Kanpur, U.P. Fathepur, U.P. ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 3.5.2011 has been filed by Shri Ram Dayal through his Advocate, Sy. Zulfikar Husnain Naqvi, Fathepur, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, Amar Ujala, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh for publication of the false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “ Manak Vihin coloniyon se bigdi seher ki shakal, bhumafia kar rahe manmana plotting” in its issue dated 1.3.2011.
Shri Avdesh Diwedi, District Correspondent, Amar Ujala and the respondent editor, Amar Ujala Publications Ltd. submitted their written statement vide letters dated 20.8.2011 and 25.8.2011 respectively while denying the allegation and stated that the impugned news item was based on the facts.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: S/Shri P.R. Rajhans, Advocate and Lalit Chaturvedi, Company Secretary, Amar Ujala.
Since no one has appeared for the complainant side, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
231 152) Shri Malkhe Dikshit, The editor, Senior Sub-Inspector, Lalit Mashal Weekly, S.O.G. Team, Lalitpur, Police Club, Civil Line, Versus Uttar Pradesh. Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh.
ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 25.5.2010 has been filed by Shri Malkhe Dikshit and the entire team, Meherauni Police Station, Lalitur, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, Lalit Mashal Weekly, Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news article under the caption “Nahi Hone Dunga Jua Satta Sharab: N Choudhary ” in its issue of 23-30 May, 2010 that Charged the S.G.O team of extortion of money from criminals.
Denying the allegations leveled in the impugned news item, the complainant stated that the allegations are completely false, baseless and defamatory as S.G.O team was awarded for exposing the international gang who indulged in the robbery of statues by the District Officer and Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur.
The respondent editor vide his written statement dated 21.8.2010 has denied the allegations and stated that he had replied to the complainant vide his letter dated 1.7. 2010. Report dated 22.1.2013 of the Inquiry Committee
Appearance: For the complainant: None For the respondent: None
The Inquiry Committee noted the receipt of an affidavit dated 20.1.2013 informing the matter has been amicably settled in a counter complaint before Press Council of India bearing no. 13/24/10-11. It therefore disposes of the complaint being settled and recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.
232 153) Shri Amitabh Thakur, IPS & Smt. The Editor, Nutan Thakur, Social Activist, Dainik Jagran, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. Versus Meera Bai Marg, Lucknow, U.P.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 9.5.2011 has been filed by Shri Amitabh Thakur, IPS and his wife Smt. Nutan Thakur, Social Activist & Journalist against the editor, Dainik Jagran for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Asli Raj- Satta Ke Galiyaare Se (English Translation- Real Ruling- Through Politics)” in its issue dated 10.4.2011.
It was stated in the news item that the latest tantrum of an IPS Officer was that he sent an affidavit to the Government for removing his caste related surname and in future also, if it is necessary to provide his caste, then it must be written as No Caste in the column. Behind this action, his motive was to establish a caste less society. It was further stated in the news item that as per the police department the reasons which came to be known were somewhat different. They said the caste related surname of their boss creates confusion, as sometimes he has been related to the caste of ex-Chief Minister of Bihar and for that many times he has to give clarification on this to the public. Another reason which came be known is that another IPS officer having the same name received an award from the organization of Shri Amitabh Thakur’s wife Smt. Nutan Thakur and a news was spread that “Mem Sahab ne ghar kaa inaam ghar me hi rakh liya (English Translation - Madam retains home prize at home)” and she had to work hard to clarify the matter. Another reason which came out is that the surname of Shri Amitabh Thakur is remembered by heart by the officials of Election Commission and due to this they will get the permission to interfere in the administrative matters of Legislative Assembly Elections before they are scheduled.
Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has stated that though his name and the name of his wife was not specifically mentioned in the news item, but the facts presented in the news item were so clearly mentioned that any one could easily understand who exactly was being talked about. He stated that he had sent a press note to all the news papers in this matter to publish it prominently. All other newspapers published his press note as it is, but Dainik Jagran published it with their own reasons. He further stated that the news item was intentionally published to malign him and his wife’s image in
233 the public without any basis or facts and the respondent had earlier also published such type of articles against him.
Notice for comments was first issued to the respondent editor on 23.6.2011. Since no response was received then show cause notice dated 6.1.2012 was issued to the respondent seeking written statement.
