Meetings Held on March 14-16, 2016 at New Delhi, April 11-13, 2016 at New Delhi & May 10-12, 2016 at Pune)

Press Council of India

Adjudications rendered by the Council in its meeting held on 10.6.2016 (Meetings held on March 14-16, 2016 at New Delhi, April 11-13, 2016 at New Delhi & May 10-12, 2016 at Pune)

Complaints Against the Press Section-14

Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held on March 14-16, at New Delhi

1. Complaint of Ms. Nidhi Yadav, Haridwar-Roorkee, Development Authority, Haridwar against the editor, Mid Day. (14/677/14-15)

2. Complaint of Shri Hazi Samad, Meerut against Dainik Jagran (14/199/13-14)

3. Complaint of Dr. S.S. Lohchab, Senior Professor & Head Department of Cardiac Surgery, Rohtak against Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Rohtak, Haryana.(14/316/14-15)

4. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Jag Utthan, Delhi. (14/100/14-15) (Paid News)

5. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Punjab Kesari, Delhi.(14/101/14-15) (Paid News)

6. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Nayak Bharti, Delhi. (14/106/14-15)(Paid News)

7. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Jagrook Times, Jaipur (Raj.).(14/114/14-15)(Paid News)

8. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Naya India, Bhilwada (Raj.).(14/115/14-15 (Paid News)

9. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Rashtradoot, Jaipur.(14/116/14-15) (Paid News)

10. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Metro Bites, Jaipur (Raj.). (14/122/14-15)(Paid News)

11. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Navjyoti, Ajmer (Raj.). (14/126/14-15)(Paid News)

12. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Angad, Bundi (Raj.).(14/131/14- 15)(Paid News)

13. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Pratahkaal, Udaipur (Raj.). (14/134/14-15) (Paid News) 14. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Ambar, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)(14/135/14-15) (Paid News)

15. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Nagaur Ki Awaz, Nagaur (Raj.)(14/137/14-15) (Paid News)

16. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Jalte Deep, Jodhpur (Raj.) (14/139/14-15)(Paid News)

17. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan Border, Pali (Raj.). (14/140/14- 15)(Paid News)

18. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Marudhar Bhoomi, Tonk (Raj.). (14/150/14-15)(Paid News)

19. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Sarwan Khabar, Tonk (Raj.). (14/151/14- 15)(Paid News)

20. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, Delhi against the Editor, Hindustan, New Delhi. (14/152/14-15)(Paid News)

21. Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. Govt. of India, Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Sandhya Jyoti Darpan, Jaipur (Raj.). (14/138/14-15) (Paid News)

22-23. Complaint of Collector and Election Officer & Chairman, MCMC, Dhamtari (C.G.) against the Editors, ‘Prakhar’ and ‘Swadesh’ (C.G.). (14/970-971/13-14) (Paid News)

24. Complaint of Collector and Chairman, District Level, MCMC and District Election Officer, Seoni (M.P.) against the ‘Samvad Kunj’, Seoni (M.P.). (14/996/13-14) (Paid News)

25. Complaint of Shri Abdul Hameed, S.P., Barabanki, U.P. against Editor, Hindustan, Lucknow (14/87/14-15)

26-27 Complaint of Shri Sharan Sriniwas, Programme and Research Manager, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Sweden against Editor, Punjab Kesari and Dainik Jagran(14/149- 150/15-16)

28. Complaint of Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman, Director for Health Servies, Kashmir against the editor, Early Times, Jammu (14/99/15-16)

29. Complaint of Ms. Birendra Kaur, President, Institue of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh against Chandigarh Trbune , Chandgarh. (14/775/14-15)

30. Complaint of Dr. A.P. Sanwaria against Hindustan Times, Chandigarh (14/951/14-15) 31-32 Complaint of Ms. Anshu Sawhney, Chandigarh against Punjab Dii Awaz Ajit, Jalandhar and Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh. (14/678&782/14-15) 33 Complaint of Shri Gyasuddin Ansari, Bhilwara against Dainik Rashtradoot (14/363/14-15) 34. Complaint of Mrs. Francina Nelson, General Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Domestic Workers Trade Union, Indore (M.P.) against the Editor, News City Live, Indore, M.P. (14/251/14-15) 35. Complaint of Shri Mayur Aggarwal, C.A. Patrner Aggarwal Mittal and Company against Editor, Nav Duniya, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. (14/447/14-15)

36. Complaint of Shri Arvind Jain, Mantri and Shri Jai Kumar Jain Dayoday Gaushala, Chhattarpur, M.P. against the Editor, Hum Paanch (14/484/14-15)

37. Complaint of Shri Amar Singh, Neemauch, M.P. against Dainik Swarnim Hindustan.(14/394/15-16)

Inquiry Committee-I Meeting held on April 11-13 at New Delhi

38. Complaint of Shri Okram Prasanta Singha, Rajgarh, Guwahati against Assam Tribune. (14/463/15-16) 39. Complaint of Shri Manoj Rathai, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh against Editor, Raj Express, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. (14/164/15)

40. Complaint of Shri Bhagwandin Sahu, Spokesperson, Shri Yog Vedant Sewa Samiti, Chindwada against Editor, Dainik Bhaskar. (14/393/15-16) 41. Complaint of Shri Temsunaro Jamir, Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati Customs Division, Guwahati against the Editor, Asomiya Khabar, Guwahati. (14/315/14-15)

42. Complaint of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Jharkhand, against the editor, Uditvani, Jharkhand. (14/264/12-13)

43. Complaint of M/s. Indian Metals E Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneshwar (Odisha) against the editor, Sambad, Bhubaneshwar. (14/306/13-14)

44-46. Complaint of Shri Hariram Singh Kushwaha, Patna, Bihar against the Editors 1) Dainik Jagran, 2) Dainik Bhaskar & 3) Rashtriya Sahara, Patna, Bihar.(14/543, 569- 570/14-15)

47-48. Complaint of Sri Prasanta Kumar Jena, Ex-BDO In-charge of Laikera, Block at Present, Additional Block Development Officer, Lakhanpur (Odisha) against the Editor Sambad and Dharitri, Odisha.(14/572-573/14-15)

49. Complaint of Shri Gyan Prakash Jha, Samastipur(Bihar) against Editor, Hindustan. (14/645/14-15)

50. Complaint of Shri A. Biswas, Kolkata against Times of India, Kolkata. (14/983/14-15).

51. Complaint of Shri Narendra Mohanty, Cuttack, Odisha against the editor, Sambad.(14/631/14-15)

52. Complaint of Shri V. Murugan, SHO, Puducherry against the Editor, Namadhu Manasatchi, Puducherry. (14/336/14-15)

53-54. Complaints of Shri Manoj Kumar Kanwasra, Hissar, Haryana against the Editors, (i) Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh (ii) Dainik Jagran, Noida, U.P. (14/125-126/12-13)

55. Complaint of Shri Vasudev Vyas, Jodhpur (Raj.) against the Editor, ‘Dainik Bhaskar’, Jodhpur(Raj.)(14/331/14-15)

56. Complaint of Shri Chandrashekhjar Sahu, Agriculture Minister, Raipur against the Editor, Patrika , (M.P.)(14/274/13-14) 57. Complaint of Shri Pukhraj Bothra, Bastar & Shri Santosh Bafna, MLA, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh against the Editor, Chhattisgarh Post, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (14/119/13-14) 58. Complaint of Mrs. Kokilaben V. Vaghela, Ahmedabad against the Editor, Ahmedabad Mirror, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. (14/53/13-14)

59. Complaint of Ms. Hansaben K. Jain, Ahmedabad against the Editor, The World Net Work, Gujarat. (14/123/13-14) 60-61. Complaint of Chief Electoral Officer, Shillong, Meghalaya against the Editors, 1) U-Rupang and 2) U-Kynjastshai, Shillong. (14/168-169/14-15)(Paid News)

Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held on May 10-12, 2016 at Pune.

62. Complaint of Shri Udai Singh, Nasik, Maharashtra against the Editor, The Indian Express, Mumbai.(14/844/12- 13)

63. Complaint of Shri S. Swaminathan, Senior Vice President, Legal and Company Secretary, TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, Ganadoot, Agartala.(14/106/12-13) 64. Complaint of Shri Vijay Kumar Digambar Potdar, Solapur against the Editor, Dainik Surajya, Solapur. (14/941/13-14)

65. Complaint of Shri Vishal Kumar Mathura Gupta, Thane (Maharashtra) against the Editor, UT Mirror, New Delhi.(14/1021/13-14)

66. Complaint of Shri Ashish Modi, Surta (Gujrat) against the Editor, Atal Savera, Surat (Gujarat). (14/1060/13-14)

67. Complaint of Mohd. Ayub Qureshi, Mumbai against Shri Syed Zafarul Islam, Chief Reporter, Lahren Fortnightly, Mumbai. (14/1088/13-14)

68. Complaint of Shri Venkat R. Chary, IAS (Retd.), Mumbai against the Editor, ‘Mint’, New Delhi. (14/226/14-15)

69. Complaint of Ms. Hansaben Jain, Advocate, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) against the Editor, Abhiyan, Ahmedabad (14/284/14-15)

70. Complaint of Shri Suresh A. Gadge, Kohlapur against the Editor, Daily Pudhari, Kolhapur. (14/472/14-15)

71. Complaint of Shri Devesh Bhatt, Advocate, Ahmedabad (Guj.) against the Editor, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat). (14/919/13-14)

72-73. Complaint of Shri Triratan Laxmanrao Ingle, Akola, Maharashtra against the Editors, Daily City News Superfast and Daily Deshonnati (14/942-943/14-15) 74. Complaint of Shri Rajesh B. Shah, Advocate, Aurangabad against the editor, Times of India, Aurangabad. (14/355/14-15)

75. Complaint of Shri Mohan Krishnan, All India President, Anti Corruption & Crime Prevention Council, Mumbai against Editor, Manavta Bharat (14/1192/13-14)

76. Complaint of Dr. (Capt.) Ritu Biyani, Pune against the Editor, Times of India regarding publication of personal court case proceedings.(14/767/14-15) 77. Complaint of Shri Prakash P.Kukreja, Ulhasnagar against Maharashtra Shaktishali Express, Ulhasnagar. (14/371/14-15) 78. Complaint of Mr. Abhram Samson Mhedekar Mr. Jonathan Samuel Soloman, Mumbai against Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai. (14/491/14-15)

79. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Nambiar, Group President & General Counsel, Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai against Economic Times.(14/297/14-15)

80. Complaint of Dr. Jyotsna D. Kitukille, Government General Hospital, Amravati against Deshonnati. (14/204/14-15)

81. Complaint of Shri Ajay Tyagi, Mumbai against The Editor, Times of India, New Delhi. (14/715/14-15)

82. Complaint of Shri Chetan Brijmohan Bajaj, Secretary, Shree Awdhoot Education Society, Saket Public School, Gondia, Nagpur against the Editor, Yugdharm Daily, Nagpur(14/185/15-16)

83. Complaint of Mrs. Nandini Charles, Principal, Vikhe Patil Memorial School, Pune against the editor, Pune Mirror (14/708/14-15) 84. Suo-motu cognizance w.r.t. attacks on Lokmat Officer in Maharashtra & Complaint of Shri Kareem Chand Sheikh against Editor, Lokmat. (14/454/15-16)

85. Complaint of Sh. Babusaheb Narsingrao Patil, Omanabad trough Ms. Madhuri U. Kakde, advocate, Bombay Bench, Aurangabad High Court against the editor Dainik Maharashtra Times. (14/31/15-16)

86. Complaint of Shri Mahant Dharamnath, Jogi Ashram, Rajgarh, Churu, Rajasthan against Editor, Churu Seven Star, Churu, Rajasthan (14/311/15-16)

87. Complaint of Mrs. Renuka Nagesh Devsani, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra against Sarvamat, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra. (14/669/14-15)

88. Complaint of Shri Liyakat Sharafat Qureshi, Thane against Editor, Dabang Khabrein. (14/235/15-16)

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 1 File No.14/677/14-15-PCI Ms. Nidhi Yadav, Secretary, The Editor, Haridwar-Roorkee Development Authority, Mid Day Activist, Haridwar. Dehradun.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 8.9.2014 was filed by Ms. Nidhi Yadav, Secretary, Haridwar- Roorkee Development Authority, Haridwar against Editor, Mid Day Activist, Dehradun for publication of a series of allegedly defamatory news item against her. The dates and caption of the news item are as under:

S.No. Caption Date 1 Mahila ADM Ki Ashlil Baton ki CD paish 19.3.2014 2 Hum Pyarkarte the, Sab kutchkarte the 10.4.2014 3 Alaghonaho to please maut de dena 11.4.2014 4 MahilaPCSka domicile bhifarzi 21.4.2014 5. Nidhi Yadav ka domicile jhoota 30.5.2014

The complainant has stated that the respondent editor published the above-said news item deliberately and intentionally. It has damaged her reputation and dignity. The complainant stated that she is working as Secretary, Haridwar-Roorkee Development Authority at Haridwar and joined as PCS Officer, Uttrakhand. She got married to an IAS Officer who died in 2010 in road accident. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor by writing on 16.6.2014 and 20.7.2014 and requested him to explain as to why such news items were published. She further stated that the respondent published a false news and violated the journalistic norms and conduct issued by the Press Council. The respondent attacked the reputation of lady applicant who enjoys very good reputation. The newspaper should not publish anything which is manifestly defamatory or libellous against any individual or organisation unless after due care and checking. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 220.7.2015.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor, Midday Activist in its written statement dated 9.8.2015 stated that the news items were published in the light of the evidence and as per the Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The contents of the news as published in Mid Day Activist are true and correct and the same may be verified from the records available with the State Government of Uttarakhand as well as with the News agency. The respondent submitted that not only Mid Day Activist has published the news in question but also other news papers of Uttarkahand State has published the same. The respondent further stated that one Smt. Alka wife of Shri D.P. Singh, SDM who calls press conference time to time and she herself visited the office of the respondent editor and provided a pen drive duly saved with the story of news. The respondent further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with an action against her as she has misused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment, mental agony and business loss to the answering Mid Day Activist.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 18.8.2015.

Rejoinder

The complainant in his letter dated 14.10.2015 while reiterating her complaint has stated that professional misconduct has been committed by the respondent newspaper, the Mid Day Activist by publishing impugned news item. The complainant has also stated that the material supplied by Smt. Alka Singh should not have been entertained by the respondent newspaper prior to the verifications of the same. She has also stated that a copy of the entire evidence should be provided to her so that legal action may be initiated against her. She further stated that the evidences are manipulated and tailored with the sole intention to harass and blackmail the complainant. The complainant has prayed for strict action against the respondent editor.

Complainant’s further letter

The complainant vide her letter dated 26.2.2016 while reiterating her complaint and preliminary submissions has stated that the impugned news items were published without any pre-publication verification concealing the fact of FIR and also in a calculated manner to harm her reputation tarnish her image. She alleged that the comments of the State Government was not published nor sought therefore violated the mandatory guidelines of norms of journalistic conduct.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 4.1.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. Shri H.P. Sharma, Shri Ajay Sharma, and Shri Rajesh Tiwari appeared for the complainant.

Despite service of notice, nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent. However, a letter has been received signed by Mr. S.C. Jha, a lawyer, inter- alia, praying for adjournment of the case. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to adjourn the case.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant’s counsel and has perused the record. The impugned news items relate to the personal affairs of the complainant. It has been published without giving any opportunity to the complainant to narrate her version. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that when a newspaper publishes news concerning the character of an individual lady, it has to be little cautious. The respondent newspaper has not adhered to it. The Inquiry Committee directs that the complainant shall give her version to the respondent newspaper within three weeks from today. The complainant furnishing her version, the respondent newspaper shall publish the same within a week thereafter with same prominence. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint, cautioning the respondent newspaper to be more careful in future.

Held

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

Press Council of India

Sl. No.2 File No.14/199/13-14-PCI

Shri Haji Samad, The Editor, Waqf Sadar Peer Baba Kale Shah, Vs. Dainik Jagran, Meerut (U.P.). Meerut (U.P.).

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 13.5.2013 was filed by Shri Haji Samad, Meerut (U.P.) against “Dainik Jagran” for publication of an allegedly false and concocted news item captioned “पीर संपत्ति पर अवैध कब्जे का त्तवरोध हंगामा” in its issue dated 5.5.2013. It was reported in the impugned news item that a person namely Haji Samad encroached a land on Bagpat Road and started constructing a boundary wall, which was objected by the local people. It was further reported that the Mayor reached there and after investigation it was found that the land belongs to Municipal Council. It was also reported that the Haji Samad created uproar and communal tension in the area.

While denying the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the land belong to the Peer and allotted by U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow and thus the allegations of encroaching the land and making hops on it were totally wrong and baseless. On the contrary uproar was created by Shri MukeshSinghal and others who had illegally encroached the same land and wanted to grab entire land. The complainant produced Office Memorandum dated 26.4.2011 of U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board granting approval for boundary wall etc. The complainant enclosed photocopy of Khata/Khatoni in support of his claim and approval by the ADM (City), Meerut to proceed for construction as per the said O.M.

The complainant submitted that he wrote to the respondent-editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut on 7.5.2013 for publication of contradiction but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Notice for Comments was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut on 1.8.2013. Since no response was received despite issuance of reminder, a Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 16.9.2014 followed by a reminder dated 21.4.2015, no response has been received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 5.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Haji Samad, the complainant appeared in person. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and also perused the complaint and the entire record. In the impugned news item, it has been stated that the complainant, Shri Haji Samad has encroached a land on Bagpat road and started constructing a boundary wall, which was objected to by the local people. It has been further stated in the impugned news item that Mayor reached there and after investigation it has been found that the land belongs to the Municipal Council. It is the assertion of the complainant that the aforesaid news item is absolutely false and concocted and in fact, the land belonged to the peer and allotted by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow. Accordingly, the plea of the complainant is that the allegation made in the impugned news item that he has encroached the land, is wrong and baseless. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that before publication of the aforesaid news item, the newspaper ought to have elicited from the complainant his version also, which it has not done and therefore, liable to be cautioned for this act of omission. The Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to furnish his version to the respondent editor within four weeks from today and the complainant so furnishing his version, the respondent shall publish the same with same prominence in its newspaper within one week thereafter.

The Inquiry Committee makes it clear that it is not expressing any opinion in regard to the claim made in the news item that it is a Municipal land or the claim made by the complainant that it was allotted to him by the U.P. Sunni Waqf Board, Lucknow. It is a matter which is required to be decided by the competent authority. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid terms.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 3 File No. 14/316/14-15-PCI

Complainant: Respondent:

Dr. S.S. Lohchab, Vs. The Editor, Senior Professor & Head Department Dainik Bhaskar, of Cardiac Surgery, Rohtak. Rohtak, Haryana

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 2.6.2014 has been filed by Dr. S.S. Lohchab, Senior Professor & Head, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Rohtak against Dainik Bhaskar, Rohtak, Haryana alleging publication of a series of fabricated, defamatory and baseless news items. The dates and captions are as under: S. Caption Date No. 1 सवा लाख का त्तिल मांगा तो मरी焼 की मौत का पता चला। 26.4.2014 दवा के कमीशन का खेल, डॉ啍टरⴂ का कैममटⴂ से मेल। 2 पी.जी.आई. मᴂ शव के िाद सवा लाख 셂पये त्तिल मांगने का मामला। 27.4.2014 3 और भी पीड़ित आगे आए िोले, हमसे भी की ठगी। 1.5.2014 4 पी.जी.आई. के सपᴂड डॉ. लोहचि के खखलाफ सीएम को मशकायत। 6.5.2014 5 िोला-साहि संथान मᴂ इलाज के नाम पर चल रही कमीशनखोरी िंद करवा दी। 9.5.2014

अि अटायल के पीड़ितⴂ ने खोला डॉ लोहचि के खखलाफ मोचाा। 6 18.5.2014 जांच पूरी हुए त्तिना ही डॉ लोहचि िहाल। 7 डॉ लोहचि ने मांगा और समय 20.5.2014 8 न्याय न ममला तो वीसी कायाालय पर ि楍चⴂ के साथ करᴂगᴂ भूख ह़िताल 22.5.2014 9 वीसी कायाालय के िाहर ि楍चⴂ के साथ भूख ह़िताल कल से। 22.5.2015

As per the complainant the impugned news items revolve around Shri Hoshiar Singh, Rohtak, Haryana who was admitted on 14.2.2014. in the hospital. After successful operation he was discharged. After two months he developed prosthetic valve endocarditis infection and again got admitted on 13.4.2014 and his condition deteriorated in a week. The sudden decline in his health with little possibility of recovery and survival was duly brought to the knowledge of the patient’s relatives in the morning of 25.4.2014 and the patient died in the afternoon. During the course of treatment the doctor ask the attendant of the patient to buy some medicine from the chemist (outside the hospital) on credit. Next morning the Dainik Bhaskar begin to twist the death story. The impugned news item reported that the attendant of the patients was forced to pay the bill before letting him see and other relatives of the patient also came forward to collaborate that the doctor forced to buy medicine from that particular chemist.

The complainant stated that the news items published by the respondent is fabricated and baseless and it tarnished his image in public which cannot be repaired at any cost. Besides, publishing the news the respondent newspaper disclosed his identity, name and photo repeatedly. The complainant further stated that actually this is a pre-mediated calculated move of the attendants of patient just to avoid the payment of the chemist and (relatives) they labelled it as nexus between the doctor and chemist. According to the complainant, the patient/attendants purchased medicines from private medical store on their own and there was no Government designated fair price medical shop and it seems to be a case of professional misconduct as through news published the attendants of the patients seem to be blackmailing the doctor and extortion of money. The complainant also drew the attention of the respondent editor but did not get any reply from the respondent newspaper. He requested the Council to take proper action against the respondent with proper direction to restrain themselves in future.

No Written Statement

A show cause notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 27.8.2014 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 5.1.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. Dr. S.S. Lohchab, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

Despite service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. When the matter was taken up on 5.1.2016, the representative of the respondent newspaper appeared and prayed for two weeks’ time to file the written statement, which was granted. Despite that the respondent newspaper has not filed the written statement.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and has perused the complainant and the relevant papers. The complainant is aggrieved by various news items published in the respondent newspaper. It is the assertion of the complainant that the impugned news items are fabricated and baseless and has tarnished the complainant’s image. In the absence of any reply filed by the respondent, the Inquiry Committee has no option then to accept the assertion made by the complainant. The news items being false and fabricated, the respondent newspaper deserves to be warned. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, upholds the complaint and Warns the respondent newspaper.

The complainant, if so desire, may give his version to the respondent newspaper within two weeks from today and the newspaper shall publish the complainant’s version within one week thereafter with the same prominence.

Press Council of India

Sl. No.4 F.No.14/100/14-15-PCI.

Suo-motu action on reference received from Election Commission of India against “Jag Utthan” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during General elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ routed through Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi against the newspaper “Jag Utthan”, Delhi for publishing news item captioned “नरेला मᴂ चहुंओर ममल रहा है नीलदमन खत्री को अपार जनसमथान-मनगम पार्ाद भी ममल रही है जनता से, जुटी है चुनाव प्रचार मᴂ” along with photographs in its issue dated 20.11.2013 in favour of BJP candidate, Shri Neel Daman Khatri during Legislative Assembly elections of Delhi-2013.

The CEO, Delhi accounted the cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.17,500/-.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Jag Utthan, Delhi on 27.6.2014.

Written Statement

Shri Anil Malik, Editor, Jag Utthan, Delhi vide his written statement dated 4.9.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news stated that he covered the election campaign of Shri Neel Daman Khatri and he published only the facts as addressed by Shri Khatri during a public meeting. While denying the allegations that 50% space was only given to the news relating to Shri Khatri he added that equal space was given to all other news also in his newspaper. The respondent claimed that the impugned news published by him is not paid news. He has requested the Council to dismiss the show-cause notice.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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. When the Inquiry Committee examines the facts of the present case bearing in mind the principles aforesaid as also the tenor and presentation of the news item, it is not inclined to accept the conclusion that this is paid news. It accordingly recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 5 File No. 14/101/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Punjab Kesari” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly Elections of Delhi- 2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded ‘Paid News’ reference routed through Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi against the newspaper “Punjab Kesari” for allegeding publication of following news during Legislative Assembly Elections of Delhi-2013:-

S.No. News Items/Advertisements Date Cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates that was accounted 1 डकराडी की जनता अममत ममलक के साथ 25.11.2013 10, 279 2 डा. नरेश के समथान मᴂ डफर उमडा सैलाि 25.11.2013 8,808 3 साहि मसंह के पदमचन्हⴂ पर चलेगᴂ आजाद मसंह 25.11.2013 4,893 4 मुंडका मᴂ खापⴂ और गांव के प्रधानⴂ का डा. नरेश को 26.11.2013 4,893 खुला समथान 5 भाजपा प्रत्याशी गूगन मसंह के समथान मᴂ उमडा जन 26.11.2013 9,786 सैलाि 6 मनोज को ममला नांगलोई गांव और िाखममकी समाज 26.11.2013 8,318 का... 7 डदमली कℂट मᴂ अशोक कुमार जैन को चौतरफा 28.11.2013 6,476 जनसमथान 8 स絍टा िाजार मᴂ हतसाल सीट पर भाजपा की जीत 28.11.2013 6,116 तय-पवन शमाा का भाव 30 पैसे 9 राजेश गहलोत की त्तवजय के मलए दीनपुर गांव ने कसी 27.11.2013 9,174 कमर 10 1. उिम नगर क्षेत्र मᴂ मुकेश शमाा के समथान मᴂ हजारⴂ 21.11.2013 39,061

युवा व मडहलाएं सडकⴂ पर उतरे 22.11.2013 2. मुकेश शमाा की पत्नी और िेटी चनाव प्रचार मᴂ कूदी

3. - उिम नगर का त्तवकास मेरा संकमप मुकेश 25.11.2013 11 1. सुमेश शौकीन को गांव से लेकर कालोमनयⴂ तक 23.11.2013 33,972

ममला पूर्ा समथान 24.11.2013 2. इस िार मडटयाला त्तवधानसभा मᴂ त्तवकास कायⴂ की

- जीत होगी सुमेश शौकीन 3. त्तवकास डकया है और करते रहेगᴂ-सुमेश शौकीन का वादा 25.11.2013 12 सुमेश शौकीन की जीत के मलए महािल ममश्रा की 28.11.2013 6,116 माममाक अपील 13 सुमेश शौकीन को गांव व कालोनी वालⴂ ने खजताने का 1.12.2013 8,223 संकमप मलया 14 मसूदपूर ने साडहि प्रवेश वमाा को सर आंखⴂ पर िैठाया 25.11.2013 8,223 15 िदरपुर मᴂ राम मसंह नेताजी के चुनाव कायाालय का 22.11.2013 8,223 उदघाटन 16 कालकाजी क्षेत्र से अकाली-भाजपा उम्मीदवार हरमीत 28..11.2013 26, 725 मसंह को ममल रहा प्रत्येक वगा का समथान 17 सुशील गुप्ता को मोती नगर से भारी समथान 21.11.2013 9,786 18 सदर मᴂ जय प्रकाश को समथान 21.11.2013 4,893 19 कमापुरा व मोती नगर मᴂ भाजपा प्रत्याशी को एकतरफा 26.11.2013 10,917 समथान 20 सुभार् सचदेवा को ममल रहा है एकतरफा समथान 28..11.2013 10,917 21 1. आर.के . पुरम मᴂ धीरज टो啍स को चौतरफा समथान 21.11.2013 18,019

2. धीरज टो啍स के समथान मᴂ यूथ भी शाममल 22.11.2013 3. ब्राह्मर् समाज का धीरज टो啍स को खुला समथान 23.11.2013

22 नांगलोई मᴂ त्तवकास को ममलेगी जीत-डा. त्तिजैन्र मसंह 24.11.2013 9,709

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Punjab Kesari, Delhi on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement

The News Editor, Punjab Kesari vide his written statement dated 17.7.2015 submitted that the Returning Officers of some of the constituencies referred to in the Notice under reference had also addressed to them mentioning the news as under the category of ‘suspected paid news’, which was responded to by the paper and they were satisfied with their contentions and no further action was required. According to the respondent, in the process of publishing the impugned news items, no consideration in cash or kind whatsoever is involved and it is unfair, baseless to treat the aforesaid news as the paid news as the same misses the element in any manner of the paid news as defined. The respondent has further submitted that the complainant did not mention anything in this regard except alleging paid news and as such his contention and complaint should not be treated as valid complaint and be rejected summarily.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Parvinder, Sub-Editor appeared for the respondent.

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.

When the Inquiry Committee examines the facts of the present case bearing in mind the principles aforesaid as also the tenor and presentation of the news item, it is not inclined to accept the conclusion that this is paid news. It 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 reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 6 F.No.14/106/14-15-PCI.

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Nayak Bharati” for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted by the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi against the newspaper “Nayak Bharati”, Delhi for publishing news item captioned “मादीपुर का लाडला-कैलाश सांकला िढ चला भारी जीत की ओर” along with photographs in its issues dated November 24-30, 2013 in favour of Shri Kailash Sankla, BJP candidate during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi-2013. It was reported in the news item that BJP candidate, Shri Kailash Sankla getting strong support of each class in Madipur constituency and his victory is definite. It was further reported that in Madipur assembly constituency there is a wave for BJP contestant. Wherever he goes he is being greeted and cheered by people.

The CEO, Delhi accounted the cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.29,575/-.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, NayakBharati, Delhi on 30.6.2014.

Written Statement

Shri Manmohan Krishan, Editor, NayakBharati, Delhi vide his written statement dated 22.7.2014 submitted that neither they charged any amount nor received anything in kind for the press coverage during the election campaign done by different parties. He requested that the instant complaint therefore may be closed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 7 File No. 14/114/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Jagruk Times” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan elections-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by District Electoral Officers/District MCMCs, Pali and Bhilwara (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Jagruk Times” for publishing news items captioned “त्तवश्व मानमचत्र पर सोजत को लाना चाहती है आया” and “मशक्षा का हि िनेगा भीलवाडा-सोनी” in itsrespective issues dated 14.11.2013 and 22.11.2013 in favour of INC candidates Ms. Sangeeta Arya and Shri Rampal Soni during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The ECI has forwarded proceedings/minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding this paper responsible for publishing paid news which have been duly signed by MCMC’s members.

The DEOs/District MCMCs, Pali and Bhilwara accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.5,243/- and 5,898/- respectively.

It was reported in the first impugned news item that the Indian National Congress candidate, Sangeeta Arya told journalists that her purpose is to bring Sojat on World map and that she has her own vision for Sojat regions overall development which will include an education hub having advance courses, development of fort for boosting tourism, providing support to industries in area. She has visited various Gram Panchayats of Sojat and noted many problems of areas. It was also reported that when she was asked that what type of response is getting in area, she said that she is getting affections and support of people of region.

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 22.11.2013 that the Congress contestant, Shri Rampal Soni stated that in coming times Bhilwara will be made educational hub for youth. It was further reported that Shri Soni was welcomed and garlanded at Sanjay Colony and Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar. He told the public that Bhilwara will become educational hub and efforts will be made to fulfil this aim.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Jagruk Times, Jaipur on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Publisher, Jagruk Times vide his written statement dated 5.7.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that the press meet and public meeting was covered by their correspondent and the said news items were published accordingly. While informing that no payment was received by them for publication of said news items, the respondent requested the Council to intimate them if any of their representative has taken payment for publication. The respondent clarified that their newspaper always publish impartial news by following the journalistic norms.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

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. 8 F.No.14/115/14-15-PCI.

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Naya India” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during elections of Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by DEO, Bhilwara against the newspaper “Naya India” for publishing news item captioned “आंसींद-चुनाव प्रचार मᴂ आगे है रामलाल जाट” in its issue dated 25.11.2013 in favour of a Congress candidate, Shri Ramlal Jat during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan- 2013.

The DEO accounted the cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.8,514/-.

It was reported in the impugned news item that in the triangular contest of the state legislative assembly election, the congress contestant and ex. Minister Shri RamlalJat is ahead in the election campaign. The present BJP MLA and the independent contestants are at the second and third place respectively. It was further reported that the congress party candidates gets support of all the section of the society and he has also own image of honesty and hardworking. It was also reported in the impugned news item that BJP candidate’s image is not clear this time. The communal conflicts happened during the previous months. His image become worse and the BJP’s inner conflicts can also be seen everywhere. With the efforts of Ram Lal Jat, Bhim to Gulabpura Mega Highway was sanctioned, a degree college was announced in Asind, Memo Coach Factory was announced in Rupaheli, the Chambal water project was extended in the area.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Naya India, Bhilwara on 24.6.2014.

Written Statement

Shri Ajit Dwivedi, Managing Editor, Naya India vide his written statement dated 4.7.2015 while denying the allegation of paid news alleged that the complaint filed by the ECI against his newspaper is totally motivated, baseless and is an attack on freedom of press. According to the respondent, the impugned news item was mere a factual analysis of the election campaigning of three main candidates. Besides, no claim or prediction was made for victory of any particular candidate in the election in the impugned news item. The respondent stated that no amount was taken by them for publication of impugned news item. He has requested to drop the proceeding.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from complainant’s side while Shri Ajeet Dwivedi, Editor appeared for the respondent.

