Press Council of

Index of Adjudications rendered by the Council in its meeting held on 9.9.2016

Complaints against the Press Section 14

Inquiry Committee meeting held on 7-9 June, 2016 at New Delhi

1. Complaint of M/s Publications, Kolhapur against the Editor, , Kolhapur(Mah.).(14/277/13-14)

2. Complaint of Mrs. Shamima Kauser, District - Thane, Maharashtra against the Editor, Times, New Delhi. (14/310/13-14)

3. Complaint of M/s India Technomac Co. Ltd., District Simrour (H.P.) against the Editor, Him Himwanti (H.P.) (14/840/12-13)

4. Complaint of Shri Mritunjay Singh, Lakhisarai, Bihar against the editor, , Bhagalpur, Bihar. (14/619/11-12)

5. Comlaint of Shri Kuldip Singh Bawa, Representative, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, Amritsar against Editor, Rozana Spokesman, Mohali, . (14/37/10-11)

6. Complaint of Shri Manoj Kumar Arora, Private Secretary to Minister of Women & Child Development, Delhi against Editor, Reuters India News Agency, New Delhi. (14/380/15-16)

7. Complaint of Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Bakshi, Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi against Times of India. (14/18/15-16)

8. Complaint of Mohd. Nasir Kamal, Hony. Convenor, District Football Sangh, Moradabad against Editor, Dainik Jagran. (14/542/14-15)

9. Complaint of Mohd. Ayub, Roorkee, District Haridwar against Dainik Jagran, Dehradoon. (14/392/15-16)

10. Complaint of Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Amrit India, New Delhi. (14/108/14-15)

11. Complaint of Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Inquilab, Delhi. (14/111/14-15)

12. Complaint of Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Sidhi Khabar, Delhi. (14/103/14-15)

13. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in Election-2014 against Dainik Rajasthan Statement.(14/922/14-15)

14. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Dainik Janvani.(14/897/14-15)

15. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin, Muzaffarnagar.(14/874/14-15)

16. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Dainik Shram Bindu, Raipur.(14/903/14- 15)

17. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Amar Ujala,Noida.14/885/14-15)

18. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Bijnore Times, Bijnore. 14/899/14- 15)

19. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Jhansi Vaarta, Jhansi. 14/852/14-15)

20. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Rashtriya Swaroop,Lucknow. 14/886/14-15)

21. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Surya Prabha, Odishan. 14/733/14- 15)

22. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General Election-2014 against Editor, Janvani, Bhubaneshwar. 14/718//14-15)

23. Complaint of Shri Amrik Singh, Major General, Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi against , New Delhi. (14/183/15-16)

24. Complaint of Shri Prem Kumar Singh, Delhi against Editor, Times of India, New Delhi. (14/386/15-16)

25. Shri Pashupati Nath Gupt, District President, Akhil Bhartiya Udyog Vyapar Mandal, Complaint of Shri Gopal Arya, Rashtirya Swayamsevak Sangh, New Delhi against . (14/567/15-16)

26. Complaint of Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Advocate, Lucknow against Editor, Pardafas Today, Lucknow. (14/654/14-15)

27. Complaint of Maharajganj, U.P. against Editor, Voice of Lucknow, U.P. (14/383/15- 16)

28. Complaint of Major Farah Diba, Allahabad against Hindustan, Allahabad , Uttar Pradesh. (14/591/15-16)

29-30. Complaint of Shri Yogesh Chand Sharma, Chandigarh against Dainik Jagran and Aaj Samaj, New Delhi.(14/815-816/13-14) 31. Complaint of Shri Harinarayan Dubey, Superintendent, Vaishya College of Law, Rohtak against . (14/536/15-16) (complaint withdrawn by the complainant)

32. Complaint of GVK Emergency Management & Research Institute, Ahmedabad against editor, Abhivyakthi Gujarat. (14/266/15-16)

Inquiry Committee meeting held on July 11-13, 2016 at New Delhi

33. Compliant of Shri Rajesh Himatlal, Managing Director, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, Times of India, Mumbai. (14/1048/13-14)

34. Compliant of Shri Rajesh Himatlal, Managing Director, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, , Mumbai. (14/1049/13-14)

35. Complaint of Shri Banwari Lal Singhal, Member of Legislative Assembly, Alwar City, Alwar against the Editor , Alwar (Raj.) (14/530/12-13)

36. Complaint of Shri Shatrujeet Kapur, IPS, CID, Haryana, Panchkula against the editor, Tribune, Chandigarh. (14/384/15-16)

37 Shri Ramesh Kumar, Returning Officer & Collector, Daman & Diu, Daman against the Editor, Asli Azadi, Nani Daman. (14/177/14-15)(Paid News)

38. Complaint of Dr. R. Mohan, General Manager (Law-II) & Joint Head of Law Department, State Bank of India, Mumbai against the Editor, , Thiruvananthapuram. (14/357/14-15)

39. Complaint of Shri Hormuz P. Mama, Mumbai against the Editor, Econmic Times. (14/1018/13-14)

40. Complaint of Shri Chinmay Biswal, IPS, S.P. , South Andaman District, Port Blair against The Andaman Chronicle (14/171/14-15)

41. Complaint of Swami Ramkrishna Shivanand, Sanatan Dharm, Shiv Mandir, New Delhi against the Editor, National Mission, Monthly Magazine, U.P. (14/697/14-15)

42. Complaint of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi against the editor, Halla-Bol times, Delhi. (14/120/15-16)

43. Complaint of Ms. Jyoti Sabharwal, Author & Publishr, Stellar, New Delhi against the editor, India Today, New Delhi. (14/262/15-16)

44. Complaint of Shri Dharmendra Singh Sanger, Librarian, Indira Gandhi University, Delhi against Editor, Dainik Bhaskar. (14/562/15-16)

45. Complaint of Collector and District Election Officer, District Dhar, M.P. against Dainik Balwas Times and Raj Express, Indore. (14/232-233/14-15)

46. Complaint received from the Collector & D.M. Sagar, Madhya Pradesh against Editor, Pravesh Samvad, Sagar. (14/83/14-15)

47. Complaint of Shri Mohan Lal, Ujjain against Editor, Raj Express, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh (14/740/14-15)

48. Complaint of Shri Anup Shukla, Advocate, Satna, M.P. against Editor, Star Samachar, Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar. (14/384,387-388/14-15)

49. Complaint of Dr. Brijamani Singh,Former Spokesperson, Hindu Mahasabha, Uttar Pradesh against Dainik Jagran, Uttar Pradesh. (14/334/14-15)

50. Complaint of Shri Vijay Aggarwal, Madhya Pradesh against Sameria Express, Satna, Madhya Pradesh. (14/175/15-16)

51. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Daudti Dilli, Delhi. (14/105/14-15 ) Paid News

(a) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Chambhal Surkhee, Morena, M.P. (14/119/14-15 )

(b) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Shah Alert, Muzaffarnagar. (14/853/14-15)

(c). Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Shri India, and Bundelkhand Live, Banda Uttar Pradesh. (14/846-847/14-15)

(d) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Nayan Jagriti, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. (14/855/14-15)

(e) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Dainik Janvaani, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. (14/857/14-15)

(f) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Vishwa Manavt, Uttar Pradesh. (14/856/14-15)

(g). Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Amar Ujala, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. (14/877/14-15)Paid News

(h) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Awam-e-Hind, Delhi. (14/895/14-15)Paid News

(i). Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, City Times, Lucknow.. (14/890/14-15)Paid News

(j) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Chingari, Bijnaur, U.P. (14/893/14-15)Paid News

(k) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Karamyug Prakas, Jalaun, U.P. (14/887/14-15)Paid News

(l) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Roznama Rashtriya Sahara, Delhi. (14/110/14-15)Paid News

(m) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Loksatya. (14/96/14-15)

(n) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Kota Bureau, Rajasthan. (14/128/14-15)

(o) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, BPN Times, Dholpur, Rajasthan.(14/120/14-15

52 Complaint of Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Deo, President of Vigilance Committee, Gondpur, Jharkhand against Editor, Hindustan, Jamshedpur. (14/430/15-16)

53 Complaint of Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Deo, President of Vigilance Committee, Jharkhand against Editor, Dainik Bhaskar. (14/439/15-16)

54 Complaint of Shri Singh, Patna against Dainik Jagran, Hindustan and , Patna, Bihar. (14/569-571/15-16)

55 Complaint of Shri L.P. Sinha, Patna against Dainik Hindustan, Patna, Bihar. (14/482/15-16)

56 Complaint of Shri Nidhesh P. New Delhi against Editor, M/s Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Limited, New Delhi (14/455//15-16)

57 Complaint of Mohd. Ansari, Secretary, Intezamia Committee, Patna against Inquilab –E-Jadid, Patna (14/377/14-15)

58 Complaint of Shri Umesh Mishra, Principal,Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna against Dainik Jagran, Patna. (14/984/14-15)

59 Complaint of Dr. Shankar Kumar, Patna against Prabhat Khabar, Patna- (14/404/15- 16)

60. Complaint of Shri Jnyana Ranjan Behera, M.D., Balasor, Odisha against Odisha Khabar, Odisha. (14/989/14-15)

Inquiry Committee meeting held on August 8-10, 2016 at Jabalpur, MP

61. Complaint of Dr. Sureshan V, President, KGMOA, Kasaragod, District Nileshwar against the editor Latest Kerala, Kerala. (14/77/15-16)

62. Complaint of Shri Moideen Kutty, Mallapuram District against the editors, Daily and Daily, Kerala. (14/28-29/15-16)

63. Complaint of Shri E.Vijay Paul, President, All India True Christian Council, Chennai against the editors The Hindu and The Times of India and (14/762-764/14-15)

64. Complaint of Shri P.P. Bhaskaran, Prabha, Kerala against Editor, Malayala Manorama, Ernakulam. (14/738/14-15)

65. Complaint of Shri S. Sainadh, Project Director, APS Housing Corporation, Kadapa against the editor, Vartha, (14/821/14-15)

66. Complaint of Shri Dhanapal, Former Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu against the editor, Daily, Chennai. (14/1025/14-15)

67. Complaint of President, Daivagna Brahman Sangha, Shimoga, Karnataka against the editor, Daivaigna Kirana, monthly. (14/310/15-16)

68. Complaint of Tony Chammany, Mayor Kochi Municipal Corporation, Kerala against Times of India, Kochi. (14/426/15-16)

69 Complaint of Dr. Remani K. Asvini Hospital, Kerala against the editor, Malayala Manorama Daily. (14/497/15-16)

70. Complaint of Shri C. Srikantiah, Karnataka against Editor, Veda Taranga. (14/457/14-15)

71. Complaint of Shri K.K. Balaram against the Editor, The Hindu (14/506/15-16-)

72. Complaint of Shri Shaji M. V. P.D. Teacher, Government UP School Kalikkadavu, Karimbam, Kannur against Chief Editor, Daily, Kannur, Kerala (14/437/15-16)

73. Complaint of Shri Rajendra Pandey, Indore against Dainik Dabang Duniya and Dainik Agnibaan, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.(14/380-381/12-13)

74. Complaint of Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, Jabalpur against Editor, Patrika, Jabalpur. (14/356/15-16)

75. Complaint of Ms. Rachna Sharma, Advocate, Hon. Secretary, SSKS Foundation, against Dainik Bhaskar and Nai Dunia, Gwalior (14/389-390/15-16)

76. Complaint of Shri Naveen K. Litoria, Divisional Secretary, West Central Railway. Jabalpur against Editor, Railwarta. (14/645/15-16)

77. Complaint of Shr Pradeep Budania, Gurukripa Career Institute, Sikar, Rajasthan against Dainik Bhaskar, Sikar (14/873/14-15)

78.(1) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against . (14/117/14-15) Paid News

(2) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Dainik Taj Bharti, Rajasthan. (14/153/14-15) Paid News

(3). Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Jan Nayak, Rajasthan. (14/141//14-15) Paid News

(4). Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Dainik Samachar Jagat, Gujarat. (14/149//14-15) Paid News

(5). Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Dainik Prakash Kunj, Rajasthant. (14/133/14-15) Paid News

(6) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Seema Sandesh, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (14/147/14-15 ) Paid News

(7) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Badhti Kalam, Rajasthan. (14/148/14-15 ) Paid News

(8) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Divya Damak, Jalore, Rajasthan. (14/124/14-15 ) Paid News

(9) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Rajasthan , Jaipur, Rajasthan. (14/145/14-15 ) Paid News

(10) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, The Times of India, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (14/118/14-15 ) Paid News

(11) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Dainik Janbaaz Patrika, Rajasthan. (14/130/14-15 )

(12) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Rashtra Ka Vachan, Kota, Rajasthan. (14/136/14-15 ) Paid News

(13) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Mevar Times, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (14/113/14-15 ) Paid News

(14) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Rajasthan Dasha, Dausa, Rajasthan (14/914/14-15) Paid News

(15) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Dainik Aas Paas, Junjhnoo, Rajasthan.(14/132/14-15) Paid News

(16) Reference received from , Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Mehkta Bharat, Jaipur Rajasthan. (14/121/14-15) Paid News

(17) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, National Duniya, Jaipur, Rajasthan (14/918/14-15)Paid News

(18) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Seema Sandesh, Rajasthan. (14/916/14-15)Paid News

(19) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Tarun Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (14/924/14-15)Paid News

(20) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Morning News, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (14/919/14-15)Paid News

(21) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the editor, Jhalawar Samachar, Rajasthan.. (14/915/14-15)Paid News

(22) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission India, New Delhi against Dainik Patna Express. (14/127/14-15)

(23) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Morning News, Jaipur. (14/123/14-15)

(24) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Rashtradoot, Jaipur. (14/700/14-15)

(25) Reference received from Election Commission of India,New Delhi against Editor, Surya Prabha, Orissa. (14/702/14-15)

(26) Reference received from Election Commission of India,New Delhi against Editor, Dainik Navbharat, Raipur. (14/901/14-15)

(27) Reference received from Election Commission of India,New Delhi against Editor, The Samaj, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. (14/716/14-15)

(28) Reference received from Election Commission of India,New Delhi against Editor, Prajavaadi, Bhubaneshwar, Odissa. (14/720/14-15)

(29) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Samaj, Bhubaneshwar, Odissa. (14/728/14-15)

(30) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Editor, Dainik Swaddin, Raipur. (14/904/14-15)

(31) Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against , Khabar, Bhubaneshwar, Odissa. (14/727/14-15)

(32) Reference received from Election Commission of India,New Delhi against Editor, , Bhubaneshwar, Odissa. (14/731/14-15)

(33) Reference received from Election Commission of India,New Delhi against Editor, Samaya, Bhubaneshwar, Odissa. (14/719/14-15)

(34) Reference received from Election Commission of India,New Delhi against Editor, , Bhubaneshwar, Odissa. (14/729/14-15)

79 Complaint of Shri Chetan Brijmohan Bajaj, Director, Shree Awdhoot Education Society, Saket Public School, Gondia against Editor, , Nagpur. (14/243/15-16)

80. Complaint of Shri Mahavir Jain, Journalist, Jodhpur against Police Commissioner, Jodhur and RNI. (13/127/15-16)

81. Complaint of Shri Prakash Chand Chaudhary, Jaipur, Rajasthan against Editor, Kalwad Times. (14/458/15-16)

82. Complaint of Dr. Rajendra Singh Jadeja, General Secretary, Rajkot District Consumers Protection Council, Rajkot against , Rajkot. (14/777/14- 15)

83. Complaint of Shri S.K. Malhotra, Head Public Awareness Division, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai against the Editor, Times of India, Mumbai. (14/684/14- 15)

84 Complaint of Dr. Shantilal Kothari, President, Soghurt Food Products & Co., Nagpur against Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Nagpur. (14/309/15-16)

85. Complaint of Shri Rajesh S. Naik, President, Paranpai Citizen Forum, Madkai against , Goa. (14/4/15-16)

86. Complaint of Shri P.M. Kamath, Hon. Director, Vidya Prasarak Mandal’s Centre for International Studies, Mumbai against the Chief Editor, New Indian Express. (14/89/15-16)

87. Complaint of Smt. Tara Kerkar, President Savera Trust & Savera Association, Goa against Editor, Tarun Bharat, Goa. (14/92/14-15)

88. Complaint of Shri Nawaz Hafiz Khan against Editor, Khabere Aaj Tak. (14/646/15-16)

89. Complaint of Shri Ravi Shankar, Executive Magistrate, Gumla against the Editor, Hindustan, Ranchi. (14/286/15-16)

90. Complaint of Shri Birobrata Acharjee, Assam against Editor, Dainik Jugosankho, Assam. (14/498/15-16)

91. Complaint of Shri A.K. Verma, Joint General Manager/V Ordinance Parachute Factory, Kanpur against Dainik Jagran, Kanpur. (14/125/15-16)

92. Complaint of Shri A.K. Verrma, Joint General Manager, Ordinance Parachute Factory, Kanpur against Hindustan, Kanpur. (14/124/15-16)

93. Complaint of Shri Babu Singh Kushwaha, Lucknow against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Noida (14/357/15-16)

94. Complaint of Shri Rahul Kumar Singh, Varanasi against Dainik Jagran. (14/123/15- 16)

95. Complaint of Shri Madan Lal, Sangrur (Punjab) against Editor, Sangrur Barnala Kesari (14/229-230/14-15)

96. Complaint of Shri Gurnam Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, GRP Jalandhar against Editor, Dainik Bhaskar and Reporter Shri Akhand Parasad (14/647/14-15)

97. Complaint of Shri Jitender Rana, Himachal Pradesh against Editor, , Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. (14/67/15-16)

98. Complaint of Shri Anand Mohan Khare, Branch Manager, Zila Sahkari Bank, Chatarpur, Madhya Pradesh against Editor, Dainik Parihar Garjana, Madhya Pradesh (14/653/15-16)

99. Complaint of Shri Gurkripal Singh, Hoshiarpur against Editor, Chandigarh. (14/179/15-16)

100. Complaint of Shri S.P. Yadav, IOFS (Retd.) Jabalpur against Pradesh Today (14/533/15- 16)

101. Complaint of Prof. K.V. Thomas, Ernakulam against Editor, Times of India, Mumbai(14/208/15-16)

102. Complaint of Shri Suryakant Sharma, Jharkhand against the Editor, Hindustan. (14/81/14-15)

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No.1 File No.14/277/13-14-PCI

Shri Vasant M. Sapre, The Editor, Management Advisor, The Times of India, Pudhari, Kolhapur. Kolhapur.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 5.6.2013 was filed by Shri Vasant M. Sapre, Management Advisor, Pudhari, Kolhapur against The Times of India, Kolhapur for publication of allegedly erroneous misleading advertisement in its issue dated 10.5.2013 giving a graphic comparative chart in respect of five newspapers including Daily Pudhari claiming higher readership that of the competitors of the Times of India.

The complainant stated that the respondent had compared six cities viz. Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad, Nagpur and Kolhapur but out of these six cities Daily Pudhari had no presence in three cities i.e. Nasik, Aurangabad and Nagpur. He stated that the circulation figure of their newspaper in these three cities was Nil as such the comparison was bad, baseless, erroneous and unscientific. The Times of India should have included only such publications which had presence in all six cities which was not done. The complainant further added that such comparison bound to give a different perverted picture and The Times of India had not taken those points into consideration.

The complainant further stated that in this regard, a Notice dated 23.5.2013 through his advocate was issued to the respondent ‘The Times of India’ and requested to make necessary amendment to the advertisement. The reply dated 12.6.2013 from the respondent received but the same was not at all convincing, as it was only an eye-wash.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the newspaper on 4.8.2014.

Written Statement The respondent editor, The Times of India in its written statement dated 1.9.2014 denied each and every allegation made in the complaint regarding the advertisement in question. The respondent stated that the said advertisement was factually correct, carried in good faith based on information derived from the Indian Readership Survey(IRS) and believed to be true and correct and without any malice. He also submitted that bare perusal of the said advertisement will reveal that it does not make any allegations, imputations or innuendo whatsoever against the complainant or any other person. The respondent further stated that the Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. is one of the largest media services in India enjoying unstinted patronage from millions of loyal readers worldwide and is also a responsible corporate citizen and also ensure that all information, articles and advertisements are published only after exercising due diligence of verifying and scrutinizing authentic records and the said advertisement merely compared the readership of certain leading Marathi newspapers in entire Maharashtra region and not just in the six cities which were depicted. The six cities were illustrated only for representation purpose since there is comparative analysis of the readership of Marathi newspapers in Q3 of 2012 for entire Maharashtra and Q4 of 2012 for All India for SEC AB category.

Further communication received from the complainant

The complainant endorsed a copy of letter dated 25.8.2015 addressed to the respondent newspaper, to the Council expressing dissatisfaction with the explanation given by the respondent newspaper in the matter as the comparison made by the respondent newspaper in its advertisement was not fair and genuine comparison. As a dictionary meaning of ‘comparison’ requires the comparison needs to be made among comparables i.e. the premises to be the same. It had already been brought to the notice of the respondent newspaper that the complainant does not have any publication at Nagpur, Nasik and Orangabad and as such the circulation in these towns was zero. This shows the comparison appears to be motivated against Pudhari.

The complainant vide his another letter dated 10.6.2016 submitted that the advertisement published by Times of India/ is malafide. He stated that the Times of India/Maharashtra Times while releasing its advertisement has made the basic fundamental mistake by including cities where Daily Pudhari has no circulation what so ever. He alleged that while selecting newspapers published from Kolhapur, the Times of India chosen only Pudhari, and being published from Kolhapur and conveniently left out Tarun Bharat and Punyanagari for the reasons best known to them which is bad, mischievous and unscientific and indicates ulterior motives.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following two adjournments dated 8.9.2015 and 13.4.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint and other material on record and is of the opinion that the complainant, if so advised, may approach the Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI) for the redressal of his grievance. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid term.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid term.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 2 F.No.14/310/13-14-PCI

Mrs. Shamina Kauser, The Editor, Thane, Maharashtra vs. , New Delhi

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 19.8.2013 was filed by Mrs. Shamina Kauser, Thane, Maharashtra through her advocate against the editor, The Hindustan Times for publication of allegedly malicious and defamatory news items, all of which carried headlines that were deliberately worded to misrepresent facts pertaining to her daughter Ishrat Jahan. The captions are as follows:

Sl. No. Caption Dated 1. Ishrat had links with Kashmir separatists 3.7.2013 2. In IB’s Ishrat tapes, “Machlee No. 5” is terror code for Modi 8.7.2013 3. Ishrat ‘friend’ got gunshot wound treated in Delhi 11.7.2013

With regard to the first impugned news item dated 3.7.2013, the complainant has stated that it was deliberately and maliciously titled so as to portray her daughter Ishrat Jehan as a terrorist who had links with Kashmiri separatists. He further stated that the headline attributed this information to the CBI whereas in the text of the report, it was stated that two of those killed along with Ishrat were associated with secessionist groups in Kashmir. According to her it is noteworthy that the said headline was printed a day before the CBI was due to file its first charge-sheet before the concerned Court in Ahmedabad, in the case. The above misreporting was brought to the notice of the editor- in-chief of Hindustan Times on 3.7.2013 and subsequently, a correction was printed in the paper on the following day. Furthermore, the said article was also taken down from the website of The Hindustan Times. According to the complainant these two acts of the newspaper indicate clear admission on the part of the newspaper that they transgressed the boundaries of journalistic ethics and norms.

With regard to another impugned news item dated 8.7.2013, the complainant has stated that this news report concerns intercepting telephonic conversations allegedly between Muzzamil, an alleged terrorist, and two persons killed in the fake encounter dated 15.4.2004. However, the said news report did not make a single reference to her deceased daughter Ishrat Jahan, yet the headline of the news report bore the name daughter Ishrat, she added. She further stated that vide an e-mail dated 11.7.2013, it was brought to the notice of the editor-in-chief of The Hindustan Times that the said headlines were false, baseless and misleading and by casting aspersions on her deceased daughter, the newspaper defamed her, and caused pain, injury and harm to her family.

The impugned news report dated 11.7.2013, referred to Amjad Ali, one of the persons killed in the fake encounter as Ishrat’s friend and companion in two headlines, one on the front page, and other in large font in bold, on page 10. She stated that the charge-sheet filed before the competent court on 4.7.2013 in Gujarat clearly showed that there was no association of complainant’s deceased daughter Ishrat Jahan with Amjad Ali and that she had been abducted and illegally confined by the Gujarat Police. She further stated that vide e-mail dated 11.7.2013, it was promptly brought to the notice of the editor-in-chief and it was demanded that the false and motivated vilification campaign being carried out by the newspaper through the repetitive publication of baseless, malicious and unsubstantiated articles be halted immediately. She stated that The Hindustan Times on 12th July 2013 published a part of the letter to the editor sent by them which was insufficient, unsatisfactory and lacks credibility. She further submitted that the respondent has also not expressed any appropriate suitable or adequate apology.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 19.11.2013.

Written Statement

The respondent editor in his written statement dated 27.12.2013 stated that the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant were wrong, incorrect. It was vehemently denied that the respondent published a wrong subject news item. There was no damage caused to the reputation and public image of the complainant. He submitted that the newspaper has suo-motu published the necessary clarification for any unintentional error on their part which may be considered by the Council as appropriate in terms of journalistic norms. He further submitted that the news items did not disclose any word in relation to the defamation of the complaint and should be read in entirety and not just the headlines in isolation. He further submitted that in relation to the first item, the title was an error of the news item and not a deliberate and motivated misrepresentation and such error was rectified by printing an immediate correction in the following edition. He also submitted that in relation to second news item, the title was used only to relate to that particular fake encounter case which in public conscious has now become inextricable linked with the name of Ishrat. He stated that nowhere did the news report mention Ishrat as having been on the said tapes – at no point the newspaper had implied any guilt on her part. A clarification of the headline in question was also published in their column on 11.7.2013 when they received complaint from the complainant. In relation to the third news item, he stated that the word companion was used in the title for journalistic brevity, to denote someone who is a victim of the same fake encounter as Ishrat.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 6.6.2016 stated that the written statement filed by the respondent suffers from self contradictions and inconsistencies. She alleged that the respondent had concealed some material facts regarding the offending and objectionable news items published by it as well as the deliberate, concerted and motivated manner in which the respondent has defamed the complainant’s daughter. She further, while retreating her complaint and giving para wise reply of the written statement of the respondent, stated that the respondent has not published any clarification, retraction or apology with respect to the offending and objectionable news items and their headlines. She also stated that the response of the respondent as published is untenable, unsatisfactory, wrong, merits no consideration and deserved to be rejected.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following two adjournments dated 8.9.2015 and 13.4.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. Smt. Vrinda Grover and Shri Harsh Bora, Advocates appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The complainant is the mother of Ishrat and her grievance is in respect of three impugned news items published in The Hindustan Times in its issues dated 3.7.2013, 8.7.2013 and 11.7.2013. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the connected papers. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear but filed the written statement.

The Inquiry Committee noted that the heading of the first news item is Ishrat was linked with Kashmir. The respondent editor in his written statement admitted their error and rectifies the same by correction in the following edition.

As regards to the second news item dated 8.7.2013, the grievance of the complainant is that its title is misleading and the news content does not justify the said headings. According to the respondent, the heading was used only to relate a particular encounter. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper ought to have been more cautious in fiving the headlines.

As regard to the third news item, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the use of expression ‘friend’ was uncalled for and the newspaper ought to have refrained from using such expression.

The Inquiry Committee recommended that the newspaper be more careful in future. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid term.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid term

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 3 File No.14/840/12-13-PCI

M/s. Indian Technomac Co. Ltd. The Editor Rajendra Place Him Himwanti New Delhi vs. Paonta Sahib Himachal Pradesh

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

M/s Indian Technomac Co. Ltd., preferred a complaint on 4.1.2013 against weekly newspaper Him Himwanti for an alleged objectionable, false and defamatory news item published in its issue dated 28/11/2012 under caption “Udyogo se hone Wale Pradushan ko Rokne ki Guhar”.

It was alleged in the impugned news item that one Headmaster of Madrasa Kadriya Misserwala allegedly written a letter to the Pollution Control Board complaining about many industries situated on National Highway 72 in village Misserwala especially M/s Indian Technomac Co. Ltd. which are contributing to heavy pollution in the area and to stop the same, an alleged appeal has been made to the Pollution Control Board. The industries discharge heavy smoke and also cause noise pollution due to which the students cannot study or sleep well and also have bad effect on their health. Further, the newspaper published several news articles to malign and tarnished the credibility of the Company.

The complainant submitted that there are many factories located on National highway 72 but the article had highlighted and concluded unilaterally that only M/s Indian Technomac Co. Ltd. is contributing to the air pollution in the area while the company has installed, operated, maintained air pollution control equipments properly and efficiently to control and abate the pollution. The complainant alleged that the contents of the impugned article expressed one sided views of an individual and the publication of the same was in violation of all journalistic norms because they had always operated their unit within the parameters of applicable laws and also regularly complied with the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board norms and regulations. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor vide their legal notice dated 04/12/12 and the respondent felt not necessary to comment on it.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 23.4.2013.

Written Statement

The respondent editor, Him Himwanti in his written statement dated 9.5.2013 submitted that there was nothing defamatory or malicious in the impugned report as they merely published the gist of the complaint made to the PCB without adding any comments. Since they had not made any defamatory statement against the company, there was no question of tendering a public apology.

Matter Adjourned Sine-e-die

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee observed that a case regarding this matter was pending in the Pollution Control Board as well as National Green Tribunal. It therefore, decided to adjourn the matter and await the decision of the Pollution Control Board and National Green Tribunal.

Further Developments

A reminder letter dated 10.11.2014 was sent to all the parties with a request to intimate the Council about the present status of the case which is pending before the Pollution Control Board as well as National Green Tribunal.

In response thereto, the respondent vide his letter dated 13.11.2014 informed the Council that they did not had any information regarding the case that is pending before the Hon’ble Green Tribunal.

Final Reminder dated 9.4.2015 was issued to the complainant on its both address which is on record but the same were received back undelivered with the remarks “Office always locked from long period”. Thereafter, a reminder letter dated 9.4.2015 was sent to the complainant at its e-mail ID i.e. ‘[email protected]’ but no response was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint and other connected papers and is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 4 File No. 14/619/11-12-PCI

Shri Mritunjay Singh, The Editor, P.O. & Distt Lakshisarai, vs. Dainik Jagran, Bhagalpur Bihar. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 21.2.2012 was filed by Shri Mritunjay Singh from Bihar against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Bhagalpur for publication of false and baseless news item under the caption “Pansas hatyakand mein krishak salahakar giraftar” in its issue dated 31.12.2011. It was reported in the impugned news item that the police led by Sub- divisional Police Officer, Shri Rajvansh Singh, has arrested an agricultural advisor, Shri Mritunjay Singh in connection with the murder case of RTI activist-cum-member of Panchayat Samiti namely; Shri Ramvilash Singh during a raid in village Babnangama. It was further stated the RTI activist-cum- Panchayat Samiti member, Shri Ramvilas Singh had earlier lodged a Sanha(complaint) in the Court of Lakhisarai against the persons including agricultural advisor, Shri Mritunjay Singh for threatening him to kill. After that he was murdered and the police officials on the basis of the said Sanha arrested Shri Mritunjay Singh. The complainant submitted that the respondent had published a false and baseless news item without verifying the facts. He alleged that the intention of the respondent was to harm his reputation in the society. He further alleged that the act of the respondent caused him suffer physical, social and economic loss for around a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. He sent a letter dated 23.1.2012 through counsel to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran and requested to clarify the reason of publication but received no response. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 15.6.2012 for written statement.

Written Statement The respondent editor vide letter dated 5.7.2012, while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant stated that the news was published on the basis of the information gathered from the police and it was not reported with any malice towards the complainant. He added that the complainant was detained by the police in the case and released later. The complainant was detained on the basis of the information petition filed by the deceased before C.J.M, Lakhisarai vide Information Petition No. 374/2011 dated 16.4.2011. According to the respondent, the news in question was correct and the same was also printed in other newspapers, so the allegation of malice or ill intention was totally wrong.

Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 28.8.2012 stated that the news of detention and release of complainant in Dainik Jagran was false and wilful which had been published by the respondent with malice and ill intention to tarnish his reputation in the society. He also stated that he had never been detained or released from police custody as there is no such record available in the station diary of the Police Station. He further stated that filing of protest by informants in Lakhisarai, P.S. Case No. 522/11 had wrongly and falsely been averred by the respondent as the petition annexed does not bear the signature of advocate of informant or date of its filing before the Court.

Respondent’s Further Comments Shri Alok Mishra, News Editor, Jagran Prakashan Ltd., Bhagalpur vide letter dated 11.12.2012 stated that the complainant tried to misguide the Press Council as the complainant in its letter dated 28.8.2012 stated that no protest petition against him was filed. Denying this, the respondent furnished a certified copy of the order sheet of the Ld. C.J.M., Lakhisarai dated 16.2.2012 of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 522/11 in which it is clearly mentioned that a petition has been filed.

Matter Adjourned Sine-e-Die The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 23.8.2013 at Chandigarh. Noting that a criminal case was pending against the complainant it therefore, decided to adjourn the matter till the disposal of the investigation of the criminal case.

Further Developments The complainant, Shri Mritunjay Singh vide his letter dated 31.12.2014 forwarded a copy of the Order dated 18.2.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhasarai along with a copy of the Order dated 14.11.2013 passed by High Court of Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46517 of 2013. In the Order dated 14.11.2013 passed by High Court of Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46517 of 2013, it was decided to list the matter after receipt of the photocopy of the case diary of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 522/2011 from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai. It was also directed that in the meantime no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 522/2011. The matter stands adjourned on 26.3.2014. The complainant vide Council’s letter dated 20.1.2015 was asked to furnish the final judgment in the matter but received no response despite reminder dated 29.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee has perused the record and finds the responses that the subject matter of this complaint is pending for trial before the competent court of law. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter and recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 5 F.No.14/37/10-11-PCI

Shri Kuldip Singh Bawa, The Editor Representative, Rozana Spokesman, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Daily Punjabi Newspaper, Committee, Punjab. Mohali, Punjab.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 20.4.2010 was filed by Shri Kuldip Singh Bawa, Representative, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee, Amritsar against the editor, Rozana Spokesman, Mohali for writing critical editorial against the Sikh Community under the caption “One More stab in the back of Father Nanak In the name of Nanakshahi Calender by Shrichandian in the issue dated 16.3.2010. The complainant submitted that the respondent in its editorials and articles publishes consistently, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously to denigrate some of the fundamental tenets, principles, practices, beliefs of Sikh religions and its holy institutions like Panj Takhats, Misname of Bani and Sikh Ardas. Thus, he maliciously try to cut the very roots of the Sikh faith. The complainant further stated that fundamental belief of the Sikhs had even been judicially recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee Vs. Som Nath Dass (2000) and the Hon’ble Apex Court inter-alia has observed the following:

“The holiest book of the Sikhs is Guru Granth Sahib compiled by the Fifth Master, Guru Arjan Devji. It is Bible of Sikhs. After giving his followings a central place of worship, Har Mandir, he wanted to give them a holy book. So he collected the hymns of the first four Gurus and to these he added his own. Now this Sri Guru Granth Sahib is a living Guru of the Sikhs. Guru means the guide. Guru Granth Sahib gives light and shows the path to the suffering humanity. Wherever a believer in Sikhism is in trouble or is depressed he reads hymns for the Granth.”

The complainant submitted that widespread resentment amongst the followers of Sikh religion against the aforementioned Editorials, news items and articles being published by respondents and lot of protests had been lodged by various Sikh bodies, including the complainant SGPG and its President, Shri Avtar Singh Makkar and others against the respondents. The protests and representations made to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Punjab had been widely covered by the Punjabi and other newspapers, as also by the Electronic Media, but the respondents had neither responded to the same not they had taken any remedial action to the assuage the hurt feelings of Sikhs, who are spread worldwide. The complainant stated that in any case, Sikhs are bound to follow the orders issued for and on behalf of Akal Takhat Sabib, the paramount body of Sikhs, by the revered Jathedars, and vide an order dated 10.3.2010, disciple of Sikh Panth have been ordered, to not to had any interaction with respondents. Though, as stated above the media coverage through print and electronic media was sufficient notice to the respondents, to which they had not responded at all.

A letter dated 7.6.2010 was issued to the respondent editor, Rozana Spokesman for filing his consolidated written statement.

Written Statement

The respondent editor, Rozana Spokesman, Punjabi Daily in his written statement dated 19.6.2010 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the most important fact that has deliberately and maliciously been concealed from the Council is that before coming to this Council for filing the complaint, they had already filed a case under Section 295-A and form part of the FIR lodged with the Amritsar Police, Chowki E-Division, Amritsar filed on 8.4.2010. The respondent stated that the allegations were false, fabricated, imaginary, frivolous and without any sound basis at all and the case had been instituted as part of vendetta politics and with the obnoxious desire of arm-twisting the editor to change paper’s policies so as to suit the ruling party as SGPC was a mere pawn in the hands of Chief Minister of Punjab. He has stated that since the complainant party has taken up the matter with the police and the court, perhaps the PCI may not like to take up the same. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.11.2010 while denying the allegations levelled by the respondent in his written statement stated that the same are wrong, derogatory and malicious. He further stated that nobody could be allowed to hurt the sentiments of believers of a religion in the garb of pseudo-intellectual debates, he further submitted that respondents could not take away the right of Sikh Sangat to represent against the malicious publications done by the respondents. He also submitted that it is basic proposition of law that by merely lodging the FIR, a criminal complaint did not become a court of case unless upon investigation a challan/final report/status report was filed by the police under Section 173 Cr. P.C. before the Competent Court. According to the complainant the respondent had not only indulged in making defamatory allegations against a statutory body SGPC and five Sikh High Priest but also against Sikhism. He further alleged that tone and tenor of baseless allegations levelled by the respondents in the news item was clearly shows that whole sort of malicious articles and editorials against Sikh religion had been published by him out of vengeance and frustration for not getting State sponsored advertisements for their newspaper. He concluded by saying that the respondent was confusing the bail applications filed by them in a court of law, in reference to the FIR dated 8.4.2010 as a matter sub-judice before the court. The complainant submitted that the investigation in the said FIR is to culminate into a court trial.

Matter Adjourned The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.8.2012 at Chandigarh. “Noting that the subject matter of this case was pending in the Court u/s 295 A, it decided to await decision of that case”. Further Developments A letter dated 17.11.2014 and 19.11.2014 was received from the advocate for the complainant, Shri Satinder S. Gulati and the Additional Secretary, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar, respectively in which they stated that the next date of hearing is 9.12.2014. Thereafter, a letter dated 15.12.2014 was again sent to the Assistant Additional Secretary, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar, while acknowledging his letter dated 19.11.2014, has requested to apprise the Council about the latest status of the case. In response thereto, vide his letter dated 5.1.2015 he replied that the next date of hearing is on 17.1.2015. A reminder letter dated 30.1.2015 was again issued to both the parties enquiring about the latest status of the case. In response to which a letter dated 6.2.2015 and 18.2.2015 was received from the advocate for the complainant, Shri Satinder S. Gulati and the Additional Secretary, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar, respectively in which they informed that the next date of hearing is 4.3.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant is not present. However, respondent is represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Shri Harvinder Singh Chaugh. The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint and connected papers. It seems that in respect of the subject matter of the complaint, a criminal trial is going on before the competent court of law. In view of this, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter and recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 6 F. No. 14/380/15-16-PCI

Shri Manoj K. Arora, IRS The Editor, Private Secretary to Minister of Reuters (India), Women & Child Development, New Delhi. Govt. of India, New Delhi. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 20.10.2015 was filed by Shri Manoj K. Arora, IRS, Private Secretary to Minister of Women & Child Development, Government of India, New Delhi against the editor, Reuters (India), New Delhi for alleged publication of wrong and mischievous interpretation of an interview captioned “Budget cuts hurt fight against malnutrition, says Maneka Gandhi” on 19.10.2015. It was reported that India’s main program to fight child malnutrition has been hit by budget cuts that make it difficult to pay wages of millions of health workers, a cabinet minister said on October 19 in a rare public criticism of Prime Minister’s policies. It was also reported that the Minister who oversees a scheme to feed more than 100 million poor people, said that current budget was only enough to pay salaries to her 2.7 million health workers until January and budget cut had hit her plans to strengthen the fight against malnutrition.

Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that during the discussion, which were duly recorded by Reuters, Hon’ble Minister stated that the government had accepted the recommendations of the Finance Commission on increased devolution of funds to the States with the hope that the States will be able to commit necessary additional resources for meeting the objects of various social sector schemes. Based on this understanding, a group a Chief Ministers has made certain recommendations on the cost sharing pattern for various social sector schemes so that the respective share of the Center and States for these schemes could be suitably rationalized in view of increased devolution. Despite all this, the States are not committing their share for some of the components of social sector schemes which has caused some uncertainty at the ground level and she was fully confident that the matter will be resolved as Finance Ministry has already started providing additional funds for the ICDS program. But the impugned news brought out mischievous interpretation of what was stated by the Minister. After the publication, the complainant spoke to the correspondent as well as the editor of Reuters who accepted the fact that Minister never said any of those things but it is their own interpretation which is carried out in their story. Despite repeated requests, they refused to amend or withdraw the story. The complainant also stated that the action of Reuters is completely unethical, mischievous and violates the norms of journalistic reporting which resulted in unnecessary projection of the government in a bad light. The complainant submitted that they issued a press release on 19.10.2015 through PIB for publication of apology on misleading story asking to surrender the recording of the interview but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice dated 28.10.2015 issued to the respondent editor, Reuters(India), New Delhi.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent vide written statement dated 9.11.2015 denied the allegations levelled in the complaint. The respondent submitted that each and the every quotation attributed to Minister, Ms. Maneka Gandhi is indeed accurately recounted in the Article. He has also submitted that after publication of the impugned article, Minister’s representatives, including Mr. Arora informed that they had no problem with the article other than the interpretation that the Minister’s statements constituted a criticism of the government’s policies. The respondent stated that based on the comments it is fair to say that the Minister was critical of Modi’s policies affecting the ministry and the program to fight malnutrition and avers the article also made clear that Minister Gandhi retains confidence in the system and the article unambiguously reflects that she was hopeful the program will revive. The respondent submitted that they do not agree that they presented a false or even unbalanced recounting of the Ministry’s view. The respondent also submitted that they also disagree that they ignored the Ministry’s objections to the article, they published an article wholly dedicated to making clear that the Ministry denies having criticized Prime Minister’s policies. The respondent also submitted that there is no factual support of any kind, offered by the complainant for the incendiary allegations that they engaged in unethical, mischievous, irresponsible or malicious conduct. They accurately and fairly reported the news in the public interest and there was no violation of any kind.

Counter Comments

In response, the complainant vide letter dated 30.1.2016 stated that the reply submitted by the respondent does not address the basic allegation made in the complaint and have an exercise to justify the mischievous article which they published attributing to it what Hon’ble Minister said in the interview. The reply of the respondent is factually incorrect stating that the complainant was present during the conversation and that the complainant stated that the ministry had no problem with the article. The complainant further submitted to seek the recording of the interview of Hon’ble Minister so that a true picture of the interview emerges before the Council as well as before the Hon’ble Minister.

Respondent’s Response

The respondent vide letter dated 25.2.2016 responding to the said counter comments stated the Ministry’s letter avers that Reuters did not respond to the Ministry’s allegations to the impugned news item. On the contrary on 25.2.2016 Reuters sent the response which set the following key facts:

1. each and every quotation attributed to Minister Gandhi in the article is accurate, 2. the Ministry’s objection was that Minister Gandhi did not constitute ‘public criticism of Prime Minister Modi’s policies’ but that is indeed a fair characterization of the statement made by Minister Gandhi to Reuters, 3. the Article is fair and balanced and even goes so far as to reflect the Minister’s confidence that India’s program to fight child malnutrition will continue to receive finding and prevail, and 4. Reuters ran a subsequent article dedicated to reporting on Minister Gandhi’s claim that she did not, notwithstanding her earlier comments, criticize Modi.

The respondent submitted that for more than a century, Reuters published unbiased, independent and accurate news. He further submitted that their principles enshrined in the Trust Principles which governs how they gather and report the news. In keeping with those principles, Reuters does not selectively disclose unpublished newsgathering materials such as the audio tape of Reuter’s discussion with Minister Gandhi that precipitated the Article. Reuter did not err or publish any untruths.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Manoj Kumar Arora, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

This complaint has been filed by a Private Secretary to the Minister of Women & Child Development, Government of India, New Delhi against the Reuters (India) News Agency, New Delhi. It relates to an interview given by the Minister to the correspondent of news agency, Reuters.

Mr. Arora, who appears on behalf of the complainant, prays that an unedited copy of the interview given by the Minister to the News Agency be furnished to him. From the reply of the respondent, it seems that it has records only “memorializing statements made by the Minister” In the face of it, the Inquiry Committee does not find any justification for acceding to this prayer of the complainant and accordingly rejects the same.

The other grievance of the complainant is in relation to the following statement alleged to have been said by the Minister which read as follows:

“A Cabinet Minister said on Monday in a rare public criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies”. It is stated by the complainant that no such statement was made by the Minister. The plea of the respondent is that “each and every quotation attributed to the Minister” has accurately been recounted and what had offended the complainant is the fair assessment of Minister’s statement. The Inquiry Committee bestowed its consideration to this grievance of the complainant and is of the opinion that this is the interpretation of news agency and not the actual words used by the Minister. In fact, the news agency in the light of the explanation offered by the complainant, came out with a clarification on the very next day of publication of the first news.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed against the respondent any further. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid clarification.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 7 File No.14/18/15-16-PCI Prof. Dr. A.K. Bakshi, The Editor, Sir Shankar Lal, Times of India, Professor of Chemistry, New Delhi Delhi University.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 5.5.2015 was filed by Prof. (Dr.) A.K. Bakshi, Professor of Chemistry, University of Delhi against Mr. Akshaya Mukul, Reporter, The Times of India alleging irresponsible and malicious reporting concerning him under the caption “DU professor held in Mauritius” in its issue dated 6.3.2015.

It was alleged in the news item that India faced a major embarrassment due to the complainant who was Director of Mauritius Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) till February end was arrested on Plaisance airport while leaving for India. It was reported in the news item that TEC has said a case of “arrest on departure” was lodged against the complainant. The immediate reason for his arrest is that he attended office for three days even after the Mauritian Parliament was informed that his contract has not been renewed. Further, it was also reported in the impugned news item that he had allegedly got some documents destroyed as well as scanned few sensitive ones. According to the news items investigations are on against him for not adhering to two decisions of the TEC Board and also illegally withdrawing accreditation of one institute. It was also alleged that the complainant helped illegal Indian Institutions to run their campus in Mauritius.

The complainant submitted that he was detained at the airport for questioning. No case of arrest on departure was ever lodged against him. In support of his clarification he annexed a letter of the Indian High Commission of Mauritius addressed to the Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi. The complainant also submitted he was detained at airport as Central Criminal Investigation Division of Mauritius wished to question him with respect to a complaint filed by the Director of the Executive Business and Computational Institute. He further submitted that during his detention, no investigation agency or the Mauritius Ministry of Education and Human Resources has ever approached him with any allegation regarding destroying documents or scanning of sensitive documents.

The complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent editor, the Times of India vide letter dated 14.4.2015 but did not receive any response. On 25.4.2015, the respondent newspaper published a version in Delhi edition of the Times of India to be complainant’s version as if the same is on behalf of the complainant. No apology or clarification to satisfy the complainant was published by the respondent editor.

A Notice for Comments letter dated 5.6.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper, The Times of India.

Written Statement In response, the respondent vide letter dated 7.7.2015 submitted that the news item was published without any mal-intention or malice. It is pointed out that the complainant had not denied that he was detained, but his only grievance was that he was not held. Keeping in mind the journalistic ethics, immediately upon becoming aware of the factual position underpinning the News, the paper published a clarification dated 23.4.2015 in the Times of India, Delhi which was reiterated further by an online version under the same title dated 10.6.2015

The respondent denied the allegation that the news was irresponsibly and maliciously published to malign the complainant and his bona fide intent was also corroborated by publication of two clarifications repeated through print media.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide his letter dated 10.8.2015 stated that the comments of the respondent are unsatisfactory. The respondent editor had not been able to provide any evidence whatsoever or give details of his sources as demanded by him in support of what Mr. Akshaya Mukul reported about him. The complainant stated that the actual fact is that after publishing the totally false and baseless news on 6.3.2015, the Times of India perhaps did not know or did not try to know anything about further development. The complainant further stated that the report of the respondent conveniently ignored most of the points mentioned by him in his complaint. He also stated that the editor has accepted that they were not aware of the factual position before publication of the news item as they had mentioned in their comments. The complainant also stated that the news item was published with the sole intention to defame him. He requested the Council to direct the paper to express an unconditional apology through the medium of a report in The Times of India displayed prominently.

A Show Cause Notice dated 28.8.2015 was issued to The Times of India followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 14.1.2016.

Reply of Times of India

In response to Council’s Show Cause Notice, the respondent Editor, The Times of India New Delhi vide his letter dated 21.1.2016 filed a copy of written statement reiterating what was submitted earlier in the comments..