The respondent vide his written statement dated 30.1.2012 submitted that the complainant and his wife’s name was nowhere mentioned in the news item. He further stated that the allegation of the complainant that earlier Dainik Jagran also had published news item against him was completely false and as such no evidence was produced by the complainant before the Press Council.
The complainant vide his counter comments dated 10.3.2012 has submitted that the news item was published on unfounded grounds and without any rationale, where the concerned journalist did not even try to talk to the petitioner to elicit his point of view. The complainant further denied the allegations leveled by the respondent. Report dated 22.1.2013 of the Inquiry Committee
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Atul Kumar Thakur, Representative For the Respondent: Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The respondent counsel has stated that they have not published the article which could be termed defamatory. The article on which objection is raised by the complainant is the article which was published by the Hindustan Times. The Inquiry Committee also noted that the respondent’s counsel Shri B.K. Mishra has expressed readiness to publish the clarification, which the complainant required. The Inquiry Committee decided that the clarification be supplied by the complainant to the respondent and the respondent to publish the same at the earliest. Accordingly, it decided to dispose of the complaint and recommended to the Council.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.
234 154) Shri Bhawanji Ramji Gala, Versus The Editor, Dadar (East), Bombay Samachar, Mumbai. Gujarati Daily, Mumbai.
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 8.1.2009 has been filed by Shri Bhawanji Ramji Gala, Mumbai against the editor, Bombay Samachar, Gujarati Daily, Mumbai for allegedly misreporting the proceedings relating to General Body meeting of the Retail Grain Dealers, Co-operative Society by publishing a report in its issue dated 8.8.2008 under the caption “Honest Retailer should not fear from Mall(s)-wonders of free gift scheme-share holders attended in large numbers.” It has been published in the news item that in general discussion after the Annual General Body (Retain Grain Dealers Society), Mr. Ramnik Lal (President) told that it is true that due to Mall culture, retailers suffer losses. It has been also published that (Bhavanji Ramhi) stated that the object of the Society was to supply to small markets sugar, oil ghee etc. which given during control in the year 1962 and the society was also benefiting at that time. Bhavanji Ramji was forced to come down from the dais when he was attempting to make the said statement.
The complainant has submitted that he is a member of the Retail Grain Dealers Co-operative Society which was established in 1962 mainly with a view to curb the malpractices on the part of some traders of increasing the prices of essential food item of daily consumption. He has submitted that a General Body meeting of the members of the society was called on 7.8.2008 and no person other than the members of society right to attend the meeting. The complainant has objected the false statement made in the impugned item that he was brought down the stage on making presentation that the original purpose of the society was forgotten. The complainant has stated that his he was interrupted by the President and he, instead of continuing gracefully took his seat. The complainant has alleged that due to misreporting his image has been lowered. The complainant vide letter dated 22.8.2008 followed by reminder dated 10.10.2008 drew the attention of the respondent editor but received no response.
Written statement
A show cause notice dated 16.9.2009 was issued to the respondent editor, Bombay Samachar. In his written statement dated 28.9.2009 the respondent has submitted that the complainant has not sent anything for publication as a rejoinder to their report which he reiterate remains factually correct and there is no record
235 in their office having received the purported letter annexed by the complainant. The respondent has requested the Council to ask the complainant to submit a short rejoinder.
Counter comments
The complainant in his counter comments dated 23.11.2009 has stated that he was shocked and surprised that the respondent merely reiterated about his news as factually correct but, has gone one step ahead and disputed that the he has not written a letter annexed by him in his complaint. The complainant has stated that the said letters were sent through courtier to the respondents namely Ms. Pinki Dalal and Mr. M.R. Kama and he has submitted that receipts of the courier company. The complainant has stated that he had sent telegraphic message to the respondent. The complainant has submitted that the respondent is not willing to publish the truth.
Counter Reply
The respondent is his reply dated 16.2.2010 has submitted that in the so called proof of delivery of the courier, there is no name, date or signature of the consignee in both cases, which strengthen their earlier statement that the said letters were not received. The complainant has submitted that they are still willing to publish the complainant’s side story with a statement that they stand by what they have written.
A copy of the complainant’s letter dated 22.8.2008 was forwarded to the respondent vide letter dated 19.5.2010 with a request for necessary action at their end under intimation to the Council and the complainant but no response has been received.
Report of the Inquiry Committee dated 22.1.2013
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri B.R. Gala, Complainant For the Respondent: Shri V.K. Chopra, Representative
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The complainant stated that while he was aggrieved by his defamation his main grievance is that the standard of the Journalism is going down day by day and it needs to be improved.