Held

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 9 File No. 14/116/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Rashtradoot” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly election of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected cases of ‘Paid News’ routed through the District Electoral Officers/District MCMCs against the newspaper “Rashtradoot” for publishing following news items:-

S.No. News Items/Advertisements Date Cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates that was accounted 1 लोधा डफर भाजपा मᴂ शाममल 16.11.2013 셁.956.00 जालौर 2 झालरापाटन मᴂ राजे का एक तरफा मुकािला होने के 26.11.2013 셁.6,187.00 जालौर कयास 3 चौमू मᴂ रामलाल शमाा का पलडा लग रहा है भारी 28..11.2013 셁.7,425.00 जयपुर 4 वोट के मलए मूलभूत सुत्तवधाओं व त्तवकास का कर रहे हℂ 21.11.2013 셁.1,800.00 टⴂक वादा 5 मण्डावा त्तवकास को तरसा 21.11.2013 셁.7,410.00 झूंझुनू 6 भाजपा प्रत्याशी सलीम तंवर ने ग्रामीर् क्षेत्रⴂ मᴂ डकया 20.11.2013 셁.8,955.00 झूंझुनू जंनसंपका 7 सोनी ने भीलवाडा मᴂ खजता का समीकरर् िदला 27.11.2013 7,800.00 भीलवाडा 8 मनम्िाहेडा मᴂ त्तत्रकोखर्य़ मुकािला 25.11.2013 셁.540.00 मचतौडगढ 9 भाजपा प्रत्याशी राजपुरोडहत को देवासी समाज ने डदया 30.11.2013 셁.1,440.00 जालौर समथान 10 गरीि डकसान के घर पर िाजरा रोटी का आनंद मलया 13.11.2013 셁.1,800.00 माधोपुर 11 सवाई माधोपुर मᴂ अपनी जडⴂ की और वापस लोटना 14.11.2013 셁.1,800.00 माधोपुर चाहती हूं-दीया कुमारी

The paper filed by the ECI give details vis-à-vis Members of the MCMC and minutes of the MCMC but minutes refers inter alia only in respect of one news clipping of Rahtradoot whereas several news clippings of Rashtradoot have been referred as paid news.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Rashtradoot, Jaipur on 23.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Managing Editor, Rashtradoot, Jaipur vide his written statement dated 17.7.2014 submitted that the allegations of publishing paid news were absolutely wrong and baseless. The bare perusal of the news items, alleged to be paid news by the District Election Officer, reveals that the same were either news of incident or simple reporting. The respondent further submitted that there was nothing in the news published in his newspaper which could benefit any election candidate in any manner whatsoever. The respondent stated that the officials of the Election Commission have alleged paid news without any factual foundation and rather in a mechanical manner and neither the CEO of the State nor Under Secretary to the ECI have applied their mind before referring the matter to the Council. He has requested to drop the purported action in the matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Held

Press Council of India

Sl. No.10 F.No.14/122/14-15-PCI.

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Metro Bytes” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during elections of Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

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 “Metro Bytes” for publishing news item captioned “सूरपुरा ने 15 हजार समथाकⴂ के साथ मनकाली रैली” in its issue dated 27.11.2013 in favour of an independent candidate, Shri Ashu Singh from Jhotwara constituency during elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013. It was reported in the impugned news item that independent candidate, Shri Ashu Singh Surpura organised a huge rally along with 12-15 thousands of supporters and during public meeting he gave description of the unfulfilled promises made by the Congress and BJP. It was further reported that Muslim, Kumawat, Brahmin, Meena and other community leaders declared their support to Surpura in public meeting.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Metro Bytes, Jaipur on 16.6.2014.

Written Statement

Shri Kunal Didwania, Metro Bytes, Jaipur vide his written statement dated 28.6.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that neither their institution nor their correspondent had taken any cash/gift for publication of the said impugned news item. The respondent further submitted that the impugned news item was informative instead of paid news. He has requested the Council not to include the published impugned news in the paid news category.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 11 File No. 14/126/14-15-PCI Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Navjyoti” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ routed through the District Electoral Officers/District MCMCs, Jhalawar/Swai Madhopur/Jhunjhunu/Pali (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Dainik Navjyoti” for publishing news items captioned (1) “जैन के साथ सहानूभूमत की लहर” (Jhalawar); (2) “दीया ने डकया त्तवमभन्न क्षेत्रⴂ मᴂ जनसंपका ” (Swai Madhopur); (3) “दीया कुमारी ने अपने समथान मᴂ ग्रामीर् क्षेत्रⴂ का डकया जनसंपका ” (Swai Madhopur); (4) “चंदेमलया का जनसंपका जारी” (Jhunjhunu); and (5) “हर हाथ को ममलेगा रोजगार-आया” (Pali) in its issues dated 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013, 14.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and 14.11.2013 respectively during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The ECI has forwarded proceedings/minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding these papers responsible for publishing paid news duly signed by Members of MCMC of Pali and Swai Madhopur districts. The minutes of MCMC for Jhalawar and Jhunjhunu district has not been received.

The ECI was requested vide Council’s letter dated 29.5.2015 followed by a reminder dated 6.7.2015 to provide requisite details in this regard nut no response has so far been received.

The DEOs/District MCMCs accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,615/-, Rs.1,260/-, Rs.1,680/-, Rs.2,423/- and 4,345/- respectively.

It was reported in the first news item that the RJP candidate Anil Jain held a meeting with Bakani area workers where senior leader of RJP claimed that due to denial of BJP ticket to Anil Jain there is a sympathy wave for him.

The second and third news items reported that the BJP candidate Ms. DivyaKumarivisited the rural areas of her constituency. Villagers heartedly welcomed her and she had meal at one of the houses in village and took blessings of old people.

It was reported in the fourth news item that the independent candidate J.P. Chandelia’s campaign is going on full swing to woo the voters. A huge crowd arrived during his public meeting.

The last news item reported that the Congress candidate Sangeeta Arya said that employment for each hand, new efforts for wellbeing of farmers, boosting women employment with is her agenda that her dream is to rake up Sojat region as a tourist place. If she wins she would consistent by focus on the important issues with priority.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Navjyoti on 19.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Chief Editor, Dainik Navjyoti in his written statement dated 11.7.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news stated that equal importance was given to all candidates and their respective elections campaigns. The respondent further stated that all the issues of the newspaper should have been analysed by the MCMC during the elections. He also stated that publication of an interview of the candidate is not paid news. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Shival, Bureau of Chief appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of a letter dated 26.3.2014 of 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 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. When the Inquiry Committee examines the facts of the present case bearing in mind the principles aforesaid as also the tenor and presentation of the news item, it is not inclined to accept the conclusion that this is paid news. It accordingly recommends to the Council for dismissal of the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 12 File No. 14/131/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Angad” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by the District Electoral Officer, Jhalawad (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Dainik Angad” for publishing news items captioned “अमनल जैन भारी पड रहे हℂ संजय और नागर पर” and “अन्ततः मीनाक्षी कमजोर वसुन्धरा की ” जीततय in its respective issues dated 23.11.2013 and 27.11.2013 in favour of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, RJP candidate and Ms. Vasundhara Raje, BJP candidate during Assembly Elections of Rajasthan-2013. It was reported in the first news item that both Nagar and Sanjay are upset over the increasing public support to Anil Jain in Khanpur assembly constituency. People are of the opinion that Anil Jain always shared their sorrows and he has always been among them. So they are lending their support to him.

In the second news item, it was reported that having no heavy weight candidate for Jhalarapatan assembly constituency, Congress handed its ticket to Minakshi Chandrawat at the last moment. Though Minakshi is getting support in rural areas, the political sources predicts that the margin of her defeat will be over 50 thousand. BSP candidate is only obstacle in huge victory of Vasundhara.

The DEO/MCMC, Jhalawad accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.3,888/- and 3,516/- respectively.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Angad on 26.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Chief Editor, Dainik Angad in his written statement dated 10.7.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that the said news items were based on the information provided by their correspondents and the impugned news items were factual and analytical in nature and therefore cannot be construed as paid news as no payment was received by them for publication. He stated that they had tried to produce impartial report before the public. He alleged that the complaint was totally malicious and prejudiced.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

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.

Held

Press Council of India Sl. No. 13 File No. 14/134/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Pratahkal” for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

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 “Dainik Pratahkal” for publishing news items captioned “आजादी के िाद भी मण्डावा त्तवकास को तरसा-इंजी ढूडकया” and “मण्डावा मᴂ कांग्रेस व भाजपा िामगयⴂ से परेशान-मुखलम वगा मᴂ भाजपा के प्रमत रोर्-िसपा की घर-घर दतक” in its issues dated 21.11.2013 and 23.11.2013 respectively in favour of Shri Pyarelal Dhukiya, BSP candidate during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013. It was reported in the first news that the BSP candidate contesting from Mandawara seat En. P.L. Dhukiya in a public meeting said that Mandawa is still pining for development. Shri Dhukya further said that Congress was enjoying the power for decades and still there is no sign of basic facilities and this time BSP will open its account by winning the seat because people mindset is continuously turning towards the BSP. In the second news item it was reported that Shri Dhukiya is the only candidate who is having neat and clean image and people are moving towards BSP.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Pratahkal, Jaipur on 23.6.2014.

Written Statement

Shri M.L. Jain, General Manager, Dainik Pratahkal in his written statement dated 14.7.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that the said news items were provided by their correspondent and the same was published in their Jaipur edition. He further submitted that both the news items were not paid news and no payment was received by their correspondent for publication. The news items have been taken in the category of paid news merely on the basis of a complaint is totally wrong and baseless.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from the complainant’s side while Shri M.L. Jain, GM, Dainik Pratah Kal appeared for the respondent.

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.

Sl. No. 14 File No. 14/135/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Amber” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly election of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

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 “Dainik Amber”, Jhunjhunu for allegedly publishing news item captioned “पीपीसी अध्यक्ष ने डकया गांवⴂ मᴂ जनसम्पका ” in its issue dated 22.11.2013 during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013 in favour of congress candidate, Dr.Chandrabhan. The cost of the impugned news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates was accounted at Rs.3,366/-.

It was reported in the impugned news item that PCC President and Congress Candidate from Mandawa seat, Dr.Chandrabhan led a campaign in various villages. He said that Congress has implemented several schemes which directly benefit the common man and this time again Congress would form the government.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Amber on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Editor, Dainik Amber, Jhunjhunu vide his written statement dated 21.7.2015 while denying the allegations of paid news submitted that the content of the impugned news item was not published with a view to mislead the voters in favour of a particular candidate. He further submitted that inclusion of impugned news item in the category of suspected paid news is not correct. The respondent also stated that they tried to give equal coverage to every candidate during elections. According to the respondent, the guidelines on elections framed by the PCI and ECI were followed by them during elections and the same will also be followed in future. He has requested the Council to drop the case.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Press Council of India Sl. No.15 File No. 14/137/14-15-PCI Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Nagaur Ki Awaz” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan elections-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded a suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by District MCMC/Information & Public Relations Office, Nagaur (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Nagaur Ki Awaz” for publishing news items captioned “खीमसर मᴂ भाजपा को आ रहा पसीना” and “ममधाा के जनसंपका मᴂ उमडा जनसैलाि” in its respective issues dated 15.11.2013 and 26.11.2013 in favour of independent candidates, Shri Hanuman Beniwal and Shri Harendra Mirdha during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The MCMC accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.3,240/- and 2,700/- respectively.

Copies of the impugned clippings have not been sent, however, English translations of the same have been sent by the ECI.

It was reported in the first impugned news item that “voters are saying that the fight is between four candidates but the supporters presented during nomination of present MLA have raised the problems of Bhagirath Mehriya. Voters talk about the previous victory of Hanuman Beniwal on BJP’s ticket. Beniwal spent continuous five years in service of his voters. It was further reported that voters of BJP have turned into Beniwal’s personal supporters. The young voters, the newly added voters’ list are mostly supporters of Beniwal.”

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 26.11.2013 that “Harendra Mirdha, independent candidate from Nagaur AC organised an intensive public meeting campaigning in main market. There was a huge crowd of Mirdha supporters. Mirdha was excited with the support of business fraternity. Mirdha also promised support to businessmen. Businessmen confirmed Mirdha for support. It was further reported that the gathering was biggest ever of Mirdha’s election campaign till day and businessmen raised slogans in favour of Mirdha.”

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Nagaur Ki Awaz on 24.6.2014.

Written Statement

Shri Ram Ratan Bishnoi, Editor, Nagaur Ki Awaz vide his written statement dated 5.7.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news stated that they did not publish any paid news. The respondent further stated that they published balanced news items along with candidate’s photographs and they had no motive to favour any particular candidate. The complainant also stated that the complaint is based on motivated facts. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Held

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 16 File No. 14/139/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Jalte Deep” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by District Electoral Officer/District MCMC, Pali (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Dainik Jalte Deep” for publishing news item captioned “महंगाई और भ्रष्टाचार से त्रत जनता की उम्मीदᴂ भाजपा पर-पारख” in its issue dated 22.11.2013 in favour of Shri Gyanchand Parekh, BJP candidate during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

It is pertinent to mention here that the ECI has forwarded proceedings/minutes of Meetings 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 news item that voters feel that BJP is only a single party which can lead the state to progress. People are looking forward to bring government of Vasudhra Raje in the State and Narendra Modi in Centre. Parekh challenged that due to failure of congress schemes common man feels that BJP is the only party and option which can provide basic facilities like electricity, drinking water and education to the people.

The DEO/District MCMC, Pali accounted the cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,935/-.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Jalte Deep on 24.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Chief Editor, Dainik Jalte Deep in his written statement dated 31.10.2014 submitted that impugned news item in no way comes in the category of Paid News. Such type of news are published in amongst all the papers. The content of the news item can be got examined from any senior journalists. He requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

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.

Held

Sl. No. 17 File No. 14/140/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Dainik Hindustan Border” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during elections of Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by District Electoral Officers/District MCMCs, Pali (Rajasthan) against the newspaper “Dainik Hindustan Border” for publishing news item captioned “जनता महंगाई भ्रष्टाचार से परेशान हो चुकी है-पारख” in its issue dated 22.11.2013 in favour of BJP Candidate, Shri Gyanchand Parakhduring Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The ECI has forwarded proceedings/minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding this paper responsible for publishing paid news which have been duly signed by MCMC’s members.

The DEOs/District MCMCs, Pali accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.388.80.

It was reported in the impugned news item that BJP candidate, Shri Gyanchand Parakh said that due to prevailing inflation and corruption now people’s hope is on BJP. Voters feel that BJP is the only party which can undertake development in the State. It was further reported that after tour of 80 villages with 30 small villages Shri Parakh interacted with people and was of the view that people want to change government in Jaipur and Delhi. People are looking forward to bring government headed by Ms. Vasudhra Raje in State and Shri Narendra Modi in Centre. Shri Parakh said that due to failure of congress schemes, common man feels that BJP is the only party and option which can give fundamental facilities as well as provide electricity, drinking water and education.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Dainik Hindustan Border, Pali on 26.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Correspondent, Dainik Hindustan Border, Pali in his written statement while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that the concerned candidate Shri Gyanchand Parakh already clarified to the Committee that neither any press release nor any advertisement issued by him to the newspaper and also no payment or amount was given to the newspaper. Thus the allegation of payment was false and unjust. The respondent further submitted that no payment was received by any representative or correspondent of the newspaper for publication of such news item. The respondent also submitted that the newspaper had no motive to favour any particular candidate during elections. According to the respondent, they published factual news of the press meet without any discrimination. The respondent added that they published the said news in right manner as per journalistic ethics. The respondent requested the Council to drop further proceedings in the matter stating that in case if anybody hurts by publication of news item in their newspaper they regret for the same.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Held

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 18 F.No.14/150/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Marudhar Bhumi” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during elections of Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by DEO/MCMC, Tonk against the newspaper “Marudhar Bhumi” for publishing news items captioned “मनदालीय सउद सईदी के कायाालय का उद्घाटन डकया” and “अभ्यमथायⴂ का तीव्र मनवााचन अमभयान, अभ्यमथाओं को फूल मालाओं से सम्मामनत डकया गया” in its issues dated 21.11.2013 and 20.11.2013 respectively in favour of an independent candidate, Shri Saud Saidi during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The ECI had forwarded the proceedings/minutes of Meetings of MCMC inter alia pointing out that paid news were published by the Marudhar Bhumi. Minutes have been signed by DEO/MCMC’s members.

The DEO/District MCMC, Tonk accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,296/- and 795/- respectively.

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 21.11.2013 that independent candidate from Tonk constituency, Shri Saud Saidi has inaugurated his election office. On this occasion prominent social worker and businessman, Najam Sethi said that public of Tonk has made Saud Saidi to contest this election treating him a comrade. He appealed for maximum voting in favour of Saidi. It was further reported that Shri Saud Saidi was warmly garlanded by public.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Marudhar Bhumi, Tonk on 24.6.2014.

Written Statement

Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma, Editor, Marudhar Bhumi vide his written statement dated 3.7.2014 submitted that the impugned news item was sent by their Tonk correspondent, Shri Arshad Shaheen and it was published in routine course. The respondent further submitted that no advertisement or amount was received from the candidate, Shri Saud Saidi for publication of news. The respondent also submitted that the impugned news item reported Shri Saidi as a Congress candidate by mistake and after noticing the mistake they published clarification in this regard on its newspaper’s next issue. While regretting for the inadvertent mistake he assured that the newspaper will never repeat such mistake in future.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

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. 14/151/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Swaran Khabar” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during elections of Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to the ECI by DEO/MCMC, Tonk against the newspaper “Swaran Khabar” for publishing news item captioned “चुनाव कायाालय का उद्घाटन” in its issue dated November 16-30, 2013 in favour of an independent candidate, Shri Shiv Pratap Harsana during Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The ECI has forwarded proceedings/minutes of Meetings recording for publishing paid news which have been duly signed by DEO/MCMC’s members.

The DEOs/District MCMCs, Tonk accounted the cost of said news items as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.330.00.

It was reported in the impugned news item that the election office of independent young candidate from Tonk constituency, Shiv Pratap Harsana is inaugurated here at Housing Board locality. The function was chaired by spokesperson for the Gurjar Reservation struggle committee Shri Atar Singh, Advocate. Addressing the audience Shiv Pratap assured in one meeting that if a chance is given to him, he will make all efforts for development. It was further reported that after the meeting he worshipped at Annpurna Ganesh ji temple and visited many villages requesting people to vote in his favour.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Swaran Khabar, Tonk on 13.6.2014. On receiving back undelivered from the postal authorities, the Notice was served to the respondent through District Collector, Tonk vide Council’s letter dated 14.7.2014.

Written Statement

Shri Rajaram Gautam, Editor, Swaran Khabar vide his written statement while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that they have not published any paid news in his newspaper. The respondent further submitted that they have not taken any amount for publication of news in favour of any particular candidate and if it felt that any news item was paid news they tendered apology for the same. The respondent assured that no chance of any complaint will be given in future.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Held

Press Council of India Sl. No. 20 File No. 14/152/14-15-PCI Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Hindustan” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during Delhi Legislative Assembly elections - 2013 in the garb of news Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

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 “Hindustan” for publishing news item captioned “राजेश गहलोट को त्तवजयी िनाने के मलए दीनपुर गांव ने कसी कमर” in its issue dated 27.11.2013 in favour ofBJP candidate, Shri Rajesh Gehlot during Delhi Legislative Assembly elections-2013. The CEO, Delhi accounted the cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.11,408/-.

It was reported in the news that Shri Rajesh Gehlot participated in Padyatra as part of his campaign and Shri Dhare Singh said in Panchayat that only Shri Gehlot can provide basic facilities to the villagers. BJP Councillor Satyendra Rana said that nobody can stop his victory. Due to versatile personality of Shri Gehlot, Deenpur villagers have undertaken the responsibility to make him win from Matiala constituency.

Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Hindustan, New Delhi on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement

The respondent-Hindustan vide its written statement dated 20.9.2014 while denying the allegations of paid news submitted that the complaint is baseless and frivolous and liable to be dismissed as there is no sufficient ground for holding an inquiry on the complaint. According to the respondent, they take the issue of paid news very seriously and their editors and journalists always lay emphasis on the fact that a news item has to be neutral and devoid of any favouritism. They send a note to all its resident editors from time to time emphasizing the need for the honest and neutral coverage of the elections and also published a resolution i.e. “we will not publish paid news” and another resolution that “we will write ‘advertisement’ below promotional election material”. The respondent informed that the impugned advertisement was published in a distinct manner so that reader can understand the difference between other news and paid news (Advt.). The impugned paid news which respondent stated to be an advertisement was published with another font and specifically indicating the word “त्तवज्ञापन” at the bottom of the impugned advertisement. He added that they published the said advertisement in right manner as per journalistic ethics. However, they have not been served with any notice with regard to the said allegations as alleged by ECI. The respondent pointed out that the ECI has failed to notice that the following content published in Dainik Hindustan, had a clear disclosure that this is “त्तवज्ञापन”. They have only published the advertisement, which is their main source of revenue and part of any newspaper business model globally. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also time and again held that the publication of advertisement is a fundamental right of press, respondent added.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 21 File No. 14/138/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Election Commission of India against “Sandhya Jyoti Darpan” for allegedly publishing ‘Paid News’ during elections of Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan-2013 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India vide his letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’ submitted to ECI by the MCMC, Nagaur against the newspaper “Sandhya Jyoti Darpan” for publishing news item captioned “ममधाा ने िाजरⴂ मᴂ डकया जनसंपका , 핍यापाररयⴂ ने डकया वागत” in its issue dated 27.11.2013 in favour of an independent candidate, Shri HarendraMirdhaduring Legislative Assembly elections of Rajasthan-2013.

The MCMC, Nagaur accounted the cost of said news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates amounting to Rs.1,296/-.

It was reported in the impugned news item that Shri HarendraMirdha, independent candidate from Nagaur Assembly Constituency met public in main market and there was a huge crowd of Mirdha supporters during the four hours public meeting programme. All business fraternity welcomed Mirdha. Mirdha was excited with the support of business fraternity. Mirdha also promised support to businessmen. Businessmen assured Mirdha for support. It was further reported in the impugned news item that the gathering was biggest ever of Mirdha election campaign till day and the supporters and businessmen raised slogans in favour of Mirdha.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Sandhya Jyoti Darpan, Bhilwara on 25.6.2014.

Written Statement

The Publisher, Sandhya Jyoti Darpan vide his written statement dated 18.7.2014 while denying the allegation of paid news submitted that the press meet and public meeting was covered by their correspondent and the said news item was published accordingly. While informing that no payment was received by them for publication of said news items, the respondent requested the Council to intimate them if any of their representative has taken payment for publication. The respondent clarified that their newspaper always publishes impartial news by following the journalistic norms.

The respondent vide his letter dated 6.1.2016 has stated that if the correspondent had taken any money for publishing the impugned news item then they will definitely take action against him but according to him no money has been taken by the correspondent for the impugned news item. He further apologized for any inadvertent breach of code of conduct of the Election Commission and assures to be more careful in future. Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 6.1.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

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.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 22-23 File No. 14/970-971/13-14- PCI

Reference received from the Collector, District Election Officer and President, District Level MCMC, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh regarding publication of an alleged ‘Paid News’ in Swadesh and Prakhar newspapers

Adjudication dated 10.6.2016

The Collector and President, District Level MCMC, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh vide his letter dated 15.11.2013 addressed to Shri Gurumukh Singh Hora, Candidate, Indian National Congress, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh and a copy endorsed to the Press Council of India forwarded an alleged paid news cases reported by the newspaper ‘Swadesh’, daily in its issue dated 10.11.2013 under the caption “बुनियादी सुविधाओ का विकास पहली प्राथनिकता” (in three columns) and by another newspaper viz. ‘Prakhar’, daily in its issue dated 10.11.2013 under the caption “भाजपा िे रोका सुविधाओ को - होरा”(in three columns). It has been stated that the Media Certification and Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 14.11.2013 decided to take both the aforesaid news items in the category of paid news as the news items were published during the period of Assembly Election - 2013. It has been further stated that the matter comes under the provisions of Section 77 and 123(6) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The impugned news item published in Swadesh daily glorifies the image of a particular candidate. The District Level MCMC has booked Rs. 21,902.35 as per DAVP rates (Rs. 7,562.11 for Swadesh newspaper and Rs. 14,340.23 for Prakhar newspaper) as election expenses of Shri Gurumukh Singh Hora, Candidate, Indian National Congress, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

A Show Cause Notices were issued to both the respondent editors on 21.4.2014 followed by the Time Bound Reminders dated 9.6.2014 via post and e-mail.

Written Statement from Prakhar In response to the Council’s Notice for Hearing dated 19.2.2016, the respondent editor, Prakhar vide his letter dated 9.3.2016 stated that the President, District Level MCMC did not provide the requisite information with respect to paid news and no workshop or meeting of editors in this regard was organised by District Level MCMC to sensitize them about paid news and in the absence of such information, the impugned news was published. He alleged that the District Election Officer or the President of District Level MCMC has not nominated any person from the editorial level in the Committee to examine the paid news cases. He further stated that no payment has been received by them for publication of impugned news item from the concerned candidate. He apologized for publication of such news item and assured that it would not be repeated in future.

No written statement was filed by Swadesh.

Response from District Election Officer, Dhamatri, Chhattisgarh

A letter dated 23.6.2015 was issued to the Collector, District Election Officer and President, District Level MCMC, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh requested to provide the details of 1) Constitution of MCMC’s of the region, ii) Names of the members who participated in MCMCs, iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news and iv) English translation of the publications, if any, but response was received. Thereafter, a letter dated 6.7.2015 was also addressed to the Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi requesting him to issue directions to the State Election Commission to provide the requisite details to the Council to proceed further in the matter.

In response to the Council’s letter dated 6.7.2015, the Additional Collector and Deputy District Election Officer vide his letter dated 21.7.2015 submitted the requisite documents as desired by the Council.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. While there was an adjournment request from the Collector, Dhamtari. On behalf of the respondent, Shri Yogesh Bhatt appeared.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of a letter dated 15.11.2013 of The Collector and President, District Level MCMC, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 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.

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.

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 File No. 14/996/13-14- PCI

Reference received from the Collector and President, District Level MCMC, Office of the Collector/District Election Officer, Sivani, M.P. regarding publication of allegedly ‘Paid News’ in Samvad Kunj newspaper

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

The Collector and President, District Level MCMC, Office of the Collector/District Election Officer, Sivani, M.P. vide his letter dated 8.11.2013 had forwarded an alleged paid news reported by the newspaper ‘Samwad Kunj’ in its issued dated 19.10.2013 under the caption “भाजपा के पास विक쥍प िही, का車ग्रेस के पास प्र配याशी िही”with sub-caption “नीता, नरेश, ढ़ालमसंह डकसी को नही ममलेगी डटडकट: मेनन”. It has been alleged by the District Level MCMC that the publication of the impugned news item affects the image of the BJP leaders and creates misconception and hence it comes within the category of paid news. The District Level MCMC, on the complaint of Shri Santosh Nagpure, District BJP President, issued a Notice on 25.10.2013 to the editor of Samwad Kunj daily and sought clarification in the matter. In response, 12 points clarification was submitted by one Shri Himanshu Kaushal vide letter dated 28.10.2013 which was not considered by the MCMC as Mr. Kaushal is neither the editor nor the publisher of the newspaper and nor did any authorization letter was filed along with the reply. The District Level MCMC, while treating the reply as inadmissible, forwarded the matter to the PCI for necessary action.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Samwad Kunj on 14.3.2014 for written statement.

Written Statement

Smt. Manjula Kaushal, Chief Editor, Samwad Kunj in her written statement dated 4.4.2014 denied the allegations levelled in the complaint and stated that the impugned news item does not fall in the category of paid news as no money or any consideration had been taken in respect of publication of news item. She further stated that she came to know about the guidelines framed by the Election Commission of India in respect of paid news on 21.10.2013 through District Election Officer during an event while the impugned paid news item was published on 19.10.2013 which means she was not answerable or responsible with respect to the publication of impugned news item. She further stated that the ECI has just given the guidelines and not the law. She also stated that she could not be held responsible until her office has received the information regarding guidelines framed by the ECI. She has submitted that no person among the 32 names mentioned in the impugned news item were declared as the candidate by any political party at the time of publication of the news item and thus it could not be said to be influential. She alleged that the MCMC has not read the whole news item and on the basis of a complaint only, the MCMC termed the news item as paid news which is wrong and clearly indicates bad intention. She further alleged that the District Collector in connivance with the ruling party has done a conspiracy against the Samwad Kunj newspaper as the newspaper has published several critical news items against them. She also alleged that the District Collector has intentionally written the statement “Himanshu kaushal namak vayakti dwara” in order to show that HImanshu Kaushal is a fake person and he has no relation with the newspaper while the District Collector and all the members of District Level MCMC know this well that Himanshu Kaushal is the Additional Editor of Samwad Kunj newspaper and the name of Himanshu Kaushal has been always written in the press note issued by the District Information Officer to the newspaper. She informed that that the name of Himanshu Kaushal was mentioned in the bye-line of the impugned paid news item and everybody knows the importance of bye-line. She has requested to dismiss the complaint against Samwad Kunj newspaper and further issue notice to the District Collector seeking his response on the allegation made by her in the written statement.

Counter Comments

The Collector and President, District Level MCMC and District Election Officer, Sivni in his counter comments dated 4.6.2014 has stated that the contention of the complainant that he had no knowledge about the guidelines related to the paid news framed by the ECI is baseless as the ECI issued press note in this regard and also spread the information through the social networking sites. He further stated that the District Level MCMC had widely tested the impugned paid news article and on the basis of minute facts and documentary evidences only, the MCMC termed the impugned news item as paid news. He has submitted that the political parties mentioned in the impugned news item has already started preparation of Legislative Elections 2013 and in that situation any publication with regard to prospective candidates is influential and would fall in the category of paid news. He has requested to initiate necessary action against the respondent as the written statement furnished by the respondent is baseless.

Reply of the Respondent

The Assistant Editor, Sambad Kunj vide his letter dated 12.3.2016 filed at the time of hearing has submitted a para wise reply on the counter comments of the complainant dated 4.6.2014 and while reiterating the contents of the written statement stated that the news item published in his newspaper does not tantamount to be in the category of paid news. He has requested to dismiss the case against Sambad Kunj.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from complainant’s side while Shri Himanshu Kaushal, Assistant Editor appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of a letter dated 8.11.2013 of The Collector and President, District Level MCMC, Office of the Collector/District Election Officer, Sivani, M.P. of India giving a copy of the newspaper which was 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.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No.25 File No. 14/87/14-15-PCI

Shri Abdul Hameed, The Editor, Superintendent of Police, Vs. Hindustan (Hindi daily), Barabanki, U. P. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 26.4.2014 was filed by Shri Abdul Hameed, Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, U.P. against the editor, Hindustan, Hindi daily, Lucknow, U.P. for publication of misleading and baseless news item under the caption “aise mahool mein surakshit nahi lag rahi chunaav ki suchita” in its issue dated 26.4.2014. It has been reported in the impugned news item in some disputed matter the police of Kothi Police Station brutally beaten a person inside police station who subsequently died and the SP instead of taking action against the police officials protected them by filing a case against the persons who helped the family members of the victim. It has also been reported that in an another incident too, in which some anti-social elements burnt and killed a young girl in her home, the SP in a press conference termed it as a suicide instead of a murder within two days from the date of incident due to which the role of police was widely condemned. In an another incident some anti-social elements sabotaged the house of an advocate and the police did not take any action. The complainant while denying the allegations in the impugned news item has stated that the news items are completely false and far away from the truth. He has stated that in respect of the first incident published in the impugned news item a case no. 73/2014 has been filed u/s 304/504 IPC and also the accused police official has been transferred to the civil line police station. Thereafter, the team of two doctors conducted postmortem of the body and found no marks of injury at the deceased body. The cause of death was heart attack. He further stated that whatever action was required at the relevant time had been taken and no unjust action has been taken against anybody. He alleged that the respondent newspaper by publishing such misleading news item presented working of police system in a wrong manner before the general public. With respect to the second incident published in the impugned news item, the complainant has stated that a case no. 224/2014 u/s 302/354/354A/452 IPC was registered and Shri Shubham Shukla is the main accused and it was accepted by him that he has molested the victim and when she opposed it he threatened her which led to her suicide. The respondent has thus published a baseless news item. With regard to the last incident published in the impugned news item, the complainant has stated that the same is also far away from the truth. A case no. 263/14 u/s 147/148/149/323/324/324/452/504/506/427 IPC has been registered by the brother of the advocate in which one arrest also took place. The complainant further stated that before the publication of the impugned news item, a press conference was called on 5.4.2014 in the police line area and a press note in this regard was issued to all the mediapersons including the correspondent of the Hindustan. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 14.8.2014 but no written statement was filed despite reminder dated 24.4.2015. Hearing dated 8.10.2015 The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee in its meeting held on 8.10.2015 in which the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution as no representation was made by the complainant despite service of notice.