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. Prof. (Dr.) A.K. Bakshi, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The complainant is aggrieved by the publication of the news item in an issue dated 6.3.2015 in the Delhi edition of Times of India where his detention has been characterised as arrest. The headline of the news item states that a “Delhi University professor held in Mauritius after the expiry of contract”. According to the news after expiry of the contract the complainant was arrested from the Airport while leaving for India. It has been further stated in the news item that a case of “arrest on departure” was lodged against the complainant. Further, reason for the arrest as mentioned in the news item is that he attended the office for three days even after the Mauritian Parliament was informed that his contract has not been renewed. It has been further alleged in the news item that he got some documents destroyed as well as scanned some few sensitive ones. According to the news item, investigations are on against the complainant for not adhering to the two decisions of the TEC Board and also illegally withdrawing accreditations of one institute. According to the news item, the complainant is alleged to have helped few illegal Indian Institutions to run their campus in Mauritius. The complainant asserts that all these allegations published in the newspaper are false and had given details thereof to the respondent newspaper. The newspaper had carried clarification in respect of the grievance of the complainant about his arrest at the airport and reasons of his arrest, but, his claim that no case of arrest on departure was lodged against him or for that matter any allegation about destruction of documents or scanning sensitive ones have been taken note of by the newspaper. Further, the complainant’s plea that no investigation is going on against him and his denial that he helped few illegal Indian University to run their campus in Mauritius have also not been carried out. It is also the grievance of the complainant that no online clarification was carried out immediately and it happened after 48 days of the clarification made in the print version.

Despite service of notice, the respondent had chosen not to appear but have filed their written statement. The Inquiry Committee has considered the complaint and perused the written statement and all other relevant papers. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that when the complainant made clarification in respect of each and every allegation made against him in the impugned news item supported by the documents, the respondent newspaper ought to have carried out those clarifications. The imputation made in the news item is of very serious nature and may have bearing on the future prospects of the complainant.

In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee considered these lapses on part of the respondent newspaper to be serious in nature and recommends for its Censure.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Censure the respondent newspaper, ‘Times of India’, New Delhi. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP, RNI and Government of NCT of Delhi for necessary action as they deem fit.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No.8 File No.14/542/14-15-PCI

Shri Mohd. Nasir Kamal, The Editor, Convenor, District Football Association, Moradabad, Dainik Jagran, U.P. Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 24.8.2014 was filed by Mohd. Nasir Kamal, Hony. Convenor, District Football Association, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Moradabad for publishing misleading and false impugned news relating to Football Association without any evidence, captioned as “Char Saal se Football ka bedagark” in its issue dated 15.8.2014.

The complainant submitted that Shri Ahsaan Elahi was mentioned as Secretary of District Football Association in impugned news item. According to the him, Football Association had suspended Shri Elahi in November, 2013 and consequently RSO Moradabad had charged penalty of playground fee from him which deposited by Shri Elahi. He further submitted that the impugned news item hurts the sentiments of the players from Moradabad.

The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor in this regard and questioned on depicting Shri Elahi as Secretary of the Football Association in impugned news and asked him to publish corrigendum. No response was received from the respondent.

No Written Statement

A Notice for Comments dated 8.10.2015 was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Uttar Pradesh followed by a reminder dated 28.9.2015 but received no written statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all other connected papers, and finds no substance in the complaint.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 9 File No.14/392/15-16-PCI Shri Mohd. Ayub, The Editor, Ajad Nagar, Haridwar, Dainik Jagran, Roorkee Dehradun, Uttrakhand

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016 This complaint dated 26.7.2015 was filed Shri Mohd. Ayub, Roorkee, Haridwar against Dainik Jagran for publication of false and one sided news item captioned “Makan Vivad mein chale lathi dande – Ghatna ke parinam mein mahila sahit aath log gayal” in its issue dated 25.7.2015. In the impugned news item it was reported that there was a family dispute between relatives in Azad Nagar area for a house property. People of one party attacked the other party with sticks due to which eight family members, including a woman, got injured and admitted in the civil hospital. It was further reported in the news item that in Azad Nagar there is a house adjacent to Zameel’s shop which was given to one of his relative by his father. After the death of Zameel’s father, the other party, by forging the property papers, claimed the ownership on that house. This had been the reason of dispute between them. The complainant submitted that the newspaper had published a misleading news item without due verification before publishing the news item which is very unfair. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran vide his letter dated 25.7.2015 but receive no response.

No Written Statement: A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 21.1.2016 but no written statement was filed despite Time Bound Reminder dated 24.2.2016.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice while Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the respondent and also perused the complaint and other connected papers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper should publish the version of the complainant also. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid directions. Shri B.K. Mishra, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, states that the clarification so published shall be sent to the office of the Council within six weeks.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid directions.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 10 F.No.14/108/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Amrit India” for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Amrit India” for publishing news item captioned “मोती नगर �वस: बसापा प्रत्या शी दे र हे क टक्क” in its issue dated 25.11.2013 and the Cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates was accounted at Rs. 17,017/-.

It was stated in the impugned news item that since the BSP candidate, Shri Avinash Gupta from Moti Nagar is initially a resident of Purvanchal and there is a huge vote bank from Purvanchal area in Moti Nagar, Shri Avinash Gupta is being giving a tough fight to his opponent.

No Written Statement A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Amrit India, New Delhi on 19.6.2014 but the same was received back undelivered with remarks “No Such Person”. Thereafter, a letter dated 15.7.2014 was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, South Area, MB Road, Saket, Delhi with a request to serve the Show Cause Notice on the respondent and intimate the Council but received no response.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing on March 11-12, 2015 the paid news references by the ECI at Tirupati observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received inspite of reminder dated 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility falls upon MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 11 F.No.14/111/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Inquilab” for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Inquilab”, Newspaper for publishing news items captioned:

Sl. No. Caption Dated Cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates that was accounted as 1. “सबको साथ लेकर चल�गे हाज़ी सलीम सैफ� 23.11.2013 1682.73 का अज़म (इरादा)”, 2. “बसपा जनता के ददर सममनी वाली पाटट� – 24.11.2013 2008.23 हाजी सलीम सैफ�”, 3. “�मज़ार जावीश अली ह� अवामी राबीता 22.11.2013 2110.60 (जनसमपहर) मे म (अ�अरान) सी जनता मी जोश व खरोश (हष� - उल्लास” 4. �म�टया महल मे इस मरतबा तबद�ली क� 23.11.2013 2645.39 लहर- (�मज़ार् जावेद� 5. �सेवक बनकर हर समय जनता क� सेवा 24.11.2013 2747.13 करता रहुंगा – (�मज़ार् जावेद�

The Hindi translation of the impugned news items has been furnished by the ECI and it has been reported therein that Hazi Mohd. Saleem Saifi during his election rally has stated that BSP is the only party who has provided the rights of Muslims and make him winner so that development could take place in the Nangloi Jaat Vidhan Sabha Area.

(The original impugned clippings furnished by the ECI are unreadable)

No Written Statement

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Inquilab, Mumbai on 24.6.2014 followed reminder but no written statement was filed.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing on March 11-12, 2015 the paid news references by the ECI at Tirupati observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder dated 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which are alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility falls on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the translated version of news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 12 F.No.14/103/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Sidhi Khabar” for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Sidhi Khabar” for publishing news items captioned “के के वधवा हो इंंद्रप ्वम अ ऐव सोसाय�टयो से पूणर समथर्” and “कृ ष्णा तीरथ ने �कया कांग्रेस प्रत्य ाशी के. के. वध्वा के क का उ�ाटन” in its issues dated 24.11.2013 and the Cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates was accounted at Rs. 1,320 and Rs. 1,785, respectively.

(The copy of the news clipping furnished by the ECI is not legible.)

No Written Statement

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Sidhi Khabar, New Delhi on 26.6.2014 but the same was received back undelivered with remarks “Left Without Address”. Thereafter, a letter dated 15.7.2014 was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, District North-West, Kanjhwala, Delhi with a request to serve the Show Cause Notice on the respondent and intimate the Council but received no response.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing on March 11-12, 2015 the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received in this case inspite of reminder dated 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility falls on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

In the absence of the legible news item, the Inquiry Committee has no option than to peruse other relevant records to adjudicate upon the allegation of paid news. On doing so, the Inquiry Committee finds it difficult to uphold the allegation.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 13 File No.14/922/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Dainik Rajasthan Statement for publication of an alleged “Paid News”during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Dainik Rajasthan Statement” for publishing following two news items.

S.No. New Item Dated Amount 1 Dr. Rajkumar Sharma Ki jansabhaon mein umra 4.4.2014 Rs. 6399/- jansailaab 2 Dr. Rajkumar Sharma ka Udaipurvati, Jhunjhunu 10.4.2014 Rs.5318.28 Vidhansabha Kshetra mein jansampark

It was reported in the first news item that Independent candidate, Dr. Rajkumar Sharma visited 66 villages of Fatehpur assembly constituency where he was welcomed by locals. He said that his priority is to undertake development work for 36 communities of the area. It was further stated in the news item that he understands the pain of people and feels it and would not disappoint them. It was reported in the second news item that Dr. Rajkumar Sharma also visited their Udaipurvati and Jhunjhun Vidhansabha Shetra and met the locals According to him general public is his star campaign and public has already decided to elect and send him to Delhi as a people’s representative to save the country.

A Show cause notice was issued to Editor, Rajasthan Statement, Jaipur on 10.4.2015.

Written Statement In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 10.4.2015. The respondent editor, Rajasthan Statement vide his letter dated 20.4.2015 denied the allegations of paid news. The respondent submitted that being a responsible newspaper and published only factual news without any favour. The respondent submitted that they never indulge in paid news practice and only publish routine news item.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who pariticipated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv)English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response in this case inspite of several reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is falls on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 14 F.No.14/897/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Janvani” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to the Lok Sabha-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 has forwarded references of Paid News (in case of print media only) reported during General Elections-2014 in Uttar Pradesh which were sent by the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for further necessary action. The Assistant Electoral Officer, Bijnore vide letter dated 16.12.2014 forwarded alleged paid news items of published in “Dainik Janvani” as per details below:

S.No. News Item/Advertisement Dated Amount 1 आर�ण से युवाओं को �मलेगा लाभ 31.3.2014 Rs.6,039.23 2 जयाप्र न े �वकास के नाम पर वोट मांग� 1.4.2014 Rs.16,040.16

It was reported in the first impugned news item that during various public meetings in Bijnor, the joint candidate of R.L.D. and Congress, Ms. Jayaprada while welcoming the reservation facility to the Jats as declared by the UPA Government has stated that the future generation will get the huge benefit of the reservation facility. During a road-show in Kinnoni village, the large numbers of ladies declared their support to Ms. Jayaprada. Shamli MLA, Shri Pankaj Malik also campaigned for Ms. Jayaprada. On this occasion, many eminent political personalities were presented.

In the second impugned news item it was reported that Bijnor Loksabha candidate, Ms. Jayaprada is seeking votes in the name of development and had also promised that she will fight for their rights. Swami Omvesh and former MP Shri Munshiram Pal welcomed Ms. Jayaprada in Rashtriya Lok Dal and assured victory for her. It was further reported that during her election campaigning in several villages in Bijnore, Ms. Jayaprada was greeted by the villagers and huge crowd of ladies and youths assured her their support.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Janvani on 15.4.2015.

Written Statement

The Editor, Dainik Janvani vide his written statement dated 12.5.2015 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that the news items were based on the statements given by the candidate and they have published the statement in toto. The respondent further submitted that they have not received any kind of cash and other favour from any of the candidate for publishing such news. The respondent also submitted that they are well aware of paid news and they just reported the news and had not appealed the voters to cast their vote in favour of Ms. Jayaprada. He has requested the Council to exonerate him from the allegation of publishing paid news.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response in this case inspite of several reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the Election Commission of India while Shri Anand Agnihotri, Editor appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 15 File No.14/874/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin for publication of alleged “Paid News”during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded the suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Muzaffarnagar Bulletin” for publishing a series of news items as detailed herein below:

S.No. News Item Dated 1 57 saal baad itihas rachenge 1,42,000 vaishya matdata 26.3.2014 2 Ravidas Samta Party Zila Karyakarini Congress mein shamil 28.3.2014 3 Sabhi wargon ko saath lekar chaulunga: Pankaj 29.3.2014 4 Sampradaiyak evam Jativadi dalo ka safaya karne me congress 6.4.2014 hi Saksham: Pankaj Aggarwal

It was reported in the first news item that Former President, Press Merchant Association, Shri Jai Prakash Bansal said that this is the first time in last 57 years when we would elect an honest and educated candidate, Shri Prakash Agarwal, Congress candidate.

In the second news item it was stated that Congress is getting stronger after merger of Ravidas Samta Party with it. In a Muslim dominated area Shri Pankaj Agarwal undertook stormy campaign.

In the third news item it was reported that Shri Pankaj Agarwal stated that he will take care of interest of people of all category.

In the fourth news item it was reported that Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Congress Candidate said that only congress party is capable to end the communalism.

A Show cause notice was issued to Editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin on 19.3.2015

Written Statement

The respondent editor, Muzaffarnagar Bulletin vide his written statement dated 6.4.2015 stated that the impugned news item were published in routine nature and it was wrong to allege that these were paid news items because Election Commission had not mentioned any amount against his newspaper. Thus, it was clear that these were not paid news.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that t ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response in this case inspite of several reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the Election Commission of India while Shri Uttam Chandra Sharma appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is falls on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 16 File No.14/903/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Dainik Shram Bindu for publication of an alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Dainik Shram Bindu” for publishing a news item captioned ‘Desh Mahangai, Ghotala, Bhrashtachar ki bhent chadh gaya hai: Rakesh’ dated 31.3.2014

It was reported in the news item that in a meeting of BJP at Thakur Chaura party workers pledged to campaign for their candidate, Smt. Saroj Pandey to make her win from Durg. The candidate, Saroj Pandey from BJP will serve the country and will undertake development work of the area. A Show cause notice was issued to the Editor, Shram Bindhu on 15.4.2015.

Written Statement In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 15.4.2015, the respondent editor, Dainik Shram Bindhu vide his letter dated 15.6.2015 denied the allegations of paid news. The respondent submitted that the news item published in the newspaper was based on the press release issued by Shri Rakesh Pandey and they published the same. The news was published for general public and not for a candidate. The respondent also submitted that there was no ill-will with regard to publication of the said news item. The said news item was also published in an evening newspaper, a day before.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received inspite of several reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the Election Commission of India while Shri Sarbeswar appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 17 File No.14/885/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Amar Ujala for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper Ämar Ujala” for publishing news item captioned "SP Pratyashi ne sarkar ki uplabdhiyan genai” in its issue dated 2.4.2014 in favour of S.P. candidate during General Elections 2014. A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut on 10.4.2015

Written Statement In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 10.4.2015, the respondent vide his written statement dated 30.7.2015 submitted that they are responsible newspaper and never believes in yellow journalism. The impugned news item was published in routine course on 2.4.2014. He also stated that it was wrong to allege that it was a paid news item because they had not received any kind of money, gift or favour from anyone. The Amar Ujala carried the impugned news item in fullest sense of responsibility and without being biased or to provide any advantage to anyone in the general election.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received in this case inspite of severe reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the Election Commission of India while Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary, Assistant Manager along with Shri P.R. Rajhans, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. In the absence of the readable news item, the Inquiry Committee has no option than to peruse other relevant records to adjudicate upon the allegation of paid news. On doing so, the Inquiry Committee finds it difficult to uphold the allegation. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 18 F.No.14/899/14 -15 -PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Bijnor Times” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to the Lok Sabha-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded references of Paid News reported during General Elections-2014 in Uttar Pradesh which were sent by the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for further necessary action. The Assistant Electoral Officer, Bijnore vide letter dated 16.12.2014 forwarded news items of paid news published in the local newspaper i.e. “Bijnor Times as per details below:

S.No. News Item/Advertisement Dated Amount 1 मौलाना तौ�कर रजा ने बसपा को समथर्न �दय 28.3.2014 Rs.3,093.12 2 जमीयतलु कु रैश ने �कया जयाप्रदा का समथ 2.4.2014 Rs.5,730.66

It was reported in the first news item that the President of All India Ittehade Millat Council, Moulana Toqir Raza Khan has declared their support to Bahujan Samaj Party and the party has whole heartedly welcomed the decision of Molana and expressed their happiness by distributing sweets. It was further reported that the victory of the BSP candidate, Maluk Nagar from Bijnor Lok Sabha constituency is definite due to this decision of Moulana, It was reported in the impugned news item dated 2.4.2016 that the General Secretary of All India Jamiyatl Quresh, Khalik Qureshi supported Congress candidate, Jayaprada from Bijnor Lok Sabha constituency. It was further reported that Swami Omvesh also started campaigning in favour of Jayaprada.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Bijnor Times, Bijnor on 10.4.2015. Written Statement The Editor, Bijnor Times vide his written statement dated 7.5.2015 while denying the allegations of paid news submitted that the news items were based on the statement and press conference of eminent persons of Muslim community. According to the respondent, whatever had been published in the impugned news items are infact statements quoted by various persons which were very common during the elections and the same have been published in a routine manner. He further submitted that in fact that the paper is not aware of constitution of MCMC in the region and the MCMC has never gave him any opportunity to put forth his statement/version which is totally unethical and illegal. The respondent also submitted that the inclusion of their paper name in the list of paid news has lowered their reputation.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received in this case inspite of several reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the Election Commission of India while Shri Suryamani Raghuvanshi represented the respondent. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 19 File No.14/852/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against the Editor, Jhansi Vaarta Weekly for publication of a series of an alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Jhansi Vaarta Weekly” for publishing following news item:

S.No. News Item Dated Amount 1 Bhajpa ko mitane ki kasam poree karne Jhansi 8-15 April aai Uma 2014 2 Vikas ke bina Bundelkhand mein berojgari -do- door karne ke baat bemani 3 Kanto bhari raah hai Dr. Chandrapal ke liye -do- Rs.4,623/- for all three news items

It was reported in the first news item that BJP candidate, Ms. Uma Bharti had jumped into election fray. She neither learnt from her past nor had learnt from her present and she wants to achieve bright future but she should know it very well that our writings would also work so as to take off dust from the mirror. Voters will themselves assess everything. In the second news item it was reported that Shri Pradeep Jain Aditya, Congress candidate said that without overall development of the Bundelkhand area, erasing unemployment is not possible. It was further reported that BJP, BSP and S.P. make false promises during election time. In the third news item it was reported that Dr. Chandrapal Singh who was given Samajwadi Party (S.P) ticket to contest General Election of Lok Sabha had a tough road ahead.

A Show cause notice was issued to Editor, Jhansi Varta on 19.3.2015

Written Statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 19.3.2015, the respondent editor, Jhansi Vaarta vide his letter dated 29.3.2015 submitted his written statement stating that being a responsible newspaper, it only published factual news. The respondent further submitted that they had not received any kind of cash and other favour from any of the candidate for publishing such news as the same was in public interest and not in favour of any candidate.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that it ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received in this case inspite of several reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint. Press Council of India

Sl. No. 20 F.No.14/886/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Rashtriya Swaroop” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during General Elections, 2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 has forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by the District Election Officer, Orai (U.P.) against the newspaper “Rashtriya Swaroop” for allegedly publishing paid news captioned “बसपा चलती है सभी धमर और जा�तय� को साथ लेकर- अंसार� यूसफु ” in its issue dated 13.4.2014 . As per impugned news item, Shri Yusuf Ansari, District Vice-President, Bahujan Samaj Party during a public meeting said that the Ansari community and other Muslim communities would support the BSP candidate, Shri Brijlal Khabari for his definite victory in the name of BSP Supremo, Mayawati.

The list forwarded by the ECI detailing name of newspapers and impugned news (Format-2 Annexure) attached with the Paid News references did not mention the name of this newspaper in question.

No Written Statement

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Rashtriya Swaroop, Lucknow on 19.3.2015 but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authorities without any remarks.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received in this case inspite of reminder dated 6.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 21 F.No.14/733/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Suryaprabha” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Odisha General Elections to the Lok Sabha-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Rashtriya Swaroop” for allegedly publishing paid news captioned “Arun for a hattrick” in its issue dated 1.4.2014 during Odisha General Elections to the Lok Sabha-2014 in favour of BJP candidate, Shri Arun Kumar Sahoo . It was reported in the news item that all eyes are on Nayagarh Assembly segment where an MLA, who had won for two consecutive terms and also a Minister is trying for a third consecutive win. Word is the air that he has managed to remove all hurdles from his victory path. It was further reported that the fight will be between Arun Sahoo and lala Manoj Roy in this election. With vast network behind him and nurturing this constituency for so long, Arun Sahoo has an edge, political analysts say.

No Written Statement

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Suryaprabha, Cuttack (Odisha) on 3.2.2015 but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “No such address as A-29, Ruchika Market, Baramunda”.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response in this case inspite of several reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the English translation of the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 22 F.No.14/718/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Janvani” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Odisha General Elections to the Lok Sabha-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Janvani” for allegedly publishing news item captioned “First woman candidate in Balliguda assembly elections” in its issue dated 29.3.2014 during Odisha General Elections to the Lok Sabha-2014 to favour Independent candidate, Ms. Minati Mallick. It was reported in the impugned news item that in the General Elections-2014, a woman named Minati Mallick had come forward to contest the election as an independent candidate to uphold the dignity of women. It was further reported that while the number of voters in Balliguda constituency is 1,37,163, the number of female voters is more than that of male voters. She says, she is contesting as a candidate for the dignity of women and she appeals to the women organizations, voluntary organizations, mother and sisters to support her.

No Written Statement

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Janvani on 30.1.2015 but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “addressee left”. Therefore, District Collector, Khordha was requested vide Council’s letter dated 17.6.2015 to deliver the show-cause notice to the respondent-editor through his process serving agency but no response was received.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received in this case inspite of reminder dated 6.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India giving a list of newspapers which were alleged to have published paid news. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the English translation of the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 23 F.No.14/183/15-16-PCI

Shri Amrik Singh, The Editor, Major General, The Indian Express, Director General Resettlement, New Delhi Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 3.7.2015 was filed by Shri Amrik Singh, Major General, Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Department of ESM Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi against the editor, the Indian Express, New Delhi for publication of malafide news articles under the caption “FIR against Government clerk, scam may run in crores” in its issue dated 6.5.2015 and “Army to probe irregularities in Ex-servicemen Resettlement” in paper’s issue dated 4.6.2015 respectively.

It was reported in the first news article that an FIR was filed by the Directorate General of Resettlement(DGR), Ministry of Defence against a clerk on May 1, 2015 at R.K. Puram Police Station blaming for embezzlement worth Rs. 88,000/-, but the irregularities within the department could be to the tune of crores, indicate documents. The respondent paper reported that according to the FIR, the clerk made irregularities by violating the procedures laid down by the Government for allotment of surplus vehicles scheme and deposits worth Rs.2.56 crore have gone missing from the DGR accounts between three years i.e. 2009-2011. It was further reported that selling of military vehicles is a sensitive matter and individual buyers have to file an affidavit before the DGR that the vehicle would not be used for anti-national activities. The news items pointed out serious lapses in the procedures followed by the DGR which were mentioned in the FIR pertaining to alleged nexus between agents, who issued false cheques for the refundable deposits and officials who never deposited those cheques in the bank.

In the second news it was reported that the Army has ordered a Court of Inquiry (CoI) into the alleged wrongdoings by the Directorate General of Resettlement(DGR)-the department tasked with ensuring post retirement employment to services personnel. It was also reported in the article that when approached for comments, Army authorities said that DGR functions directly under the MoD and not under the Army.

Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the Ministry of Defence has taken strong objection to the content and intent of such articles which are neither grounded on facts nor the contents had been verified from any officials source. The complainant also submitted that such news articles sensationalise the matter which had not been validated or confirmed, thereby tarnishing the image of the organization which is committed to the betterment of ESM fraternity. The complainant submitted that an e- mail dated 26.5.2015 and letter dated 29.6.2015 was sent to the editor bringing out the objections of the organization regarding the matter published on 6.5.2015 and 4.6.2015 and requested them to take some remedial action, but received no reply.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent, The Indian Express on 7.8.2015 which was followed by Time Bound Reminder dated 20.1.2016.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 7.8.2015 and subsequent reminder dated 20.1.2016, the respondent editor in his written statement filed on 22.3.2016 submitted that the two impugned news reports were carried in good faith, and public interest, based on information and or documents received from reliable sources, believing the same to be true and correct, after due verification and without malice towards the complainant or anyone else. The respondent further submitted that the allegations of the complainant that the impugned news reports were not verified before publishing, is totally incorrect as prior to publication of the news reports, PRO, Army Headquarters, New Delhi had been contacted for comments vide an e-mail dated 8.4.2015. The complainant submitted that there is no merit in the complaint other than to gag the press and media and to cover up the investigation and no norms of journalistic ethics have been violated.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 8.6.2016 stated that the written statement submitted by the respondent editor was based on procedural technicalities rather than on merits. He further stated that the instant complaint was filed for publication of objectionable contents and not against non-publication of any news article which should have been published. Hence, the contention of the respondent that the complainant had not furnished the original or self-attested copy of the matter, non- publication of which is complained of, was irrelevant and untenable. He submitted that the matter was not sub-judice at the time of filing the instant complaint and the preliminary inquiry by CBI, as referred by the respondent, was not related to the instant complaint in any manner and further, if the matter is under investigation by the CBI, it is not considered as sub-judice. He alleged that the impugned news items lack credibility as they had not been verified from the official sources.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Col. K.S. Kalsi, DIR (SE)-DGR, Smt. Neena Mishra, SUB DTE, DGR and Shri EP Rao, Legal DTE, DGR appeared for the complainant. Shri Kunal Anand, Advocate and Shri Rajeev Agarwal, Sr. Executive appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and is of the opinion that by publishing the said news, the respondent newspaper in fact has served a cause of justice. The grievance of the complainant is that suggestion made in the news item that an amount of Rs. 2.38 crores remained unaccounted, is not correct. In fact, this has been deposited in the fixed deposit. The respondent newspaper was never informed of this fact and in the face of it, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that while carrying out the impugned news, it has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 24 F.No.14/386/15-16

Shri Prem Kumar Singh, The Editor, Delhi. Times of India, New Delhi

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 3.9.2015 was filed by Shri Prem Kumar Singh, Delhi against the editor, The Times of India, New Delhi for publication of defamatory words against Shri Asharam Bapu in its issue dated 3.8.2015 under the caption “Rapist Asaram a Saint in Raj textbook”.

It was reported in the impugned news item that rape accused, preacher, Asaram features in a chapter on saints in a Class III textbook in the district, sharing space with Vivekananda, Mother Teresa and Ramakrishna Paramhans. It was also reported in the impugned news item that the book supplied by a Delhi based Publisher, Gurukul Education Books and a representative of the publishing house said when the book was published there was no case against Asaram and we were withdrawing the books from the market and were preparing a new edition of the book sans Asaram. The complainant submitted that the news was totally baseless, misleading and based on distorted facts and the respondent cannot publish anything which was manifestly defamatory or libellous against any individual/organization. The complainant also submitted that the impugned publication of news item is manifestly injurious to the reputation of Shri Asaram Bapu who was worshipped by him. The complainant vide letter dated 7.8.2015 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication with a request to publish an apology but paper neither published any apology nor replied to the letter.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India on 23.11.2015.

Written Statement

The respondent vide written statement dated 7.12.2015 strictly and specifically refuted the contents of various paragraphs of complaint and submitted that they had not violated in any manner, any norms of journalistic conduct, ethics, or any other norms prescribed by the Press Council of India. The respondent submitted that the news/article was based on Press Trust of India release and PTI is one of the leading news agencies of India and its releases were often used by the leading newspapers/publications of the country. The publication of the word “Rapist” in heading was an unintentional bona fide error and when it was brought to the knowledge of the editor, immediately a clarification with regret and apology was carried in newspaper dated 5.8.2015 and denied that they carried the news irresponsibly and maliciously and news was carried without any ill will or malice towards anyone.

Counter comments

The complainant vide his counter comments dated 27.2.2016 stated that this was a serious and intentional work done to malign and humiliate a person whose trial is still going on. He expressed doubt that any kind of apology was published in the newspaper on the date alleged or any other date. Counter comments of the respondent

The respondent in response to the complainant’s counter comments reiterates the stand taken earlier in the written statement. He submitted that it was his prerogative to decide the position and size of the news/article or any matter which was to be published in the newspaper. The respondent also submitted that the counter comments were wrong, false, incorrect, baseless and frivolous in entirely on account of their presumptuous nature.

Respondent’s Response

The respondent, in response to the complainant’s counter comments, reiterates his earlier written statement. He submitted that it was his prerogative to decide the position and size of the news/article or any matter which was to be published in the newspaper. The respondent also submitted that the counter comments were wrong, false, incorrect, baseless and frivolous in entirety on account of their presumptuous nature.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee has considered the complaint and have perused the entire records and is of the opinion that the respondent while publishing the impugned news item has not committed breach of any journalistic conduct. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 25 F.No.14/567/15-16-PCI

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh The Editor, through The Hindu, Shri Gopal Arya, (Vijaywada edition) Kendriya Karyalaya Sachiv, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Delhi Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 3.2.2016 was filed by Shri Gopal Arya, Kendriya Karyalaya Sachiv on behalf of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Delhi against the editor, The Hindu, Vijayawada Edition for publication of an objectionable, misleading and false news article in its issue dated 10.11.2015 captioned “BJP RSS to celebrate Godse death anniversary”. It was reported in the impugned news item that the Bhartiya Janta Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh were going to celebrate the death anniversary of Nathuram Godse on a grand note and by doing so they were sending a clear message that they had no regrets for what Godse, a staunch activist of RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, did in furtherance of the RSS’ communal agenda.

According to the complainant, the caption and the news item was full of factual inaccuracies which defames him and was published without pre-publication verification. He further submitted that the title of the news item was sensational, baseless and misleading assertion which was attempted to pass of as a fact and the statement was manifestly defamatory as it casts unjustified aspersions on his character and portrays him in bad light in a newspaper which is widely read and hence had definitely lower at his reputation in the eyes of the public. The statement that the RSS was going to celebrate the death anniversary of Nathuram Godse was entirely false as the RSS had neither announced any celebration of the death anniversary nor has organized any such event and had no intention to do this. The complainant vide letter dated 25.12.2015 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication and requested him to issue a proper and necessary corrigendum on the front page and on the website with unconditional apology for defaming him but in vain.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Hindu on 3.3.2016.

Written Statement

The respondent vide his written statement dated 17.3.2016 submitted that the report was prepared by staff reporter based in Vijayawada and published as a box item along with a detailed report that dealt with statement made by Ms. Smita Pansare. The respondent submitted that their newspaper never involves itself or takes sides in reporting the facts. The statement made by Ms. Pansare whose father was shot dead in Maharashtra last year allegedly by right wing forces was considered to be a development that holds public interest and their newspaper published the report as part of its responsibility to report such views. The report was published without any malafide and did not constitute any falsehood or inaccuracy or represent any attempt to defame, run down or malign any person or group that was referred to. The respondent further submitted that as soon as the editor received feedback on the report published, the matter was referred to the Readers’ Editor of the Newspaper who promptly in the issue of Novermber14, 2015 published the followed clarification: “In the report headlined ‘BJP, RSS to celebrate Godse death anniversary’, that appeared on the Nation page on November 10, the intro gave the misleading impression that the BJP and the RSS had made a statement to that effect. It was a remark attributed to Smita Pansare, and the subsequent sentence made it clear that it was her view”

The respondent submitted that the complainant failed to submit this fact before the Council and it was also puzzling that the complainant had not chosen to make any reference with regard to Ms. Pansare in the complaint, whose statement made at an open meeting with media persons. The respondent also submitted that there was a history of the RSS levelling charges of defamation against media organisations including their newspapers. The respondent urged the Council to dismiss the complaint and advise the RSS and its functionaries to show better intellect and historical understanding and respect and tolerance, and desist hereafter from such tendentious and vexatious proceedings over questions of fact that could be open to different interpretations and views.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his response dated 12.5.2016 stated that the respondent newspaper had violated Clause 21(c) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct. He alleged that the title of the news item was misleading. It gave a misleading impression that BJP and RSS had made a statement to that effect. He submitted that it is a common knowledge that many readers glance through the headlines, form an opinion on its basis and do not read all the fine-prints of a newspaper. Therefore, the subsequent sentence referred in the clarification does not remedy the wrong. He further submitted that The Hindu in its reply omitted to answer as to why it did not check with RSS or BJP if the bizarre allegation of Ms. Pansare was true. He alleged that The Hindu report was published without seeking the response of RSS and BJP.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Amit Kr. Singh and Shri Alok Kumar, Advocates appeared for the complainant. Shri Ramanujam, Regional General Manager, New Delhi appeared for the respondent. After the Inquiry Committee had heard the matter for sometime, the Counsel for the complainant states that the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janta Party will send letter projecting few points on the impugned news item. He states that the RSS and BJP have great respect for Mahatma Gandhi and they had never decided to celebrate Godse death anniversary. The representative of the respondent states that if such a letter is sent, they will publish the same subject to necessary editing. In view of the aforesaid undertaking between the parties, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and recommends for the disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 26 F.No.14/654/14-15-PCI

Shri Himanshu Tiwari, The Editor, Advocate, Pardaphash Today, Lucknow. Lucknow.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

The Member Secretary, U.P. State Women Commission forwarded a complaint of Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Advocate against the editor, Pardaphash Today, Lucknow for publication of a news story captioned – यूपी का �नभ्यार कांड,“बड़े गहरे ह� राज़ !” in its August, 2014 issue. The complainant submitted that the respondent magazine published the name and nude photographs of the gangrape victim which was not only offensive but also against the ethics of the print media.

No Written Statement

Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Pardaphash Today on 23.7.2015 followed by reminder dated 19.10.2015, but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared.

The Inquiry Committee has considered the complaint and the connected papers and is of the opinion that the name of the victim has not been given in the news item. Further, in the photograph the identity of the victim has not been disclosed or could be established.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 27 File No.14/383/15-16-PCI

Shri Pashupati Nath Gupt, The Editor, District President, Voice of Lucknow,, Akhil Bhartiya Udyog Vyapar Mandal, Lucknow, U.P. Mahrajganj

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 22.12.2015 was filed by Shri Pashupati Nath Gupt, District President, Akhil Bhartiya Udyog Vyapar Mandal, Mahrajganj, Uttar Pradesh against the Editor, Voice of Lucknow, Lucknow, U.P. alleging publication of following defamatory news items against him.

S.No. News Item Dated 1 Soodkhoron ka kala karnama darj karaya farzi mukadama 25.5.2015 2 Police ne Aap Neta ke khilaf darj ki prathmiki 31.7.2015 3 Vifal raha band, khuli rahi dookanein 12.8.2015

The first impugned news item mentioned the name of complainant who alleged to have connived with the Usurer and helped them by getting cross complaint against the victim in association with Police Superintendent, Mahrajganj. It was reported in the second news item that Shri Pashupati Nath Gupt, resident of Rajiv Nagar, Janpad District Convenor of Aam Aadmi Party and District President, Akhil Bhartiya Udyog Vyapar Mandal Mahrajganj was not happy with the prevailing law and order situation in the Janpad and he wanted to take law in his hands. The other day, police during the checking questioned a merchant and on being informed, Shri Pasupatinath reached on the spot and began persuading the police officials but when he failed in his attempt, he got infuriated. Sadar Kotwali filed a case against him. In the third news item dated 12.8.2015, it was reported that despite protest and a call of Bandh in support of Shri Pashupati Nath Gupt who was sent to jail for disrupting the work of police official on duty, all shops remained open. The complainant denied the allegations levelled in the impugned news items and stated that the respondent paper indulges in blackmailing and its district correspondent, Shri Mohit Tibrewal, published false and baseless news. The complainant vide letter dated 24.9.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editor, Voice of Lucknow, Lucknow towards the impugned news item and requested him to publish clarification but received no response. A Show Cause Notice dated 10.2.2016 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Voice of Lucknow, Lucknow.

Written Statement The respondent editor vide his written statement dated 23.2.2016 submitted that the complainant misguided the Council by stating that no reply was sent by him to the complainant whereas as a matter of fact, a reply dated 28.10.2015 was sent by his (respondents) counsel to him. According to police record, Shri Pashupati Nath Gupt is a criminal and many cases are pending against him. The respondent submitted that the allegations of the complainant were false and the news published in the newspaper was based on the facts. The respondent also pointed out that his correspondent, Shri Mohit Tibrewal had a dispute on ancestral property with his cousin, Shri Anand Tibrewal which is pending for the last 35 years in the court and complainant, Shri Pashupatinath Gupt is a friend of Shri Anand Tibrewal. The complainant had filed a false complaint.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments dated 9.4.2016 stated that the respondent had not sent any reply to him or to his advocate as stated in his written statement. The complainant denied the submission made by the respondent in his written statement dated 23.2.2016 and reiterated he published false, misleading and baseless news item. The complainant also stated that the respondent, Voice of Lucknow published false news in his paper in order to harass people so as to extort money by blackmailing them. The complainant vide his further comments dated 9.6.2016 reiterated his complaint and the allegations levelled on the respondent. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person. The respondent is represented by Shri Manoj Tibrewal. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper had published various news items against the complainant prompted by animosity between them. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that the personal animosity between the parties should not be reflected in publication of a news item. The respondent has precisely done so. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspaper be Reprimanded.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Reprimand the respondent newspaper, Voice of Lucknow, Lucknow, U.P.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 28 F.No. 14/591/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Major Farah Deeba, The Editor, D/o Late K. Raza, Hindustan, Allahabad, UP Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 26.2.2016 was filed by Major Farah Deeba, Allahabad against the editor, ‘Hindustan’, Uttar Pradesh allegeding publication of misleading and defamatory news under the caption ‘वै�ा�नक ने मेजर प�ी को जमकर धुना’ in its issue dated 7.1.2016.

It was reported in the impugned news that a Major in the Army and wife of Scientist, Meraj Hedar had marital discord which came out in open when both of them allegedly beaten each other. The complainant resides with her parents in Govt. accommodations at Naidu Enclave. Both of them had filed case in the Police Station. The husband was challaned U/S 151. It was further reported that, a Major in Army, Farah Deeba posted at Allahabad has filed a case against her husband Meraj Haider Khan in Colonelganj PS for physical and mental torture inflicted on to her by him. A case of dowry harassment has also been registered by her against her husband which is pending consideration of Court. She accused her husband of abusing and beating her

The complainant submitted that she had marital dispute with her scientist husband and had filed court cases of domestic violence in this regard. On 5.1.2016 her husband misbehaved and beaten her and therefore she had to call police immediately. But the respondent published the news indicating her name and presented the story in such a way as if she was culprit. The news defamed her badly and lowered her image in her department and society and caused her mental agony. When she personally visited Sr. Editor and asked how he can disclose identity of a woman, he passed filthy comments saying that “I would continue to publish like this, you do whatever you want to do””.

The complainant through an advocate served notice on 3.2.2016 for defaming her and demanded apology for the same but the respondent replied that no such news has been published. The complainant added that there was some typographical error in pointing out the impugned news as on 6.1.2016 instead of 7.1.2016 but the respondent denied to accept such impugned news was published by the paper.

Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent, Hindustan on 28.3.2016 but no response was received.

Further letter from the Complainant

The complainant vide her further letter dated 25.5.2016 stated that the respondent after receiving a Show Cause Notice from the Council, sent her a legal notice in which the respondent imputed false and baseless allegations against her that on 7.1.2016 she misbehaved with the guard and chief correspondent in the office of the respondent and threatened them also. She further stated that if the aforementioned allegations were true then why the respondent in his legal notice dated 16.2.2016 has not made any allegations in this regard. She alleged that the respondent harassed her socially and mentally. Written Statement

The respondent in his written statement dated 1.6.2016 denied all the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint and stated that the alleged complaint was baseless and frivolous. He alleged that the complainant intentionally wants to allege the publication of subject news article as defamatory, which was published on the basis of the correct facts and circumstances as well as admittedly due verification of the facts from the complainant and FIR which was lodged by the concerned party. He submitted that the concerned reporter had no intention of harming anybody’s image by publishing the news article. He further submitted that the legal notice sent by the Counsel for the complainant was properly answered vide letter dated 16.2.2016.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person while Shri Balakrishan, Record Keeper represented the respondent, Hindustan.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondent newspaper and has perused the entire records. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the impugned news item is based on the report given by the complainant herself. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that the respondent newspaper by publishing the impugned news has not committed any breach of any journalistic conduct so as to call for any action by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 29-30 F.No.14/815-816/13-14

Ms. Parag Sharma The Editor, Advocate, Dainik Jagran, (on behalf of Shri Yogesh New Delhi. Chandra Sharma) Delhi The Editor, Aaj Samaj, Delhi. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 28.10.203 was filed by Ms. Parag Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Yogesh Chandra Sharma against the editors, Dainik Jagran and Aaj Samaj, Delhi for publication of defamatory and baseless news item under the caption “Poorv vidhayak ki laal batti lagi gaadi ka challan” and “Rangreliyaan manate purvvidhayak giraftaar” with sub-title “swift car mein yuvti sang tha Ballabhgarh ke Yogesh Sharma” in its issue dated 30.8.2013. It was reported in the impugned news item that police challaned the car of a former MLA for putting a beacon light on his car without permission. When the Traffic Police asked the people sitting in the car to produce the permission to use the beacon light, the driver himself removed the bacon light and kept it inside the car but the traffic police in-charge issued a challan. There was a girl also sitting in the car and as the cameras rolled on, the girl got down from the car and disappeared, MLA also tried but could not succeed further reported. It was that former MLA of Ballabhgarh was arrested for being involved in obscene activities with a lady in a beaconed car with its siren blowing. People sitting in the car misbehaved with the media and tried to damage their cameras.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant submitted that the news items were false, malicious, defamatory and concocted and harmed his reputation in the eyes of the family and society. The complainant submitted that he is a well known and reputed person having substantial reputation in the society as a Senior Advocate, Ex-MLA from Haryana State and presently holding the highly responsible post of Ombudsman(Lokpal) of MGNAREGA. The complainant also submitted that no pre-publication verification had been done by the respondents before publishing such defamatory news item. He further submitted that the articles published was a callous disregard to the truth which had been intentionally and deliberately suppressed in the said reports and an attempt had been made to mislead the public by publishing a malicious and defamatory articles. The complainant vide letters dated 10.12.2013 asked the respondents to publish an unconditional apology, but received no response.

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents on 15.3.2016, but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Yogesh Chandra Sharma, complainant along with Shri Pratush Sharma, Advocate and Shri B.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared for respondent no. 1 and Shri Tushar, Advocate appeared for respondent no. 2. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representatives of the respondents. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all the connected papers. On perusal of the impugned news item, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that it casts severe insinuation against the complainant. Despite opportunity, no explanation has come from the respondents justifying the publication of the aforesaid impugned news item. Once the Inquiry Committee finds that there is no justification for publication of the aforesaid impugned news item, the conduct of the respondents deserves to be censured.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspapers be Censured for carrying out the impugned news items. The respondent newspapers are directed to publish this Order in them newspapers and send the copy of the same to the Council.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Censure the respondent newspapers, ‘Dainik Jagran’, New Delhi and ‘Aaj Samaj’, Delhi. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP, RNI and Government of NCT of Delhi for necessary action as they deem fit.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No.31 File No.14/536/15-16-PCI

Shri Harinarayan Dubey, The Editor, Superintendent, Haribhoomi, Vaishya College of Law, Rohtak Haryana Rohtak, Haryana Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 7.1.2016 was filed by Shri Harinarayan Dubey, Superintendent, Vaishya College of Law, Rohtak, Haryana against the editor, Haribhoomi, Rohtak, Haryana for publication of false and baseless news item under the caption “अधी�क द�ग े टाइ�पस्ट क� ड्यू” in its issue dated 23.12.2015. The impugned news item referred to a statement purported to have been made by the complainant that that the Administration has demanded two typists for Panchayat Elections. On that, Shri Vinod Goel, the Superintendent had immediately ordered the Principal to issue an office order assigning duty of typist to the complainant. It was further reported that the Office Superintendent in contravention of rules has assigned him (complainant) duty of typist. It was further reported that Shri Harinarayan Dubey (complainant) had alleged that Shri Vinod Goel, Office Superintendent is misusing his position. The complainant vide his letter dated 6.1.2016 informed the Council that he had neither issued any press note and nor made the impugned statement as attributed to him in the news item. Whatever has been mentioned in the news relating to him is far from truth

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 1.3.2016 but no written statement was filed by the respondent. The complainant vide his e-mail dated 17.5.2016 informed the Council that the matter between him and the respondent had already been settled and he has no grievance in this matter as matter. He further stated that he did not want to take any further action in the matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The complainant seeks withdrawal of the complaint vide his e-mail dated 17.5.2016. The Inquiry Committee accedes to his prayer and permits the complainant to withdraw the complaint. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint being withdrawn.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint being withdrawn.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 32 F.No.14/266/15-16-PCI.

GVK Emergency Management & The Editor Research Institute, Abhivyakti Gujarat, Ahmadabad, Ahmadabad, (Gujarat) (Gujarat)

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 18.9.2015 was filed by GVK Emergency Management & Research Institute, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) against “Abhivyakti Gujarat” (Gujarati weekly) alleging publication of a series of false and defamatory news items as detailed here in below:-

S.No. Captions Date 1 Corruption of crores of rupees in the Ambulance Service of 3.9.2015 Gujarat-108 2 Gundaraj in Ambulance Service of Gujarat-108 by two so- 10.9.2015 called officers 3 The officers of Gujarat-108 Jahvant Prajapati and Babu 17.9.2015 Thomas had threatened to kill the editor 4 Death of innocent patient due to corrupted officers of 24.9.2015 Gujarat-108 ambulance 5 Heap of complaints against corrupted officers Jashvant 29.10.2015 Prajapati of Gujarat-108 service

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 3.9.2015 that the Institute is doing the business of collecting money from the applicants by inserting advertisement in the newspaper for the recruitment of employees. The impugned news item further reported that Shri Jashvant Prajapati and Shri Babubhai Thomas, Head of 108-Ambulance Service are shamelessly practicing corruption in this service institution and government is also encouraging and favouring thereon. As per impugned news report, there was mismanagement of lacs of rupees of government grant. Staff was being exploited during the tenure of these two corrupt officers. These officers were running service centres of Ambulance-108 on their whims and fancies and thereby defaming the Emergency Response Services extended by them. Allegations of sexual harassment of women employees and issuing threats were also levelled in the impugned news items.

In remaining news items also false and misleading facts had been reported. An article was also published for more than six times along with the photographs of officials stating that they are the most corrupt officials of Gujarat and also referred their family members as corrupt and immoral persons with an intention to defame them and their family members. They circulated the copies of the edition carrying the impugned article free of cost among the community and area where the officials are residing.

While denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant alleged that the respondent without verifying the facts published highly defamatory news item against their two senior most officials along with photographs with ulterior motive. According to the complainant, Govt. of Gujarat had chosen them to provide Free Emergency Response Services related to medical, police and fire through a toll free three digit No.108 in the whole state of Gujarat. Shri Jashvant Prajapati is a Chief Operating Officer and Shri Babubhai Thomas is Head of the HR and IR Department of the Institute having enjoying good reputation in the society. The complainant submitted that the attention of the respondent was drawn on 8.9.2015 asking him to publish rejoinder but the same was refused by the respondent and he continued to publish baseless articles.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Abhivyakthi Gujarat, Ahmadabad on 30.3.2016.

Written Statement

The respondent in his written statement dated 14.5.2016 stated that the news articles do not contain any defamatory news against any individual for that matter specifically and particularly against Mr. Jashvant Prajapati, Mr. Babubhai Thomas or against GVK Emergency Management & Research Institute. He further stated that the news article was published after verifying the correctness and truthfulness of the facts of the matter and the said article was not published with an intention to lower the image or reputation of the GVK EMRI or any individuals. He submitted that the news contents were based on truth and the same were written in good faith presenting the factual and real picture of the prevailing corruption and guilt in the society.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Mr. Babu Thomas, Head-HR appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the representative of the complainant who states that the complainant has filed a criminal case in a competent court of law in respect of the news items which are the subject matter of this complaint. The inquiry Committee notes this.

In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any view on the merit of the grievance of the complaint, it is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 33 File No.14/1048/13-14-PCI

Shri Rajesh Himmatlal, vs. The Editor, Managing Director, The Times of India, M/s Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Mumbai

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 21.1.2014 was filed by Shri Rajesh Himmatlal, Managing Director, M/s Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, Sunday Times of India, Mumbai for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “Dahisar mangrove get new lease of life” in its issue dated 8.12.2013. It was reported in the news item that the mangrove protection cell has stopped the dumping of debris on a plot in Dahisar East, Mumbai. According to the In-charge of Mangrove Protection Cell, the refuse was being discarded with permission from the Collector’s Office and the Local Ward Office. The plot is surrounded by mangroves on three sides and is separated by a boundary wall. It was further reported that the dumping was happening in the middle of the plot which is within a buffer zone of the mangroves. The complainant submitted that the article defamed their company name and reputation by falsely alleging that they were dumping debris in mangrove area of Dahisar East, Mumbai. He further stated that no reporter of TOI tried to contact their company officials to ascertain true facts before publishing the impugned article. The complainant alleged that the newspaper was used as a tool by the local Shiv Sena Corporator’ Ms. Sheetal Mhate whose only intention is doing this entire drama so as to extort money from them. The complainant further denied the allegation of M/s Mhate that they dumped debris in mangroves. The complainant vide letter dated 23.12.2013 drew the attention of the respondent editor by giving true facts. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Time of India on 28.2.2014.

Written Statement The Assistant General Manager (Corporate Legal), Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. in his written statement dated 8.10.2015 denied each and every allegation made in the complaint regarding the impugned news article in question and specifically led that the said news article was defamatory, false and negligent, as alleged. He further stated that the complainant’s grievance was unjustified as the impugned article does not make any allegations, imputations or innuendo against the complainant or any other persons/entities. He also stated that the said news article deals with the very important matter of the greater concern which simultaneously revolves around public health, sanitation, encroachments, etc. He further stated that due efforts was made to speak to all the parties concerned with the issue and all of them duly quoted in the said news article. Responding to the allegation that the said news article was used as a tool by the local Corporator, Mrs. Sheetal Mhatre, he submitted that there was a written complaint against the complainant to the Municipal Corporation’s authorities on record and it was a matter of public record. Referring to allegation w.r.t. photographs used in the said article he submitted that the complainant misinterpreted the said news article photograph, as it was about the dumping of debris along the banks of the Dahisar river which was a result of border dispute between the two civic bodies i.e. the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation (MBMC). He also submitted that the said news article and the photo-caption clearly state that several “developers” use the site for debris dumping, destroying mangroves but does not state or even indicate that the complainant was responsible for such activity.

Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 17.11.2015 submitted that he repeat, reiterate and reconfirm the contents of his complaint dated 21.1.2014 and deny each and every claims, defences and allegations mentioned in written statement dated 8.10.2015 filed by the authorized representative of Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. He also stated that the said news article did not state if a single complaint to the Municipal Authorities against the complainant since there was not a single complaint was on record by any other person than the Corporator, Sheetal Mhatre. As far as the issue of photograph is concerned, he referred to the whole article which contains a photograph with the heading DEBRIS DUMPING IN NL COMPLEX. It is clearly evident that this article refers purely to NL Complex and to no other property. The complainant alleged that it was a definite intention of the newspaper to defame the complainant and bring disrepute to him as developers by mentioning his organization name without ascertaining correct facts and without contacting him.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following several adjournments, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear while Shri Kumar Laxmikant, Dy. Chief Manager, Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that on earlier occasions also, the complainant has not chosen to appear before it.

The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 34 File No.14/1049/13-14-PCI

Shri Rajesh Himatlal, vs. The Editor, Managing Director, Mumbai Mirror, M/s Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Mumbai

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 21.1.2014 was filed by Shri Rajesh Himatlal, Managing Director, M/s Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news item under the caption “As civic bodies bicker, Dahisar mangroves become rubbish dump” in its issue dated 9.12.2013. It was reported in the news item that locals caught a builder dumping concrete debris into the mangroves. Following complaints from the residents, BMC’s R- North ward office imposed penalty on the builder, NL Developers. It was also reported that a non-cognizable complaint in this regard has also been registered. The firm is constructing a residential complex next to the mangroves. It was further reported that developers were using parts of the Bhayander creek as a dumping site, which led to shrinkage of the mangrove in the area. The complainant submitted that the article defamed their company name and reputation by falsely alleging that they are dumping debris in mangrove area of Dahisar. He further submitted that even the photograph shown in the said article was not of their plot but dumping by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai along with the Dhasakwadi Nallah which the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is currently training. He alleged that none of the reporters from Mumbai Mirror tried to contact their Company officials to ascertain true facts before publishing the impugned article. The complainant vide his letter dated 23.12.2013 requested the respondent editor to take corrective action in the matter but he failed and neglected to reply. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Mumbai Mirror on 11.3.2014 for written statement.

Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 1.9.2014 denied all the allegations levelled in the impugned news item and stated that the news report was factually correct, carried in good faith, in public interest, based on the information derived from the Government officials and the corporators and documents received from reliable sources duly verified and believed true and correct and without any malice towards anyone. The respondent also stated that the impugned news article does not make any allegations, imputations or innuendo whatsoever against the complainant or any other persons/entities and it deals with the very important matter of the greater public concern which simultaneously revolve around public health, sanitation, encroachments etc. and as a responsible and independent newspaper it is duty bound to report material information in this regard in the best interests of their discerning readers. The respondent further submitted that there was no intention whatsoever to defame or bring disrepute to any developer, more particularly to the complainant and the complaint is uncalled for and is a result of misinterpreting the facts of the impugned news article. He submitted that the allegation of the complainant that the photographs published have defamed is baseless as neither the news articles nor the photo caption mentions that the photographs are part of the complainants NL Complex. A careful reading of the news article in toto would clarify the doubts and put forth that there was no professional misconduct on their part. The respondent has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 13.10.2014 while repeating, reiterating and confirming the contents of his complaint denied each and every claims, defences and allegations mentioned in the written statement. The complainant further, while giving his para-wise reply to the written statement stated that the news article defames their company fame and reputation by falsely alleging that they were dumping debris in Dahisar mangroves area.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following several adjournments, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear while Shri Kumar Laxmikant, Dy. Chief Manager, Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that on earlier occasions also, the complainant has not chosen to appear before it.

The Inquiry Committee, therefore, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 35 File No. 14/530/12-13-PCI

Shri Banwari Lal Singhal, The Editor, Member of Legislative Assembly, Vs. Dainik Bhaskar, Alwar City, Alwar, Rajasthan. Alwar (Rajasthan)

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 31.10.2012 has been filed by Shri Banwari Lal Singhal, Member of Legislative Assembly, Alwar, Rajasthan against “Dainik Bhaskar” alleging publication of false, baseless, defamatory and misleading news-item in its issue dated 28.10.2012.

The complainant has alleged that the respondent newspaper has published news item with the sub-caption ‘Aisa Karyakram Chalta Raha aur Yeh Dekhte Rahe’ alongwith his photograph.

The complainant has submitted that the function referred to in the impugned news item was attended by many other families of Alwar and he also attended the function as people’s representative alongwith his family on invitation by the organisers. The complainant also alleged that the photograph has been published as if the complainant is dancing with the dancers. While denying the facts of the impugned new report the complainant stated that his arrival time was 8:15 pm and he left programme at 8:45 am. The complainant has stated that his actual photo was edited and tampered by respondent to damage his image in public.

Vide letter dated 28.10.2012 and 30.10.2012 the complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Alwar and asked for publication of his rejoinder but the respondent neither published his rejoinder nor responded to the complainant.

Written Statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 21.1.2013, the respondent Editor while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that the news item was based on the facts and the coverage was done by the electronic media and other newspapers also. In support of his version he has annexed the CD of the said function and newspaper cuttings. He also stated that the complainant was pressurising the respondent to not to publish the said news item. He has further stated that on MLA’s request the rejoinder was also published with the same prominence.

A copy of the written statement of the respondent was sent to the complainant on dated 30.4.2013.

Counter Comments:

The complainant in his counter comments dated 5.2.2015 has stated that the reply filed by the respondent is completely false and misleading. He alleged that the respondent has published his photograph in a fabricated way by cut-paste from the original photo. He has further submitted that his specific complaint is that if his photograph is original then the respondent is required to produce document in this regard and if it is fabricated then it is an intentional attempt of the respondent to malign his image before the public. He requested the Council to initiate investigation against the respondent for publishing his tampered photograph with dancers.

Complainant Further letter

The complainant vide his another letter dated 4.10.2015 while reiterating his complaint has stated that the respondent is required to either provide him his original photo or publish the same in his newspaper. If the complainant failed to do so, necessary action be initiated against the respondent.

The complainant vide his e-mail dated 3.1.2016 requested the Council to direct the respondent editor to produce the original photographs before the Committee as the photo published in the newspaper was taken tampered.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following three adjournments dated 8.10.2015, 4.1.2016 and 14.3.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. This complaint was filed as back as on 31st October, 2012. When the matter came up for hearing before the Committee on 14th March, 2016, at the prayer of the complainant, the matter was adjourned. The complainant has filed an application for adjournment of the case on the purported ground that he has been asked to represent on several dates instead of giving direction to the newspaper to furnish the photograph. The complainant is under misconception that notice was given for appearance only to him and not to the respondent-editor. The respondent-editor has filed the written statement and has denied the assertion made by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee expected the complainant to be present before it today and raise his grievance. He has not chosen to do so. On earlier occasions also, he has not chosen to appear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to keep the matter pending and recommends for its dismissal.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 36 File No. 14/384/15-16- PCI

Shri ShatrujeetKapur, IPS The Editor, Additional Director General of Police, CID, Haryana, Panhkula Chandigarh

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 28.9.2015 was filed by Shri Shatrujeet Kapur, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, CID, Haryana, Panchkula against the editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh for publication of unethical and malicious news item under the caption “Vij catches intel man for ‘snooping’; blasts DGP” in its issue dated 25.7.2015. It was reported in the impugned news item that three state intelligence personnel had intruded the privacy of BJP General Secretary and Haryana Incharge, Dr. Anil Jain during his private visit to his relative’s house at Samalkha around two months ago. It was also reported that the state intelligence had also been keeping a watch on Union Ministers of State, Shri Rao Inderjit and Shri Krishan Pal Gurjar. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item stated that the allegations were absolutely false and no such incident had ever happened. He alleged that the news item was absolutely baseless, unfounded and concocted and the respondent published the story without ascertaining the official version. The complainant submitted that the respondent is habitual in publishing such type of false and unverified news. In the past the respondent also published a news item on 5.7.2015 alleging therein that the State Government had violated a Supreme Court directive by entrusting police recruitment to Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The complainant vide letter dated 5.8.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned publication but received no response. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 20.11.2015 to the respondent editor for written statement.

Written Statement The respondent editor in his written statement dated 15.12.2015 submitted that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint as he is not the Director General of Police (DGP) of Haryana Police and the complainant appears to be taking up the matter not only in personal capacity but on behalf of other officers too. As per protocol and service rules, such complaint should be routed through the Head of the Department i.e. DGP as it pertains to the functioning of the police department and no personal averment had been made against the said officer. With reference to the specific issue raised by the complaiant, he submitted that the news report was totally factual and based on the developments that had been reported in the entire print and electronic media. The respondent furnished the clippings which shows that the incident was reported by almost every print, TV and online media. He also enclosed a video CD that contains news items where Mr. Vij is accompanied by the DGP, Haryana Police and reiterated his allegations in presence of the Haryana Police Chief. The CD also contains video clips of Haryana Vidhan Sabha Speaker, Mr. Kanwar Pal Gurjar and several other Haryana Ministers alleging that the Haryana Intelligence was “snooping” on them. The averments as stated were not made in casual manner, the ministers and speaker are on video making allegations of “snooping” by CID on them. As far as intelligence intrusion into the privacy of BJP General Secretary and Haryana In-charge, Dr. Anil Jain is concerned, the respondent stated that this was an absolute fact. He further stated that as per the information available with the author of the news stories, two intelligence officials (CID men) named Surinder and Anurag were spotted snooping on Dr. Jain’s activities. According to him, the incident happened in the presence of BJP’s Sonepat MP, Shri Ramesh Kaushik, defeated BJP’s candidate from Samalka, Shri Shashi Kant Kaushik, BJP State Vice President, Rajeev Jain, local residents and many media personnel. The incident was also reported in print and TV news. The respondent further stated that the complainant was nowhere quoted in the news item. The impugned news item was a factual report based on a political decision by the BJP government to scrap the recruitment of police personnel undertaken during the last Congress Government. As regards pendency of the litigation concerning challenge to the amendment of Haryana Police Act, it submitted that a Civil Writ Petition No. 18158 of 2015 was filed in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was heard on 31.8.2015, 15.9.2015, 29.9.2015, 9.9.2015 and 16.11.2015 and final order was passed on 16.11.2015 dismissing the CWP. The respondent had not attached the documents in this regard for the sake of brevity. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 7.3.2016 submitted that the contention of the respondent that only the Director General of Police is competent to file a complaint before the Press Council of India is absolutely untenable and also outrageous as it smacks of an attitude of general disdain. He alleged that the news report dated 25.7.2015 was published in a distorted manner just to malign the image of CID Haryana and the same was baseless as is clear from the averments made by the respondent in his reply. He further alleged that the respondent published the news story in a casual manner without ascertaining the official version just on the basis of hearsay and by twisting the news reports appearing in Electronic/Print Media in a way he liked. He stated that the respondent never ascertained the official version before making such serious allegations in public domain. The story appears to have been written out of ulterior motive/extraneous considerations and in doing so, the respondent violated journalistic ethics and committed professional misconduct.

Respondent’s Further Comments

The respondent in its further comments dated 6.7.2016, while reiterating his earlier comments, submitted that the complainant had to mis-interpreted the news item which was based on hard facts and it was not intended to belittle him, as the newspaper or the author of the report had no intention to cause harm to the reputation and service career of the complainant. He alleged that the complainant was only trying to mislead the Council.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following an adjournment dated 15.3.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Neeraj Kumar represented the complainant while Shri Amit Sharma, Manager-Legal appeared for the respondent.

The Complainant is aggrieved by various news items published in the Tribune. It is the assertion of the complainant that as he was out of the city, he could not have been called by the Minister as the news items suggests. It is further stated that Dr. Anil Jain had not gone for a private visit as the news item suggest, but for a public function. His further grievance is in regard to the news item published on 5th July, 2015 in which it has been stated that the Supreme Court has directed for reverting the recruitment in future to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the representatives of both the parties. It perused the complaint, the written statement, the counter comments and all other relevant papers. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the ends of justice be met by giving the complainant an opportunity to make clarification on the impugned news items. The complainant, if so advised, may give his clarification to the respondent newspaper within four weeks. The respondent, after necessary editing, shall publish the said clarification with the same prominence as that of the impugned news item.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint in aforesaid terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 37 F.No.14/177/14-15-PCI Reference received from Returning Officer and Collector, Dhola, Moti Daman against Asli Azadi, Daman for allegedly publishing Paid News in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Ramesh Verma, Returning Officer and Collector, O/o the Collectorate Dhola, Moti Daman vide his letter dated 22.4.2014 forwarded the report of confirmed cases of paid news against the newspaper Asli Azadi in its issues dated 21.3.2014 to 22.4.2014. The impugned news items read as follows: S.No. Caption Dated 1 कॉंग्र के तीन �दग्ग नेताओं का एक साथ घड़� देखना क्य कॉंग्र के अच्छ 4.4.2014

समय क� शुरुआ माना जा सकता है

2 तीन बतती के जलाराम मं�दर म� मनाई गई राम नवमी 9.4.2014

3 मगरवाड़ा-वरकुं डम�म �हलाओं ओर भेन्स्ल म� युवाओ का के त न पटेल को �मला 11.4.2014

समथर् -दमन 4 अफसरशाह� से म��ु के त न पटेल ह� �दला सकत े ह� –�वशाल टंडेल 12.4.2014 5 �बजली एव पानी आंदोलन के समय के त न पटेल न े प्र के साथ रहकर रास्त पर 14.4.2014 उतर कर प्र को न्या �दलाया था-कॉंग्र 6 दमन शहर के माछ�वाड़ से कॉग्र ं प्रत्य के त न पटेल न े शुर �कया चुनाव प्रच 21.4.2014 दमन शहर म� तेजी से बदल रहे राजनै�तक समीकरण क� झलक आज देखने को �मली I कल तक अलग अलग ग्र म� बटे युवाराज नेता एक साथ एक सरु म� ओर एक ह� ल�य के साथ प्रच करते नज़र आएंगे दमन तीन बतती पर कॉंग्र कायार्ल का हुआ उदघाटन कॉंग्र क� चेतावनी के बाद प्रशा का एक बोतल शराब बीयर आदेश पर यूटनर 7 दमन म� पूरा भारत बसता है कांग्र ने आपको अ�धकार �दया है िज़म्मेदार भी म� 22.4.2014 �नभाऊंगा द�व को जोलावाद� गाँव म� कॉंग्र का चुनावी सभा म� बड़� संख्य म� म�हलाओं क� रह� उपिस्थत

According to the complainant as per the instructions issued by ECI regarding paid news they have issued a number of show cause notices to various newspapers in Daman & Diu and the newspaper, Asli Azadi had been continuously publishing news items which clearly proved that the respondent is habitual violator and inspite of issuing show cause notices to him he had still published articles in favour of one political party. Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Asli Azadi, Daman on 18.6.2014.

Written Statement The respondent editor, Asli Azadi, Daman vide written statement dated 30.6.2014 denied all the allegations contained in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the news item published in their newspaper on 14.4.2014 was based on the information collected by their reporter and the same was published in good faith without any malice during the election campaigning by candidate/political parties was on full swing. The respondent further submitted that they have not written anything in favour of any political party/candidate and their newspaper is reputed one from Daman & Diu. The said news item was published for public good as it is the duty of a newspaper to publish news items in public interest and therefore it is not paid news.

The respondent vide his further letter dated 9.7.2016 reiterated his earlier comments. Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following an adjournment dated 10.5.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Vijay Bhatt, Editor, Asli Azadi represented.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 22.4.2014 received from Shri Ramesh Verma, Returning Officer and Collector, Moti Daman of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper Asli Azadi in its issues dated 21.3.2014 to 22.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 38 F.No.14/357/14-15-PCI

State Bank of India, Mumbai The Editor, (through Dr. R. Mohan, Deshabhimani, General Manager (Law-ii) & Trivandrum, Joint Head of the Law Department) Kerala

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 30.6.2014 was filed by State Bank of India, Mumbai (through Dr. R. Mohan, General Manager (Law-ii) & Joint Head of the Law Department) against the editor, ‘Deshabhimani’, Thiruvananthapuram for publication of allegedly false, misleading news item under the captions “Reliance swallows SBI” and “13000 SBI branches become scarecrow” with sub-heading: “Reliance to open 5000 outlets soon” (English translation) in its issues dated 1.5.2014. It was reported in the first news item that there was an agreement between complainant-Bank and Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd., and 95 % of the complainant’s activities had taken over by Reliance. It was further reported that Reliance had completely taken over the control of banking through the back door and that Reliance has conspired with the Central Government just before the Lok Sabha elections and that the contract had been executed in an underhand secretive manner. It was further reported that after the application for banking license by Reliance had been rejected, the agreement between the complainant-Bank and Reliance Money Infrastructure enabled it to take over the complainant’s activities and the Reliance captured the banking sector without investing a single rupee. It was alleged in the second news item that the agreement between the complainant- Bank and Reliance Money Infrastructure would make the existing branches of the complainant bank and its employees redundant. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant stated that the impugned news items were totally false, without basis and highly unprofessional and unethical. The complainant submitted that the respondent published the impugned news items to sensationalise a routine appointment of a Business Correspondent by them and they had deliberately done something wrong by appointing Reliance Money Infra as a Business Correspondent. The complainant further submitted that the news published by the respondent were without verification or confirmation of the true facts and were nothing but false and they did not indicate the source of the aforesaid information and projected it as gospel truth, although these were patently false, malicious and perhaps driven by an agenda. The complainant also stated that publication of articles by the respondent undermined the image of the complainant-Bank not only in the eyes of the depositors but also in the eyes of investors and general public. The complainant stated that the agreement between them (complainant-Bank) and Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd.,(RMIL) is to appoint RMIL as a business correspondent of SBI and engagement of business correspondents was as per the Bank’s approved policy which had been formulated as per the RBI guidelines laid down in this context. The complainant further stated that the news items were bereft of truth and contain false and misleading information and published without confirmation from them and said reporting was highly unprofessional and without basis. For them the public confidence is of paramount importance and anything that undermines confidence of depositors is an offence punishable under Section 36AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The impugned news item undermined the image of the bank not only in the eyes of the depositors but also in the eyes of the investors and other stakeholders and it immensely hurt the Bank’s public image and caused loss of reputation as State Bank of India (complainant-Bank) is the largest bank of the country and its standing, image and reputation is important for the country as well. The complainant also stated that the impugned news items were published with an ulterior motive without verification of the accuracy of the factual position regarding the engagement of Reliance money Infrastructure Limited as business correspondent by them. Apart from the damage caused to their reputation the articles potentially had the effect of undermining the public confidence in the complainant-Bank by fuelling rumours of providing a back door entry to the Reliance Group into the Banking industry after being denied the banking license by RBI, which clearly was not the true picture. The complainant vide letter dated 14.6.2014 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned news items and requested him to publish an apology and retraction of the false information and make appropriate amends in a prominent manner to dispel any doubts in the minds of the readers but received no response. A Show-Cause Notice dated 1.8.2014 issued to the respondent editor, Deshabhimani. Written Statement The Chief Editor, Deshabhimani vide his written statement dated 31.8.2014 denied the allegations leveled by the complainant and stated that they published the news items about the engagement of M/s Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd. by SBI as the latter’s Service Provider on 30th April. The respondent stated that the news articles published contains only true facts relating to the engagement of the service provider as revealed by the agreement between the parties and the analysis of its impact on the public, the banking transactions, the employees and those are published after verifying the authenticity of the concerned agreement on 25.2.2014 and after collecting data from reliable sources and their observations regarding the volume of services given to Service provider were based on this. The respondent also stated that they never tried to sensationalize or fuel rumors by linking the engagement of Service Provider to the denial of banking license to Reliance Capital and similar news articles were also published in other major dailies but the complainant did not move against them. The respondent further stated that the news items were published with the intention to make the public aware about such an agreement and its short term and long term impacts on various levels of society. The respondent accepted that they received a letter dated 14.6.2014 from the complainant with a demand to retract the news and publish an apology but their news was based on agreement and was published after due verification and analysis and it was published with bonafide intentions to make the readers and the general public aware about the scenario and its impacts. The respondent further submitted that soon after the news published SBI released a press note clarifying their position in the matter, Deshabhimani published the contents of the press release in a prominent manner on 04.05.2014 without any further comments and thereby they followed norms and ethics.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following an adjournment dated 10.5.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Anmol Chandan, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Jishnu M.L. along with Shri Sanjan Eyugen represented the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the counsel for the complainant as also the respondent and perused the complaint, the written statement and the connected papers. The complainant is aggrieved by the heading of the news item ‘Reliance swallows SBI’ as also the news that 95% of Banks activities have been taken over by the Reliance. Further, the headline of the news item with which the complainant is aggrieved is 13,000 SBI branches have become scarecrow. It is the assertion of the complainant that these statements in the impugned news items are false, misleading and damaging to the complainant’s bank. It is the plea of the respondent that the activities of the Bank have been taken over by the Reliance and the facts mentioned in the news items in question are correct. It is further assertion of the respondent that the clarifications have been published in the newspapers and therefore, no action needs to be taken against the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has bestowed its consideration to the rival submissions and is of the opinion that the headline and the assertion in the newspaper that 95% Bank activities have been taken over by the Reliance are false and misleading. The headlines that Reliance swallows SBI and 13,000 SBI branches have become scarecrow are also misleading. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that the impugned news item had the potential of serious repercussions on the complainant’s activities and therefore, the respondent newspaper ought to have been more careful in the matter. The Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to give its version which the respondent newspaper shall publish with same prominence after necessary editing. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid directions and with further observations that the respondent newspaper shall be more Careful in future. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepted reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 39 File No.14/1018/13-14-PCI Shri Hormuz. P. Mama, The Editor, Mumbai. , Fort, Mumbai. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 11.1.2014 was filed by Shri Hormuz P. Mama, Mumbai against the Editor, The Economic Times for alleging deleting the material from his article. The complainant submitted that he is a freelance journalist, who contributes to the Economic Times, wrote an article on the planned new airport for Mumbai at Panvel and had mentioned about Government rushing through the environment clearances, with scant regard for the delicate environment of that area. The complainant stated that the entire section, covering almost half that article was deleted. The complainant alleged that the Economic Times had been carrying on a virulent campaign in favour of India Inc and big business and against the Ministry of Environment’s effort to protect the environment of the airport site. According to him deletion of important fact from the article amounts to crude censorship of his article and such actions hardly uphold the Times Group’s motto “Let Truth Prevail”. The complainant further stated that he had written an article when the farmers had declined to sell their land and when the most of the farmers decided to sell their land, he asked the editor to drop the article. When he wrote a second article about Government rushing to get environmental clearance and pointed out what was environmentally wrong with the Panvel site that relevant material was deleted and only the second half of the article, covering that airport’s commercial unviability was retained. He added that the titles used for his published article “Stuck on the Runway” and “Government Directionless on Mumbai’s Second Airport” were outdated. According to the complainant, The Economic times would have been perfectly justified in not accepting his article at all. However, to pass off such grossly distorted and factually out dated material in his name is totally unethical. The complainant vide e-mail drew the attention to editor pointing out the damage he had done to his reputation but received no response. A Notice for Comments dated 11.4.2014 was issued to the respondent editor, The Economic Times, Mumbai. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Economic Times, Mumbai on 6.1.2015. Written Statement The respondent vide his letter dated 4.5.2016 while denying each and every allegation made in the complaint, submitted that the impugned news article was not objectionable and outdated. He further submitted that the news reports were factually correct, carried in good faith, in public interest, based on the information derived from authorised and trusted source, duly verified and believed to be correct and without any disrespect, censorship and/or damaging action towards anyone. He stated that as per the provisions of PRB Act, 1867, the very authority to write and edit any news item is solely vested into editor of the newspaper. He further stated that the complaint was uncalled for and was a result of misinterpreting the facts of said news articles and the sequence of facts in said news articles. Complainant’s additional submissions The complainant in his letter dated 7.7.2016 stated that the respondent deleted the most important single section of the article on which the remainder of complainant’s article rested. He further stated that it was factually very accurate and not in any way offensive. He submitted that this unwarranted deletion served no purpose and it did not help the Economic Times reader in any way. It only prevented them from reading some very useful information on vital environmental matters, he added. He alleged that it was plainly an act of crude censorship of newspaper’s management. Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following an adjournment dated 10.5.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. The complainant has sent a communication dated 9.7.2016 showing his inability to be present before the Inquiry Committee because of his old age. The respondent is represented by Kumar Laxmikant, Deputy Chief Manager (Legal).

The Inquiry Committee has heard the representative of the respondent and perused the complaint and other connected papers. It is the assertion of the complainant that the respondent newspaper ‘the Economic Times’ had published an article written by him but deleted material part from the said article. The Inquiry Committee noted that it is not in dispute that an article written by the complainant has been published in the respondent’s newspaper and some of its portion has been deleted.

The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the editor has the liberty to edit an article but this liberty cannot be extended to delete the vital part(s) or core content(s) of the article without seeking permission of the author which can distort the intent purpose and meaning behind the article. One has to bear in mind the distinction between a ‘news item’ and ‘opinion pieces’. The article in question is an opinion piece and by deleting its vital part/core content in the name of editing in the opinion of the Inquiry Committee was not permissible to the editor. The Inquiry Committee finds that the respondent editor has deleted the core contents of the article. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent editor, while doing so, has transgressed his rights and therefore, directs him to publish the deleted portion of the article with comments from the complainant. The Inquiry Committee further directs the respondent to be more careful in future while publishing opinion pieces.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council to disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid directions.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid directions and observations.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 40 F.No.14/171/14-15-PCI

Shri Chinmoy Biswal, IPS The Editor, Superintendent of Police, The Andaman Chronicle, South Andaman District, Port Blair Port Blair.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Two separate complaints dated 26.4.2014 were filed by Shri Chinmoy Biswal, IPS, Superintendent of Police, South Andaman District, Port Blair against the editor, The Andaman Chronicle, Port Blair allegedly for publishing misleading and sensational news items under the caption “Major Mishap after Tsunami 2004: Tourist Boat Capsized in Port Blair, 21 dead” and “Jarawa Speaks- Poachers Sexually Exploit Jarawa Girls under Influence of Alcohol and Ganja” in its issues dated 28.1.2014 and 3.2.2014 respectively. It was reported in the first impugned news item that a Tourist Boat ‘Aqua Marine’ capsized near Port Blair city with more than 50 on board including three crew members on 26th Jan. 2014 at around 2.45 pm in between Ross Island and North Bay in which 21 people died. It was also reported that the witnesses in their statement said that the accident took place at around 2.45 pm and a blast sound was heard in the sea by the locals and fishermen. Sources indicated that the time of information received by MRCC was 1650 hrs which meant delay was of almost two hours in search and rescue operations and one of the survivors, Mr. Tyagarajan also quoted that the incident took place before 3.00 pm on 26.1.2014. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item the complainant submitted that during investigation a number of witnesses who directly or indirectly witnessed the incident of capsizing of the boat including Mr. Tyagarajan stated the correct time of incident was 1550 hrs on 26.1.2014 and the boat capsized due to overloading, flooding of sea water in the engine room after entering from rear side of boat and various other reasons and no blast took place in the boat before sinking as claimed by the respondent. The rescue operation started immediately and survivors as well as bodies were shifted to G.B. Pant Hospital without delay. The misleading report by the daily had discredited the sincere rescue efforts as well as maligned the name of A&N Administration which also created unnecessary fear psychosis and unfurled distrust in the Administration amongst by the visiting tourist. The complainant submitted that a rebuttal/rejoinder was sent to the Editor, Andaman Chronicle on 7.3.2014. The respondent in his reply dated 25.3.2014 stood by his report and specifically stated that such report was in no manner an attempt to malign the A&N Administration and its functionaries. The respondent further informed him that in view of not escalating the issue any further he will publish a news article giving their account of incident in its forthcoming editions and the news article will be based on the inputs given by them in the letter, but instead of publishing rejoinder the respondent editor in its issue dated 27.3.2014 defended his initial publication and further questioned the A&N Administration under the caption “Boat Tragedy A&N Administration still Digging Past”. The complainant stated that the incorrect and misleading publication without verification of facts in such a sensitive issue has spread enormous confusion among tourists in and the outside world and maligned the efforts of rescue agencies and A&N Administration. In the second impugned news item it was reported that in an audio clip first time a Jarawa (tribe) man clearly states that local poachers and fishermen from South Andaman had been exploiting them. These poachers are from Junglighat, Wandoor, Herbertabad and Tirur and they not only visited the Jarawa Reserve but also involved in exploiting the girls sexually introducing alcohol and ganja (Marijuana) among the Jarawa tribes. The Jarawa man says that poachers regularly visit the Reserve and in the influence of alcohol and ganja chase and hurt the girls and sleep with them in the Jarawa Chadda (hut) and physically torture them. In the said news item it was also mentioned that another clip (which will be released shortly) reveals that poachers bring rice, sugar, oil, tea powder, tobacco leaves, alcohol and zarda and in exchange they take away crabs, venison, pork, drum and dhoop (resin). The complainant submitted that after publication of the impugned news item a government agency Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti, AAJVS examined many Jarawa tribes people but they denied the allegation of sexual exploitation and supply of liquor and other items to them by any persons as reported. The complainant stated that the publication of sensational contents of the audio clip in the newspaper without any authentication or verification and with disregard to the sensitive nature of the allegations when police investigation were already underway in two different cases was totally unwarranted and the respondent did not assist the police in identifying the persons who may have produced the alleged CD nor did he bother to check up its authenticity before publishing its sensitive contents. The complainant further stated that the report about the free availability of alcohol, ganja, marijuana or other narcotic drugs in the area was again not backed by any evidence and in raids/arrest of poachers and others over the past couple of years, the police have never seized any alcohol or drugs from the poachers/local people who sometimes intrude into the prohibited Jarawa reserve and these local people had also been called as poachers in the impugned news item. The complainant stated that they sent rebuttal/rejoinder to the respondent towards the impugned news item on 7.3.2014 and in response the editor denied the allegations and objected the use of expressions “sensational” and “incorrect and malicious reporting” in the letter and requested him to refrain from using such expressions while referring to news reports in the newspaper in future. The impugned news item brought a lot of disrepute to many individuals, organizations, administration and the police who are putting in a lot of sincere efforts/work to protect the Jarawas in the Andaman Forest Reserves. The complainant concluded that the incorrect and misleading publication without verification of facts in such a sensational story concerning an aboriginal Tribe without any evidence and corroboration by the affected parties lead to tarnishing the image of A&N Administration. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.2.2015 was issued to the respondent editor, Andaman Chronicle.

Written Statement

The respondent editor, Andaman Chronicle vide his written statement dated 17.3.2015 stated that the news item published in his newspaper were true and on the basis of the facts. The respondent submitted that on hearing the news about capsizing of a tourist boat close to the shores of Port Blair, the capital city, in which 22 lives were lost, their reporter reached on the spot and spoke to the eye witnesses. The respondent further submitted that the way the Administration reached to the report, was not in good sense as they specifically targeted them for unknown reasons. On second news item, the respondent stated that they received an Audio CD containing two MP3 audio clippings in which a man, who belongs to Jarawa tribes, was saying that poachers from nearby villages visit the Jarawa Tribal Reserve, and sexually exploit the girls. The respondent also stated that after receiving the CD, they emailed the audio clip to a senior Anthropologist and Honorary Director, Andaman and Nicobnar Tribal Research Institute and he confirmed that the voice in the audio clip were of a Jarawa Tribes man and after that they published the news. The respondent stated that after court order to handover the CD they submitted it to the Superintendent of Police, South Andaman and the Police Department has failed to conclusively carry out an investigation on the audio clip and unnecessary harassing/accusing them.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following an adjournment dated 11.5.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi.

It noted that an application has been filed by the complainant praying for time inter-alia on the ground that notice was received in his office on 28.6.2016 and because of geographical location and short notice, he is not in a position to attend the hearing as also on the ground that the matter being old requires sufficient time to analyse. Advocate Bhunesh Wari Devi appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee considered that both the grounds urged by the Superintendent of Police for adjournment but the same, do not appeal to the Inquiry Committee. It is a complaint made as back as on 24.4.2014 by the Superintendent of Police himself. Admittedly notice was served on the complainant on 28.6.2016 to appear on 11.7.2016. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee more than 10 days’ time to appear and analyse and that too the functioning of the government cannot be heard to be insufficient. Hence, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to adjourn the matter.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the respondent and also perused the relevant records of the matter. The Inquiry Committee does not find that by publishing the impugned news item, the respondent newspaper has violated any code of conduct.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 41 File No.14/697/14-15-PCI

Shri Swami Ramkrishna Shivanand, The Editor, Sanatan Dharm Shiv Mandir, National Mission Moti Bagh, New Delhi. Hindi Monthly Magazine, Ghaziabad

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 24.11.2014 was filed by Shri Swami Ramkrishna Shivanand, Disciple of Swami Kalyan Sunderanand of Sanatan Dharma Shiv Mandir, New Delhi against the Editor, ‘National Mission’, Hindi monthly Magazine, Ghaziabad for allegedly publishing false, imaginary, sensational and malicious appeal in its magazine with regard to 560 years old world famous, Shree E Dudheshwar Nath Matt Mandir, Ghaziabad, UP under the caption “Jeernodhar ke naam par shri dudheshwar mandir par awaidh kabza” July, 2014 issue. In the Appeal, it was stated that Mahant Shri Narayan Giri of the aforesaid temple in connivance with an affluent person, Shri Dharmpal Garg illegally grabbed the temple under guise of temple’s renovation work. The impugned appeal had further raised various questions indicating that the Mahant had been misusing his position and is indulging in corrupt practices vis-à-vis temple’s renovation work. The complainant submitted that the temple, DUDHESHWER NATH, UP is a property of Shree Pach dashnam Juna Akhada, HQS, Varanasi, a supervisory authority, who appointed Shree Dudheser Narayan Giri as Mahant i.e. Head Priest, Manager/Caretaker of the temple and the respondent magazine published/issued a defamatory, false, confusing appeal against 560 years old, Shree DUDHESHWER NATH MATT MANDIR whereby a wrong message was conveyed to the devotees of the temple and due to this article the religious-socio-cultural activities of temple suffered. The complainant stated that there is a tradition that if anybody constructs anything in the temple and rooms in ashrams then by his consent, names of the persons, dead or alive, are written on the walls as a courtesy. In the name of donation one cannot forcibly construct in the premises of the temple. The donation is not compulsory but voluntary and is used for the management and construction of the temple. In 2010 with inspiration of Shree Mahant Naranyan Giri, a new splendid marble temple is being constructed by a devotee cum social worker, Shree Dharmapal Garg, who is also President of “SHREE DUDHESHWERE NATH MANDIR VIKAS SAMITI” and is capable to bear the expenditure and for this he has not appealed to the public at all for this missionary work. The complainant further alleged that the editor, National Mission, monthly magazine published defamatory and concocted appeal for creating terror among the devotees and the public by publishing the appeal “Jeernodhar ke naam par shri dudheshwar mandir par awaidh kabza” followed by an objectionable article. The complainant vide notice dated 10.9.2014 drew the attention of the respondent editor pointing out objectionable content published in the appeal and article. He also stated that the editor has no right to raise any irrelevant question except religious issues and also threatened him to file defamation case against them”. He asked the respondent magazine to publish an apology in their magazine but did not receive any response. The complainant submitted that the impugned appeal was a strategy of the respondent editor and his associates to capture the temple by projecting it as disputed property. The respondent was extracting money illegally from the public by such false wrong, concocted appeal and was confusing the devotees and public. The impugned report was an example of yellow journalism. According to him, the appeal was an attempt to capture the temple in the name of Shree Dudheshwer Nath Mandir Mukti Morcha.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2014 issued to the respondent editor, ‘National Mission’, Ghaziabad was sought served on 5.8.2015 through the District Magistrate through their serving agency but received no response.

First Hearing The matter was heard by the Inquiry Committee on 4.1.2016. The complainant could not reach on time. The Inquiry Committee dismissed the complaint by recommending that the respondent had not violated any norms of the journalistic ethics.

The complainant vide his letter dated 4.1.2016 requested for re-hearing as he was out of Delhi for long time as such could not get Notice for appearance in time.

The Council in its meeting held on 17.3.2016 referred back the complaint to the Inquiry Committee for reconsideration.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. Swami Ramkrishna Shivanand, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant claims to be an office bearer of Sanatan Dharma Shiv Mandir, Moti Bagh and he is aggrieved by the publication of an appeal in the respondent newspaper in regard to Dudheshwer Nath Matt Mandir, Ghaziabad. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the entire record. It noted that the offending piece is not a part of the news or an article but an appeal to people in general. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that no action can be taken by the Council in this regard. However, the complainant is given liberty to take such other action as permissible in law. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 42 F.No. 14/120/15-16-PCI

The State Bank of Patiala, The Editor, Lodhi Road, The HallaBol Times, New Delhi Delhi

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 20.3.2015 was filed by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Lodhi Road, New Delhi against the Editor, Halla Bol Times, Shahdara, Delhi alleging publication of false and defamatory news item under the caption “State Bank of Patiala prabandhak par badsaluki kaa aarop” in its issue dated January 1- 31,2015. It was reported in the impugned news that Smt. Brijesh, Account holder, has alleged that the Branch Manager misbehaved with her husband Sanjiv Kumar. The woman stated that an unknown person had withdrawn Rs. 14,000/- from her Bank account through an ATM and her husband has filed a written complaint with the police and the bank in this regard. The Bank Manager contacted the customer and when her husband visited the Bank on her behalf, the Branch Manager misbehaved with him using unparliamentarily language. He asked him to close the account immediately and insisted to take the complaint back if he wants to continue operation of his wife’s bank account. The manager asked him to sign give thumb impression on some documents and when he refused to do so, he got her husband moved out from the bank forcibly. The woman filed a written complaint against this incident before the police and bank authorities.

While denying the allegation, the complainant submitted that Smt. Brijesh gave her ATM card to her husband Shri Ramesh Singh for withdrawal of some amount. Her husband withdrew Rs. 2000/- and subsequently took out a sum of Rs. 14000/- by using the card. Smt. Brijesh informed the bank vide letter dated 10.11.2014 that her husband had withdrawn only Rs.2000/- and not Rs.14000/-. Upon making further enquiries, her husband informed that he did not know how to operate ATM card, so he handed over the card to another person and also disclosed the ATM PIN to him for withdrawing the money. The Bank branch had procured CCTV footage from the concerned bank, which clearly showed that someone else was helping him to operate the ATM and the same person withdrew Rs.14000/- by using the card. The CCTV footage was shown to the customer and they accepted having taken help of the third person. Further, the complainant pointed out that in the newspaper, Smt. Brijesh husband’s name is written as Sanjiv Kumar whereas in the letter addressed to the Bank by Smt. Brijesh, the name of her husband was written as Shri Ramesh Singh. The complainant submitted that the customer violated the Bank instructions with regard to operation of ATM facility by disclosing ATM PIN to her husband, who in turn shared it with unknown person to operate the ATM, so bank cannot reimburse the money. The transactions were successful as per bank documents/record and CCTV footage. The Branch Manager has not used any unparliamentarily language rather he told him about the person who had taken the money by showing CCTV footage. The Branch Manager had never told the customer to close the account and not used any abusive words as mentioned in the newspaper. The complainant alleged that the customer wants to take undue advantage of the press by making wrong allegations against the Manager of the branch in order to get the amount which they have lost due to their fault of giving ATM Card to other person. The complainant alleged that the respondent had published the news item without verifying the facts from the bank. Vide letter dated 27.2.2015 and E-mail dated 18.3.2015, he drew the attention of the respondent for publishing false news but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, ‘Halla Bol Times’, Delhi on dated 6.7.2015 for written statement.

Written Statement

The respondent editor in his written statement dated 24.7.2015 stated that a complaint of Smt. Birjesh was received through Md. Vasim, Assistant Editor of the newspaper which revealed that the Branch Manager of State Bank of Patiala had misbehaved and abused the husband of the complainant. He also threatened him to close his wife’s account. The customer also filed same complaint before the senior officers of the bank. The Bank Manager had not produced any evidence to show that any inquiry was conducted by the bank and the complainant was heard and natural justice was done to all concerned. The respondent stated that the concerned SBP bank should redress the grievance of its customer in their own interest rather to suppress the voices of their customers. It would be better if the bank had first adopted the due course of law and waited for the outcome of police inquiry and then asked for the corrigendum. The respondent editor submitted that they had no intention to injure anybody’s reputation as they are loyal to freedom of press and dignity of people.

First Hearing

The matter was heard by the Inquiry Committee on 4.1.2016. The Inquiry Committee upheld the complaint and recommended to the Council that the respondent newspaper, ‘Halla Bol Times’, Delhi deserved to be Censured for breach of code of conduct by the publication of false and defamatory news item.

After the hearing, a letter dated 4.1.2016 was received from the respondent editor, Shri Anup Sagar requesting to adjourn the matter due to his ill-health.

The Council in its meeting held on 17.3.2016, while considering the adjournment request of the respondent, resolved to refer it back to the Inquiry Committee for reconsideration.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. Smt. Sarbjit Kaur, Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala represented the complainant. Shri Gaurav Sagar appeared on behalf of the respondent.

In the impugned news item, the alleged misbehaviour of the manager of the complainant Bank with a customer and asking him to close the account has been highlighted. According to the news item, it was the version of the customer.

The complainant asserted that the customer has suffered due to her own negligence and the CCTV footage proves the same.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the representative of both the parties and carefully perused the complaint and all other relevant papers. It is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper before publishing the impugned news item ought to have taken the version of the complainant also. This has not been done. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has breached the code of conduct relating to pre-publication verification from the affected person and thus denied the right of reply. The respondent newspaper therefore, deserves to be reprimanded for that.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council to reprimand the respondent newspaper for publication of the aforesaid news. The Inquiry Committee further directs that the order passed by the Council be prominently published along with an unconditional apology by the respondent in his newspaper within two weeks and forward a copy of the same to the Council.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Reprimand the respondent newspaper, ‘Halla Bol Times’, Delhi for breach of code of conduct.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 43 File No.14/262/15-16-PCI Ms. Jyoti The Editor, Sabharwal, India Today, Author & Publisher, New Delhi. Stellar Publishers, New Delhi. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 22.9.2015 was filed by Ms. Jyoti Sabharwal, Author & Publisher, Stellar Publishers, New Delhi against India Today, New Delhi allegedly for publishing unethical book review in its issue of August 3, 2015 captioned “In the name of Gandhis” of the biography viz. Dr. Kapila Vatsyayan, A cognitive Biography: Afloat a Lotus Leaf, authored by the complainant and also for violation of copyright.

In her complaint, she stated that the editor of India Today, “Ms. Kaveree Bamzai, while in her review of the said biography used all the exclusive information from the book, it was completely devoid of any coherent analysis, thoughtful observation, or even an overview of the content. She termed the book, insightful but also incongruously called it poorly written, which was plainly a mischievous statement and a highly improper act, she lifted a huge excerpt (572 words) without seeking permission of the publisher”.

The complainant further submitted that “the second and much larger review was even more shocking on the portal, poorly written magically disappeared”. So, “Ms. Bamzai malafide intention became quite evident since the damage was already done and mileage for herself by making a comment or two and used excerpts (2174 words) from the book, not only without seeking permission of the publisher, but also had the audacity to give subheads to those excerpts. Such gross, blatant violation of copyright on one hand, and the crass contradiction of excerpting so extensively from a poorly written book is a sad example of the rapidly declining standards in the media”. The complainant sent, the rejoinder to the Editor-in-Chief, India Today but the same was not acknowledged.

A Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2015 was issued to the respondent editor, India Today.

Written Statement

In response thereto, Dr. Puneet Jain, Group Head, (Legal) India Today Group at the outset denied each and every allegation levelled against them and Ms. Kaveree Bamzai. According to him, the impugned review was a mere commentary on the book in question and only gives an analysis and evaluation of the contents of the book. Further, the impugned review was only an attempt by Ms. Bamzai to point out the underlying theme of the book, thereby giving the reader an idea about the author’s style and approach. As such the averment of the complainant that the impugned review did not qualify to be a review was denied as being false and incorrect.

He further submitted while reviewing a literary work, a reviewer is very much within his/her right to undertake a critical analysis on the work. In the instant case Ms. Bamzai had given a critique on the book with the objective to assess the effectiveness and value of the book for the reader and as such only exercised her constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression available under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Only because the impugned review was not to the liking and taste of the complainant, did not in any manner prohibit Ms. Bamzai from expressing her views on the book, even if critical. In any critique, positive and negative points were to be brought out and therefore, the complainant referring to Ms. Bamzai’s use of the word insight and poorly written as being incongruous holds no merit. Ms. Bamzai while stating that the book was poorly written, in fact credits the book for offering an insight into the relevant of the education and cultural policy of the government, which assumes special significance in the current scenario. Thus, the contention of the complainant that the review was mischievous and malicious was denied as being false and incorrect. He denied the allegation with regard to using the excerpts from the book and violating copyright of the complainant. In this regard, he made following points: i) It was stated that Ms. Bamzai had adequately and with certainty credited the author while using the excerpts from the book. ii) Apart from giving due credit to the author, the fact that an excerpt was taken was prominently highlighted in the review, in addition to the picture of the book and name of the author being clearly shown. iii) The avowed purpose of the article being a review of the book written by the complainant, it was therefore, only innate to use excerpts from the book for writing the review. iv) Furthermore, there was a direct relationship between content used and the article published.

Counter Comments In response to the written statement, the complainant vide e-mail dated 6.4.2016 stated that the disparaging remarks were Ms. Bamzai’s personal view. She made this remark as a professional in the printed pages of the magazine. Any charge, which was not substantiated and made callously with malafide intention, was nothing but sheer libel that would damage the hard-earned reputation of a thoroughbred professional with impeccable credentials as a journalist-writer editor and publisher.

Respondent’s further Letters The respondent India Today Group vide its letter dated 9.5.2016 stated that the complaint of Ms. Jyoti Sabharwal was not only misconceived and based on an incorrect perception and a misinterpretation of the impugned review, but also goes on to launch a very strongly worded attack on Ms. Bamzai. As such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed for not only being vague but also for being devoid of any substance, in law or otherwise.

Dr. Puneet Jain. Group Chief Law & Compliance Officer, India Today vide his another letter dated 14.7.2016 stated that the use of 572 words from the excerpt of the Books- which runs into several thousand words, and several hundred pages – did not amount to unfair use or infringement as the mount of words used in the Review was miniscule and not substantial considering the volume of book.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.7.2016 at New Delhi. Ms. Jyoti Sabharwal, the complainant appeared in person while Dr. Puneet Jain, Group Chief Law & Compliance Officer, India Today represented the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of the respondent. The complainant is the author of the book titled “Dr. Kapila Vatsyayan A Cognitive Biography: Afloat a Lotus Leaf”. According to the complainant, the book has been commended both for its content and form by very senior editors and scholars. The complainant’s grievance is in respect of review in India Today by Ms. Kaveree Bamzai. According to the complainant, Ms. Bazmai used all exclusive information from the book but the review done is devoid any coherent analysis, thoughtful observation or even an overview of the content. Further, the complainant terms the review ‘mischievous’ as at one place the critique has termed the book ‘insightful’ and at the other has used the expression ‘poorly written book’. In the submission of the complainant, this cannot go together and hence action needs to be taken against the critique.

The Inquiry Committee bestowed its consideration to the plea of the Complainant and it does not commend to it. Simply, because some of the editors and scholars have commended the book would not mean that other critiques have no right to express a contrary view. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, every critique has the right to his or her own view and no author can question the same, unless it is actuated by malafide.

The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the category of ‘malafide review’ and therefore, it is not inclined to take any action against the critique on this score.

Another grievance of the complainant is that 572 words from the book have been lifted without seeking publisher’s permission. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, mere the number of words used in the review by a critique is not decisive. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Here, in the present case, in order to bring home the point in the review, the critique had reproduced the passage from the book. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that it is not in breach of any journalistic ethics.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 44 F.No. -14/562/15-16-PCI

Shri. Dharmendra Singh Sengar 1. Shri Raman Popli, Librarian Reporter, Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical Dainik Bhaskar University for Women Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 2. Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Editor, Dainik Bhaskar Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 28.01.2016 was filed by Shri D.S. Sengar, on behalf of his wife, Mrs. Neena Gaur against Reporter - Shri Raman Popli and Editor Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior edition for publishing allegedly false, defamatory and misleading news item, captioned “SADA Tehsildar ke farzi bill” dated 19.01.2016 wherein complainant’s wife had been accused of claiming reimbursement for the maintenance and fuel charges of her private car by raising fake bills against the condemned office vehicle bearing, Registration No. MP02AB0487.

The impugned news item reported that Smt. Neena Gaur had been using her private car (petrol version) to commute daily to and fro from the office and in order to meet the expenses of the fuel (petrol) incurred for her daily travel, she had been raising fake Diesel bills every month amounting up to ten to fifteen thousand rupees against (condemned) official vehicle allotted to her.

According to the complainant, the news item, reporting that the office vehicle, with Registration No. MP02 AB0487 has been declared condemned by the SADA and its registration cancelled by the Transport Department, in fact, are false, misleading and incorrect as the registration of the mentioned office vehicle is still alive and is also reflected in the Transport Department’s website. According to the complainant the impugned news item was completely baseless and had marred the reputation of his wife, Smt. Neena Gaur. He further submitted that the news item was published without any pre-publication verification, thus journalistic norm had been violated by the respondent newspaper.