The Inquiry Committee noted the respondent’s willingness to publish the version of the complainant at a prominent place in his newspaper. It accordingly, decided to record this offer and recommends to the Council to dispose off the case. 236 Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose off the complaint in the above terms.
Press and Morality
155) Shri B.M. Rai Versus The Editor Mumbai Mumbai Mirror Mumbai
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 3.3.2010 has been filed by Shri B.M. Rai, Mumbai through Ministry of Information & Broadcasting against “Mumbai Mirror and Mid Day”. The complainant has drawn the attention towards publication of advertisements of masseurs on friendship clubs/escorts as surrogate advertisements of sex which appeared in Mumbai Mirror and Mid Day issues dated 10.11.2009 and called for ban on such surrogate advertisements.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 13.8.2010, the respondent Mumbai Mirror in his written statement dated 18.9.2010 while denying all allegations of the complainant has stated that he has not offended or violated any norms of journalistic conduct in any manner. The show cause notice issued to him is uncalled for and is unwarranted and without any cause of action against. The respondent has further denied that the ads are surrogate for sex. It is well known that in a newspaper ads are major source of revenue. The respondent denied that young readers of impressionable age will read these ads and they will be misguided and tempted to join such friendship clubs or become escorts which shall ultimately ruin their lives and their future. According to the respondent, these ads are released by various advertising agencies and advertisers and are published under the various columns in the newspaper. The respondent has stated that a newspaper receives hundreds of ads under various columns of the newspaper for printing/publication, and as such it is not practically possible to cross check the veracity of these advertisements and neither is it possible to ascertain as to the purpose for which these ads are released. There is no law which enforces any right on the newspaper to take or reject ads after scrutinizing their veracity or purpose, moreover the quantum of ads are such that it is humanly impossible to go through each ad. The respondent has further stated that he has put in place adequate policies, processes and systems to ensure compliance of the applicable
237 statutory provisions with regard to the publication of ads in its publications. According to the respondent the newspaper does not enquire for the veracity of claims or purpose of the ad from the advertiser therefore a newspaper would not know of activities of the advertiser. The ads which are carried in the newspaper clearly advertise about massage parlours, friendship club and escort the ads of which are not illegal, and not about any other activity. In the event of any misuse of such ad he cannot be blamed or held responsible for such misrepresentation. The respondent further submitted that these ads are being carried/published by almost all the leading newspapers of the country and every newspaper has separate columns/space for specific type of ad and it is common practice to publish all types of ad as newspaper does not doubt the integrity of its advertisers. The respondent has stated that all ads are published in good faith, without suspecting the bonafides of the advertisers. If the advertisers are doing anything which is illegal or contrary to law or to what they have advertised he cannot be held liable for these acts of the advertiser. He has no control over such actions and the advertisers are themselves responsible for their activities and/or claims. The respondent has submitted that the newspapers responsibility is only to check issues pertaining to the media laws, and other laws which prohibit publication of objectionable advertisements, or and are apparently in contravention of any law of the land. The advertisements in question do not contravene any law of land. According to him, he is not aware whether complainant has written letters or not. He has requested the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter for hearing on 25.4.2012 at Pune. Since none of the parties were present, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for non-pursuance.
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
156) Ms. Pratiba Naitthani, Versus The Editor, Mumbai Outlook, New Delhi
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 19.1.2010 is filed by Ms. Pratiba Naitthani, Mumbai against the editor, Outlook Magazine for publication of an allegedly obscene photograph of an actress Yana Gupta in its issue dated 6.12.2010 alleging that the respondent has violated the Press Council Journalistic norms. The complainant
238 alleged that it is not possible that the photograph is clicked without the knowledge of the actress. The complainant has raised the question of justification of publishing such a photograph. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent magazine so that in future such obscene photographs which demean women are not printed by them. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent, Outlook on 1.3.2011, but no written statement is filed.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Since no one is present, the Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint for non-pursuance .
The Press Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
157) Shri Vikram Emmanuel Amolik, Versus The Editor, Advocate, The Times of India, Pune Pune
ADJUDICATION
Shri Vikram Emmanuel Amolik, Advocate Pune has filed this complaint dated 26.10.2010 against the editor, The Times of India, Pune alleging breach of the recognized ethics of journalism against publication of objectionable advertisements in its classified column on 22.10.2010. According to the complainant, the respondent has regularly been publishing advertisements relating to massage parlours and escorts, violating the accepted norms of journalistic ethics and the same are prima facie promoting flesh trade and prostitution.