After the hearing of the matter by the Inquiry Committee, a letter dated 4.10.2015 was received in the Secretariat of the Council on 8.10.2015 from the complainant seeking adjournment in the matter as he was busy in Panchayat Election at Janpad, Barabanki.

Hon’ble Chairman, while considering the aforesaid letter, directed to place the request of the complainant before the Council meeting held on 11.12.2015 at Guwahati.

The Council in its meeting dated 11.12.2015 held at Guwahati considered the request of the complainant and resolved to refer back the instant matter before the Inquiry Committee for re-consideration.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Prem Chandra Mishra, SI appeared for the complainant while Shri Arun Pathak, Counsel appeared for the respondent.

The complainant is not present but is represented by the Sub-Inspector posted in the office of Superintendent of Police. The respondent is represented by his counsel. The inquiry Committee has heard both of them and perused the record. The complainant shall furnish his version to the respondent newspaper within two weeks from the date of hearing. The complainant doing so, the respondent shall publish the same in his newspaper within one week thereafter. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 26-27 File No.14/149-150/15-16-PCI Shri Sharan Srinivas, Programme and The Editor, Research Manager, Right Livelihood Award Punjab Kesari, Foundation, Civil Lines, PuccaBagh, Stockholm, Sweden. Jalandhar, Punjab.

The Editor, Dainik Jagran, Jagran Prakashan Ltd., Jagran Building, 2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 30.6.2015 was filed by Shri Sharan Srinivas, Programme and Research Manager, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden on behalf of Shri Vepa Shyam Rao, popularly known as Swami Agnivesh, 2004, Laureate of the Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden against Punjab Kesari and Dainik Jagran for publication of objectionable news item in its issues dated 24.4.2015 under the caption “Hindu Mahasabha members in Haryana have offered a reward of 500,000 Indian Rupees to anyone who beheads Swami Agnivesh”.

It has been reported in the impugned news items that the Hindu Mahasabha has offered a reward of Rs.500,000 for beheading Swami Agnivesh as he had demanded release of terrorist Masrat Ali, who hosted the flag of Pakistan in Kashmir. It has been further reported in the impugned news item that Agnivesh in garb of bhagwachola is an agent of Pakistan. He has nexus with terrorists and who ever hit him five times with the shoe will get reward of Rs.100,000. In this news item Swami Agnivesh has been declared as anti-national person.

The complainant while expressing the deep concern on the issue submitted that the news item is provocative in nature. He added that by choosing to advertise the bounty announced by one set of citizen for the head of another, the editor have offended public taste breached journalistic ethics and conducted professional misconduct. The respondent editors neither provided context in their reporting nor did they consider the right. The impugned news have in further endangering the life of a citizen threatened with the beheading. The complainant vide his letter dated 2.6.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editors towards the impugned news item and requested them to publish full page apology, but received no response.

According to the complainant, by publishing the impugned reports as virtual announcements, the respondents have intentionally aided the Hindu Mahasabha to advertise their call to violence. The respondents, in publishing what is prima facie an abetment to murder, in a way that advertises the announcement of a bounty for anyone that beheads Swami Agnivesh, have, at the very least, committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics. The complainant requested the Council to censure the newspapers and also directed them to tender an apology to Swami Agnivesh and print the same.

A show cause notice was issued to the respondents Punjab Kesari and Dainik Jagran on 19.8.2015 followed by a Time Bound Reminder on 17.9.2015.

Written Statement of Punjab Kesari In response to the Council’s show cause notice and Time Bound Reminder dated 17.9.2015 Editor, Punjab Kesari has filed its written statement dated 28.9.2015 wherein it has been stated that the news item in question is being looked with a jaundiced eye and the same was never published with an angle viewed by the complainant. Swami Agnivesh who is respected by the people of India who have faith and allegiance in the principles of Arya Samaj promoted by Swami Dayanand Saraswati but having politicalised himself has become a target of controversy and criticism. The statement against Swami Agnivesh published by the newspaper is without any criminal motive which is being wrongly attributed by the complainant. The respondent further stated that the news item has been published in the ordinary course of publication of the newspaper without any criminal intent.

Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 28.10.2015 the complainant denied the objection made by the respondent that the complaint is motivated, malafide and disturbing peace and harmony. The allegations levelled are scurrilous and unsubstantiated in the body of the respondent’s statement. He has submitted that the respondent cannot simply claim that the news item in question in this complaint has been published in the ordinary course of publication of the newspaper without any criminal intent. The complainant further reiterated that the respondent’s newspaper has by publication of the news item intentionally aided the Hindu Mahasabha to advertise their call to violence. The respondent newspaper, in publishing what is prima facie an abetment to murder, in a way that advertises the announcement of a bounty for anyone that beheads Swami Agnivesh, have at the very least, committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Vaibhav Kumar, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Madan Mohan Thapar and Smt. Alka Srivastava appeared for the respondents.

The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee may not approve what has been stated by the newspapers attributing to the President of an Organisation. But at the same time cannot lose sight of the fact that such a statement was made during the Press Conference. It is not the allegation of the complainant that news item is false and concocted but according to him, it ought not to be published. When the news item relates to a known person given by the office bearer of an association, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that by publishing the same, the newspapers have not breached any journalistic ethics so as to call for any action. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 28 F.No.14/99/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman, The editor, Director for Health Services, Early Times Kashmir, Jammu Jammu

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This undated complaint was received by the Council on 12.5.2015 filed by Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman, Director for Health Services, Kashmir against the editor, Early Times for publication of false, concocted, malicious and defamatory news item under the caption ‘Director Health involved in Drug Kit Scam: DAK FIR does not name me: Director’ in its issue dated 10.3.2015.

It has been alleged in the news item that the feud between the Doctors Association of Kashmir (DAK) and the Director Health Services took a new turn accusing the Director of involvement in the Drug Kit Scam. The DAK President said that Dr. Saleem should be sacked for his involvement in Drug Kits scandal and he has no justification to continue on his position. State Vigilance Organization has registered a criminal case against Dr. Saleem under the prevention of Corruption Act and the verification conducted by Vigilance Organization has prima-facie established that the purchase of Drug Kits by Dr. Saleem in the year 2011 was in violation of the conditions of the supply order and guidelines of the government. Further, majority of the Drug Kits were purchased from a private firm whereas in supply order it was mandatory that all drugs should be supplied by Central Pharmaceutical subsidiary enterprises (CPSEs) and added that several drugs purchased were not mentioned in the approved list of 103 medicines and as such was against the purchase preference policy (PPP) of the Government of India. DAK alleged that Dr. Saleem in order to felicitate the commission of a crime constituted a Purchase Committee of his own ignoring the Central Purchase Committee, Sub-committee already constituted by the government for the purpose and despite involvement of Dr. Saleem in a grave crime he was shielded by his political masters in previous government. While demanding his arrest on immediate basis, DAK said that new Government must sack Dr Saleem and he should be prosecuted for his involvement in criminal activity.

The complainant denying the allegations stated that FIR mentioned in DAK statement does not contain his name “Check the FIR first, it clearly says the then Director without my name and also there are many other officials and this case is simply frivolous” DAK is not a Registered body but a self-styled body of Doctors. Pertinently after this conversation with the Director when contacted DAK Spokesman, he said that name mentioned in FIR is none other than Dr. Saleem-ur-Rehman who is presently Director Health Services Kashmir and he is only trying to mislead journalist on this issue.

The complainant has submitted that the impugned news item has been published without any due inquiry and verification despite being told by the complainant that the case is frivolous and only with an ulterior motive and with an evil design so as to tarnish the image and the dignity of the complainant in the society. The complainant vide his letter dated 7.4.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editor while mentioning the above stated facts and requested to publish an unconditional apology with same prominence in his newspaper, but received no response. The complainant requested the respondent may be penalized for publishing the false and concocted news item and may be restrained in future for making such publications.

Written Statement

A Show-Cause Notice dt. 22.6.2015 issued to the respondent editor, Early Times, Jammu. In response, the respondent vide his letter dt. 6.7.2015 submitted that Drug Kit Scam was a serious issue of the state J&K as many patients who visited the government hospitals on the name of life saving drugs were provided poison and even the government has endorsed it. Even Dr. Saleem-ur-Rehman on April 15, 2013 went on record to say that “Spurious drugs are supplied everywhere. The news report about Dr. Saleem acknowledging it was reported by one of the leading dailies of Jammu and Kashmir, Greater Kashmir. He also stated that the news item was based on the press note sent to the respondent editor by Doctors’ Association Kashmir (DAK). Besides carrying the press note the respondent has carried the version of the complainant who claims that he has not been named in the FIR. Had the paper not carried his version, they were liable to publish the version. If he has to sue someone he should sue the DAK people who issued the press note and dragged his name into the scam. The paper has discharged its journalistic duties following due norms and only disseminated the message of DAK to common masses by carrying stand of the complainant also before publication. The respondent stated that the allegations levelled against them to ‘hurt the emotions of worthy Dr. Saleem-Ur-Rehman’ are completely baseless as we only did our journalistic work keeping in mind the journalistic ethics before publishing the news story.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2016 at New Delhi. Dr. Saleem, the complainant appeared in person whereas there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. However, the respondent vide letter dated 14.3.2016 has sought adjournment in the matter.

The inquiry Committee heard the complainant. It is not the assertion of the complainant that whatever has been published in the newspaper was not stated by Dr. Nisar-ul-Hasan. While publishing the impugned news item, the viewpoint of the complainant has also been indicated. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the newspaper by publishing the impugned news item has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for any action by the Council. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 29 F.No.14/775//14-15-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Ms. Birendra Kaur, The Editor, President, Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh, Tribune Gurudwara Singh Sabha Kanthala, 1A, Phase-II, Tribune, Chawk, Chandigarh Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dt. 15.12.2014 was filed by Ms. Birendra Kaur, President, Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh against the editor, Chandigarh Tribune alleging gross misreporting carried by the respondent newspaper about a Seminar -Peaceful Co- Existence and Role of Sikhs held on 22-23, Nov, 2014 by their Institute in its issue dated 23.11.2014 under the caption “Vanishing Panthic Agenda paving way for RSS in Punjab: Sikh Scholars”.

It has been reported in the news item that “Disappearance of ‘panthic’ agenda (Sikh- related issues) has given a chance to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) to spread its wings in Punjab, feel Sikh Scholars. During a seminar, ‘Peaceful Co-Existence and Role of Sikhs’, organized by the Institute of Sikh Studies (ISS), speakers said the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), under the leadership of Parkash Singh Badal, has given up the ‘panth-related issues’ which is a threat to the identity of Sikhism in the state. The Sikh scholars also passed a resolution to rope in all Sikh organizations and form a joint platform to safeguard Sikhism. A three-member committee with Gurtej Singh, a former IAS officer, Dr Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon and Shashi Kant, a former DGP of Punjab, as its members, will coordinate with various Sikh bodies to chalk out a programme in this regard”.

The complainant submitted that a seminar was organized by their Institute but the impugned publication on 23rd November, 2014 with reference to their seminar had absolutely cent per cent, nothing to do with the said event. She also submitted that the persons’ whose names are mentioned therein were not even a part of the audience on both the days and the Seminar was purely an academic exercise, with no political overtones, as brought out by the impugned news item. The complainant also stated that in spite of their repeated requests to the Editor to rectify the gross error, they did not receive even an acknowledgement of their complaints submitted.

The complainant in her letter (e-mail) dt. 25.11.201 to the editor, Chandigarh Tribune submitted that the news item has been wrongly reported as the proceedings of the Seminar was limited to the topic of the Seminar “Peaceful Co-Existence and Role of Sikhs”. It was purely academic exercise deliberating on the topic. She has also submitted that it is most shocking and unprofessional and requested to the editor for clarification for readers in next edition and requested to trace the reporter, who has reported absolutely irresponsibly. The complainant received no response thereon.

Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice dt. 19.6.2015 issued to the respondent editor, ‘The Tribune’, Chandigarh followed by a Time Bound Reminder on 28.8.2015. In response the respondent vide his written statement dated 16.9.2015 submitted that the author of the story stands relieved of his duties due to non-extension of his contractual term and the position was apprised to the complainant telephonically. Moreover, they have mentioned that the clarification sought by the complainant was published in the paper in its issue dt. 16.9.2015. He requested to condone the delay in filing comments and to dispose of as having been rendered infructuous.

Complainant Response The complainant vide his e-mail dated 4.3.2016 drew the attention of the Council towards the letter dated 16.9.2015 from the respondent editor whereby the matter was disposed of by publishing the clarification with regret in Chandigarh Tribune.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Amit Sharma, Manager (Legal) appeared for the respondent.

In view of the clarification and regret published by the newspaper, the complainant does not want to pursue this complaint. The Inquiry Committee has taken cognizance of such communication and recommend to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 30 File No. 14/951/14-15- PCI

Dr. A.P. Sanwaria, The Editor, M.D. (Gen. Med.) Hindustan Times Chandigarh Chandigarh Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 18.2.2015 was filed by Dr. A.P. Sanwaria, M.D. (Gen. Med.), Chandigarh against the Editor, Hindustan Time, Chandigarh for publication of allegedly false, frivolous and defamatory news item under the caption “PGI chemist’s bitter bill: Charging three times the MRP, then discounting 57%” in its issue dated 16.2.2015. It has been reported in the impugned news item that a Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER) inquiry report has found that the shop, Shivangi Medicos, mandated to offer 57% discount on all items has been fleecing the patients by charging more than three times the MRP in rough bills that are given to the patients. It has also been reported that the shop located in the old market complex in the PGI is owned by the son of Chandigarh based influential BJP leader, Dr. A.P. Sanwaria and the site was allotted at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- on the condition that 57% discount will be offered on all items sold. It has further reported that now with the violation of the condition coming to light and after an internal probe, it has been recommended that to save patients from harassment the shop be closed down. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the frivolous publication projects him as a person influencing scam which is factually false and contrary to the facts and records. The complainant further submitted that the correspondent of the respondent newspaper misused his position and extort medicines free of cost from M/s Shivangee Medicos and spearheaded a defamatory & misinformation campaign against public interest at large by defaming a particular chemist and criminally defaming him with the sole purpose of lowering his image in society, friends, relatives and general public without any relevance or relation. The complainant vide legal notice dated 18.2.2015 requested the respondent to publish a public apology but received no response. The complainant has requested the Council to issue appropriate orders against the respondent. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 19.5.2015 for written statement. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 8.6.2015 has denied all the allegations made by the complainant as it is baseless and frivolous. He has stated that the news item was published on the basis of the correct facts and circumstances. He further stated that the allegation in the complaint that the concerned correspondent was indulging in extortion of medicines and misusing his official position is libelous and is a clear attempt to tarnish the image of not only the correspondent but also of the newspaper organization. He also stated that the Shivangee medicos was found guilty of indulging in unfair practices and over charging money from gullible and poor patients by PGIMER authorities. In fact, the firm has been debarred by the PGIMER vide its order of 13.3.2014 from participation in the purchase procedure of the Institute for two years and their security deposit of Rs. two lakhs was also forfeited. He further stated that in another case PGIMER Committee constituted to probe a complaint of overcharging against the said chemist found that the patient was overcharged. The Committee recommended ‘the shop should be closed to avoid harassment to the patients’. In support of his contention, the respondent enclosed a copy of the letter dated 13.3.2014 issued by Addl. Medical Superintendent, Hospital Purchase Division (D & D), PGIMER, Chandigarh to the Firm of the complainant. The respondent also enclosed a copy of the complaint filed by Mr. T.D. Thareja against Shivangee Medicos and the copies related to Inspection Committee. He has submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law. He has therefore requested the Hon’ble Chairman to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs in the interest of justice. The respondent vide his further reply dated 9.3.2016, while reiterating the above contents, has stated that the complainant filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.3.2016 at New Delhi. Dr. A.P. Sanwaria, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Arun Pathak, Advocate appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the Counsel for the respondent. It is not a dispute that the complainant has been named in the impugned news item. It is the assertion of the complainant that the claim made in the news item that the shop in question belongs to his son is false and further the news item is suggestive of his guilt. The Counsel for the respondent, however, states that the name of the complainant has been indicated in the news item for identification of the Medicine shop. The Inquiry Committee has considered the rival submissions and is of the opinion that before publication of the impugned new item it ought to have taken the version of the complainant and should have avoided suggestive guilt on the part of the complainant as per Norm 10(1) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010 which is “Newspapers should eschew suggestive guilt by association. They should not name or identify the family or relatives or associates of a person convicted or accused of a crime, when they are totally innocent and a reference to them is not relevant to the matter being reported”. The complainant shall give his version only with regard to the news concerning him within two weeks to the respondent newspaper. The respondent newspaper shall publish the same with regret in his newspaper with the same prominence. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

Held

Sl. No. 31-32 F.No.14/678 & 782/14-15-PCI

Ms. X, The Editors, Chandigarh 1. Punjab Di Awaz Ajit 2. Dainik Bhaskar

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

These two separate complaints dated 28.10.2014 and 9.12.2014 were filed by Ms. X, Chandigarh against the Editor, 1) Punjab Di Awaj Ajit and 2) Dainik Bhaskar alleging publication of actual and true particulars of rape victim in their issues dated 25.10.2014 and 26.10.2014 under the captions “Gayak Jelly Janah samet chaar khilaf zabar da mamla darj” and “Chandigarh ki model ki shikayat par Punjabi singer v uske teen sathiyon par Phase-I thane mein gangrape ka case- jelly aur model ne karoran ke gurughar mein ki thi shaadi ” respectively.

The news item dated 25.10.2014 published in the Ajit carried entire contents of the FIR filed by her in the Police Station thereby publically identifying her and breached her right to privacy. Similarly, the impugned news dated 26.10.2014 Dainik Bhaskar also published news based on the FIR filed by her. It also carried her marriage certificate wherein her name, her father’s name and her address was mentioned separately in the portion of Rape News right below the photograph.

The complainant in her letter dated 28.10.2014 & 9.12.2014 alleged that the respondents published deliberately and intentionally the actual and true particulars in collusion with accused persons in the print media as well as on internet e-paper. Due to the publication of the impugned news the complainant was harassed and faced humiliation and mental agony. The complainant approached the MD, Shri Barjinder Singh Hamdard of Ajit and Editor-in-Chief, Dainik Bhaskar over telephone but they refused to talk and bluntly replied that the true and real particulars of the victim had been published, hence she need not to talk against them. The complainant stated that the respondents violated the guidelines of the PCI as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and requested to take action against the respondents so that she may re-start her life from some other city as it is very hard to live in the present city due to the act of respondents.

A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent editors, Dainik Bhaskar and Punjab Di Awaz on 1.4.2015 followed by a Time Bound Reminder to the editor, Dainik Bhaskar on 22.7.2015.

Written Statement of Ajit

The respondent editor, Ajit vide his letter dt. 27.6.2015 submitted that the complaint was nothing but result of some misunderstanding but now the said misunderstanding has been cleared and she settled all her claim with the respondent ‘Ajit’ and by writing to the National Commission for Women, New Delhi that she does not want to take any action against Sh. Barjinder Singh Hamdard, MD, Ajit, Jalandhar and has withdrawn her complaint against him without any force, coercion from any corner. The respondent, therefore, requested to withdraw the show cause notice under reply.

A copy of the written statement of ‘Ajit’ was forwarded to the complainant on 23.7.2015 with request to intimate the Council whether she had withdrawn her complaint filed against Punjab Di Awaz Ajit and if she wishes to pursue further in the matter but received no response.

Shri Rajinder Singh, Editor, Ajit vide his letter dated 11.3.2016 reiterated the contents of the detailed reply dated 27.6.2015..

Inquiry Report from the ASP, South U.T., Chandigarh

The Assistant Superintendent of Police, South U.T., Chandigarh vide his letter date 4.2.2015 filed at the time of hearing dated 16.3.2016 submitted a report in the complaint made by Ms. X (the rape victim) against regarding disclosing her name in the leading newspapers. From the inquiry conducted, a prima-facie case was made out against the reporter, Vinit Rana and concerned editor of Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper. He also recommended in the Report that the legal opinion of ADA/legal may also be obtained in this matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.3.2016 at New Delhi. The complainant victim appeared in person whereas Shri Kranti Vaidya, Business Representative appeared for the respondent, Punjab Di Awaj Ajit. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Dainik Bhaskar.

The cause title of this complaint stood amended as Ms. X vs The respondent editor, Punjab Di Awaj Ajit and Dainik Bhaskar. The complainant is allegedly a victim of rape and kidnapping and a case seems to be registered under section 363/36/376/376D/506/313/120B IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The news of the rape had been prominently published in the respondent newspapers. The newspapers have not only disclosed the name of the complainant but her father’s name as also the residential address. Her photograph has also been published as also the certificate showing her age including phone number. The impugned news unequivocally identifies the victim of the crime. This action on part of the respondent newspapers is blatant violation of the direction of the Supreme Court and Section 228A of IPC as also Clause 6(ii) of the norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010 framed by the Press Council of India. Section 228A of the IPC makes publication of the name to identify the person victim of crime to be a penal offence providing for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend upto two years and also liable to fine.

The Inquiry Committee has bestowed its consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and is of the opinion that the act of the respondent newspapers is in violation of the aforesaid provisions. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for Censure of the respondent newspapers, its editors and the authors of the news. The Inquiry Committee also directs that a copy of this Order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Jurisdictional Superintendent of Police for taking appropriate action against the respondents as permissible in law. The Inquiry Committee also directs that a copy of this order be forwarded to the DAVP, RNI and Director, State Information Department, Government of Punjab. The Inquiry Committee upholds the complaints 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 Censure the respondent newspapers, Danik Bhaskar, Chandigarh and Punjab Di Awaj Ajit, Jalandhar and their editors and authors of the news items. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP, RNI and State Information Department, Punjab for necessary action as they deem fit.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 33 F.No.14/363/14-15-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri Gayasudin Ansari, The Editor, Education Secretary Dainik Rashtradoot, Sultanul Hind-O- Raza Darul Uloom, Jaipur Bhilwara, Rajasthan

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

The complaint dt. 5.7.2014 was filed by Shri Gayasudin Ansari, Education Secretary, Sultanul Hind-O- Raza Darul Uloom, Bhilwara against respondent editor, Dainik Rashtradoot, Jaipur for defaming their organization.

According to the complainant the respondent newspaper in its issue dt. 9.5.2014 published a news item captioned, “Darul Uloom ke maulana par nabalig se dushkarma kaa aarop” which is totally false, misleading, defamatory and concocted. The complainant alleged that the paper with malafide intention had published the impugned news item with ulterior motive to defame their organization in the eyes of Muslim society by highlighting the name of their organization.

The respondent leveled the allegation of raping a minor against Maulana who has been teaching in one of the madarsas run by their organization. According to complainant the respondent paper without cross checking the facts has published impugned news as the accused person had not been working with the organization at the time of incident.

The complainant vide his letter dt. 18.6.2014 sent a legal notice to respondent editor, asking them to express regret and publish clarification. The respondent in response thereto vide letter dt. 25.6.2014 sent his clarification to complainant’s counsel wherein he stated that impugned news published is authenticated and published after due verification and in this regard on 7.5.2014 at around 5:00 p.m. the correspondent spoke to one Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Shekh, Secretary of Organisation (Darul Uloom). The correspondent also spoke to Qazi Saheb who belong to Darul Uloom. As per information provided to the correspondent, the accused (Maulana) was working with organization till 21 April, 2014. As per the impugned news, a minor was missing from her home on 20.4.2014 and Maulana, the accused was present in Darul Uloom on 21st April, 2014.

No Written Statement

The Council invited comments of the Dainik Rashtradoot on 17.10.2014. but received no written statement.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.3.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Ajay Nahar, Advocate appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. However, a letter dated 7.3.2016 was received from the respondent seeking adjournment in the matter.

The complainant is the Secretary (Education) of Sultanul Hind-O-Raza, Darul Ulum, Bhilwara, Rajasthan and is aggrieved by the publication of the news item in the respondent newspaper that a Maulana of Darul Ulum is accused of rape of a minor. It is the assertion of the complainant that the said Maulana left the complainant’s society on 21.4.2014 and therefore, in the impugned news item he ought not to have been described as Maulana of the complainant’s society. His further grievance is that an FIR, which was registered against the complainant’s society, published prominently in the newspaper and later on when the case was found to be false and Final Report was filed in the Court, the respondent newspaper has not published the same.

A prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the respondent but in the facts of the present case, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accede to the said prayer. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant’s Counsel and also perused the relevant records. The Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent editor within two weeks from today. The respondent editor shall publish the same in his newspaper within one week of the receipt thereafter. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 34 F.No.14/251//14-15-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Mrs. Francina Nelson The editor, General Secretary News Today, Madhya Pradesh Domestic Workers Trade Union, City Live Indore Indore

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This undated complaint received in the Council on 6.6.2014 was filed by Mrs. Francina Nelson, General Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Domestic Workers Trade Union, Indore against the editor, New Today City Live, Indore alleging publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item in its issue dated 8.4.2014 under the caption “Vasul rahi thi rupyein, rehevasiyo ne pahucha diya thaane”.

It was reported in the news item that two women viz Francina Nelson and Niru were assembling women from different streets and publicizing amongst them of Central and State government schemes. In this course they have been collecting Rs. 110/- each for making their cards and were handing out pamphlets showing their office address. Both women were claiming to be office bearers of the Indore Domestic Workers Organization and after making the cards, they were giving assurance of providing benefits of various schemes. It has been published that some women of the area gave this information to Shri Mukesh Maheshwari, BJP worker who reached the spot and questioned the women, to which they did not respond satisfactorily. After that the residents called the police and complained. Police came and took the women to the police station. They were released after questioning.

The complainant submitted that the impugned news item gives misleading information about their eight year old organization and has defamed it. The publication has demoralized their workers who have taken up cause of domestic workers. In this connection, she stated that their workers sensitised the domestic workers about their rights. They also give guidance during the group meeting to domestic workers for their personality development. Their organization gives one time membership @ 110/- for which they issued receipts also. During one of their routine meeting with domestic workers, a person took complainant’s photo and on her enquiry he informed that he is reporter to which she asked him to take note of their organisation’s on working also. After taking information he left and thereafter two police men came and asked them to accompany them to police station where they explained them about their organization and left police station. The reporter again contacted him over telephone on 8th April, 2014, he was again given briefed about her organization and was asked him to visit Union’s office, if they have any doubts. The reporter in this regard said that she may await for news in regard in newspaper and disconnect the phone. Thereafter she was informed by the workers that the paper has published defamatory and misleading news in ‘City Lives’. She contacted to Editor-in-Chief Sh. Shailender Tiwari to publish contradiction after giving information about incident of 7th and 8 April, he callously said “madam hum samachar ka khandan to nahi karenge aapko swatantra adhikaar hai aap jo karna chanhte hai vo kariye”. In this way he insulted and downgraded them. The complainant has alleged that the respondent has published the false and baseless news item to defame her and her Union in the eyes of the society. The respondent has taken photo of our workers without their knowledge and published the objectionable news despite giving full information and documents twice about her Union. The complainant vide letter dated 9.4.2014 drew the attention of the respondent and requested to publish the contradiction but received no response. The respondent neither took their version nor published contradiction.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 11.8.2014 issued to the respondent Editor, News Today City Live, Indore but same was received back undelivered with postal remarks ‘Refused’. The copy of the Notice again sent to the Collector, Indore on 3.9.2014 followed by a reminder dt.17.10.2014 with a request to deliver Show Cause Notice to the respondent through their postal service agency under intimation to the Council. In response, the Additional District Magistrate, Indore vide his letter dated 5.11.2014 submitted that the show cause notice was sent to the respondent editor, News City Live through the Tahsildar but respondent has refused to receive the same and has returned the Show Cause Notice in original.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. However, a letter dated 15.3.2016 was received from the complainant in which she has requested the Council to decide the case on material available on record.

It is the allegation of the complainant that the impugned publication is false and baseless. The Notice sent to the respondent has been refused. Then an attempt was made to get it served through the District Magistrate, Indore. The District Magistrate, Indore by his letter dated 5.11.2014 has communicated to the Council that the respondent has refused to receive the Notice. In the absence of any reply or rebuttal from the respondent, the Inquiry Committee is inclined to accept the assertion of the complainant that the impugned publication is false and baseless. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for Censure of respondent newspaper as also its editor. It further directs that a copy of this order be also forwarded to the DAVP, RNI and State Information Department. The Inquiry Committee upholds the complaint with the directions aforesaid.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Censure the respondent newspaper, News Today City Live, Indore as also its editor. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP, RNI and State Information Department, MP for necessary action as they deem fit.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 35 File No.14/447/14-15-PCI Complainant vs. Respondent Shri Mayur Agarwal, The Editor, C.A. Navduniya, Agrawal Mital& Co., Sagar, District, Bina (M.P.) Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 29.7.2014 filed by Shri Mayur Agarwal, C.A. Agrawal Mital & Co. against the editor, Navduniya, Bhopal, M.P. The complainant submitted that above said newspaper published an allegedly wrong news item under the caption “Anubandhit Company Se Nahi Karaya Audit” in its issue dated 26.7.2014.

It was reported in the news item that three chartered Accountants were appointed by the District Administration for the audit work but Officers of the Nagar Palika got the audit work done from Bina, Madhya Pradesh based company instead of company empaneled for the purpose. Thus, the audit report is objectionable. The expenses of mid-day meal are also suspicious.

According to the complainant in the impugned news item it was reported that he had authenticated the audit reports of all the self support Groups indicating 100% grant given by Administration spent. The paper has also published Audit report signed by the complainant saying 95% of Grant spent. The complainant in support of his contention has enclosed the photocopy of audit report wherein 100% fund spent has not been shown.

The complainant has stated that the respondent has reported the wrong facts in the report as he has never shown 100% expenditure in the report. The expenditure shown in audit report is about 70-98%. He failed to understand as to how the journalist from Navduniya published the report about 100% expenditure. When he contacted the concerned reporter for publishing incorrect news, they informed him that they had photocopies of accounts of Grant received by the three self support group and on that basis they prepared the news story. According to the complainant, even these self support group had also not incurred 100% expenditure.

The complainant Shri Mayur Agarwal, C.A. stated that the respondent tarnished his as well as his firm image by publishing wrong news item which affected his business. He also stated that the respondent never contacted him before publishing the news in his paper. He had requested the respondent to tender unconditional apology and publish clarification but did not receive any kind of reply. He requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter.

No Written Statement: A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 24.10.2014 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.3.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

It is the allegations of the complainant that the publication of the news that he had authenticated the audit reports of all the self support groups indicating expenditure of 100% grant given by the Government of is false. According to him, the expenditure shown in the audit report is about 70-98 %. In response to the notice, the complainant has sent a letter dated 11.3.2016 indicating his inability to attend the proceeding of the Inquiry Committee today and has requested for decision on merits. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee has considered the allegations made by the complainant and perused the entire record. The Inquiry Committee deems it expedient to direct the complainant to give his version within two weeks to the respondent. The respondent, on receipt of the same, shall publish his version within one week. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint on the aforesaid terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 36 File No.14/484/14-15-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri Arvind Jain, & The Editor, Shri Jai Kumar Jain, Hum Paanch, Dayoday Gaushala, Chhatarpur, Madhya Chhatarpur, (M.P.) Pradesh.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 13.8.2014 was filed by Shri Arvind Jain, Mantri, and Shri Jai Kumar Jain, Dayoday Gaushala, Chhatarpur, (M.P.) against the editor, Hum Paanch alleging publication of a series of false and fabricated news items. It has been reported in the first impugned news item that two cow shelter of the area are being run by one Shri Satyabhan Shukla of Radhepur and the other one by Shri Paras Dubey alias Dabbu Maharaja of City, who are working for the betterment of the cows. MLA of Chhatarpur and Bijawar area had donated a sum of Rs. five lakh each for the cause. Some cow shelters of the area are bogus which are trying to garner donation from the M.P.s, MLA.s and big entrepreneurs. It is also reported in the impugned news item that the ex-MLA also requested Shri Paras Dubey and Dabbu Maharaj to make distance from the fake people and who are smuggling the cows.

It has been published in the second impugned news item that respondent editor in his meeting with Sant Behan Ritambhara during her visit handed over her a list of bogus cow shelters of the area and requested her to take action against them. He has also apprised her that some of the owner of cow shelters have encroached government land in the name of cow shelters. It is also stated in the impugned news item that Sant Behan Ritambhara seriously has taken up the complaint and discussed the matter with a Union Minister and requested him to send a five member committee to Chhatarpur to look into the matter.