The complainant submitted that his wife had sent a Notice dated 20.01.2016 addressed to the Editor of the Gwalior edition of Dainik Bhaskar with all the facts and relevant papers requesting them to publish the clarification in their newspaper but did not receive any response.

A Show-Cause Notice dated 29.02.2016 was issued to the respondents.

Reply filed by the reporter Shri Raman Popli, Gwalior, MP

In response to the Show-Cause Notice, Shri Raman Popli in his reply dated 2.05.2016 submitted that Dainik Bhaskar always adheres to the journalistic code of conduct while covering any news in their newspaper. He further submitted that the allegation made by the complainant, Shri D.S. Sengar that the news item marred the reputation of his wife, Smt. Neena Gaur by mentioning her name in the cover story and that she has been seeking reimbursement from the office against fuel expenses of her private car by raising bills of the condemned office (diesel) vehicle was untrue, because they had not mentioned such things in their version of the story. Further, Shri R. Popli submitted that the allegation of the complainant against the reporters of Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior for trespassing the boundaries of the residence of Smt. Neena Guar was also not true as Smt. Neena Guar’s residence is not surrounded by any wall and the condemned vehicle was parked by the street side and the photo of the vehicle was clicked from the street itself. Regarding, the claim of the complainant that the office vehicle was not condemned, and information regarding its registration is available on the website of the Transport Department. He submitted that the information on the website was not updated as the recent documents of the vehicle states that the vehicle numbered MP 02 AB 0487 had been declared condemned by the Regional Transport Office (RTO)/Chief Information Officer (CIO), SADA.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Dharmendra Singh Sengar, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Shrishti Singh, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the counsel for the respondent. It notes that the complainant happens to be the husband of Mrs. Neena Senagar, who is Tehsildar in Special Area Development Authority (SADA). He is aggrieved by a news item published in the respondent newspaper in which it has been stated that payment is being made for the purchase of fuel of a condemned vehicle. During the course of hearing, the complainant admits, that the transport department had declared the said vehicle to be not road worthy but still the said vehicle is running and being used. Therefore, the question of raising fake bills does not arise. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that a vehicle which has been declared as not road worthy, cannot ply. In the aforesaid facts of the case, the Inquiry Committee does not find any justification to take action against the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 45 F. No. 14/232-233/14-15-PCI

The Returning Officer The Editor Constituency no. 25 Dainik Balwas Times District- Dhar Indore, M.P Madhya Pradesh (M.P) The Editor Dainik Raj Express Indore, M.P

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 19.05.2014 was filed by the Returning Officer of Constituency No. 25, Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh against the alleged paid news items published in the Dainik Balwas Times and Dainik Raj Express, Indore edition, in issues dated 15.04.2014 captioned “चुनाव क� तैयार� म� भाजपा �पछड़� व काँंीस म� उ्साे”. According to the complaint (ii) the fact that both the news items published in two different news paper on the same day with same caption and usage of similar language in news item.

The Collector and District Election Officer, Dhar, MP issued Notice dated 19.04.2014 to the candidate of Indian National Congress, Dhar Constituency, MP for submission of a written explanation with respect to the allegation of making payment for getting published news in his favour and portraying the opposition in a bad light. However, in reply, the Congress candidate denied the allegation and stated that the impugned news item was not paid news. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 26.06.2014 to the respondent newspapers, Dainik Balwas Times and Dainik Raj Express, Indore , M.P.

Reply from Balwas Times, The respondent Balwas Times in its reply dated 14.08.2014 stated that the alleged news item was not paid news and being an independent news publishing house, they generally cover news related to all political parties especially in the proximity of the election.

No written statement filed by Raj Express Dainik Raj Express chosen to not to respond to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.2014 and even to the time bound reminder sent on 15.10.2014.

Response from Collector, District Dhar The Collector, District Dhar vide his letter dated 10.7.2016, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, informed that as per the direction of the MCMC, the expenditure on paid news was added in the election expenses of the Congress candidate which was Rs. 11,845 /-. He further stated that MCMC holds the impugned news item as paid news.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Shravan Kumar Singh, Dy. Director, Public Relation, Dhar appeared for the complainant while Shri Mujeeb Khan appeared for the respondent newspaper ‘Balwas Times’. Despite service of notice, the editor, ‘Raj Express’ has not chosen to appear.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 19.5.2014 received from Returning Officer of Constituency No. 25, Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh regarding paid news against the newspapers, Dainik Balwas Times and Dainik Raj Express, Indore edition in their issues dated 15.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserve to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has heard the representative of the complainant as also the respondent newspaper ‘Balwas Times’, Indore, M.P. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee has perused the news items published in both the respondent newspapers. It notes that the impugned news items published in both the newspapers are one and the same, even the mistakes are common. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, it is not accidental and these news items have been published for consideration. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and holds the impugned news item as paid news. It recommended the Council to Censure both the newspapers ‘Balwas Times’ and ‘Raj Express’ for publication of paid news.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspapers, ‘Balwas Times’ and ‘Raj Express’, Indore, M.P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director, General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Indore for taking appropriate action as permissible in law.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 46 File No.14/83/14-15-PCI.

The Collector & The Editor, District Electoral officer, Pravesh Samvad, Sagar (M.P.) Sagar (M.P.)

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

The Collector & District Electoral Officer, Sagar (M.P.) vide his letter dated 16.4.2014 informed that the “Pravesh Samvad” in its issue dated 11.4.2014 published several news reports in favour of Indian National Congress candidate-Shri Govind Singh Rajput with a view to give him benefit during Lok Sabha Election-2014. The captions of the impugned reports published in the newspaper issue dated 11.4.2014 read as follows:

1. सागर-मुख् प्रत्याि का ऐसा है राजनी�तक सफरनामा 2. भाजपा पीएम पद के प्रत्य का झूठ उजागर-ग��वद �संह 3. भाजपा सांसद� ने 20 वष� म� नह�ं �कया कोई काय-र गो�वंद 4. सवर ब्रा समाज के बंधओंु ,माताओं ,ब�हन� से �वनम अपील 5. जैन बंधओंु से �नवेदन 6. कु म � �त्र समाज बंधओंु से �नवदेन 7. अनुसू�चत जा�त वगर के बंधओंु से �वनम अपील 8. ह ् व ा ह ा ) पटेल (समाज बंधओंु ,माताओं ,ब�हन� से �वनम अपील 9. �कसान �सखाएंगे अब भाजपा को सबक-बाबू�संह 10. कांग्र का सघन जनसंपकर जार� 11. लोधी समाज का भाजपा से मोह भंग 12. घर-घर कांग्र ,हर घर तरक्क के संदेश के साथ �कया जनसंपकर 13. आदरणीय �कसान भाईय�

It was alleged that through these impugned news items an appeal was made to the people of all communities/society to vote in favour of Congress candidate-Shri Govind Singh from Sagar constituency.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Pravesh Samvad, Sagar on 19.3.2015.

Written Statement

Shri Sunit Tamrakar, Editor, Pravesh Samvad, Sagar vide his written statement dated 24.5.2015 stated that neither District Electoral Office gave any information regarding publication of paid news nor he has informed about booking of amount under election expenditure account of the candidate. The respondent further stated that his newspaper had not published any news with a view to give benefit to a particular candidate during the election and the impugned news items which are referred to as paid news is a past account of political journey of the candidates of prominent parties. He further submitted that to sensitize the voters about the candidates of the two prominent parties is a duty of the newspaper. Nobody approached the newspaper with a request to publish contradiction vis-à-vis facts given about the political career of the candidates and therefore alleged that the complaint was baseless and one-sided action of the District Electoral Office which is not justifiable.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any.

Accordingly, the Collector & DEO, Sagar was requested vide Council’s letters dated 22.7.2015 and 5.11.2015 to provide above details but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 16.4.2014 received from Collector & District Electoral Officer, Sagar (M.P.) forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspapers, “Pravesh Samvad” in its issue dated 11.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the news items published in the respondent newspaper. It notes that the manner of its presentation and that too in favour of a particular party as also the appeal for voting in favour of the particular party suggests that these are paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and holds the impugned news item as paid news. It recommends to the Council to Censure the respondent newspaper ‘Pravesh Samvad’, Sagar, M.P. for publication of paid news.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper ‘Pravesh Samvad’, Sagar, M.P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director, General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of M.P. for taking appropriate action.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 47 F.No. 14/740/14-15-PCI

Shri Mohal Lal Baswani The Editor S/o- Magilal Baswani Raj Express Ujjain Raj Publication & Entertainment Madhya Pradesh Pvt. Ltd. Ujjain Madhya Pradesh

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 17.11.2014 was filed by Shri Mohan Lal Baswani, S/o- Shri Magilal Baswani, Ujjain (MP) against the Editor of Raj Express, Ujjain for publishing disgraceful, defamatory and inaccurate news against the complainant and his father. The complainant accused the editor for being vengeful and misusing columns of his newspaper against them.

According to the complainant, a court case is pending in the Court of Law between him and the Bureau Chief of Raj Express and annoyed with the fact, the respondent newspaper had been continuously publishing disrespectful, inaccurate news against the complainant and his family with an ill-intent to mar their reputation/image out of malice rage. The complainant further submitted that the respondent newspaper had insulted him in public by addressing him as “Mohan Kutila” in several issues of the newspaper. The impugned news items published in issues with captions are mentioned below,

Sl. No. Captioned Dated 1. Pita-Putra Nahi Ho Paye Kamiyab 28.10.2014 2. Mohan Kutila Ki Karan Gaye Ek Aur Nirdosh Ki Jaan 8.11.2014 3. Mamlay Ki Rafadafa Karnay Mai Lagi Police 8.11.2014 4. Marnay Se Pehlay Kisan Ne Kia Tha Ghar Par Phone 8.11.2014 5. Sham hotay hi Bandh ho jata hain Janch Adhikari ka Phone 10.11.2014 6. Ab tak ki Janch se santusht nahi Adhikari 11.11.2014 7. Mohan Kutelay ne kharida Madhavghar Thana 12.11.2014 8. Madhavnagar Police ne paribar ka lia bayan 13.11.2014 9. Kaha - Mohan karta tha soshan 14.11.2014 10. FIR mai deri, kahin Mohan ko bachanay ki sajis toh nahi 16.11.2014 11. Dairy Sanchalak ko bachanay mai lagi Police 18.11.2014 12. SP ne Police se Talabh ki Case Dairy 19.11.2014 13. SP ke Adesh ka intijar 20.11.2014

The complainant added that the editor had used crafty, contemptuous and vulgar language against the complainant and his family which badly affected their reputation.

The complainant further submitted that he had sent Notice dated 17.11.2014 to the editor of the respondent newspaper asking him to publish clarification against the impugned publications but, had not received any response from respondent’s side.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 12.05.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper to file their reply but, the notice was returned by the postal department with a note that the respondent Refused to receive the notice. Hence, on 16.09.2015 the Council wrote to the District Collector, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh to resend the Show Cause Notice to the respondent newspaper “Raj Express”, and the same was forwarded to the Raj Express but no written statement was filed on its behalf.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Akhilesh appeared for the complainant.

The allegation of the complainant is that a case between him and Bureau Chief of the respondent newspaper is pending before a competent court of law and annoyed with that, inaccurate and disrespectful news reports have been published by the respondent newspaper against him without obtaining his version.

A Show Cause Notice sent to the respondent has been returned with the postal remarks “Refused”. Notice was also sent to the respondent newspaper through District Collector, Ujjain, M.P. Despite that, the respondent has not chosen to appear nor filed his reply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee accepts the allegation made by the complainant that because of animosity between him and the Bureau Chief, inaccurate and disrespectful news reports have been published against him and that too without obtaining his version.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council to Censure the respondent newspaper, Raj Express, Ujjain, M.P.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Censure the respondent newspaper, Raj Express, Ujjain, M..P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI, the Director, I&PRD and the District Magistrate, Ujjain, M.P. for taking appropriate action.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 48 F.NO. 14/384,387,388/14-15-PCI

Shri. Anoop Shukla The Editor Advocate, Satna Star Samachar Madhya Pradesh Satna, MP

The Editor Patrika, Satna, MP

The Editor Dainik Bhaskar Satna, MP.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 18.07.2014 was filed by Shri Anoop Shukla, Advocate, Satna, Madhya Pradesh against the editors of three newspapers - (1) Patrika, (2) Dainik Bhaskar, and (3) Star Samachar, Satna Edition, MP, for allegedly publishing unsubstantiated, unverified and defamatory news item against the complainant and his family in their issues tabulated below:

Sl. Captioned Newspaper Dated No. 1. श� लाइस�स� म� फज�वाड़ा- ये तो हद ह� हो गई स्टार समाचा 2. िजले के 94 सं�दग्ध श� लाइस�स� क� जांच शु स्टार समाचा 3. और य ूं �ठकाने लगा द� गई ्टीट जमानी ह� सीमी स्टार समाचा 1.7.2014 औटोमै�टक गन 4. श� लाइस�स म� फज�वाड़ा- कोलागवां थाना �ेत्र सबसे आ स्टार समाचा 5. कलेक्टर के नाम पर लेते थे 40 हज़ा प�त्र 7. �नरस्त हो सकते ह� 94 श� लाइस� प�त्र 26.6.2014 8. सेमी ऑटोमै�टक राइफल क� �दखा �दया सामान् प�त्र 9. भरमार क� अनम�तु राइफस का लाइसेन् प�त्र 30.6.2014 10. सह� शाखा म� मह�न� दबा रहा रा�प�त भवन का भी आदेश दै�नक भास्क 11. पता बदल का अपराधी ने ले �लया श� लाइस�स दै�नक भास्क 12. �संगल बैरल के आवेदन पर सेमी ऑटोमै�टक गन दै�नक भास्क 13. थाना भेजे गए श� धारक� के नो�टस दै�नक भास्क 14. साहब मुझे श� शाखा से हटा द�िजये दै�नक भास्क 15. दोबारा होगी श� लाइस�स घोटाले के जांच दै�नक भास्क 10.12.2014

The aforesaid news items cover the news of the delay in issuance of gun license and issuance of fake licenses by the Arms License Department, Satna, Madhya Pradesh, and in this context according to the complainant, the aforesaid newspapers had linked his father and brother to the alleged corrupt practices prevailing in the Arms License Department, Satna, MP. by mentioning their names in the news items without any due verification of facts. This had maligned their reputation.

The complainant further submitted that the aforesaid newspapers had misused the press to harass the complainant and his family through series of inaccurate, unverified and defamatory news items against them. In order to stop such maligning and false publications, the complainant personally visited all the three offices of the respondent newspapers and presented the actual facts, but, the respondents demanded money. On 2.7.2014, the aggrieved complainant, issued Legal Notices to all the three respondent newspapers, but, the respondent newspapers refused to receive the notice so as to avoid any legal procedure against them.

The Council vide its letter dated 14.11.2014 had requested the complainant to submit an explanation of filing the complaint because, after going through all the impugned news items, it was noticed that none of the newspapers had mentioned the complainant, Shri Anoop Shukla’s name in the news items. To which vide letter dated 9.12.2014 the complainant submitted, the respondent newspapers by typographical mistake have mentioned his name as ‘Anoopam’ and clearly mentioned the names of his family members, i.e, of his elder brother and his father in the impugned news items which directly maligned their reputation.

Show-Cause Notice dated 31.03.2015 were issued to all the three respondent newspapers.

Reply filed by Dainik Bhaskar

A reply dated 24.04.2015 was received from the Respondent no.3, Dainik Bhaskar, wherein he denied the allegations of the complainant and informed the Council that he had published the aforesaid news items in the public interest as the people of Satna have the right to know about the ongoing delay and corrupt practices in the Arms Department, Satna, MP. The Editor of Dainik Bhaskar further submitted that they had not received any legal Notice from the Complainant and that they would have definitely responded to such Notice. The respondent editor further informed that Dainik Bhaskar did not publish anything against the Complainant or his family and the Complaint was fake and baseless.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide his letter dated 25.05.2015 filed his counter comments wherein he stated that the impugned news items were based on unverified facts and thus baseless and it had been done intentionally by the respondent newspapers to blackmail and defame the complainant and his family.

Respondent (Dainik Bhaskar) Response

The respondent newspaper Dainik Bhaskar in its response dated 9.07.2015 against the submissions of the Complainant dated 25.05.2015 while denying allegations of the Complainants specifically pointed out that the Complainant’s allegation that Dainik Bhaskar had published news items against the Complainant and his family to blackmail, create pressure was a fabricated one, baseless as he had no evidence to substantiate his charges of being blackmailed by the aforesaid newspaper and neither he (complainant) had mentioned the reason for him/his family being blackmailed. The respondent further submitted that the complainant submitted fabricated and inaccurate complaints against the newspaper to harm its popularity and to create obstruction in the functioning of the Satna Branch of Dainik Bhaskar. The respondent informed that the news items were published in the public interest and were reported after collection of factual information from the department itself.

Reply filed by Star Samachar/Star Media

In response to the Council’s reminder notice dated 9.9.2015, the Star Samachar vide its letter dated 21.10.2015 submitted that the impugned news items, were published in their newspapers on the basis of the information provided by the concerned department and have published the advise/ instruction of the Higher/lower investigatory authorities as it is the right of the people to be informed about the decisions, may be good/bad, taken by the different Government departments.

No Response from Respondent Patrika

No response was filed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Patrika.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Anoop Shukla, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Ajeet Kumar appeared for the respondent Dainik Bhaskar, Shri Vijay Sharma appeared for the respondent Star Samachar and Shri Ankit R. Kothari appeared for the respondent Patrika. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondents. According to the complainant, by publication of the impugned news item, he, his father and family members have been defamed. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all other connected papers and is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is absolutely misconceived. It is of the further opinion that the respondent newspaper by publishing the news item has not breached any journalistic ethics so as to call for any action. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 49 F. No. 14/334/14-15-PCI

Shri. Dr Brijmani Singh The Editor Ex-Provincial Spokesperson Dainik Jagran Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Dainik Jagran Press Uttar Pradesh 23 Civil lines Gorakhpur, 273009, Uttar Pradesh

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

The complaint dated 03.06.2014 was filed by Dr Brijmani Singh, Ex-Provincial Spokesperson, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, against the editor Shri Shailandra Mani Tripathi, Dainik Jagran, Gorakhpur, UP. The complainant objected to the news item published by Dainik Jagran in its issue dated 14.04.2014 captioned “Ab Kasauti par Bhajpa Rashtrawadi Sangathan ke Log”. According to the Complainant, in the impugned news item, the Hindu Yuva Vahini organisation had been equated with the other national organisations whereas according to the Complainant, the activities of the Hindu Yuva Vahini organisation were not in national or society’s interest. Questioning the integrity of this organisation, he alleged that the Hindu Yuva Vahini organisation indulges in criminal activities. The comparison drawn between the BJP or any other national parties with the Hindu Yuva Vahini organisation by the respondent newspaper had been considered by the complainant as misleading. The complainant wrote to the respondent newspaper on 15.04.2014 for clarifying the aforesaid objection in writing, but no action was taken by the respondent.

No Written Statement

Vide Council’s letter dated 14.08.2014 the editor of the respondent newspaper was asked either in publish the clarification submitted by the complainant in their newspaper or the respondent newspaper can submit its response so that the Council can proceed in the matter but the newspaper did not respond. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 28.09.2015 to the respondent newspaper.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all other connected papers. The Complainant is aggrieved by the description of Hindu Yuva Vahini Organisation as a Rashtrawadi Organisation. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance of the complainant is absolutely misconceived.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 50 File No. 14/175/15-16-PCI

Shri. Vijay Agarwal (Raju) The Editor Subhas Park, Satna , Semriya Express (Hindi) Madhya Pradesh. P.T. House, Mukhtiyarganj, Satna, M.P. Satna, Madhya Pradesh. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 15.07.2015 and another with additional factual information on 19.08.2015 have been filed by Shri Vijay Agarwal against Editor, Shri Sharad Auditchya, Semriya Express, Satna, MP. The complainant levelled allegations against the Editor for publishing indecent, insensitive, baseless and untrue news item in his newspaper on the basis of unverified information and using vulgar, offensive and disrespectful language against the complainant and his family and misleading public that the complainant and his family engage in sex trade. The impugned news items with their captions are mentioned below:

Sl. No. Issue date Captioned 1. 7.07.2015 “Ward no. 40 ki mahila Parshad (Councillor) nadarad” 2. 14.07.2015 “Raju Agarwal ko bibi ne rangay hato dabocha tha” 3. 21.07.2015 “Bina tareekh ke abedano par abh bhi Aarti Agarwal ki signature ho rahay hain” 4. 28.7.2015 Paisay do nahi to tumhay fasa dunga” 5. 11.08.2015 “Bhajpa netri police ki saran mai

The impugned news item dated 7.07.2015 it was reported that the Councillor of the Satna Municipal Corporation went missing with her children after fighting with her husband. Subsequently another news on 14.07.2015 came out in the Semriya Express that the Councillor of Ward No. 4, Satna Municipal Corporation is still missing and did not return home, she has caught her husband red handed with another lady reportedly Smt. Bimla Tripathi. On 21.07.2015 in another follow up news item it was claimed that Smt. Aarti Agarwal went missing with her children and in her absence someone else is attesting and signing documents without dates in her office at the Municipal Corporation. The news item also stated that the person who is forging the signatures at the Municipal Corporation is an aide of the Complainant, Shri Vijay Agarwal. On 28.07.2015 the impugned news item had again accused the complainant and stated that Bimla Tripathi, BJP leader, with whom the complainant was caught red handed by his wife, now threatened him to commit suicide and to file a police case against him. According to the news item, Smt. Bimla Tripathi has mentioned that she was dragged into the matter and her involvement was constantly being reflected in media because she was lured by Shri Agarwal. The news item, even mentioned that Smt. Bimla Tripathi demanded monetary compensation from Shri Vijay Agarwal. In impugned news item dated 11.8.2015 it was reported that Smt. Bimla Tripathi, BJP Leader, had approached the police for help.

The Complainant had submitted that he himself had been the Councillor at the Satna Municipal Corporation and his wife Smt. Aarti Agarwal is at present, elected Councillor of Satna Municipal Corporation. This news item has caused immense damage to their reputation and they had to go through mental agony. The complainant further submitted that editor, Shri Sharad Auditchya was arrested and jailed previously for his irresponsible and insensitive journalism and till now some court cases were pending against him.

The respondent submitted that he had also sent a Notice through the Advocate Akhilesh Gupta on 08.07.2015 to the respondent newspaper asking for clarifying the impugned news. Though he has received an acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice from the respondent newspaper but clarification was never published.

Re-submission from the Complainant

The Press Council of India issued a Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2015 to the respondent newspaper to file their reply. Soon after that on 24.12.2015 it was submitted by the complainant that after receiving the Press Council’s Notice the respondent newspapers in a rage of revenge had again published another impugned news item against the complainant and his wife captioned “Parshad Aaarti Agarwal ko hatanay ki karyavahi tez” dated 22.12.2015, demanding for the immediate removal of Smt. Aarti Agarwal from the post of Councillor of Satna Municipal Corporation.

Reply filed by the Editor

The editor of the Samriya Express, Satna, in his reply dated 31.12.2015 submitted that the complainant’s wife, Smt. Aarti Agarwal, the present Councillor of Ward no. 40 Satna Municipal Corporation did not return home as well as not attended office in the last six months and till date she is missing. Infact the Mayor of the Satna Municipal Corporation has already passed an oral order to inform the State Government about the vacancy of the post of Councillor of Ward No. 40 Satna Municipal Corporation. The respondent newspaper has submitted that the alleged impugned news item reports about the sudden disappearance of the Councillor of Ward No. 40 Satna Municipal Corporation, which, according to him is an important piece of information which needs to be published and in that story, Shri Vijay Agarwal’s name was mentioned just in context of being the husband of Smt. Aarti Agarwal to convey the reason of her sudden disappearance from Satna. According to the editor the impugned story stated that Shri. Vijay Agarwal is performing the official activities of his wife, Smt. Aarti Agarwal, if it is not true, then how come office documents were signed and attested in her absence from her office. It was the duty of Mr. Vijay Agarwal to inform the Municipal Corporation regarding the disappearance of his wife. The editor had also stated that he did not publish any news that is incorrect or inappropriate and had no intention to defame or mar the image of Shri. Vijay Agarwal and to prove his point he submitted a video on CD. The alleged impugned news item dated 11.8.2015 has nothing to do with the complainant as it has talked about the stand taken by BJP leader, Smt. Bimla Tripathi against the respondent newspaper through the police administration in which investigation is still on. By placing complaint against the news item published on 11.08.2015 the complainant himself has shown his involvement with the BJP leader, Smt. Bimla Tripathi. Further, the respondent newspaper has claimed that they did not publish any clarification on the request of the complainant because all the news they had published were true and needed no clarification. Further, the respondent newspaper's editor stated that allegation made by the complainant was false and the usage of the term 'blackmailer' was also wrong.

Counter Statements by Complainant

The complainant vide his counter statement dated 2.02.2016 submitted that the statement of the respondent was untrue, to start with the respondent editor claims that he had not published any defamatory story against the complainant was completely untrue as the news item dated 7.7.2015 very specifically shared certain information against the complainant which conveys that the complainant was involved in some sex trade. Again in the news item dated 14.7.2015 it was sensationalised that the complainant was caught red handed by his wife with BJP leader Bimla Tripathi was again baseless and it also mentions about some fight with his wife, which was untrue and had badly affected his reputation and those false news were never clarified in their publications. He had also claimed that the video CD submitted by the respondent newspaper is forged and fabricated. The complainant also submitted that he has nothing to do with Bimla Tripathi. Further, complainant mentioned that the clarification submitted by the respondent to the PCI against him was not supported with substantial proof or documents, thus the reply filed by him should not be taken into consideration.

Further Response from the Respondent

The respondent vide his further response dated 12.7.2016, while reiterating his earlier reply, furnished the evidence for his contention that the news item was true and published on the basis of facts. He further stated that the rejoinder of the complainant was not published as the news item was true and based on facts.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Vijay Agarwal, the complainant appeared in person along with Advocate V.P. Garg. Shri Sharad Audichya, Editor represented the respondent newspaper.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the complainant as also the respondent editor and has perused the impugned news item. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the impugned news item had insinuated the character of the complainant and while doing so the respondent newspaper has behaved in a reckless manner.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and recommends to the Council to Censure the respondent newspaper, Semriya Express.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censure the respondent newspaper, Semriya Express, Satna, M.P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of M.P. and also to the District Magistrate, Govt. of M.P. for taking appropriate action.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 51 F. No. 14/105/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Daudti Dilli for publication of alleged “Paid News” during Delhi Assembly Election – 2013 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Daudti Dilli” for publishing following news items captioned below:

Sl. No. News-Item/advertisement Dated

1. �तलक नगर �वधानसभा म� एक भी युवा बेरोजगार नह�ं रहेगा – 19.11.2013 & 4.12. 2013 राजीव बब्बर 2. �तलक नगर �वदनसभा �ेत्रसे बेजेपी के उम्मीदवार राजीव बब्बर -do- चुनाव प्रचार के �लए पदयात्रा का रास्ता 3. म�हलाओ के �लए सरि�तु शहर बनाने म� मखु ्यमंत्री पूर� तरह नाक -do- – राजीव बब्बर 4. �तलक नगर पटर� संगठन का राजीव बब्बर को भार� समथर् -do- 5. युवा मतदान जरूर कर, गलत आदत� और शराब के िखलाफ वचनबद् -do- हो – राजीव बब्बर 6. �ेत्र क� चुनावी हवा जीव बब्बर क� ओर -do-

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, ‘Daudti Dilli’, Delhi on 27.6.2014 through Deputy Commissioner, West Delhi District, Delhi but received no response.

The photocopies of impugned news items sent to the Council were not legible as such, a letter dated 20.6.2016 was sent to ECI for providing legible copies but response was received.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the ECI while Shri Naresh Khan, Chief Editor represented the respondent newspaper.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Daudti Dilli’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 51(a) F. No. 14/119/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Chambal Surkhi for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Election – 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Chambal Surkhi” for publishing news item captioned “बसपा का मतदाता जागरूक अ�भयन जार�” in its issue dated 31.10.2013. It was reported in impugned news item that BSP candidate B.L. Kushwah addressed the public gathering to make them aware about voting by organizing nukkad sabha and voters awareness campaign.

A Show-cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Chambal Surkhi’, Dholpur, on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement In response, the respondent editor, Chambal Surkhi, Dholpur vide written statement dated 16.7.2014 while denying the allegations of paid news submitted that the newspaper started its new publication from Rajasthan last year. Shri Sanjay Verma, local editor, Dhaulpur has published the news without any appeal to support a particular candidate/party. Instead the news was published to sensitize people about their voting right.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the ECI while Shri Ramvilas Sharma, Editor represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Chambal Surkhi’ in its issue dated 31.10.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news item and all other connected papers. It notes that the news is in six columns and out of those, three columns contain names of individual persons. The tone and tenor of the presentation of news items clearly show that it is paid news. Not only this, there are several photographs of the same person in the said news. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and holds the impugned news item as paid news. It recommends to the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Chambal Surkhi’ for publication of paid news.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Chambal Surkhi’’, Morena, M.P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No.51(b) File No.14/853/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Ahah Alert for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 22.8.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded suspected case of Paid News against the newspaper “Shah Alert” for publishing news item captioned " पचाइन्द म� पंकज अग्रव को जाटो का �मला समथर्" in its issue dated 4.4.2014. It was reported in the impugned news item that Shri Jayant Chaudhary has begun the election campaign for Ms. Jayapradha from village Panchendakala of Bijnaur who is contesting for Bijnaur Lok Sabha seat. Shri Chaudhary made an appeal to public to give their support to Jayapradha as she has done lot of work for women and raised many issues concerning women in Parliament.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Shah Alert, U.P. on 19.3.2015 but the same was received back in the Council with remarks “Kafi samay se bandh”

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to it ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Shah Alert’ in its issue dated 4.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (c) File No.14/846-847/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Shree India and Bundelkhand Live for publication of alleged “Paid News”during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspapers, Shree India and Bundelkhand Live for publishing news item captioned "BSP Pratyasi R.K. Patel Ka Namankan 5 Ko” and “BSP Pratyashi R.K. Patel Ka Namankan 5 Ko” respectively in its issues dated 4.4.2014 in favour of B.S.P. candidate, Shri R.K. Patel during General Elections 2014. In both the impugned news items, it was reported that Shri R.K. Patel will file his nomination on 5th April along with his senior party leaders and supporters from Banda Constituency.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Shree India, Banda and Bundelkhand Live, Banda on 19.3.2015.

Written Statement of Shree India

The respondent editor, Shree India in his written statement dated 9.4.2015 stated that the allegation of the paid news against them is false.

Written Statement of Bundelkhand Live

The respondent Editor, Shri Harimohan Dhuria, Bundelkhand Live in his written statement dated 9.4.2015 submitted that the said news is not paid news. According to him the paper’s representatives/correspondent covering at District Mandal send news via e-mail/post which are published in newspaper.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases reffered by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that it ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the representative of the ECI has chosen not to appear. Shri Anil Singh, editor appeared for the respondent newspaper, Shree India, the respondent Bundelkhand Live has sought adjournment in the matter.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspapers Shree India and Bundelkhand Live in its issue dated 4.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news items and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the verbatim reproduction of the news in two newspapers clearly goes on to suggest that the news was published on consideration.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and holds the impugned news item as paid news. It recommends to the Council to Censure both the newspapers ‘Shree INDIA’ and ‘Bundelkhand Live’, Banda U.P. for publication of paid news.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspapers, ‘Shree INDIA’ and ‘Bundelkhand Live’, Banda U.P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of U.P. for taking appropriate action.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (d) F. No. 14/855/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Nayan Jagrati for publication of alleged “Paid News” during Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election – 2013 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Nayan Jagrati” for publishing news item captioned “रोड शो म� पंकज को �मला भार� समथर्” in its issue dated 8.4.2014.

In the news item, it was reported that Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Congress candidate appealed to the public during a road show to vote in favour of Congress. People of all communities welcomed him with garlands and assured support to him.

A Show-cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘NayanJagrati’, Uttar Pradesh on 10.4.2015.

Written Statement

The respondent editor, Nayan Jagrati, U.P. vide his written statement dated 9.4.2016 submitted that paper had not published anything which comes under the scanner of paid news. He further submitted that the news in question was published in due course as a part of the activities which took place in the city.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015 and 5.11.2015.

ECI attached a copy of Notice dated 8.4.2014 issued by District Information Officer asking Sh. Pankaj Agarwal to explain publication of news in question. Vide letter dated 10.4.2014 the District Information Officer informed Shri Pankaj Agarwal, congress candidate that as the above matter had not been explained by him, the impugned news items was being taken in category of paid news and the amount had been booked under your account of election expenses.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the ECI while Shri Rishiraj Rahi, Ex-Editor represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Nayan Jagrati’ in its issue dated 8.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. (e) File No.14/857/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Janvani for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news. Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Janvani” for publishing following news items.

S.No. News Item Dated

1 Pankaj Agarwal ko diya samarthan 29.3.2016

2 Congress pratyasi Pankaj ne kiya toofani jansampark 6.4.2014

3 Congress pratyasi ke samarthan mein aae sangathan 9.4.2014

In the first news item it was reported that a huge rally had been organised at Sarafa Bazar in support of Congress candidate, Shri Pankaj Agarwal. The jewellers Association and Goldsmith Association have come to his support. In the second news item dated 6.4.2014 it was reported that as a part of his election campaign, Shri Pankaj Agarwal went to the court and met the advocates and stated that congress party can only give a stable government. In the third news item dated 9.4.2014 it was reported that many organisation have decided to support congress candidate, Shri Pankaj Agarwal.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Janvani, Meerut U.P. on 13.4.2015.

Written Statement In his written statement dated 12.5.2015, the respondent editor, Dainik Janvani denied having published paid news. They did not receive any money to publish the impugned news. The respondent also stated that they are aware the guidelines of Election Commission and only cover the news.

The respondent in his further reply dated 12.7.2016, while reiterating his earlier reply, stated that the news items were not paid news.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv)English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 17.9.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 4.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the ECI while Shri Anand Agarwal represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Janvani’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl No. (f) File No.14/856/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Vishwa Manav for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Vishwa Manav” for publishing news item captioned "Thakur Bahulya gaon mein SP pratyashi ka swagat” in its issue dated 29.3.2014. It was reported in the news item that several Ministers and MLA of Pradesh made stormy campaign in villages having majority of Thakurs and informed the public about the achievements of State Government. They made appeal to public to cast their vote in favour of S.P. candidate.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Vishwa Manav, Saharanpur, U.P. on 15.4.2015.

Written Statement

In his written statement dated 13.5.2015 the respondent editor, Vishwa Manav stated that the impugned news item was based on the programme organized by the State Government which was attended by a large number of people of the area and the newspaper covered the said function. The respondent further stated that he had not received any kind of cash and other favour from any of the candidate for publishing the news in question.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that it ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv)English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Vishwa Manav’ in its issue dated 29.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No. (g) F. No. 14/877/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Amar Ujala, Muzaffarnagar for publication of alleged “Paid News” during Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election – 2013 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dt. 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Amar Ujala” for publishing news item captioned “देश�हत म� भाजपा को वोट द�” and �सपा प्रत्याशी का सम� in its issue dated 29.3.2014 and 8.4.2014 respectively.

In the news item dated 29.3.2014, it was reported that in support of BJP’s candidate, Dr. Sanjeev Baliyan, different team of rural and urban unit of party were working. Women brigade of BJP made strategy to associate half of the population (women) with BJP. Shiv Sena had also given support to the BJP candidate.

In the other news item dated 8.4.2014, it was reported that Gate Grille Association declared its support to SP candidate in the presence of State Minister. The Minister stated that support of the Association will give weightage to the candidate.

A Show-cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Amar Ujala’, Uttar Pradesh on 10.4.2015.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala, U.P. vide written statement dated 30.7.2015 stated that they being a responsible newspaper don’t believe in yellow journalism and allegations of paid news are totally baseless. The respondent submitted that they had not received any kind of money, gift or favour from anyone with regard to the publication of impugned news item. The news item was published in routine and was based on statement given by the contesting candidates during public canvassing and the news items were fair, objective and natural, nothing had been published which can prejudice the view of the voter.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that it ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015, 17.9.2015 and 4.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the representative of the ECI while Shri Amit Kumar Chodhary, Assistant Manager along with Shri P. R. Rajhans, Advocate appeared for the respondent newspaper.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ in its issues dated 29.3.2014 and 8.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (h) File No.14/895/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Awam-E-Hind for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Awam-E-Hind” for publishing news item captioned "BSP Ke road show mein umda Jansailaab” in its issue dated 28.3.2014. It was reported that a road show in respect of the BSP candidate, Shri Maluck Naagar from Bijnaur had been a success, as large crowd turned up in support of the BSP candidate.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Awam-E-Hind, Delhi on 15.4.2015.

Written Statement

In his written statement dated 4.5.2015 the respondent editor, Awam-E-Hind denied publication of any paid news. The newspaper functions on the hallmark of integrity and truth. The source quoted for the said news item was the local reporter of the newspaper. The respondent further submitted that the allegation made in terms of the correspondence annexed with the show cause notice was not only without any proof, but also purely based on conjectures and surmises.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv)English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the ECI while Ms. Kanika Bansal, Legal Consultant represented the respondent newspaper.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Awam-E-Hind’ in its issue dated 28.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No (i) F. No. 14/890/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against City Times for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Election – 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “City Times” for publishing news items captioned “बसपा को जन समथर्न को देख �वपि�य� का छू ट रहा पसीना: खाबर�” and �चौरासी �ेत्र के गाव� म� �वजय चौधर� को �लया गया हाथो ह� in its issue dated 15.4.2014 and 13.4.2014, respectively.

In the news item dated 15.4.2014, it was reported that a strategy was made by the BSP workers to organize public gathering in support of Ms. Mayawati. Former Cabinet Minister and former Minister said on the birthday of Baba Saheb that they all have to shun their differences and lend support to Ms. Mayawati by conducting stormy campaign for BSP candidate, Shri Brijlal Khabri. Taking note of immense enthusiasm of BSP party workers, other opposition parties are getting restless.

In the second news item dated 13.4.2014, it was reported that Sh. Vijay Chaudhary, candidate of congress, has requested to vote for his party. Stormy campaign of Shri Chaudhury received huge support of public.

A Show-cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘City Times’, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on 19.3.2015.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor, City Times, Lucknow vide written statement dated 6.4.2015 while denying the allegations of paid news submitted that they had not charged for the said news items and published them free of cost on. He further submitted that they published news items keeping in view journalistic ethics.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015, 17.9.2015 and 4.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘City Times’ in its issue dated 15.4.2014 and 13.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news items, written statement and all other connected papers. From the manner and presentation of the news item, it is obvious that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and holds the impugned news items as paid news. It recommended the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘City Times’ for publication of paid news.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘City Times’, Lucknow, U.P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow for taking appropriate action.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (j) F. No. 14/893/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Chingari for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Election – 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Chingari” for publishing news item captioned “मौलाना तौक�र रज़ा ने बसपा को समथर्न �दया” in its issue dated 27.3.2014. In the news item it was reported that Maulana Taukeer Raza had a great influence over Muslim community and therefore his support to any particular party is of significance. His support to the BSP had been welcomed by the party. Shri Maulana said that after considering many parties, he decided that BSP could keep communalism under control in U.P.

A Show-cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Chingari’, Sandhya Dainik, Uttar Pradesh on 10.4.2015.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor, Chingari, Sandhya Dainik, U.P. vide written statement dated 8.5.2015 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that the news was based on the statement and press conferences of eminent persons of Muslim community. Further, their newspaper is known for honest journalism and publishing such news during elections is normal. The District level MCMC never gave him any opportunity to put forth his statement/version which is totally unethical and illegal. He has also submitted that the allegation made by the ECI is not only fictitious, baseless and false but also appears to be motivated by extraneous factors. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint and take action against the erring officers. He also assured that they will be more careful in future and obey the guidelines enunciated by ECI and PCI, while publishing such type of news.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no representation on behalf of the ECI while Shri Alok Govil represented the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Chingari’ in its issue dated 27.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news item and all other connected papers. The manner and tenor of the presentation of news items clearly show that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and holds the impugned news item as paid news. It recommends to the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Chingari’ for publication of paid news.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Chingari’, Bijnor, U.P. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of U.P. for taking appropriate action.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (k) File No.14/887/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Karmyug Prakash for publication of alleged “Paid News” during General Elections 2014 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Karmyug Prakash” for publishing news item captioned "BJP Samprdayik, BSP Jatiwadi or SP Gundonki party: Ranjit Singh Judev” in its issue dated 10.4.2014. It was reported in the impugned news item that on last day of the nomination, huge procession moved through the streets in connection with filing of nomination by the Congress candidate. Shri Vijay Chaudhary, Congress candidate filed his nomination amid huge crowd which beat every party. There was overwhelming response of public in welcoming Shri Vijay Chaudhary.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Karmyug Prakash, Jalaun, U.P. on 19.3.2015.

Written Statement

In his written statement dated 31.3.2015 the respondent editor, Shri Harish Kumar Gupt stated that the impugned news item was coverage of the nomination procession of Shri Vijay Chaudhary and therefore cannot be construed as paid news. The respondent further submitted that the paper does not believe in the paid news nor publishes paid news.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the ECI while Shri Sanjay Gupta, Owner represented the respondent newspaper.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Karmyug Prakash’ in its issue dated 10.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

Press Council of India Sl. No. (L) F.No. 14/110/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Roznama Rashtriya Sahara for publication of alleged “Paid News” during Delhi Assembly Election – 2013 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Roznama Rashtriya Sahara”, an Urdu daily for publishing following news items captioned as below:

S. No. News-Item/advertisement Dated

1. सबको साथ लेकर चल�ग े हाजी सलीम सैफ� का अजम इरादा 23.11.2013 2. बसपा जनता के ददर् समझने वाली पाट� हाजी सलीम सैफ 24.11.2013 3. �मज़ार जावीश अली ह� अवामी राबीता जनसमपहर म�ेम अ�अरान सी 22.11.2013 जनता म� जोश व खरोश हष� उल्लास 4. म�टया महल म� इस्स मरतबा तबद�ली क� लहर �मज़ार् जावे 23.11.2013 5. 24.11.2013 सेवक बनकर हर समय जनता क� सेवा करता रहूँगा �मज़ार् जावेद अली

The ECI had sent Hindi translation of two news clippings in respect of news published on 24 Nov. 2013 and i.e. at Sl. No. 2 and 5. In the news item no. 2, it was reported that Mirza Javed Ali, a candidate of congress gave many assurances in a rally and public has declared their support to him. In the impugned news item at Sl. No. 5 refers to election campaigning of BSP candidates, Hazi Mohammad Saleem Ali, from Nangloi, Legislative Assembly seat wherein it was reported that while BJP instigate communalism and congress only entice muslims at the time of election. BSP is only party which has truly worked for muslim’s right. The news item at Sl. No.5 relates to election campaign of Congress candidate from Matia Mahal, Shri Mirza Javed Ali. In the impugned news candidate addressed public on issue of education, hygiene, roads and other matters of the area.

A Show-cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Roznama Rashtriya Sahara’, Delhi on 18.6.2014 but received back with postal remarks “Left”. The SCN was served through Commissioner, New Delhi area but received no response.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Roznama Rashtriya Sahara’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (n) F. No. 14/128/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against Dainik Kota Bureau for publication of alleged “Paid News” during Rajasthan Assembly Election – 2013 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “Dainik Kota Bureau” for publishing following news items captioned below:

Sl. News-Item/advertisement Dated No. 1. खानपर:ु �नदर्लीय राजेश �संधवी को �मल रहा है व्यापक समथर 17.11.2013 झालावाड़ 2. खानपर:ु �दनो �दन कम होता जा रहा है अ�नल जैन का प्रभा 16.11.2013 झालावाड़ 3. खानपर:ु �नदर्लीय राजेश �संधवी भार� पड़ रहे है अन्य प्रत्या�शय 20.11.2013 झालावाड़ 4. खानपर:ु ज़ोर पकड़ रहा है �नदर्लीय �संधवी का जनसम्पक 21.11.2013 झालावाड़

A Show-cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Dainik Kota Bureau’, Rajasthan on 26.6.2014 through District Magistrate, Jhalawar, Rajasthan but received no response.

As the impugned clippings were not legible, a letter dated 21.6.2016 was sent to ECI to provide legible copies of impugned news item but received no response.

English translation of the impugned news items, provided to the concerned it was reported that independent candidate, Shri Rajesh Singhvi was gaining public support day by day. His gentle behaviour attracted the voters whereas the BJP rebel and RJP candidate, Shri Anil Jain is losing support day by day. The BJP workers were distancing themselves from his campaign. The people of this area were saying that Anil Jain had committed mistakes by leaving BJP. The rebel BJP candidate Anil Jain was a strong contender in election and had been in constant touch with his voters in his tenure as an MLA. He breaks into the BJP vote share.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions, ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Kota Bureau’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news item and all other connected papers. The manner and tenor of the presentation of news items clearly show that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and holds the impugned news item as paid news. It recommends to the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Dainik Kota Bureau’ for publication of paid news.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Dainik Kota Bureau’, Jhalawad, Rajasthan. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (o) File No.14/120/14-15-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against BPN News for publication of alleged “Paid News” during Election of Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of “Paid News” against the newspaper “BPN News” for publishing news item captioned "Raje ke netritv me banegi BJP sarkar” in its issue dated 17.11.2013. It was reported in impugned news item that contestant from Dholpur constituency, Abdul Sagir Khan visited the villages, Chittora, Umrara, Tasimon during his election campaign. He requested the villagers to cast their vote in his favour. In his speech Mr. Abdul Sagir said that people should vote in the favour of BJP because under the leadership of Maharani Vasundhara Raje the Government of BJP will be formed in Rajasthan. As news clipping in Hindi was not available on record, a letter was sent to ECI on 16.6.2016 to provide the same but received no response.

No Written Statement A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, BPN Times on 20.6.2014 but no written statement was filed.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases reffered by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that it ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv)English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but received no response inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘BPN News in its issue dated 17.11.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the aforesaid principles laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl.No. 52 File No.14/430/15-16-PCI

Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Deo, The Editor, President, Vigilance Committee, Vs. Hindustan, Hindi daily, Village-Gondpur, Singhbhum East, Seraikella Kharswan, (Jharkhand) (Jharkhand)

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 27.10.2015 was filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Deo, President, Vigilance Committee of Village Gondpur, District Seraikella Kharswan (Jharkhand) against “Hindustan” for publication of allegedly false, vague and baseless news item under the caption “सडक के ऊपर बनाई जा रह� थी सड+क” (Road was being constructed over road-English translation) in its issue dated 3.9.2015. The objectionable portion of the impugned news item read as follows:

“As per information in the year of 1997-98, the road was constructed by R.E.O. Department from Village Gondpur to Chilku. Again in the year of 2005 the said road was constructed from Hari Mandir of Village Gondpur to the Souda Ka Ghar by the Welfare Department. Even after good condition of the said road, the Panchayat Samiti of Kharswan Panchayat again upon an estimate of Rs.2 lakh approved construction of road from Hari Mandir to Souda Ka Ghar measuring 200 feet road. On the complaint of Mangal Singh Soy to the Deputy Commissioner, the work of road construction had been stopped.” (Translation as provided by the complainant)

The complainant alleged that the impugned news report was vague and baseless. The report was published without valid source of information and such kind of conduct on the part of the respondent was totally illegal and against the journalistic ethics.

The complainant issued that a legal notice dated 22.9.2015 to the respondent with a request to produce relevant documents in support of the impugned news item but no response was received. He has requested the Council to take appropriate action against the respondent under the provision of Press Council Act.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Hindustan, Singhbhum East (Jharkhand) on 3.12.2015.

Written Statement

The respondent vide letter dated 2.6.2016 while denying all the allegations submitted that the complaint is baseless, frivolous as the impugned item was based on the correct facts and circumstances as well as admittedly due verification of the facts from the public at large. The subject news article was published based on the complaint/letters submitted by the Ex.MLA, Sh. Mangal Singh Soya in the office of Dy. Development Commissioner, Saraykella-Kharsawama vide its letter dated 1.9.2015. He further submitted that the concerned reporter visited the premises where the new road was broken by JCB. The concerned reporter after inquiry, verification of the facts, took photo of the above referred road and accordingly published the photo with impugned news article. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant as also Shri Arun Pathak, advocate, a representative of the editor and perused the complaint as also the other connected papers. The complainant is aggrieved by a portion of the news item in which it has been stated that despite condition of the road being good, the Kharswan Panchayat Samiti is constructing 200 feet road and spending a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. It is assertion of the complainant that the aforesaid news item is false. According to him the decision to construct only 100 feet Road was taken and a sum of Rs. 1,17,000 was to be spent. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that before publication of the news item the version of the Panchayat Samiti ought to have been taken. Admittedly, it has not been done. The Panchayat Samiti, if so advised, may give its version to the respondent newspaper within two weeks. The respondent newspaper shall publish the complainant’s version with the same prominence within three weeks thereafter.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India Item No.53 F.No. 14/439/15-16-PCI

Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Deo, The Editor President of Vigilance Committee, Vs. Dainik Bhaskar Jharkhand Jamshedpur, Jharkhand

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 27.10.2015 was filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Deo against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar for alleged publication of vague and baseless news under the caption “ड�सी ने रूकवाया सड़क का का” in its issue dt. 3.9.2015.

It was alleged in the impugned news item that a newly constructed road in village Gondpur under the block of Kharswan has been demolished by JCB earth excavator. It was further reported that REO deptt. had constructed road from village Gondpur to Chilku in 1997-98. The Welfare Department again constructed the said PCC road from village Gondpur via Hari Mandir to the house of Souda in 2005. Even after good condition of the said road, the Panchayat Samiti of Kharswan Panchayat again approved an estimate of two lakh for construction of road from Hari Mandir to House of Souda measuring 200 feet P.C.C.Road. The former MLA, Shri Mangal Singh Soy made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner in this regard, who stopped the construction of road.