In response to the Council’s show cause notice dated 21.4.2011 the counsel for the respondent editor vide his written statement dated 17.6.2011 submitted that a newspaper on a given day, received hundreds of advertisements under various columns of the newspaper for printing/publication, and as such it is not practically possible to cross check the veracity of these advertisements and neither it is possible to ascertain as to the purpose for which these advertisements are released. He has stated there is no law which enforces any right to the newspaper to take or reject advertisement after scrutinizing their veracity or purpose, moreover the quantum of advertisements are such that it is humanly impossible to go through each advertisements. The respondent submitted that such advertisements are carried by all the leading newspapers. According to the respondent, these advertisements are released by various advertising agencies and advertisers and are published under the various columns in the newspaper. The respondent has further stated that it has put in place adequate policies, processes and systems to ensure compliance which the applicable statutory provisions with regard to the publication of advertisement in its 239 publications. According to the respondent the newspaper does not enquire for the veracity of claims or purpose of the advertisement from the advertiser therefore a newspaper would not know of activities of the advertiser. The ads which are carried in the newspaper clearly advertise about massage parlours, friendship club and escort services, the advertisement of which are not illegal, and not about any other activity. In the event of any misuse of such advertisement it cannot be blamed or held responsible for such misrepresentation.
The Inquiry Committee took up the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. Since no one was present to press the case. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.
The Press Council considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and decided accordingly.
158) Ms. Anita Verma Singh The Editor Member Secretary Versus The Times of India, U.P. State Women Commission Lucknow, UP Lucknow, UP
ADJUDICATION
The complaint in this case has been brought by Member Secretary, U.P. State Women Commission, Lucknow, UP against the editor, The Times of India, Lucknow edition. The complaint is that The Times of India of 2.12.2010 published photograph with the caption: ‘All Ye Men, Presenting Menon’ of Indian Model, Ms. Lakshmi Menon alongwith two other women in nude, with the sub caption saying that she become the first Indian model to feature in Pirelli Calendar called ‘Mythology’.
A show cause notice dated 12.1.2011 was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India. In response, the counsel for the respondent editor, The Times of India in his written statement dated 16.2.2011 while denying the charge stated that the impugned picture is not obscene, and will have not any ill effect on society and its culture. The respondent further denied that these types of pictures assassinate the character of women and stated that the impugned picture is one of the shoot pictures of the Pirelli Calendar 2011 – the launch of which is marked as a must attend event in the annual calendars of many rich and famous. The respondent has further submitted that the theme of the calendar was ‘Mythological’ and was an artist’s attempt at capturing the essence of a woman and of Gods and Goddess of the Roman and Greek Mythology. He has stated that any picture/article published by any newspaper has to be judged keeping in mind the present day literary trends and
240 also the popular permissiveness.
The Inquiry Committee has considered complaint on 26.3.2012 at Lucknow and is of the opinion that the published material is not obscene. Hence, the Committee recommends to the Council to close the case.
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
159) Shri Nalin Kant Vajpai, The Editor, General Secretary, Balaghat Today, Madhya Pradesh Working Versus Balaghat, Journalist Union, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. MP
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the respondent: None
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 20.9.2009 has been filed by shri Nalin Kant Vajpai, General Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Working Journalist Union against the editor, Balaghat Today, Balaghat for publication of vulgar and obscene pictures of the women with vulgar language in their issues of June, August and September 2009 of his magazine. The complainant alleged that the magazine looks like a Pornographic Magazine. He has stated that the said magazine is selling at the book stalls openly which will affect the mentality of children, youths and women of the society. He further stated that he had received many complaints against this magazine in the matter.
The respondent in his written statement dated 28.3.2010 while denying he allegations levelled by the complainant has stated that neither he published anything against the complainant has stated that neither he published anything against the complainant nor against the people of Balaghat. He alleged that the working Minister of Public Works Department, Shri Sanjay Mhsake and his colleagues started a campaign against him to malign his image through this complainant as he revealed the truth of the corrupt Ministers and Bureaucrats through his magazine. he further stated that even he does not know the complainant and he alleged him for running a Pornographic Magazine. He further stated that 241 his intention was just to reveal the anti-social works done by some corrupted persons in the society through his journalism and not to malign someone.