In the another news item it is stated that the ex-MLA requested people of the area not to give donation to such persons and throw the mud on them. If peoples wanted to donate money to cow shelters then they can donate the money to Shri Jai Narayan Agarwal and their authorised members.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items the complainant stated that in Chhatarpur District there are 13 Cow shelters but the respondent praised only three and described 10 other as Cow Smugglers, and Beggars. The complainant also stated that the respondent published his photograph without his permission and also defamed their cow shelter. The complainant also submitted that they have never taken any kind of government help for taking care of Cows and they voluntarily doing this job and the respondent by publishing the false news item defamed them.

Vide registered notice dated 13.8.2014, the complainant drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publications and requested him to publish clarification/rejoinder/apology but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

No Written Statement: A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 20.10.2014 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.3.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Arvind Jain and Shri Jai Kumar Jain, the complainants appeared in person whereas there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainants, Shri Arvind Jain and Shri Jai Kumar Jain and they are unable to pin-point anything from the impugned news item that they are related to their gaushala.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 37 File No. 14/394/15-16-PCI Shri Amar Singh, Dainik Swarnim Hindustan, Neemach Neemach, M.P. M.P. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 14.10.2015 was filed by Shri Amar Singh, Madhya Pradesh against the editor, ‘Swarnim Hindustan’ for publication of baseless, false and misleading and objectionable news in its issue dt. 9.9.2015 under the caption “Dost ki patni ko dadagiri se ghar mein rakh liya baad mein uske putra ki jhoot bolkar sikh samaj mein shaadi bhi kara di” with sub-heading “makkhan dhaabe wale Amar Singh ke khilaaf darj ho sakta hai dhokadhadi ka maamla” along with photograph of the complainant and his son to malign his social, political and professional image.

It was reported in the news item that the complainant, Amar Singh has destroyed the life of an innocent girl from Sikh community to cover his illicit relationship. He is having live-in-relationship with his friend’s wife, Asha. Further, Sh. Amar Singh had got married her son in Sikh Community purported to show her son to be his legal son. After the marriage, Sh. Amar Singh and Asha tortured their daughter-in-law as they are greedy money. For two years, nobody know what Amar Singh has done. But when Sh. Paramjeet Singh, father of Aakanksha, daughter-in-law of Amar Singh, came to know the fact behind the story, he was shocked. He filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police in public hearing. As per sources, a fraud case could be lodged against Shri Amar Singh, Smt. Asha Kaur illegal wife of Shri Amar Singh, Shri Ranjeet Singh and Shri Ranbeer Singh, son of Amar Singh and wife of Hemant i.e. Meenu. Aggressive Sikh community also has decided to boycott Shri Amar Singh, Makkhan Dhabawale.

The complainant submitted that the allegations in the impugned news report against him are baseless, false and objectionable and published with an intention to defame his image in society as it is against norms of journalistic conduct. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent vide letter dt. 14.9.2015 to publish clarification but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

Written Statement A Show-Cause Notice dt. 4.11.2015 was issued to the respondent editor, ‘Swarnim Hindustan’, Madhya Pradesh. In response, the respondent vide his written statement dt. 26.11.2015 submitted that the news published is totally true and based on the FIR lodged by the father of the victim, Aakanksha in police station. The complainant is absconded till date. He is rich and using all tactics. The main aim of the respondent is to facilitate justice to the victim. It is surprising that the complainant had not given any notice to the respondent and never objected. He straight away forwarded complaint to the Council giving mental stress to him. Had the complainant submitted any objection to him, the matter would have been settled amicably. The respondent submitted copy of the complaint and FIR u/s 420 and 120B against the complainant.

Counter Comments In response, the complainant vide letter dated 10.1.2016 submitted that the written statement is totally misleading and baseless. The respondent claimed that the news was published on the basis of the FIR. However the FIR was lodged on 27.10.2015 and the impugned news was published against the complainant on 9.9.2015. Further it was reported that he (Shri Amar Singh) is absconding instead he is not. The complainant added that the respondent has given misleading statement about the notice as the same was duly sent to him which he refused to accept.

The complainant submitted that the editor deliberately published the news against the complainant without any decision of the court and allegation of being greedy and having illegal wife was published with an intention to defame his image in society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said many times that media should be careful in publishing sub-judice matters and to avoid publication of the concerned but the respondent has not adhered to this fact. The complainant requested the Council to direct the respondent to publish corrigendum.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.3.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant is absent. Shir Onkar Singh appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papers. The basis of the impugned news item is the First Information Report (FIR) given to the police by the father of the girl. It is the assertion of the complainant that the respondent newspaper claims to have published the impugned news item relying on the FIR but the said report was registered on 27.10.2015 and the news item was published on 9.9.2015. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the complainant is trying to mislead the Council. Report was given to the Superintendent of police on 7.9.2015 which was received on the same day itself. Later on, it seems that on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, the FIR was formerly registered on 27.10.2015. As the basis of the news item is the allegations made in the FIR, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not breached any code of journalistic ethics so as to call for any action by the Council. It 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. 38 F.No.14/463/15-16-PCI

Shri Okram Prasanta Singha, The Editor, Rajgarh, Guwahati, Assam Tribune, Assam Guwahati, Assam

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 21.11.2015 was filed by Shri Okram Prasanta Singha against the Editor, Assam Tribune for not publishing his counter reply to the clarification in its issue dated 14th November 2015 given by the Assam Public Service Commission in the form of advertisement which contained “news content” as well as his name. He submitted that he visited the Assam Tribune office on 15th Nov. 2015 to submit his counter reply to the said clarification. But, the Deputy Editor did not accept his counter reply and advised him to meet the editor. The Deputy Editor further told that as the publication of the said clarification is in the form of advertisement, so he should also get it published in the form of an advertisement. The complainant then asked the Deputy Editor to show him the law/rule which says that an advertisement should be countered in the form of advertisement. The Deputy Editor further told that the law/rule book is in the chamber of the Editor. November 15, 2015 being Sunday, the Editor was not available and on 16th November 2015, the complainant again visited the office and handed over his counter reply with verbal request to publish the same. He also showed the editor Section 14 (Right to Reply) and Section 36 (Advertisement of the Norm of Journalistic Conduct (2010 edition) of Press Council of India. The respondent editor assured to take necessary steps. But on 17th November 2015, he was surprised to see that his counter reply was not published. Then he visited again to submit an additional complaint but the P.A. to editor and other journalists did not allow him to meet the editor. Rather they said that an advertisement should be countered in the form of advertisement. He was further asked by them that he can complain to the Press Council of India or do whatever he wishes to do but they would never publish his counter reply in the form of news. The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent newspaper and its editor, Sri Prafulla Govinda Baruah.

A Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, “Assam Tribune”, Guwahati on 28.12.2015.

Written Statement In response, Smt. Babita Rajkhowa, daughter of the respondent Editor, Shri Prafulla Gobinda Baruah, Guwahati vide written statement dt. 12.2.2016, while denying the allegations, submitted that the complaint was false and filed with malafide intention to harass and cause loss to the respondent. The complaint was not properly signed and verified as required under law. Further, as per request and on payment of prescribed fee by the Assam Public Service Commission, a clarification was published which was given by the Assam Public Service Commission on 14th November, 2015. It was an advertisement issued by the Assam Public Service Commission and the respondent is duty bound to publish the exact words which were asked to be published by the client/advertiser i.e. the Assam Public Service Commission. It was not known that the name of the complainant appears in the said Advertisement. The complainant never contacted any of the officials of the respondent on 15th Nov. 2015. On 16th November the complainant was requested to contact the Assam Public Service Commission as the advertisement was published by the respondent under instruction of the Assam Public Service Commission and the respondent neither can remove or add any word in the said advertisement and until and unless the Assam Public Service Commission directs the respondent to this effect. Although the respondent editor received a letter from one Okram Prasanta Singha, Guwahati on 16.11.2015 but no counter reply as alleged was attached with the letter. The editor advised the complainant to obtain clarification from the Assam Public Service Commission and on giving such clarification the action can be taken. But instead of approaching the Assam Public Commissioner, the complainant approached the Council with some misrepresentation of facts. The respondent added that the name appears in the advertisement i.e. clarification of the Assam Public Service Commission published on 9th November, 2015 was ‘Prasanta Singha’ and not Okram Prasanta Singha. The respondent submitted that it was the duty of the complainant to approach the Assam Public Service Commission first and if any further clarification required to be published, the Assam Public Service Commission would instruct the respondent for any further clarification to be published in their paper.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide letter dt. 2.3.2016 in response to the written statement dt. 12.2.2016 of the respondent paper submitted that the respondent did not read the norms and doesn’t know that the “Norms of Journalistic Conduct” is not an Act. The respondent Director had lied to say that the complainant didn’t attach the counter reply with the complaint. Rather, he (the complainant) mentioned in the application given to the editor like, “…I shall be grateful to you if you publish my counter reply (attached with)…” Moreover, after checking all the pages attached with the application, in front of me the editor signed himself while receiving the copy. Further, the allegation that the name appeared in the said advertisement is “Prasanta Singha”, not “Okram Prasanta Singha” was totally baseless as his fight against the corruption and malpractices of the Assam Public Service Commission had been continuously being covered the print media as well as in the electronic media since June, 2015. His name according to certificate is “Okram Prasanta Singha”. But, media covers my name sometimes as “Okram Prasanta Singha”, sometimes as “Prasanta Singha”.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2016 at New Delhi. Mr. Okram Prasanta Singha, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Kalyan Barooah, Spl. Correspondent, Assam Tribune appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee notes that the complainant is aggrieved by certain contents of an advertisement published by Assam Public Service Commission. It is the assertion of the complainant that he wanted the newspaper to publish clarification in respect of any news item. 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.39 F.No.14/164/15-16-PCI

Shri Manoj Rathi The Editor, Jawahar Marge, Raj Express, District Nagada, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 4.7.2015 was filed by Shri Manoj Rathi, M.P. against the Editor, Raj Express, Indore for allegedly publication of baseless, false and misleading news item in connivance with the District Nagada based representative of Raj Express in its issue dated 1.6.2015 under the caption “survey mein do darzan se adhik atikramankarta suchibaddh ab hogi……….atikramankartaoo par karyavahi” along with further publication “saath hi jawahar marg ke peeche sthit maaheshwari samaz ki dharamshala avam ghanshyam rathi ke makaan wali sthayi atikraman ki had mein aa rahi hain”. The complainant alleged that the impugned news report was published without any basis thereby the whole community of Maheshwari are being seen as encroachers by the general public. The complainant was also shown as one of the encroachers due to which he is facing mental agony and others too who have been residing in the area. The whole Maheshwari community, declared as encroachers are feeling terrorized and living in fear. The complainant vide letter dated 13.6.2015 drew the attention of the respondent to publish contradiction on the allegation but the respondent neither published contradiction nor filed any reply

The complainant vide another letter dated 17.8.2015 informed that the respondent again published impugned news under the title “Congress parshad ke putra aur sathiyon par prakaran darz” for defaming him in the issue dated 23.7.2015. It is published that “purva vidhyak ke dahine haath mane jaane wale Manoj Rathi ne manavta ki had kar di. Nagar palika dwara banai gayi Cement-Concrete road ko apni bhoomi bata kar deewar bana kar rasta rokne ka prayaas kiya. Nagar palika adhyaksh Ashok Malviya ne sway ghatnasthal par jaakar atikraman hatwaya, iski shikayat ki to Rathi par prakaran darz kiya tha”. He submitted that he has the ownership of land referred to in the news. The whole news report was published without any documentary proof and was misleading and one sided.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 14.10.2015 was issued to the respondent Editor, Raj Express, M.P. followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 28.12.2015 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Manoj Rathi, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the complaint and other relevant papers. It is the grievance of the complainant that the in the news item Maheshwari Dharamshala has been mentioned in the list of the encrochers. According to him this is not correct. The complainant shall make a request to the respondent newspaper for publishing the clarification and if such a request is made, the respondent newspaper shall publish the clarification. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint with the direction aforesaid.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 40 File No.14/393/15-16-PCI

Shri Bhagwandin Sahu, The Editor, Spokesperson, Dainik Bhaskar,, Shri Yog Vedant Sewa Samiti, Chindwada, Chindwada, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 13.10.2015 was filed Shri Bhagwandin Sahu, Spokesperson, Shri Yog Vedant Sewa Samiti, Chindwada, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Chindwada, Madhya Pradesh for publication of false, misleading and baseless news items. The complainant stated that a news was published on 6.10.2015 under the caption "Students are getting books being published through which they are getting the tips to increase their sex power”. Some Officers are distributing these books of Divya Prerna in schools and the students are asked to read it five times a day. The complainant denied the allegations levelled by the respondent in news item and stated that there is no such content in the book which promotes sex power. The newspaper published false, baseless and misleading news item. In his support, the complainant enclosed a copy of the said book with the complaint. The complainant further stated that he drew the attention of the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar vide his letter dated 17.11.2015 denying the contents of the published version in the newspaper but no response was received from the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2015 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar, Chindwada.

Written Statement In response to Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.15, Shri Sushil Tiwari, Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Chindwada filed his written statement dated 24.2.2016 wherein he denied the allegation of the complainant and submitted that the news item was published in Dainik Bhaskar in public interest for the information of the general public/readers without any ill will. The news item was published in the paper after selection from “महासमुंद”.

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 22.3.2016 denied the statement of the respondent editor, Shri Sushil Tiwari. He further stated that Shri Yog Vedant Samiti is doing the work to promote and benefit crores of students in the Country.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Bhagwandeen Sahu, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. However, the counsel for the respondent has sent a letter seeking adjournment in the matter due to non-availability of the train tickets.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the news item as also the book and is of the opinion that is sum & substance the newspaper has stated what flows from the writings in the book. A little variation here and there could not be a reason to proceed further in the matter and take action against the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 41 File No. 14/315/14-15-PCI

Sh. Temsunarao Jamir, The Editor, Deputy Commissioner, Asomiya Khabar, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Frontier Publication Pvt. Ltd., Government of India, Guwahati Customs Division, Kalapahar, Cycle Factory, Nilamoni Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati- Guwahati-16 781005

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 25.6.2014 has been filed by Temsunarao Jamir, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Guwahati Custom Division, Guwahati against the Editor, ‘Asomiya Khabar’ alleging publication of uncharitable, serious and damning allegation under the caption “Misuse of Official Powers by Customs Officer at Borjhar Airport, Tourism Industry Effected (English translation) in its issue dated 24.6.2014. It was reported in the news item that for a handful of Central Govt. employees, the lure of easy money had created a situation where Assam now stands to be heralded as safe corridor for fundamentalist organizations and anti national forces. It was alleged that in exchange for hard cash, the said officers had almost rolled out the red carpet for drug traffickers and gun runners. Assam thus, now stands as the gateway for such anti national forces. It was further reported that the national and international passengers arriving by Bhutan based Druk Airlines from Bangkok to Guwahati or travelling to Dibrugarh were subjected to intense harassment by Shri Bikash Chakrobarty. It was alleged in news item that the passengers carrying clothes, ornamental jewellery and household goods amounting to paltry sums were harassed when the demand for bribes were not meted out, on the other hand certain unscrupulous elements who had already managed Sh. Bikash Chakrobarty were given a free run and even allowed to carry drugs, arms and other contrabands and thereby the officer had converted Assam into a safe corridor for fundamentalist and terrorists to create chaos in the Country. The impugned news item further reports that activities of Shri Bikash Chakrobarty was harming tourism industry of Assam as numerous passengers are taking recourse to flying to Kolkata instead of Guwahati in order to avoid harassment meted out to them.

The complainant submitted that the news item was extremely defamatory in which disparaging comments had been made against the department and its officers posted at the International Airport at Guwahati. Indiscriminate insinuations had been cast against the officers of the department of having links with terrorist outfits, gun runners and drug cartels. He added that the respondent newspaper had published damaging report against the department and its officers and not even tried to substantiate the charges in any manner to enable the department to take corrective action, if any required. The complainant vide letters dated 25.6.014 and 11.7.2014 drew the attention of the respondent editor wherein all charges of substantiations were sought, but received no reply.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, ‘Asomiya Khabar’, Guwahati.

Written Statement In response, the respondent stated that non furnishing of clarification as sought for by both the aforesaid Communication dt. 2.6.2015 and 11.7.201 were not wilful and intentional and even then he tenders an unqualified and unconditional apology for not responding timely. As regards the publication, the respondent stated that the impugned news item was published on the basis of the opinion and information given by the Ex-Councilor, Guwahati Municipal Corporation viz Md. Abdul Mannan Faruk stating inter alia that he was on tour to Bankok and while returning there from, he faced such situation on 15.6.2014 inasmuch as, any opinion and information given by such a responsible person, who held such a highly reputed and responsible post, is always accepted as true and correct and therefore, news item in question was published on good faith and in the greater interest of the public in general. The respondent stated that he has no intention to malign the good will and reputation of the Custom Department and its Officials in publishing the news.

Counter Comments In response to the written statement, the complainant vide his letter dated 27.11.2014 asked for publication of corrigendum by the paper refuting allegation which would all act as deterrent in future.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 9.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Samit Wandi, Inspector of Customs appeared for the complainant. Shri Kalloi Bhowmik, Special Correspondent represented the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee notes that a communication dated 4.4.2016 had been received which authorised Shri Samit Wandi to appear before the Inquiry Committee. Mr. Samit has produced before the Inquiry Committee a letter dated 7.4.2016 in which it has been informed that the matter has been settled with the editor of the respondent newspaper. He also states that in view of the aforesaid, the department does not want to pursue the matter. The Inquiry Committee, taking note of the aforesaid statement, recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 42 File No. 14/264/12-13-PCI

Sh. Raj Kumar Agarwal, The Editor Jamshedpur, Uditvani Jharkhand Jharkhand

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 20.5.2012 was filed by Sh. Raj Kumar Agarwal, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand against the editor, Uditvani, Jharkhand for publication of unethical, unwarranted, malicious, deliberate and scandalous news-items along with the headings and subheadings under the captions “Jharkhand Par Poti Kalikh” followed by sub-headings “Samaj Sewa Ki Kalai Khuli” and “Teen May Ko Rajya Sabha Election” respectively in its issues dated 31.3.2012 and 11.4.2012. The complainant objected to the impugned news item stating that the matters purport to carry an impression that the complainant has been the man behind the alleged horse-trading for Rajya Sabha election in Jharkhand. The news reports alleged that Rs. 2.15 crore seized from an Innova car in the morning of 30th March, 2012 was intended to be given to the MLA’s who were supposed to cast votes, and that the said vehicle belonged to brother of the complainant, an independent candidate. Further, the news report gave descriptions about the social work being done by the complainant, Sri R.K. Agarwal (referred as Raju Babu) as a social worker. The impugned news items published in this regard, read together, over all gave a misleading impression about his alleged involvement in the matter. The remarks and judgment of the newspaper are extremely prejudicial to the reputation, mental peace and professional stability of the complainant; as also to the independence of investigatory or adjudicatory process which follows such incidents. He further submitted that the reports were absolutely incorrect and he had no connection with so-called Sri Suresh Agarwal, who is being attributed to be the owner of the seized vehicle with money. The complainant alleged that the respondent has published the impugned news intentionally and sensationalized and scandalized the headlines for inside trading in business matters with a colorable design in mind to earn illegal profits and to bring disrepute to the complainant in such a way that his trade and business gets adversely affected. The complainant added that the news has tarnished his image and reputation in society as well as in the business world. The news was published without due verification, proof and maliciously, for cheap publicity and monetary gains and for business which is highly objectionable, distasteful and unethical and the same falls in the category of professional misconduct also. The complainant served a legal notice dated 20.05.2012 to the respondent editor, “Uditvani” through his advocate raising objection against the irresponsible reporting but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.2012 issued to the respondent editor, ‘Uditvani’, Jharkhand.

Written Statement

The respondent editor in his written statement dated 17.4.2013 submitted that the complaint was time barred and does not deserve cognizance. Further, the statements in the complaint were incorrect and without application of mind. He denied the publications were unethical, unwarranted, malicious and scandalous. The impugned news-items were not contemptuous, immoral, unbecoming and unprofessional. It was not the sole reporting of “UDITVANI”. All the Hindi daily newspapers and national newspapers of English dailies had reported this incident prominently. All regional news channels of Ranchi had prominently, repeatedly and continuously telecast the news on 30.3.2012 for alleged role and involvement of independent candidate, Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal in the whole episode. He further stated that these news-items were published one day prior to the poll and also after the day of poll as it is the duty of newspaper to make its readers aware of the truth of any incident, happening, event and misdemeanour of an individual/Authority in public life and public affairs. The publication dt. 31.3.2012 is based on the proceedings of the Election Commission of India dated 30.3.2012 and on information gathered from various sources, audio visuals of the electronic media, official versions and public opinion. The said news-item was published after due verifications in immense public interest. Keeping in view high standards and ethics of journalism, version of the complainant, Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal was also published in “UDITVANI” on Front Page dt. 31.3.2012: “Suresh Agrawal Se Door Door Tak Nata Nahi: R.K. Agarwal”. “UDITVANI” has thus been most fair and impartial in reporting this news-item. Publication of the statement of the complainant also reflects upon the bonafides and fairness of reporting by “UDITVANI”. Since involvement of the complainant in horse trading was published in all the newspapers, the publication in “UDITVANI” could not be termed as malicious, distasteful or unethical or defamatory and the least for cheap publicity and monetary gains. By no stretch of imagination the said news-item falls in the category of professional misconduct. The news-item dt. 11.04.2012 regarding vehicle belonging to brother of Shri R.K. Agarwal is based on letter sent by the Election Commission of India to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi. The respondent submitted that the complaint had obviously been lodged before the Council against “UDITVANI” with malafide intentions, certain ulterior motives and to obstruct the free functioning of the Press.

The respondent vide his further response dated 11.4.2016, while reiterating his earlier comments, submitted a para wise reply and stated that the reporting in Uditvani were nothing but only factual reporting and the complaint preferred by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal deserves to be dismissed, being frivolous and motivated.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 9.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri R.K. Agarwal, the complainant appeared in person while Shri R.S. Agarwal, Editor, Uditvani represented the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the editor of the respondent newspaper, Uditvani. The Inquiry Committee perused the relevant material and is of the opinion that the impugned news item cannot be said to be published without any foundation. The Inquiry Committee notes the fact that a sum of Rs. 2.15 crore was recovered and the Election Commission has decided to cancel the elections. The incident was worth reporting and the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has served the cause of democracy. The Inquiry Committee does not find any merit in the complaint. It 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. 43 File No.14/306/13-14-PCI

M/s. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., The Editor, Bhubaneshwar Sambad, Bhubaneshwar.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 8.8.2013 was filed by M/s. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited, Bhubaneswar through advocate against the editor, ‘Sambad’, Bhubaneswar alleging publication of false and defamatory articles/items under the captions “IMFA- POSCO Mysterious Business Deal” and “School Land In IMFA’s Clutches” in its respective issues dated 3.7.2013 and 2.8.2013. It has been published in the news item dated 3.7.2013 that POSCO is yet to lay a single brick or spend a single rupee in its Odisha project and it is doubtful whether it will do so in future. He has given Rs.27 Crore to a new company. Despite the said company being formed since three and half years it has neither opened its business account nor been listed in any Stock Exchange. But POSCO has invested money in it. It is not clear whether the investment is for business purposes or political appeasement. The company, IMFA Alloys Finalease Ltd. is owned by the family of BJD MP Baijayant Panda and was registered as a subsidiary of IMFA in 2009 when Naveen Pattnaik came to power for the third time, till Jan’13, the company had not produced anything. It has been further published that the Posco bought 24% share of the company, moreover, shares worth Rs.10 were bought for Rs.375 and Posco paid Rs.27,29,49017, when the actual value was Rs.72 lakhs.

The complainant through advocate vide letter dated 3.7.2013 drew the attention of the respondent editor giving point wise rejoinder with a request to publish the counter in its entirety with equal prominence on the front page. The complainant has stated that the respondent instead of publishing a counter article, published a second news item in its issue dated 4.7.2013 under the caption ‘IMFA’s Explanation on the Deal with POSCO’. The complainant added that in spite of the clarification given by him regarding purchase of Rs.10/- share of IAFL of Rs.375 by POSCO, translating as “why share value worth Rs.10 at Rs.375” that not only creates a bad impression in the minds of the public at large but also incorrectly reflects why such a big company like POSCO has purchased the share of a new company.

In the news item dated 2.8.2013, the respondent has published that the parents of Kaling Public School, Choudwar has strongly opposed the attempt by IMFA to grab the school land. The administration has been ignoring this attempt by IMFA, run by state ruling party MP, Mr. Baijayanta Panda, despite repeated effort to draw attention. Parents have alleged that even the Managing Committee of school has not been granted affiliation by the administration. They have threatened to protest before the Collector’s Office, unless steps are taken by the administration within 15 days.

The complainant through advocate vide letter dated 3.8.2013 drew the attention giving the point wise rejoinder and requested to publish their rejoinder with equal prominence so as to undo the damage caused to his reputation.

The complainant has further stated that instead of publishing a counter article as requested in his letter dated 3.8.2013; the respondent published a second news item on 4.8.2013 under the caption “IMHA clarifications”. He further stated that despite the clarification, the respondent failed, neglected and omitted to publish the same in earnest and only published a concocted version of the clarification of 3.8.2013. The complainant has submitted that the article dated 4.8.2023 is far from being clarificatory in nature, actually suggest that the complainant is attempting to obfuscate facts and suppress information. He added that the respondent has failed to appreciate the submission as the subject matter of the article dated 2.8.2013 is sub judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, it is not prudent to speculate and/or inaccurately report on the same. The complainant has stated that the respondent mischievously published libelous and absolutely false and baseless information and allegations in order to target, malign, the complainant’s goodwill and business reputation, as a result of which the company suffered immensely He added that despite the letters dated 3.7.2013 and 3.8.2013, the respondent intentionally failed, neglected and omitted to publish the correct factual positions contained therein, and instead published their own concocted version on 7.4.2013 and 4.8.2013. The complainant has stated that no proceedings are pending in any court of law in respect of any matter alleged in the complaint. He has requested to take appropriate action in the matter.

Written statement The respondent in his written statement dated 16.12.2013 has denied the allegation levelled by the complainant. He has stated that the news items in question received from reliable source were published in Sambad in good faith after due prepublication verification. There has been absolutely no intention of maligning the name of the complainant and thus the news items cannot be said be malicious, false, damaging or defamatory as wrongly alleged. He added that the fact that POSCO bought 24% share at high rate of Rs.375/- for a share of Rs.10/- and pair Rs.27 crores to a newly built company Infa Alloys Finlease Ltd. which was yet to start production, has not -been denied by the complainant. It is also not denied that the company belongs to a high positioned political dignitary of the ruling party of the state who is also a member of Lok Sabha. He has stated that the deal of Infa with POSCO relating to the said shares was published by several newspapers much before. After the transaction was completed, a question was raised in the newspaper Sambad as to the intention behind the deal as to whether the investment of POSCO in Infa was for business purpose or to ostensibly satisfy political leaders or whether such investment was out of some compulsion. He further submitted that the news was released on 3.7.2013 and the clarification of the complainant at length was published on the very same day circulated the next day i.e. 4.7.2013 with comments of the reporter and against on 4.8.2013 another clarification was published as desired by the complainant. The respondent has submitted that the complainant has simply misinterpreted what has been published on 4.7.2013. The meaning of Odia word ‘SAFEI’ is not exactly as in English ‘PLEA’. The respondent has submitted that on the complaint of guardians of students of the school and the general public in a press conference with documentary evidence, the news article was published to draw attention of the authorities to prevent unpleasant situation in the locality. He added that the Kalinga Tubes Ltd. initially reserved 2.30 acres of land of the Kalinga Public School and committed not to utilise the said land for any other business. Subsequently, IMFA took over Kalinga Tubes it was alleged that IMFA got the entire premises including school premises in its name, for which CBSE Board refused affiliation up to secondary stage, and as a result there was public resentment, people approached different authorities including High Court, President of India, Collector, Cuttack etc. The Collector convened a meeting wherein parents of students, local MLA, Vice President of the complainant company were also present. In the meeting, the representative of the complainant pointed out that the land in question has been under collateral security to a Bank, and the said land cannot be transferred to the school, the Collector in order to remove the impasse suggested that complainant company to purchase equal extent of land confirming to the present area of school building which could be given as collateral security to the concerned Bank. The representative of the complainant assured to the needful within 2/3 months, nothing was done, for which public resentment grew and they narrated all such matters in the press meet with threat to resort to gherao etc. This news was released on 2.8.2013 and the clarification of the complainant immediately published on 4.8.2013.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 9.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 at New Delhi. Mr. Kuber Dewan and Ms. Tanya Chanda, Advocates appeared on behalf of the complainant while Shri Ranjit Kumar appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the complainant as also the representative of the respondent. It has also perused the record of the case. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that by publishing the news item, the respondent newspaper has not breached any code of conduct. Not only that, the respondent newspaper has also published the version of the complainant. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the complaint made by the complainant is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 44-46 File No.14/543, 569-570/14-15-PCI

Shri Hariram Singh Kushwaha, The Editor, Jawahar NavodayaVidyalaya, Dainik Jagran, Patna, Bihar. Patna.

The Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Patna.

The Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Patna

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 30.8.2014 was filed by Shri Hariram Singh Kushwaha, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Patna, Bihar against Dainik Jagran, Dainik Bhaskar and Rashtriya Sahara, Patna for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items in their issues dated 31.7.2014 and 1.8.2014 respectively as per details given below:

S.No. Caption (English) Newspaper Dated Name 1 Navodaya Vidyalaya mein pitai se Dainik Jagran 31..7.2014 chatra Behosh 2 Mouse kharab kar dho ge kehkar chatra Dainik Bhaskar 31.7.2014 ko pita 3 Chatra ki pitai mamle mein shikshak Rashtriya 31.7.2014 nilambit Sahara 4 Chatra Ki pitai mamle mein shikshak -do- 1.8.2014 nilambit.

According to the complainant it was alleged in the news items that a teacher (complainant) in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya hard beaten an eight class student on a minor issue of damaging a computer keyboard and student got unconscious. The parents of the student had lodged a complaint against the teacher. The complainant submitted that impugned news items were false and far from truth. He stated that student has neither got any injury nor admitted in the hospital. The news item was published to defame his image in public. The complainant informed that the correspondents of the newspaper are running a coaching institute and have grudge against him. He drew the attention of the respondents on 16.8.2014 but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents on 9.10.2014.

Written Statement of Dainik Bhaskar

In response to the Council’s show cause notice, the respondent Dainik Bhaskar, Patna in its written statement dated 27.10.2014 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint. The respondent editor submitted that they had published the news on the basis of written complaint of school student, Aman Raj and his father alongwith relevant document of Primary Health Centre in this regard and therefore the news was not baseless. The respondent further stated that the complainant had been suspended from school for beating the student.

Counter Comments

In his counter comments dated 12.11.2014 the complainant reiterated that the news published by the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar is false and misleading and published to defame the respondent. While denying the respondent’s version the complainant stated that the respondent may produce the evidence to substantiate that incident occurred on which date i.e. 7,14,21,28 a falling on Monday in July 2014 The student Aman has some pain in his ear therefore, school nurse took him to the doctor on 25.7.2014. He appeared in the exam in both shifts on 30.7.2014. The complainant further stated that the incident of scolding the child occurred 24.7.2014 but the respondent published this news belatedly on 31.7.2014 in his paper. The complainant also stated that if he is suspended after the incident then the respondent may produce evidence in his support. The complainant requested the Council to take action in the matter. He sought evidence in support of all the allegations made against him in the impugned news.

No Written Statement from Rashtriya Sahara and Dainik Jagran

A Time Bound reminder was issued to the respondents, Dainik Jagran and Rashtriya Sahara on 17.12.2014 but they have not filed their written statement in the matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 9.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate represented the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and relevant record. The news item has the source in the allegation made by the child himself in his application to the Head Master. Not only that, for the aforesaid alleged act, the complainant has been put under suspension. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that while publishing the news item, the newspaper has not committed any breach of conduct so as to call for any action by the Council. It 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. 47-48 File No.14/572-573/14-15-PCI

Shri Prasanta Kumar Jena, The Editor, Additional BDO, Sambad, Lakhanpur, Odisha. The Editor, Dharitri, Sambalpur. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 15.9.2014 was filed by Shri Prasanta Kumar Jena, Additional BDO, Lakhanpur, Odisha against Sambad and Dharitri for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news items in their issues dated 20.7.2014, 22.7.2014 and 24.7.2014 respectively which are given below:

S.No. Caption (English) Newspaper name Dated 1 Not mentioned Sambad 20.7.2014 2 Demand to relieve B.D.O. growing, Sambad 22.7.2014 District Administration silent 3 Post of B.D.O. is vacant, Development Dharitri 24.7.2014 work stopped

According to the complainant it has been alleged in the news item dated 20.7.2014 published in Sambad that there are several complaints against him and there are illegalities in selection of beneficiaries under Mokudia Yojna in most of the Gram Panchayats during 2013-14 at his instructions. It was further reported that three beneficiaries of Babuchipidhi GP were given Rs.5000/- each but in the work order register, Sri Pradhan had made correction and wrote name of other two persons and paid them extra Rs.5000/- This was all done with due knowledge and under instructions of Sri Jena B.D.O. It was further stated in the impugned news item that there was mis-match in the work register and data available on website.