The complainant submitted that in fact the road was in damaged condition up to length of 100 feet and after proper verification for benefit of general public the work order for construction of said Road had been sanctioned for a total length of 100 feet with an estimate of Rs.1,17,400.00.

The complainant vide legal notice dated 22.3.2015 drew the attention of the respondent stating that such a wild allegation by way of publishing false news is totally illegal d heavy damage to the reputation of the locality as well as put question upon the conduct of the vigilance committee of Gondpur village which directly watch the entire matter of the village. Further, no official order was received from any authority to stop the construction work of the said road and requested him to produce the relevant documents on which the impugned news was based on but received no response. The complainant submitted the work order and other relevant documents with his complaint to substantiate that the news published in the newspaper is vague and baseless. The complainant alleged that such kind of conduct on part of the respondent is totally illegal and against the journalistic ethics. He prayed to the Council to take appropriate action accordingly.

The Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor ‘Dainik Bhaskar’, Jharkhand on 3.12.2015.

Written Statement

The respondent vide written statement dated 16.4.2016 while denying the allegation submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either on the point of act or law. The allegation was biased and levelled with an intention to make pressure upon the respondent. He further stated that the complaint had been filed against the “Hindustan Daily Newspaper” published from Jamshedpur, but the body of the complaint shows it had been filed against the Daily “Dainik Bhaskar” meaning thereby the complainant himself is under confusion against whom he intended to proceed with. The respondent added that B.D.O. Saraikella-Kharaswan informed that there was some complaint regarding the construction of road and on the verbal order of Deputy Commissioner the construction work of road was stopped, as such question of publishing false news and alleging that it had caused damage to the reputation of the locality does not arise. Further, Shri Mangal Singh Soy made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharswan regarding the irregularity of the construction of the road as such allegation of wrong/false news is not maintainable. The respondent stated that he had already given the reply to legal notice sent by the complainant and requested the Council to drop the proceeding.

The written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 28.4.2016 for counter comments but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also Ms. Srishti Singh, Advocate, representing the respondent editor.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint as also the other connected papers. The complainant is aggrieved by a portion of the news item in which it has been stated that despite condition of the Road being good, the Kharswan Panchayat Samiti is constructing 200 feet road and spending a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. It is assertion of the complainant that the aforesaid news item is false. According to him, the decision to construct only 100 feet Road was taken and a sum of Rs. 1,17,000 was to be spent. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that before publication of the news item the version of the Panchayat Samiti ought to have been taken. Admittedly, it has not been done. The Panchayat Samiti if so advised may give its version to the respondent newspaper within two weeks. The respondent newspaper shall publish the complainant’s version with the same prominence within three weeks thereafter.

In view of the aforesaid terms, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl.No. 54 F. No.14/569-571/15-16-PCI.

Shri Sri Singh, The Editor, Patna, Dainik Jagran, Bihar. Vs. Patna (Bihar)

The Editor, Hindustan, Patna (Bihar)

The Editor, Prabhat Khabar, Patna (Bihar)

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 1.2.2016 was filed by Shri Sri Singh, Patna (Bihar) against (i) Dainik Jagran; (ii) Hindustan; and (iii) Prabhat Khabar for publication of allegedly false, baseless and misleading news items. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Caption Newspaper Date

1 दस बीघ े फसल म� लगाई आग-फतुहा म� भी धान के Dainik Jagran 3.12.2015 पूंज म� लगाई आग, लाख� क� ��त 2 दबंग� न े लगाई आग, धान राख - धान के पूंज म� आग Hindustan 3.12.2015 लगाई, के स दजर 3 अगलगी म� लाख� का धान जलकर राख -चौदह बीघ े Prabhat Khabar 3.12.2015 खेत के धान के बोझे जलकर राख

It was reported in the impugned news items that some unknown assailants burnt the granary in Macchriyanwa village at night leading to loss in lakhs. The victim-Karu Mehto registered an FIR in the Police Station against unknown assailants and the matter is under investigation by the police.

The complainant alleged that the impugned news items are false, motivated one- sided and misleading and published with a view to facilitate accidental claim/compensation illegally. Shri Karu Mehto and also to implicate him (complainant) and his family in false cases under a conspiracy. The complainant further alleged that due to publication of impugned news items he and his family’s social reputation had been severely affected and they are facing not only mental tension but also financial loss as the villagers are asking from them about the incident. He had requested the Council to take strict action against the respondents.

The complainant submitted that he wrote letters dated 11.1.2016 to all the respondent-editors with a request to produce relevant evidence in respect of publication of news and also publish contradiction but to no avail.

Show-cause notices were issued to the respondents-(i) Dainik Jagran; (ii) Hindustan; and (iii) Prabhat Khabar on 2.3.2016. The respondent newspaper viz. Dainik Jagran and Prabhat Khabar did not file the written statement.

Written statement of ‘Hindustan’, Patna

The respondent vide written statement dated 7.7.2016 while denying all the allegations submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the name of the complainant had never been published. Further, the complaint with regard to the said incident was filed by Mrs. Brinda Devi @ Krishna Devi, mother of Mr. Karu Mahto in the Police Station Fatuha, District Patna which had also been testified by other reporters of various newspapers. Thus, the said news was published on the basis of the correct facts and circumstances and after due verification of the facts. The complainant prayed that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri Arun Pathak, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Hindustan. Despite opportunity respondents have not filed their written statements. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the impugned news item and is of the opinion, that the respondents while publishing the said news item have not violated any code of conduct so as to call for an action by the Council.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for Dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl.No. 55 File No.14/482/15-16-PCI.

Shri L.P. Sinha, The Editor, Former Managing Director, Vs. Dainik Hindustan, Bihar State Hydroelectric Corporation, Patna (Bihar) Patna (Bihar).

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 2.12.2015 was filed by Shri L.P. Sinha, former Managing Director, Bihar State Hydroelectric Corporation, Patna (Bihar) against “Hindustan”, Patna (Bihar) for publication of allegedly false and baseless news item under the caption “होिल्डं टैक् जांच म� गलत

सा�बत हुई �शकायत” in its issue dated 1.12.2015.

It was reported in the impugned news item that a complaint regarding non-payment of holding tax came out to be false after its investigation. During an investigation, it has come to the notice that Mrs. Saraswati Devi is the landlord of 67E, Rod No.11/F Rajeev Sadan, Rajendra Nagar and the Holding number of ground floor is 614 and Holding number of first and second floor is 615. It was further reported that the payment of Holding Tax in respect of both the floors has been regularly made by the landlord, Saraswati Devi till 2015-16. According to the statement made by Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Deputy City Commissioner (Revenue), Municipal Corporation, the complaint regarding irregularities in paying the Holding Tax by Shri L.P. Sinha of Rajendra Nagar has been investigated and it was found that the application filed by him (complainant) did not mention complete description of house i.e. the Holding number of the ground floor is 614 and Holding number of first and second floor is 615 of that plot.

While denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant alleged that the impugned news item is false and baseless. According to him, his mother Smt. Saraswati Devi is the landlord of 67E, Rod No.11/F Rajeev Sadan, Rajendra Nagar and calculated amount of Holding No.615 of the plot for the financial year 2015-16 was paid to the Municipal Corporation. The complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the City Commissioner informing him that the holding tax for the first and second floor was taken by the Municipal Corporation by showing 0% tax of ground floor. In the meantime respondent newspaper published one-sided news item without taking his version by giving reference to the statement of Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Deputy City Commissioner. The complainant stated that he contacted the respondent-editor in this regard but received no fruitful reply. The complainant further informed that he also drew the attention of the respondent through a letter but the copy of the same had been misplaced. The complainant had stated that neither the respondent filed any reply nor published the contradiction. He had requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Dainik Hindustan, Patna on 15.3.2016.

Written Statement

The respondent paper vide its written statement dated 16.5.2016 submitted that the complainant is baseless and without merits coupled with ulterior motives. The complainant has wrongly mentioned the date of publication of the news article i.e. 09.12.2015. The subject news item was published in the newspaper Hindustan, Patna Edition on 01.12.2015 based on relevant documents which also included Orders by the Municipal Commissioner. The respondent contended that the news article was not contrary to the recognized ethical canons of journalistic propriety as the concerned reporter had acted in routine, bonafide and due discharge of their public duty as journalists and have published the news item after due and adequate verification of what was stated therein. The said news article was published in good faith and as part of fair practice of journalism. The respondent stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant and Shri Arun Pathak, A.R appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papers. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that before publication of the impugned news item the respondent newspaper ought to have given opportunity to the complainant to give its view point. It has not chosen to do so. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, cautions the respondent newspaper to be careful in future. The Inquiry Committee further, directs the respondent newspaper to publish the complainant’s version. For that purpose, the complainant shall give its version to the respondent within two weeks. It be published after necessary editing within one week thereafter with the same prominence.

In view of the aforesaid directions, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 56 File No.14/455/15-16-PCI

Shri Nidheesh P. The Editor, New Delhi Vs. Organiser M/s Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd., New Delhi ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 18.1.2015 was filed by Shri Nidheesh P., New Delhi against the Editor, ‘Organiser’, an English weekly, M/s Bharat Prakashan Ltd., New Delhi for publication of an article in November edition of the magazine captioned “Kerala God’s Own Country Or Godless Country”. The complainant stated that he filed this complaint on behalf of the citizens of Kerala State. According to him, the impugned article was written in the backdrop of a raid conducted by the Delhi Police in Kerala House kitchen on a complaint that Cow meat is present in food material and allegedly lamented Kerala’s beef eating culture and thereby showing the State in poor light as well as defaming and demoralizing the culture and civilization of citizen of Kerala.

The magazine published that “If you happened to ask any common Hindu native of Kerala of Communist background regarding Hinduism, he would instantly respond to you by saying: Oh Religion is opium of the Mass” while you would have heard or read in the media regarding reports concerning the former Kerala Marxist Chief Minister, V.S. Achuthanandan, openly declaring during the election campaign just prior to his assuming power in 2006: It is the Government’s obligation to bring all the Mullahs and Madrassa teachers of Kerala on the pay-role of the Government”.

The impugned article further stated that “Kerala is Bharat’s cent percent literate state while at the same time it has the history of the highest number of political murders; it has the highest number of suicide rates compared with the rest of Bharatiya states; it has the highest number of people afflicted with mental ailments and various psychosomatic disorders (all the mental hospitals in the State are burst at the seams) It has the highest number of divorce rates amongst its married people; It has the highest number of youths of opposite sex living together without marriage”.

The complainant stated that ‘Organiser’, English Weekly magazine published by M/s Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Limited is an official mouthpiece of RSS. This magazine is being circulated widely within and outside of the country and also widely read by a large population through its online edition.

He alleged that the impugned article also instigates caste and communal violence in the State. The statements in the article were false and incorrect and the respondents tarnished the image, reputation and goodness and goodwill of the citizens of Kerala which is against journalistic ethics. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent by issuing a legal Notice on 28.1.2015 but did not get response.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 16.12.2015. Written Statement

In its written statement dated 19.2.2016, the respondent magazine while giving pointwise denial on each and every statement of the complainant stated that the impugned article was based upon the understanding of the author about the present situation in Kerala. The statements in the article were in fact analysis of the fact which was in the public domain. It was half truth that the said incident was described by some as intrusion and violation of federal rights of the Kerala State. The respondent magazine requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Shri M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant. Although written statement has been filed by the respondent newspaper but when the matter is heard, nobody has chosen to appear on its behalf.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the article and is of the opinion that the same is an analysis done by the author. The Inquiry Committee may agree or disagree with the view enunciated in the article but in its opinion, nothing has been written in the article which can be said to be in breach of journalistic ethics.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for dismissal the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl.No. 57 F.No.14/377/14-15-PCI

Mohd. Naseem Ansari, The Editor, Secretary, Inquilab-e-Jadid, Data Nooruddin Shah Waqf Committee, Vs. Urdu Daily, Patna Patna

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 12.7.2014 was filed by Mohd. Naseem Ansari, Secretary Data Nooruddin Shah Waqf Committee, Patna against the editor, Inquilab-E-Jadeed, Urdu Daily, Patna for publication of allegedly misleading news item captioned “Hazrat Data Nooruddin Shah Ke Mazaar Ke Sanlagna plot par dabbango ka kabza” in its issue dated 12.7.2014.

It was reported in the impugned news item that some members of the political parties and the anti-social elements have illegally acquired the land of Nooruddin Shah Tomb, where all types of illegal activities take place under the guise of organising religious functions but infact they generated income for themselves. Local residents are disturbed with the working of the Waqf Board and its activities are also badly influencing the students of school and college.

Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the image of the Waqf Board had been badly tarnished by the impugned news. According to the complainant the place in question is being for religious purposes as well as for recreational activities. He had also submitted that the Muslim youth visit the place for discussion on religious and developmental issues. He had submitted that the Waqf Board had proposed to construct a community hall on the land for which it had already written to Bihar State, Sunni Waqf Board. The first floor of community hall will be utilized for imparting education and ground floor can be used for parking during the marriage season which would generate income for the Board. The complainant had further submitted that no such complaint against so called illegal activities had been made in the police station then on what basis the impugned publication had been published. He had submitted that the news item was published just to malign the image of the Waqf Board in the eyes of the society. The complainant vide letter dated 12.7.2014 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item and requested him to publish rejoinder, but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take appropriate action against the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, Inquilab-e-Jadid, Urdu Daily, Patna on 12.2.2015.

Written Statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 12.2.2015 the Manager, Inquilab-E-Jadeed, Urdu Daily, Patna in his written statement submitted that they had not published any such news item in the said issue. He had annexed a copy of the said issue dated 12.7.2014. He further submitted that paper namely Inquilab, Urdu Dainik is published from Patna and this may be a possible that the said news was published in that newspaper and the complainant wrongly mentioned the name of their publication. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 29.9.2015 with a request to clearly specify the name of the newspaper so that Council can proceed further in the matter, but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear. The respondent in his reply, however, has stated that the news item as alleged by the complainant has not been published in his newspaper.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl.No. 58 File No.14/984/14-15-PCI

Prof. Umesh Mishra, The Editor, Principal, Vs. Dainik Jagran, VanijyaMahavidyalaya, Patna (Bihar) Patna University, Patna (Bihar) ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 3.3.2015 was filed by Prof. Umesh Mishra, Principal, Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna University, Patna (Bihar) against “Dainik Jagran” for publication of an allegedly defamatory and malicious news item against him and his daughter-in-law in its issue dated 27.2.2015 under the caption “रद नह�ं हुई एलएलबी क� पर��ा-वािणज् महा�व�ालय स�टर म� पांचवे सेमेस्ट क� पर��ा के दौरान खूब हुआ था कदाचार”.

It was reported in the impugned news item that during the examinations conducted by the Universities, the Controller of Examinations takes rounds and keep checks on cheating but during the examination of 5th Semester of L.L.B. in which daughter-in-law of the Principal, Vanijya Mahavidyalaya was appearing, no such procedure was followed. It was further reported that as she was appearing in the examination, the centre for examination should have been different. It was also reported that no video recording were arranged by the administration and cheating was done at the highest level and this examination centre was utilized to help a particular candidate, which raised the question on the intention of the university’s officers.

While denying the allegations, the complainant alleged that the impugned news item was malicious and defamatory. According to him, Vanijya Mahavidyalaya was selected as examination centre for LLB 5th Semester on January 28 & 30 and February 2 & 4, 2015, which he officially and reasonably opposed vide letter dated 20.10.2014 to the Examination Controller with a copy to the Vice Chancellor, Patna University. Despite all his sincere efforts, Vanijya Mahavidayalaya was declared the examination centre. He submitted that he wrote a letter dated 22.1.2015 to the Examination Controller informing him that his daughter-in-law is appearing in the 5th Semester of LLB examination and requested him to depute Dr. (Prof.) Riyazuddin as Centre’s Superintendent. The complainant stated that with a view to possible alleged favour, he stayed home and disposed of his urgent official work from home itself. It was also strictly ensured that invigilators are not repeated in four days examinations. The seat plans for the examinations were not manipulated and rewritten. The complainant alleged that the respondent admitted many facts in its news, yet it targeted him and his innocent daughter-in-law. The complainant submitted that the respondent falsely and maliciously referred to one report of the examination centre Superintendent to the VC and Examination Controller regarding unfair means in the examination which the respondent claims and tries to baselessly attribute the unfair means in the examination to the examinee-daughter in law of the Principal but the Examination Centre Superintendent himself officially wrote him on 4.3.2015 that there was nothing as such relating to giving favour to the examinee who happens to be the daughter in law of the Principal. The complainant alleged that the newspaper failed to mention his sincere and honest efforts.

The complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent-editor vide his letter dated 5.3.2015 but received no reply. He had requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Dainik Jagran, Patna on 9.6.2015 followed by reminder dated 30.10.2015 but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. However, he has sent a letter requesting to grant relief to him. The respondent has not chosen to file his reply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that version of the complainant should be published by the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent newspaper and the respondent newspaper in turn is directed to publish the version of the complainant with same prominence within two weeks from the receipt of his version.

In view of the aforesaid terms, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl.No. 59 F.No. 14/404/15-16-PCI

Dr. Shankar Kumar, The Editor (Former) Founder & Principal, Vs. Prabhat Khabar, SAV Simultala, Assistant Professor, Patna, Bihar Deptt. of Masters in Physics, Patna University, Patna

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 18.8.2015 was filed by Dr. Shankar Kumar, Patna University, Patna addressed to the District Magistrate, Jamui and copy endorsed to PCI against the editor, Prabhat Khabar, Patna alleging publication of false and misleading news item captioned ‘पूवर् प्राच पर शक’ in its two editions viz. Bhagalpur and Patna on 10.7.2015 in connivance with District Magistrate, Jamui by highlighting his name to malign his reputation and image in society without taking his version.

In the impugned news item, it was reported that a student from Simultala Awasiya Vidyalaya was kidnapped for a few hours. Shri Shashikant Tiwari, DM inspected the hostel and in the Press Conference on 9.7.2015 stated that former Principal, Dr Shankar Kumar is unable to digest the success of students in Bihar School Education Examination board, 2015. In past too former Principal had been criticizing the performance of the school and its present Principal. The needle of suspicion marked in kidnapping episode is towards the complainant in the impugned news.

According to the complainant, Shri Shashikant Tiwari, District Magistrate, Jamui while accepting that the incident seemed to be an internal matter of the school had deliberately got the impugned news published in Bhagalpur edition by misusing his post due to animosity with him. The aforesaid incident had been published by the respondent’s in its two editions by giving different statements. Despite taking his comments, the impugned news was published without referring to his version in Jamui edition, Bhagalpur. However, in Patna edition the news was published by manipulating his version with objections. The complainant vide letter dated 1.8.2015 addressed to the DM and copy endorsed to the respondent requested to publish rejoinder or clarification followed by reminder dated 20.11.2015 but received no response. The complainant vide letter dated 19.12.2015 informed that under the pressure of Administration respondent had been avoiding to publish the contradiction.

A Show-Cause Notice dated 21.1.2016 issued to the respondent editor, Prabhat Khabar followed by a reminder dated 25.2.2016 but received no response.

The complainant vide letter dated 1.2.2016 while reiterating his complaint forwarded copies of news clippings of other papers which had covered the kidnapping incident of the student wherein no such reference of former Principal (complainant) was carried. The mal-intention of the respondent editors, could be proved by bare perusal of the news clipping published by other papers in respect of that kidnapping incident.

Further Communication of the Complainant

The complainant vide letter dated 7.7.2016 while reiterating his complaint submitted that it is crystal clear from the audio-video C.D., prepared by authorities during D.M., Jamui visit to the school that D.M., Jamui had never made any statement against him personally, either during informal chat or during his formal media briefing. He further submitted that after having acquired a copy of Bhagalpur Edition of Prabhat Khabar, the complainant gave a written request to the D.M. to prove his statement and accordingly take legal action against him. The DM quickly reacted and denied all statements made quoting him. The daily newspaper “Dainik Jagran” quoted Mr. Tiwari, the DM by publishing “�व�ालय के पूवर् प्राचायर् डॉ शंकर कुमार के बारे म�म�ने कोई गलत नह�ं कह� है, न ह� उन पर कोई आरोप लगाया है।” Hence, it is clear that correspondent put his imaginative view point with some prejudice by collaborating with wrong doers with the probable intention of diluting the seriousness of the incident and putting down his social repute. The complainant further questioned the sensational statement given by then D.M., Jamui (who himself denied of having made such statements) only to this correspondent and not to any other journalist of Print or Electronic Media. The complainant requested to pass any appropriate logical directives to criminal conspiracy in the act of media house with wrong doers, who might have influenced the media to print such news with intension to malign the image of tough, transparent and responsible teacher-administrators, which is still being recognized by authorities and Bihar Govt.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance either from the complainant or the respondent side. The complainant by letter dated 7.7.2016 has expressed his inability to personally appear before the Committee but has prayed for passing appropriate order. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear nor filed the reply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper should publish the version of the complainant also. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent. The respondent is directed to publish the complainant’s version with same prominence within two weeks from its receipt.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl.No. 60 F.No. 14/989/14-15-PCI

Dr.JnyanaRanjanBehera, M.D. The Editor, Dist.Headquarter Hospital Odisha Khabar & Vs. Odisha Mrs.ManoramaBhuyan,OAS(I)J.B. Deputy Collector, Collectorate Balasore, Odisha

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 15.1.2015 was filed by Shri Jnyana Ranjan Behera, M.D.(O&G), District Headquarter Hospital, Balasore, Odisha and Mrs. Manorama Bhuyan, OAS(I) J.B., Deputy Collector, Collectorate, Balasore (wife of Dr. J.R. Behera) against the Editor, Odisha Khabar alleging publication of false, fabricated, baseless, frivolous derogative news/tidings against them since 17.10.2011. Details of the news items published in Odisha Khabar is as below:

S.No. Caption Dated

1. Dr. Jnyana Behera may get leprosy in this birth, cannot get human 12.11.2014 life, in next birth may take birth as dog.

Mother passed away delivering a baby girl after twelve years 2. Case No.269 against ogre Dr. Jnyana Behera. 13.11.2014

384 for negligence for asking bribe section 304.

Transferred to Soro instead of Malknigiri.

Shall get a lesson if done nuisance at Soro. 3. Dr. Jnyana Behera absconds 15.11.2014

Police is waiting at Rajabagicha Chowk.

Wife Manorama has dwindled/paled. BJD youth leader will self immolate.

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 12.11.2014 that the complainant has created media hype from the beginning of his job. Media is tired of writing against him but he is not transferred from Balasore and due to various police complaints against him, has now went underground in fear of physical assault. It was also reported in the impugned news item that people were shocked on the death of post natal mother due to negligence of the complainant who received Rs.2500/- from the patient for caesarean operation. It was also stated in the impugned news item that the complainant will suffer from leprosy for his activities and he may not born as a human being in his next birth. The complainant has also a daughter; he will get the result accordingly. Nobody will hesitate to spit on the complainant whosoever shall read the allegation against him.

In the news item dated 13.11.2014 it was reported that death of post natal mother due to “Chandal” doctor, the complainant has become the center of discussion. A case has been booked by Balasore Town Police bearing case N.269, U/s 384 of Crpc for negligence and section 304 for demanding bribe, but he is absconding and his Odisha Administrative Services (OAS) wife has been safeguarding him since long.

It was reported in the news item dated 15.11.2014 that police is waiting for the complainant at Raja bagicha square but is not capable to nab the doctor and only CBI can nab him. OAS, Manorama Bhuyan is paled a little, seeing such situation of her doctor husband and everyone in the hospital is blaming the doctor for incident of death of the post natal mother who gave birth to a baby after twelve years. It is further stated in the impugned news item that a youth leader and close aid of MLA condemned the transfer of the complainant and pressurised the CDMO because of his cordial relations with the complainant.

Denying the allegations leveled in the impugned news items the complainants submitted that the respondent published baseless/false, fabricated and personally targeted news/tidings to denegrade the value, prestige, social establishment of two honest, upright and dedicated Govt. servants which include a lady govt. servant also without taking their version before publication. The complainants also stated that due to the publication of impugned news items they were unable to discharge their duties efficiently and were under severe mental trauma. The complainants vide letter dated 28.11.2014 requested the respondent to publish apology in front page of his newspaper but received no response.

The complainant requested the Council to intervene in the matter to provide justice to them.

A Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, Odisha Khabar, Odisha on 15.4.2015.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent vide written statement dated 10.5.2015 submitted that he had published the news based on FIR lodged against the doctor. Further, there may be some news against some persons, but they had no intention to defame them in the society. The respondent submitted that the news was genuine and published in public interest. The name of the complainant and his wife were not there in the news items and the intention of the paper was not to condemn the dignity of any person and he had no malafide intention behind publishing the said news. Most of the newspaper of Odisha published the news relating to the complainant but the complainants were silent against them. The respondent requested the Council to exonerate him from the charges.

A copy of written statement forwarded to the complainant on 19.8.2015 for counter comments.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide letter dt. 9.9.2015 submitted that the sole intention of the respondent was to distract the attention of the Council. His main concern was false, fabricated, one sided publication of news/tidings against two govt. servants using rubbish, derogatory, foul and filthy language with malafide intention to tarnish the image of the complainants. The malevolent attitude of the respondent resorted them in abject mental trauma. The complainant stood by his complaint and requested the Council to intervene in the matter.

A copy of counter comments forwarded to the respondent on 28.10.2015 for information.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. The complainants appeared in person. The respondent paper was represented by Shri Ainiya Ranjan Mohanty, Odisha Khabar.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the respondent editor and has perused the complaint and all connected papers. From the perusal of the impugned news items, it is of the opinion that the language employed by the respondent newspaper is abusive and racist. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that the respondent newspaper actuated by personal vendetta is targeting the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to Censure the newspaper ‘Odisha Khabar’, Odisha.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Censure the newspaper ‘Odisha Khabar’, Odisha. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, the Directorate of Public Relations Department, Government of Orissa and the District Magistrate, Orissa for appropriate action.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl No. 61 F.No.14/77/15-16-PCI

Dr. Suresh V. The Editor, President, K.G.M.O.A., LATEST, (Kasaragod District Branch) Kanhangad, Nileshwar, Kerala Kerala

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 28.4.2015 was filed by Dr. Suresh V., President, Kerala Govt. Medical Officers’ Association (Kasaragod District Branch), Nileshwar, against the editor, LATEST, a local Daily (eveninger) for publication of a derogatory and defamatory comment against a doctor family in its issue dated 18.4.2015 under the column “FLASH NEWS” that “Health Minister suspended a doctor who went for private practice after locking labour room of the government hospital” with a comment in the bracket “such doctors die in the accidents by hitting to the lorry en route to Thirupati temple”

The complainant Association (Kerala Govt. Medical Officers’ Association) censured the impugned comment against an expired lady doctor as derogatory and violation of human right and stated that though the paper did not mention the name of the doctor but the said comment indicated towards the deceased doctor, which appeared within a few days after her death, whereby it tarnished the image of the deceased doctor. The complainant vide letter dated 25.4.2015 drew the attention of the respondent towards the derogatory remarks with a request to publish an apology at the earliest but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, LATEST on 8.6.2015.

Written Statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 8.6.2015, the respondent editor, LATEST vide his written statement dated 22.7.2015 submitted that “FLASH NEWS”, is a column which focuses on the prevailing political and social trend. The respondent further stated that the Health Minister of Kerala had suspended the doctor because doctor locked the consulting room in the Govt. hospital and went for private practice during the duty time and the news was factual. The respondent also stated that by publishing the news he had no intention to tarnish the reputation of any doctor or medical practitioner and the KGMOA, Kanhangad had already sent him a letter and he has replied to it.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear. However, the respondent has sought adjournment in the matter. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the aforesaid request.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the use of the expression “erring doctor die in accident while going to Tirupati” is in bad taste and the newspaper should avoid that and be careful in future. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid observation.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint with aforesaid observation.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 62 F.No.14/28-29/15-16-PCI

Shri Moideen Kutty K., The Editor, Malappuram District, Mathrubhumi, Kerala Kozhikode, Kerala

The Editor, Malayala Manorma, Kozhikode, Kerala Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 15.3.2015 was filed by Shri Moideen Kutty K., Malappuram District, Kerala against the editors, “Mathrubhumi” and “Malayala Manorama”, Kozhikode, Kerala for non-publication of advertisements regarding recruitments released by his firm for publication in the said dailies.

The complainant stated that he had been releasing advertisements directly or through the advertisement agencies in the newspapers including both the respondent newspapers on various occasions and no advertisement bills are pending till date with anyone of the aforesaid respondents or any agencies in his account or his organisation’s name. He further stated that when he approached both the respondents for release of an advertisement in the month of August 2014, they refused to accept the advertisement by saying that there is one complaint against his organisation with regard to some pending payment to the Manaimkot Advertising Company at Kerala. The respondents further informed the complainant that they have the written intimation of the details from the above advertising agency and it is their practice not to release advertisement of any party in case of such complaints.

The complainant further submitted that the respondents produced a letter dated 25.9.2014 which was received from Ms. Leena, Marketing Manager who is said to have worked with complainant’s organisation. According to that letter, she released some advertisement on behalf of complainant’s organisation and defaulted an amount of Rs. 4,50,427/- as the cheque for the said amount was dishonoured. The complainant submitted that the said Ms. Leena was allowed to use their office space at Ernakulam at Rs. 500 per day. He further submitted that he had neither given any authority to her to represent complainant’s organisation nor she was their employee at any point of time. Therefore, any act done by her cannot be complainant’s liability, he added. He stated that despite pleading of their innocence and role, the respondents continued their stand in not releasing the advertisements which is unjust and discriminatory.

The complainant submitted that the decision not to publish advertisement on the face of it is illegal, unjustified and failure to discharge the public duty owed by the respondents.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to both the respondents on 29.6.2015 for their written statement.

Written Statement

1. Mathrubhumi Daily:

Shri M. Kesava Menon, Editor in his written statement dated 13.7.2015 denied all the averments and allegations made in the complaint against him. He further stated that on perusal of the complaint, it could be understood that the dispute was mainly against the employee of the complainant, Ms. Leena Bhavani, who was working as Marketing Manager in the complainant’s firm. Therefore, the contents of the complaint not only lacks jurisdiction before this forum but had unnecessarily dragged him into this proceeding. He submitted that the approach of the complainant is highly suspicious who seems to play a dual game in this issue. In para 19 of the complaint even though he admits that in his establishment’s name an advertisement is published in Mathrubhumi and other newspapers respectively, but at the same time he is now pretending ignorance and taking contention that the same got published by Ms. Leena without his knowledge. It is worthwhile mentioning that the complainant had given an authorization in writing certifying Ms. Leena Bhavani to act on behalf of M/s Gouzi Tours and Travels, in his absence. The respondent submitted that the complaint is devoid of merits.

2. Malayala Manorama:

Shri Varghese Chandy, Chief General Manager, Advertising Sales, Malayala Manorma Daily in his written statement dated 26.8.2015 denied all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint. He further stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost. He submitted that the concerned advertising agency as per the letter dated 6.7.2015 informed him that all the advertisements released in various newspapers including Malayala Manorama were on the basis of an authorization issued by the complainant on 22.9.2012 to Ms. Leena, Marketing Manager, in-charge of Recruitment and Client service. He further submitted that the averments that no advertisement bills are pending till date with any of the respondents are absolutely incorrect and hence denied.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. However, a prayer for adjournment is made on his behalf. The Inquiry Committee considered the grounds mentioned in the application for adjournment and is not satisfied with the ground urged. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, rejects the application for adjournment. The respondent no. 1 i.e. Mathrubhoomi Daily is represented by its Counsel, Shri B.G. Bhaskar. Inquiry Committee also took note of an adjournment request on behalf of respondent no. 2 i.e. Malayala Manorama filed by their advocate, it does not accede to the request.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for respondent no. 1 and also perused the complaint and all other connected papers. The grievance of the complainant is that the respondent newspapers have not published the advertisement given by him regarding his recruitment needs. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondents are within their right not to publish the advertisement. Not only this, the respondents have furnished the reason for its non-publication. The Inquiry Committee is of the further opinion that the respondents, while doing so, have not breached any journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 63 F.No.14/762-764/14-15-PCI

Shri E. Vijay Paul, The Editors, President, 1. The Hindu All India True Christian Council, 2. The Times of India Chennai 3. Eenadu

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 11.12.2014 was filed by Shri E. Vijay Paul, President, All India True Christian Council, Chennai against the editors, the Hindu, the Times of India and the Eenadu for publishing defamatory news item in their issues dated November 13, 2014 under the captions ‘Jesus was married, had kids’, ‘Jesus Christ was married’ (English version) and ‘Papyrus scrap refers to Jesus Wife’ respectively. The impugned news item relates to Jesus Christ which allegedly provoke religious tensions among the Christians.

In the impugned news items it was reported that the Jesus married the prostitute, Mary Magdalene and had children as per an ancient manuscript in the vaults of the British library namely ‘Lost Gospel’. The 1500 year old manuscript has been translated in Aramaic, stated that Jesus was married and had two kids. The news also mentioned that there was an assassination attempt on the son of God 13 years before his execution and further revelations from the book including names of Jesus children will be released shortly. While referring to the book ‘The Lost Gospel’, The Hindu in its issue dated 13.11.2014 published that there is now written evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had children together.

The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editors in the matter vide his letters dated 24.1.2015 wherein he stated that All India True Christian Council, Chennai is an organization defending Bible and Christianity and respect Indian Law and Constitution and propagate Christianity. Raising objection on impugned article, which are not proven against Jesus and Christianity, according to them deliberately caused disrespect to the Jesus Christ and outraged many Christian’s beliefs. On behalf of all Christian Community, the complainant requested the respondent editors to give a public statement as the impugned news item was just a fabricated statement.

In response to the complainant’s letter, one of the respondent editors, The Hindu vide his letter dated 29.1.2015 stated that the said report was based on claims made at a media conference by the authors of the book, The Lost Gospel at the British Library in London and the report was published on the factual account of their version, which they carried as per their professional function. He further submitted that the newspaper neither endorsed nor supported the claims that were reported and holds all religion with the highest respect.

Notices for comments were sent to the respondent The Hindu, The Times of India, The Eenadu on 19.5.2015.

Written Statement of The Hindu

The respondent editor, The Hindu vide letter dated 1.6.2015 submitted that the newspaper neither endorsed nor supported the claims that were reported. He also submitted that the report was based on claims made at media conference at the British Library in London by the authors of a newly published book by them. He added that the complainant had only filed complaint against three newspapers, if he looks around he would have found the story had been covered by many papers and television series.

Written Statement of Eenadu

The respondent editor, Eenadu vide his written statement dated 20.7.2015 submitted that he acquainted himself with the facts of the case through concerned senior Chief Sub-Editor who editor and found that the report was based on the media conference held by the authors of the book at the British Library in London. The report was published in good faith as the same was received from a reputed news agency, namely Press Trust of India. The paper never hurt the religious sentiments of any section. He also stated that he did not receive any rejoinder as such he was not in position to take action.

No Written Statement from the Times of India

No written statement was filed from the respondent The Times of India despite issuing Time Bound Reminder dated 23.6.2015.

Counter Comments

The complainant is his counter comments dated 8.8.2016 while reiterating his complaint stated that the news were false and malicious and the All India Christian Council had conducted rallies against the three leading Dailies on 20.11.2014 in various parts of India. He submitted that though publishing article is a part of newspaper’s profession, the editors of the newspapers must be aware of the content as well as words to be published in the article. He further submitted that such phrases as well as words emphasising the Jesus married a prostitute is not required to be published even if it was mentioned in the book the Lost Gospel or in the conference held in London. He submitted that this kind of article hurt the sentiments of millions of Christians.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Shri B. Krishnan, Shri P. Maharaja, Advocates alongwith Shri E. Baburao, Trustee and Capt. K. Satyaseela Rao, General Secretary, AITCC appeared for the complainant. Shri Ramanujam, Sr. General Manager appeared for respondent no. 1 i.e. Hindu. Other respondents however, had sought adjournment but the Inquiry Committee did not accede to the request.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the complainant as also the representative of respondent no. 1 i.e. Hindu. It notes that the President of All India True Christian Council is the complainant in this case and is aggrieved by the publication of the news item in which it has been stated that “Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had children”. Such news was published in the newspapers, The Hindu, The Times of India and The Eanadu.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers. From the perusal of the news item itself, it is evident that such a statement was made by the author of the book in the press conference. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that what has been written may not be in tune with the general belief of the members of the complainant’s Council but on this ground alone, the publication of the news cannot be faulted or can be termed as illegal or unethical.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 64 File No.14/738/14-15-PCI Shri P.P. Bhaskaran, The Editor, Prabha, Malayala Manorama, Kerala. Ernakulam

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 9.12.2014 was filed by Shri P.P. Bhaskaran, Kerala against the editor, Malayala Manorama, Ernakulam alleging publication of false and defamatory news items under the caption “Ernakulam Medical College: Infections also found in Neonates” and “Serious Infection in Neonate at Ernakulam Medical College” in its issues dated October 10 and October 18, 2014 respectively.

It was alleged in the first news item that an infection was detected in two children, and they had been admitted to the intensive care unit. The wall was tepid and humid and with fungus. The operation instruments were old and outmoded according to doctors. The changing rooms of doctors and employees were also not clean. It was further alleged in the news item that there were 85 cleaning staff in the medical college. There were supervisors to look after their functioning. The lack of attention of the hospital development Committee was also another reason according to authorities.

In the second news item it was reported that immediately after the expert Committee had filed a report stating that there was no outbreak of infection, a baby, one week old had been detected to have infection following which the baby and the mother had been shifted to a separate ward. The umbilicus of the baby showed serious MRSA infection. The culture report of the Microbiology department detected the infection. The three member’s Expert Committee of the Medical Education Director had found no infection. According to one member, there was not a single baby with infection.

Denying the allegations in the impugned news reports, the complainant stated that umbilical infection/sepsis in babies is an extremely common occurrence. It is estimated that 20% of babies develop some sort of infection which in many cases settle with proper cleaning and application of tropical medications. He further submitted that news item regarding the second baby suggests that the leg blister of the baby could not be confirmed as infection because the baby had complex congenital anomalies in the heart, was premature (33 weeks) and had severe growth restriction. The complainant further submitted that about the second news item dated 18.10.2014 the baby for whom MRSA had been detected had a culture positive skin swab. Blood culture was negative for MRSA indicating that there was only a skin colonisation. The baby was never in the neonatal unit prior to detection of infection. The baby was under observations for brief period in the neonatal unit and after diagnosis, the baby was transferred to the isolation room.

The complainant wrote to the paper on October 27, 2014 but no reply was received by him.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 2.2.2015.

Written Statement:

In his written statement dated 12.5.2015, the respondent categorically denied the allegations levelled in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the report published in their newspaper is based upon the test report prepared by the Microbiologist of the Government Medical College, Ernakulam and as per the report the infant was infected by bacteria. The newspaper report states that two new borns were infected with MRSA Bacteria. In the news report, it was not stated that death occurred due to MRSA. After the Ist paragraph, the pathetic condition of operation theatres in the hospital is described. When five operation theatres were closed down serious doubts were raised regarding infection in new borns.

The respondent further stated that the news report dated 10.10.2014 was mainly based on this fact and paper had carried relevant photograph along side the impugned news. The pictures speak for themselves about, the dilapidated condition of the operation theatre, the equipments and scissors used for surgery were carelessly misplaced inside the theatre, the unhealthy and unhygienic condition of operation theatre from the was a matter of great concern. In support, the respondent also enclosed some photograph of the hospital.

The respondent also stated that the main allegation in the complaint that the respondent is trying to destruct the institution with negative report was totally baseless and unfounded.

Counter Comments:

The complainant in his Counter Comments dated 22.7.2015 submitted that the evidence which respondent enclosed in his basic statement was completely false and misguided the Council. The complainant further submitted that the respondent cited lack of cleaning, which is very sad state of affair of most Government Medical Colleges owing to huge number of patients and limited staff.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur. While there was no appearance from complainant side despite service of notice, a prayer for adjournment as also change of venue of the meetings of the Inquiry Committee has been made on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accede to the said prayer.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers and finds that while publishing the impugned news item, the respondent newspaper has not breached any code of conduct so as to call for action by the Council. The complainant, if so advised, may give his version to the respondent newspaper. In case, it is done so, the respondent shall publish the same with necessary editing.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 65 F. No. 14/821/14-15-PCI

Shri S. Sainadh, The Editor, Project Director, Vartha, APS Housing Corporation, Kadapa Hyderabad

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 21.12.2014 was filed by Shri S. Sainadh, Project Director, APS Housing Corporation, Kadapa against the editor, ‘Vartha’ allegedly for publication of false and defamatory news items wherein motives had been attributed by mentioning the name of the complainant under the caption :

Sl. No. Caption Dated

1. In 1.40 crore chitveli housing scam-District Officer Route is 8.12.201 separate 4 2. Counting of Meena and Mesha Rasis in taking action on the 19.12.20 persons responsible in 1.40 crore chitveli housing scam 14 3. settle the issue of bogus certificates in housing scam-PD 20.12.20 promised to submit report by 22nd, examine the Chitveli 14 Scam-State Housing ED, Bharathi

It was reported in the news item dated 8.12.2014 that large scale corruption had taken place in Chitveli Mandal in construction of Indiramma Houses. It was also reported that the government has appointed a special officer to conduct inquiry whose enquiry Report was kept pending for 14 months. A copy of the Report which was made available to the Vartha newspaper stated that three Deputy Executive Engineers, Four Assistant Engineers were involved in the scam. The State Managing Director had instructed the Project Director, Kadapa to take action against the accused, but he kept the Report pending and made recently joined AE responsible for the same and recommended action against the AE.

In the second news item dated 19.12.2014, it was reported that the District Officer is kind enough towards corrupt officers of Chitveli case as he had not served the Memos on the accused officers.

In the third impugned news item dated 20.12.2014 it was reported that the Executive Director, APSHC, Hyderabad who was on camp to Kadapa on 9.12.014 chided the Project Director on the dais on non-issuance of Memos to the corrupt officials in Chitveli Housing Scam. She (ED) also questioned the Project Director as to why he is so liberal on the persons who were found responsible for misappropriation of public money?

The complainant while denying the allegations submitted that all the adverse comments were made against him only and the respondent reporter published the impugned news in connivance with an Assistant Engineer, Housing, Chitvel who is one of the accused in the scam and his involvement was proved in the inquiry. He also submitted that an inquiry was set up by the Managing Director comprising of a special officer who submitted the report to the District Collector who did not recommend any action against the accused officials as he is not the disciplinary authority to take any disciplinary action in the matter. He added that the concerned reporter did not verify the facts with the authorities and published the news items hastily and with malafide intention to defame him.

The complainant vide letter dated 21.12.2014 drew the attention of the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent newspaper and requested that the facts furnished by him be verified and requested to initiate action against the concerned staff reporter, who got the false news item published, but received no response.

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, Vartha on 9.6.2015 followed by time bound reminder dated 13.7.2015 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri L. Chinnaeranna, Reporter appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers and is of the opinion that the impugned news item is based on a report given by the Special Officer who was appointed to conduct enquiry. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news item, has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 66 F.No.14/1025/14-15-PCI

Shri P. Dhanapal, The Editor, Former Commissioner, Dinakaran Daily, HR & CE, Govt. of Tamil Nadu Mylapore, Chennai Tamil Nadu

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 5.5.2015 was filed by Shri P. Dhanapal, Former Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Deptt., Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Chennai against the editor, ‘Dinakaran’, Chennai allegedly for publishing defamatory, baseless, vexatious series of following newspaper reports:

S. No. Caption (English version) Dated

1. On Echo of allegations–Religious Endowments Commissioner 9.3.2015 Dhanapal Dismissed

2. Religious Endowments Commissioner dismissal issue – 1000 10.3.2015 crore temple land irregularity an connivance with Nellai mineral theft

3. While Dhanapal was the Commissioner, he has suspended his 16.3.2015 own several officials from Joint Commissioners to Executive officers who have not acted on his whims and fancies

4. Important persons of ADMK under the cover of CBCID police 16.3.2015 removed Rs.200 crore worth documents and jewels from the house of commissioner recently dismissed from service to escape from the police enquiry

The complainant objected to following defamatory remarks attributed to him in the aforesaid news item: 1. The caption was given as ‘On Echo of allegations – Religious Endowments Commissioner Dhanapal Dismissed’. Even in the order from the Government, there was no mention of the word ‘Dismiss’. 2. From the sixth paragraph onwards, the derogatory words are as follows: ‘Several allegations were alleged for Dismissal of Dhanpal’ 3. 100 crore property belonging to Thiruvanmiyur Marundheeswarar temple has been illegally grabbed. 4. He had decided to renovate 1000 temples annually without following agamic principles. 5. Alleged large irregularities raised against Annadhanam plans and enquiry has not been properly conducted by Dhanapal. 6. A private temple’s trustee had been threatened to submit the temple’s properties to Govenrment else provided Dhanapal with half of the temple’s income. 7. Getting huge sum of money from individuals for direct recruitments 8. Officers who were disliked by him were suspended….. 9. He played a major irregularity in leasing of temple lands. 10. More than 10 acres of land that had been donated to Palani temple has been grabbed. 11. Mineral theft has been allowed in a temple land in Thirunelveli in favour of an important person. 12. Temple jewels worth many crores have been melted and sold Thiruvarur and Madurai temples. 13. While Dhanapal was the Commissioner, he has suspended on his own several officials from Joint Commissioner to execute officers who have not acted for his whims and fancies.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned articles, the complainant submitted that they were false, baseless, vexatious, incorrect made with the intention to hurt him and sully his reputation. Even in the Order of the Government, there was no mention of the word ‘Dismissed’ and he had been relieved from the post of Commissioner but the news caption gave an impression as if he was punished as an echo of allegations which is totally incorrect and unacceptable. The complainant submitted that during his tenure he had set benchmark in renovations of temples, performance of kumbabishegam, removal of encroachments, retrieval of temple lands by transferring patta in the name of temples from, computerizations of annadhanam, documentation of idols, etc. The complainant further submitted that from the series of news items published consecutively, it could be presumed that the respondent was hand in glove with officials who were held guilty being involved and benefitted in more than 200kg of temple gold scandal, misappropriation of temple lands, misappropriation of Govt. money illegal appointments and other such illegal activities. The complainant vide legal notice dated 16.3.2015 and subsequent reminder dated 31.3.2015 requested the respondent to publish an unconditional apology prominently in his newspaper in the same page, same size and prove the allegations levelled against him, but no response was received by him.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 24.6.2015 issued to the respondent editor, ‘Dinakaran Daily’, Chennai followed by a time bound reminder on 9.2.2016 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur. While Shri P. Dhanapal, the complainant appeared in person, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news item, has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl.No. 67 File No.14/310/15-16-PCI

The President, The Editor, Daivagna Brahman Sangha, Vs. Daivagan Kirana, Shimoga, Karnataka. Tumkur.

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 26.9.2015 was filed by the President, Daivagna Brahman Sangha, Shimoga, Karnataka against the Editor, Daivagan Kirana, Tumkur allegedly for publishing a false report in Daivagan Kirana with caption “Shimoga Daivagna Kalyana Mantapa Lacking in Cleanliness” to defame their Sangha.

It was reported in the news item that the Kalyan Mandirs was built by local Daivagna senior members out of their hard efforts. But, it is heard from the people of Shimoga that due to present irresponsible office bearers of the Kalyana Mandira, rooms are not clean. The persons who have performed the marriages and other functions are murmuring particularly about lack of cleanliness in toilets.

The complainant submitted that the respondent had published false report in his newspaper published from Thiptur, Thumkur District far away from Shimoga without any basis to defame their Sangha, Office bearers and to cause loss to the Sangha. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 4.6.2015 to the Editor in this regard but his reply dated 12.6.2015 was not found satisfactory by the complainant. The complainant therefore requested the Council to take action against the said editor.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, ‘Daivagan Kirana’, Tumkur on 14.1.2016.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor, Daivagna vide written statement dated 5.2.2016 stated that so-called complaint of the President, Daivaigna Kalyana Mandira, Shimoga is misconceived, mischievous, malicious and misleading.

The respondent further submitted that the editorial which is in Kannada, a copy of which is enclosed by the complainant is true and correct statement of facts as it existed in the Daivaigna Kalyana Mandira, Shimoga. He stated that in impugned news he referred to experience of the people who used the said Daivaigna Kirana, marriage hall which lacked hygienic conditions as the toilets/bathrooms were not cleaned and the same were stinking with bad smell of urine/human excreta and the full of mosquitoes/fly etc., which could have led to all sorts epidemics. In the editorial he brought this fact to notice of the Daivagna Brahmana Sangha/Daivaigna Kalyana Mandira and requested them to get it cleaned and maintain cleanliness in the Daivaigna Kalyana Mandira. The respondent also stated that he has only stated the true facts as it is and called upon the persons who maintain them to clean up and maintain cleanliness. The respondent requested the Council to drop the proceedings.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 24.2.2016 for information and counter comments.

Counter Comments:

In his counter comments dated 17.6.2016 the complainant stated that the averments made in the written statement are far from truth and the respondent had made an attempt to divert the attention of the Hon’ble Council by saying that the complainant has not at all filed the true and correct translation of his kannada Editorial comments.

The complainant requested the Council to reject the written statement of the respondent and punish him as per rules.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Despite service of notice neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared before the Committee.

The complainant has filed an application for adjournment. In the said application, it has been stated that the complainant had filed a suit for damages as also permanent injunction, restraining the respondent herein from publishing anything against the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl.No.68 File No.14/426/15-16-PCI

Shri Tony Chammany, The Editor, Mayor, The Times of India, Kochi Municipal Corporation, Vs. Kochi Kerala

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 28.10.2015 had been filed by Shri Tony Chammany, Mayor, Kochi Municipal Corporation, Kerala against the Editor, The Times of India, Kochi for publication of false news item under the caption “UDF may lose 10 to 15 sitting seats” in its issue dated 26.10.2015.