The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee considered the case on merits and noted that the allegations of publication of objectionable photograph are made in the complaint, to which no satisfactory reply is given. The plea of exposure of the high and mighty is not sustainable in this case. The respondent has published vulgar photograph accompanying stories of raised crimes in Balaghat Today which are highly obscene and certainly in bad taste for which reason the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to receive the details in this order. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends to the Council to censure the respondent editor, Balaghat Today. Further a copy of this order be sent along with copy of the complaint to District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Balaghat to take action according to the law and ensure that such material is not published in future. A copy of the decision be sent to the DAVP, RNI and Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for action as they deem fit in the matter.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts report of the Committee and decided to censure the respondent newspaper Balaghat Today, Madhya Pradesh. Adjudication be sent to the State authorities as per recommendations of the Committee.
160) Dr. Arvind Jain Editor Bhopal Versus Dainik Bhaskar Madhya Pradesh Bhopal Madhya Pradesh
Appearance For the Complainant: None For the Respondent: S/Shri Akash Telang and Sandeep Gupta, Advocates, Bhopal
ADJUDICATION
This is a complaint dated 10.9.2009 filed by Dr. Arvind Jain, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal regarding publication of alleged vulgar and indecent advertisements and photographs in various issues 242 of the newspaper. The complainant has alleged that the advertisements published by the respondent are of various Ayurvedic tonics and oil regarding sex and breast enlargement. These advertisements are objectionable and are in violation of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable - Advertisement) Act 1954 and also of Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Standards of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulation 1982. The complainant has alleged that such advertisements give rise to the incidents of sexual harassment and also defame the women folk. On 26.8.2009, the complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor towards these advertisements but received no response.
Show cause notice dated 19.4.2010 was issued to the respondent editor but no written statement was filed.
The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee has been informed by the counsel for the respondent that after 2009 the respondent newspaper has stopped publishing such advertisements. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to close the complaint and recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
Communal, Casteist, Anti National and Anti Religious Writings
161) Dr. I.A. Khan Anzana Versus The Editor President Saptparni Khankaha Sufi Didar Shah Gorakhpur (U.P.) Chishti Thane (Maharashtra)
ADJUDICATION
This complaint is filed by Dr. I.A. Khan Anzana, President, Khankaha Sufi Didar Shah Chishti, Thane (Maharashtra) against the editor, Saptparni, Hindi Monthly, Gorakhpur for publication of an allegedly highly objectionable story against Prophet Mohammed under the caption: “fopkj lans’k” in its November-December, 2009 issue, wherein allegation of sexuality was levelled against Prophet Mohammed. Denying the impugned story, the complainant has alleged that the respondent assassinated 243 the holy and ideal character of Prophet Mohammed as well as hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community by giving derogatory and misleading remarks. Furthermore, the article was totally based on the misleading and imaginary ideas which had given wrong ideas and impressions about Prophet Mohammed. The complainant submitted that the attention of the respondent was drawn on 19.3.2010 and 24.4.2010, who in his response dated 7.4.2010, informed that they published only the ideas/thoughts of Saints and Authors and does not publish their own ideas.
In response to Council’s show-cause notice dated 1.6.2010, the respondent editor, Saptparni in his written statement dated 30.6.2010 while reiterating the contention in the letter dated 7.4.2010 alleged that the Muslims also publish misleading and objectionable stories against Hindu Gods/ Goddesses and distributes them in Madars as (Schools). The respondent further alleged that the complainant along with Muslim Organizations attacked his office and threatened to kill him and his family. The respondent submitted that he had filed an FIR under Section 506 IPC against the complainant and others in Police Station-Kotwali, Gorakhpur in this regard.
In his counter comments dated 23.8.2010 the complainant asserted that the respondent’s views showed his retaliatory and biased attitude towards the Muslim community.
The Inquiry Committee considered the matter on 27.4.2012 at Pune. While the respondent remained un-represented, the complainant reiterated the complaint showing that the impugned publication tended to hurt the feelings of Muslim community.