In the second news item dated 22.2.2014 of Sambad, it was reported that the District Administration had failed to initiate action against the BDO, Shri P.K. Jena. Shri Jena had appointed a VLW as Cashier even though there are other four Sr. Clerk /Jr. Clerk, how he had kept one village level worker as in-charge of cash, is suspicious. It was further reported in the impugned news item that on a reply of Project Director, DRDA, Jharsuguda praising efficiency of Sri Jena before the news persons, they questioned as to how the administration had assessed his illegalities as efficiency and that the newspaper also demanded some other competent person should be appointed as BDO instead of Sri Jena i.e. the complainant. It is further stated in the news item that there is a discussion in the locality that till a regular B.D.O. joins, somebody else other than Sri Jena should be entrusted with the charge of the BDO. In addition to this, an inquiry should be taken up against those two employees.

In the third news item dated 24.7.2014 in Dharitri, it was alleged that for the last two years in Laikera Block of Jharsuguda District, the post of BDO is lying vacant due to which the various Government schemes had not been implemented properly. It was also alleged that the District Administrative officers also involved in illegal work. Sri Prasanta Jena who is in-charge of B.D.O Laikera was transferred to Gurundia Block as A.B.D.O. as per an order since June 2013 but till now he had not been relieved.

The complainant submitted that news items were completely false and far from truth. The stories published were intended to malign his character, blackmail him and to pressurise the administration to transfer him from the said place so that they can threaten the new incumbent for their personal interest. The complainant further stated that he drew the attention of the respondents and explained the factual position of each allegation and requested them to publish the correct version but received no response. He requested the Council to take action against the respondents.

A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 10.10.2014.

Written Statement In response to the Council’s show cause notice, the Deputy General Manager(Law) Sambad in his written statement dated 20.11.2014 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the complaint petition is out of misconception of facts and intended to safeguard him from appropriate action by the concerned authorities of the Government. The respondent further stated that the basic function of the newspaper is to disseminate news received from different sources and to keep the public informed of the correct state of affairs of their locality. Government is spending huge amount of money in different schemes/projects for developmental work in the rural areas. The aim is to improve the standard of living of these tribals. But unfortunately taking advantage of their poverty, illiteracy and innocence, some corrupt officials entrusted with such developmental work frustrate the objectives of the said schemes by misusing their powers, indulging in favouritism, nepotism and rampant corruption. The respondent further submitted that news items in question were neither false nor intended to malign the character of the complainant, as alleged. The grievance of the public including demand of the people to transfer the complainant from Laikera Block only find place in the news article which was very much in the interest of the poor marginalised tribals and dalits below poverty line.

Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 18.2.2015 the complainant has submitted that the news published by the respondent editor, Sambad is totally false and fabricated. The complainant stated that impugned news item was related to Ex-BDO(in-charge) but the editor, instead of reflecting Ex-BDO’s name, has published his name. He further submitted that he filed a complaint for publication dated 20.7.2014 and 22.7.2014 (Sambad) but the editor of Sambad enclosed the English version of news published in different papers. The complainant also submitted that he had voice recording of reporter of Sambad regarding demand of money from him which he will produce during hearing of the complaint.

Comments of the Respondent In his comments dated 5.5.2015, the respondent submitted that the news item published was based on written complaints received from the victims and information collected from the different resources and denied the allegation of demanding the money by the reporter. According to him, the submissions in the counter comments of the complainant were vague, baseless and hence liable to be rejected.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. However, the complainant has sent a letter praying for adjournment of the case. The Inquiry Committee considered the prayer and is not inclined to adjourn the matter. Shri Ranjit Kumar represented the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and connected papers and also heard the representative of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper while publishing the news item has not committed any breach of conduct so as to call for action by the Council. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 49 File No.14/645/14-15-PCI

Shri Gyan Prakash Jha, The Editor, Samastipur, Hindustan, Bihar. Muzaffarpur,Bihar.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 10.10.2014 was filed by Shri Gyan Prakash Jha, Samastipur, Bihar against Hindustan, Muzaffarpur for publication of an objectionable news item under the caption “One held for video recording of the proceedings of Janta Darbar proceeding” in its issue dated 5.9.2014. It was alleged in the news item that a person was arrested for making video film of the Janta Darbar. The said person had gone there to lodge a complaint against the Transport Department for not issuing him renewed driving licence. The D.M. passed the order to concerned officer to look into the matter but when D.M. saw that the person who was using his mobile phone to make a video film, he called the S.H.O. of the area and handed over the accused to the police. The complainant stated that the respondent projected him as a wrongdoer which ruined his reputation. The Janta Darbar is an open forum with nothing to hide, video recording can never be any offense there. The DM was wrong in directing his security to slap him and to snatch away his Tablet which was yet to be returned to him. According to the complainant, the newspaper reporter or the editor should know what falls under crime category and what not. The recording of that conversation would have either exposed his involvement in corruption or would have proven his (DM) weakness thus he tried to intimidate him by projecting him as a criminal. The complainant alleged that this is a well established fact that these reporters work for money. Because the D.M. gives them courtesy and allow them to sit with him and have a cup of tea, and these unscrupulous reporters write whatever D.M. says. The complainant vide e-mail dated 4.10.2014 drew the attention of the respondent but received no response. He requested the Council to take action in the matter.

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 3.11.2014 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 10.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and relevant papers. As the complainant does not claim to be a journalist and also not chosen to appear, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. It 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. 50 F.No.14/983/14-15-PCI

Shri A. Biswas, The Editor, Kolkata. The Times of India, Kolkata.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 18.12.2014 was filed by Shri A. Biswas, Kolkata against the Editor, The Times of India, Kolkata for publication of an article under the caption “Cooped up in Ambulance for 45 minutes” in its issue dated 16.11.2014. It has been reported in the article about bizarre sight at SSKM hospital while an ailing under trial with a Ryles tube dangling from his nose, desperately trying to say something, but being manhandled by police, who drag him from the ambulance, throw their berets in his face and give him a shove to force him to lie down on a stretcher. This is how police stopped Rajya Sabha M.P. Kunal Ghosh from talking to the media just a day after he tried to commit suicide in Presidency jail. It is further reported in the news article that the suspended Trinamool M.P. and Saradha scam under trial was in CCU just prior to the rough treatment at the hands of police. Those who failed to prevent the suicide bid despite a clear threat from Kunal, showed tremendous zeal in silencing him and chasing away journalists to prevent further embarrassment to the Mamata Banerjee government. Police swung lathis at journalists who tried to get close to Kunal after he was brought back to SSKM after some tests at Bangur Institute of Neurology. The complainant question that whether press freedom entitles a newspaper to publish inaccurate news, pass pure conjectures as news, draw conclusions unwarranted by facts, ascribe motive to actions of public officials. The complainant also identified specific points and brought it to the notice of the editor, The Times of India, Kolkata vide e-mail dated 4.12.2014 but did not get any response from them.

A show cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Times of India on 13.5.2015.

Written Statement In response to Council’s show cause notice dated 13.5.2015, the respondent Editor, The Times of India in his written statement dated 11.6.2015 denied and refuted the complainant’s contentions that there are any shortcomings and there are no reason for the complainant to feel distressed by the quality of the article. The news item was published for the information of the newspaper readers a day after suspended Trinamool M.P, Kunal Ghosh, an under trial and one of the accused in the Saradha case, was hospitalised after consuming anti-anxiety pills beyond the usual dose. State officials described it as a suicide attempt pointing to a four page note found in Ghosh’s Presidency Jail cell that told about Ghosh ending his life within 72 hours if the CBI didn’t probe the Sardha case “properly”. An under trial having an overdose of anti-anxiety pills in custody is not usual for a government that is supposed to keep under trials under watch. The respondent further submitted that fact is that Ghosh with a ryles tube dangling from his nose, was taken out for medical tests in a non-AC ambulance with its windows, shut. It was an ordinary hospital ambulance Kunal was not taken in AC car like another under trial Madan Mitra. The under trial was made to sit inside the ambulance for 45 minutes with doors and windows shut. The respondent stated that it is not possible to take a poll while reporting and it has never been done also for this type of news. Complainant may check other media reports on the incident wherein similar views were taken.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 10.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 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 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 any action by the Council. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 51 File No.14/631/14-15-PCI

Shri Narendra Mohanty, The Editor, Cuttack, Sambad, Odissa. Bubaneshwar, Odissa.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 29.9.2014 was filed by Shri Narendra Mohanty, District Kandamal, Odisha against the editor, Sambad for publication of false fabricated and defamatory news item under the caption “Udayanath Murder case: 14 Allies of Sabyasachi Acquitted” (English translation) in its issue dated 1.8.2014.

According to the complainant, a news item was published in connection with the judgment given by the court in Udayanath Sahu murder case of Bhramarbadi under Kandhamal district acquiting all the 14 accused who were alleged to be allies of Maoist leader, Sabyasachi Panda.

The complainant has stated that the news item was totally false and baseless and it tried to defame him in public life as supporter of Maoists and in one of the ally of Maoist leader Mr. Sabyasachi Panda. Though the FIR given by brother of deceased person did not mention any body’s name and police too has not arrested him in this case. He stated that the respondent reporter has published a fabricated news without contacting verifying from the Public Prosecutor and lawyers for the defenders. He further stated that the wife of deceased person at the time of her witness in court room clearly told that she can identify the persons who killed her husband, but the present persons are not killer of her husband.

The complainant stated that he contacted the Sambad on 1.8.2014 on phone in this regard who expressed regret for the said news and assured to publish his contradiction. Then the complainant also sent the protest letter to both Bhubaneshwar and Berahampur editions through email but they did not respond. Again the complainant sent letters to the editor on 3.8.2014 and 6.8.2014. While, the Berhampur edition of Sambad published the clarificatory news on 7.8.2014 but it clearly avoided his protest and reaction and did not even express any regret for the said impugned news, Bhubaneshwar edition on 10.8.2014 published merely two sentences news having no substance. The complainant further stated that the respondent should express regret for violation of journalistic norms by the paper.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 3.11.2014.

Written Statement In response, Shri Acharya, DGM (Law) Sambad vide his letter dt. 3.2.2016 while denying the allegations stated the complaint is baseless. He stated that the complaint petition is out of misconception of facts and intended to harass the respondent. The Sambad is the leading regional daily newspaper in the state of Odisha. The only allegation of the complainant appear to be against the news stating that 14 allies of Mao leader Sabyasachi Panda have been acquitted but nowhere the news item states that the complainant, Narendra Mohanty was the ally of Maoist leader Sabyasachi Panda. That it is submitted an admitted fact that Sabyasachi Panda who is now facing trial after his arrest was the leader of the Maoists in Southern region and it is alleged that on his direction all Maoist activities including destructing private and public properties and killing of innocent people take place. In the instant case the complainant and others were booked by police in a murder case of a businessman on the basis of complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased. The murder of the businessman, complainant’s arrest and his subsequent acquittal in absence of evidence are the admitted facts and the said story was duly published in then paper. Further, when the complainant submitted a clarification stating that he had no connection with the Maoist leader, Sabyasachi Panda and that he is the convener of the campaign against institution of false cases, the said fact was also duly published by the respondent in its newspaper as admitted by the complainant. There is, therefore, absolutely no cause of action for the complainant to lodge the present complaint before this Hon’ble Council. The rural areas of the state of Odisha where the inhabitants are mostly poor dalits and tribal are afraid of the Maoists. Even though, the villagers are aware of the Maoist activities and sometime eye witnesses to the violent activities of the ultras they do not dare to open their mouth. The police do not have the capacity to provide them security. In this case, Sambad has only discharged its responsibility.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 10.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.4.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Ranjit Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and connected papers. It noted that the grievance of the complainant is that the impugned news suggests him to be an associate of Maoist named Sabyasachi Panda. According to him, he is not his associate. The respondent newspaper has clarified the matter. Taking note of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that no further action needs to be taken in the matter. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 52 F.No.14/336/14-15-PCI

Shri V. Murugan, The Editor, Station House Officer, Versus Namadhu Manasatchi, Police Station Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry. Puducherry. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 26.5.2014 was filed by Sri V. Murugan, SHO, Reddiyarpalayam PS, Puducherry against the Owner/Publisher/Editor, Namadhu Manasatchi, Tamil Weekly Magazine, Puducherry for allegedly publishing following false and defamatory news items/articles:-

Sl. No. News items/articles (English translation) Issue Dated 1. “Fake FIR, Katta panchayat done at the police Jan. 14-Jan. 21, 2014 station with the help of Katta panchayat goondas, collecting illegal money in Civil matter by SI Murugan, Part of theft jewel taken by SI Murugan and DGP warning. DGP have to take action against this type of blackship”. 2. (a) SI Murugan threatening the shop owners not to Jan. 22-Jan. 28, 2014 sell the Namadhu Manasachi weekly magazine (b) SI Murugan the blackship of police dept. have to be removed (c) SI Murugan is a shame to police dept. etc. 3. (a) SI Murugan while working in Nedungadu Police Jan. 29-Feb. 04, 2014 station was chased and assaulted by the general public at Thirunallaur during the temple Therottam. (b) Transferred from Sedarapet PS due to the illegal money collection done by SI Murugan, DGP have to take action against this type of blackship (c) SI Murugan is trying to stop the sales of Namadhu Manasachi weekly magazine among the general public in order conceal his corruption and illegal action 4. SI Murugan Katta panchayat without obeying the Feb. 5-Feb. 11, 2014 court order. 5. Namadhu Manasachi news echo SI Murugan went Feb. 12-Feb. 18, 2014 on long leave.

6. (a)SI Murugan Extended the leave Feb. 19-Feb. 25, 2014 (b) SI was forcibly thrown out from Karaikal (c) SI Murugan asking transfer to Yanem 7. Police department shock treatment – SI Murugan Feb. 26-March 04, return for duty 2014 8. Criminal action against SI Murugan, fake FIR, SI March 5-March 11, concealed a part of jewels without handling over to 2014 the court. 9. SI Murugan not taken any legal action, even though March 12-March 18, he received complaint that a marriage is going to 2014 be held to a 16 years girl belongs.

10. Fake FIR, March 19-March 25, 2014 11. SI Murugan not registered the case on a sexual March 26-April 01, assault complaint lodged by a girl 2014 12. SI Murugan argued with Tamilnadu Vizhupuram April 2-April 8, 2014 transport department officials during vehicles checking 13. In fake FIR matter decision to lodge criminal April 9-April 15, 2014 complaint against SI Murugan 14. Chain snatching matter SI Murugan refused to file April 16-April 22, FIR 2014 15. SI collusion in land grabbing May 14-May 20, 2014

The complainant, who was working as an SHO in Police Station Reddiyarpalayam, Villianur, Puducherry submitted that he in course of his duty in pursuance of direction of Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry vide D.No.1045/JUD/JM-I/2013 u/Section 156(3) Cr. PC registered a case in Cr.No.165/2013 under Section 109, 294(B), 506(i) & 509 of IPC read with 34 IPC, on a complaint filed by a lady against the said editor/publisher/owner, Namadhu Manasatchi and others for using filthy language and to insult her modesty on the abatement and also threatening her with dire consequences due to dispute on the transfer of a Father, Arcot Luthran Church, Oulgaret. The case is under investigation. The complainant informed that in this case the accused obtained anticipatory bail from Hon’ble PSJ Court, Puducherry surrendered to Hon’ble JM-I Court and released on court bail with condition that they shall appear and sign every day at PS Reddiyarpalayam daily. The complainant alleged that annoyed with this, the respondent has started a vilification campaign against him and has been misusing columns of his newspaper to settle personal score by publishing false and defamatory news items against him along with photograph and lowering his image in the eyes of the department as well as his family members and friends. The complainant vide legal notice dated 13.3.2014 requested the respondent to tender unconditional apology but received no reply.

A Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, Namadhu Mansatchi, Puducherry on 14.7.2014.

Written Statement Shri D. Ananda Sam Sankar, Publisher/Editor, Namadhu Manasatchi vide his written statement dated 22.7.2014 while denying the allegations levelled in the complaint stated that he publishes the newspaper with the due sense of both the rights and responsibilities of a small scale newspaper with the public taste and foster in the light of freedom of speech and expression with public interest as laid down in the Constitution of India. According to the respondent, the alleged wall posters and hangings displayed in front of the shops in the alleged complaint is not genuine one, concocted and created for the purpose of this alleged complaint alone. The respondent further stated that there is an admitted and prevailing practice in India to exhibit the wall papers and hangings in public places by the big, medium, small papers to promote the circulations. His publication has also adhered to the Rules and Regulations strictly. The wall papers and the hangings displayed and exhibited with the gist of the news contained on the particular issue was to promote the circulation in the interest of public and to maintain high professional standards while adhering code of conduct. The respondent stated that the copy of the FIR, the alleged complaint and the papers annexed with it were also not genuine, falsely registered one that too in his personal capacity, not as an editor. The said FIR and the criminal proceedings were being defended by him as per law and procedure. He was having valid defence and is an innocent, law abiding citizen. The respondent alleged that the allegation contained in the complaint was baseless without ulterior motive to harass him and it is against the freedom of speech and expression. He has requested to dismiss the complaint with the cost and to recall the show-cause notice and to drop further proceedings.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his letter dated 25.7.2014 alleged that the respondent has been continuously publishing false news against him along with his photograph in Police uniform and respondent recently again in his magazine’s issue dated 16.7.2014 published false and defamatory news story captioned “SI Murugan Suspended-Brokers Negotiation” wherein he was linked with a lady professor. The complainant while referring to written statement expressed dissatisfaction on the same stating that legal explanation given is not admissible. The complainant submitted that no other newspaper published from Puducherry had ever published news against him except this paper.

The complainant vide his another letter dated 20.8.2014 alleged that the respondent again published false and defamatory news items in the magazine issue dated 6.8.2014 and 20.8.2015. He requested the Council to take legal action against the respondent.

English translations of the impugned clippings Pursuant to the orders of the Inquiry Committee dated 15.2.2016, the complainant vide his letter dated 23.2.2016 has filed the complete English translation of about 46 articles published in malice/derogatory/defamatory manner in “Namadhu Manasatchi”, Tamil Weekly Magazine, Puducherry.

Further Submissions filed by the Complainant The complainant vide his letter dated 15.2.2016 has filed his additional evidence against the respondent for publishing false news/articles against him in derogatory manner. The complainant while giving the details of the impugned publications against him stated that the respondent editor had been involved in several criminal cases. He also stated that so far, the respondent editor has published 55 defamatory articles in 35 paper publications and four wall posters against him. He informed that he had obtained Govt. Of Puducherry, prosecution sanction order dated 23.10.2014 for filing defamation suit before the Hon’ble Court against the editor and also filed defamation case against him at JM-III Court, Puducherry during August 2014. He has requested the Council to take necessary legal action against the respondent newspaper and editor and also to dismiss/cancel the Licence given to him.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 15.2.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.4.2016 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, there was no appearance from either side. However, the complainant by his letter dated 30.3.2016, while showing his inability to attend the hearing, requested the Council to decide the case after taking into consideration the letter and records.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and relevant papers. It noted that the complainant has resorted to Civil and Criminal proceedings in respect of the subject matter and hence, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 53-54 File No.14/125-126/12-13-PCI

Shri Manoj Kumar Karwasra, Vs. 1. The Editor, Hisar, Haryana Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh

2. The Editor, Dainik Jagran, Noida, U.P.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 7.5.2012 was filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Kanwasra, Hisar against the Editors, Dainik Jagran & Dainik Bhaskar for publication of false and defamatory news items under the caption “Farzi dastvez se plot hadpa” and “RTI activist ke khilaf dhokadhari ka case darj” respectively in its issue dated 28.3.2012. It was reported in the impugned news items that the complainant while applying for a plot in HUDA, identified himself as an ex-serviceman. Also, a complaint was lodged by Dr. D. S. Rana, President, Saint Sophia School, Hisar in this matter for which forged case was registered for obtaining a plot.

The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, has stated that he is an RTI activist and works with Shri Anna Hazaare. He further submitted that no case/FIR was registered against him on or before 28.03.2012 regarding unlawful possession of a plot as alleged. Having denied any complaint lodged by Dr. D. S. Rana, President, Saint Sophia School, Hisar in this regard, he submitted that the act of the respondent was to defame and degrade his goodwill and reputation in the society and also to harass him mentally. He further alleged that this has been done to benefit the other party whose corrupt and illegal practices were being hidden to gain commercial benefit from the school as they regularly advertise in their newspaper. He further alleged that the respondent published this article under the influence of Dr. D. S. Rana. The complainant sent a letter dated 7.5.2012 to the respondent editors requesting them to tender an apology but received no response.

Written Statement of Dainik Jagran

In response to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2013. The respondent in his letter dated 11.8.2015 submitted that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the Editor, reporter or the editorial staff of Dainik Jagran to defame or lower down the prestige of the complainant by publishing the news article in question. He further submitted that the news in question was published after taking all pre-publication precautions and the impugned news item was based on the information gathered by the local reporter of Dainik Jagran and the source of information had been disclosed in the news article itself. He stated that the Complainant himself admitted that there was complaint filed against him where the investigation was carried out and the fact can be verified from the Inquiry Report conducted by the ASI Shiv Kumar, PS Incharge dated 18.1.2012. The respondent further stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected as the same disclosed no cause of action and the allegations of the complainant that there was nexus between the newspapers.

No Written Statement was filed by Dainik Bhaskar.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following four adjournments dated 13.5.2014, 5.1.2015, 6.5.2015 and 6.7.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Manoj Kumar Karwasra, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of either respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the record. The complainant admits that allegation of the nature published in a newspaper was levelled against him and that was investigated but found to be false. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that there was a material for publication of the news. Some mistake in the name is not good enough for the Council to take action against the respondents. 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. 55 F.No.14/331/14-15-PCI

Shri Vasudev Vyas, The Editor, Assistant Administrative Officer Vs. Dainik Bhaskar, DEC (SEC), Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 18.6.2014 was filed by Shri Vasudev Vyas, Assistant Administrative Officer (Suspended), DEO, (SEC), Jodhpur against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur for publication of alleged misleading and false news item in its issues dated 12.6.2014 and 15.6.2014. The impugned news item read as follows:

S.No. Caption Dated 1. Shiksha vibhag mein pita ki jagah do beto ne le li anukampa niyukti, 12.6.2014 37 saal baad pata chala to dono suspend

2. Pita ki jagah anukampa niyukti pane wale dono bete APO 15.6.2014

It was reported in the first news item that an employee working with the Education Department died in 1977 and both of his sons obtained compassionate appointment. Both worked for 37 years also took promotion as well as selection scale without anybody’s knowledge. An enquiry was conducted upon an anonymous complaint. Shri Satyanarayan (elder) was posted as LDC at Head Officer DEO, Ajmer whereas Vaudev Vyas (younger) appointed at DEO, Jodhpur. Vasudev kept working in Jodhpur, whereas Satyanarayan got transferred to Pali District. Both brothers had rendered 37 years of service and both had been promoted from LDC to UDC and Office Assistant. The younger brother has the charge of establishment.

It was reported in the second news item that two brothers, appointed on compassionate grounds in place of their father, had been suspended. It was also reported in the impugned news item that Deputy Directors, Ajmer and Pali conducted inquiries wherein it was affirmed that the department did not had any appointment order or service record of Vasudev Vyas and he was held guilty.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant submitted that he had been awarded certificates of appreciation of his services on numerous occasions by the District Administration, Deputy Director Education (Men.), Jodhpur Circle and Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. The complainant further submitted that some false complaints were made by the persons who hold grudges against him and his brother and a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the District Education Officer-cum-Inquiry Officer, Pali and the charges levelled against him were unfounded. Not only this, another inquiry was conducted by the office of the Deputy Director (Secondary) Education, Ajmer Board wherein after taking all the relevant facts and circumstances so also various submissions made, he and his brother were cleared of the charges levelled against them. The complainant submitted that it was a blatant mis-statement of facts and irresponsible reporting that there was no appointment order of the complainant. The complainant had annexed a copy of the said appointment letter. Vide letter dated 1.8.2014, he drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned news items and requested him to provide him the material on the basis of which he had published the impugned news items and also requested the respondent to tender unconditional apology but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jodhpur on 9.10.2014. Written Statement

The respondent Resident Editor, Dainik Bhaskar vide his undated letter received in the secretariat on 3.11.2014 stated that the complainant was appointed on adhoc basis at District Education Office, Jodhpur vide Order dated 25.11.1976 on the compassionate ground and regularized on 19.12.1980 as LDC. The respondent further stated that he had not provided any affidavit to the department regarding his family members. The respondent also stated that the complainant’s elder brother took the job on adhoc basis on compassionate ground vide Order dated 8.12.1976 and was confirmed on 15.12.1978 as LDC. The respondent submitted that the elder brother hid the facts from the department and did not provide the documents regarding his younger brother’s appointment on compassionate ground, when he was working in administration department. The respondent further submitted that it was nowhere mentioned in the Inquiry Report that his family members got the job, it means both the brothers got the job according to their family status at that time.

Counter comments

In his counter comments dated 15.11.2014, the complainant, while reiterating his original complaint, stated that the respondent misguided the Press Council of India and presented the twisted facts before the Council. He further stated that the written statement was not a denial of the complaint but just an admission.

Further communication received from the complainant

The complainant vide letter dated 7.7.2015 informed that the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar had published contradiction on 30.6.2015. Thus, he did not want to proceed further and withdraw his complaint accordingly. The Council forwarded a copy of the said letter to the complainant on 31.7.2015 for its authentication/verification but received no response. Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following an adjournment dated 6.7.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.4.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee notes a communication dated 7.7.2015 sent by the complainant in which he has stated that he does not want to proceed in the matter a the respondent newspaper had published the contradiction on 30th June, 2015. In the aforesaid premise, the complainant seeks leave to withdraw his complaint. The Inquiry Committee permits the complainant to withdraw the complaint and recommends to the Council to dismiss the complaint in light thereof.

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 on the aforesaid terms.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 56 F.No.14/274/13-14-PCI

Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu, The Editor, Agriculture Minister, Vs. Patrika, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.). Raipur (C.G.).

Through Shri Balendu Shekhar, Advocate, Delhi High Court, Delhi. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 10.6.2013 has been filed by Shri Chandrashekhar Sahu, Agriculture Minister, Raipur, Chhattishgarh through his advocate against the editor, ‘Patrika’, Raipur alleging publication of false, scandalous and defamatory news item under the caption as follow:- Sl. No. Caption Date 1. Mama Bhanja Ke Karname Yahan Bhi 16.5.2013 2. Congress Ne Krishi Mantri Ko Liya Aade Haathon 20.5.2013 3. Krishi Mantri Ki Shav Yatra Nikali 20.5.2013

The news item relates to allegedly shady land allotments which were made by Mr. Tikamchand Sahu (nephew of the complainant), in favour of the complainant Agriculture Minister alongwith his some other relatives at village Jaidi, Dist. Raipur during his tenure as a Sarpanch so that in future BJP Office could be constructed on it. It has also been reported that the land allotments in question were to be given to the poor people but were allotted by violating the rules and regulations. The complainant has stated that the impugned news items are not only distasteful but maliciously written to malign and defame him. He has stated that on the basis of such concocted facts, the respondents tried to equate him with the previous Rail Minister who was recently in news on account of arrest of his nephew. The complainant has further stated that the content of the impugned article clearly reveals the ulterior motives of the respondent for demeaning his image in the eyes of public at large. He added that the respondent deliberately and intentionally published the said news items knowing well and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm his reputation as well as the Bhartiya Janata Party ruled Chhattisgarh Government. The complainant vide legal notice dated 22.5.2013 drew the attention of the respondent requesting him to publish a public apology and publically withdraw the contents of news item but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice dated 2.8.2013 was issued to the respondent editor, Patrika, Raipur but no written statement has been filed so far.

Written Statement: Shri Bhuvnesh Jain, Editor, Patrika vide his letter dated 20.8.2015 filed his written statement. The respondent denied the allegation of the complainant and stated that the news published in the newspaper is based on facts and documents and there has been no ill motive in publishing the impugned news item. He further requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following two adjournments dated 7.7.2015 and 9.12.2015, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Balendu Shekhar, Advocate alongwith Shri Akshy Abrol, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for both the parties and also perused the relevant records. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for any action by the Council. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 57 File No. 14/119/13-14-PCI

Shri Pukhraj Bothra, The Editor, District Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh Post, Chhattisgarh. Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Shri Santosh Baphna, MLA, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 17.3.2013 and 26.3.2013 was filed by Shri Santosh Baphna, MLA, Jagdalpur and Shri Pukhraj Bothra, Jagdalpur, Baster, Chhattisgarh respectively against ‘Chhatisgarh Post’ Hindi Weekly, Jagdalpur for publication of a series of false and baseless news items in his weekly newspaper. The date & caption of the news items read as follows:-

S.No. Caption Dated 1 धोखाघ़िी के मामले मᴂ त्तवधायक संतोर् िाफना 21-27 January 2013 2 “पुखराज फंसे भंवर मᴂ” 5-11 March 2012 3. हर समाज सम्मानीय, लेडकन “दीमक की तरह चट करने वाले िोथरा 4-10 March 2013

िंधुओं”, उनके संरक्षक संतोर् िाफना के काले मचठे के खखलाफ कलम चलती रहेगी। समाज के िंधुओं से आग्रह है डक इनके मलए उपयोग न हⴂ। 4 “िोथरा िंधुओं के डकतने 셂प” 11-17 March 2013 5 18-31 March 2013 “नई दमु नया का ब्यूरⴂ चीफ अंततः पत्रकार संघ से खदे़िा गया”

6 “पुखराज ने फूंका त्तवरोह का त्तिगुल” 20-26 February 2012 7 25 February -3 “नई दमु नया का ब्यूरो चीफ समाज को भी पलीता लगाने मᴂ नही चुका” March 2013

The complainants stated that the respondent editor had been continuously publishing false and baseless news items since February 2012 with a view to defame them in the eyes of public. Shri Santosh Baphana, one of the complainants stated that there is no iota of truth in the news items published by the respondent. He alleged that the respondent earlier was publishing newspaper titled “Chhattisgarh Express” but when a case was filed against the respondent in the court of Kondogaon he closed this newspaper and started publication of ‘Chhattisgrh Post’ Hindi weekly with an intent to blackmail the people and accordingly the impugned news items were published with a view to blackmail them by violating all the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant also stated that due to the publication of the impugned news item his social prestige was lower down and the same also affected his business. It was alleged in the news items that the complainant, Shri Pokhraj Bothra is a partner of the MLA of Jagdalpur and earns money by illegal way in connivance with his brother. The complainant wrote to Shri Ramesh Thapak, Managing Editor, Chhattisgarh Post, Jagdalpur in this regard but in vain.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Chhattisgarh Post, on 27.8.2013.

Written Statement

In his written statement dated 24.10.2013, the respondent Editor, Chhattisgarh Post stated that he had not received any signed letter from Shri Santosh Baphna therefore, only the complaint of Shri Pukhrjaj Bothra be treated as complaint against the paper. He further stated that the complainant, Shri Pukhraj Bothra also filed a false Declaration before the Council because a case No.633/13 is pending in the court. He also stated that complainant hid an important fact as to who was the editor of Chhattisgarh Express(Weekly). In fact, Shri Satish Tiwari was the editor of Chhattisgarh Post. The respondent further stated that the news items published in his paper were based on facts and were in public interest. He submitted that they always publish news against the illegal activities on the basis of facts.