The complainant submitted that the respondent had published a false news item citing it as an Exclusive interview with him by the staff reporter, Mr. M.K. Sunil Kumar of the Times of India dated 26.10.2015 which had caused immense damage to him as a public servant.

The complainant further stated that he had written to the Editor of the Kochi Bureau of The Times of India on 27.10.15 to withdraw the news published but they did not heed to the request. In his complaint he stated that in his brief interaction with the said reporter, he never said that “the UDF may lose 10-15 sitting seats” what he said in no uncertain terms was that “We the UDF, have problem of rebel candidates in 4 to 5 wards and that we would have to work really hard to turn the tide in our favour in these five wards” He also categorically stated in that brief interaction that the UDF would come back to power with a thumping majority. On the contrary they published another misleading news on 28.10.2015 captioned “Chammany revises UDF’s rebel impact” by stating that they stand by what they published earlier.

The complainant also stated that this fictitious news item had been creating embarrassment for him as a public servant and also his colleagues. He requested the Council to intervene in the matter.

A show cause notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 3.12.2015.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor, The Times of India in its written statement dated 28.12.2015 denied the charges of the complainant and stood by their report. The respondent submitted that the news report in question pertains to an interview with the outgoing Mayor, Tony Chammany of the Congress Party on 26.10.2015. In the said interview Mr. Chammany told the UDF would lose 10-15 seats in the Kochi Corporation elections.

The respondent further submitted that when Shri Sunil Kumar asked about UDF’s poll prospects, Mr. Chammany replied that on October 3 when the elections were announced UDF expected to win 50-55 seats. Mr. Chammany said that now on October 25 when the candidates selection was over and many of his choice of candidates were not included they expected to win 42-45 seats. When the results were announced, UDF won 38 seats compared to 46 seats in the 2010 corporation elections, clearly indicating that Mr. Chammany’s reading was in tune with the Congress sentiments. Mr. Chammany’s statements KPCC had appointed a Committee headed by Suresh Babu, one of its general secretaries to probe factionalism in the Congress that resulted in the dismal performance.

The respondent further stated that The Times of India had no interest in carrying a fabricated interview and does not indulge in sensationalism. The news reports The Times of India carried during the election campaign is a testimony to the paper’s unbiased approach. The respondent requested the Council to close the case.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 20.1.2016 for information and counter comments.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Despite service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant and the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all other connected papers and is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl.No. 69 File No.14/497/15-16-PCI

Dr. Remani K. The Editor, Asvini Hospital, Vs. Malayala Manorama, Kollam Kerala

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 24.12.2015 had been filed by Dr. Remani. K Asvini Hospital, Kerala against the Editor, Malayala Manorama, Kottayam for allegedly publishing a scurrilous and defamatory news report under the caption “Total for U: Dr. Remani’s Account-Freeze Ratified” in its issue dated 24.11.2015. The impugned report pertained to the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in a matter concerning freezing of accounts in connection with Total for U scam case.

It was reported in the news item that the action of crime branch, freezing the account of Dr. Remani, accused in the Total for U case, was ratified by the High Court. Freezing of the Rs.45 lakhs account in Pala Axis Bank was ratified by Justice Kemal Pasha. The court agreed with the crime branch contention that this money was embezzled from the depositors. It is further reported in the news report that in August 2008, Remani had withdrawn Rs.45 Lakhs from the company of Sabarinath, first accused in the total for U scam. The money was deposited in Pala branch of Axis Bank. As soon as Sabari was nabbed by the police, Remani withdrew the money and deposited in the same bank in the name of Mahalekshmi, her housemaid and in the name of a friend, starting a new account in their names. The Investigating Officer DYSP P. Reghu took action to freeze the account. Including this, a total of two and a half crore rupees, had been freezed in this case.

The complainant while denying the allegations made in impugned news item stated that the headline of the news item gave misleading impression that ‘Total for U’Dr. Remani’s accounts were freezed when he was not even a party in the matter. The amount of Rs. 45 lakhs, mentioned had no bearing to the amounts involved in the frozen accounts, raising doubts that no effort was made to cross check the facts. The fact that the news was not reported till about seven weeks later gives him a suspicion that it was meant particularly for his eyes. He was out of station and abroad to attend the AKMGA convention in Philadelphia and returned to Kerala just two days before the report appeared. The complainant also stated that the said news item was published and circulated with calculated intention of lowering his reputation in the public.

The complainant wrote to the Editor, Malayala Manorama on 8.12.2015 for giving reply in the matter but received no response.

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 3.3.2016 but no written statement had been filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear.

Whereas the counsel on behalf of the respondent vide e-mail dated 2.8.2016 prayed adjournment expressing inability to make necessary arrangement to attend hearing at Jabalpur. It decided to not to accede to the prayer. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all the connected papers and is of the opinion that the story published in the respondent newspaper was on the basis of result of investigation and, therefore, the respondent has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl.No. 70 File No.14/457/15-16-PCI

Shri C. Srikantiah, The Editor, Karnataka. Vs. Veda Taranga, Bangalore

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 27.11.2015 had been filed by Shri C. Srikantiah, Karnataka against the Editor, Veda Taranga, Bangalore for publishing incorrect facts. According to the complainant, Veda Taranga, Bangalore published a news item captioned “Karnataka Arya Pratinidhi Sabha” in the month of July 2015 which allegedly portrayed the complainant in bad light.

It is reported in the news that on 14.6.2015, the office bearers of Arya Samaja, Kothwal Ramajath Street, Devarja Mohalla, Mysore Sri. C. Srikantiah and Sri Siddharya were removed from Arya Samaj due to non-compliance and for acting against the process of Arya Samaj and Executive Committee of Arya Samaj had been dissolved. At the same time, Sri S. Hemachandra (President) Sri M. Ramamohan (Secretary) Sri K.N. Gopinath Sharma (Treasurer) have been nominated as new office bearers.

The complainant stated that election was conducted for electing the new Executive Committee on 21.6.2015. In that election, Mr. S. Hemchandra as President, Mr. C. Umesh as Secretary and Mr. K.N. Gopinath Sharma as Treasurer were elected and the same has been published in the local newspapers. Mr. M. Ramamohan was not elected as Secretary as indicated in magazine. He further stated that publishing of the news against him without taking his version, an attempt has been made to tarnish and stigmatise his image.

The complainant wrote a letter dated 16.9.2015 to the Editor and the Publisher of Veda Taranga for publishing of incorrect facts in news as that point of time he was still continuing to be one of the office bearers of the Arya Samaj and asked respondent paper to publish apology.

A Show Cause Notice dated 22.1.2016 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Veda Taranga, Bangalore.

Written Statement In response to Council’s Show Cause Notice, the respondent Editor vide his comments dated 14.1.2016 submitted that the news about Mr. Srikantiah-Mysore was published in Veda Taranga July 2015 based on the press release by the State body of Arya Samaja’s of Karnataka named Karnataka Arya Prathinidhi Sabha , Bangalore. He had also enclosed the copies of the Press release of Karnataka Arya Pratinidhi Sabha.

A copy of the Written Statement was forwarded to the complainant on 3.3.2016 for his information and counter comments.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has appeared.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint as also the written statement. According to the respondent newspaper, the impugned news item was published on the basis of the press release of the State body of Karnataka Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Bangalore. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news item, has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl.No. 71 F.No.14/506/15-16-PCI

Shri K.K. Balaram, The Editor, Kerala Pranth Sara Sangh Chalak of RSS, Vs. The Hindu Vrindavan, Kanpur-670001 Chennai

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This undated complaint received in the Council on 30.12.2015 has been filed by Shri K.K. Balaram, Kerala Pranth Saha Sangh Chalak of RSS against the Editor, The Hindu for allegedly publishing false and objectionable news item under the caption “RSS goes for state BJP leadership’s jugular” in its issue dated 19.11.2015.

The report was published in the context of RSS Chief, Mohan Bhagwat’s visit to Kerala to attend RSS program in Kannur and at a point where the BJP’s organizational election process was underway in the State. It is alleged in the report that State RSS leadership has apprised the organisation’s Sara Sangh Chalak for a thorough revamp of BJP’s Kerala unit.

The complainant submitted that he is a practicing advocate and office bearer of RSS. The state leaders had not discussed anything about the change in the leadership of BJP with the Saha Sangh Chalak of RSS. RSS Sara Sangh Chalak came to Kannur to participate in the training camp of RSS workers. There was no discussion in that camp about the state BJP leadership but the respondent published the false news without cross checking about the facts mentioned in the news item with any of the office bearers of RSS. In this way the respondent had committed professional misconduct.

The complainant vide letter dated 20.11.2015 drew the attention of the respondent that no other newspaper published any such news item in connection with Sara Sangh Chalak’s visit. It is only “The Hindu”, which with the intention to create confusion among the RSS – BJP workers and the general public published such a totally false news. The complainant requested the paper to undo the wrong committed by them but no corrective action is taken by the respondent.

A Notice for Comments issued to the respondent editor, ‘The Hindu’, Chennai on 25.1.2016.

Written Statement

In reply, the respondent vide letter dated 4.2.2016 submitted that the news was based on facts and information sourced by credible sources/leaders in both the RSS and the BJP in the State. Further, the informed reporting of political trends and developments is invariably done on the basis of conversations with valued contacts and it is a common practice for such sources to ask not to be identified. He added that the report in question was not motivated and did not constitute any falsehood or inaccuracy, or represent any attempt to defame or malign any person or group as alleged. He denied any lack of care or due diligence or mala fide, in its report. The respondent submitted that if the complainant wishes to send a clarification on the contents of the impugned report, he would be willing to publish the same in a suitable form in order to give a quietus to the matter. He requested to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of written statement sent to the complainant on 23.2.2016 for counter comments.

Counter comments

The complainant vide undated reply reiterated his complaint and submitted that the statement given by the respondent is false, concocted and intended to escape from the clutches of law. If the version of respondent is true, he has to substantiate the claim. Either in the act or in the rules, no privilege is given to the respondent against the disclosure of the source of information.

A copy of counter comments was forwarded to the editor, ‘The Hindu’, Chennai on 5.5.2016 for information.

In reply, the respondent vide letter dated 6.6.2016 denied the allegations as alleged in counter comments. He once again offered to publish clarification if the complainant wishes to send in order to put this matter at rest and requested to dismiss the complaint.

The reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 16.6.2016 for information. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant personally appeared before the Committee whereas Shri S.Ramanujam, Sr. Regional General Manager, The Hindu represented the respondent newspaper.

The complainant is the Saha Sangh Chalak of RSS of the Kerala State. His grievance is about the publication of a news item in the respondent newspaper, The Hindu, wherein it has been stated that officials of the State RSS have approached the Sara Sangh Chalak, Shri Mohan Bhagwat for the revamp of the BJP Kerala unit. According to the complainant, this news item is absolutely false and imaginary. The respondent newspaper has stated that the said news item was published on the basis of the conversation the newspaper had with the BJP and RSS leaders. The respondent newspaper has further stated that in case the complainant sends the newspaper a clarification on the contents of the cited report, it would publish it in a suitable form. The Inquiry Committee finds the version of the complainant in his letter dated 20.11.2015, addressed to the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee directs the respondent newspaper to publish the version/clarification of the complainant with the same prominence within two weeks from today, with necessary editing.

In view of the aforesaid direction, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 72 File No.14/437/15-16-PCI Shri Shaji M.V. The Editor, PD Teacher, Chandrika Daily, Government UP School Kerala Kalikkadavu, Kannur, Kerala Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 10.11.2015 addressed to the District Election Officer and District Collector, Kannur, Kerala and a copy endorsed to the Press Council was filed by Shri Shaji M.V. P.D. Teacher, Government UP School Kalikkadavu, Kannur, Keralaagainst Chandrika Daily, Kerala for allegedly publishing a fabricated and objectionable report in its issue dated 2.11.2015 captioned “Prime Accused of Mysterious Dath Case Turns up for Election Duty” (English translation) The news relates to complainant’s appointment as Polling Officer to the Panchayat’s election held on November 2, 2015 at Kannur. According to the complainant, the aforesaid impugned press report by Sri K. Muhammed Riyaz, Taliparamba, introduced him to the electorate as “culprit number one involved in the inscrutable demise of Sri E.P. Sasidharan Master, erstwhile Head Master of Tagore Vidyaniketan” The newspaper also carried his photograph with a sly comment. It was further reported in news item that complainant who was ousted from Tagore High School was arrested from his house on February 17, 2015 has served bail and presently working at Government School at Kalikadave. Appointment of an accused (complainant) to election duty has cast apprehensions among voters. He stated that the comments on the report are not only personally intimidating, but they are targeted to de-stabilize the election process as well. The complainant further raised the question as to how the correspondent could take his photograph inside the collection centre without his permission in name of “freedom of press” as it is a gross violation of privacy and self respect and why should such information as the Polling Officer’s name and his involvement in a case be disseminated to the public? The complainant requested to take necessary action against the Chandirka daily and its correspondent, Shri Muhammed Riyas for his alleged heinous report. The complainant wrote to the Editor, Chandiraka on 11.1.2016 for giving reply in the matter.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 10.3.2016 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance from respondent’s side. while a request to decide the case on merit was sent by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news report, has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl.No. 73 File No.14/380-381/12-13-PCI

Shri Rajendra Pandey, The Editor, Bureau Chief, Dainik Dabang Duniya, TV-24 News Vs. Indore, M.P. Chief Editor, Sarvmangala, The Editor, Indore Dainik Agnibaan, Indore, M.P.

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 5.6.2012 had been filed by Shri Rajendra Pandey, Bureau Chief, TV-24 News and Chief Editor, Sarvmangala, Indore against the Editor, Dainik Dabang Duniya, Indore and the Editor, Dainik Agnibaan, Indore allegedly for publication of a wrong and baseless new items on 3.6.2012 in their newspapers with captions “तीन फज� पत्रकार �गरफ्� and “�नगम इंजी�नयर को भी चमकाया फज� पत्रकार ने� ”

In the impugned news item it was reported that police had arrested three persons who have been trying to blackmail a doctor posing themselves as journalists of an electronic channel TV 24. The impugned news item mentioned the name of the complainant referring that he identified himself to be Bureau Chief of the aforesaid news channel.]

The complainant stated that the allegations levelled in news item are false and misleading and it has damaged his reputation. The complainant also requested the Council to take action in the matter.

A Show Cause Notice dated 28.5.2014 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Dainik Dabang Duniya and Dainik Agnibaan, Indore

Written Statement of Agnibaan

Shri Rajesh Chelawat, Editor, Dainik Agnibaan filed his undated written statement received in the Council on 8.8.2016 whereby he stated that he had not published the name of Shri Rajendra Pandey and the complaint is baseless. The respondent submitted that two names were published in the impugned news item against whom police took action but complainant’s name was not published. The respondent further submitted that they are not aware about further development in this case or if the matter is sub-judice. The respondent also submitted that he had no intention to defame the complainant.

A copy of the Written Statement of the respondent, Agnibaan was forwarded to the complainant on 29.9.2014 for information and counter comments.

No Written Statement has been filed by Dainik Dabang Duniya.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Despite service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant and the respondent.

A prayer for adjournment has been made by the complainant. This matter is of the year 2012, and at such a distance of time, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to adjourn the matter. The prayer for adjournment is thus rejected. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all the connected papers. On the basis of the report given by a doctor that three of the persons posing as journalists are trying to extort money from them, a case was registered and that has been published in the impugned news. It is the assertion of the complainant that those three persons, who have been described as fake journalists, are, in fact, journalists working with the complainant organization. The Inquiry Committee has perused the letter of appointment as also the Nodal Partner Agreement, and is of the opinion that the news item cannot be said to be baseless. The Inquiry Committee makes it clear that it is not expressing final opinion with regard to the claim made by the complainant, and it is for the court of competent jurisdiction to decide that, in case those journalists are put to trial.

In view of the aforesaid observation, the Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommended to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 75 File No.14/389-390/15-16-PCI

Ms. Rachna Sharma, The Editor, Advocate, Dainik Bhaskar,, Hon’ble Secretary, SSKs Foundation, Gwalior. Gwalior. The Editor, Nai Dunia, Gwalior.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi vide its letter dated 17.3.2016 forwarded Order dated 20.8.2015 of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) to protect the status of women in the country filed by Ms. Rachana Sharma relating to publication of advertisements which are depraving denigrating and derogatory to women.

The Court while disposing of the petition extended liberty to the petitioner to file her elaborate representation in this regard before the Press Council of India and directing it to consider such representation keeping in view of concerned provisions/rules/regulations along with principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ajay Goswami (supra) within 90 days. On such consideration, if it found that someone is responsible for committing offending act then appropriate steps be taken against such persons.

Ms. Rachna Sharma, Advocate vide letter dated 4.9.2015 accordingly filed this complaint against the editors, (1) Dainik Bhaskar and (2) Nai Dunia, Gwalior for publication of indecent advertisements which are derogatory and denigrate women.

According to complainant such kind of publication are also available on the online version of the aforesaid newspapers, which have potential to deprave readers. She stated that the law relating to obscenity in the country is well defined in sections 292, 293 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. In spite of these provisions, there has been rise in cases of the indecent representation of women in publications, particularly advertisements etc. The complainant submitted that publication of fake and vulgar advertisements are totally misleading and full of motivated statements.

The complainant further stated that it is unfortunate that such advertisements are published in newspapers which are seen and read by thousands of children. .

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice dated 2.12.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar and Nai Duniya followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 22.3.2016 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. The complainant is represented by Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint which was in nature of a representation addressed jointly to the Principal Secretary, Public Relations, Information and Publication Mantrayala, Government of Madhya Pradesh, the Collector and District Magistrate, Gwalior, the Drug and Food Controller, Madhya Pradesh and the Press Council of India. The complainant is aggrieved by the publication of certain advertisements in the respondent newspaper which according to her are indecent and obscene, are derogatory to women and may deprave or corrupt readers. The complainant had moved the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh with a prayer that respondent newspaper be prevented from publishing the impugned advertisements and that various authorities, including the Press Council, be directed to take “stringent action against the violators of law”. A Division Bench of High Court was pleased to dispose of her petition by extending “liberty to the petitioner to file her elaborate representation with respect of dispute raised in this petition in the office of respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11so also to the Drug Controller of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal”. The Court made it clear that it was doing so without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint as well as the impugned advertisements and the visuals contained therein. It is of the view while the advertisements seem to be in poor taste, they cannot be termed as obscene and not can it be said that they violate journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee is further of the view that it is for the Drug Controller or any other appropriate authority to decide, if the claims made in the advertisements are false, misleading or exaggerated and whether they warrant action under the law.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. It, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 77 File No.14/873/14-15-PCI

Shri Pradeep Budania, The Editor, Director, Gurukripa Career Institute, Dainik Bhaskar,, Sikar, Rajasthan Sikar, Rajasthan.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 16.1.2015 has been filed Shri Pradeep Budania, Director, Gurukripa Career Institute, Sikar, Rajasthan against the Dainik Bhaskar, Sikar, Rajasthan alleging publication of misleading advertisement by using the name of their Institute. The complainant submitted that there is a very well-known National level reputed educational institute but many people or small institutes want to encash on the goodwill of his institute by using the expression as Ex-Gurukripa/Ex-GCI with names of their new and least qualified faculties/employees. The paper publishes such misleading advertisements and by seeing the Gurukripa’s reputation with associated with Institute’s name, poor, semi-literate and innocent parents become the prey to these advertisements.

The complainant further stated that he drew the attention of the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar vide his letter dated 15.1.2015 with a request not to publish any further advertisements showing Ex-Gurukripa/Ex-GCI with any faculty name until and unless they produce authentic experience certificate issued by Gurukripa. The complainant also stated that the editor had overlooked his complaint and published a full page advertisement in their newspaper on 16.1.2015.

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice dated 1.4.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar, Sikar followed by a reminder dated 29.10.2015 but no written statement filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, the complainant, or for that matter, respondent has not chosen to appear. The respondent has, however, filed an application for adjournment of the case on the ground that the palce of sitting is too far away. The prayer has been made to fix Jaipur or Delhi as the place for hearing of the matter. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accede to his prayer.

The complainant claims to be the Director of a renowned coaching institute, i.e. Gurukripa Career Institute, sikar and his grienvance is that another instimate, namely Samarpan Carrier Institute has put on an advertisement in the respondent newspaper containing false claims. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papers and is of the opinion that no action is called for from the Council in this matter. The complainant, however, if so advised, may take recourse to any other remedy available to him in law, against the institute which has given that advertisement.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

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

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 78(1) F.No.14/117/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Rajasthan Patrika for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Rajasthan – 2013.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned EDO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika for publishing following news items and photographs as detailed herein below:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. बेरो कोणी पटट के चुनाव होरया है 17.11.2013 1237.50/- 2 Photo BJP candidate Rajkumari 13.11.2013 900/- Divya Kumari feeding a family 3 Photo of BJP candidate Divya 14.11.2013 450/- Kumari visiting rural areas

(i) It was reported in the 1st impugned news item that on the last day of filing nomination for Churu constituency, the main contest is between Rajendra Singh Rathore of BJP and Haji Maqbool Mandelia of INC. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the BJP candidate has upper hand in the elections.

(ii) A photograph of Rajkumari Divya Kumari was published by the Respondent newspaper feeding a family. (No news clippings)

(iii) A photograph of Rajkumari Divya Kumari was published by the Respondent newspaper visiting rural areas. (photograph not provided) (No news clippings)

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Rajasthan Parika, Sikar on 24.6.2014.

In this regard the District Election Officer, Churu forwarded a copy of the Minutes of the District Level MCMC in which it was stated that the MCMC issued Show Cause Notice to the BJP candidate Shri Rajendra Rathore for publication of paid news. In response thereto the candidate replied that he was unaware of the publication of said news item. The MCMC after consideration of the reply of the candidate unanimously decided that the impugned publication was paid news and the amount was included in the election expenditure of the candidate.

Written Statement of the Respondent

Shri Ragunath Singh, Chief Manager, Rajasthan Patrika in his written statement dated 3.8.2016 stated that the impugned news item was not paid news. He alleged that the Election Commission had not given him a chance to prove that it is not paid news before holding it as paid news. He further stated that the news item was published on the basis of the conversation held between four persons at the tea stall. He submitted that they had no intention of campaigning for particular candidate or political party through the impugned news item.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. There was no representation on behalf of the ECI. Shri Gopalal Sharma, Deputy Manager (Admn,), Rajasthan Patrika appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news / photographs against the newspaper ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (2) F.No.14/153/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Taj Bharati” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent to the ECI by the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan against the newspaper “Dainik Taj Bharati” for publishing news item captioned “हरसाना ने �कया जनसंपकर ्, ग्रामीण� ने -मालाओं से लादा” along with photograph in its issue dated 21.11.2013 in favour of Independent candidate-Shri Shiv Pratap Harsana during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013. The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost as Rs.660/- of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates.

It was reported in the impugned news item that the independent candidate from Tonk constituency-Shri Shiv Pratap Harsana visited several villages during his election campaign, where he was warmly welcomed. His spokesperson informed that Shri Harsana campaigned in various areas of the constituency where people greeted him and he appealed to them for vote him. It was further reported that several supporters were present during his campaign.

The ECI forwarded the proceedings/minutes dated 27.11.2013 of Meetings of MCMC, Tonk but there was no action taken report mentioned with regard to the impugned news item.

No Written Statement A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Taj Bharati, Tonk on 24.6.2014 but the paper did not file written statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.7.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Taj Bharati’ in its issue dated 21.11.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers and found it to be case of routine campaign coverage in the light of the aforesaid principles and cannot be termed as paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (3) F.No.14/141/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Jan Nayak for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Rajasthan – 2013.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper, Jan Nayak for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. रा ज पा प्रत्य मीना न े लगाई 25.11.2013 864/- �च�ोडगढ़ आ�दवासी वोटो म� स�ध

2 �दया न े �कया �व�भन् �ेत् का दौरा 13.11.2013 सवाई 2496/- माधोपरु 3 �दया का ग्राम �ेत् म� जनसम्पक 14.11.2013 1200/- सवाई माधोपरु 4 �दया कु म ा र � के स्वाग म� उमड़ा शहर 19.11.2013 960/- सवाई माधोपरु

It was reported in the 1stimpugned news item that after two decade in Nimbaheda Assembly, there is battle between two tycoons. RJP candidate, Makhanlal Meena is now showing his strength. According to RJP on President, Kirodilal Meena’s special instruction, the millionaire candidate, Makkhanlal is going to file election nomination from here to surprise these three assembly his camp has been set up at Devakmata place in the dense forest of Chotisadri. It was also reported in the impugned news item that many tribal were with him and he was trying to connect with them. Meena’s election campaign style is different as he does not care of code of conduct. Makkhanlal Meena meets the villagers of Sitamata forest at Badisadri in Pratapgarh from morning to evening and has been trying to win their support.

It was reported in the 2nd impugned news item that BJP candidate from Sawai Madhopur Diya Kumari began her public meeting in various areas. People of the area pointed toward basic problems like bad roads, sanitation, drinking water scarcity, insufficient electricity supply and BJP candidate assured the public and said that it is public right to get basic amenities and promised to eradicate the problems, if given an opportunity.

It was reported in the 3rd impugned news item that BJP candidate Diya Kumari visited constituency and contacted the public in rural areas and requested to cast vote in her favour. During her address she said that she wants to serve people of Sawai Madhopur and complete development of the area. She also said that the development of the area is her top most priority and would spend her maximum time amidst people of the constituency. Looking at the crowd support, the candidate was quite enthusiastic.

It was reported in the 4th impugned news item that the BJP candidate Diya Kumari from Sawai Madhopur constituency started her election campaign. Well known people of the constituency welcomed her. People of Mali society also welcomed her. She visited in different Mohallas of city and sought votes for her. During her campaign BJP workers requested votes and support in the favour of BJP candidate, Diya Kumari.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Jan Nayak, Kota on 27.6.2014 followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 20.10.2014, but received no response.

Response from District Election Officer

The District Election Officer(Collector), Sawai Madhopur forwarded a copy of the Minutes of the District Level MCMC in which it is stated that the District Level MCMC issued Show Cause Notice to the BJP candidate RAjkumari Diya Kumari for publication of paid news. In response to that the candidate replied that she was unaware of the publication and had not paid for that in any manner. The MCMC after consideration of the reply of the candidate unanimously decided that the impugned publication was paid news and the amount was included in the election expenditure of the candidate.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Jan Nayak’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the four impugned news items published in the respondent’s newspaper. It opined that except first news item, the manner and presentation of remaining three the news items, it is obvious that those are paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and recommends the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Jan Nayak’’ for publication of paid news.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Jan Nayak’’, Rajasthan. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (4) F.No.14/149/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Samachar Jagat” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Facts Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Dainik Samachar Jagat” for publishing news item captioned “भाजपा प्रत्याशी जलधार� रोड शो म� हुआ जोरदार स्वाग” in its issue dated 30.11.2013 in favour of BJP candidate-Shri Ratanlal Jaldhari during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013. The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost as Rs.3,960/- of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates.

It was reported in the impugned news item that on the last day of campaigning in the State Assembly election, BJP candidate from Sikar constituency, Shri Ratan Lal Jaldhari made a road-show with a new zeal and zest. He was garlanded and welcomed warmly everywhere. It was further reported that Shri Jaldhari appealed to the people for support in the forthcoming election. It was also reported that thousands of people were present during the road-show.

It is submitted that the DEO/President, MCMC, Sikar addressed a letter dated 2.1.2014 to the Returning Officer/SDM, Sikar Constituency, Sikar intimating that the said impugned news item published in Dainik Samachar Jagat issue dated 30.11.2013 unanimously placed the impugned news items in paid news category by the MCMC in its meeting held on 2.1.2014. The MCMC directed to issue a Notice to BJP candidate-Shri Ratan Jaldhari and to book the amount of Rs.3,960/- on account of the candidate as election expenditure by treating the impugned news item as an advertisement.

No Written Statement

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Samachar Jagat, Gandhinagar (Gujarat) on 19.6.2014 but no reply received despite issuance of reminder dated 20.10.2014.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Samachar Jagat’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that impugned news was a routine election coverage of a rally and therefore it does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (5) F.No.14/133/14-15-PCI.

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Prakash Kunj” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Dainik Prakash Kunj” for publishing news item captioned “मणेावा म� ढ �हरा नी �कया ज न स पं कर ” in its issue dated 21.11.2013 in favour of BSP Candidate from Jhunjhunu constituency-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan- 2013. The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost as Rs.5,148/- of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates. (The ECI neither provided copy of the impugned news item nor its English translation).

No Written Statement Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Prakash Kunj, Tonk on 23.6.2014 but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “incomplete address. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Prakash Kunj’ in its issue dated 21.11.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. In the absence of the impugned news item, the Inquiry Committee has no option than to peruse other relevant records to adjudicate upon the allegation of paid news. On doing so, the Inquiry Committee finds it difficult to uphold the allegation. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (6) F.No.14/147/14-15-PCI.

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Seema Sandesh” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted by the District Electoral Officer, Sikar (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Seema Sandesh” for allegedly publishing Paid News during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013. The date and caption of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Caption Date In favour of 1 द�या कु मार� अपने प� क� तलाश म� 13.112013 Rajkumari Diya Kumari, Swai Madhopur BJP candidate from ग्रामी�ेत्र� का दौरा �क Swai Madhopur constituency 2 द�या कु मार� के स्वागत म� उमडा शह 19.11.2013 Rajkumari Diya Kumari, Swai Madhopur BJP candidatefrom Swai Madhopur constituency 3 राकांपा प्रा�ी चौेान नी ने �क 28.11.2013 Shri Vahid Chauhan, Sikar NCP Candidate from नकु ्कड सभाओं को संबो�ध Sikar constituency 4 हरसाना के समथरन म� मेापंचारतड 27.11.2013 Shri Shiv Pratap Tonk Harsana, Independent 60 गांवो के लोग हुए एक�त् candidate from Tonk constituency

It was reported in the first impugned news item that BJP Candidate, Diya Kumari has started election campaign and visited Madhosinghpur, Shilpa Gram Ramsinghpura where she was welcomed by hundreds of people and thereafter in Khilchipur people gave a floral welcome and she sought blessings and votes from them. In the second impugned news item it was reported that the BJP Candidate, Diya Kumari has started election campaign in the city after seeking blessing from Jain Saints and the public has expressed their massive enthusiasm during meeting with her. It was further reported that a huge crowd swelled during her public meetings in various places and various prominent persons welcomed the candidate and assured her support. The third impugned news item reported that the NCP Candidate-Shri Vahid Chauhan addressed various Nukkad Sabhas in Sikar and said that owing to the love and support he is getting from the public of Sikar, he will leave no stone unturned in giving a now look to this area. It was further reported that Shri Chauhan promised the people that he will give a sensitive and transparent administration and added that he expects that the new horizons of development will be set up in this area.

In the last impugned news item it was reported that Tonk Independent candidate- Shri Shiv Pratap Harsana is getting support from all sections of society. It was further reported that people from 60 different villages and Gurjar Mahapanchayat gathered and welcomed Shri Harsana and also assured their support to him.

The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,125/-, 4,050/-, 2,880/- and 330/- respectively.

The DEO/President, MCMC, Sikar addressed a letter dated 4.12.2013 to the Returning Officer/SDM, Sikar Constituency, Sikar intimating that the news item captioned “राकांपा प्रत्या�ी चौहान ने �कया नुक्कड सभाओं को संब” published in Seema Sandesh on 28.11.2013 unanimously placed the impugned news items in paid news category by the MCMC in its meeting held on 4.12.2013. The MCMC directed to issue a Notice to RJP candidate-Shri Vahid Chauhan and to book the amount of Rs.3,000/- on account of the candidate as election expenditure by treating the impugned news item as an advertisement.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Seema Sandesh, Jaipur on 24.6.2014.

Written Statement The respondent-Managing Editor, Seema Sandesh vide his written statement dated 28.5.2015 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that their newspaper is responsible newspaper and publishes only factual news without any favour. He has further submitted that neither they did not received any kind of cash or received and favour from any of the candidate for publishing the news. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint and assured that they will take care in future while publishing news during elections.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015, 17.9.2015 and 4.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Seema Sandesh’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the four impugned news items published in the respondent’s newspaper. It opined that while impugned news at Sl. No. 3 & 4 may be considered as legitimate poll coverage, news items sl. No. 2 are definitely instances of paid news. In fact the headline of news report “�दया कु मार� के ्वागत म� उमड़ा ्ेर” at Sl. No. 2 alongwith photograph has also been reported in another paper which was also listed before it for consideration. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, holds the impugned news item at sl. No. 3 & 4as paid news. It recommended the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Seema Sandesh’ for publication of paid news.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Seema Sandesh’, Rajasthan. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (7) F.No.14/148/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Badhti Kalam for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Rajasthan – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper, Badhti Kalam for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. जन भावनाओं क� होगी कद – द�या 19.11.2013 3974/-

It was reported in the impugned news item that after completion of her election campaign in cities Diya Kumari has started campaigning in rural areas and has been connecting with rural voters. She assured them that she would work for their cause feelings and has been getting a lot of support from them. It was also reported that Diya said she does not give false statement like politicians and she does not like to give false assurances and her objective is development of the area and she would try her best to do so. A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Badhti Kalam on 25.6.2014. Written statement In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 25.6.2014 the respondent editor, Badhti Kalam vide his written statement dated 22.9.2014 submitted that the impugned news item was published for the information of the general public and there was no mal-intention in publishing such news item. He also submitted that they had not received any kind of cash or favour for publishing the impugned news item. The District Election Officer(Collector), Sawai Madhopur forwarded a copy of the Minutes of the District Level MCMC in which it is stated that the District Level MCMC issued Show Cause Notice to the BJP candidate Rajkumari Diya Kumari for publication of paid news. In response to that the candidate replied that she has not paid for the publication of the impugned news item. The MCMC after consideration of the reply of the candidate unanimously decided that the impugned publication is paid news and the amount is included in the election expenditure of the candidate.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. However, an e-mail dated 7.8.2016 has been received from the respondent seeking adjournment on medical grounds. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Badhti Kalam’ in its issue dated 19.11.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news items published in the respondent newspaper and found it be an exclusive coverage of one candidate with fire, photograph which is definitely supportive of paid news item. From the manner and presentation of the news item, it is obvious that it is paid news. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, holds the impugned news item as paid news. It recommended the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Badhti Kalam’ for publication of paid news.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Badhti Kalam’, Rajasthan. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No (8) F.No.14/124/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Divya Damak for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Rajasthan – 2013.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper, Divya Damak for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. भा ज पा का कमल अमृता के हाथ 7.11.2013 2256/-

It was reported in the impugned news item that BJP sidelined its popular and strong candidate Shri Jageshwar Garg and gave ticket to Amrita, who was not a strong candidate. Mr. Devji Patel, M.P. of Jalore and Sihori district’s BJP president, Mr. Narayan Singh Deval and State working Committee member, Mr. Chiranjilal’s hands are behind the political death of Mr. Garg as all the three leaders were not happy with him. It was also reported that Shri Garg was himself responsible for his downfall in the party. It was further reported that Congress can play gamble on Ramlal Meghwal and if direct fight takes place between Ramlal Meghawal and Amrita Meghwal, Ram Lal would win. BJP always looses Jalore seat in direct fight with Congress.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Divya Damak, Jalore on 25.6.2014 followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 20.10.2014, but received no response.

The District Election Officer Collector), Jalore forwarded a copy of the Minutes of the District Level MCMC in which it is stated that the MCMC considered the reply of Shri Ramlal Meghwal, Congress candidate and unanimously decided that the impugned publication is paid news and the amount is included in the election expenditure of the candidate. He also forwarded a copy of the Order issued in this regard.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Divya Damak’ in its issue dated 7.11.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles and noticed that it appears to be routine/pole analysis. Since the report itself does not show bias for any candidate, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (9) F.No.14/145/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Rajasthan Punjab Kesari” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted by the District Electoral Officer, Tonk (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Rajasthan Punjab Kesari” for allegedly publishing Paid News during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013. The date and caption of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Caption Date In favour of 1 भाजपा कांंीस प्रा�्र� नी � ने 13.11.2013 BJP Candidate- Swai Madhopur Rajkumar Diya Kumari ज न स पं कर ् 2 �वकलांग से आशीवारश लीती �नशर�लर 21.11.2013 Independent Tonk candidate-Shri Pratap प्रत्य-फोटो एवं समाचार Harsana 3 �नदरलीर उममीशवार सउश सईश हो 21.11.2013 Independent Tonk candidate-Shri Saud आशीवार्द देती गांव क� बुजुगर् म�हला- Saidi फोटो एवं समाचार 4 सईद� ने �कया गांव� म� जनसंपकर 29.1.1.2013 Independent Tonk candidate-Shri Saud Saidi

It was reported in the first impugned news item that contestants from Swai Madhopur constituency have started their campaign. Congress candidate-Shri Danish Abrar campaigned in various areas/villages with their workers. His mother ex-MLA appealed to voters to vote for Congress. It was further reported that the BJP Candidate- Ms. Diya Kumari has begun her public meeting programme with worship at Hanuman Temple. During her campaign she visited various villages/areas of her constituency and promised to eradicate the problems of the area, if she is given an opportunity. It was also reported that in Dussera Ground various prominent personalities and hundreds of people gave her warm welcome and assured her support.

With regard to S.No.2 and 3, the photographs of Independent candidates-Shri Pratap Harsana and Shri Saud Saidi were published showing that they are seeking blessing from old woman and handicapped. It was also reported in the impugned news item that Shri Saud Saidi was welcomed and blessed in rural and urban areas during his campaign. Shri Saidi is being supported by large crowd wherever he goes and slogans are raised in his favour.

It was reported in the last impugned news item that BJP and Congress candidates from Tonk Assembly elections are quire disturbed over the overwhelming support and favour gained by independent candidate-Shri Saud Saidi. Wherever he goes large number of people spontaneously attends his corner meetings. Shri Saidi is getting support and warm welcome from people.

The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,350/-, Rs.660/-, 795/- and 720/- respectively.

The ECI forwarded proceedings/minutes dated 27.11.2013 of Meetings of MCMCwherein it has been stated that Notice No.874 and 877 dated 21.11.2013 had been issued to the newspaper for publishing photographs/news dated 21.11.2013 (with regard to S.No.2 & 3) through the concerned Returning Officer. The MCMC also decided to book the amount of Rs.795/- and Rs.660/- on account of the candidates as election expenditure.

No Written Statement Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Rajasthan Punjab Kesari, Jaipur on 24.6.2014 but the same has been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “Refused”.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. However, the respondent has sought adjournment vide his letter dated 3.8.2016. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Rajasthan Punjab Kesari’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles while report at serial no. 1 cover campaigns of all candidates and appears to be routine pole coverage, the other three reports show a bias for on independent candidates. However, it cannot be concluded only in this basis there are instances of paid news item. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (10) F.No.14/118/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against The Times of India for allegedly publishing Paid News during Legislative Assembly Election of Rajasthan – 2013

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the District Electoral Officer, Churu, Rajasthan against the newspaper, The Times of India for publishing news item captioned “Poonia’s Political Avatar Aims For Gold” in its issue dated 24.11.2013 in favour of INC candidate- Smt. Krishna Poonia during Legislative Assembly Election - 2013.

The DEO/MCMC, Churu, Rajasthan accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.2160/-

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India, Jaipur on 31.7.2014.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 31.7.2014 the respondent editor in his written statement dated 2.9.2014 stated that the impugned article dated 24.11.2013 published in the newspaper was neither an advertisement nor have been sponsored or paid for by the candidate or paid on her behalf by any other person including any political party. He further stated that the Election Commission has neither sought any information or comments from him regarding the article published nor he was given any opportunity of being heard in respect of the same. He further denied that the impugned article was paid news and any consideration, either in cash or kind, was received from anyone. He has further submitted that the article was written by their Sports Reporter who has been following her career as an athlete and reported on her victory at the Commonwealth Games and her participation in the Olympic games and their newspapers routinely published such articles in past also.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case despite issuance of reminder to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘The Times of India’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles and noted it as feature/human right article on an athlete who entered poll fray and cannot be called as paid news item. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (11) F.No.14/130/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Janbaaj Patrika” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent by the District Electoral Officer, Jhalawar (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Dainik Janbaaj Patrika” for publishing news item captioned “�पडावाःमीना�ी चंद्रा के �लए उमडा जन सैलाब” in its issue dated 23.11.2013 in favour of INC candidate-Ms. Meenakshi Chandrawat during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost as Rs.3,110/- of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates.

It was reported in the impugned news item that the Ms. Vasundhara, who has been leading the district for last 25 years and defeated several Congress stalwart appears to have been trapped in a tough fight as the Congress candidate-Ms. Meenakashi Chandrawat is gathering a huge public support in her favour. According to the news report, Ms. Meenakshi is moving ahead and has been counting on achievements of Congress regime. People seem to be in a mood to teach Raje a lesson this time. The unity of Congress has made her realized that her seat is not safe. It was further reported that a hardcore criminal of Pirawa Mangi Lal Bagari accompanied Raje in her helicopter and this has sent a wrong message among the voters.

No Written Statement

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Janbaaj Patrika through District Magistrate, Jhalawar on 27.6.2014 but received no reply.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Janbaaj Patrika’ in its issue dated 23.11.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles and officers to be slanted in favour of one candidate while it may be a case of misjudgement, it cannot be termed as paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (12) F.No.14/136/14-15-PCI.

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Rashtra Ka Vachan” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent to the ECI by the Assistant Director, Office of the Information & Public Relations, Kota (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Rashtra Ka Vachan” for publishing news item captioned “कोटा दि�ण म� पहाड क� तरह खड� तृन नागपाल” in its issue dated 21. 14 ा 2 0 13 in favour of Jago Party during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013.

It was reported in the impugned news item that as the BJP and Congress leaders have started preparations of assembly elections, as Jago Party in Kota city too is ready to contest with full strength against both BJP and Congress. It was further reported that Ms. Tanu Nagpal is all set to fight elections as party candidate and her candidature is almost confirmed. According to the impugned report, during interaction with local people of Kota South by the Vachan correspondent it was revealed that they have tried both BJP and Congress but there is no third option. In this scenario a woman claiming for Jago Party ticket, opens doors of hope for third alternative and she is standing in front of BJP and Congress like mountain.. Although time will tell who shall finally get the ticket and who will win the race, yet Ms. Nagpal is fully busy in efforts to win the election with huge votes.

The DEO/MCMC assumed the cost as Rs.5,092/- of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Rashtra Ka Vachan, Kota on 24.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Editor, Rashtra Ka Vachan, Kota vide his written statement dated 4.7.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news has submitted that the DEO/MCMC, Kota vide its letter dated 8.11.2013 has sought clarification with regard to publication of said impugned paid news and a reply in this regard was sent to the DEO, Kota on 13.11.2013. The respondent further submitted that the impugned news item was only based on the views of Ms. Tanu Nagpal and her supporters and they did not publish their own opinion or views. The respondent stated that neither Ms. Tanu Nagpal was declared as candidate of Jago Party nor she got ticket till the date of publication of impugned news item. The respondent stated that the allegation of paid news is baseless and far from facts.

While raising the questions on the constitution of MCMC, the respondent stated that there was no member from the journalist category in it. The respondent alleged that the President of MCMC-Shri Jogaram and Member, Shri S.B. Jaiman indulge in several shady land deals and he exposed these irregularities through his newspaper and annoyed with this, the respondent maliciously with a view to pressurise him has levelled baseless allegation of paid news. The respondent further alleged that several newspapers published the news during the elections, which were definite paid news but the MCMC ignored them.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the ECI, despite service of notice. Shri Gajendra Kumar, Editor appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Rashtra Ka Vachan’ in its issue dated 21.10.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news items published in the respondent’s newspaper. In the impugned news item, a candidate’s success in election has been projected. The candidate was yet to file her nomination. From the tenor and manner of presentation of the news item, it is obvious that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint. It recommended the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Rashtra Ka Vachan’ for publication of paid news.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Rashtra Ka Vachan’, Rajasthan. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (13) F.No.14/113/14-15-PCI.

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Mewar Times” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent to the ECI by the District Electoral Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Mewar Times” for publishing news items captioned “अव्थी नी मांगा मतशाताओं सी समथरन” and “कांग्रे प्रत्याशी को जनसंपकर् म� �मला अपारस ” in its issues dated 17.11.2013 and 21.11.2013 in favour of BJP candidate-Shri Vitthal Shankar Awasthi and INC Candidate-Shri Rajkumar Bairwa respectively during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013.

It was reported in the first impugned news item that Shri Awasthi’s victory is certain as he has been getting support from the voters of Bhilwara legislative constituency. According to the report, he was greeted with garlands by the supporters in his election campaign. The candidate started his campaign and has appealed to the voters of his area to cast their votes in favour of BJP. It was further reported that the public support Awasthi and assured him that his victory is certain.

The second impugned news item reported that the Congress contestant-Shri Rajkumar Bairwa appealed to voters of the town and got favourable response from them. According to the news item, he was welcomed by public at many places. He assured the public that he will try his best for all round development of the town and whole area.

The DEO/MCMC assumed the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,140/- and Rs.1,101/- respectively.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Mewar Times, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) on 24.6.2014.

Written Statement The Editor, Mewar Times, Bhilwara vide his written statement dated 8.7.2014 while denying publication of paid news has stated that they have only published the Press Releases issued by the public representatives.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Mewar Times’ in its issue dated 17.11.2013. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (14) F.No.14/914/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Rajasthan Dashafor allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper, Rajasthan Dasha for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. Pradesh ki hot seat par fillm 15.4.2014 6788.73/- abhinetri aaj se karengi jansampark va road show 2 Matdata ked war ab pratyshi 15.4.2014 19221.12/- 3 Jansampark karte BSP pratyashi, 12.4.2014 3564.28/- Chandulal Gerota 4 Gujjar ke namankan par ayojit road 5.4.2014 33379.20/- show mein umde hazaron

It was reported in the 1st impugned news item that the film actress is to participate in campaign and road show for hot seat, Dausa is one of the 25 seats in Rajasthan where Congress and BJP had fielded ex-IPS officers who are real brothers. It was also reported that Shivpal Gujjar made the election interesting after he filed his nomination from, Dausa Raveena Tandon participated in his road show. The regular visit of film stars for election campaign is a talking point in the area.

It was reported in the 2nd news item that the candidates are canvassing door to door as the polling date is coming nearer. The candidates campaigned covering maximum area and requested people to support them.

3rd is a photograph in which BSP candidate is canvassing.

It was reported in the impugned news item that in Shivpal Gujjar’s road show thousands of people came. It is remarkable that the film stars also participated in the election war, Raveena Tandon urged people to support independent candidate, Shivpal Gujjar and added that people should elect good candidate. The youths were enthusiastic and were shouting slogans in support of the independent candidate.

No Written Statement

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Rajasthan Dasha on 16.4.2015 which was received back in the Secretariat with postal remarks “No such organization is in existence”.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Rajasthan Dasha’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles and noticed that reports are on campaign meeting and states enthusiasm because film stars were present and therefore, it can’t be called paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (15) F.No.14/132/14-15-PCI.

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Udhyog Aas Pass” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Dainik Udhyog Aas Pass” for allegedly publishing Paid News during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013. The date and caption of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Caption Date In favour of 1 स�मशु ा �संे ही समथरन म� उमेा मि्लम 2 2 . 11. 2 0 13 Independent candidate- Ms. Sumitra Singh समुदाय Jhunjhunu 2 मण्डावा म� बसपा क� लह-ढू�कया 19. 11. 2 0 13 BSP Candidate-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya Jhunjhunu 3 आजाद� के बाद भी मणेावा �वहास हो 21. 11. 2 0 13 BSP Candidate-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya तरसा-इंजी ढू�कया Jhunjhunu 4 कांग्रेस एकवंशवाद कासंग -ढू�कया 2 2 . 11. 2 0 13 BSP Candidate-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya Jhunjhunu 5 मणेावा हो ेीेरटीज �सट बना पाथ�म�ा- 24. 11. 2 0 13 BSP Candidate-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya ढू�कया Mandawa 6 जगह-जगह हो रहा है गुढा का सम्मा 23. 11. 2 0 13 LJP candidate-Shri Ranvir Singh Guda Khetri 7 गजरु ्र का जोरदारस्वाग 2 2 . 11. 2 0 13 Independent candidate- Shri Dharampal Gurjar Khetri

It was reported in the first impugned news item that a public meeting has been organized for Independent candidate from Jhunjhunu Legislative Assembly-Ms. Sumitra Singh where huge crowd of Muslim community participated and welcomed the candidate. Ms. Singh appealed the community to support her.

News clipping of the second news item is not available and its English translation mentions that the BSP Candidate from Mandawa seat-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya said that Congress and BJP cheated people and both the parties had tried to befool people. Shri Dhukiya did canvassing in dozens of villages and asked people to vote for him in the name of development. During the campaigning people welcomed him and promised support to him.

The third impugned news item reported that the BSP Candidate from Mandawa seat-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya during his campaign in Dulchas village said that even today the Mandawa is longing for development. He further said that BSP is getting huge support in villages.

It was reported in the fourth impugned news item that during a public rally BSP Candidate from Mandawa seat-Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya said that congress is a dynastic organisation and BSP is only party which can lead all the social divisions with it. It was further reported that BSP candidate is canvassing hard in villages.

The fifth impugned news item mentioned that BSP Candidate from Mandawa seat- Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya is very busy in election campaigning and public meetings and he is getting huge support of the public. According to the news, Shri Dhukiya said that his first priority is to develop Mandawa into heritage city.

It was report in the sixth impugned news item that the LJP candidate from Khetri- Shri Ranvir Singh Guda has been given warm welcome in Mataji Ki Dhani and he was also weighted by bananas.

The last impugned news item reported that the election campaign of independent candidate from Khetri-Shri Dharampal Gurjar is in full swing and they are seeking vote and support through Nukkad Sabhas. He was given warm welcome by the huge crowd in Papurna Gram Panchayat and people assured their support to him.

The DEO/MCMC assumed the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,536/-, 1,920/-, 3,510/-, 3,300/-, 2,064/-, 1,122/- and 540/- respectively.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Udhyog Aas Pass, Jhunjhunu on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement The Manager, Dainik Udhyog Aas Pass vide his written statement dated 28.7.2014 while denying the allegation of publishing any paid news has submitted that all impugned news items were provided by their Jhunjhunu based correspondent and no payment was received by them in this regard.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Udhyog Aas Pass’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It noted that while showing bias in favour of one candidate, the reports themselves cover poll events. The Inquiry Committee is therefore of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (16) F.No.14/121/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Mahka Bharat” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent by the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan against the newspaper “Dainik Mahka Bharat” for allegedly publishing Paid News during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013. The date and caption of the impugned news items are as follows:-

S.No. Caption Date Name of Candidate/ Cost of news Party to whom Notice item as per issued DIPR/DAVP rates 1 आदश र नगर म� उभरा नया 13.11.2013 Independent Rs.10,639/- candidate- Sh. राजनी�तक समीकरण Vimlesh Agrawal 2 डा. रेखा बनेगी भावी �वकास क� आस 21.11.2013 INC candidate-Ms. Rs.6,750/- Rekha Kataria 3 चुनर� ओढाई, फू ल मालाओं से लादा 27.11.2013 INC candidate-Ms. Rs.5,400/- Rekha Kataria 4 आशु�संह सरपु राु न े 20 हजार 27.11.2013 Independent Rs.5,760/- candidate-Shri Ashu समथर्क समेत �नकाली �वशाल रैली Singh

The first impugned news item published a photograph of independent candidate- Shri Vimlesh Agrawal reporting that he filed his nomination as an independent candidate from Adarsh Nagar and when he went to file nomination there huge crowd greeted him. As per the sources, Agarwal will cut Hindu vote bank. Being a local Marwadi leader, it will be an advantage for him and he is being considered as strong contender to Sh. Ashok Parnami.

It was reported in the second impugned news item that Congress candidate for Jhotwara Constituetncy-Dr. Rekha Kataria campaigned in various villages and during the campaigning villagers welcomed her by showering flowers and the villagers honoured her with Chunari and at few places fire crackers were surse. It was further reported that during her campaign wherever she went there was a huge gathering. She said that her family has always served the people and she will try her level best for the development of the area. She appealed to the voters to vote for the Congress on the ground of pro- public Congress government policies.

The third impugned news item reported that the Congress candidate for Jhotwara Constituetncy-Dr. Rekha Kataria campaigned in various areas and appealed voters to vote in favour of Congress. During her campaign she said that she will not accept any wrongdoings and her priority will be development of the area. It was further reported that all communities gave their support to her.

In the last impugned news item it was reported that the Independent candidate from Jhotwara Constituency, Shri Ashu Singh organised huge rally with his twenty thousand supporters and Shri Singh appealed voters to give him one chance to serve them. He assured the people that he will not disappoint anyone and he will be always with them.

No Written Statement Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Mahka Bharat, Jaipur on 25.6.2014 but received no reply despite issuance of reminder dated 20.10.2014.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at New Delhi. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Mahka Bharat’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It is of the opinion that impugned news were routine poll coverage and therefore, does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (17) F.No.14/918/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “National Duniya” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent by Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur against the newspaper “National Duniya” for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections-2014 in Rajasthan. The date and caption of the impugned news items read as follows:-

S.No. Caption Date In favour of 1 गजरु ्र के �लए रवीना ने मांगे वोट रोड शो 5.4. 2 0 14 Independent candidate- Shri Shivpal Gurjar �कया Dausa 2 पैर छू कर गले लगा मांगे वोट 8.4.2014 BSP candidate-Shri Dausa Chandu Lal Gerota 3 कह�ं पर माला तो कह�ं पर साफा 14 ा 4 . 2 0 14 Congress candidate-Shri Namo Narayan Meena Dausa 4 कांग्रेस क� ल-नमोनारायण 12.4.2014 Congress candidate-Shri Namo Narayan Meena Dausa 5 अ�भनेत्री म�हमा चौधर� का रोड शो आज 15.4.2014 Independent candidate- Dausa Shri Shivpal Gurjar

It was reported in the first impugned news item that famous film actress Raveena Tandon won the hearts of the people of Dausa when she participated in road show organized in favour of independent candidate-Shri Shivpa Gurjar. The candidate was publicly honoured by turbans and garlands and Ms. Tandon urged the people to vote in favour of Shri Gurjar. According to the news, Shri Gurjar has proclaimed development of the area as his one of his priority issues while talking to the mediapersons. He said that he would try to give his best.

The second impugned news item reported that the BSP candidate from Dausa constituency-Shri Chandu Lal Gerota organised many street meetings in the villages of the area to seek votes and support. During his election campaign, he touched the feet of many women working in the fields and gave men hugs. He urged the people to vote for the elephant symbol. It was further reported that he was welcomed and publicly honoured with music bands at several villages.

The third impugned news item reported that the Congress candidate-Shri Namo Narayan Meena inaugurated his election office in Bandikui. In the same way NPP candidate-Shri Kirodi Lal Meena inaugurated his office at Roop Nagar. He sought vote and support from the people in the town. According to the news report, during his election campaign, he informed about his previously completed tasks. It was also reported that the independent candidate-Shri Shivpal Gurjar started his election campaign.

It was reported in the fourth impugned news item that the Congress candidate from Dausa while addressing a public meeting said that there is Congress wave in the region due to the development carried out by Congress government. The party workers should work hard for taking the voters to polling booths. He claimed that UPA will form government at Centre for the third time consecutively.

It was reported in the last impugned news item that independent candidate-Shri Shivpal Gurjar has made the election interesting by taking film actress Ms. Mahima Choudhary in election campaign. The spokesperson of the candidate informed that film actress and Shri Gurjar will start their road shows for election campaign from Chaksu. According to the news report, it is remarkable that during filing the nomination, actress Ms. Raveena Tandon sought support of people in favour of Shri Gurjar by participating in the road show. It was further reported that the Shri Gurjar campaigned in about four dozen villages of Dausa and other hundreds of workers were together with him.

The DEO/MCMC assessed the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.7,508/-, Rs.1706.40/-, Rs.3,173.90/-, Rs.1,183.10/- and Rs.5,744.88/- respectively.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, National Duniya, Jaipur on 13.4.2015.

Written Statement

The Resident Editor, National Duniya, Jaipur vide his point-wise reply dated 28.4.2015 while denying the allegation of paid news has clarified that the impugned news item dated 5.4.2014 was published as of Ms. Raveena Tandon being a celebrity participated in campaign and therefore the coverage of this impugned news item should be seen in that context only and this news item was also published in all leading newspaper that day. With regard to the impugned news items published on 8.4.2014, 10.4.2014 and 12.4.2014, the respondent stated that these were the routine coverage of the candidates’ activities of the day for the information of the readers of the region. With regard to the impugned news item dated 15.4.2014, the respondent stated that this was the statement of the celebrity during that period which was virtually covered in all the newspapers as the news was of general interest. According to the respondent, the National Duniya is reputed national daily and it firmly believes in the journalism of ethics and transparency. He further stated that they completely adhere to the guidelines of the Hon’ble Press Council and confirmed that they have not published and paid news neither in the past nor shall do in the future.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015, 17.9.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘National Duniya’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that news items were routine poll coverage therefore, does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. (18) F.No.14/916/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Seema Sandesh for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections– 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper, Seema Sandesh for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. जनता ह� राजकु मार क� स्टा प्रचा : 10.4.2014 5176.08/- डॉ शमार 2 डॉ राजकु मार शमार का ज न स म प हर परवान 4.4.2014 7508.16/- पर 3 लोकसभा �नदर्ली प्रत् डॉ राजकु मार 2.4.2014 5154.75/- शमार का झुंझन ु �ेत के गाँव क� चौपाल� म े हुआ अभूतपूवर स्वाग 4 प्रद के हॉट सीट पर �फल् अ�भनेत् 15.4.2014 3901.96/- आज से कर�गी रोड शो 5. मतदाता के �ार अब प्रत् 15.4.2014 2703.50/- 6. बाबा साहब क� प्र�त पर माल्यापर 15.4.2014 5672.00/- (Clipping not provided) 7. बी जे पी न े �कया चुनाव प्रच अ�भयान 12.4.2014 2730.00/- तेज़ (Clipping not provided) 8. अजहरुद् को �मल रहा है 36 क़ौम� का 19.4.2014 5951.00/- समथर् (Clipping not provided)

9. जौनपु�रया के व्यू को भेद सकती है 20.4.2014 3413.00/- काँग्र (Clipping not provided)

10. मीना समाज न े �दया मक्ख मीना को 22.4.2014 4124.00/- जीत का आशीवार् (Clipping not provided)

It was reported in the 1st impugned news item that Independent candidate Dr. Rajkumar visited many places in his constituency and huge crowd was there. In his address to the public Dr. Sharma stated that people have already made up their mind to send him to the Parliament. He further said that public wait to listen him and this shows that they want change.

It is reported in the 2nd news item that Independent candidate, Dr. Rajkumar visited many places and addressed the gathering and said that his priority is to undertake development work for the communities. He further said that there is no electricity, water, roads, education & health services in the distant areas and if he wins he will not disappoint the people of the area. The candidates campaigned covering maximum area and requested the people to support them.

It is reported in the 3rd impugned news item that Independent candidate, Dr. Rajkumar visited many places and huge gathering was there to see him. It is reported, that locals at many places communicated with him. People have already made up their mind to cast their vote in his favour.

It is reported in the 4th impugned news item that thousands of people crowded the road show organized during the campaign of Shivpal Gujjar. The candidate did door to door campaigning and sought support and promised for development of area.

It is reported in the 5th impugned news item that candidates campaign is gaining momentum as countdown of the poling date has started. During the campaign candidates visited every door and sought their support. The candidates also promised for the development of their area.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Seema Sandesh, Jaipur, Rajasthan on 15.4.2015.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 15.4.2015 the respondent vide written statement dated 19/20.5.2015 denied the allegations of paid and submitted that they were responsible newspaper and published only factual news without any favour. The respondent also submitted that they had not received any kind of cash and other favour from any of the candidate for publishing such news.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. However, the respondent has sought adjournment in the matter. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Seema Sandesh’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that impugned news was routine poll coverage and therefore does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (19) F.No.14/924/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Tarun Rajasthan for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper, Tarun Rajasthan for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. Jalore mein BJP par bhari padh 20.3.2014 1890/- rahi Congress

It was reported in the impugned news item that BJP workers expressed strong resentment over BJP’s candidate Patel and this news spread in city rapidly. On the other hand Congress party workers fully support their candidate’s from Chittorgarh Jalore districts and are confident of their victory.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Tarun Rajasthan on 10.4.2015.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 10.4.2015 the respondent editor, Tarun Rajasthan vide his written statement dated 25.4.2015 submitted that they have not charged for the news. He further submitted that they published in the news accordance to journalistic norms He has also submitted that their Jalore correspondent sent report and they published the same for which they had not received any cash.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Tarun Rajasthan’ in its issue dated 20.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that imlugned news is a routine poll coverage therefore it does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (20) F.No.14/919/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Morning News, Rajasthan for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Election – 2014

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur against the newspaper, Morning News, Jaipur for publishing following news items in favour of National Unionist Jamindara Party and independent candidate during General Election -2014.

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. अब बदलेगी जयपरु क� तक़द�र 30.3.2014 17850/- 2. Appeal to vote for the candidate 30.3.2014 5950/- 3. Appeal to vote for the candidate 31.3.2014 5950/- 4. नेशनल यू�नय�नस् जमींदारा पाट� अब 31.3.2014 17850/- बदलेगी मजदर�ू और युवाओ क� तक़द�र

5. Appeal to vote for the candidate 1.4.2014 5950/- 6 अब त्व�र होगी न्या�य प्र�क ... 1.4.2014 17850/- बदलेगी नायक समाज क� तक़द�र ७ �नदर्ली �शवपाल के समथर् म� रवीना ५ .४.२ ०१४ 7304.55 टंडन का रोड शो 8 पाट� मनीफी ्टो -2014 7.4.2014 24791/- 9 पाट� मनीफी ्टो -2014 8.4.2014 24791/- 10 पाट� मनीफी ्टो -2014 9.4.2014 29750/-

In the first news item it was reported that Unionnist Jamindara Party stated employment based education will be provided for curbing unemployment in the state and government industrial training centers will be increased from 150 to 400 and similarly 100 more engineering colleges will be opened. It is also reported the they will provide potato and onions to the poor at low rates.

In 2nd and 3rd news item the party workers and office bearers of the said party appealed for vote in favour of their party candidate.

In 4th news item it is reported that the party will implement minimum wages Act- 1948 and daily wages will be increased to Rs.365/- against Rs.189/-. It is also reported in the news item that the party will protect the interests of labour.

In 5th news the party appealed for vote in favour of their party candidate. In 6th news item it is reported that the Nayak caste will be included in Scheduled Tribes and reservation will be given to them in Govt. services and legal procedures will be made easier and faster by changing Indian Witness Act, 1872. It is also reported in the impugned news item that new branches of Rajasthan High Court will be opened in Bikaner and Udaipur so that cases could be settled faster and people can get justice promptly.

In 7th news item it is reported that road show was conducted by Ms. Raveena Tandon’s in favour of independent candidate Shivpal. She addressed the rally and said that Shivpal Gurjar is like her brother and urged the people to help Shivpal to win the Loksabha election and cast vote in his favour

In 8th, 9th and 10th news items the National Unionist Jamindara Party issued its Election Maifesto – 2014 with promises like Increase in means of transportation, pension plan for old people, UID for everyone, Girl-child Guardian pension plan, women empowerment and Girl child production and family planning etc.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Morning News, Jaipur on 15.4.2015.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 15.4.2015 the respondent in its written statement dated 4.5.2015 submitted that he addressed a letter dated 8.7.2014 to Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India and requested him to drop the matter.

It is pointed out that he wrote the above mentioned letter with regard to the Assembly Elections in Rajasthan 2013 and the news items were of the year 2014. He submitted that they had not received any monetary benefit from any of the parties.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case despite issuance of reminder to ECI on 3.7.2015, 17.9.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Morning News’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Committee noted that some of the news reports are routine in nature. Having perused the impugned reports the Committee noticed that they are routine in nature. However the paper has on three succession days published the manifesto of one party viz National Unionist Jamidara Party, whereas the respondents claims he was not paid. Those however look like advertisments and masquerade as news and as held at previous meeting (Belgaum) a newspaper is entitled to support a party if it wishes so. The Inquiry Committee in view of aforesaid is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (21) F.No.14/915/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Jhalawar Samachar for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Rajasthan against the newspaper ‘Jhalawar Samachar’ for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. 2822.04/- दषु ्यं �संह से टक्क आसान काम नह� ं 1.4.2014

It was reported in the impugned news item that BJP candidate from Jhalawar is strong contender against the Pramod Jain(Bhaiya) of Congress and this is the only worry for the congress and BJP candidates public relations is very good and defeating an eminent leader in the last election has made him more confident. Nobody in Congress was ready to fight against him. It was also reported in the impugned news item that nowadays congress’s Bhaiya is being sidelined and some people are wrongly predicting that Bhayaji will get sympathy votes because of his good nature.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Jhalawar Samachar on 15.4.2015.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 15.4.2015 the respondent editor, Jhalawar Samachar vide his written statement dated 1.5.2015 submitted that the impugned news item does not fall in the category of the paid news. The editorial was not written in anyone’s favour and it relevant Jhalawar Constituency’s present situation.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, there was no representation of behalf of the ECI. Shri Hemant Jalv, Editor appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Jhalawar Samachar’ in its issue dated 1.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (22) F.No.14/127/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Patan Express” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent to the ECI by the District Electoral Officer, Jhalawar (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Dainik Patan Express” for publishing news item captioned “जैन के साथ सहानुभू�त क� लहर” in its issues dated 12.11.2013 in favour of RJP candidate-Shri Anil Kumar Jain during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The clipping of the impugned news item was not provided by the DEO, however, English translation of the news provided by them mentions that the senior leaders addressed the workers of Bakani region and claimed that the refusal of BJP ticket to Shri Anil Jain has led to a sympathy wave for him and as a result of this the BJP workers are supporting Shri Anil Jain.

The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost as Rs.680/- of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Patan Express on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement The Editor, Dainik Patan Express, Jhalawar vide his written statement dated 14.9.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news has stated that the impugned news item was published on the basis of information provided by their correspondent. He further stated that the said impugned news item was a mere part of the basic news item captioned “राजपा प्रत्य अ�नल जैन न े काय्कतार्र से चचार कर िजम्मेदार स�पी”and they published only the views of the supporters of the candidates along with their names during a public meeting. While forwarding a copy of the said news item dated 12.11.2013, the respondent submitted that after perusal of the news it will be evident that the impugned news item is not paid news.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Patan Express’ in its issue dated 12.11.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee opined that imougned news was a routine pole coverage and therefore does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (23) F.No.14/123/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Morning News” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent to the ECI by the District Electoral Officer, Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Morning News” for publishing news item captioned “द�या कु मार� के स्वागत म� उमडा शह” in its issue dated 27.11.2013 in favour of BJP candidate-Rajkumari Diya Kumari during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The ECI forwarded proceedings/minutes dated 29.11.2013 of Meetings of MCMC recording the reasons for holding this paper responsible for publishing paid news duly signed by MCMC’s members and English translation of the publication.

It was reported in the impugned news item that the BJP Candidate, Ms. Diya Kumari has started election campaign in the city after taking blessing from Jain Saints and the public has expressed their enormous enthusiasm during meeting with her. It was further reported that a huge crowd swelled during her public meetings in various places. It was also reported in the impugned news item that many prominent persons welcomed the candidate and assured her their support.

The DEO/MCMC assessed the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.2,700/-.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Morning News, Jaipur on 16.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Editor, Morning News, Jaipur vide his written statement dated 8.7.2014 submitted that the impugned news item in question was published in routine course and he did not receive any monetary benefit from the parties.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. However, the respondent has sought adjournment vide his letter dated 8.8.2016. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Morning News’ in its issue dated 27.11.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee perused the impugned news items published in the respondent’s newspaper. It nopted that the headline of the impugned news item has also been headline in another newspaper, this makes amply clear that it is paid news item. The Inquiry Committee therefore, recommended the Council to Censure the newspapers ‘Morning News’’ for publication of paid news.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to uphold the complaint and Censures the respondent newspaper, ‘Morning News’, Jaipur, Rajasthan. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, RNI and the Director, I&PRD, Govt. of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (24) F.No.14/700/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Rashtradoot” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Rajasthan Bye- elections-2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 18.11.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ sent them by the Chief Electoral Officer, Rajasthan against the newspaper “Rashtradoot” for publishing news item captioned “डा. �दगम्बर क� जीत तयःरामहेत याद” in its issue dated 14 ा 9 .2014 in favour of BJP candidate-Dr. Digambar Singh during Rajasthan Bye-elections-2014.

The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost as Rs.2,400/- of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates.

It was reported in the impugned news item that Kishangarh Baas MLA, Shri Ramhet Yadav claimed victory of BJP candidate-Dr. Digambar Singh from Surajgarh constituency. For the last 15 days, Shri Yadav had been campaigning for Dr. Digambar. Shri Yadav’s followers had come to Kishangarh Baas and were appealing to cast vote in favour of Dr. Digambar. According to the news report, Shri Yadav boosted most of the Yadav voters of Surajgarh constituency to cast votes in favour of Dr. Digambar. It was further reported that Dr. Digambar would win by a good number of votes.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Rashtradoot, Jaipur on 30.1.2015.

Written Statement

The Managing Editor, Rashtradoot vide his written statement dated 3.4.2015 while denying the allegation of publishing paid news submitted that the impugned news item in question was the statement of MLA-Shri Ramhet Yadav. According to him, the statement was based on the assessment of chances of victory by Shri Ramhet Yadav given by him in favour of Dr. Digambar Singh and the news gives details of the assessment. The respondent stated that the impugned news item was neither the statement of the correspondent or Editor nor their personal opinion. The respondent submitted that the correspondent of the newspaper has reported the statements of all important leaders of the Congress in support of its candidate. The respondent has produced a copy of the news item dated 10.9.2014 stating that this news published in Churu edition of Rashtradoot and other news on the basis of the statement of Shri Ramhet Yadav was published in Jaipur edition of the paper. Jaipur edition paper is principally read in Jaipur. This paper is not read by voters of Surajgarh constituency and nobody is a subscriber of the paper in Surajgarh constituency and even Churu edition is not circulated in Surajgarh. The respondent while denying the contents of Para 3 of the show- cause notice stated that there is nothing on the record to prove as to from what source the paper was collected and who was the person who sent the newspaper. The respondent further submitted that neither the ECI nor the PCI followed the procedure as laid down in Regulation 5(1) of Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 for taking any action under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978. Being an editor of the newspaper Rashtradoot he solemnly states that the newspaper did not receive a penny from anybody. The respondent stated that his explanation may be taken on record and an opportunity may be offered to him for participating in the enquiry and to produce evidence and cross examine the complainant. The respondent further stated that the complaint appears to be inspired by malafide motive as the newspaper Rashtradoot is most reputed and oldest paper of Rajasthan and under no circumstances the news item amounts to Paid News. He has also stated that if the simple publication of any person supporting a candidate amounts to Paid News a circular may be issued or an advisory note be sent either by the PCI or ECI so that in future appropriate measures shall be taken in publishing such statement and they will follow it.

Response from District Election Officer

The District Election Officer, Jhunjhunu in his letter dated 23.7.2015 stated that the impugned news item is termed as paid news on the basis of facts mentioned in the news item and after discussion. He submitted that no hard proof is found which proves that the news was published after taking any cash or some kind of consideration.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of the ECI. Shri Arya Bhatt, Advocate appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 18.11.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Rashtradoot’ in its issue dated 10.9.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles and has found that it has no merit. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (25) F.No.14/702/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Surya Prabha for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Odisha against the newspaper, Surya Prabha, Bhubaneswar for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. Surge of Sympathy in favour of 5.4.2014 6541.92/- Bijay in Mahakalap ada

It was reported in the impugned news item that the BJP leader Bijay Mohapatra’s entry in Assembly once again after 14 years, is a topic of discussion everywhere which seems to be a wave of sympathy in favour of him. He is not only receiving massive welcome but also financial assistance for election campaign in the villages of his Constituency and by this way he is collecting some funds. In these circumstances, Nabin Patanaik apprehending Atanu’s defeat has joined a general meeting at Mahakakalpara. There, his call to the people to punish the leader who had betrayed Biju Patanaik has already boomeranged.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Surya Prabha, Bhubaneswar on 3.2.2015, which was received back in the Secretariat with postal remarks “No such address”.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Surya Prabha’ in its issue dated 5.4.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that impugned news is a routine poll analysis and therefore, does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (27) F.No.14/716/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Odisha against the newspaper, The Samaja, Bhubaneswar for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. Women candidate for the first 30.3.2014 2619.54/- time

It was reported in the impugned news item that a women candidate is contesting for the first time in the recent elections in Balliguda Assembly Constituency. No party had ever given ticket to women candidate even after 67 years of independence of the country. According to Ms. Minati Malick she is contesting election as independent candidate for the dignity of women. She appeals the womenfolk, different women organizations, voluntary organizations and women at large to support her.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Samaja, Bhubaneswar on 30.1.2015.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 30.1.2015 the respondent working editor, the Samaja vide his written statement dated 19.3.2015 stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was misconceived, misconstrued and does not come under the category of the paid news. The respondent stated that the said news item was published owing to its news value and all the newspaper of the state of Odisha has published the said news item and publication of that news item neither meant to influence the voters and nobody paid them for this news.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. There was no representation on behalf of the ECI. However, the respondent has sought adjournment vide letter dated 3.8.2016. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘The Samaja’ in its issue dated 30.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that impugned news item was rroutine poll coverage and therefore does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

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

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (28) F.No.14/720/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Odisha against the newspaper, Pragativadi, Bhubaneswar for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. First women candidate in 29.3.2014 4555.26/- Balliguda Assembly Constituency

It was reported in the impugned news item that no woman candidate has ever been fielded in Balligude Assembly constituency under Kandhamal Parliamentary by any political party even after 67 years of Independence but in the General Election-2014, a woman had come forward to contest in the elections as an independent candidate to uphold the dignity of women. It was further reported that the number of female voters is more than male voters in that constituency. According to the news report, the independent candidate, Ms. Minati Mallick says it is an insult to the women as no political party has ever fielded a woman candidate inspite of the fact number of female voters are comparatively higher than male voters in their constituency. She is in the fray for the dignity of women.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Pragativadi on 30.1.2015.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 30.1.2015 the respondent editor, “Pragativadi in his written statement has stated that the news published on 29.3.2014 was sent by their reporter and the first ever lady tribal to contest assembly election from the constituency. He added that there had been no financial transaction between the candidate and his newspaper of any kind and they had not received or published any advertisement from the candidate. The respondent stated that they had already submitted details of advertisements and amount received them from different political parties and individuals’ candidates to the election commission.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Pragativadi’ in its issue dated 29.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (29) F.No.14/728/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against The Samaja for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Odisha against the newspaper, The Samaja, Bhubaneswar for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. For election there is a Road-show 29.3.2014 85390/- of Congress 2 Jihna and Hema starts campaign 27.3.2014 9356/- in Dasmanthpur Block

It was reported in the first impugned news item that the candidate, Sri Sagaria requested the people to vote for him in a road show. People of locality had a view that BJD is afraid of Congress Party’s road show. The road show highlighted the corruption in the govt.

In second news item it was stated that the MP candidate of Korapuir and the MLA candidate for Laxmipur started campaign in Dasamanthpur Block. Thousands of BJD supporterss welcomed them and participated in the rally. This was the first visit of Hema Gomango after joining BJD.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Samaja, Bhubaneswar on 2.2.2015.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 2.2.2015 the respondent working editor, the Samaja vide his written statement dated 19.3.2015 stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was misconceived, misconstrued and does not come under the category of the paid news. The respondent stated that during the general election 2014 different types of news items/stories were published in their newspaper in different dates and headlines. The respondent further stated that the news items filed by their area reporters are not prejudice and are based on authentic facts and thery were not paid by anyone nor by the candidates.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘The Samaja’ in its issues dated 27.3.2014 and 29.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that news were routine poll coverage and therefore does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (30) F.No.14/904/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Dainik Swadesh, Raipur for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Election – 2014

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 20.1.2015 forwarded the suspected case of Paid News submitted to the ECI by the District Electoral Officer, Durg, Chhattisgarh against the newspaper, Dainik Swadesh for publishing news item captioned “महंगाई घोटाला, भ्र�ाच क� भ�ट चढ़ा: पाण्डे” in its issue dated 31.3.2014 in favour of BJP candidate- Dr. (Ms.) Saroj Pandey during General Elections-2014.

It was reported in the impugned news item that there was a meeting convened at Thakur Choura in which it was decided that all the voters of the area will cast their vote in favour of BJP candidate, Saroj Pandey.

The DEO/MCMC, Durg, Chhattisgarh accounted the cost of said news items as pjer DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.4435/-

Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Swadsh, Raipur on 15.4.2015, but received no response.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case despite issuance of reminder to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Dainik Swadesh’ in its issues dated 31.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that impugned news was a routine poll coverage and therefore it does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (31) F.No.14/727/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against Khabar Odisha for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Odisha against the newspaper, Khabar Odisha, Bhubaneswar for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. Koraput A/C: Congress ahead of 29.3.2014 5341/- campaign of BJD 2. BJD starts campaign 26.3.2014 1351/-

It was reported in the 1st impugned news item that two weeks are left for General election and all the political parties have started their election campaign and Congress is ahead of all in election campaigning. It was also reported that at some other places of the constituency, the BJD workers are openly supporting the congress, it seems to be an added advantage for the congress to win the election.

It was reported in the 2nd impugned news item that BJD candidates had started their election campaign and huge rally was organised by thousands of party workers.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Odisha Khabar, Bhubaneswar on 2.2.2015, was received back in the secretariat with postal remarks “Left”.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Khabar Odisha’ in its issues dated 26.3.2014 and 29.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that impugned news were routine poll coverage and therefore do not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (32) F.No.14/731/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Sambad” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Odisha General Election- 2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Sambad” for publishing news items during Odisha General Elections-2014. The date and caption of the impugned news items are as follows:-

S.No. Caption Date Name of Cost of news Candidate/ Party item as per to whom Notice DIPR/DAVP issued rates 1 Election campaign of Ama 1.4.2014 Smt. Manjulata Rs.1,000/- Odisha candidate Khemmundu, Ama Odisha Party 2 Increasing support in favour of 29..3.2014 Smt. Manjulata Rs.470/- Ama Odisha Party candidate Khemmundu, Ama Odisha Party 3 BJD worker’s meeting at Maliput 27.3.2014 Shri Prafulla Rs.1,181/- Pangi, BJD 4 Congress and Odisha Jana 27.3.2014 Sh. Giridhara Rs.1,363/- Morcha campaign at Nandapur Gamango, MP Candidate of Koraput P.C. INC Shri Ram Chandra Kadam, MLA candidate for Pottangi A/C INC Shri Jayaram Bhoi, MLA candidate for Pottangi A/C OJM 5 Jhina and Hema starts campaign 26.3.2014 Shri Jhina Rs.1,295/- Hikaka, Korapur P/C and Hema Gomango, BJD candidate Laxmipur A/C 6 Paribarika Shasanara Patana 12.4.2014 Soumya Ranjan Rs.5,520/- Aasanna Patnaik, Aam Odisha Party 7 Khandapada Chanhuchhi 11.4.2014 Soumya Ranjan Rs.9,360/- Parivartan. Chauda Barsa Gala Patnaik, Aam Sapnare Rahichhi Vikasa Odisha Party

It was reported in the first impugned news item that Ama Odisha candidate for Koraput A/C, Smt. Manjulata Khemundu did canvassing in remote areas of Lamtaput Block requesting the voters to vote in favour of her party. It was further reported that she is stating that while both Central and State Govt. are involved in corrupt practices, at this juncture Ama Odisha Party is the only alternative to solve the problem of people.

The second impugned news item reported that the party candidate of Ama Odisha for Koraput A/C, Shri Manjula Khemundu started campaigning in Sunabeda area. It is observed that she is gaining support. According to the news report, she has started election campaign sincerely and has spoken to different organisation and people and requested to vote for her. She visited various areas and talked about the failure of both state and central government and impressed upon the people to bring alternative leaders and she requested the people to vote for Ama Odisha during her campaign.

It was reported in the third impugned news item that the BJD President of Koraput and MP-Shri Jayaram Pangi asked the party workers to be united and work together for winning of Shri Prafulla Pangi, MLA candidate for Pottangi A/C. He further asked the party workers to visit each and every village and household and narrate about the government programme so as to make the candidates win the current election. It was further reported that during the event 30 congress workers joined BJD.

According to the fourth impugned news item, on 25.3.2014 both Congress and OJM candidates started their election campaign. The MP candidate for Koraput P/C, Shri Giridhara Gomango and the MLA candidate of Pottangi A/C, Shri Ram Chandra Kadam did canvassing in Nandapur block and requested the people to vote for them.

It was reported in the fifth impugned news item that the BJD candidate for Koraput P/C, Jhinna Hikaka and BJD candidate for Laxmipur A/C, Ms. Hema Goango bagan campaigning asking the voters to vote for them. At Padagada of Dasamanthpur Block both the candidates were welcomed by the party supporters and they visited areas of their constituency. It was further reported that a large number of party workers joined their campaign.

The sixth impugned news item reported that the people of Khandapara seem to be not in a mood to tolerate the two families which have been ruling them for the last six decades. Indication is clearly visible that they want a change in this election. According to the news report, ever since the first election in independent India, Khandapara has been under the reign of the royal family and the family of Sh. Arun Patnaik for 54 years and remains neglected. Son of the MLA couple, Sh. Anubhav Patnaik is BJD nominee in this election. People now favour Aama Odisha Party candidate and its Chief, Sh. Soumya Ranjan Patnaik in this election and there is a swwping wave in his favour in Khandapara feel political analysis.

The last impugned news item reported that villagers of Khandapara speak the story of two families who had been reigning over Khandapara for decades. One is royal family and the other is Sh. Arun Patnaik family. They said they are not going to tolerate the indifferent attitude of the families and they want a change of guard in this election. It was further reported that the son of Sh. Arun Patnaik and BJD candidate, Shri Anubhav Patnaik is politically a novice campaigning for him is being done by the musclemen.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Sambad, Bhubaneswar on 2.2.2015.

Written Statement Shri Soumya Ranjan patnaik, Editor, Sambad vide his written statement dated 18.2.2015 while denying the allegation for publishing paid news has submitted that the reference by the Election Commission of India alleging paid news during election is in a most mechanical manner without going through properly in the letter and spirit of the news articles and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The respondent further submitted that it is the primary function of a regional daily to disseminate news more particularly of remote areas to keep the public informed of the State of affairs of their locality as the public have basic right to know the facts and developments concerning their areas. According to him, the impugned news articles were related to the most under developed and remote areas of the districts of Koraput and Rayagada, the inhabitants of which are mostly tribals as would appear from the news articles dated 29.3.14 and 1.4.14 that Lamataput Block in Koraput district is one of the most inaccessible areas where hardly any contesting candidate is seen canvassing. In this background when a lady candidate visited the said inaccessible areas where negotiating with inhospitable terrains, certainly deserved space in the media. Accordingly her interaction with local people was covered in the newspaper without prejudice or against anybody. The respondent stated that if coverage of such events would be characterized as paid news then what would remain for publication in a newspaper during election. The respondent submitted that the news article dated 27.3.14 relates mainly to BJD workers meet presided by BJD District President who is also a MP where hundreds of workers and leaders participated. Hence the media is duty bound to adequately cover such events and similarly the impugned news dated 27.3.2014 which is with regard to election campaign of Congress and Odisha Jana Morcha Party in the remote areas of Koraput and its leaders’ meeting people of different areas individually etc. speak of the commitment of the newspaper to give proportionate coverage to all the contestants irrespective of party affiliation. Again the impugned news item dated 26.3.14 which is about campaigning of BJD candidates in a remote area like Dasmantpur block of Koraput was also an important event for media coverage. The respondent further submitted that the sole purpose of such coverage was to provide information to the valued readers of the newspaper about the election campaign especially in the inaccessible remote areas of the State. The respondent stated that the newspaper is well aware that paid news is prohibited and they have not received a single fie from any source for publication of said news.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response has so far been received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015, 17.9.2015 and 5.11.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. While there was no representation on behalf of the ECI it took note of an adjournment request dated 2.8.2016 filed by the respondent and decided not to accede to the request.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Sambad’ in its various issues. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined that impugned news were routine poll coverage and therefore do not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. (33) F.No.14/719/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Samaya” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Odisha General Election- 2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ against the newspaper “Samaya” for publishing news item captioned “First woman candidate of Balliguda” in its issue dated 29.3.2014 in favour of independent candidate from Baliguda Assembly Constituency, Ms. Minati Mallick during Odisha General Elections-2014.

The DEO/MCMC accounted the cost as Rs.2,918/- of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates.

It was reported in the impugned news item that no woman candidate has ever been fielded in Balligude Assembly constituency under Kandhamal Parliamentary constituency by any political party even after 67 years of Independence but in the General Elections-2014, a woman has come forward to contest the elections as an independent candidate to uphold the dignity of women. It was further reported that the total number of voters in Balligude Assembly is 1,37,163 and the number of female voters is more than that of male voters in the constituency. The independent candidate, Ms. Minati Mallick says it is an insult to the women as no political party has ever fielded a woman candidate inspite of the fact number of female voters are comparatively higher than male voters. She is in the fray for the dignity of women.

No Written Statement

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Samaya, Bhubaneswar on 30.1.2015 but received no reply.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this case inspite of reminder issued to ECI on 3.7.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. However, an adjournment request dated 8.8.2016 has been filed by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘Samaya’ in its issue dated 29.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. The impugned news items and appeared to be based on the briefing of women candidate and similar of content in other cases. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council.

The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. (34) F.No.14/729/14-15-PCI

Suo Motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against The Prameya, Odisha for allegedly publishing Paid News during General Elections – 2014.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 1.12.2014 forwarded a suspected case of Paid News sent by the concerned CEO of the State of Odisha against the newspaper, The Prameya, Bhubaneswar for publishing news item captioned:

S.No. News item/Advertisement Dated Amount DIPR/DAVP Rates 1. Congress starts campaign from 26.3.2014 490/- Maa Birakhamba Pitha

It was reported in the impugned news item that Sri Giridhara Gomangao and Sri Krushna Chandra Sagaria has started their election campaign from Maa Birakhamba Pita after undertaking holy rituals and both the candidates while requesting the people to vote for them highlighted the ideals and ideologies of Congress party. Many senior congress supporters were present during the said campaign.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Prameya, Odisha on 2.2.2015.

Respondent’s Letter

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 2.2.2015 the respondent editor, the Prameya, Odisha vide his letter dated 24.2.2015 submitted that the action had already been initiated against the reporter by calling upon Show Cause Notice for such publication of paid news. He also submitted that the management have no knowledge of such paid news and the matter is under investigation of the management only after receiving of clarification from the concerned reporter the management shall provide sufficient clarification in the matter. No further communication was received from the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. According, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 3.7.2015 for providing the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Neither the representative of the ECI nor the respondent appeared despite service of notice. However, an adjournment request dated 8.8.2016 has been filed by the respondent. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request. The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of communication dated 1.12.2014 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi whereby he forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against the newspaper ‘The Prameya’ in its issue dated 26.3.2014. This communication appears to have been based on the report of the Media Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC). It seems that the MCMC had assessed the value of these news items as if they were paid news, calculated an amount likely to be paid for this space and added it to the expenditure incurred by a candidate. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the Election Commission of India and its authorities deserved to be given great respect and has examined the facts of the case bearing this in mind. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form, The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that paid news is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility is placed on MCMCs and election authorities to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. However, the Inquiry Committee is generally of the view that merely because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news. The Inquiry Committee is of the view that the State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals. From the material placed before us in this case, it is clear that the state electoral authorities have failed and damaged the credibility of the newspaper without proper justification. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee the MCMC before holding any article/news as paid news would be well advised to assign brief reason for its conclusion. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and other connected papers in the light of the aforesaid principles. It opined impugned news item was a routine poll coverage although the newspaper says it is also conducting an enquiry to find out if the reporter received any consideration. However the case in hand does not fall within the mischief of paid news as laid down by the Council. The Inquiry committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl.No. 80 F.NO. 14/458/15-16-PCI

Shri Prakash Chand Choudhury The Editor (alias Prakash Lamba), Kaalwad Times, VPO Mundia Ramsar, Vs. 84, Maulodi ki Dhani Lamba Ki Dhani, Sirsi Begas Road, Kalawad, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Jhotwara, Jaipur,Rajasthan. Rajasthan

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 18.04.2016 has been filed by Shri Prakash Chand Choudhury alias Prakash Lamba, VPO Mundia Ramsar, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan, against the editor of Kaalwad Times. The complainant is aggrieved by publication of allegedly a defamatory and baseless news item in the newspaper dated 09.09.2015, captioned “panchayat baithak main machaya utpat, fasanay ki di dhamki”.

According to the Complainant, the respondent newspaper in its article on the Gram Panchayat and RTI matter, on page eight of its issue, had made defamatory remarks against the complainant by saying that Shri Prakash Lamba (complainant) has caused some mayhem/act of violence during an ongoing Gram Panchayat meeting and asked the Sarpanch to provide him with the information regarding marriage certificate. However, the Gram Panchayat has stated that such information can only be made available to people through filing of RTI application. The Complainant submitted that the reporter, Shri Ajay Bajia and Editor, Shri Kalyan Jatt had defamed and maligned his reputation by mentioning his name in the news item, which is irrelevant and factually incorrect.

According to the complainant, the respondent newspaper had published the version of the Sarpanch and SHO but did not seek his opinion/ or contacted him, before publishing the matter. Thus the news item is biased and defamatory and publishing such false news is against the journalistic code of conduct. The complainant, further submitted, that he had sent a Legal Notice to the respondent newspaper dated 16.09.2015 asking to pay for the damage done to his reputation by the publication of the aforesaid defamatory news item and had sought a written apology in the newspaper within thirty days of receipt of the notice. But, he had not get any response from the respondent newspaper. Therefore, he has approached this Council to seek justice.

Written statement respondent

In response to the Show - Cause Notice to the respondent, the Counsel of the respondent vide its letter dated 5.01.2016 informed the Council, that response dated 02.01.2016 was sent to the counsel of the complainant stating the fact that the information published in the news item in question are collected from the Sarpanch of Mundia Ramsar and are not baseless or false. The news item was published in the public interest and does not intend to defame any person. The respondent counsel submitted that the duty of a journalist is to inform the public through the newspaper and the information published in the impugned news item the version received from the Sarpanch and Village Secretary, and are not baseless or defamatory. The respondent counsel claimed that the complaint is baseless and liable to be rejected.

Counter Comments of the Complainant

The complainant vide his letter dated 16.02.2016 informed the Council that respondent newspaper Kaalwad Times had only published the version of the Sarpanch and the Village Secretary, who are also the affected party and did not take his version before publishing anything wherein his name and even his father’s name had been mentioned. According to the complainant his father has nothing to do with this matter and had been unnecessarily dragged into the matter and this had defamed his family’s reputation back in his village. He further pleaded to the Council to take strict action against the respondent newspaper because in rural areas people are harassed by these type of biased news reporting and reporters. He submitted that the quoted versions of other persons apart from the Sarpanch and Village Secretary published in the impugned news item are false, as those people had never given their statement to the respondent newspaper. The complainant alleged that the news item is biased, inaccurate and defamatory and had pleaded before the Council to take stringent measure against the respondent newspaper.

Counter Comments of the Respondent

The respondent newspaper vide its letter dated 21.03.2016 had filed its counter comments reiterating the submission made in written statement earlier filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant was not present whereas the respondent Editor, Shri Kalyan Jat appeared before the Committee.

It is the allegation of the complainant that the respondent newspaper has published the impugned new concerning him without taking his version. The respondent editor has appeared in person and has also filed the written statement. The assertion of the complainant that he was not given an opportunity to give his version of the incident has not been denied. This is in breach of the code of conduct framed by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, cautions the respondent newspaper, and further directs that the version of the complainant be also published with the same prominence. For that purpose, the complainant is directed to give his version to the respondent newspaper.

In view of the above observation, the Inquiry Committee while upholding the complaint Cautions the respondent paper and directs it to publish complainant’s version.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee while upholding the complaint decides to Caution the Kalwad Times.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 81 F.No. 14/777/14-15-PCI

Shri. Rajendra Singh Jadeja The Editor General Secretary, Divya Bhaskar Daily Rajkot District Consumers Protection Council (RDCPC), Kisanpara Chowk, Rajkot Rajkot

Adjudciation Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 23.02.2015 was filed by Shri. Rajendra Singh Jadeja, General Secretary, Rajkot District Consumers Protection Council (RDCPC), Rajkot. The complainant objected to the vulgar and sex related advertisements published by Divya Bhaskar Daily, Rajkot in its issue dated 4.11.2014 captioned “ Anya”. According to the complainant, the impugned advertisements published by the respondent newspaper were extremely vulgar pictorially and content wise, misleading, offensive and insensitive and publishing of such vulgar statements and pictures in the newspaper is a breach of journalistic ethics. The complainant holds both the advertiser and as well the publisher of the newspaper, responsible for publishing such offensive advertisements in a leading daily like ‘Divya Bhaskar Daily’ which has thousands of readers varying between different age groups and such explicitly obscene advertisements have negative impact on the youth.

The complainant further submitted that he communicated his grievance to the respondents newspaper vide his letter dated 11.11.2014, followed by a reminder dated 12.12.2014 and had asked the respondent newspaper to furnish the name, contacts/addresses of the advertising agencies, but, did not receive any response until 16.05.2015, on which the respondent newspaper referring to the copy of complaint filed with the Council (which was also endorsed to the respondent editor) finally shared the contacts and addresses of the advertising agencies dealing with such offensive advertisements. Aggrieved by the fact that a leading newspaper like Divya Bhaskar Daily had been continuously indulging in publishing vulgar and obscene advertisements, the complainant requested the Council to take appropriate action against the paper.

No Written Statement

A Show-Cause Notice dated 15.10.2015 was issued to the editor of the respondent newspaper but no response was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, the complainant as also the respondent has not chosen to appear. However, the complainant has sought adjournment on medical grounds. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accede to the request for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers and is of the opinion that the complainant, if so advised, may take recourse to any other remedy available to him in law. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint with the aforesaid observation.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint with the aforesaid observation.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 82 F.No.14/684/14-15-PCI

Shri S.K. Malhotra, The Editor, Head, Public Awareness Division, The Times of India, Departement of Atomic Energy, Mumbai Mumbai Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 24.10.2014 has been field by Shri S.K. Malhotra, Head, Public Awareness Division, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Mumbai on behalf of Department of Atomic Energy against the editor, The Times of India, Mumbai alleging publication of grossly incorrect, misleading and malicious news article under the caption “Cancer behind 70% deaths in India’s atomic energy hubs” in its issue dated 7.9.2014. According to the complainant it was stated in the impugned news item that cancer was a cause of almost 70% of the 3887 deaths occuring in the atomic energy hubs across the country over 20 years, an RTI reply had revealed. The impugned news item stated that Bhabha Atomic Research Centre comes under the Department of Atomic Energy, had another shocking revelation that its 255 employees took their own lives while in harness in the same period, meaning one over every month for 20 years. Investigations showed they were mostly over prolonged illness or family problems.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant stated that the news item is grossly incorrect, malicious and distortion of facts. The report cited 2600 deaths due to cancer, out of a total of 3887 deaths of employees in 19 centres (during 1995-2014). The misleading report in TOI also quoted a “shocking revelation of 255 suicides” in BARC during the same period 1995 to 2014, however, nothing can be farther from the truth because this report does not factually reflect the information given by the Units of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to the RTI applicant. The complainant stated that the total number of deaths of DAE employees in service over the period of 1995 to 2014 works out to 2564 and this includes 69 cases of suicides and the number of death reported by DAE Units due to cancer related causes was only 152 out of the above 2564 deaths. The complainant further stated that the average number of deaths of DAE employees while in service over the period 1995 to 2014 works out to about 130 per year and there is nothing abnormal about this rate, considering that the number of employees in the entire DAE is nearly 60,000 and that the annual death rate in India is reported to be 5 to 8 per 1000. The complainant also stated that the rate of cancer deaths and suicides amount DAE employees reported by the Times of India was grossly erroneous and a distorted interpretation of the information provided by DAE Units. DAE is shocked at the blatant attempt made by such grossly incorrect and malicious report to malign the DAE, which could cause considerable damage to the reputation of their organisation and more so, to the nuclear energy programme of the country.

The complainant further stated that the respondent on 10.9.2014 published another article with the heading “16% deaths at atomic energy centres due to cancer, says DAE” which is again incorrect and misleading in as much as the heading attributed the content of the report as provided by DAE, whereas the content of the article dealt with the professional expert opinion provided by the Director of Tata Memorial Centre while contesting the incorrect report published by the respondent. The complainant vide various e-mails drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned article and requested them to publish the rejoinder but received no response. Notice for Comments was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India on 13.1.2015 followed by reminder dated 26.6.2015. In wake of no response, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India, on 8.4.2016.

Written statement

In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice, the respondent in his written statement dated 20.6.2016 submitted that as a responsible corporate it is their duty that the correct information reaches the readers and they do not publish any article without verifying the contents of the same. He submitted that the said news report was based on their research, direct and/or indirect evidences and information gathered by them from the various sources. The respondent further submitted that after receiving Show Cause Notice from the PCI they contacted the complainant as well as other functionaries of the Department of Atomic Energy to understand alleged factual error and their response to the said article as well as their grievance and requested them to enable them with the details and any further material. He also submitted that the intent behind publication of the said news report was to keep their discerning readers informed about the material information qua human health and they had bonafide intent without any motive whatsoever against anyone, much less the Department of Atomic Energy. The respondent submitted that they are willing to publish the complainant’s version subject to editorial discretion so as to update their discerning readers.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur, M.P. Despite service of notice, the complainant as also the respondent has not chosen to appear.

The Inquiry Committee notes that a communication dated 1.8.2016 on behalf of the respondent newspaper has been received in which it has been stated that the respondent newspaper had discussion on the subject matter with the complainant and other functionaries of the Department of Atomic Energy and it is going to carry follow up/additional story in their publication.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

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

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 83 F.No. 14/309/15-16-PCI

Shri Shantilal Kothari The Editor President Dainik Bhaskar Soghurt Food Products & Co. Nagpur, Maharashtra. Wardha Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 26.10.2015 has been filed by Dr. Shantilal Kothari, President, Soghurt Food Products & Co., Nagpur, against the editor of the Dainik Bhaskar, Nagpur for publishing baseless and misleading news item in its issue dated 18.08.2015 captioned “120 Din Ki Guarantee..2 Din Mai Kharab”. The impugned news item accused the Soghurt Food Products & CO. for selling milk products which were not safe for consumption. The Soya Milk manufactured by Soghurt Food Products & Co. claims to be safe for consumption for 120 days from the date of manufacturing. However, in reality the soya milk was found spoiled and in rotten state just over two days from the date of manufacturing. The news item further alleged that selling such bad products may have a dreadful effect on children’s health. One activist has bought 24 bottles of the said soya milk from the Soghurt Food factory. Out of 24 sealed bottles, one sealed bottle was found to contain rotten milk. On taking up the issue with the Management, the activist was pressurised to close the matter, there itself by changing the rotten bottled milk with fresh bottles.

According to the complainant the impugned news item was entirely baseless, misleading and defamatory, and was published without any verification. The Complainant vide his letter dated 24.08.2015 had asked the respondent newspaper to publish a clarification, but no action was taken by the respondent.

Show-Cause Notice dated 12.04.2016 was issued to the respondent newspaper.

Written Statement

The respondent in its written statement dated 25.04.2016 informed the Council that when the concerned activist approached the Dainik Bhaskar office with the allegations against the said food factory for selling rotten soya milk, the respondent newspaper discussed the matter with Dr. Shantilal Kothari, the Complainant, to record his version on which the complainant admitted that due to exposure of the bottled soya milk in the air while sealing few bottled milk gets spoiled. The respondent newspaper consulted and verified the matter even with the Microbiologist, Dr. Rashmi Batra and Nutritionist, Dr. Kavita Gupta and had published their version in support of the claim made by the newspaper in the news item. The respondent newspaper further submitted that Dainik Bhaskar is an unprejudiced and unbiased newspaper and would never publish anything unverified or one sided news in their paper and claimed that the news item in question gave accurate facts and nothing baseless or misleading was published against the Complainant and his factory.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur, MP. Dr. Shantilal Nanalal Kothari, the complainant appeard in person. Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the counsel for the respondent. It has perused the complaint, the written statement and all connected papers. It notes that while publishing the impugned news item, the version of the complainant has also been given prominently. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news, has not violated any code of conduct so as to call for any action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. F.No.14/4/15-16-PCI

Shri Rajesh S. Naik, The Editor, President, Tarun Bharat, Parampai Citizens Forum, Goa Mardol, Goa

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 16.3.2015 has been filed by Shri Rajesh P. Naik, President, Parampai Citizens Forum, Madkai, Goa against the editor, Tarun Bharat alleging publication of misguiding letter of one Mr. Pritam Naik in “letter to Editor Column” called “Padasaad” under the caption “Development should not be opposed” in its Goa Edition on 8.1.2015 without proper analysis and verifying the ground realities. It was stated in the letters to the editor column that Shri Rajesh Naik, President of Parampai Citizens Forum has demanded that Bhartiya Janata Party should keep with itself PWD and Transport Departments Portfolio of Goa State. It further stated that due to personnel opposition to the current PWD Minister of local M.G.P.Party, the person (complainant) demanding through the medium of the Forum to keep PWD and Transport Department portfolio with BJP, should first declare what work he had done for the BJP and it is the right of the concerned party to decide as to which departments and portfolios is to be given to the MLAs. It was also published that the forum are meant for the development of the village so as to take people ahead and not to go against the development work. Further it, was also mentioned in the impugned letter that the Forum should not hinder the developmental works of Parampai. The complainant submitted that misguiding letter of Shri Pritam Naik, had been published in the impugned column regarding the complainant and his NGO – Parampai Citizen Forum without verifying the ground realities. The forum not only works for development of village but also expose injustice, oppose corruption and make various recommendation to State and Central government in the interest of state and nation. Due to rampant corruption prevalent in PWD and Transport Department, the Forum appealed to the Chief Minister of Goa to allot PWD and Transport Department Portfolio to deserving MLA of BJP. The complainant vide counter reply dated 21.1.2015 and 16.2.2015 addressed to the respondent refuted the said misguiding letter related to him and his forum and requested to publish his reply in the said column under the title “Parampai Citizens Forum opposing corruption and not development” but received no response. He stated that it is brought to his notice, under the condition of anonymity that the resident editor had given one Xerox copy of his said letter dated 21.1.2015 to the PWD Minister of Goa State and PWD Minister and pressurized the said resident editor not to publish the said letter.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 18.8.2015 to the respondent editor, ‘Tarun Bharat’, Goa but no response was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear. The respondent has not filed his written statement. The complainant is aggrieved by the publication of a letter in the column of “letters to the editor”. It is the assertion of the complainant that he has also written letter in response thereto for publication, but received no response. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper ought to have published the reply given by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee directs for disposal of the complaint with the direction to the respondent newspaper to publish the complainant’s reply. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid term.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid term.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 85 F.No.14/89/15-16-PCI

Shri P.M.Kamnath, The Editor, Hon. Director, New Indian Express, Vidya Prasark Mandal’s Centre for Karnataka International Studies, Mumbai Shri Prabhu Chawla, Group Editor, New Indian Express [email protected]

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 11.5.2015 has been filed by Shri P.M. Kamnath, Hon. Director, Vidya Prasarak Mandal’s Centre for International Studies, Mumbai against the editor, New Indian Express alleging publication of several inaccurate information in a news story in its issue dated 11.3.2015 captioned ‘Handover Lakhvi to India or International Court, US Senator to PAK’.

The complainant submitted that he came across the impugned news story wherein Edwin Royce, currently member of the US House of Representatives, is described as the US Senator! He is currently chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee but in the news item, he is mentioned as the Chairman, House Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign Relations Committee is of Senate.After reading the several inaccurate facts in the impugned news story, he wrote an e-mail to the Group Editor, Mr Prabhu Chawla on 2.4.2015 and brought correct fact to his notice. In reply, the respondent informed that it was a PTI story which was carried by them and they cannot make any change or issue any correction.

The complainant submitted that with that interpretation, he did not agree. Once a newspaper carried the story it’s their responsibility to ensure accuracy in the facts and the contents of story. And if the facts are inaccurate, correct them, through a subsequent publication. To that effect, he wrote an email to the respondent on 8.4.2015. In response, he refused to carry any rejoinder to PTI story unless it is defamatory or anti-national. Instead the respondent made a counter charge against the complainant that he made a charge against their reporter and organization for negligence without looking at the source of the story. This according to the complainant, was most uncalled for. Hence, he (the complainant) sent his response suggesting that it is the moral duty of the newspaper to know veracity of the story before publishing. Once, published the respondent cannot escape moral responsibility for the same. Such mistakes on their part, will misinform a large number of readers interested in foreign affairs. They might use the information in their academic work thinking that the story is accurate. But instead of appreciating his efforts in informing, the respondent tried to find fault with him.

No Written Statement

A Notice for Comments was issued to the respondent editor ‘New Indian Express’, Karnataka and Shri Prabhu Chawla, Group Editor on 15.9.2016. As no response was received from them, a Show Cause Notice dated 28.4.2016 was issued to the respondent paper. The respondent paper had not filed written statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear. However, the complainant shows his inability to attend the hearing vide letter dated 8.8.2016.

The complainant has averred factual mistake in the news item. According to him, Edwin Royace, who has been described as a Senator, is in fact, a Member of the House of Representatives. Said gentleman has been described in the news as the Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee whereas in fact, he is the Chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee. The complainant brought to the notice of the respondent newspaper the aforesaid errors and in reply thereto, the respondent newspaper has informed the complainant that it was a PTI story which was carried by them and they cannot make any change or issue any correction.

The Inquiry Committee has bestowed its consideration to the plea taken by the respondent newspaper and is of the opinion that the same is not tenable. The said news has been published in the respondent newspaper and the editor is responsible for that.

In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee directs the respondenr newspaper to verify the calim made by the complainant and publish the necessary correction with the same prominence.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid term.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid term.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 86 F.No.14/92/14-15-PCI

Smt. Tara Kerkar The Editor, President, Savera Trust & Tarun Bharat, Savera Association, Goa Goa

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 23.4.2014 has been by Smt. Tara Kerkar, President, Savera Trust & Savera Association, Vasco Da Gama Mormugao, Goa against the editor, Tarun Bharat (Marathi newspaper), Panaji, Goa for publication of allegedly false, biased and defamatory news item under the caption “M.L.A. Faldessai Never Assaulted” in its issue dated 21.3.2014 & 25.3.2014. In the impugned news item, it was reported that Sanguem MLA, Shri Subhash Phaldessai has alleged that the complainant has given false complaint against him and the same is confessed by the mother of the said student (victim) before the Goa Human Rights Commission and it was further alleged in news item that complainant demanded rupees ten lakhs from him to close the case. The complainant said that she never met the said MLA and there is no question of demanding money from him. She submitted that her NGO provide services to the poor and downtroddenrs. The fact of the instant case is that one MLA Shri Subhash Faldessai attacked a minor child by slapping him hard in public view as the child allegedly threw mud on MLA’s car which is a crime against a child. The incident was brought to her (complainant) notice by the mother of minor child through her written complaint. The Goa Human Rights Commission admitted the complaint for adjudication wherein the MLA could not digest the case against him and passed a wrong statement in connivance with the reporter and editor without any evidence and got the defamatory article published without any proof of her so-called statement to justify the allegation of the MLA. The complainant reported the matter to the Vasco Police who in turn filed an non cognizable complaint fearing backlash from the MLA. The complainant submitted that the impugned news item is totally defamatory, abuse of one’s dignity, misusing the power of being journalist and a total fallout of the administration of the respondent for monetary gains by printing offensive degrading and totally biased news item. The complainant further submitted that by publishing the impugned news item the respondent maligned the NGO’s name, smacks of dangerous notion and clearly makes evident his hidden agenda of inciting people against/planning notions of disrespect against her in general and her work in particular. The complainant vide letter dated 16.4.2014 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item and requested him to publish unqualified apology prominently in his newspaper but received no response.

No Written Statement A Notice for Comments dated 4.8.2014 issued to the respondent editor, ‘Tarun Bharat’, Goa followed by Show Cause Notice on 8.4.2016 but received no response. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur, MP. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear. However, the respondent sought adjournment in the matter and requested for taking the case at a place in Goa. The Inquiry Committee does not accede to the request of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers and finds that while publishing the impugned news item, the version of the complainant has also been given. Further, the complainant has also lodged a report with the police and she has been directed to approach the competent court of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news item, has not committeed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismissal of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl.No. 87 F.No.14/646/15-16-PCI

Shri Nawaz Hafiz Khan, The Editor, SRA United co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. Khabere Aaj Tak Mumbai Mumbai

ADJUDICATION Dated 9.9.2016

This undated complaint had been received in the Council on 2.2.2016 from Mr. Nawaz Hafiz Khan, Mumbai against the editor, Khabere Aaj Tak, Mumbai alleging publication of false and defamatory news items in its issue dated 7.12.2015 under the caption “प�लसु आयु� अहमद जावेद के आदेश पर एस आरए के घोटालेबाज �बल्डर रईस लश्क�रय पर ड� एन नगर प�लसु ने �कया एफआईआर दजर” to defame him with ulterior motive.

It is reported in the impugned report that “बताया जाता है �क यह टोपीबाज गर�ब हौकर� के खून पसीने �क कमाई से अपनी राजनी�त चमकाता है, इस फनडेबाज ने एक स्कूल शुर कर रखा है। इस स्कूल के अ�धकांश �श�क� के वेतन का आधा �हस्सा खुद है हजम कर जाता ह और पूरा �दन �दखावे के �लये स्कूल के नाम पर बड़े बड़े �बल्डर उ�ोगप�तसे भीख मांगता रहता है इसके स्कूल म� काफ� अ�नय�मता है...... ” and “बरु हानपरु से चलकर जब नवाज टोपी मुंबई म� आया था तो यह अंधेर� क� ग�लय� म� फक�र� करता था, पर अब यह अपन े परानु े �दन भूल कर घोटालेबाज �बलेर रैज ललहेररा हा शा�ेना ेाथ बनहर गर ब मोपड़ी घारह� हा धमहातात है…………………..”

The complainant submitted that he is the reputed person and President of educational institutions established with the moto to impart education among the poor children of the slum. He is also the President of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and not engaged in any illegal activities in the locality, as reported. The slum dwellers have appointed Reliance Construction company owned by Rais Laskariya for the redevelopment of the said slum under SRA Scheme to provide good houses to the slum dwellers as well as to raise their living standards. At that time complainant’s educational institutions were managed by United Welfare Association and were situated in slum area, therefore, during the course of development, the room provided by the said builder was vacated and handed over to the Reliance construction. The complainant submitted that he has no connection with those rooms nor the educational institutions have any claim over those rooms. What illegality and irregularity committed by the Reliance Construction is not known to the complainant, nor he is involved in any way as stated in the article.

The respondent in the impugned report mentioned him (the complainant) to be related with the Rais Laskariya and he has been mentioned as Nawaz Khan @ Nawaz Topi which is defamatory as he is not a criminal. According to the complainant the wording and contents published are defamatory and done without verification of the true facts. The complainant alleged that the respondent is playing in the hands of some interested persons and in connivance and collusion of such interested persons.

The complainant issued legal notice dated 16.12.2015 with a request to furnish source of information regarding the impugned publication and to publish apology but received no response. The complainant requested to the Council to take cognizance of the matter.

A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Khabere Aaj Tak’, Mumbai on 12.4.2016.

Written Statement

The respondent vide written statement dated 20.5.2016 while denying the entire allegation levelled against him stated that the said article was published after verifying and scrutinizing the information given by sources. The counsel for the complainant informed that the complainant had filed a case before the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai (Mr. Nawaz Hafiz Khan v/s Mr.Jitendra V.Jain, the Publisher and Editor of “Khabere Aaj Tak” in connection with alleged defamatory article published in Khabere Aaj Tak on 7.12.2015. He filed the copy of reply filed before the court in connection with the impugned articles. The respondent stated that the article was published in good faith and there was no ulterior motive to defame the complainant. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 6.6.2016 for counter comments.

In response, the respondent Chief Editor vide letter dated 4.8.2016 informed that the case of the said complainant is before Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and matter is subjudice.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.8.2016 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Shri S.Khan, advocate appeared for the complainant whereas nobody has chosen to appear for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant. It is an admitted position that the subject matter of this complaint is under consideration of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. However, the complainant is given liberty to make prayer for restoration of the application, after the decision is rendered by the learned Magistrate.

In view of the aforesaid term, the Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommended to the Council for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

S.No.88 F.No. 14/286/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri Ravi Shankar, The Editor, Executive Magistrate, Dainik Hindustan, Deputy Commissioner’s Officer Ranchi Gumla Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

Shri Ravi Shankar, Executive Magistrate, Gumla vide an e-mail dated 26.9.2015 has forwarded his complaint dated 23.9.2015 against the Hindustan for publishing baseless and fabricated article under the caption “र�व शकं र को सभी प्रभा पद से हटाया” in its issue dated 6.7.2015.

It was reported in the news article that in the meeting of District Establishment Committee held on 27.6.2015, Sri Ravi Shankar, Sub Election Officer, Gumla, without taking the Chairman-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Gumla into confidence prepared the transfer list of 40 Govt. employees on extraneous consideration. It has been further reported that complaint against him has been sent to the Chief Minister of the State who viewed it seriously. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary of the State has written a letter to the District Administration to take action against the officers of the District Estabishment Committee. The District Administration thus was compelled to remove him from all charges including the posts of District Establishment Deputy Collector, Incharge Confidential Section and Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, Gumla.

The complainant submitted that on 2.6.2015 a letter purported to have been written by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, wherein direction was given to send him (the complainant) back to the office of Sub-Divisional officer, Gumla as complaint has been received against him. Further, on the basis of said letter of the Chief Secretary, an order with memo dated 3.6.2015 was issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, whereby relieving him from the charge assigned in the office of District Collector, Gumla, he (the complainant) was sent to the Gumla Sadar Sub-Division. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary of the office of Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 9.7.2015 has informed the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla that letter dated 11.6.2015 and 24.6.2015, on the basis of which, the work assigned to Shri Ravi Shankar, Executive Magistrate, Gumla (the complainant) was changed, has actually not been signed by the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand and these letters have not been issued by the Department of Personnel, Admn. Reforms and Rajbhasa department.

The complainant has submitted that in view of letter of the Deputy Secretary, it is established that he was transferred on the basis of forged letter purported to have been written by the Chief Secretary of the State. Accordingly, in view of this development, the complainant was restored to his original assignment in the District vide order dated 16.7.2015. The complainant has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has also written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Gumla with a request to investigate the matter vide letter dated 16.7.2015. This was the entire facts in the matter but the local correspondent under the influence of conspirators, cooked up a story and linked it to the matter of transfer and posting of staff of the Gumla Collectorate and published malicious news item levelling serious charges of corruption against him in daily Hindustan on 6.7.2015. Though on 14.7.2015, a news article regarding action taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, on the basis of forged letter of the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand was published in the daily Hindustan but it did not utter a single word about the charges of corruption cooked up by them in previous article, in the matter of transfer and posting of 40 employees of the Gumla Collectorate. As such, the news item has nothing to do with the truth and was baseless and fabricated which cast aspersions on his integrity. The impugned news disheartened and demotivated him to continue his duty with the professional pride he has always held as a government servant.

The complainant vide legal notice dated 9.7.2015 drew the attention of the local Bureau Chief as well as Editor of the Daily Hindustan to publish contradiction and sought apology but they did not contradict the news article. The complainant prayed to take the most stringent action against the respondent so as to uphold maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies of Jharkhand.

A Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor ‘Dainik Hindustan’, Ranchi on 15.10.2015.

Written statement of the respondent newspaper, The Hindustan

The authorised signatory, the HT Media Ventures Limited vide his reply dated 26.7.2016 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that impugned news was published on the basis of the available facts and circumstances under the heading ‘Ravishankar ko Sabhi Prabhari Pad se Hataya’ on 6.7.2015 in Ranchi edition of the Hindustan. Subsequently on availability of further and updated information followed by another news item under the heading ‘Farzi Patra Par Hee Karwa Dee Karwai’ which was published on 14.7.2015 in Hindustan Ranchi edition. The respondent submitted the first news was published in pursuance of the duty as an effective and vigilant press and second news was published carrying even bolder headline specifying that forgery of letters and also mentioning therein about registration of FIR against conspirators.

The respondent submitted that the news was published in good faith and as a part of fair practice of journalism and he therefore requested to dismiss the complainant.

The Respondent Hindustan Media Ventures Limited vide letter dated 26.7.2016 has filed their reply. They denied all the allegations made by the complainant.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur. The complainant, Shri Ravi Shankar, Executive Magistrate, Gumla appeared in person. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear, however, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee finds that after it was detected that earlier news was on the basis of the forged letter, the newspaper carried that version also prominently. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that no action is called for against the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 90 F. No. 14/498/15-16-PCI

Complainant Respondent

Shri Birodata Acharjee, The Editor, Subhash Nagar, Karimganj Dainik Jugosankho Silchar Edition

Adjudication Dated: 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 23.12.2015 was filed by Shri Birodata Acharjee against Correspondent of Dainik Jugosankho, Karimganj alleging publication of a false news item under the caption ‘Dedicated BJP Worker for removing obstacle for Promotion-PMO’s letter, Karimganj’ (English translation provided by the complainant) in Silchar Edition on 9.7.2015 for tarnishing is image in the society.

It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant being a BJP supporter has been deprived of Department promotion in the Health Department by the Congress led Govt. The supporter wrote a prayer application to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. The said letter to the Prime Minister Office was forwarded to the Joint Director of Health Services, Karimganj instructing him to send the full report of Surveillance Worker, Birobrata Acharjee. It was further reported that the complainant has mentioned in the letter to the Prime Minister that he has appealed to Govt. Assam to change his present post and cadre of Surveillance Worker to the Junior Assistant due to his illness.

The complainant submitted that his is permanent staff of Govt. of Assam in Malaria Wings under the Establishment of Joint Director of Health Services, Karimganj, Assam and he has never taken any membership nor taken any kind of political portfolio of any political party till date. Further, he has not sent any application to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India regarding any Departmental Promotional benefit instead he sent prayer application to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of india dated 22.9.2014 and 12.2.2015 concerning restoration of his posting order which had been cancelled by Govt. of Assam. He alleged that the said news was not published as per his prayer applications addressed to the PM.

The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 11.8.2015 stating that after publishing false news items on 9.7.2015 one of the Dainik Jugosankho, Karimganj News Reporters namely, Ratul Dutta updated the above false news items on his Facebook Account (Ratul Dutta) to intentionally harass him on social media also and later on he deactivated his Facebook Account in his own interest. In connectiong with these false news on 9.7.2015, the Member’s of BJP Jubo Murcha, Karimganj had organized a Press Meet at BJP Office, Karimganj on 12.7.2015 and raised the issue of misleading fact published in news items on 9.7.2015. Following the said Press Meet, the respondent paper again published defamatory/derogatory news item on 13.7.2015. The complainant requested to take early necessary action on the matter.

A Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Dainik Jugosankho’, Assam on 8.4.2016.

Written Statement

The respondent vide letter dated 27.4.2016 denied that the impugned news was in any way false, as alleged. He submitted that the news has been published on the basis of the said letters addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India wherein the complainant categorically stated that, he is dedicated BJP supporter. Each work in the captioned news is derived from the said two letters without any addition or alteration. Further, the complaint is devoid of merit as the news is tatally based on the complainant’s own version. He stated that as per guideline, the so called protest of the complainant was published in the daily edition of the newspaper on 19.8.2015. According to him the complaint is frivolous and requested to reject the complaint for the ends of justice.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for counter comments on 6.6.2016.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide letter dated 18.6.2016 while reiterating his complaint point wise submitted that the whole news story is nothing but to create false news story by the respondent and for his vested interest. A false story was published due to vested interest of the Dainik Jugosankho, Assam Karimganj Reporter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur. The Inquiry Committee has considered the prayer made by the complainant as also the Counsel for respondent for adjournment of the case. The Inquiry Committee is not impressed by the reason assigned for the adjournment, and, accordingly, rejects the prayer for adjournment.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint as also the written statement and other connected papers. The complainant is aggrieved by the fact that in the impugned news item, he has been shown as dedicated BJP worker, which is an obstacle for his promotion. The complainant does not deny that he has written a letter to the Prime Minister, asserting that he is a BJP supporter and on account thereof, he is not being given his dues. The contents of the news reflect what the complainant as stated in his complaint. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that while carrying out the impugnend news item, the respondent newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Commiittee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report o the Committee and decides to Dismiss the Complaint. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA S.No. 91 F.No.14/125/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent Shri A.K.Verma, The Editor, Jt. General Manager/V Dainik Jagran, Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, Kanpur Edition Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur, U.P.

Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 30.5.2015 was filed by Shri A.K. Verma, Joint General Manager, Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur against the editor, Dainik Jagran for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item for substandard packing of Defence products in its issue dated 9.4.2015 under the caption “Parachute factory me gadhbad packing” It has been alleged in the news item that Hon’ble Defence Minister, while inspecting the material being used for packing of the defence products has instructed the officers to take appropriate action for substandard packing at factory as the worst quality of packing material was being used. He directed the officers that no compromise should be done on quality for defence products. It was further reported that the central ordnance depot has already raised their objection on moulds of the packing material. The complainant while denying the allegations has submitted that the impugned news item is baseless, false and defamatory in nature. He clarified that Hon’ble Minister for Defence while his visit to the manufacturing unit inspected only one production-unit. He also submitted that in the parachute manufacturing unit, moulds are not used, therefore the news is baseless and false. He added that no complaints regarding packing covers has ever been received by the factory. He further submitted that the publication is totally incorrect, false and baseless and published with mal-intention to tarnish the image of the factory. The complainant vide letter dated 11.5.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the above mentioned facts and requested to publish clarification of the news item followed by a reminder dated 19.5.2015, but received no response. A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Dainik Jagran’, Kanpur on 6.7.2015. Written statement In response, the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran vide written statement dated 7.9.2015 while denying the allegations of the complainant submitted that the news was published on the basis of the information received by the local reporter of the respondent newspaper from the authentic sources including the officials of the ordinance factory, leaders present during the visit of Hon’ble Defence Minister. The reporter tried to verify the contents of the news from the complainant/general manager of the Ordinance Factory, but he refused to comment on the same. The impugned news item has not been published with an objective to tarnish the image of the complainant. The impugned news has only voiced the concerns as informed by the officials of the complainant which had been deliberated during the visit of the Hon’ble Defence Minister believing it to be true as the same was of national importance. The respondent after the receipt of this complaint has published the version of the complainant in the newspaper on 3.9.2015 captioned “Parachute factory nahi karti sanche ka upyog”. He humbly prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and same is liable to be rejected. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 21.12.2015 for counter comments. Counter comments The complainant vide letter dated 17.5.2016 did not agree to the averments made by the respondent stating that none of the reporters of the newspaper ever tried to cross-check the authenticity of the news article from therein before publishing. The respondent had also not submitted any documentary proof vis-à-vis news published by them on the said visit to the packing area of the factory. Further while the appeal was in process before the PCI, Senior Reporter of the respondent vide email dated 30.7.2015 requested for a meeting with the General Manager without disclosing the agenda for the requested meeting. In response thereto, he was informed that “meeting is not possible without agenda”. Still he did not provide the agenda which shows their unwillingness to sort one the issue. The complainant requested to the Council to direct the respondent to publish the apology at a prominent place in newspaper for having published a false and incorrect news pertaining to the ordnance factory. A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent editor on 13.6.2016 for information. Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur while Shri Rupesh Kumar appears on behalf of the complainant, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all other connected papers, and has also heard the representative of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee finds that the newspaper has published the news item casually and without verifying the facts. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that while dealing with the defence matters, the newspaper should be more careful. However, in view of the fact that the respondent newspaper has carried out the version more prominently than the impugned news, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. The Inquiry Committee notes with distress that the reporter, when tried to meet the functionary of the complainant-Ordnance Parachute Factory, he (the complainant) had chosen not to meet him on a frivolous ground of absence of agenda. When a reporter intends to meet the officer with reference to a particular news item, it is the duty of the officer to meet him. As observed earlier, in view of the publication of the version of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA S.No.92 File No.14/124/15-16-PCI Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri A.K. Verma, Editor, Joint General Manager/V Hindustan (Hindi) Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur. Kanpur Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016 Facts This complaint dated 30.5.2015 was filed by Shri A.K. Verma, Joint General Manager/V, Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur against Editor, Hindustan, Kanpur for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news items in its issue dated 8.4.2015 under the caption “पैराशूट फे क्टर को मनोहर प ा कर ् से हर� झंड� का इंतजार” It was alleged in the news item that the Ordnance Parachute factory, the only factory for production of parachutes is going through a bad phase. Eversince, an airforce officer wearing parachute viz. Lakshya died in 2012, the factory is going through rough patch. Getting green signal for 30% of the production for parachute, is a set back to the factory. The complainant while denying the allegations has submitted that the impugned item is false, baseless and defamatory in nature. The complainant stated that the incorrect and false news item has tarnished the image of the factory and also damaged the credibility of Ordnance Factory Board in the eyes of the public.

The complainant vide letter dated 16.5.2015 and 27.5.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the above mentioned facts and requested to publish clarification of the news item, but received no response.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 6.7.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Hindustan followed by Time Bound Reminder dated 1.2.2016 but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Shri Rupesh Kumar appears on behalf of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee has heard the representative of the complainant and has also perused the record. Despite service of the notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear nor filed the written statement. (The Inquiry Committee would further like to observe that while publishing the news with reference to the defence establishment, the respondent newspaper should exercise more caution, which is lacking in the present case). The Inquiry Committee in the facts and circumstances of the case deems it just and proper to direct the respondent to publish the version of the complainant. For the said purpose, the complainant would give his version to the respondent newspaper within two weeks. The respondent newspaper, after necessary editing, would publish the same, with the same prominence, within two weeks from the date such a version is furnished to the respondent. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for disposal of the complaint with the aforesaid observations.

Held: The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

S.No. 93 F.No. 14/357/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri Babu Singh Kushwaha The Editor, Lucknow Amar Ujala, Noida

Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 6.8.2015 has been filed by Shri Babu Singh Kushwaha, Lucknow while in judicial custody against the editor, Amar Ujala, Noida allegedly for publication of false news item in its issue dated 9.6.2015 under the caption “Kushwaha Mamle main Judge ne khud ko kiya sunwai se alag”.

It was reported in the impugned news item that the complainant is an accused in NRHM Scam against whom the trial is pending before the Ld. CBI Court, Ghaziabad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Aggarwal recused himself from hearing the bail petition of the complainant but did not disclose any reason for that. It was also reported in the impugned news item that while disposing off the earlier bail petition of the complainant, the Hon’ble Court observed that the allegations levelled against complainant are of very serious nature and if he feels that there is delay in trial he can file bail application after six months.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the publication is totally misleading as the Hon’ble Court had never passed any such observation. In view of the pending trial, according to the complaint the respondent only publish true and exact account of the court proceedings. According to the complainant by publishing the impugned news item, the respondent has assassinated his character in terms of attributing incorrect observation to the Apex Court of India.

The complainant vide legal notice dated 16.7.2015 requested the respondent to publish correct facts with an unconditional apology but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent, Amar Ujala for gross violation of journalistic ethics.

A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Amar Ujala’, Noida on 20.11.2015.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent vide written statement dated 3.12.2015 while denying the allegations submitted that due to unusual rush and pandemonium in the court room, the reporter of impugned news item could not hear the order properly and the impugned news item was published in present form. It was a human error which has been corrected immediately and the corrigendum has been published on 18.8.2015 with the caption “ह ् व ा ह ा मामले मे जज ने सनवाु ह� स े नह�ं �कया था खुद को अलग” in Delhi Edition and in Lucknow Edition also with the caption “बाबू �संह के के स मे जज ने सनवाु ह� से नह�ं �कया था खुद को अलग ”. He further submitted that paper had replied to the complainant’s Notice dated 18.7.2015. The respondent stated that being a responsible newspaper it understands its duty and responsibility and does not believe in yellow journalism. The impugned news item was not published with an intention to defame the complainant rather it was published in good-faith. He requested that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for counter comments on 18.12.2015 but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur.

While Shri Rahul Tomar and Shr Khare, Advocate appeared for the complainant, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service of Notice.

The complainant is aggrieved by the news item published by the respondent newspaper in its issue dated 9.6.2015 with the caption “the Judge hearing Kushwaha case had recused from hearing the case” and further the Court has observed that the allegation against the complainant is very serious. The complainant states that the aforesaid facts are not true and, in fact, the Hon’ble Judge did not recuse to hear the case. The complainant further alleges that the news that the allegation against the complainant is serious is not borne out from the Order of the Supreme Court. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant’s counsel and also perused the written statement and other connected papers. So far as the first grievance is concerned, the respondent newspaper has published the corrigendum in which it has clearly stated that the Hon’ble Judge did not recuse to hear the case. As regards the second grievance, the plea of the complainant is that from the perusal of the Order of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that no such observation was made, as the same is not recorded in the order sheet. The Inquiry Committee does not find any merit in this grievance of the complainant. It is well known that many observations are made in the Court, which do not form part of the order, but are published. Another grievance of the complainant is that the corrigendum issued later on was not published with the same prominence, as the original news. No mathematical formula can be applied in this regard. The Inquiry Committee does not find any substance in the grievance of the complainant and accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

F.NO. 14/229-230/14-15-PCI

S.No. 95

Complainant Respondent Shri. Madan Lal 1. Shri Vijay Chopra S/o- Late Shri Ram Dass Chief Editor of Hindi Samachar G M/s Jai Bhagwan Pratap Chand (Punjab Kesari Hindi & Jagbani Punjab Sangrur, Punjab Civil Lines, Jalandhar.

2. Shri. Avinash Chopra Editor of Hindi Samachar Group (Pu Kesari Hindi & Jagbani Punjab), Civil Lines, Jalandhar.

3. Shri. Yash Pal Mangla Press Reporte of Hind Samachar G (Punjab Kesari Hindi & Jagbani Punjab Hanjra Marg, Indra Basti, Sunam, Sangrur- 148028

Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 9.05.2014 has been filed by Shri Madan Lal, from Sangrur, Punjab, against the Editor of Sangrur- Barnala Kesari of Punjab Kesari. The complainant has objected to the news item published by the respondent newspaper in its Jalandhar issue dated 07.09.2013 captioned “…toh manhani ka mukkadama dayer karunga: Cheema”(…so will file a defamation case: Cheema). The complainant has accused the respondent newspaper for publishing biased, untrue, fabricated and defamatory news item against him which has tainted his reputation. The Jalandhar issue of Sangrur-Barnala Kesari dated 07.09.2013 had published the Press Statement of Shri Ravinder Singh Cheema, Vice-Chairman of Punjab Mandi Board which inter alia stated that he was pressurised to relocate the electronic weigh bridge site (Kanda) which was installed near Shop no. 17 owned by the relative of the so called leader of the Trader but he has not succumbed to the pressure.

Became of personal grudge against complainant’s cousin brother, Shri Rajesh Agarwal, ex-president of ‘Punjab Pradesh Byapar Mandal’, Shri Cheema has unnecessarily dragged him in the matter by mentioning his shop number in his statement to the press, this was quoted in the impugned news item, which has tainted complainant’s social image. The complainant added, just because his Cousin, Shri Rajesh Agarwal is continuously fighting against the ongoing corruption and malpractices in the administration for several years and had been able to disclose a money laundering racket publicly revealing the involvement of Shri R.S. Cheema in the racket, same has made the leader furious. In order to take revenge, Shri R S Cheema, in connivance with the editor of the respondent newspaper who has been gaining financial benefits from Shri R.S. Cheema due to his political position had dragged the complainant in this socio-political fight by mentioning his shop number in the impugned news item, which is a an attempt to defame him and his family. The complainant wrote to the respondent newspaper on 20.09.2013 for publishing the clarification against the impugned news item, but, no action was taken by the respondent. Written Statement from the respondent A Show-Cause notice dated 03.12.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper to which the Editor of the Punjab Kesari Group has filed its written statement dated 11.01.2016. In the written statement the respondent newspaper has submitted that the complaint is false, baseless and frivolous and the news-item in question has not breached any journalistic norms/conduct. The news item nowhere mentions the name of the complainant. Also Respondent no.1- Sh. Vijay Chopra and Respondent no. 2 - Sh. Avinash Chopra, as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint before the Press Council of India are not the Chief Editor or even the Editor of the newspaper and thus are not liable for the publication. The respondent newspaper has alleged, the complainant for unnecessarily linking himself with the news item and mentioned that he has himself admitted that he has some dispute with Shri. Ravinder Singh Cheema, Vice-Chairman, Punjab Mandi Board, regarding installation of a weighbridge in front of shop no. 17 owned by the complainant. The respondent newspaper, further submitted that the news item in question has been published by them in the ordinary course of the business of the newspaper and does not hold any malice motive or ill- will against the complainant and pleaded for dismissal of the complaint. Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur. The Inquiry Committee has considered the prayer for adjournment made by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee finds no merit in the prayer and, accordingly, rejects the same. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and the connected papers, and is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is misconceived. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Held: The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint. Press Council of India F.NO. 14/647/14-15-PCI

Item no. 96

Complainant Respondent Shri. Gurnam Singh, The Chief Editor PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dainik Bhaskar Sub-Division, GRP, Jalandhar. PUDA Complex Ladowali Road, Jalndhar

Shri Akhand Parsad, Press Reporter/Journalist C/o- Dainik Bhaskar PUDA Complex Ladowali Road, Jalndhar

Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 13.10.2014 was filed by Shri S.Gurnam Singh PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, GRP, Jalandhar, Punjab through his Lawyer Shri Opinder Singh against the Chief Editor and Press Reporter/Journalist Shri Akhand Parsad of Dainik Bhaskar, Jalandhar, Punjab. The complainant was aggrieved by the news item published by Dainik the respondent newspaper in its Jalandhar issue dated 29.09.2014 captioned “DSP ki Satabdi Me Sewa Nai Hue Toh Vendor Paucha Jail Meh” (DSP was not served well in Shatabdi express, the vendor sent to jail). The complainant had accused the respondent newspaper for publishing untrue, irresponsible and defamatory news item with the intention to taint his reputation. According to the complainant, the impugned news item presents a false and distorted version of the news that was initially published by Dainik Bhaskar on 28.09.2014 in their Jalandhar issue, stating the right facts, captioned “GRP DSP Ne Train Se Utara Vendor, Toh Vendero Ne Char Bar Chain Pull kar 25 minute Roki Shatabdi”. The complainant, Shri S. Gurnam Singh, posted as DSP, Subdivision GRP, Punjab Police in Jalandhar on 27.09.2014, was travelling from Ludhiana to Jalandhar on official work by Amritsar Satabdi. On reaching Jalandhar, the train vendors started demanding and harassing the passengers fo/r money, which was illegal, the complainant being a responsible officer called for the ASI Shri Gurinder Singh, the on-duty Railway Police Officer, who investigated the matter and the vendors confessed their guilt and apologised to the passengers. Later, the Manager who was in charge of the vendors assured the railway police that such incident would never happen in future. However, the passengers of the train refused to file a police complaint against the vendor due to the lengthy procedure. This entire incident was reported correctly on the very next day by different newspapers in Jalandhar including Dainik Bhaskar, Jalandhar, but a completely twisted and distorted version of the story was published by Dainik Bhaskar on 29.09.2014 reporting that the complainant was liable for train delay and that vendor sent to jail for not serving the DSP in Shatabdi. According to the complainant the impugned news item had not only tarnished the his reputation but had also demolished public trust on police. The complainant sent legal notice dated 07.10.2014 to the editor and the journalist/reporter of the respondent newspaper demanding for compensation for tarnishing his reputation and requested the Council to take stringent action against the Chief Editor, Dainik Bhaskar and Akhand Parsad, Press Reporter/Journalist, Dainik Bhaskar to tender an unconditional apology in their future edition for not only tarnishing his reputation but also abusing the reputation of the police department in the society. No Reply Filed by the Respondent A Show-Cause notice dated 06.01.2015 was issued to the Editor of Dainik Bhaskar and Journalist Shri Akhand Parsad, Dainik Bhaskar followed by a reminder dated 07.04.2016 but no response has been filed by either of the respondents from Dainik Bahskar, Jalandhar, Punjab.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, the complainant and respondent has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint. Held: The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

S. No. 97 F.No.14/67/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri Jitendar Rana, The Editor, Himachal Pradesh Divya Himachal, Hamirpur (H.P.)

Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 24.4.2015 was filed by Shri Jitendar Rana, Himachal Pradesh against the editor, Divya Himachal, Hamirpur, H.P. alleging publication of defamatory news item against him in its issue dated 17.2.2015 under the caption “TGT se Lecturer banne ke sapne chaknachur”. It was reported in the impugned news item that the Director Elementary Education rejected the application of 250 TGT teachers for promotions to the post of lecturer due to negligence of the dealing hand. It was also reported that ACRs of many teachers are untraceable and due to this teachers protested in the office. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item submitted that the impugned news item is totally false, frivolous and defamatory and published without pre-publication verification. The complainant stated that he is serving as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Deputy Director Elementary Education, H.P. and he was dealing with the work relating to cases of promotion from TGT to PGT which were in totality 253 in numbers and all the cases were accordingly sent to the office of Director, Elementary Education after making due compliance. In response thereto the office of Director, Elementary Education had apprised that 23 cases of concerned incumbents of promotions from TGT to PGT were returned for the reasons that in those cases applications were not submitted on latest proforma circulated by the office of Director Elementary Education. As regard the filling of form, the same is to be filled by the applicant/concerned teacher. The complainant is nowhere concerned with that. The complainant further added that the respondent falsely published that the department has directed to send the forms again. The complainant stated that the respondent published the said news item just to malign him in the eyes of colleagues, relatives, friends and society at large. The complainant vide legal notice dated 19.2.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned publication and requested him to publish unconditional apology, but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to enquire into the matter and punish the respondent. A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor ‘Divya Himachal’, H.P. on 8.6.2015 followed by a reminder dated 22.1.2016 and 16.2.2016 but no response has been received so far.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur while them was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee considered the prayer made by the respondent for adjournment of the case and to hold its sitting in Himachal Pradesh. It is not inclined to accede to the said prayer and, accordingly, rejects the same. After has perusing the complaint and all connected papers, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met by directing the respondent to publish the version of the complainant. Accordingly, it directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent newspaper within two weeks. The respondent newspaper, in turn, is directed to publish the complainant’s version, after necessary editing, within one week thereafter. The Inquiry Committee recommends for disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid term. Held: The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

S. No. 98 F.No.14/653/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri Anand Mohan Khare, The Editor, Branch Manager, Dainik Parihar Garjana Distt. Sahkari Central Bank Maryadit, Chhatarpur, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Draft Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 4.3.2016 has been filed by Shri Anand Mohan Khare, Branch Manager, Distt. Sahkari Central Bank Maryadit, Branch-Bijawar, Distt.-Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh against the editor, Dainik Parihar Garjana, Chhatarpur for publication of baseless news to defame him captioned as ‘चार साल से बीजावर मे ह� डटे है आनंद मोहन खरे’ and “साहब आनंद क� िस्थ� िखसयानी �बली खंबा नोचे जैसे” in its issues dated 9.2.2016 and 3.3.2016 respectively.

In the impugned news item dated 9.2.2016 it was reported that cooperative movement which was started with certain objective has now moved to opposite direction. Branch Manager of the Cooperative Branch Bank who has been there for last two years have brazenly exploited farmers. Fair price shops have become source of income for the Branch Manager. Cooperatives and corruption have become synonym to each other. The Branch Manager behaves with farmers as if they are his enemy.

In the impugned news item dated 3.3.2016 it was reported that Sr. Branch Manager of District Cooperative Branch behaves like a thrashed army resorting to rampage. Shri Khare who has been working as a Branch Manager has committed lots of irregularities. He has not got done audit for last four years. Contrary to the rules, he has taken over Marketing Godown and earning rent from it. Being at Bijawar for the last four years, he is not only enjoying his posting there but also societies working under the bank’s branch are also rejoicing. The complainant alleged that the respondent paper without any release order arbitrarily published an advertisement on 26 January, 2016 and thereafter sought money for the same. On bank’s refusal to pay the money, the newspaper maliciously published this fabricated news item.

The complainant vide legal notice dated 1.3.2016 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the above mentioned facts but received no response and instead he published another defamatory news item on 3.3.2016. The complainant requested to take action against the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Dainik Parihar Garjana’, Madhya Pradesh on 18.4.2016.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur, M.P. The complainant Shri Anand Mohan appeared in person and Shri Ram Babu Singh, Editor, Dainik Parihar Garjana appeared for the respondent. The inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the respondent. The complainant stated that the respondent has published the contradiction and hence he is not inclined to pursue the matter. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends dropping proceedings in the matter as settlement arrived at between in parties.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to drop the proceedings in the mater as settlement arrived between the parties.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

S.No. 99 F.No.14/179/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri Gurkripal Singh The Editor, Hoshiarpur Punjabi Tribune, Chandigarh

Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 27.6.2015 has been filed by Shri Gurkripal Singh, Hoshiarpur, Punjab against the editor, Punjabi Tribune, Chandigarh alleging publication of false news in its issue dated 26.5.2015 under the caption “Cutting of banned wood adjoining to area of Hoshiarpur is going on” sub-heading “knowing all facts, concerned department did not take any action” (translation provided by complainant). It was reported in the impugned news item that in connivance with officials of the district forest department, the cutting of banned trees is going on without any fear and the officers of forest department are not taking any action and are avoiding the directions of Deputy Commissioner. It is also reported that the devotees of Dera have cut the mango trees in front of a religious Dera at village Manjpur despite the ban. The people of area and reporters informed the forest department in this regard but taking advantage of delay in action on part of forest department, the dera devotees have uprooted the mango tree with their tractors and levelled the land. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item submitted that the mango tree was not uprooted by the Dera devotees but one Shri Daya Ram uprooted the tree which is quite evident from the receipt no. 61205 dated 26.5.2015 issued by the Forest Department to him for depositing fine amounting to Rs.16,000/-. The complainant also submitted that the respondent is habitual of publishing false and defamatory news items in the newspaper. The complainant vide letter dated 27.6.2015 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item but received no response. The complainant therefore requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent for his professional misconduct and committing a breach of journalistic ethics. A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, ‘Punjabi Tribune’, on 15.10.2015 Written Statement In response, the respondent vide written statement dated 2.11.2015 submitted that the complaint is purported to be against the editor, Punjabi Tribune, Chandigarh but as a matter of fact, as mentioned by the complainant himself, it is against Mr. Jagjit Singh who is a stringer and supplies news to the Punjabi Tribune. He stated that the stringers are not employees of the newspaper establishments and as such are not covered by service rules meant for the employees. However, in case complaint is received against the working of any stringer, suitable action is taken. He further submitted that after receiving the complaint of Shri Gurkripal Singh, prompt action was taken and news item being received from Shri Jagjit Singh with Hoshiarpur dateline were stopped from publication till further orders. Further thereto, the stringer has also been warned to be careful in future while reporting the matters pertaining to the area of his coverage. The respondent requested that the matter may be ordered to be disposed of.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 26.11.2015 for counter comments but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur, M.P. Dispute service of notice neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared before it. It is the allegation of the complainant that the impugned news item is false. The respondent newspaper does not join this issue, but takes a plea that the said impugned news is published on the basis of the input given by a stringer and not an employee of the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that once the news item is published, it becomes the responsibility of the editor to defend it. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the editor seems to be under a misconception that as the author of the news is a stringer and not an employee of the newspaper, he cannot be held responsible. The Inquiry Committee, for the present, observes no more than this. The Inquiry Committee directs the respondent newspaper to publish the contradiction of the complainant with the same prominence. For the said purpose, the complainant is directed to give his version at the earliest. The Inquiry Committee recommends for disposal of the complaint in the aforesaid term. Held: The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint with direction.

Press Council of India

S.No. 100 F.NO. 14/533/15-16-PCI

Complainant Respondent Shri S.P.Yadav, IOFS (Retd.) The Editor Tilhari, Bilhari, Pradesh Today Mandla Road Civic Centre Jabalpur,482020 Marhatal, Jabalpur 482002 Madhya Pradesh

Adjudication Dated:9.9.2016

This complaint dated 18.04.2016 has been filed by Shri S.P.Yadav, IOFS (Retd.), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor of Pradesh Today, Jabalpur, MP. The complainant had objected to the news item published by the respondent newspaper in its issue dated 25.11.2015 captioned “र�ा संथानो के आईएफ़बी व ड�आरड�ओ के गोप�नयता भंग- �रटा. �डफ़े स अफसर �वदेश-�नजी कं प�नयो के भे�दये”. The complainant alleged that in the impugned news he was mentioned as an agent of some so called foreign companies leading to leakage of defence secrets. The respondent newspaper has published baseless, untrue and defamatory news item against him with malicious intention which has caused an irreparable damage to his unblemished reputation and social image that he established in three and half decades of his selfless and dedicated service to this nation. The complainant vide his letter dated 11.1.2016 communicated his grievance in this regard the respondent newspaper and requested it to publish the correct version but, did not receive any response. He had approached the Council to seek justice. No reply from the respondent A Show Cause Notice dated 17.05.2016 was issued to the editor of the respondent newspapers but the paper did not file the written statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur. While the complainant appeared in person. Shri Anil Dikshit, Reporter, Pradesh Today appeared on behalf of the respondent. The complainant happens to be a Retd. Ordnance Service Officer. He is aggrieved by the publication of a news item in the respondent newspaper in its issue dated 25/11/2015, under the headline, “Retired Defence Officers are agents of the foreign/private companies”. The names of the prominent persons have also been disclosed in the said news, includes the name of the complainant. The plea of the respondent is that it was on the basis of the allegation made by a leader. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the counsel for the respondent. The headline of the impugned news item juxtaposes with the name of the complainant. The news item suggests that the complainant, after retirement, is working directly or indirectly with the foreign/private company, as agent. The headline has not been attributed to the leader. Further, the respondent newspaper did not give any opportunity to the complainant to give his version. After hearing the complainant and counsel for the respondent, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper acted in an irresponsible manner in publishing the said news. It has maligned and damaged the reputation of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for Censure of the newspaper. A copy of this order be forwarded to the DG, DAVP, the RNI, Director of I&PRD, and the DM, Jabalpur, for appropriate action. Held: The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Censure the newspaper.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA S.No.101 File No.14/208/15-16-PCI Complainant Vs. Respondent

Prof. K.V. Thomas, The Editor, M.P.(Lok Sabha) The Times of India, New Delhi Mumbai.

Adjudication Dated: 9.9.2016

This complaint dated 24.7.2015 has been filed by Prof. K.V. Thomas, M.P. (Lok Sabha) New Delhi against Editor, The Times of India, Mumbai alleging publication of obscene and vulgar advertisement of “Stay-On Power Capsules” in its issue dated 22.7.2015. The complainant submitted that not only the photograph is obscene but also the contents of the advertisement are totally misleading and full of motivated statements. He further stated that it was sad that such advertisements are allowed in newspapers which are seen and read by thousands of children. He stated that the principles of morality and ethical standards have been violated not only by the advertiser but also by the publisher. He requested the Council to take immediate cognizance for taking appropriate action to discontinue such advertisements at least in newspapers. A Show Cause Notice dated 4.8.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper, The Times of India, Mumbai. Written Statement Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the respondent editor, The Times of India, Mumbai in his written statement dated 7.10.2015 vehemently denied that his client has offended or violated in any manner whatsoever the professional norms of journalistic conduct. He vehemently denied that any photograph in the advertisement of ‘Stay-On Power Capsules on 22.7.2015 is obscene as alleged. He further stated that the photographs and the contents of the advertisements are thoroughly checked by the concerned team so that the depicition of the same serves the purpose and hence are not obscene in nature. A copy of the Written Statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 20.11.2015 for information and counter comments. Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.8.2016 at Jabalpur. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent. However, the complainant vide his letter dated 29.7.2016 has filed a prayer for adjournment. The Inquiry Committee has considered the said prayer and is not inclined to accept the same. The Inquiry Committee has considered the points raised in the complaint and is of the opinion that neither the contents nor the photographs published in the advertisement are objectionable. The Inquiry Committee cannot judge the advertisement by applying hypersensitive standards of morality. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for Dismissal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Dismiss the complaint.