The Inquiry Committee perused the record and found the impugned publication to be highly objectionable likely to hurt the feelings and faith of the given community. The mere assertion that of reproduction of the views of other should not absolve it of the certain responsibility of responsible selection of Material for publication, particularly in view of tendency of the comments to hurt communal feelings. The Press Council has already issued guidelines for the press to guard against commission of journalistic improprieties and unethicalities which inter alia advise against (a) Making disrespectful, derogatory or insulting remarks on or reference to the different religions or faiths or their founders, (b) Emphasising matters that are apt to produce communal hatred or ill-will, or fostering feelings of distrust between communities. The Council was satisfied that the editor Saptparni caused publication of a highly objectionable material in its issue of November – December, 2009 in violation of norms enunciated by the Council. The Inquiry
244 Committee thus upholding the complaint decided to recommend to the Council to censure the editor, Saptparni.
Held
The Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted the report of the Committee and decided to censure the editor, Saptparni, Gorakhpur. It also decided to forward a copy of the Council’s adjudication to the DAVP, RNI and I&PRD, Government of Uttar Pradesh for such legal action as they deem fit in the matter.
162) Shri Sohan Das, Versus The Editor State Secretary, Dainik Jagran, Haryana Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Hissar (Haryana) Rohtak (Haryana).
ADJUDICATION
This undated complaint has been filed on 7.10.2010 by Shri Sohan Das, State Secretary, Haryana Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Rohtak, Haryana against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Hissar for publication of allegedly false and misleading news items under the caption “ªìÊããè¶ãã‡ãŠãâ¡ : Øãã¾ããò ‡ãŠãè ŒããÊã „¦ããÀ¶ãñ ÌããÊãñ ¹ããâÞã ‡ãŠãñ ¼ããè¡ ¶ãñ ½ããÀ ¡ãÊãã - ªãñÓããè ‡ãŠÀãÀ” news item dated 8.8.2010 and “ªìÊããè¶ããè‡ãŠã¡â - Ôãã¦ã ªãñãäÓã¾ããò ‡ãŠãñ „½ãÆ ‡ãõŠª - ¾ãÖ ©ãã ½ãã½ãÊãã” in its issue 10.8.2010 respectively.
It was stated in the impugned news item as a based item narrating that on 15.10.2002 the police arrested five persons while they were reportedly removing the skin of cow. The mob attacked the police station on rum our that skin of a living cow was being removed and murdered all the five persons. After the incident, the incident was given a casteist color, all big and small political parties people visited the place of incident and people of the area were united not to identify any one of the area as the guilty with great difficulty the accused were identified and the case was before courts since then.
The complainant submitted that it was clear from the judgement that all the kept five persons were licensed traders taking the cow’s hide, they were not removing the flesh of living cow. It was revealed from the investigations that the policemen demanded bribe from the deceased persons when they refused to give bribe they arrested them and the news was aired that they were arrested when they removing flesh of the cow. The complainant objected that the comments depicted the ‘dalit’ in poor light.
245 The respondent failed to file any written statement in the matter.
Argument
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. The complainant, Shri Sohan Das appeared in person whereas Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, Manager (Legal) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The Committee heard both the parties. The complainant submitted that by publishing the impugned news items, the respondent targeted the Scheduled Castes Community. The complainant also stated that he filed this complaint being a social worker. The respondent stated that the news items were published on the basis of the FIR. The respondent also stated that they are ready to publish the contradiction, specifically mentioning about the Judgement of the case. In view of the undertaking given by the respondent, the Committee disposed off the case.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
163) Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Versus The Editor, Dhanbad, Public Magazine, Jharkhand. New Delhi.
ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 31.3.2008 has been filed by Shri Binod Kumar Sinha, Dhanbad against the editor, Public Magazine, New Delhi for allegedly objectionable news items captioned “Pratibha Patil Ke Rastrapati Banane Par Yadi Manu va Tulsi Jivit Hote, To Zahar Khakar Mar Jate” and “Supreme Court Mein Diya Pahla Halafnama Sahi Hai, To Dusra Jhoot Ka Pulinda” in its issue of October 2007. According to the complainant, the headlines and the expression of the contents of the impugned news items sought to injure the religious sensibility of the Hindu community.
The respondent editor vide his written statement dated 12.1.2009 stated that the complaint is baseless. The respondent submitted that there are many unethical and illogical contents in the Ramayana which create differences and if the sentiments of a particular section are hurt due to the publication of the article he apologies for the same.