Counter Comments

In his counter comments dated 20.1.2014 the complainant, Shri Pukhraj Bothra denied the allegation of the respondent and stated that there is no case pending in any court against Chhattisgarh Post filed by the complainant. He further stated that the documents sent by the respondent were not related to him. He also stated that the respondent deliberately published his photo and news for the purpose of blackmailing.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following two adjournments on 7.7.2015 and 7.9.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Balendu Shekher, Advocate alongwith Shri Akshit Abrol, Advocate appeared for the complainants while Shri Satish Tiwari, Advocate represented the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for both the parties. The attention of the Inquiry Committee has been drawn towards the complaint filed by the brother of one of the complainants, Mr. Pukhraj Bothra before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur. The Inquiry Committee has perused the said complaint and is of the opinion that the subject matter of the said complaint is in fact, the subject matter before the Inquiry Committee also. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. 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. 58 F.No.14/53/13-14-PCI

Mrs. Kokilaben V. Vaghela, Vs. The Editor, Ahmadabad (Gujarat). Ahmadabad Mirror, Ahmadabad (Gujarat). Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 26.3.2013 was filed by Mrs. Kokilaben V. Vaghela, Ahmedabad against the editor, ‘Ahmedabad Mirror’ and its correspondent, Ms. Dhwani Pathak-Dave for publication of allegeding defamatory news item under the caption “I was raped 22 times” in its issue dated 15.2.2013. The complainant submitted that she had been fighting a legal battle for last four years to get one FIR registered against the Medical Officer of Gujarat High Court. Dr. Upendra Chauhan who raped her, made video clipping and then blackmailed and repeatedly raped her. The complainant stated that she worked in the V.S. Hospital for more than 24 years but the culprit misused his position by influencing the highest judicial institution in the State and forced her to leave her permanent job. As he was her acquaintance, he has been continuously harassing her and her family even today. The complainant submitted that she received a phone call from Dhwani Pathak-Dave, a correspondent of ‘Ahmedabad Mirror’. She was given her number by an activist, Bharatsinh Zala, who had helped her (complainant) in meeting mediapersons. She added that Dhwani Pathak talked to her about her plight and the legal battle, she had been fighting. The only support she had was from her husband and her son as rest of her family members including her parents had disassociated themselves with this case. She further submitted that she had categorically told the correspondent to write about her plight and harassment by Dr. Upendra Chauhan. According to her, Ms. Dhwani Pathak asked her to pose a photograph for the story. But it was shocking that on the next of event on 15.2.2013, the correspondent Dhwani Pathak had written whole article in the big and bold heading that “I was raped 22 times” as if being raped for 22 times is an achievement. The complainant also submitted that the article was published without protecting her identity and changing her name or her husband or son’s name, but at the same time the correspondent didn’t mention name of the accused, Dr. Upendra Chauhan. The complainant stated that she had already written earlier that she and her family are being harassed day and night by Dr. Chauhan and adding to her pain this article had made their life hell. She further submitted that she had been fighting her battle but her neighbours did not know about her suffering. Just after reading the article, her neighbours had started staring at her and her husband was also facing silent question through eyes of his colleagues in office. She submitted that the respondent editor had acted so casually to the story, like it’s content were to just to fill up the page but nobody in the newspaper’s operation bothered to apply their mind and heart.

The complainant had called up the Dhwani Pathak and strongly registered the protest, but she claimed that since the damage had been done and nothing can be done in the case. She visited the newspapers’ office and tried to meet the editor but she was directed to meet Mr. Hitarth Pandya who admitted the mistake that has been done by the newspaper and he suffering because of it. When the complainant insisted to take action against the responsible person for publishing her name, they assured her to publish apology in the newspaper, which they have never published. The complainant has submitted that a rape victim had consumed the poison in the Gujarat High Court premises to hear the judiciary her pleas and is she supposed to consume poison in the court premises to get justice to get her pleas heard? A Show Cause Notice dated 5.8.2013 was issued to the respondent, Ahmedabad Mirror and copy endorsed to the General Manager (Legal) TOI, New Delhi followed by reminder dated 25.9.2013.

Written Statement In response to the Council’s letter dated 12.10.2015 forwarding therewith the Order of the Inquiry Committee dated 7.9.2015, the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. On behalf of the editor, Ahmedabad Mirror, Gujarat has submitted the written statement vide letter dated 30.10.2015 received in the Secretariat of the Council on 4.11.2015. In his written statement, he has denied each and every allegation made in the complaint and stated that the present complaint ought to be dismissed and/or set aside by the Hon’ble Council on the very ground that the complainant has failed to comply with the requisitions recommended by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 as after filing the instant complaint, the complainant also filed a civil suit against them on the same subject matter which is pending for hearing before the Council. He further vehemently denied that they have revealed the identity of the rape victim as alleged by the complainant as the photograph published by the respondent newspaper was blurred to the extent that the identity of the victim could not be revealed. He further stated that they have completely protected the identity of the person by blurring the photo of the victim while keeping her dignity intact in the impugned report and in fact the complainant was also agreed to meet them at the One Billion Rising event and ready to pose for the pictures. He also stated that the news reports is relevant in present era, particularly from women’s safety and dignity point of view and the intent of the news reports was to make our women readers aware of their safety, rights and risks that they may are exposed to in their day to day employment set ups. The respondent further gave para-wise reply and stated that if the complainant wishes to bring on record any other material, pertinent fact or clarification on the subject matter of the said complaint, they may consider looking into it. He requested the Council to discharge them from the case.

Counter Comments The complainant in her counter comments dated 28.12.2015 denied the averments made by the respondent in its written statement dated 30.10.2015 and while giving para wise reply, she stated that there was no duplication of proceedings in the Civil Suit filed in the Court and the nature of complaint filed before PCI as alleged by the respondent. She further stated that the complaint is a prayer to take action against the newspaper for divulging the rape victim identity in the News report whereas the Civil Suit does not have prayer on the same ground. She stated that during the hearing at Nagpur, she informed the Committee about the Civil suit and stated that the nature of both the complaint were different and hence there was no issue of duplication of proceedings. The newspaper vehemently denied that they have revealed the identity of the victim blurring the face of the victim in the photograph but she submitted that the rape victim does not have only face identity but other identities also like name etc. She alleged that the newspaper published her name in the report’s sub-heading with bold and big letters four times that exposed her identity which caused mental trauma to her. She further alleged that the name of the accused i.e. Upendra Chauhan was not published in the report as he is holding a powerful position in the High Court. The newspaper intentionally published her name without changing it. Further, the report also revealed her husband’s name and identity that has added to her family trauma. She has submitted that she filed a complaint u/s 499 of Cr. P.C. against the report and other accused. The Metropolitan Court took the cognizance and issued the summons against the reporter and other accused. This Criminal Case no. 512 of 2015 pending till date with Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad. She requested the Council to initiate action against the Newspaper to set an example in the media fraternity.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 8.9.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.4.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Bipin, Advocate appeared for the complainant while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the counsel for the complainant and also perused the complaint and connected papers. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear. In the written statement, the respondent has stated that the complainant had filed a Civil Suit on the same subject matter which is pending for hearing before the competent Civil Court.

In view of the aforesaid, the Council is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 59 F.No.14/123/13-14-PCI

Ms. Hansaben K. Jain, Vs. The Editor, Public Prosecutor, World Net Work, Ahmadabad. Ahmadabad.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Vide a notice dated 26.04.2013, the counsel for the complainant, Ms. Hansaben K. Jain, Advocate and Additional Public Prosecutor, Ahmadabad addressed to the Editor, “World Net Work”, Gujarati Evening Daily and copy endorsed to PCI alleged publication of false, baseless, frivolous and defamatory news item under the caption “In Session Court seven Government advocates gone, new seven advocates come” in its issue dated 2.4.2013. In the said news item it has been published that Ms. Hansaben K. Jain is no more as Addl. Public Prosecutor of Ahmedabad City Session Courts. The counsel to the complainant in his further letter dated 22.05.2013 alleged that the respondent intentionally published the false, baseless and frivolous news item. He also stated that the respondent falsely published his client’s name conveying the readers that she is no more working as Additional Public Prosecutor whereas even today she is still working on same designation. The complainant further submitted that the publication of false news has damaged her reputation amongst the fellow advocates and the acquaintance, friends and relatives and also public and litigants in general. He requested the respondent for written apology with satisfactory explanation that such act of false publication was not mala-fide but a bona-fide mistake, but received no response.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 25.11.2013 but no written statement was filed.

Hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.9.2015 The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.9.2015 at Nagpur. The Inquiry Committee while considering the gravity of the matter, directed for issuance of summons to the respondent editor, World Net Network, Ahmedabad for personal appearance before the Committee on the next date of hearing and taking note of the allegation of the complainant that the respondent newspaper was not registered with the RNI and the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad was directed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry and file a report. It decides to adjourn the matter accordingly.” Response from RNI In response, Shri Ratan Prakash, Deputy Press Registrar vide his letter dated 2.11.2015 has informed that the title ‘World Network’ is registered with RNI vide registration no. 64672/96. He further furnished the certified copy of the registration detail of the publication.

No response from the District Magistrate The directions of the Inquiry Committee was communicated to the District Magistrate, Gujarat, Ahmadabad but no response was received despite reminder dated 15.12.2015.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 7.9.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.4.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. When the matter was taken up on 7.9.2015, it was stated by the complainant that the respondent newspaper is not registered with the Registrar for Newspapers in India (RNI). Based on the aforesaid allegations, the Inquiry Committee directed the RNI to make an inquiry and submit a report. The RNI vide letter dated 2.11.2015 had informed that the respondent newspaper, World Wide Network is registered with RNI vide Registration No. 64672/96.

The Inquiry Committee notes that nobody appears on behalf of the complainant. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. F.No.14/168-169/14-15-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri A.S. Mawkhiew, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Elections Deptt. And Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong against 1) ‘Rupang’, The Khasi Daily Newspaper, Shillong, Meghalaya and 2) ‘Kynjatshai – Man Ka Sngi’, A Khasi Daily Newspaper, Shillong, Meghalaya for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’ during General Election of Lok Sabha, 2014 in the garb of news

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

Shri A.S. Mawkhiew, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Elections Deptt. And Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong vide his letter dated 24.4.2014 addressed to the Election Commission of India and a copy endorsed to the Press Council of India had forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news. The two complaints were filed against the newspaper, 1) ‘Rupang’, The Khasi Daily Newspaper, Shillong, Meghalaya for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’ under the captions “UDP asserts the strength of regional party, what about winning” & “Christians pray for PBM Basaiwawmoit’s victory in the MP election” in its issues dated 20.3.2014 & 28.3.2014, respectively and 2) ‘Kynjatshai – Man Ka Sngi’, A Khasi Daily Newspaper, Shillong, Meghalaya for publication of alleged ‘Paid News’in its issue dated 21.3.2014 under the caption “Why Paul Lyngdoh is the right person to fight against the Congress”. The District Level MCMC, Shillong convened a meeting of its members on 26th March, 2014 and took up the case and declared the above said news items as a Paid News as per the guidelines of Election Commission of India regarding Paid News which states that in its illustration for Paid News, the publication of news item without by-line and much reporting with photograph showing huge followers extending their support marginalizing the other contestants may be considered and treated as a Paid News.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editors, ‘Rupang’ and ‘Kynjatshai – Man Ka Sng’ on 27.8.2014.

Written Statement (Rupang) The respondent editor, ‘Rupang’ in his written statement dated 17.9.2014 stated that the he was not informed by the election authorities before such complaint was made. He submitted that the impugned news item published on 21.3.2014 was not a paid news in any manner was as it was article published by a well-known writer from Shillong and it was also published in other local Indian languages newspapers. He alleged that why the published matter in question appearing in other newspapers was not questioned? With regard to other article published on 28.3.2014, he has stated that it is a letter to the Editor. He further stated that it is well known fact that the Editorial page has the Editorial and then the articles and letters to Editor which is a policy for each and every newspaper, Therefore, the Editorial page is a democratic platform for the general public to raise their voice or express their views. He has submitted in his defence that the published matters in question were not paid news.

Written Statement (Kynjatshai – Man Ka Sngi)

The respondent editor, ‘Kynjatshai – Man Ka Sngi’ in his written statement dated 17.9.2014 stated that he was not informed by the election authorities before such complaint was made. He has submitted that the impugned article is not paid news as it is a letter to the editor. He further stated that it is well known fact that the Editorial page has the Editorial and then the articles and letters to Editor which is a policy for each and every newspaper, Therefore, the Editorial page is a democratic platform for the general public to raise their voice or express their views. He has submitted in his defence that the published matters in question were not paid news.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Inquiry Committee of the Council while hearing the paid news cases reference 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 the members who participated in MCMCs, (iii) Proceeding/Minutes of meetings recording the reasons for holding them be paid news, and (iv) English translation of the publication, if any. Accordingly, the Council vide its letter dated 22.6.015 to Shri A.S. Mawkhiew, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya and vide it’s another letter dated 6.7.2015 to the Secretary, Election Commission of India requested them to provide the aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news reference.

Response of A.S. Mawkhiew, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya

Shri A.S. Mawkhiew, Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya vide his e- mail dated 30.7.2015 provided the requisite documents called for by the Council.

Reply of the Respondents

The respondents Rupang and Kynjatshai-Man Ka Sngi vide their replies dated 20.8.2015 and 31.8.2015 stated that they had already furnished their responses in this regard which clarified that the news items in question were not paid news as alleged.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 9.12.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.4.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. However, the respondents sent a letter showing their inability to attend the hearing.

This proceeding was initiated on the basis of the communication of an Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Election Department and the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Meghalaya. By order dated 9.12.2015, the Inquiry Committee, while adjourning the case, had expected the department to send his representative to place their viewpoint before the Inquiry Committee. Despite service of notice, nobody has chosen to appear on its behalf. The Inquiry Committee has perused the record. It 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. 62 F.No.14/844/12-13-PCI

Shri Udai Singh, The Editor Nasik, Maharashtra. The Indian Express, Mumbai Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 21.1.2013 was filed by Shri Udai Singh, Nasik against the editor, The Indian Express for publication of the news item under the caption “Forensic lab report show links among ‘Hindu terror bombs’” in its issue dated 7.1.2013 allegedly humiliating majority community of India. It was published in the news item that NIA has received a forensic report showing that bombs used in the blast at Malegaon(2006-2008), Ajmer Sharif (2007), Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad(2008) and on board the Samjhauta Express (2006) bear similarities with each other. It was further published that bombs used by IM first used C-shaped upon wooden boxes that held the circuit, with holes on the side for wires to pass. The complainant submitted that the respondent in a big font screaming front page head line described certain bombs as ‘Hindu Terror Bombs’. He added that the respondent had not been pronouncing religion of the bombs and bombing through big font screaming front page headlines when accused were non Hindu. Hence, the purpose, intent and tone of the impugned news item was to singularly malign, slander, defame and belittle only and only Hindu religion. The complainant stated that it is not stated in the news item that NIA named any bomb or bombing as Hindu, hence it is fertile imagination and malicious intent of the respondent. The complainant stated that the respondent had no basis to say that the aforesaid bombs were Hindu Terror Bombs and just because accused belong to Hindu religions(assuming the accused are guilty), these bombs and bombing do not attain Hindu religion. He added that the respondent had not given equal treatment and equal justice to all religions by finding/pronouncing some bombs and bombing as Hindu. The complainant vide e-mail dated 11.1.2013 drew the attention of the respondent and stated that he had not apologized for slanderous, biased, jaundiced & defamatory news. He further stated that the respondent neither acknowledged his mail nor shown any regret. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 19.8.2013 for written statement. The respondent vide letter dated 28.8.2013 submitted that the complaint related to the news report is the subject matter of a writ petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad against the newspaper, the reporter, the editor and others. He further stated that the complainant is not the petitioner before the said Hon’ble High Court. The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.5.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Madhav Singh represented the complainant while Shri Purushottam Mishra appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the complainant. It noted that the matter is sub-judice in the High Court of Hyderabad and decided to adjourn the matter sine-die. The complainant vide letter dated 23.6.2014 submitted that the respondent did not produce any proof that such case exists nor there any substantiation that the matter before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh is the same as raised by him in his complaint as it is clear that the case before the Council is about the news reports and its heading. Hence, the petition before PCI has no relation with the reported bomb blast related case/cases under way before any court of law. He has requested the Council to direct the respondent to produce a copy of the writ petition and reply thereto submitted to the High Court to the Council as well as to him. In response to the Council’s reminder dated 29.1.2015 the editor, Indian Express, Mumbai vide letter dated 9.2.2015 requested to provide him a copy of complainant’s letter dated 23.6.2014 which was provided to him vide Council’s letter dated 27.2.2015 with a request to file requisite information in the matter, followed by reminder on 29.7.2015. In response thereto, the respondent informed the Council on 10.8.2015 that they have not received any communication from the Press Council. He has also submitted that it would not be fair to the newspaper if the complainant obtains information via this forum and seeks to implead himself in the pending litigation. He has further submitted that the complainant cannot compel to disclose the source, which could prejudice the newspaper’s defence in pending litigation. Report of the Inquiry Committee: Following an adjournment dated 13.5.2013, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune.

The Inquiry Committee notes that despite service of notice, nobody has chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 63 F.No.14/106/12-13-PCI S.Swaminathan The Editor Senior Vice President, “Ganadoot” Legal and Company Secretary, Agartala TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 30.4.2012 was filed by Shri S.Swaminathan, Senior Vice President-Legal & Compliance & Company Secretary, Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, “Ganadoot”, Agartala for publication of scandalous and defamatory news items under the captions “Tata AIG is even more a pathetic Organization which cheats that a chit fund” and “Cheater Tata AIG is making their Customers stranded on road” (English version) in its issues dated 17.4.2012 & 18.4.2012. It was published in the news item dated 17.4.2012 that TATA AIG recruits thousands of boys & girls, housewives, school teachers across India by paying them huge commissions. Their job is to sell a policy of three years by talking non sense things to a Customer. After investing for three years the customers are being informed that the current market is not good and if they want to withdraw the money then they get half the money that have been invested after deducting tax and if the money is kept for five years with TATA AIG then the company will not deduct any tax but the amount that they will get depend on the market conditions. That means that if a customer invests one lac rupees for three years with this infamous cheat chit fund company TATA AIG he/she will get 70000 after three years. When the customer inquires the agent about his money he/she says that all this are written in the policy document. It is further reported that they deposit the money, they receive policy document via post which contains hundreds of legal papers typed in small sizes of words which is not possible for any customer to go through. So that the customer is not able to take any legal step against this private chit fund company TATA AIG. They also send hundreds of agents to International destinations every year by a chartered flight. It has been published in another impugned news item dated 18.4.2012 that the group Company of TATA group, TATA AIG is making thousands of their customers sit on road by trapping through their agents. A gentleman deposited 7.50 lacs of his pension income and his accumulated money in this cheat Company TATA AIG. An agent of this cheat company TATA AIG told him that his amount will get double after five years and that he can also withdraw the amount after three years if he wishes to. When the same customer wanted to withdraw his money after three years he was informed that presently the economic condition of the country is very bad and hence if he wants to withdraw his money after three years now, he’ll get only six lacs 14 thousand. Instead of depositing his fund into this notorious company TATA AIG, if the customer would have deposited the money in any bank, he would have got a minimum of eight lacs after three years. It is difficult for a common man to know about the economic situation of the country. Agents of TATA AIG is spread across the entire country & they are alluring customers to deposit various sum of money making them dream of a comfortable future. This is just an example of the fraud business of TATA AIG. Several customers have moved to the court of law against this cheat TATA AIG. The affected customers are of the view that one should stay away from the agents of TATA AIG or else they will have to lose their money. The complainant submitted that the Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited India’s leading Insurance Company carrying on its operations and activities within the frame work of the law, policies and guidelines laid down by the Government of India for private insurance operators and also carries on its activities under the supervision of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority. Nothing contained in the said article has element of truth. The company is governed by IRDA within the frame work. Allegation regarding commission of agent is baseless as TATA-AIG Life Insurance Company Limited and all other insurance company has to pay commission as per IRDA rules. Sending agents to foreign location by chartered plane is nothing but ridicules allegation. Circulation regarding investment and withdrawal is also baseless and based on lock of knowledge on subject. TATA-AIG Life Insurance Company Limited gives all information in its policy document like surrender charges. Fund value, market investment etc. and cannot go beyond the same under any circumstances. He stated that the respondent has published the articles about the company intending to harm and lower the reputation the company. Nothing in the article has any element of truth or of public value. He alleged that the respondent had committed the offence of defamation by allowing the publication of scandalous and defamatory material. The complainant vide letter dated 5.5.2012 drew the attention of the respondent editor for tender an unconditional apology and published under minimum 10 points banner headline in its issue apologizing to Tata AIG Life Insurance Company, its Directors, staff, field agents and all its customers and the public at large for the libelous and damnatory material published by him.

A Notice for Comments dated 20.8.2013 was issued to the respondent editor, ‘Ganadoot’, Agartala.

Ms. Jayashree Ghosh of Dainik Ganadoot vide letter dated 17.4.2014 informed the Council that their editor is in custody due to some political victimized circumstance and as soon as earlier he will released, the comments will be submitted. Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune. The Inquiry Committee notes that despite service of notice, nobody has chosen to appear. The Inquiry Committee recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 64 File No.14/941/13-14-PCI

Shri Vijay Kumar Digambar Potdar, Editor, Solapur, Dainik Surajya, Maharashtra. Solapur, Maharashtra.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 10.12.2013 was filed by Shri Vijay Kumar Digambar Potdar, Solapur against Shri Santosh Istage, Journalist, Shri Santosh Gore, Photographer and the Editor, Dainik Surajya, Solapur alleging publication of a series of false, baseless and defamatory news items under captions as follows: S.No. Caption (English) Dated 1 Press Reporter of ‘Surajya’s beaten in P.W.D. 16.10.2013 2 Potdar on the same table from 15 years. Appointment as 17.10.2013 Computer Clerk working as Senior Clerk 3 Potdar frightened that the case will affect him prejudicially. 18.10.2013 Trying to institute false offence against après reporters. 4 Bravery of Potdar. DSR of P.W.D. sold in Xerox shop 19.10.2013 5 Press Reporter Council Sambhaji armour condemned 20.10.2013 Potdar. 6 Unemployed Engineer obstructed in PWD 21.10.2013 7 When bullying in PWD will stop contractor receives insulting 22.10.2013 treatment.

It was published in the news item on 16.10.2013 that reporter and photographer of ‘Dainik Surajya’ Solapur went to the Public Works Department where the complainant along with other staff members slapped and beaten them. The reporter registered an FIR regarding the incident. Executive Engineer ordered to make an inquiry. The respondent made various allegations against the complainant in its issues dated 17.10.2013 & 19.10.2013 to 22.10.2013. The complainant alleged that the reporter and cameraman of the newspaper were illegally taking the photographs of engrossed women on official duty in a position of incautious and as well as the vacant chairs and tables. He added that when the journalists were asked for their identity card, they angrily evaded and later on delete the photographs of women. The complainant submitted that there was no fighting and beating. The complainant also denied the entire allegations and alleged that respondents published false, libel and bogus news with photographs and intentionally defame the entire government departments and as well as him. The complainant vide letter dated 28.10.2013 drew the attention of the respondent editor but received no reply. A Show Cause Notice dated 27.1.2014 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Dainik Surajya.

Written Statement : The respondent in his written statement dated 28.2.2014 denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant. The respondent stated that his reporter with his cameraman had visited the office of PWD in respect of getting information regarding construction of a building by name Revenue Bhawan being constructed in Sat Rasta Area. The reporter had visited the said office in the afternoon and at that time, none of the staff members were present in three rooms and the lights and fans were on. The cameraman started to take the photographs. In the meantime, 4-5 staff members came there by running and asked the reporter and cameraman as to how and whose permission taken photographs Shri V.D. Potdar started abusing the reporter and his cameraman saying that he is the President of staff organisation. In reality, he abused the reporter and cameraman in filthy language and tried to snatch the camera. He submitted that the complainant has beaten the journalists and photographer on that day and said incident is reported to Sadar Bazar Police Station. The respondent further submitted that the published news was also based on the reliable information received from the different contractors who made such grievances against the complainant.

Counter Comments: In his counter comments dated 28.4.2014 the complainant stated that the statement of the respondent is false, the respondent misleading to the Hon’ble Press Council of India and try to mess up. The complainant stated that he is a social worker as well as Secretary of the Staff organisation. The banner of the behaviour of the complainant is social modesty and polite. The complainant never abused to the respondent except asking permission and identity card. The complainant further stated that the respondent violated the code of conduct. The complainant alleged that the respondent published lucky numbers daily on full page in newspaper which is nothing but gambling numbers of Mataka. They charged expenses for full page advertisement near about Rs.1,00,000/- The He stated that the circulation of the said newspaper is very poor. He further stated that it is not true that the complainant have any ill-intention and out of grudge.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Vijay Kumar Digambar, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Raj Kumar Narute, Executive Editor appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee notes that the complainant claims to be District Secretary of the Public Works and Irrigation Department, and his allegation is that the respondent newspaper has launched a campaign individually against him as also the department. He states that for a trivial incident which had taken place on 15.10.2013, news was published on the next day, and thereafter, a campaign had started against the complainant. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and his counsel, as also the representative of the respondent, and perused the record. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that different news items referred to by the complainant are in relation to different incidents and subject matters, and while doing so, the respondent newspaper has not committed breach of any journalistic ethics, so as to call for action 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.

Sl. No.65 F. No. 14/1021/13-14-PCI

Shri Vishalkumar Mathura Gupta, The Editor Thane (Maharashtra) ‘UT Mirror’ New Delhi

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 11.1.2014 was filed by Shri Vishalkumar Mathura Gupta, Thane (Maharashtra) against the editor ‘UT Mirror’ alleging publication of false, fabricated and defamatory news item under the caption ‘Vishal Gupta could land in police net’ in its issue dated December 16-31, 2013.

It was reported in the news item that Vishal Mathura Gupta, a relative of Shipli Gupta who has been arrested for her links with Asharam and Narayan, could be arrested by Gujarat police. It is further reported that huge black money is amassed by Asharam and Narayan Sai and the same has been invested by the complainant at undisclosed places. It was also reported that complainant is cheating and blackmailing many people, particularly businessman and traders, using names Asharam and Narayan Sai. It was also been reported that major portion of money generated by Asharam and Narayan Sai is with the complainant.

The complainant submitted that all the allegations published in the news article are false and nothing as such is the position. He stated that his version was not taken by the respondent before publication of the news. The complainant stated that the respondent circulated and distributed the newspaper free of price at various places. The complainant submitted that after publication of the article, he himself, his family persons has suffered huge mental trauma, stress and strains due to defamation caused by said imputation. The complainant vide notice dated 11.1.2014 through advocate drew the attention of the respondent but neither any reply was given nor contradiction/clarification published. The complainant submitted that no proceedings are pending in any court of law in respect of any matter alleged in the complainant.

A Show-Cause Notice dt. 17.4.2014 issued to the respondent editor, ‘UT Mirror’, New Delhi but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Vishal Gupta, the complainant appeared in person. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear. It is the allegation of the complainant that what has been published in the impugned news item is false, fabricated and defamatory. In the news item, it has been suggested that the complainant happens to be a relative of one Ms. Shilpi Gupta, who was arrested for her links with Ashram and Narayan Sai. It is the assertion of the complainant that he is, in no way, related to her (Shilpi Gupta) and had no concern with the finances of either Ashram or Narayan Sai. The respondent has not filed his reply. In the absence thereof, the Inquiry Committee has no option than to accept the assertion of the complainant that the impugned news item is false and fabricated. Once it is held so, the respondent newspaper deserves to be censured. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends that the editor and the respondent newspaper be Censured. 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 editor and the respondent newspapers, ‘UT Mirror’, 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. 66 F.No.14/1060/13-14-PCI

Shri Ashish D.Modi, The Editor Surat ‘Atal Savera’ Gujarat Surat, Gujarat

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 22.1.2014 was filed by Sh. Ashish D. Modi, Journalist, Surat against the editor, ‘Atal Savera’ alleging publication of defamatory news under the caption “civil mein kuch doctaro ke milibhagat mein patrkaar ki vivadaspad bhumika ke baavzood prashashan maun” in its issue dated 13.1.2014 with an intention to blackmail him.

It was reported in the impugned news item that Ashish Modi, a fake journalist received MLC certificate with connivance of doctor of New Civil Hospital and admit the prisoners in the Hospital. He was insulted before the staff members after exposing through c.c.camera and remain absent from casualty department during several months. After changing of casualty department to trauma center, he again started his illegal activities after taking insurance policy and threatened in the name of journalism. The Superintendent, Sh. Mahesh Wadel had not investigated neither his i-card nor the organization of the I-card, despite his illegal activities and whether Ashish Modi is journalist or not? The complainant vide undated notice drew the attention of the respondent editor but received no response.

No Written Statement A Show-Cause Notice dated 15.5.2014 issued to the respondent editor, “Atal Savera”, Gujarat followed by a Times Bound Reminder dated 16.10.2014 but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Ashish Modi, the complainant appeared in person. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear. It is the allegation of the complainant that a false news concerning him has been published in the respondent newspaper. According to him, the entire version is false and concocted and no occurrence, as alleged in the impugned news item, had ever taken place. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and connected papers. The Inquiry Committee directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent newspaper within four weeks. The complainant giving his version, the respondent newspaper shall publish the same in his newspaper with the same prominence within two weeks thereafter. The Inquiry Committee further cautions the respondent newspaper to be careful in future. The Inquiry Committee accordingly 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 on above terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 67 File No.14/1088/13-14-PCI

Mohd. Ayub Qureshi, Shri Sayed Zafrul Islam, Mumbai. Mumbai.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 10.2.2014 was filed by Mohd. Ayub Qureshi, Mumbai against Shri Sayed Zafrul Islam, Mumbai for blackmailing. The complainant stated that he is a fruit seller and having licence for doing the business. One Mr. Sayed Jafrul Islam posied himself as the news reporter and was in habit of making false police complaint against all the persons. According to the complainant, he started threatening the complainant and after threatening he filed the false complaint against him. Shri Sayed Jafrul was falsely representing as the Chief Reporter of Lehren. The complainant further submitted that by filing false complaints, the above person harassed him and his family members.

The Council vide letter dated 31.7.2014 called for the comments of the Editor, Lehren, Mumbai.

Written Statement Shri Sayed Zafrul Islam, Mumbai vide letter dated 11.8.2014 filed his comments in the matter. He stated that his newspaper Lahren fortnightly registered with RNI and he is a Chief Reporter of the said newspaper. He further stated that the complainant is a habitual complainer and vexatious litigant and extorting money from local shop keepers, businessmen and Residents of Crawford market. The respondent further submitted that the complainant and his family members lodged frivolous, fraudulent, false and bogus complaint against the local residents and cheating & extorting money from them. The respondent also stated that the complainant was successful in getting a FIR against him in which he got anticipatory bail in the matter. The respondent enclosed copies of his recent complaints addressed to the Senior Inspector of Police as well as the Senior Police Officers of Mumbai Police Department.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune. Mohd. Ayub Qureshi, the complainant along with Shri Nitin Vijay Dalvi, Advocate appeared. Shri Sayed Zafarul Islam, Ex Chief Reporter appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the respondent. It is the allegation of the complainant that the respondent is blackmailing him. The respondent denies the same and, in fact, asserts that it is the complainant who is involved in extortion. Be as that it may be, it is not the allegation in the present case that there is any dispute in regard to any news item published in any of the newspapers. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee 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 the reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 68 F.No.14/226/14-15-PCI

Shri Venkat R.Chary, The Editor Mumbai MINT, New Delhi

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 28.4.2014 was filed by Shri Venkat R. Chary, Mumbai against the editor, Mint, Mumbai for allegedly publication of false and defamatory news item under the caption “NSEL crisis: CBI looking into role of ex-FMC Chief” in its issue dated 20.3.2014.

According to the complainant the objectionable portion of the impugned news item is that the Central Bureau of Investigation is examining the role of Venkat R. Chary, a former Chairman of the Forward Markets Commission, in connection with the Rs.5574.33 crore payment crisis at the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL). It was also stated in the impugned news item that the two people cited in the first instance said CBI is looking into the role Chary may have played in connection with the crisis at NSEL that surfaced in end July last year. The people do not want to act identified and details on the exact context in which Chary’s role is being examined could not be immediately ascertained by Mint”. It was further stated that Mr. Chary over the phone informed “I am not aware of this. I do not see any reason why (complainant)name should be there. I have absolutely nothing to do with NSEL”.

Denying the allegations leveled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the respondent contacted him over telephone on March 19, 2014 and sent messages to clarify the facts what the CBI has said which is that they will be looking into his role. The complainant had objected to the factual inaccuracy and had asked to re-verify the facts in a face-to-face interview with him. But to his utter shock and surprise, the respondent published the impugned news item to defame him. The complainant also stated that he had enquired from the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, CBI, Mumbai whether they spoken/informed to the respondent about a CBI investigation into the so-called role of the complainant in the NSEL scam but they denied. Further, as a consequence a Marathi newspaper Loksatta also published a similar item in Marathi along with his photograph, resulting in even greater damage to the reputation of the complainant. The complainant added that inclusion of his name in the said article is per se false and defamatory and the tenor of the said impugned article excepts falsely imputes that the complainant is being investigated by the CBI in the NSEL scam and defamed him without any lawful justification and as such are also guilty of having committed the offence under Section 99 and 500 of IPC.

The complainant vide letter dated April 9, 2014 requested the respondent to give a written apology and publish corrigendum on the front page of newspaper in as prominent manner as the defamatory news item but the respondent has failed to comply as desired.

The complainant vide affidavit letter dated 30.4.2014 submitted the reply filed by the respondent on the legal notice dated 9.4.2014. The respondent editor vide letter dt. 17.4.2014 stated that they had published the article in the interest of the general public as a large number of public money was involved in it. The respondent also stated that they had no personal vendetta against the complainant personally or professionally so there is no question of either corrigendum for the said news item nor is there any question of tendering any apology.

A Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, “MINT”, New Delhi on 9.7.2014.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor, MINT vide written statement dated 11.8.2014 denied the allegations leveled against him by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the subject news item was published on the basis of correct facts and circumstances and in no way they were derogatory or defamatory as alleged by the complainant and no specific statements or observations were made in the subject news item. He accepted that there was exchange of SMS between the complainant and the respondent but the complainant had not specifically in any messages stated that the information is wrong or inaccurate. The complainant simply denied about any such inquiry being done by CBI officials, which was published in the subject news item. The news clearly discusses only the “role” and nowhere attributes any negative connotation in relation to the role of the complainant as chairman of FMC. The respondent further stated that the subject news item was published in usual and ordinary course to discharge of duties as responsible journalist with due and adequate verification of the facts contained in the subject news item. Respondent further submitted that no allegation or any defamatory statement has been made against the complainant and subject news item as a whole indicates that the author is merely making reference to the investigation and is not delving into the merits of the case. He added that CBI is still investigating the matter at the stage publication of the subject news item and the possibility of the investigating of complainant’s role cannot be termed as impossible and being referred out of context and the article discusses an issue of national importance with factual inputs from well placed sources.

Counter comments The complainant vide letter dt. 18.10.2014 while reiterating his complaint denied all the statement, averment and contention of the written statement.

The complainant vide letter dt. 7.5.2014 filed further affidavit annexing a copy of a letter dated 6th May, 2014 received from the Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai, wherein they had stated that the period during which he was the Chairman of the Forward Markets Commission (FMC) i.e. from 1984 to 1987 was not the subject matter of the CBI enquiry at all. The impugned article is defamatory as the respondents do not had any detail of the purported CBI enquiry without taking any due diligence, but were in great haste to go ahead and publish the said defamatory article. Thus, the claim of adequate verification of facts by the respondent proved wrong by the said letter of SP, CBI, Mumbai.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Venkat R. Chery, the complainant along with Shri Swapnil Desai and Shri Vishwawathan, Advocates appeared. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear, but have filed their written statement.

The complainant is aggrieved by the publication of a news item in the respondent newspaper in its issue dated 20.3.2014 under the caption “NSEL crisis: CBI looking into role of ex-FMC Chief”. The complainant happens to be a former Chairman of the Forward Markets Commission (FMC). In the news, it has been stated that the “Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is examining the role of Shri Venkat R. Chary, a former Chairman of FMC in connection with Rs.5574.33 crore payment crisis at the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL)”. It is the assertion of the complainant that his role was never a subject matter of investigation in the aforesaid crisis, and the aforesaid news item is absolutely baseless and concocted. In support of his assertion, he has placed before the Inquiry Committee a letter dated 6.5.2014, wherein it has been stated that his role is not the subject matter of enquiry at all by the CBI. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the complainant’s version that his role in the payment crisis is not the subject matter of investigation, deserves to be published in the respondent newspaper, with the same prominence as that of the impugned news. The Inquiry Committee accordingly directs the complainant to give his version to the respondent newspaper within four weeks. The respondent newspaper, in turn, will publish the same with the same prominence within two weeks thereafter. The Inquiry Committee would also like to caution the respondent to be careful in future. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for the dismissal of the complainant in the aforesaid terms.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 69 F. No. 14/284/14-15-PCI

Ms. Hansaben Jain The Editor Advocate, Abhiyan, Ahmadabad Ahmadabad

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 13.6.2014 was filed by Ms. Hansaben K. Jain, Advocate, Ahmadabad against the editor, Abhiyan, Ahmadabad for publication of allegedly false and defamatory article under the caption “Question on cases conducted by Govt. Pleader without agreement” in its issue dated April 26, 2014. It was reported in the impugned news item that in Ahmadabad Sessions Court, a lady Govt. Advocate conducted 127 cases in four years, without being authorized to do so. It was further reported in the impugned news item that in response to the RTI application filed by Shri Anand Brahmbhatt, practicing in Ahmadabad Sessions Court, reveals that the permission to represent Government, by Ms. Hansaben Jain expired in 2010 as Public Prosecutor in Sessions Court and that permission is not renewed until today as she is not Legal representative of Govt. It was also revealed by the RTI that Treasury office has paid remuneration upto 2013 and if the permission expired in 2010 how she had been paid remuneration. It was also stated in the impugned news item that in the last four years the complainant conducted 127 cases in Sessions Court as Govt. Advocate in which 102 accused acquitted and 25 convicted and now the important question arises whether 127 cases are legally conducted or not? Second question which arises is that how an advocate whose agreement expired four years before conducted the trials?

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item the complainant submitted that the certificates of appearance were issued by Sessions Court, the same were produced in the District Treasury for the payment and Treasury office have informed her that her name is not in the list of Government Advocate, hence the payment is not possible. The complainant also submitted that the cases were allotted to her by Chief Govt. Pleader and she conducted the trial as Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) in the court. The complainant further submitted that she conducted every case as per legal procedure and are hundred percent reliable. The complainant submitted that the publication is objectionable as it is baseless, untrue and false and defamatory and published without verifying the facts/records. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication on 17.5.2014 through legal notice (legal notice is in vernacular) but received no response.

A Show-Cause Notice dated 4.8.2014 issued to the respondent editor, ‘Abhiyan’, Ahmadabad.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent, ‘Abhiyan’ vide his written statement dated 17.9.2014 stated that the content of the complaint are false, frivolous and vexatious. The respondent stated that the story was formed and was based on the information given by the public prosecutor in connection with inquiry made about appointment and work allocation of government lawyers. The respondent further stated that before publishing the story, they contacted the complainant and asked her that how she could continue to represent the Government even she did not have any contract with the Government and was also not being paid by the treasury branch, she replied that the law department had not given her any discontinuity letter and till the time such a letter is not issued to her she would be considered as a government lawyer. The respondent further clarified that the Law Secretary, Government of Gujarat, clearly told the correspondent that no lawyer can represent the government after the contract is over and also negated the claim made by the complainant that a lawyer is considered to automatically represent the state government and continue to represent the government till the time the government issues the discontinuity certificate to the lawyer. He also categorically told that no lawyer can represent the state government once the contract between the state government and the lawyer is over and the state government does not need to write a letter to any lawyer to inform about the cessation of contract unless a new contract is signed between the lawyer and the government, the contract is considered over and the lawyer cannot represent the state government.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.5.2016 at Pune. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. The respondent, Shri Sanjay Pawar is, however, present. In the impugned news item, it has been stated that the engagement of the complainant came to an end in 2010, but she is still appearing for the prosecution. It has further been published that she had appeared in 127 cases out of which acquittal had taken place in 102 cases and conviction in 25 cases. The newspaper had expressed doubt about the legality of those trails. The complainant has nowhere averred that after her initial engagement till 2010 she was further appointed. Her explanation, however, is that cases were allotted to her by the Chief Government Pleader, and on that basis, she conducted the cases as Additional Public Prosecutor (APP). In view of the aforesaid, the news published cannot be said to be wrong. But the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that her version that she was conducting the cases as authorized by the Chief Government Pleader, ought to be published. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint, with the direction to the respondent that her version that she was appearing in the cases on being authorized by the Chief Government Pleader, be also published. 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 on the aforesaid terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 70 File No.14/472/14-15-PCI

Shri Suresh A. Gadge, The Editor, Prop. Gadge Electricals, Pudhari, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Kolhapur.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This undated complaint received in the Council on 19.08.2014 has been filed by Shri Suresh Annappa Gadge, Prop. Gadge Electricals, Kolhapur, Maharashtra against the editor, Pudhari for publication of an allegedly false, mischievous and defamatory news item under the caption “Tussle between More-Kalagate on awarding tender to black-listed Contractor” (English translation) in its issue dated 20.6.2014.

In the impugned news item it was reported that Ichalkaranji City Cong. Committee President Prakash More was supporting the Councillors opposing award of Tender to blacklisted contractor faces lot of opposition from Councillors Congress Group Leader Balasahen Kalagate . The incident took place immediately after the party meeting in which the party leaders appealed to maintain unity in party. The party workers questioned what message they would take from this incident. It is also stated in the impugned news item that Shri Suresh Gadge the contractor who is black-listed by Council administration got a tender of Rs.50 lacks of Electrical Department of Municipal Council Councillor Bhimrao Atigre who objected to this made a complaint to party president Prakash More, about the party leaders. He told that Civil Court has directed the Municipal Council to remove the name of Gadge from black-list. However, lot exchange of works took place amongst More-Kalgate in presence of party ex-president Ashokrao Arge. When reporter gathered there, party workers took both More-Kalgate inside office. However, inside the close room also both were loudly arguing with each other. The complainant denied the allegations levelled by the respondent in the impugned news item. According to the complainant, the news item was totally false mischievous and defamatory and the respondent was well aware that he is not black listed but even though he published the impugned news item to defame him and lowered his image in the eyes of the public. The complainant vide letter dated 23.6.2014 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item and requested him to publish apology but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice dated 9.9.2014 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Pudhari.

Written Statement : The respondent Managing Advisor, Pudhari in his written statement dated 16.9.2014 stated that they had published the clarification of the complainant on 27.6.2014 i.e. within a couple of days from the receipt of the notice and a copy of the same was also provided to the complainant and complainant was satisfied with the clarification. In fact, he had expressed to their reporter that he was satisfied with the explanation. The respondent further stated that the matter was settled amicably and there was not need to file a complaint.

Counter Comments The complainant vide his letter dated 11.5.2016, while reiterating his complaint, stated that before publishing such a drastic and defamatory news, the respondent could have taken due care and caution to check the reality but this was not done by the respondent and directly published the news item even without ascertaining the truth and thereby defamed the character of the complainant. He alleged that because of the wrong and defamatory publication, his reputation was lowered in social activists and the public at large. He further alleged that the act of the respondent is against the press ethics and a best example of yellow journalism.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Suresh A. Gadge, the complainant is present in person. The respondent editor is represented by Shri Dilip Urkude, who claims to be the General Manager of the respondent newspaper posted at Pune.

It is the assertion of the complainant that the respondent newspaper, Pudhari, in its issue dated 20.6.2014, stated that the complainant is a blacklisted contractor. It is the assertion of the complainant that he is not a blacklisted contractor, and the impugned publication describing him as a blacklisted contractor, is false and concocted. The respondent has filed a written statement in which they have stated that they have published clarification on 27.6.2014. However, in record what has been sent, is the publication made on 20.6.2014. Another publication dated 27.6.2014 has been brought to our notice in which it is alleged that the clarification has been published. The Inquiry Committee bestowed its consideration to the two alleged clarifications published by the respondent newspaper, and is of the opinion that those are not clarifications but other news in which a passing reference has been made about the blacklisting of the complainant. Before publishing that, the complainant is a blacklisted contractor, the respondent newspaper ought to have been more careful and verified it from the complainant, which they do not seem to have done in the present case.

Before we part with the case, the Inquiry Committee would like to observe that Shri Dilip Urkude who appeared on behalf of the respondent newspaper, is not aware of the facts and circumstances of the case, and his plea is that he had been posted at Pune recently and therefore, not aware of the facts of the case. We would like to advice the respondent newspaper that in future, if they authorize any person to represent it, he should be fully instructed in the case, so that he can answer the questions raised by the members of the Inquiry Committee.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee finds the conduct of the respondent newspaper to be reprehensible and accordingly Censures it. A copy of this order be forwarded to the DAVP, Director General of Information, State Govt of Maharashtra, and all other concerned.

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 editor, ‘Pudhari’, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP, Director General (Information), State Government of Maharashtra and RNI for necessary action as they deem fit.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 71 File No.14/919/13-14-PCI

Shri Devesh Bhatt, The Editor, Advocate, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmadabad Ahmadabad

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 5.1.2013 was filed by Shri Devesh Bhatt, Advocate, Ahmadabad against the Editor, ‘Divya Bhaskar’, Gujarati Daily, Ahmadabad for allegedly publication of defamatory news item under the caption “Bailable Warrant against Advocate Devesh Bhatt: Ordered to remain present before Criminal Court” in its issue dated 11.10.2013.

It was reported in the news item that Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shri S.V. Parekh issued bailable warrant against advocate Devesh Bhatt was after preferring a writ petition before Gujarat High Court levelling serious allegations against judicial officers is remains absent.

The complainant stated that news item is creating an impression that he does not remain present before appropriate court despite bailable warrant issued against him, which was defamatory, derogatory, baseless and false statement. The complainant added that the same required a clarification to be published by the respondent. He added that the said news may cause loss of his income and reputation and it may amount to defamation. The complainant vide letter dated 28.10.2013 drew the attention of the respondent editor and requested to publish his clarification but the respondent did not publish the clarification.

A Show Cause Notice dated 13.2.2014 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Divya Bhaskar, Ahmadabad.

Written Statement : The respondent editor vide his letter dated 25.5.2015 filed written statement. The respondent denied the each and every averment made by the complainant in the complaint. The respondent attached a copy of the order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah which in itself is self explanatory.

Counter Comments: The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.9.2015 denied the submissions of the respondent and stated that the respondent had not made any submission on merit. The complainant added that Justice Shah had violated the principle of natural justice by sitting in the Chair of Justice for deciding the matter for his own cause. The complainant submitted that pursuant to the order dated 26.9.2013, the applicant remained present before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmadabad on 11.10.2013.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Devesh Bhatt, the complainant appeared in person. Despite service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the main grievance of the complainant is that he asked the respondent newspaper to publish a clarification in respect of the news item published earlier that a bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the complainant, but the respondent has not chosen to do the same. According to him, this is in breach of code of conduct. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the relevant papers, and is of the opinion that the respondent rightly refused to publish the clarification in the terms sought for by the complainant. The Inquiry Committee does not find any merit in the complaint, and accordingly 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. 72-73 F.No.14/942-943/14-15-PCI

Shri Triratan Laxmanrao Ingle The Editors, Tal Dist. Akola, Maharashtra 1) Daily City News Superfast 2) Daily Deshonnati, Maharashtra

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 2.2.2015 was filed by Shri Triratan Laxmanrao Ingle, Akola, Maharashtra against the Editor, ‘Daily Citi News Superfast’ and ‘Daily Deshonnati’ alleging publication of false and defamatory news item in their issue dated 2nd December, 2014 under the caption “Reporter demanded extortion of Rs.5 Lacs” and “Demand of Rs.5 Lakhs Extortion by Reporter & M.P’s P.A.” respectively.

It was alleged in the news items that Shri Triratna Ingle (complainant) collected information through RTI and used the said information to defame Shri Rajesh Deshmukh, a contractor with the help of a press reporter. It was also reported that a reporter with the help of so-called P.A. of M.P. Nana Patole arrived recently in town and demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs from Shri Deshmukh with the help of the information collected by Mr. Ingle. It was also reported that reporter and P.A. blackmailed the contractor using the information sought by Shri Ingle.

The complainant submitted that the impugned news items were totally false and misleading in nature and the same have not only defamed him but also destroyed his social image and reputation of his family including old aged father, two unmarried sisters. He further stated that he is not getting any job or employment due to these publications as nobody is ready to offer him a job to him. He added that he was personal assistant to one of the M.L.As’ of Maharashtra. He also submitted that the published news items were never verified before publication.

The complainant drew the attention of respondent editors through e-mail and whats-app and letters dated 26.12.2014 and requested to publish the rejoinder of the false news items but received no response.

A Show-Cause Notice dated 20.3.2015 issued to the respondent editors ‘Daily City News Superfast’ and ‘Daily Deshonnati’, Maharashtra.

Written Statement

The respondent editor, Deshonnati in his written statements dated 31.3.2015 submitted that news item was published on the basis of the complaint registered with the City Kotwali Police Station against the complainant by Shri Rajesh Dadarao Deshukh, Proprietor, M/s. Ajinkya Construction, Patur, District Akola. He further submitted that the allegation of the complainant that he became unemployed from the job of personal assistant to Hon’ble M.P. Shri Nana Patole is not true. In fact, he is not working as PA to Hon’ble Member of Parliament as he mentioned himself a Personal Assistant to Hon’ble M.P. in a letter dated 11.11.2014 addressed to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Akola calling for certain information with bad intention. The respondent stated that the complainant had made false and baseless allegations .

The respondent editor, City News Superfast in his written statement dated 17.4.2015 reiterated the facts as submitted by the respondent editor, Deshonnati.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Triratan Laxmanrao Ingle, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Amol P. Bhoyar and Shri Nilesh Rout appeared for the respondents. The complainant is aggrieved by the publication of the news item in the respondent newspapers, Daily City News Superfast and Daily Deshonnati, Maharashtra. In the impugned news items, it has been stated that the complainant who happens to be the P.A. of an M.P., has demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The complainant admits that such a complaint was lodged on 25.11.2014, but the news items have been published on 2.12.2014. It is the grievance of the complainant that when the report was given to the police on 25.11.2014, it ought to have been published within a couple of days thereafter, and the respondent newspapers have committed a breach of journalistic ethics by publishing it on 2.12.2014. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representatives of the respondents and finds no substance in the grievance of the complainant. It has, however, come to the notice of the Inquiry Committee that the news reports published in the two newspapers are almost reproduction, with minor changes here and there, from each other. The Inquiry Committee would like to caution the respondents that they should avoid such kind of reporting. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal 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 decided to dismiss the complaint on aforesaid terms.

Press Council of India

Sl. No. 74 F.No.14/355/14-15-PCI

Sh. Rajesh B.Shah The Editor Advocate, The Times of India, Aurangabad, Aurangabad Edition, Maharashtra Maharashtra

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 1.7.2014 was filed by Shri Rajesh B. Shah, Advocate, Aurangabad, Maharashtra against the editor, The Times of India, Aurangabad edition alleging publication of highly objectionable, defamatory, inexcusable and infringement news item under the caption “Upper Castes rule Cabinet, backwards MoS” having sub-title as “Back to the Forwards” and “Caste Composition of Modi Council” in its issue dated 28.5.2014. It was reported in the impugned news item that Narendera Modi – led regime promises sweeping changes in host of areas, but one aspect in which it seems to have bowed down to the tradition is the caste composition of the Council of Ministers. There is a marked dominance of the upper castes in which out of 46 ministerial berths, Upper Castes i.e. Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas and Vaishyas, Lingayats, Vokkaligas and Marathas have 20 berths, OBCs have 13 representatives, Tribals Six and Dalits Three. It was also reported in the impugned news item that there is a bit of a surprise in the really low representation of dalits. The complainant submitted that all such recitals were highly offensive, highly objectionable, inexcusable, defamatory, culling the principles of “Equality before Law” and raking the ‘Casteism’ factor and hurt his sentiments. Its recitals were prima facie harmful, objectionable and derogatory to the entire peaceful system of the nation. He stated that the report sends wrong signals of caste based politics and such news items do pour petrol in the fire of casteism. The complainant vide his legal notice dated 30.5.2014 requested the respondent to publish an unconditional apology but no cognizance was taken by the respondent.

No Written Statement A Show-Cause Notice dated 16.10.2014 was issued to the respondent editor, “The Times of India”, Aurangabad followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 23.3.2015, but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Rajesh Bansilal, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Kunal Endait, Deputy Chief Manager (Legal) appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondent newspaper and perused the complaint and the connected papers. It is the grievance of the complainant that the respondent newspaper, by publishing the caste composition of Shri Narendra Modi’s Cabinet, has encouraged casteism, and therefore, the publication is in breach of journalistic code of conduct. The Inquiry Committee has considered the submissions of the complainant and finds that the respondent newspaper has just analyzed the composition of the cabinet, which is well within its right. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance of the complainant has no merit, and accordingly 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. 75 File No.14/1192/13-14-PCI

Shri Mohan Krishnan, The Editor, All India President, Manavta Bharat, Anti Corruption & Crime Mumbai. Prevention Council, Mumbai.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 18.12.2013 was filed by Shri Mohan Krishnan, President, All India Anti Corruption & Crime Preventive Council, Mumbai through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting against the editor, Manavta Bharat, Mumbai for allegedly publication of wild and vulgar allegation against Mahatma Gandhi as a sex maniac. The respondent published the following baseless and defamatory allegation against Late Mahatma Gandhi: a) That he was sharing bed with naked girls, b) That he considered late Kasturba Gandhi as means for his lust, c) He developed sexual relation with other women. d) He also shared bed with Sushila Nair, Abha & Manu, e) He also got massage from them and bathed in naked condition.

The complainant also stated that respondent abused Lord Ram also as a Pari and Durachari in the same article. The complainant further stated that the entire article was not written and published in public interest but only to create law and order problem causing rioting.

A Show Cause Notice dated 2.7.2015 was issued to the respondent editor, Manavta Bharat, Mumbai

Written Statement: The respondent editor, Manavta Bharat, Mumbai vide his written statement dated 16.7.2015 stated that the complainant had filed an FIR against him with the Mumbai Police regarding the impugned news item and the matter is pending in the court of law. He stated that so many criminal cases are pending against the complainant in police station. The respondent further stated that he had taken the same from the Google website which has already been published earlier in India Today magazine. The respondent also mentioned that the complainant is unnecessarily harassing him by filing complaint against him in Thane Police Station. He concluded that he does not want to hurt the sentiments of anyone, if any one is hurt he apologies for the same.

Counter Comments: In response to the written statement of the respondent the complainant vide letter dated 20.8.2015 has stated that he was acquainted in all the false cases filed by the police. He also enclosed a set of documents in support of his version.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent is present. From the perusal of the written statement, it seems that the complainant has filed an F.I.R. against the respondent with the Mumbai Police in respect of the impugned news item. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and 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. 76 F.No.14/767/14-15-PCI

Dr.(Capt.) Ritu Biyani, The Editor, Flat No.1, Lalita Mahal, Nilgiri Lane The Times of India Baner Road, Pune, Maharashtra

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

The complaint dated 8.12.2014 was filed by Dr. (Capt.) Ritu Biyani, Pune, Maharashtra against the Editor, the Times of India alleging publication of an article reporting court proceedings and the order passed by the Hon’le High Court of Mumbai in the matter in its issue dated 5.11.2014 under the caption ‘Can’t quit job & make hubby pay for you: HC’. The news report in question published with regard to the personal court case proceedings and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai. It was reported that a qualified lady who was working earlier and earning, and who is still capable of earning, cannot give up her job, sit back and expect her husband to provide for her. The HC observed that the ex-wife, a “trained dental surgeon”, should not stop working. The wife worked on a short service commission in the Army for years as a dentist in Pune and later opened a clinic in Banner in 1999. She was diagnosed with cancer soon after starting her clinic. She recovered after surgery and year-long chemotherapy. It was alleged that each and every detail and some wrong information is published in the said news item about the case of divorce of the complainant with Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai. The report had brought an introduction of the case regarding matrimonial matters among the people, who knows of her and her work. The complainant submitted that the published version was absolutely private and media is legally prohibited from divulging or reporting such intricate details of any party to the proceedings, which may in any manner of whatsoever nature, divulge the identity of the parties to the litigation. Moreover, the reporter had not taken any prior permission from the concerned High Court, for publication of the Judgment. Since the issue is subjudice, publication of the Judgment is completely erroneous and premature. It is in contravention of the provision of the Hindu Marriage act and offence under the same. The report had violated her privacy and the unveiling of her matrimonial troubles and other personal details about her personal health conditions etc and had rendered opaque, her private life for the general public, to view which caused her tremendous mental pain and anguish and left her shattered and vulnerable to the readers’ views and opinions which they may form of her and those who already had an insight about her character and general persona including those in the circle of her acquaintances, friends, relatives and immediate family members. In her letter dated 8.12.2014 to editor, while mentioning the above-detailed facts, she mentioned that her and her daughter’s name is not mentioned in the news item but any person using the keyword of cancer survivor, dental surgeon, trust, expeditions to create awareness” will zero on to me and her through a search engine. She requested the editor to take steps to ensure that the said reporter is censured and a written apology is extended to her and her daughter but received no response.

A Show-Cause Notice dated 18.2.2015 issued to the respondent editor, “Times of India”, Mumbai.

Written Statement

The respondent editor vide letter dated 10.6.2015 denied the allegations leveled by the complainant and submitted that the article was factually correct, carried in good faith, published in public interest and the same was duly verified. The article was published on the basis of facts without mal-intentions to defame the complainant. The details provided in the article are well within the realms of the law and the freedom of press. The report merely states facts without giving any opinion on the matter or the parties involved in the litigation. There was no such content in the article which would cause tremendous mental pain and anguish to the complainant or lower her image in the eyes of right thinking persons of society, as alleged.

Counter comments

The complainant vide her counter comments dated 8.8.2015 shown her dissatisfaction towards the written statement. She stated that the claim of the respondent editor that the news was duly verified, factually correct and carried in good faith was false and had no base as the respondent has failed to provide the documents for reporting the news item. She added that she was identified in the story reported as Army Officer and her husband was not identified which leads to the biased attitude of the respondent editor. The respondent did not make any efforts to contact her to verify the facts but went ahead to publish the news.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Dr.(Capt.) Ritu Joseph, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Kunal Endait, Deputy Chief Manager-Legal appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondent newspaper, and has perused the complaint and all connected papers. The complainant fairly states that she does not have any grievance in regard to the core-content of the news and her grievance is that various details given in the news item unnecessarily identify her. She has pointed out that the description of the person as an army dental surgeon, cancer survivor, having clinic on a particular road, and the daughter studying veterinary science, clearly point out to her identification. The respondent, however, states that these descriptions are general in nature. The Inquiry Committee has considered the rival submissions and is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper ought to have been moral sensitive in the matter. It has given details which have no bearing on proper representation of the news. The Inquiry Committee accordingly directs that the respondent newspaper, while covering such news, should be careful. The Inquiry Committee 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 on above terms. Press Council of India

Sl. No. 77 F.No.14/371/14-15-PCI

Sh. Prakash P. Kukreja Maharashtra Shakti Shali Ulhasnagar Express, Ulhasnagar

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 9.7.2014 was filed by Shri Prakash Panjumal Kukreja, Ulhasnagar against the Editor, Printer and Publisher, Maharashtra Shakti Shali Express, Ulhasnagar for publication of defamatory, slanderous, scandalous and objectionable news item under the caption “Umnapa ka bedagark kiya ab shehar ka bedagark karne ki tayari mein hai mahabrasht Prakash Kukreja” in its issue dated June 23-29, 2014. It was reported in the impugned news item that the complainant is a corrupt officer and extorting money from big builders. It was also stated in the impugned news item that during his tenure in Mumbai Nagar Palika he tortured his female colleagues for illegal demands. Due to this some of the female colleagues left their jobs and this can be verified conducting a secret inquiry. It was further stated in the impugned news item that after destroying the image of Mumbai Nagar Palika the complainant is going to destroy the image of the City by contesting election under the banner of AAP. Denying the allegations leveled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the contents of the impugned news item were highly defamatory, slanderous, scandalous and published without taking his version. The complainant further submitted that the impugned news item defame him in the eyes of the family, friends and public at large by assassinating his character like a corrupt officer and illicit relations with women including his family members. The complainant vide notice dated 25.6.2014 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news item and requested him to publish his notice.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 31.7.2014 issued to the respondent Editor, Maharashtra Shakti Shali Express, Ulhasnagar but received back undelivered with postal remarks “incomplete address”. The Show Cause Notice was again sent to the respondent through SDO Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra vide Council’s letter dated 1.10.2014 but no response was received either from SDO or respondent. However, the respondent was contacted over telephone but he was not interested in giving exact address.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Prakash P. Kukreja, the complainant appeared in person while despite service of notice the respondent has neither filed the written statement, nor is present today. It is the assertion of the complainant that the respondent had published a false news that the complainant, while in service, used to harass the women employees. According to him, it has further wrongly been published that he never used to take legal action against illegal construction. The complainant further asserts that this news is false, and before its publication, his version was not obtained. In the absence of any reply by the respondent, the assertion made by the complainant that the impugned news item is false and concocted, and further that his version was not taken before publication of the news item, is fit to be accepted. The Inquiry Committee accordingly accepts the assertion of the complainant that the respondent newspaper had published the news which is false, and that too without obtaining his version. The respondent newspaper had, therefore, breached the norms of journalistic ethics, and for that deserves to be censured. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for censure of the newspaper. 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 editor and the respondent newspapers, ‘Maharashtra Shakti Shali Express’, Ulhasnagar, U.P.. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP, RNI and Government of U.P. for necessary action as they deem fit.

Press Council of India Sl. No. 78 F.No.14/491/14-15-PCI

Mr.Abraham Samson Mhedekar and The Editor, Mr. Jonathan Samuel Solomon, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai Mumbai Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 26.8.2014 was filed by S/Shri Abraham Samson Mhedekar and Jonathan Samuel Solomon, Mumbai against the editor, Mumbai Mirror, Mumbai alleging publication of an article under the caption “Jews build control room to monitor 7 synagogues” along with photograph of the “Tiphereth Israel Synagogue” at Jacob Circle, Mumbai with the words ‘The control room is located at the Tiphereth Isreal Synagogue at Jacob Circle’ in its issue dated 28.6.2014. It was reported in the impugned article that six years after Pakistani Terrorists attacked at Nariman House in Colaba, the City’s seven Jewish synagogues have come together to set up a control room to monitor activity across the synagogues. It was also stated in the impugned article that the main control room will be manned by the community’s youth which located at the Tiphereth Isreal Synago at Jacob Circle and the control room will know the emergency escape routes at each synagogue and will have a plan in place to help the police in case of any untoward incident. It was also reported in the impugned article that such groups exist all over the world, but the group in Mumbai began training only after the 26/11 attack and is active at all synagogues with not only physical training but also youths are trained to identify suspicious movements, facial expressions and establish if a person is Jewish or not by starting a conversation. The complainant objected the article in a manner that it was a clear violation of the right to privacy of Jewish Citizens and institutions. Security measures against violent attacks are confidential in nature and publication of reports about the same can destroy efficiency of such measures and the same was against the public interest to publish reports about security measures at temples, mosques, churches and other places of worship and at public places like hospitals, railways stations, airports, government offices and courts. The complainant submitted that the purposes of publishing security of Jewish Religious institutions do not impinge upon any public interest and there is no justification for publication of the same. The complainant further submitted that the article exposed Jewish institutions and individuals to violent attacks and article cannot be justified on grounds of any public interest. The public interest lies in protecting the privacy of individuals and institutions and not in exposing their security measures. The complainants vide letter dated 17.7.2014 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned article and requested them to fix a meeting in order to understand their justification, but no response have been received so far. A Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, “Mumbai Mirror”, Mumbai on 16.10.2014. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 2.5.2016 denied each and every allegation made in the complaint regarding the impugned news article. He further denied that the said news article was objectionable and not in compliance with the guidelines of Press Council of India. He submitted that the news was factually correct and carried in good faith and public interest and based on information derived from authorised and trusted sources duly verified and believed to be true and correct. He alleged that the complainant’s grievance were unjustified as the news article did not make any allegations, imputations or innuendo whatsoever against the complainant or any other person/entities.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Mr. A. S. Mhedakhar and Mr. J.S. Solomon, complainants appeared in person. Shri Kunal Endait, Deputy Chief Manager (Legal) appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of the respondent newspaper. The Inquiry Committee appreciates the concern of the complainant. The representative of respondent newspaper states that the concern of the complainant shall be addressed by the respondent newspaper, and for that purpose, a meeting between the complainant and the editor of the respondent newspaper shall be held within four weeks. The Inquiry Committee takes note of the assurance given by the respondent editor and in view of the same, directs for disposal of the complaint. The respondent shall submit a compliance report. 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 on above terms.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 79 File No.14/297/14-15-PCI

Shri Sanjay Nambiar, The Editor, Group President & General Counsel, Yes Bank Ltd. The Economic Times, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 13.6.2014 was filed by Shri Sanjay Nambiar, Group President, & General Counsel, Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, Economic Times and Assistant Editor for publication of allegedly unsubstantiated , unverified and malicious comments which reads as follows:

S. No Caption Dated 1 Bank Board may discuss ways to end row 23.4.2014 2 Yes Says No to Madhu on Board push 28.4.2014 3 Yes Bank seeks Sebi’s View on Madhu Kapur’s 7.5.2014 Promoter Status 4 HC Rejects Yes Bank Plea, may Hear Kapur’s case 10.5.2014 5 Rama Kapoor shouldn’t get to be CEO Again: 13.5.2014 Madhu Kapur Yes Bank Co-founder Ashok Kapur’s wife writes to RBI 6 Rana Kapoor’s 2nd term in HC hands 31.5.2014

The complainant stated that the respondent published the stories regarding a Suit which is pending before court of law, i.e. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The respondent had made multiple unsubstantiated, unverified and malicious comments on an ongoing basis, reflecting a highly biased and partisan stance in the Suit, which is likely to influence the free and fair administration of justice and may cause bias prejudice against the in the mind of the judiciary. The complainant also stated that a close reading of the articles clearly indicate the bias and are highly lop sided and are written in a form and manner to malign and defame the Bank its MD & CEO.

The complainant stated that as a banking company they deal with the public money and public depositors and these articles have the potential to adversely impact the business sentiments and are interfering in the fair administration of justice by provoking an atmosphere of public hostility, which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial.