246 Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.11.2011 and 27.8.2012 at New Delhi when there was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee therefore recommended to the Council to dismiss the matter for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
164) Shri S.C. Kapoor, Versus The Editor, Wing Commender (Retd.) Times of India, Noida, U.P. New Delhi
ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 5.6.2010 has been filed by Wing Commander S.C. Kapoor (Retd.), Noida (U.P.) against the editor, Times of India, New Delhi for publication of an allegedly objectionable cartoon titled “Please ! No Army or Air Force role in Red Corridor. Why gift the Naxals tanks, missiles, planes, choppers….? in its issue dated 9.4.2010. The complainant alleged that the impugned article shows (a) a group of dazed security personnel-One of them sporting a bandaged arm due to injuries sustained by him-standing at an Emergency Ward (emphasis as given in the cartoon) of hospital with a big Red Cross sign and blood transfusion units in full view and (b) a political leader smugly announcing the above statement at a press conference. The complainant has further alleged that an obvious and unmistakable message conveyed in the cartoon that if the defence forces take part in operations against naxals, the farmers will be killed.
In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 13.5.2010 the respondent – Times of India (through his counsel) vide written statement dated 16.8.2010 while denying the allegations of the complainant has submitted that he has not offended or violated the professional norms of journalistic conduct in any manner. The respondent has denied that the impugned cartoon in any manner lessens the confidence that the people of India have in the Defence Forces or in any manner trivializes ridicules or demoralizes the Army, Navy or the Air Force and violates the journalistic proprietary or in any manner insults military personnel or belittles the hardships that they undergo and the sacrifices they make for the nation. According to the respondent, the impugned cartoon falls within the category of fair comment 247 in public interest without any ill will or malice directed against any person or body of persons. The respondent requested the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter.
Report
The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.11.2011 and 27.8.2012 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side on both the occasions. The Committee held that since the complainant was not present on either occasion to press his case, the complaint stands dismissed for default.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decided accordingly.
165) Shri Rubabuddin Sheikh, Versus The Editor, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh Swadesh, Indore, Madhya Pradesh
Appearance For the Complainant: Shri Rubabuddin Sheikh, complainant in person and Shri Ashutosh Surana, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri S.K. Chourasia, Advocate
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 28.10.2009 has been filed by Shri Rubabuddin Sheikh, Ujjain (M.P.) against the editor, Swadesh, Hindi Daily, Indore for publication of false, misleading and baseless news item under the caption “ãäÔã½ããè ‡ãŠã¾ãÇ㊦ããÂããñ †Ìãâ „¶ã‡ãñŠ ãäÀͦãñªãÀãò ‡ãŠã ¹ãƽãìŒã ‡ãñŠ¶³ Öõ ¶ããØãªã” (Nagda is the main centre of the SIMI workers and their relatives) in its issue dated 24.10.2009. It has been stated in the impugned news item that it is clear from Sohrabuddin encounter case that the Nagda City has become the shelter of the terrorists and they are living freely in the City and the people related to SIMI have no fear of the police at all. It is also stated that an elite officer of the Prime Minister has confirmed that Sohrabuddin had relations with the terrorist Lashker-E- Tayabba and many relatives of the terrorist are staying in the Nagda City without any fear.
Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant who is the brother of Sohrabuddin has stated that the news item is completely false
248 and baseless and it was published to malign the image of his family members in the public. He sent a letter to the editor of the newspaper on 10.3.2010 to publish his version but in vain.
The Swadesh, Indore in written statement dated 13.7.2010 stated that the news was published in public interest and not to malign the image of the complainant in person. The respondent also stated that other newspapers had also published the same news. The Respondent alleged that the complainant is of criminal bent of mind and curbs the freedom of press by threatening the journalists for doing their duty honestly. The complainant made a false complaint against the honest people and filed a false declaration before the Council although many cases are pending in the court of law in the same matter.
The complainant vide his letter dated 4.10.2010 while denying the allegations stated that the news item published was completely false and baseless. The respondent published the news related to his brother and his family without any basis. The allegation that the complainant is of criminal nature, is completely wrong as the local journalist of the newspaper, Shri Merulal Taank is himself of criminal bent.
The Inquiry Committee heard the parties on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. It noted that in reporting the matter the newspaper had painted the entire city and a particular community with a common brush with charges of anti national activities. It observed as follows: “It is deeply regretted that a section of the media in India is spreading communalism, directly or indirectly. This is a country of diversity and to make it prosperous, it is absolutely essential that all communities and section of the society must be given equal respect. In the present case, the respondent did not act responsibly and presented the news in a way which in itself is an anti-national act. The complainant is the brother of Sohrabuddin who was killed in the allegedly fake encounter. The publication in question of 24th October, 2009 is in the newspaper, Swadesh from Indore. The Inquiry Committee has carefully perused the news item which is in Hindi. It has alleged inter-alia:
1. That Nagda area has been a centre for terrorist activities, 2. Notorious organizations like SIMI are doing such activities in Nagda and the administration is unaware of this, 3. Madarsa are for terrorist activities,
It is unfortunate that the section of media publishes such news item making sweeping allegation without due evidence. Publishing news item in such a way clearly present the Nagda district as centre of terrorism. Similar news about Azamgarh was created to give impression that Azamgarh is the centre of terrorism. This naturally branded all people of Azamgarh as terrorists. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the news item published is highly objectionable, being communal and 249 anti-national and anti-social. The Inquiry Committee therefore allows the complaint and recommends to the Council to censure the respondent Swadesh, Indore”.
The Inquiry Committee also decided to send this adjudication Government of Madhya Pradesh through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and to all the press organizations and news agencies and to the DAVP/RNI for their record.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
166) Prof. N K Jain The Editor Registrar Versus Dainik Jagran Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya. Bhopal, M.P. Sagar, M.P.
Appearance For the Complainant: Prof. N.K. Jain in person For the Respondent: Shri V.K. Verma, Personnel Officer Jagran and Shri R.K. Awasthy, Regional In-charge
ADJUDICATION
This complaint dated 12.1.2012 has been filed by Prof. N K Jain, Registrar, Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, M.P. against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Bhopal alleging publication of derogatory news-item about their Vice-Chancellor under the caption ‘‘¼ãã•ã¹ãã ¾ãìÌãã ½ããñÞããà ‡ãŠãè ¶ãØãÀ ›ãè½ã ¦ãõ¾ããÀ” with sub-title “‡ãìŠÊã¹ããä¦ã ‚ãœî¦ã Öõ: ØããõÀÌã (City team of BJP Youth Morcha declared- Sub-Title: VC is untouchable: Gaurav) in its issue dated 17.11.2011. The complainant has alleged that the respondent flouted all norms of journalistic ethics and public taste and made extremely volatile anti-national, indecent and unconstitutional and derogatory remarks describing Dr. Harisingh Gour the Vice-Chancellor of Vishwavidyalaya as “Achut” (untouchable). This is a demeaning reference to Vice - Chancellor’s social status as a scheduled caste. It is further alleged in the news - item that the Vice - Chancellor would not be allowed by the Morcha to garland the statute of Gour on the anniversary on November 29, 2011 otherwise the statute would be anointed with milk and water if the VC succeeds. The complainant submitted that Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya is a Central University of great repute and its Vice-Chancellors are chosen personalities who distinguished themselves in the field of academics. The present Vice-Chancellor
250 is an eminent educationist and is held in high esteem by the public and a respected person of high stature could not be dragged into public ridicule in this manner. Further, the Vice-Chancellor sent a letter on 5.11.2011 to the respondent newspaper to publish the rejoinder/clarification but did not receive any reply.
A show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 was issued to the respondent editor but no written statement has been filed despite reminder.
The matter came up before the Inquiry Committee on 22.12.2012 at Bhopal. The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The complainant has alleged that a news item was published in Dainik Jagran Bhopal under the caption ‘‘¼ãã•ã¹ãã ¾ãìÌãã ½ããñÞããà ‡ãŠãè ¶ãØãÀ ›ãè½ã ¦ãõ¾ããÀ” with sub-title “‡ãìŠÊã¹ããä¦ã ‚ãœî¦ã Öõ: ØããõÀÌã (City team of BJP Youth Morcha declared- Sub-Title: VC is untouchable: Gaurav)” stating that Bhartiya Yuva Morcha will not allow the Vice Chancellor, Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya to garland the statute of the founder of the University because he belonged to scheduled caste. The Inquiry Committee is in no doubt opinion that such activity prima facie is a criminal offence under SC/ST Act. However in this case the newspaper only published the statement of the office bearer of the BJP Yuva Morcha. Therefore, it cannot be held guilty of promoting castiest or damaging the reputation of the person. If the complainant has any grievance, he can approach the SC/ST Forum for action. With these observations, the Inquiry Committee decided to dismiss the complaint. It recommended to the Council accordingly.
Held
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons and findings of the Committee and decides accordingly.
251 34th 2012-2013 Annual Report
April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013
Press Council of India, New Delhi