The complainant drew the attention of the respondent vide letters dated 29.4.2014, 12.5.2014 and 15.5.2014 towards the said articles and several requests for publishing a corrigendum but the same was not acceded by the respondent. According to the complainant, the respondent editor vide its e-mail letter dated 19.5.2014 made a feeble attempt to justify the inaccuracies contained in the articles. The complainant also submitted that the appeal to the respondent to refrain from publishing such articles and sensationalizing the whole matter but there has been no response or effort made in publishing a corrigendum.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 4.7.2014 but no written statement has been filed by him.

Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 5.5.2016 denied each and every allegation made in the complaint regarding the impugned news article. He further denied that the said news article was objectionable and not in compliance with the guidelines of Press Council of India. He submitted that the news was factually correct and carried in good faith and public interest and based on information derived from authorised and trusted sources duly verified and believed to be true and correct. He alleged that the complainant’s grievance were unjustified as the news article did not make any allegations, imputations or innuendo whatsoever against the complainant or any other person/entities.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Kunal Endait, Deputy Chief Manager (Legal) appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee noted that a communication has been received from the complainant in which it is stated that the complainant does not wish to proceed further with the complaint and craves leave to withdraw the complaint. The Inquiry Committee considered the said prayer and granted leave to the complainant to withdraw the complaint. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for withdrawal of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA S. No. 80 File No.14/204/14-15-PCI Complainant Respondent Dr. Jyotsna D. Kitukille, The Editor, Government General Hospital, Deshonnati, Amravati. Amravati. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016 This complaint dated 24.5.2014 was filed by Dr. Jyotsna Dhanraj Kitukille, Government General Hospital, Amravati against the Editor, Deshonnati, Amravati for publication of an allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Doctor torn medical examination report of a lady patient” (English translation) in its issue dated 26.4.2014. It is reported in the impugned news item that a lady doctor on duty in District General Hospital has torn the medical examination report of a lady patient namely Sunanda who came for an admission in the hospital. The family members of the said patient lodged a complaint against the lady doctor to the District Collector. It is also stated in the news item that the doctor instead of admitting the patient in the ward, has torn the medical examination report and tried to get her out of the hospital by calling two policemen who were on duty. The complainant denied the allegations levelled in the impugned news item and stated that she is doing his work with transparency and with devotion. She has stated that on 24.4.2014 a lady patient come to hospital and after examination of the patient, she prescribed some medicine and advised for some tests but the patient requested her that she has to be admitted in hospital and torn her medical examination report. The complainant further stated that the respondent has again published a news item on 13.5.2014 to defame him in the eye of public. The complainant further stated that her services in hospital are unblemished, clean and without any adverse remarks and the said publication lowered her image in the society and medical fraternity. The complainant vide undated notice and letter dated 19.5.2013 drew the attention of the respondent editor, Deshonnati towards the impugned news item and requested him to publish apology but received no response. The complainant requested the Council to take action in the matter.

No Written Statement: Show Cause Notice dated 27.8.2014 was issued to the respondent newspaper, Deshonnati but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Despite service of notice, neither the complainant nor the respondent has appeared. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and connected papers and is of the opinion that the news item is based on a complaint given to the Collector. The Inquiry Committee is further of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not violated any code of conduct in publishing the impugned news item. It accordingly recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of the 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 S.No.. 81 File No.14/715/14--15-PCI Complainant Respondent Shri Ajay Tyagi, The Editor, Mumbai. The Times of India, New Delhi. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 8.10.2014 was filed by Shri Ajay Tyagi, Mumbai against the Editor, the Times of India, New Delhi for publication of allegedly derogatory article written by Indrajit Hazra under the caption “Whose Durga Puja Is It Anyway? in its issue dated 23.9.2014. It was reported in the impugned news item that Suzette Jordan is a familiar name to many Kolkatans as the woman who was gang-raped in February 2012 in Kolkata, that Potemkin village off a stretch where Kolkata desperately holds on to being Calcutta Jordan had to cosmopolitan courage and counter-intuitive belief in justice and rights to go to the police and the media after her attack two year ago. It was further reported in the impugned news item that she was also brave in not hiding behind the description of the Park Street rape victim and identified herself publicly, hoping that other rape survivors would take her cue and act against their perpetrators. It has been further reported that on Kolkata was she reckoned like so many other, not caste-ridden, misogynistic or communally trip- wired. As the saying goes here, “This is not UP or Bihar”

The complainant has objected to the derogatory observations about people living in UP and Bihar in the impugned news item published in Times of India “that Kolkata was, she reckoned like so many other, not caste-ridden, misogynistic or communally trip-wired. As the saying goes here, “This is not UP or Bihar” According to the complainant, this is a clear case of regional chauvinism on part of both the author as well as the newspaper.

The complainant has drawn the attention of the respondent-newspaper on 23.9.2014 followed by a reminder dated 1.10.2014 but received no response. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent newspaper. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent newspaper on 15.4.2015.

Written Statement In response to Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 15.4.2015 the respondent’s through its Advocate filed written statement dated 29.4.2015. The respondent strictly and specifically denied the allegations made by the complainant and refuted those in toto. Respondent has vehemently denied that his client offended or violated in any manner the professional norms of journalistic conduct or ethics. The respondent further stated article in no way depicts the states of U.P. and Bihar as being caste-ridden, misogynistic and communally trip-wired states. The respondent also denied that the said article suffers from “regional chauvinism” It was never the intention of the author of the article or the newspaper to give this type of impression. He denied that his client displayed indifference and/or arrogance to complainant’s correspondence Since an overwhelming volume of correspondence is received by the respondent every day, it is practically not possible for the respondent to answer each and every correspondence received. The respondent requested the Council to drop the proceedings against them.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.5.2016 at Pune. Despite service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant. Respondent is represented by Shri Kunal Enoait from its Legal Department .

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papers. The Inquiry Committee finds no merits in the complaint and accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of the 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 S.No. 82 F.No. 14/185/15-16-PCI Complainant Respondent Shri Chetan Brijmohan Bajaj, The Editor, Director, Shree Awdhoot YUGDHARMA Daily, Education Society, Nagpur. Saket Public School, Gondia-M.S. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 9.7.2015 was filed by Shri Chetan Brijmohan Bajaj, Director, Shree Awdhoot Education Society, Saket Public School, Gondia against the editor, YUGDHARMA Daily, Nagpur for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Swimming Pool me Balak dooba” in its issue dated 23.5.2015. It was reported in the impugned news item that parents admitted their children in the Saket Public School for swimming classes but due to the negligence of the owner of the swimming pool (complainant) one trainee suddenly went deep into the water due to which huge water was deposited into his lungs and he became unconscious. The Swimming pool at Saket Public School is an illegal construction. The school has no right to hold swimming classes and charge fees. The trainer and others fled away from the site and told the watchman to lock the main entrance and not to allow anyone inside.

Denying the allegations leveled in the impugned news item, the complainant submitted that the news item was published in collusion with other educational societies to defame his school. The allegation that the incident took place in the swimming pool in the campus of Saket Public School, whereas the campus of both premises is separate in all respect and there is no connection between the school and the swimming pool. The complainant submitted that the respondent published inaccurate, baseless, misleading, distorted material without reporting all sides of the core issue and set forth unjustified rumors against his institution. The complainant vide letter dated 11.6.2015 served notice to the respondent editor, Yugdharma with a request to furnish name and address of the district correspondent. In response to the notice the respondent vide letter dated 20.6.2015 replied the notice and denied the allegations leveled in the notice and stated that the same kind of news was also published in 9-10 papers and every paper made responsible the complainant for the incident. The respondent requested him to withdraw the notice.

The complainant requested the Council to take action against respondents for publication of defamatory contents.

A Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, “Yugdharama”, Nagpur on 7.8.2015.

Written statement In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 7.8.2015 the respondent editor, Yugdharma vide his written statement dated 1.9.2015 while denying the allegations claimed the news to be totally correct. On reporting of the incident, it came to knowledge that said swimming pool is not constructed by taking any lawful permission from competent authority. During inquiry conducted by police all concern persons (son of the complainant, Caretaker and Coach of the school and father of victim) given statement that incident took place within the premises of Saket Public School where swimming pool is constructed and complainant is the only owner of this swimming pool. He also submitted that photograph which clearly shows that the gate of Saket Public School and the swimming pool are situated at the premises of Saket Public School. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide letter dt. 6.11.2015 strongly objected and denied the contention of the respondent in toto. The respondent un-necessarily published the defamatory news and exaggerated the incident without collecting ground reality and material fact of incidence malafidely implicated the name of institution in the incidence with ulterior motive to defame the reputation of institution under the instructions from competitor education institutions. The news based on statement collected from police record cannot be accepted until it is proved in the court of law and therefore cannot be taken as evidence. Before publishing the report, the respondent should have verified the revenue record to prove the ownership of the swimming pool. The respondent collected these documents after filing of this complaint. The police investigation is dated 25.5.2015 while the defamatory note is published on 23.5.2015 proves the attitude of the respondents.

He stated that in the absence of any documentary proof the statement is liable to be rejected as being false. Further the respondent failed to collect the receipts of payment of fees for such training from the trainee boys and therefore the statement made by respondent cannot be trusted as true and correct and therefore liable to be discarded. In none of the photographs the name & logo of the Saket Public School is shown at the sight of the swimming pool. Said action of respondents has cannot irreparable loss to the complainant which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The respondent published manifestly defamatory or libelous news against complainant organization without taking due care and verification causing severe mental and monetary loss to the complainant. The acts of respondents are unethical and against the norms prescribed by the Press Council of India.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Pramod Agrawal, Advocate appeared for the complainant and Shri Ravi Arya from Yugdharma, Nagpur appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the respondent. Complainant happens to be the Director of Shree Awdhoot Education Society, Gonda, which runs Saket Public School. A news was published in the respondent newspaper, inter alia, stating that a child has drowned in a swimming pool. It has further been stated in the news item that parents admit their children in Saket Public School for swimming classes, but due to negligence, one child drowned. It is the assertion of the complainant that the swimming pool does not belong to him and not run by Saket Public School but somebody else and, therefore, the news item published is wrong. It is the plea of the respondent that the son of the complainant as also other persons, in their statement, have alleged that the swimming pool belongs to the Saket Public School. It is not in dispute that the distance between the Saket Public School and the swimming pool is minimal. In the face of it, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent, while publishing the impugned news item, has not violated any code of conduct so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Press Council of India

Item No.83 F.No. 14/708/14-15-PCI

Complainant Respondent Mrs. Nandini Charles, Pune Times Mirror, Principal, Vikhe Patil Memorial School, Vs. Pune Patrakar Nagar, Off Senapati Road, Pune-411 016 Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This complaint dated 1.12.2014 was filed by Mrs. Nandini Charles, Principal, Vikhe Patil Memorial School, Pune against the editor, ‘Pune Times Mirror’ for publication of fraudulent news item under the caption ‘That’s some Heavy Childhood Baggage’ in its issue dated 27.11.2014. It was reported in the news article that few Indian children who are products of the last few decades can think back to their school years without remembering the substantial heft of their entire syllabus weighing them down- quite literally. The issue of harmfully heavy school bags has simmered for years now, and a recent public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court has finally brought it back to the fore again. Now, even as the state government scrambles to put in place a committee and file a report on the school bag policy within two months. Comments of only two students of the complainant’ school along with their mothers have been published by the respondent editor, one of them appears to be an appreciation on the part of school providing locker system to student to keep their emergency things in that locker and the other one has stated that lunch box and water bottle may add some weight to the bag, her mother has advised the schools to conduct some back exercises to keep students fit. The complainant was submitted that the school management is extremely disappointed with the publication of the said news item without concurrence of school. She further submitted that the parents are shocked in great extent to realize that opinions published in the report has never been spoken by them and photographs of their wards have also been taken without their permission or knowledge. The complainant also stated that the actions done by the reporters have been objectionable and matter of disappointment, anger and agony. The complainant vide her letter dated 28.11.2014 drew the attention of the respondent editor while mentioning the above mentioned facts she has stated that: 1. The news along with the interviews has been reported without the approval/intimation of the school authorities/interviewee.

2. The photos have been taken and published without informing the students and parents, the student.

3. The student and parents have been harassed by the media personnel.

4. The report has diminished the image and reputation of the school as a highly student-centric educational body, in a great extent. It take enormous effort and time to build a level of high standard but the subject report prepared and published very casual has maligned the standing of the school. It requires immediate intervention from respondent editor’s office. She further requested the respondent editor to take suitable action at the earliest and she also wrote that she will take up the matter with Press Council of India. A Show-Cause Notice dated 15.5.2015 issued to the respondent editor, “Pune Mirror”, Mumbai followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 7.8.2015, but received no response.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.5.2016 at Pune.Smt. Nandini Charles the complainant appeared in person and Shri Kunal Endait for the respondent.

Complainant is the Principal of the school and her grievance in this complaint is that while highlighting the issue of weight of the school bags in the newspaper, photographs of students and parents of the complainant school have been published. It is the assertion of the complainant that the students and the parents, whose names and photographs find place in the article, did not make any such complaint. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the newspaper, while publishing the impugned article, had highlighted an issue of “weight of the school bags” of the children going to school, and to drive home the point, the photographs and the statements of the students of the complainant school have been given. If the students and the parents have any grievance against that, they could have approached the newspaper itself. At the instance of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to go into this issue. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the article was intended to serve a cause, and the respondent newspaper has not violated any code of conduct while publishing the same. The Inquiry Committee does not find any merit in the complaint and recommends for its dismissal.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA S.No. 84 F.No.13/161/14-15 F.No.14/454/15-16 1. Suo-motu cognizance with regard to attacks on Lokmat offices in Maharashtra; and 2. Complaint of Shri Kareem Chand Shaikh against the editor, Lokmat. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

The Press Council of India has came across a news report under the caption “Mob attacks Marathi daily’s offices over illustration” appearing in Times of India in its issue dated 2.12.2015. It was reported in the news that taking offence to an illustration published in Marathi newspaper on November 29, a mob of around 50 people attacked the Jalgaon office of the daily and smashed glass panes in the reception. It has been further reported that protests were also witnessed in Dhule, Nanded and Aurangabad but there were no reports of anyone being injured or of any loss to property. It was also reported that the newspaper issued a corrigendum and apologized for hurting the sentiments of a particular community. According to the news report, in Nashik, the mob also burnt copies of the newspaper in front of its office of the Mumbai-Agra road to protest against the publication of the illustration. A senior Police Inspector said that “The Bhadrakali police station received a complaint from members of the community. They issued an appeal to maintain calm and the situation was brought under control-The city was tense for nearly four hours on Sunday. Complaints were received by the Upnagar and Ambad PSs in the city as well, but no FIR was registered”. A cross complaint dated 30.11.2015 has also received through e-mail filed by Shri Kareem Shaikh against the editor, Lokmat for publication of the impugned illustration. The complainant has submitted that the impugned illustration has insulted their religious sentiments and requested the Council to ban the publication of Lokmat Manthan. As per the orders of the competent authority a report is called for from the newspaper and also from the state functionaries. Report from the newspaper In response to the Council’s letter dated 7.12.2015 Shri Sudhir Mahajan, Editor, Lokmat vide his reply/report dated 25.12.2015 has informed that Lokmat Marathi newspaper is one of the highly circulated newspaper in Maharashtra and it comes out with weekly supplement “Manthan” on every Sunday. Taking into consideration increased terrorism throughout the world mainly at the instance of terrorist organization ISIS, an article titled as ÏSIS cha paisa” was published on the first page of the “Manthan” on 29.11.2015. According to him, the author wanted to demonstrates the various sources though which the funds are collected/received by ISIS. The article is written by Shri Pavan Deshpande and considered the gist of the article the graphic designer Shri Prakash Sapkale has shown a saving box toy in which money from various countries is being deposited/saved in the form of Rupees, Dollars, Pounds, Yen, Dirham and currency of various countries. He has stated that to show that it is deposited/collected for ISIS, black flag of ISIS with logo is are reproduced/pasted on the saving box toy without any intention of hurting religious sentiments of any community or religion. Moreover, the picture of saving box is not of any animal considered an untouchable by ay religion or community. The saving boxes toys are available with the same shape in the market and commonly used. The Editor, further stated that the article concerned is based on various terrorist activities going on in the World. The aim behind the article was to present the global phenomena regarding terrorism and there was no intention to hurt any religion or desecrate God of any religion. According to the editor, to maintain communal harmony and to avoid misunderstanding to maintain law and order they have published explanation on the next day of the attacks on the offices of Lokmat in Maharashtra, a clarification in this regard was published on the first page of Lokmat. Report of S.P., Jalgaon In response to the Council’s letter dated 7.12.2015, the respondent-Dr. Jalinder Supekar, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon vide his reply/report dated 6.1.2016 submitted that the supplement of Lokmat newspaper “Manthan” taking into consideration increased terrorism throughout the world mainly at the instance of terrorist orgaizaiton ISIS, an article titled ISIS cha paisa” was published on its front page. The author wanted to demonstrate the various sources through which the funds are collected by ISIS. The article is written by Shri Pawan Deshpande and considered the gist of the article the graphic designer Shri Prakash Sapkale has shown a saving box toy in which money from various countries is being deposited/saved in the form of Rupees, Dollars, Pounds, Yen, Driham and currency of various countries showing that is deposited for ISIS. The respondent has further submitted that the Muslim people misunderstand the picture of saving box, which was Pig animal where Arbi language Ällah Rasul Mohammad” was written on his mount so Muslim people attacked on Lokmat Press in MIDC Jalgoan. The MIDC Police Station Incharge along with staff urgently visited and control to maintain the law and order. According to the respondent, the Lokmat newspaper’s director did not register FIR but Muslim people register an FIR Cr.No.325/2015 u/S 295/295A dated 29.11.2015 in MIDC Police Station. The matter is under police investigation. The respondent has stated that to avoid misunderstanding and to maintain law and order, Lokmat newspaper published explanation on 30.11.2015 on front page. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Madhusudan Kapse, Deputy Manager, Legal appeared for the complainant and Shri Jalindar Supekar, S.P. Jalgaon appeared for the respondent. When it came to the notice of the Council that the office of the newspaper was attacked, it took suomotu cognizance of the matter and issued notice. An illustration published by the Lokmat is the bone of contention. According to some, it hurt their religious sentiments, and for others, it was an intellectual pursuit. Be that as it may, the newspaper itself, on the following day, had expressed regrets and tendered apology. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further, and recommends for its disposal. Held The Press Council on consideration of the 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 as above.

Press Council of India S.No. 85 F.No.14/31/15-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent Sh.Babusaheb Narsingrao Patil, Omanabad The Editor through Ms.Madhuri U.Kakde, Advocate, Dainik Maharashtra Times Bombay Bench, Aurangabad High Court

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016 This complaint dated 18.6.2015 was filed by Ms. Madhuri U. Kakde, Advocate on behalf of Shri Babusaheb Narsingrao Patil, Maharashtra alleging publication of false, unverified news item in its issue dated 18.4.2015 regarding court proceedings. It was published in the impugned news item that the State Government has got full control over the activities of Tula Bhawani Temple which is recognized as Kulswamini of Maharashtra. A notification has been issued by the Law Judiciary Department of the State Government on 20.2.2015 against which a Writ Petition came to be filed. However the Hon’ble Aurangabad Bench of High Court, Bombay denied to grant interim stay to the said notification. The Hon’ble Court further directed that the committee consisting of Government Officer’s viz. the District Collector, Deputy Collector, Tahsildar should look after the administration of the temple. As Pubic Trust Management of Tulja Bhavani Temple has been declared as full of irregularities and misappropriation, the total administration of this temple has come under the control of the government. Besides this, the administration of Tulja Bhawani Temple will be governed as per rules of the state government like other temples in the state such as Pandharpur, Shirdi, Kolhapur. The complainant has submitted that he is one of the petitioner in the said writ petition which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicate of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The said writ petition challenges the issuance of Government Notification dated 20.2.2015. After hearing the parties the Honourable Court passed orders Restraining the Government to chang the constitution of the Committee which is functioning from more than 90 years. The court in the order has not rejected the writ petition nor has it rejected the prayer for interim relief. But the respondent newspaper without verifying the facts has published that the writ petition is dismissed. Further the Honourable High Court has refused to grant stay to the said notification. However there is no such order passed rejecting our claim by the Honourable High Court. Rather on 16.4.2015 the Court also observed that the management of the temple is vested with a committee constituted of Collector, Deputy Collector, Tahsildar, Assistant Registrar, Endowment and some other non official members. The Court also restrained the respondent State not to change the constitution of the management of the committee which is functioning from more than 90 years. But the respondent without verifying the orders of the Hon’ble High Court published that on the background of misappropriation of funds the Government has declared the said trust as a public trust. He added that the respondent further published that the said Taljabhavani Trust would be under the Government like the temples at Pandharpur, Shirdi and Kolharpur. The respondent has however not verified that for Pandharpur Vitthal temple and Shirdi Saibaba temple there is a specific legislation passed which is not the case with regard to the Tuljapur trust. Even with regard to the Kolhapur Mahalami Temple Trust the scheme has been framed and the temple trust is managed accordingly. In the case of the Tuljabhawani Temple Trust there is no legislation passed by the Government and the scheme which is framed for the Tuljabhawani Temple Trust is a subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble High Court in separate proceedings. The complainant has stated that the respondent without verifying the facts has published the news. The complainant vide legal notice dated 20.4.2015 along with the copies of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition requested the respondent to publish an apology against the impugned news item, but received no response. The complainant stated that the conduct of the respondent is against the standard of journalistic ethics who has committed grave professional misconduct. The writ petition of the petitioners is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court and till this date no orders are passed refusing interim stay as claimed by the respondent. The complainant requested to take strict action against the respondent for publishing wrong, false and distorted news. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated. 15.9.2015 issued to the respondent editor, Maharashtra Times, twice but both the times received back undelivered with the postal remarks “left address’. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.5.2016 at Pune. Advocate, Madhaveshwari Mhase appeared for the complainant and Shri Kunal Endait appeared for the respondent. The complainant had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, challenging the notification dated 20/2/2015. Same was taken up on various dates, including on 16.4.2015. On the said date, the Bombay High Court, by way of an interim order, directed the State Government not to change the constitution of the management of the committee. A news item was published on 18.4.2015, in which it had been stated that the interim relief prayed for in the writ petition, was dismissed by the High Court. It is the contention of the complainant that the High Court had not rejected the interim relief, but, in fact, granted the same, and, therefore, the respondent had published an incorrect news. The plea of the respondent is that the prayer in the writ petition was to stay the notification dated 20.2.2015, which was not granted by the High Court and therefore, what has been published in the impugned news item cannot be said to be incorrect. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant’s counsel as also the representative of the editor and has perused the relevant record. The writ petition has challenged the notification dated 20.02.2015 and the Order of the High Court referred to above, does not stay that Order. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is of the Opinion that the respondent newspaper, by publishing the aforesaid news, has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics, so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the Complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of the 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 Item No.86 F.No. 14/311/2015-16-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

1. Sh.Mahant Dharmnath, Jogiashram- Rajgarh, The Editor, Churu Weekly ‘Churu Seven Star’ Sadulpur (Churu) Rajasthan 2. Shree Niwas Soni, Correspondent, Dainik Bhaskar Sadulpur (Churu)

3. Sh.Sanjay Sharma, Chairman, Ideal School, Rajgarh (Churu) Rajasthan

Facts

This undated complaint received in the Secretariat on 29.9.2015 has been filed by S/Shri Mahant Dharmnath, Sriniwas Soni and Sanjay Sharma, Rajgarh against the Editor, ‘Churu Seven Star’ Sadulpur, Rajasthan for publication of series of baseless, misleading news items with an intention to blackmail and to create fear and disrespect towards religious persons and organizations among the public in the cover of journalism under the following caption

1. Lkk/kq ls CySdeSfyax dj

In the above said publications the respondent trying to blackmail after making CD of a saint who is giving 4 lakh having fear to defame and atrocity received death carrying information of disgusting and illegal activities and made claim for CBI inquiry on the matter having immediate death of a saint after his will, made the publication saying a serious conspiracy without any name, any person and organization with an intention to blackmail the group. So that the said group having fear to defame may become culprit of blackmailing, which is against the norms of journalism.

The respondent further published several other series of news item dated 21.5.2015 under the caption ‘nsgkr dk Qwdu us igys HkksyhHkkyh turk dks ywVdj cuk Hkw ekfQ;k’, dated 27.8.2015 ‘lsou LVkj dh [kkstiw.kZ [kcj ls ep xbZ gS [kycyh- dfFkr olh;r ds ekeyk Hkh lansg ds ?ksjs esa] fyIr i=dkj Hkh ckS[kyk jgs gSa’, dt.3.7.2014 ‘”kh”ks ds egy esa cSBdj iRFkj ekjus okys’, dated. 10.7.2014 ‘;s D;k gks jgk gS lknqyiqj ?kaVk?kj ds ikl feBkbZ ds uke ij cspk tk jgk gS tgj’, dated 23.4.2015 ‘;s D;k gks jgk gS..? futh Ldwyksa us epkbZ ywV ljsvke Mky jgs gSa vfHkHkkodksa dh tsc ij Mkdk&iz”kklu cuk ewdn”kZd’, dt. 17.9.2015, ‘CySdeSyj dkSu..? turk djs QSlyk’ dated. 17.9.2015 and ‘tjk lkeus rks vkvks o.kZ”kadjksa&uaiq’kdksa dh rjg ipsZ yxkus esa D;k jkt gS’ respectively. According to the complainant, the respondent has published baseless, misleading news item with an intention to blackmail them in the cover of journalism which is against the norms. The complainant vide notice dated 7.9.2015 drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned news item and requested to publishes rejoinder for clarification but received no response.

No Written Statement

A Show-Cause Notice dated 20.10.2015 was issued to the respondent editor, “Churu Seven Star’, Rajasthan followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 28.12.2015, but no written statement was filed.

Report of the Inquiry Committee: The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.5.2016 at Pune. The complainant, Shri Mahant Dharmnath has appeared in person and Shri Jayprakash representative of Churu Rajasthan for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representative of the respondent newspaper. The complainants are unable to pinpoint anything in the news item which concern them. However, their plea is that the editor of the respondent newspaper used to visit them and say that the news item related to them and ask for money. If that be so, the remedy lies somewhere else. The complainant could file a case before a competent court of law or lodge FIR with the police. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA S.No. 87 F.No.14/669/14-15-PCI

Complainant Vs Respondent Ms. X The Editor Sarvamat, Nasik. Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016 This complaint dated 16.10.2014 was filed by a lady from Ahmednagar, Maharashtra against the editor, Sarvamat, Nasik allegedly for publication of defamatory news item about her minor daughter in its issue dated 10.8.2014 under the caption “Youth threatening with sword held by police”(English translation). It is reported in the impugned news item that a youth Ambadas Gotipamul threatening to his sister-in-law has been arrested by Topkhana Police Station, when he was present before the police inspector, he admitted the offence. During the investigation he admitted that he had threatened his sister-in-law due to bad character and further told that if he really wanted to beat her he might have beaten her secretly. He had done so that she mends her behavior. It also reported that due to bad character of her daughter Shri Ambadas Goptimal has threatened by showing sword. Objecting to the impugned news item the complainant submitted that her daughter was beaten by Shri Ambadas Goptimal and his friends and in this regard they filed a complaint in the police station and police arrested the said persons. The respondent by publishing the impugned news item defamed her minor daughter in the eyes of the public and relatives. She also submitted that the groom with when her daughter’s marriage was fixed refused to marry her due to the high publicity of the defamatory news item and her daughter is in deep depression. The complainant vide letter dated 30.8.2014 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication and requested to publish necessary clarification. In response to the notice the editor has not published any clarification and informed that the news was published as per the registered crime in the police station and as per the action taken by the police. She also claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for unnecessary compelling and causing mental agony and financial crisis. The complainant requested the Council to enquire into the matter and take necessary action against the responsible person for publishing defamatory news item. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor. Written Statement The respondent editor, Sarvamat vide written statement dated 19.9.2015 denied the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant. He has submitted that the incident was published on the basis of the Police Report at Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar and there was no substance about intentional reporting or defaming any person through the impugned news publication. The respondent also submitted that the complainant never approached him for publication of rebuttal and directly gave a legal notice from her advocate claiming Rs.5,00,000/- for the defamatory news. She also demanded written apology. The respondent submitted that there is no ill intention to defame the complainant’s family or her daughter even as the news was published on the basis of information received from the concerned police authorities and the crime registered in the police station. The respondent requested the Council to reject the complaint. Counter comments: In response to the respondent’s written statement the complainant vide his counter comments dated 23.10.2015 submitted that the written statement filed by the respondent is misleading and actual facts are suppressed. According to the complainant it was clearly mentioned in the impugned news item that Ambadas Gotipamul threatened by sword to his wife’s sister for her bad character and this statement was also given by him before the police inspector. It was also misleading and falsely mentioned that after publishing the impugned news item they never contacted him, but the fact is that that after publishing the said news they sent a notice through registered post. He has requested the Council to consider her complaint sympathetically and pass the order to publish apology in their edition along with granting compensatory cost for all these obnoxious acts. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.5.2016 at Pune. Shri Shedale Balkrishna Dattatray, Advocate appeared for the complainant and nobody appeared for the respondent.

The complainant happens to be the mother of a minor girl, and is aggrieved by the publication of a news item in which comments were made about her character. The complainant is represented by her counsel. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear. In the present case, the impugned news item talks about the personal character of the complainant’s daughter. The news item had given such details by which the minor girl can be identified. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that by doing so, the respondent newspaper has violated the norms of journalistic ethics. The Inquiry Committee accordingly Reprimands the respondent newspaper Sarvamat, Nasik. . Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Upholds the complaint

Press Council of India S.No. 88 F.No. 14/235/15-16-PCI

Sh.Liyakat Sharafat Qureshi The Editor Thane, Maharashtra Dabang Khabren, Weekly Thane, Maharashtra.

Adjudication Dated:10.6.2016

This undated complaint was filed by Sh. Liyakat Sharafat Qureshi, Thane against the editor, ‘Dabang Khabren’, Weekly, Maharashtra alleging publication of baseless, false, and misleading news items in its issue dated April 7-14, 2015 under the caption “Mahila Police Officer ke rehete nahi hai mahilayian mehfooz” and dated July 15-21, 2015 under the caption “Awara gaay behl ko chori chupe kaatkar bechne wale teen giraftaar” to defame his image in the society. It was published in the impugned news item dated April 7-14, 2015 that the complainant along with their colleagues misbehaved with girls who objected to his attempt to capture their occupied land and also manhandle them. In the news item dated July 15-21, 2015 it was alleged that the complainant is the mastermind and Deputy Chairman of BJP, who was arrested in Kalwa police station. He is a land-mafia and sell flesh of stray cows secretly. The complainant along with his group caught stray cows injecting sedatives to them through chara and then sell their meat. He is accused in criminal cases registered in several police stations for his notorious activities i.e. grabbing the land of poor people and making boundary around it and to manhandle them whoever objected against it in connivance with corrupt police officials. The complainant submitted that the allegations against him were wrong and published to defame him with a purpose to make money from him. When he contacted the respondent, he said “I have published and will publish. You may go anywhere, he has a setting in Delhi also, I will not be affected”. The complainant alleged that the respondent, Sh.Shashi Sharma, is a supari killer, goons and a blackmailer who demands money for publishing fake news against the people. The SDM, Mumbai Thane cancelled registration of the respondent but he got stay order from PCI and again started his bad intention to threaten the public. The complainant through advocate vide notice dated 25.7.2015 requested the respondent to published rejoinder for the false and baseless news which was publish to defame him without any proof but received no response. A Notice for comments issued to the respondent editor, “Dabang Khabren’, Thane on 3.3.2016.

Written statement In response, the respondent vide letter dated. 25.3.2016 submitted that the news items were true and published after confirmation from Kalwa police station and receiving a photograph from Sh. Yatindra Jain, Secretary of Govansh Sarakshan Sanvardhan Parishad as a proof. A case was filed against the complainant but received bail later in this regard. Further, many cases are sub-judice against him in Thane court. He further submitted that criminal cases were also registered against the complainant and his family under Maharashtra Municipality Act and MRTP Act for misbehaving with girls. The respondent denied receiving any notice dated 25.7.2015 from the complainant. The respondent had filed case for encroachment against land-mafias in High Court of Mumbai who gave direction to the concerned department for taking action. He also submitted that on 16.7.2015 his colleague journalist was killed by these criminals and the media condemned the said attack through print and electronic. The Maharashtra Govt. also formed a special team for investigation and provide 24 hour police protection to the respondent in this regard. He claimed that the complainant had filed a false complaint to mislead the Council. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.5.2016 at Pune. The complainant and respondent both were present.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the editor of the respondent newspaper, and has perused the complaint and the connected papers. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the impugned news items have been published on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of the witnesses taken during the course of investigation and proceedings before the court. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news items, has not violated any norms of journalistic conduct so as to call for action by the Council. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint.