Complaints against the Press Section-14 Inquiry Committee ...presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/Adjudication.pdf · Guru, Ramoji Rao has committed yet another crime. A forgery

Press Council of India Agenda Item No3. Adjudications based on reports of Inquiry Committee (Meetings held

on March 11-12, 2015 at Tirupati and April 6-7, 2015 at New Delhi.)

Complaints against the Press Section-14

Inquiry Committee-I Meeting held at Tirupati on March11-12, 2015

1. Complaint of Shri Velagapdi Ramakrishna Baby, MLA and Shri KothaSrinivasu, Vishakhapatnam against the Editor, Sakshi, Hyderabad (14/334/12-13)

2. Complaint of Shri Ramoji Rao, Editor, Eenadu,Telugu Daily, Hyderabad against the Editor, Sakshi, Hyderabad. (14/170/13-14)

3. Complaint of Shri U. K. UlakanathaMallar, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu against the Editor, The New Indian Express, Coimbatore. (14/134/12-13)

4. Complaint of Shri V. Subramanian, Advocate, Tamil Nadu against the Editor, The Hindu, Chennai. (14/594/11-12)

5. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Officer on Special Duty, (Expenditure and Monitoring) O/o the Chief Electoral Officer, Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Lokdarshan. (14/747/13-14) (Paid News)

6. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Officer on Special Duty, (Expenditure and Monitoring) O/o the Chief Electoral Officer, Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Sakal. (14/749/13-14) (Paid News)

7. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, IAS, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring), Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, The New Indian Express, Bangalore (Kar.) (14/750/13-14) (Paid News)

8. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, IAS, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring), Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Kannada Prabha, Bangalore (Kar.) (14/751/13-14) (Paid News)

9. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Officer on Special Duty, (Expenditure and Monitoring) O/o the Chief Electoral Officer, Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Shakthi Daily. (14/768/13-14) (Paid News)

10. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Officer on Special Duty, (Expenditure and Monitoring) O/o the Chief Electoral Officer, Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, NyayadaHaadi. (14/769/13-14) (Paid News)

11. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, IAS, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring), Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Prajanudi, Mysore (Kar.) (14/784/13-14) (Paid News)

12. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, IAS, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring), Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Sadhvi, Mysore (Kar.) (14/785/13-14) (M/1450/14-15) (Paid News)

13. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, IAS, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring), Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Kannada Belaku, Mysore (Kar.) (14/786/13-14) (Paid News)

14. Reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, IAS, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring), Bangalore (Kar.) against the Editor, Edda Dwani, Mysore (Kar.) (14/791/13-14) (Paid News)

Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held at New Delhi on April6-7, 2015

15. Complaint of Shri S.H.M., Rizvi, Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut against the Editor,Amar Ujala, Meerut (U.P.). (14/125/13-14)

16. Complaint of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, Matrchhaya, Jaipur (Raj.) against the Editor,RajashtanPatrika, Jaipur (Raj.). (14/190/13-14)

17. Complaint of Shri Shabbir Ahmed Sheikh, Bhilvara, Rajasthan against the Editor, Rashtradoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (14/258/13-14)

18. Complaint of Shri D. Gunasekaran, Registrar, VishvaBharati, Shanti Niketan District Birbhum, W.B. against the Editor, Hindustan Times, Kolkata. (14/648/12-13)

19. Complaint of Shri S.K. Mishra, Motor Licensing Officer, Transport Authority, New Delhi against the Editor, City Sixty Samachar. (14/803/12-13)

20. Complaint of Shri S.K. Mishra, Motor Licensing Officer, Transport Department, I.P. Estate, New Delhi against the Editor, The Patriot of India, New Delhi. (14/584/13-14)

21. Complaint of Shri Lalit Kumar Jain, Bulandsahar, UP against the Editor, GajGiregi, Muzaffarnagar, UP. (14/979/13-14)

22. Complaint of Shri P.D. Rai, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Sikkim against the Editor,HamroPrajashakti, Sikkim (14/1014/13-14)

23. Complaint of Col. Anil Kak (Retd.), Indore (M.P.) against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Indore (M.P.). (14/450/12-13)

24. Complaint of Shri Deepak Kumar Viswakarma, District President, Uttar Pradesh Viswakarma, Mahasabha, Samajwadi Party, Mazdoor Sabha, JanpadUnnao, U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran. (14/690/12-13)

25. Complaint of Shri Mohd. SaleemKhilzi, Advocate, Civil Courts, Sangrur, Punjab against the Editor,Hind Samachar, Punjab. (14/877/13-14)

26. Complaint of Shri S.S. Ranawat, Bhilwara, Rajasthan against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur, Rajasthan. (14/736/13-14)

27. Complaint of Shri Babu Singh Kushwaha, Lucknow (U.P.) against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Noida (U.P.). (14/701/13-14)

28. Complaint of Shri Babulal Yadav (MaharajJi), SantKabir Nagar (U.P.) against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Gorakhpur (U.P.) (14/1079/13-14)

39. Complaint of Dr.Anand Singh, Director, Shiv Mandir Girls College, Bulandsahar U.P. against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut, UP. (14/1032/13-14)

30-33. Complaint of Shri Satpal Singh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh against the Editors 1) Jansatta, Mandi, HP 2) Divya Himachal, Kangda, HP 3) Amar Ujala, Kangda, HP and 4) Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar, Punjab. (14/379/13-14 & 14/1050-1052/13/14)

SoochnaBhawan, 8-CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003

24366745-46-47-49, Ext. 331; Fax 24368723/726 Email: [email protected] Website: http://presscouncil.nic.in

Sl. No. 1 F.No.14/334/12-13-PCI Shri Velagapudi Ramakrishna Babu, The Editor, MLA, Visakhapatnam East Constituency, Vs. Sakshi Daily, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Shri KothaSrinivasu, Visakhapatnam

ADJUDICATION Dated 8.5.2015

Shri Velagapudi Ramakrishna Babu, MLA, Visakhapatnam East Constituency and Shri KothaSrinivasu, Visakhapatnam a builder in construction business filed the complaint vide letters dated 5.4.2012 and 24.4.2012 respectively against the Editorial Director, Bureau Chief and Reporter, Sakshi Daily Newspaper, Visakhapatnam for publication of allegedly false and highly defamatory news items in its various issues as per detail given below:

S. No. News Item (English Version) Dated 1. Non-Cooperation of liquor syndicates 1.2.2012 2. Is Rs. 25 lakhs to the Minister alone? 8.2.2012 3. Enquiries held on Syndicates 10.2.2012 4. Madhyam trayamptiPracharamela ? 16.2.2012 5. Screenplay, Direction..Jagdish 18.2.2012 6. PucukunnodikiPuchukunnatha 24.2.2012 7. MLA, Corporate paivicharanaarapali (Enquiry should be

initiated against MLAs and Corporators) 24.2.2012

8. At that time I was not there: Vishnu 25.2.2012 9. VanchanaVastvbam (Cheating is true) 27.2.2012 10. CBI Enquiry on land scam: (BhuKumbakibampai CBI daryaptu) 29.2.2012 11. Vuda details in the hand of ganta 15.3.2012 The series of impugned news items attributed alleged wrong doings to the complainant MLA with his active involvement in various malpractices in liquor and land deals. The complainants submitted that the news items were objectionable and highly defamatory as there was no truth in those news items and since they were widely circulated, there was every chance of believing the same as true by the public at large consequently lowering the reputation in the society and more particularly the voters. They further submitted that if news items were collected by the reporters, the paper should have caused enquiry upon receipt of any such information and after thorough enquiry only it should be forwarded to the editor for publishing. The complainants vide letters dated 5.4.2012 and 24.4.2012 respectively drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news

items and requested to furnish the details or the source of information for publishing such false and defamatory news items but in vain. A Notice for Comments dated 7.12.2012 followed by a show cause notice dated 5.8.2013 were issued to the respondent editor for his written statement. Written Statement The respondent in his undated written statement while denying the allegations levelled by the complainants stated that the publication of several news item as referred in the complaint is based upon the information available in public domain with a statutory body and the same were true facts. He contended that the publication of truth in public domain without any malice or motive, in good neither had been no bonafide intention does not constitute to violate any statutory rules or laws. According to him, he published the statement made by the complainant MLA in the form of clarification in its publication dated 19.4.2012 which clearly established that he acted fairly without any bias or malice and brought all the true facts and statements of the public representative and the general information available in public domain. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following there adjournments dated 25.3.2014, 15.5.2014 and 5.1.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri C.S. Shekher, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri S. Sriram, Advocate appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The Counsel for the complainant stated that he has resorted to the civil proceedings in a court of law. The Committee thus declined to proceed further in the complaint as the matter had been taken before the court of law. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends to the Council to dispose of case being sub-judice. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the case.



Sl. No. 2 F.No.14/170/13-14-PCI Shri Ramoji Rao, Editor, 1. Mr. V. Murali, Eenadu, Telugu Daily, Vs. The Editor, Sakshi, Ranga Reddy District, Banjara Hills, A.P. Hyderabad, Hyderabad, A.P.

2. Mr. Shankar, Cartoonist, Sakshi, Hyderabad, A.P.


This undated complaint was received in the Secretariat of the Council on 10.5.2013 from Shri Ramoji Rao, Editor, Eenadu, Hyderabad against Shri Shankar, Cartoonist and the Editor, Sakshi, Hyderabad for publication of allegedly false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption Mind always beneath the Land (English Translation) along with the cartoon/caricature in its issue dated 7.3.2013. It was reported in the impugned news item that the ever moralizing Raj Guru, Ramoji Rao has committed yet another crime. A forgery case was filed against him in connection with a land he had taken on lease. Opining that there was prime-facie evidence, the Court directed Visakhapatnam police to lodge cases of forgery and conspiracy against him and four other Govt. officials. The Court also directed police to file a report in connection with the issue before May 6. Visakhapatnams fourth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. N Srinivas Rao issued orders to this effect. It was also published that already a civil suit is going on against Mr. Ramoji Rao for his failure to return the land whose lease duration lapsed in 2007 itself. The land lord submitted evidence before the Court stating that Shri Ramoji Rao has submitted forged documents to the Court during the trial of the criminal case. The complainant submitted that the publication centre of Eenadu at Visakhapatnam is being run in a leased property. A registered lease deed dated 30.3.1974 for a period of 33 years, providing inter-alia option to seek renewal was entered into by the complainant for the purpose of carrying on his business. According to him, he invoked the said renewal clause and sought renewal of lease and the landlord refused to renew the lease. He added that the landlord has filed Rent Control proceedings for eviction of the complainant and Ushodaya Enterprises from his property by filing Rent Control cases. He has submitted that the respondent has been publishing the proceeding of the said cases in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the complainant and projecting him as a land grabber and a greedy person. The complainant stated that the news report appears more like reporting of a judgement of the Court rather than reporting a complaint made to the Court and several portions of the news reports are scandalous and the language used is very strong. The complainant further alleged that the respondent maligned his image and reputation by publishing caricature/cartoon along with the news report. The caricature was ungracious and in bad taste and it shows a hand with shirt and trouser apparently stripped off his body and he is struggling to cover the lower part of his naked body with his palms. The

complainant stated that there is no justification for publishing the cartoon exposing him nakedly. He further stated that the respondent has published several news items against him and he ignored many such reports and caricatures in the past. He submitted that the news item is baseless, per se scandalous, defamatory and unwarranted and in bad taste. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 2.8.2013 for written statement. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 4.9.2013 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant stated that the subject matter of the publication as averred in the complaint appertains the contentions of the complainant against Shri Ramoji Rao in a civil suit, the conduct of alleged forgery and falsification of documents by the complainant leading to the passing of orders by a competent court for registration of an FIR against the complainant. He added that the facts leading to the dispute between Shri Ramoji Rao and the landlord and the consequential proceeding initiated by the Court of competent jurisdiction are accurately reported the events. He added that there was no sensationalism attempted in the coverage of news nor there is any inaccuracy in the reportage of the court proceedings. He further stated that the allegations regarding the cartoon/caricature published along with the news report, the intent behind the said caricature is to communicate that the moral grandstanding of Shri Ramoji Rao stands denuded of all its claims to legitimacy in view of the proceeding of the Court and the findings of the competent Court, about existence of prima facie case against ShriRamojiRao on allegations of forgery and falsification of documents. He also stated that while being the editor of Eenadu, the complainant himself published many such cartoons to drive home the point sought to be published by the newspaper. On 12.1.1985, one such publication was made in the newspaper in which while reporting late Shri N.T. Rama Raos decision to expel Shri N. Sreenivasulu Reddy, the then Minister in the cabinet for criticizing Shri N. Chandrababu Naidu, a cartoon was published showing Shri N. Sreenivasulu Reddy, completely nude and covering the lower part of his body and the following language is shown to be used by late Shri NTR: Babunithidathava.....Nee babukicheooukopo..... (English translation: You abuse Babu (Shri Chandrababu Naidu). Go and complain to your babu (father)). He further submitted that Shri Ramoji Rao has left no opportunity to denigrate Sakshi, its employees and also its former Chairman Shri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, while covering issues touching upon the recent investigation undertaken by CBI. The respondent has requested the Council to drop the proceeding.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 11.2.2014, 13.5.2014 and 5.1.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri G V S Jagannadha Rao, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri S. Sriram, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the counsels. The Counsel of the complainant contended that contents of the impugned news item were passed off as a court order in the news clipping whereas the court order relates to mere investigation by the Police in the matter. He also questioned the publication of objectionable cartoon combined with impugned news item which was against well laid down journalistic norms. He alleged that the newspaper clearly shows that the complainant does not have good reputation even though the Court did not record any findings. On the other hand, the Counsel of the respondent stated that he has only quoted the pictorial representation which are metaphoric only and also a graphical narrative detail representation. He further stated that if it is found to be wrong then newspaper will publish at also. He further contended that newspapers intention is not to demean Ramoji Raos reputation. He also stated that he has

filed a quash petition in the matter and a criminal case is still pending. He further submitted that if Court finds Ramoji Rao innocent then equal prominence will be given in the newspaper.

The complainant lastly stated that in case in future the allegations made in the impugned news items or theme depicted in the caricature are found to be incorrect or not worth proceeding and the respondent undertaken to publish the same at a prominent place, he may not proceed with the complaint.

The Counsel for the respondent accepts the aforesaid offer made by the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid acceptance of the offer of the complainant by the respondent, the Committee recommends to the Council to dispose of the case.

Held

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



Sl. No. 3 F.No.14/134/12-13-PCI Shri U.K. Ulakanatha, The Editor, Coimbatore, Vs. The New Indian Express, Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore Edition, Tamil Nadu.


This complaint dated 6.8.2013 was filed by Mr. U.K. Ulakanatha, Coimbatore against the Editor, The New Indian Express, Coimbatore Edition alleging publication of objectionable news item under the caption Three killed in clash among Dalit groups in Dindigul in its issue dated 15.4.2012. The impugned news item reported that three persons were killed and 11 injured when a group of people attacked members of the same Dalit community near Nilakkottai in Dindigul district on Saturday. According to the police, there was a previous enmity between two groups, headed by Rathinam and Periyabose, over conduct of festival at MuthalammanTemple in Vilaampatti village. This led to a tussle between the groups on Friday, but the police managed to pacify them. The complainant objected to the usage of word Dalit to denote the community of DevenerakulaVelalars/Mallar people. The complainant further stated that a caste can be mentioned by its name and its style as per the Article 341 and 342 of Indian Constitution. He submitted that the Commission for Schedule Castes had also banned the usage of the word. He further stated that the word Dalit is not Tamil word. The complainant vide e-mail dated 24.4.2012 drew the attention of the respondent editor stating that the news item caused mental agony and hurt the feelings of one and half crores members of community. He requested the respondent to eschew the usage of word Dalit and use the word DevendrakulaVelalar or Mellars instead of Dalit in future. The complainant informed while a subsequent letter that the representative of newspaper Mr. D. Suresh contacted him over phone and assured him that the word as Dalit would not be published in future. But they again used the word Dalit in their edition dated 30.8.2012 under the caption midnight arrest of 19 MBC men alleged. The complainant has requested the Council to cancel the registration of the respondents newspaper. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The New Indian Express, Coimbatore on 23.8.2013.

Written Statement The respondent Shri V.S. Dwaragan, Chief Manager (Legal), The New Indian Express in his written statement dated 7.11.2013 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant stated that the usage of the word Dalit in their articles was not in derogatory manner or with intent to demean the community involved or to hurt their sentiments. The respondent further stated that the news item only mentioned a clash between two groups of people belonging to same community wherein three people killed. He also stated that nothing is published in an offending manner in the article and the usage of word has only been quoted what was stated by the police to their correspondent. He further stated that the word Dalit had to be essentially used as there has always been a continuous tiff between different castes with respect to performing the temple festivals and other rituals of the Muthalamman Temple in Vilaampatti Village in Dindigul district. He also stated that the word Dalit was commonly used by both electronic and print media and even by leaders, writers and eminent people belonging to the community in question to denote people belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. He stated that the word Dalit is not pejorative and does not have a demeaning ring to it. The respondent further clarified the alleged contentions of the complainant by giving a point wise reply. Counter comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 4.5.2014 stated that all the responses of the respondent are false and unbelievable, unethical, irrelevant, misinterpretation, distort the truth and are against Indian Constitutional provision. He submitted that the etymology of their societys surname in Tamil language reveals that they are in high esteem among various societies in not only Tamil Nadu but also in other parts of the Indian states. He further stated that their claim of the chers, chola, Pandiya and Pandaras history is undisputable due, legal claim & no one can refuse the same. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following there adjournments dated 11.2.2014, 13.5.2014 and 5.1.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri U.K. Ulakanatha, the complainant appeared in person while Shri V. S. Dwaragan, Chief Manager (Legal), The New Indian Express appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The complainant contended that the usage of word Dalit in the impugned news item is derogatory and their caste does not constitute a dalit caste in Tamil Nadu. Even while it is a listed Scheduled Caste, the two cannot be equated. He alleged that the respondent tends to identify other castes by name but mentions complainants community by denoting the word Dalit. He further contended that there was no necessity of using the word Dalit but still the respondent use it. The respondent could describe him as Schedule Caste in the impugned news item.

On the other hand, the representative of the respondent contended that the news item was published on the basis of the police report. With regard to the usage of the word Dalit, he stated that Dalit is a common usage word. It is a general term and newspapers commonly published the word Dalit in their publications. It no way can be constructed as derogatory. The respondent further stated that they are ready to issue a clarification that the use of word Dalit was not to hurt the sentiments of the complainant. The complainant reiterated his objection to the community being labelled dalit. At this the newspaper apparently the objections of the complainant, offered to issue a clarification.

The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent is ready to issue the clarification. This assurance satisfied the complainant. The Committee thus gave two weeks time to the respondent to publish the clarification.

The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter on the above term. Held

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



Sl. No. 4 F.No.14/594/11-12-PCI Shri V. Subramanian, The Editor, Advocate, Vs. The Hindu, Karur, Tamil Nadu. Chennai.


This complaint dated 27.1.2012 was filed by Shri V. Subramanian, Karur, Tamil Nadu against The Hindu for publication of allegedly highly objectionable news item under the caption Bench dismisses nine cases filed by Dalit Valuer in its issue dated 10.11.2011. It was reported in the impugned news item that the Madras High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by a Tiruchi based Dalit Valuer alleging that some nationalized banks had removed him from their Panel of Valuers and a few others had refused to enrol him due to caste bias. The complainant submitted that he was petitioner in those nine cases as referred in the impugned news item and he received the copy of the order/judgment passed by the Court on 16.11.2011 but respondent published the impugned news item as early on 10.11.2011 before furnishing the order copy to him. The complainant also objected to highlight the word Dalit Valuer. According to the complainant, he is the aggrieved and affected person due to the paid news published with the nexus of powerful politico-bureaucratic, police, judiciary white collar criminals to safeguard the real culprits involved in the bank fraud cases. The complainant vide his letter to the editor dated 26.11.2011 has sought clarification about source of information. In response, the counsel of the respondent vide his letter dated 5.1.2011 has informed that the impugned news item was based on the news received from the Press Room attached to the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench). Reporters of various newspapers are based in the court, who report important cases in their respective newspapers. The respondent further clarified that there is neither any motivation in publishing the said news nor was it paid news nor to safeguard any culprits in bank fraud cases. The respondent also denied having any nexus with powerful politico-bureaucratic police white collar criminals in publishing the news. According to the respondent, they had taken enough care as that of a prudent man and published the news in good faith without any intention of hurting any sentiments. The complainant vide his further letter/rejoinder to the respondent while expressing his dissatisfaction again requested him to publish his complaint. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 20.8.2013 for his written statement. Written statement The respondent in his written statement dated 3.10.2013 submitted that the news item/article was based on the facts/reports in good faith and in public interest without any intention of causing any harm to any person of any religion, caste or community. He added

that he does not believe in paid news and does not follow that pattern of publishing paid news in his newspaper. The respondent submitted that the complainant has sought the Councils assistance to bulldoze The Hindu to publish the letter dated 26.11.2011 written to the then President of India. He has stated that the complainant is using the Council to arm twist The Hindu to publish letters which cannot be published. The respondent has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against him and is liable to be dismissed. Counter comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 13.11.2013 submitted that the respondent continuously published the news related to his writ petition on 14.8.2012 and 12.9.2013. He has stated that using the word Dalit Valuer by the respondent is unwarranted, discriminatory with a malafide intention to hurt him and his caste. He added that the respondent diverted the real issue and highlighted the unwarranted news with the connivance of bank cheating group as paid news with sole aim to safeguard the real culprits involved in bank frauds. The complainant requested the Council to grant him the permission to start other legal proceedings against the respondent comes under the IPC and other offences. Respondents Reply The respondent in his letter dated 3.5.2014 has stated that if the complainant is aggrieved by the order of High Court, he has to seek remedy within the judicial system, not through a newspaper. Respondents Further Reply The respondent in his further letter dated 11.3.2015 while reiterating his earlier reply submitted that the fact of the complainant being a Dalit was clearly and directly pertinent and relevant to the situation and had to be reflected in the headline in the interest of accuracy and perspective. He further wish to record his objection to having being summoned to Tirupati to be present before the Inquiry Committee meeting while so far the proceedings in this matter have been held in New Delhi. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following there adjournments dated 11.2.2014, 13.5.2014 and 5.1.2015, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Subramanian, the complainant appeared in person whereas Shri A.D. Rangarajan, Principal Correspondent, The Hindu represented for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that during the course of hearing the complainant highlighted that the certified copy of the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition was received by him on 16/11/2011 but the respondent newspaper published the impugned news item on 10/11/2011.Shri A.D. Rangarajan, Principal Correspondent, The Hindu though present, was of no assistance to the Committee in adjudicating the dispute. He simply stated that except filing the application he knew nothing about the case and he had nothing to say. However in the written statement the respondent has stated that the impugned news item was based on the inputs received from the Press Room attached to the High Court. The Committee noted the grievance of the complainant, which was rejected keeping in view that it is common knowledge that after the order is pronounced by a court of law newspapers publish the same on the basis of the information given by the reporter. It is not necessary for the newspaper to obtain the certified copy of the order before publication of the news.

It has to be borne in mind that the proceedings of the Courts are held in public view in which the reporters of the newspapers are also present. The reporters present in the court, report about the proceedings and orders passed in the court. Nothing prevents the newspapers from carrying the same on that basis. The Committee, therefore, is of the opinion that this grievance of the complainant is absolutely misconceived. As regards the grievance of the complainant about the use of the expression Dalitin the news item, the Committee is of the opinion that the same is unjustified in the facts and the circumstances of the case. The complainant admits that in the writ petition challenging his removal as valuer, he submitted before the court that it was done as he is Dalit. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It seems that High Court did not accept his plea that he was removed as a valuer because he was Dalit. As the complainants plea himself was based on the aforesaid ground, the use of the expression Dalit in the impugned news item cannot to be said to be without context. The Committee is of the opinion that the word Dalit was rightly used by the newspaper. Before the Committee parts with the case, it would like to record its strong disapproval to the manner in which the respondent has objected to the sitting of the Inquiry Committee at Tirupati. In this regard respondent has stated as follows:-

We also wish to place on record our objection to having been summoned to Tirupati to be present before this Inquiry Committee meeting today, while so far the proceedings in this matter have been held in New Delhi.

The complaint in this case is resident of Tamil Nadu and in our endeavour to do justice at the door step, the Committee decided to consider his claim at Tirupati. The Committee fixed the venue of the meeting considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is within its prerogative and therefore, the grievance made by the respondent newspaper is absolutely misconceived. Had the respondent any difficulty in appearing at Tirupati it could have very well asked for adjournment projecting its difficulty. 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 case.



Sl. No. 5 F.No.14/747/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against LokaDarshan for publication of alleged Paid News during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Elections -2013 in the garb of news. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It inter alia stated that the newspaper LokaDarshan Kannada daily, Belgaum in its issue dated 20.4.2013 published news items/advertisement in favour of Shri AnandaAppugol, JD(S) candidate of Karnataka Legislative Assembly under the caption JanrigagiRaajkiyakkeBandeAnandaAppugol which was an alleged case of paid news. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, LokaDarshan, Belgaum on 7.4.2014. Written Statement The Editor, LokaDarshan in his written statement dated 23.4.2014 stated that they did not have a clear idea of paid news. The report has been published with all honesty and integrity and no monetary consideration was involved in publishing this news item. It was only an unknowing mistake for which they expressed their regret and assured the Council that in future no such mistake will be repeated. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri Sharatchandra Desai and Shri MalagwdaPatil appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the representative of the respondent. The representative of the respondent submitted that he has already expressed his regrets for publishing such news as he was unaware of what exactly constitutes paid news. He assured the Committee that he will not commit such mistake in future.

The Committee in view of the assurance of the respondent that he will not commit such mistake in future and having expressed regrets in the matter, it was not inclined to proceed further and decided to drop the proceeding in the matter. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the case.



Sl. No.6 F.No.14/749/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against Sakal for publication of allegedly Paid News during Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election-2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer,Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election-2013. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It inter alia stated that the newspaper Sakal published news items/advertisement in favour of Shri Manohar Kinekar Independent candidate, Belgaum Rural Constituency which were alleged cases of paid news. The details of the news items/advertisement are as follows:

Sl. No. News Item/Advertisement Dated 1. Tributes paid to martyrs campaign launched 22.4.2013 2. Manohar Kinekars campaign gathers pace 23.4.2013 3. Support and campaign at difference places/call to elect Manohar

Kinekar 24.4.2013

4. Elect to make voice of Marathi land 25.4.2013 5. In the interest of Marathi Saffron flag should hoist 26.4.2013 6. Get deposits of Kinekars opponents forfeited 27.4.2013 7. Grand campaign of Manohar Kinekar 29.4.2013 8. Elect Kinekar for protecting Marathi 30.4.2013 9. Manohar Kinekar in war for protecting Marathi 1.5.2013

The Press Council of India in its meeting held on 22.7.2013 at Varanasi considered the report tabled by Shri U. Lakshman, Member, PCI and Convener of one Member Committee for investigating complaints of paid news and violation of press freedom of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election, 2013. The Council after careful perusal of the report decided that newspapers reported to have indulged in paid news as referred by the Election Commission should be noticed for their response and the Press Council of India needs to determine whether or not the report was an advertisement disguised as news. Pursuant to the decision of the Council, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Sakal on 9.4.2014. Written Statement:

The respondent Sakal in his written statement dated 14.5.2014 filed through his advocate stated that the contents of the complaint were incorrect and denied the allegations levelled in the complaint. He further stated that bare perusal of the impugned news items did not in any manner of whatsoever nature, offend the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste. He also stated that there was no misconduct vis-a-vis journalistic reporting as alleged by Election Commission of India in news items. He also stated that the news items were published entirely on the basis of the facts and especially bearing in minds the sensibilities of the readership. He further stated that the allegation of accepting cash for publishing the impugned articles is completely misconceived. It was clear that the news item simply stated the achievements and programmes undertaken by a Marathi candidate namely, Shri Manohar Kinekar. He submitted that such information in respect of other candidates has also been published by the newspaper in its other issues and hence it can be safely assumed and established that the newspaper had not indulged in favoritism for any consideration. He further submitted that the news items which were the subject matter of the inquiry are nothing but completely objective reports about the candidate and the newspaper had not indulged in any unhealthy election campaign, exaggerated reporting, etc. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri Gopal R. Gavada, Associate Editor, Sakal appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the representative of the respondent. It noted that the Media Certification and Monitoring Committee, hereinafter referred to as the Monitoring Committee found the impugned news items in the category of paid news on its findings that the newspaper had consistently published news items and articles from 22/4/2013 and 1/5/2013 in favour of Shri Kinekar Manohar Kallappa, independent candidate contesting from Belgaum Rural Constituency. According to the Committee, on reading these news items and the write-ups, it was evident that the newspaper stressed to vote in favour of the aforesaid candidate, despite other independent candidates and candidates of other parties. From that the Monitoring Committee inferred that it was a case of paid news. The plea of the respondent however was that the news items and articles were published on the basis of the facts, especially bearing in mind the sensibilities of the readership. It was also been emphasized that the information of the other candidates had also been published by the newspaper and hence, it can safely be assumed that the newspaper had not indulged in favoritism for any consideration. The Inquiry Committee bestowed its consideration to the rival claims. There was no direct evidence to show that any consideration was paid to the newspapers for the publication of the impugned news. The Committee opined that the finding in respect of paid news can be arrived at on the basis of the circumstantial evidence also. But for that the chain of circumstances must unequivocally point to the passing of the consideration for the publication. The Inquiry Committee before taking action had to be satisfied about the payment of consideration in any form to the newspaper. Simply because the news items support a particular candidate and that too in the face of the plea of the respondent that on objective analysis the candidate in question was found to be most suitable, one cannot come to a definite conclusion that any consideration had passed off. In the absence of any direct evidence or for that matter the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, the Committee finds it difficult to uphold the allegation of paid news against the respondent.

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

SoochnaBhawan, 8-CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003 24366745-46-47-49, Ext. 331; Fax 24368723/726

Email: [email protected] Website: http://presscouncil.nic.in

Sl. No. 7 F.No. 14/750/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Officer on Special Duty (Expenditure Monitoring ) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer Karnataka, Bangalore against The New Indian Express, Bangalore for publication of allegedly Paid News during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 had forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election-2013 in the garb of news. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It inter alia stated that the newspaper viz The New Indian Express in its issue dated 10.4.2013 published eight page supplement on Shri S.M Krishna, former C.M. of Karnataka under the caption S.M. Krishna Young @50 without mentioning it as a sponsored feature or advertisement which is a clear case of paid news. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, The New Indian Express, Bangalore on 25.3.2014. Written Statement The respondent editor, The New Indian Express in his written statement dated 9.1.2015 denied that the newspaper had carried any paid news in its Belgaum edition during Legislative Assembly elections in 2013. He further stated that The New Indian Express in its issue dated 10.4.2013 in the first column of page no.1 mentioned in bold letters the information S.M. Krishna, Young @ 50 and 8 page Space Marketing Initiative with this issue. This information clearly demonstrated that the impugned publication was a part and parcel of the main issue of the newspaper dated 10.4.2013 and never formed part of any election pamphlet or any poster pertaining to any election. The respondent further submitted that the paper never attempted to project Sri S.M. Krishna as representing and supporting any particular political party in the ensuing elections which would have any effect on the voters and further, Sri S.M. Krishna was not contesting any elections held during the relevant time and had no role to play in the ensuing elections and neither toured Belgaum district during elections. Sri S.M. Krishna, Former Union External Affairs Minister, Government of India, former Chief Minister of Karnataka and a Senior Congress Leader of the Karnataka State had completed 50 years of active public life hence the respondent with a view to honour Sri S.M. Krishna took a decision to bring out a supplement featuring his life achievements covering over a period of 50 years. There is no contravention or violation of

any of the provisions of the Representation of People Act or the guidelines formulated by the PCI. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri V.S. Dwaragan, Chief Manager (Legal), The New Indian Express Group appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the representative of the respondent. The Inquiry Committees attention has been drawn by the respondent to the proclamation on the first page of the main newspaper mentioning S M Krishna, Young @ 50 - an 8 page Space Marketing Initiative with this issue The Inquiry Committee felt that though it would have been admissible to clarify this as the relevant papers also, the newspaper has sufficiently made it clear that it was a space marketing initiative, hence it was not inclined to proceed in the matter.In future the newspaper must specifically mention Space Marketing Initiative on Supplement/special edition itself. With the aforesaid, the Committee recommended to the Council to drop the proceedings in the case. 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 case.



Sl. No. 8 F.No.14/751/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against Kannada Prabha for publication of alleged Paid Newsduring General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election-2013. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It interalia stated that the newspaper Kannada Prabha, Bangalore, Karnataka in its issue dated 10.4.2013 published news items/advertisement in favour of Shri S.M. Krishna, Former Chief Minister of Karnataka and Senior Congress leader candidate of Karnataka Legislative Assembly under the caption In vernacular (English translation not received) which was an alleged case of paid news. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Kannada Prabha, Karnataka on 4.4.2014 followed by Time Bound Reminders 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 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri K.B. Denaagu, Reporter, Kannada Prabha appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the representative of the respondent. The Committee noted submissions of the newspaper that the supplement clearly indicated that it is a sponsored feature and was therefore not paid news. The Inquiry Committee having perused the impugned publication was satisfied with the explanation and declined to proceed further in the matter and decided to drop the matter. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the case.



Sl. No. 9 F.No. 14/768/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against Shakthi for publication of alleged Paid News during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 had forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election -2013. These reports are based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It inter alia stated that the newspaper Shakthi Kannada daily, Madikeri in its issue dated 31.3.13, 2.4.13, 14.4.13 and 22.4.13 published news items/advertisement in favour of various candidates of Legislative Assembly under the caption Hearty Thanks Thanks giving which are alleged cases of paid news. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Shakthi, Madikeri, Karnataka on 22.4.2014. Written Statement The respondent editor, Shakthi in his written statement dated 13.5.2014 while denying the allegations levelled against them stated that the impugned publications were not paid news but advertisement which did not carry an appeal to the public seeking vote for particular candidate. Moreover, it had got nothing to do with the election but a thanks giving to the representatives by different organizations for the help they received. The respondent strongly objected to the false allegations made against them with malafide intentions. He requested to drop the complaint. Respondents further Reply The advocate for the respondent vide his further reply dated 11.3.2015 denied all the contents of the complaint as false, baseless, invented and created for the purpose of filing the complaint only. He further submitted that the President and Managing Committee members of Shri Aiyappa Temple, Galibeedu had got published an advertisement of just Thanksgiving to Mr. K.G. Bopaiah, the then Honble Speaker of Karnataka, Vidhan Sabha, for sanctioning Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Temple. The article was published on 2nd April, 2013 whereas the election was held on 5th May, 2013. The advertisement was in no way related to the election nor did the Paper in any manner made a vote appeal in favour of Mr. K.G.

Bopaiah. He further submitted that it was just a routine and regular advertisement like any other advertisements. He also stated that the respondent in this case collected Rs. 1,680/- towards the advertisement charges bearing receipt number 20784 dated 1st April, 2013.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri Thilak P.S., Advocate and Shri B.G. Ananthashayana, Editor, Sakshi Daily appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the counsel of the respondent. It also took note of the committee submissions that the publication was not paid news but an advertisement and it was evident from record showing that a sum of Rs. 1,680/- was collected in this regard. In view of this the Inquiry Committee was satisfied the impugned publication was an advertisement, and the plea of the Chief Electoral Officer, that it is paid news, is untenable. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommended to the Council to drop the proceeding in the matter. 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 case.



Sl. No. 10 F.No. 14/769/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against NyayadaHadi for publication of alleged Paid News during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 had forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election-2013. These reports are based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It stated that the newspaper NyayadaHadi in its issue dated 30.4.2013 published news items/advertisement in favour of various candidates of Karnataka Legislative Assembly which are alleged cases of paid news. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, NyayadaHadi, Medikeri, (Karnataka) on 22.4.2014. Written Statement The respondent editor, NyayadaHadi vide her written statement dated 11.3.2015 submitted that the interview published in her paper was in no way related to elections. The paper published interviews of all leaders irrespective of their parties, giving them an equal weightage and in no way appealed to the public seeking votes in favor of any individual party. She further submitted that on issuance of Show Cause Notice by the then Assistant Commissioner and the Election Officer of 208 Madikheri Legislature Assembly, she had offered unconditional apology if there had been any reasons to believe that there was any mistake on the part of the paper. In wake of these facts the respondent paper requested for dismissal of the complaint against it. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri Thilak P.S., Advocate and Shri Yashoda H. B., editor, NyayadaHaadi appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the counsel of the respondent. It questioned the representative of Election Commission of India as to how the impugned news item was construed as paid news, to which he responded that the paper had published the aforesaid news item on 30.4.2014

which was in violation of Model Code of Conduct already in force during the said period. However, he failed to substantiate that impugned news item was paid news. The Inquiry Committee carefully perusing the contents of the impugned news item dated 30.4.2014 opined that publication might be a violation of the Model Code of Conduct but it cannot be termed as paid news. The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommended to the Council to drop the proceeding in the matter. 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 case.



Sl. No. 11 F.No.14/784/13-14-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against Prajanudi for publication of allegedly Paid News during Karnataka Legislative Assembly Elections-2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It was inter alia stated that the newspaper Prajanudi Mysore in its issue published news items/advertisement in favour of Shri M.K. Somashekar INC candidate of Karnataka Legislative Assembly under the caption K. R. constituency and MKS which is an alleged case of paid news. Pursuant to the decision of the Council, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Prajanudi, Mysore (Karnataka) on 03.4.2014 followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 16.10.2014. Written Statement The respondent editor, KannadigaraPrajanudi in his written statement dated 10.3.2015 submitted that the entire article is the input of true events, facts and statements of the concerned persons in the impugned news article. He submitted that Honble Supreme Court did not even put restriction on political analysis favoring or disfavoring or even fairly analyzing for/against such political parties. But the only restriction the Honble Supreme Court imposed was not to telecast/publish such news articles of above said nature during elections. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India. The Committee perused the impugned news item carefully and opined that impugned publication did not fall within the purview of the paid news. Thus, it recommended to the Council to drop the proceeding in the matter.

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 case.



Sl. No. 12 F.No.14/785/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against Sadhvi for publication of alleged Paid News during Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election -2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It inter alia stated that the newspaper Sadhvi, Kannada daily Eveninger, Mysore in its issue published news items/advertisement in favour of Shri M.K. Somashekar-INC candidate of Karnataka Legislative Assembly under the caption Simple and straight forward MKS sure to win which is an alleged case of paid news. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Sadhvi, Mysore, Karnataka on 3.4.2014 but it was served on him through DM, Mysore on 21.5.14. No written statement has so far been filed by the respondent. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri N. Nagendra Prasad, Sub-editor appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the representative of the respondent. The representative of the respondent contended that they have not published any paid news. He submitted that it was an interview of the Counselor which was published and his view quoted in the headline.

The Inquiry Committee have gone through the impugned news item and observed that the newspaper has chosen to catch the interview of the lawyer Mr. Sunil on the ground that he was a Corporator in one of the wards in its constituency. It further noted that what was published in the newspaper were attributed to said Mr. Sunil.

In light of above fact, the Inquiry Committee could not arrive at on unequivocally conclusion that it is constituted. However, the newspaper was advised to ensure balance in future while publishing interviews/reports.

With the aforesaid observation, the Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to drop the proceeding in the matter.

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



Sl. No. 13 F.No.14/786/13-14-PCI Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against Kannada Belaku for publication of alleged Paid News during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news.


Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It inter alia stated that the newspaper Kannada Belaku in its issue published news items/advertisement in favour ofShri H.V. Rajeev-KJP candidate of Karnataka Legislative Assembly under the caption Vote for KJP candidate HV Rajeev, say various organizations which was an alleged case of paid news. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Kannada Belaku on 4.4.2014 through D.M., Mysore. The Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Mysore vide his letter dated 8.7.2014 forwarded the written statement of the respondent. Written Statement The respondent editor, Kannada Belaku Weekly, Mysore in his undated written statement stated that The Election Commission of India for the first time introduced this types of measures for monitoring the Election Expenditures of the Candidates. Being unaware of the rules and complete information they published this news in their newspaper. He requested the Council to dispose of the case considering the fact that this mistake was not committed purposely. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore appeared for the Election Commission of India. Shri MugurnanjundaSwamy, Editor, KannadBelaku appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the Election Commission of India as well as the respondent. The Committee noted that in the written statement, the respondent stated that the news item was published due to mistake as he was not aware of the rule in this connection. It further noted that the respondent also offered an apology for the same.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee decided to accept the apology and

not to proceed in the matter. However, it advised the newspaper to be more careful in future while publishing such news items. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter accordingly.




Sl. No. 14 F.No. 14/791/13-14-PCI

Suo-motu action on reference received from Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, O.S.D. (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore against Edda Dwani for publication of allegedPaid News during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news.

Adjudication Dated 8.5.2015

Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, OSD (Exp. Monitoring) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Bangalore vide letter dated 20.9.2013 had forwarded statement of paid news cases reported during General Election of Karnataka Legislative Assembly -2013 in the garb of news. These reports were based on the proceedings of the meeting of Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC) dated 10.4.2013. It inter-aliastated that the newspaper Edda Dwani Kannada fortnightly, Mysore in its issue dated May 1-15, 2013 published news items/advertisement in favour of Shri H.C. Mahadevappa, INC candidate of Karnataka Legislative Assembly under the caption Development works (done in the past) will pay off, says HC Mahadevappa which is case of alleged paid news. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Edda Dwani, Mysore, Karnataka on 11.4.2014. Written Statement The respondent editor, Edda Dwani in his written statement dated 27.11.2014 denied that the published article was paid news. He stated that the publication was regarding development work done by the MLA, Shri H.C. Mahadevappa in 2008. The respondent asserted that the published article was not paid news. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.3.2015 at Tirupati. Shri V. Raghavendra, KAS, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, Bangalore represented for the Election Commission of India. Shri M. S. Nataraja Murthy, Editor, Edda Dwani, Mysore appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representatives of the Election Commission of India as well as the respondent. The Committee having carefully gone through the impugned news item could not satisfied that the impugned publication was paid news. However, the Committee advised the respondent to be more careful in future and keep in sight the guidance of the PCI and ECI. With this advisory, the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the case.



Sl. No. 15 F.No. 14/125/13-14-PCI

Shri S.H.M. Rizvi, The Editor, Senior Superintendent, Vs. Amar Ujala, District Jail, Meerut. Meerut


Shri SHM Rizvi, Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut filed two separate

complaint dated 29.3.13 against Amar Ujala, Meerut regarding publication of following news items:

1) Jail Se MangiGai do Lakh Ki Rangdari dated 4.2.2013 (Rupees two lakh extortion money demand from the jail)

2) Jail Vahano Ki Nilami Par Hungama dated 26.2.2013. (Uproar in Auction of Vehicles in the Jail)

It was alleged in the news item that on 3.2.2013 two women who came to meet prisoners in jail premises not only carried mobile inside but also managed to let one prisoner talk on her mobile. Instantly, the women were frisked and two mobiles were found in their possession. Sources informed that the prisoner had demanded Rs. two lakh as extortion money for his family. According to the complainant, on 3.2.2013 no such incident as reported by the newspaper has happened. The complainant alleged that correspondent deliberately and mischievously published the false and concocted news item. The fact of the case is that one woman visitor carried a phone in her purse which was noticed during frisking and therefore she was not permitted to go inside the jail.

In the second news item it was reported that the businessmen protested at Commissioners Office against botching up in auction of vehicles by jail authorities. The newspaper published that two vehicles were auctioned at lower price in contravention of rules. The complainant stated that there was no irregularity in the auction procedure. The newspaper also published in the said impugned news item, the one line statement of the complainant that the auction was held under the due supervision of the officers. The complainant vide letters dated 4.2.2013 &26.2.2013 addressed to the Editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut again objected to the said impugned news respectively and requested for necessary action against the correspondent for publishing misleading news.

No written statement

A Show Cause Notice dated 29.8.2013 was issued to the respondent, Amar Ujala, Meerut but no written statement has been received so far.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 9.2.2015, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 6.4.2015 at New Delhi. While there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant, Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary, Assistant Manager and Shri P.R. Rajhans, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the respondent. It noted that nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant. The Committee after carefully perusing the impugned news item held that it cannot be said to be misleading and defamatory so as to call for any action by the Committee. In view of the aforesaid, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 16 F.No. 14/190/13-14-PCI Shri Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal, RSS, MatraChhaya, Sikar Raod, Jaipur (Raj.).

The Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Kaisargarh, JawaharLal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).


Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal (RSS), MatraChhaya, Jaipur (Raj.) filed this undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 29.4.13 against the Editor Rajasthan

Patrika for publication of allegedly objectionable editorial under the caption in its issue dated 11.04.2013. The impugned editorial commented on the language, tone and tenor of the politicians which according to the editor they use during public addresses. The complainant alleged that in above said article Shri Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika quoted the fractional statement of Shri Mohan Bhagwat in a twisted manner which reads as below:- What People call marriage, is a contract between husband and wife. If for some reasons contract is not fulfilled then the wife can leave husband or husband can leave wife. According to the complainant the above-said statement is part of Mr. Mohan Bhagwat address given by him at Indore during discussion on 200-300 year old theory of Social Contract and while giving various examples he had been trying to present right perspective via Indian philosophy. According to the complainant, the newspaper is duty bound to publish article/news in only after seeking full information of the statement in totality and then may place its comments thereon. According to him, the impugned article badly hit the ideology of the organization.

The complainant sent a letter dated 12.04.2013 and drew the attention of the respondent editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur and asked for publication of his rejoinder but the respondent neither published his rejoinder nor replied.

A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent on 29.08.2013 for written statement Written Statement The respondent in his undated written statement stated that the complaint filed was false and baseless. He submitted that the publication in question was purely based on true facts. He further submitted that the statement of Shri Mohan Bhagwat was not only published by his newspaper but also by several other newspapers. The respondent also

alleged that when the complainant himself in his complaint was worried about humanity and India then he has no right to comment on the publication or to file a complaint before the Council in this regard. He submitted that the contents of impugned news item carried the words as spoken by the politician in their statement. The intention of the respondent in publishing the editorial was not to defame or to hurt anybody, he added. Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 31.3.2015 denied the submissions of the respondent given in written statement that the news was published on the basis of true facts and no tampering was done with the statement of Shri Mohan Bhagwat. He further submitted that he has provided his written clarification to the respondent but the respondent did not publish the same. He further reiterated his complaint and requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 10.2.2015, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 6.4.2015 at New Delhi. Shri G.S. Gill, Advocate and Shri Harbhajan Singh, Advocate appeared for the complainant whereas Shri Ankit R. Kothari, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the counsels of both the parties. The counsel for the complainant contended that Shri Mohan Bhagwat while expressing his views on some matter simply quoted the Contract Theory of Western Philosophy which the editor had word to word quoted and attributed to Shri Bhagwat. The editorial comments show Shri Bhagwat to be the propagator of the Contract Theory and thereby misconstrued and misquoted his statement. The counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned editorial submitted that the paper had merely stated and quoted from the speech of Shri Bhagwat and nothing has been added to it. The Committee carefully perused the impugned editorial comment and transcript of Shri Mohan Bhagwat address and noted that he while referring to ancient Indic philosophy highlighted the stark difference with that of Western Philosophy quoting Contract Theory as one of the examples. The Committee was of the view that the paper had not taken the reference quoted by Shri Bhagwat on Indic vis--vis Western philosophy in broader perspective but singled out Contract theory of Western philosophy and attributed it to him. The Committee thus opined that the newspaper has misquoted and misrepresented the statement of Mr. Mohan Bhagwat and thus had not projected it in true spirit. In view of the above observation, it decided to admonish the respondent newspaper Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur and directed the paper to publish the same with due prominence in the newspaper. It recommended to the Council accordingly. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to admonish the respondent newspaper, Rajasthan Patrika.



Sl. No. 17 F.No. 14/258/13-14-PCI Shri Shabbir Ahmed Sheikh, Bhilwada, Rajasthan.

Vs.

The Editor, Dainik Rashtradoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan.


This complaint dated 31.5.13 was filed by Shri Shabbir Ahmed Sheikh, Bhilwada,

Rajasthan against Dainik Rashtradoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan for publication of allegedly incorrect and objectionable news items in the above said newspaper. The date and caption of the news items read as follows:

S.No. Caption Date

1 , (Order to file the case against 11 persons alongwith Imam, Trustee and Ex Sarpanch)

29.6.12

2 (Dismissal of Surveillance writ of Shri Shabbir Sheikh Master Mind of Kalandari Masjid)

15.9.12

3 (Hearing on Imam application today)

11.1.13

4

(High Court summons, Case diary and Investigation Officer)

5.4.13

5 (Order to stop the filing of case against 18 alongwithWaqf Board Chairman and Collector, Bhillwada)

11.4.13

It was stated in the news item that Judge, Shri Vinod Kumar Arya dismissed the

petition of Shri Shabir Sheikh, Master Mind of Kalandari Masjid case and retained the decision of court for investigation in the matter. It was further stated in the news item that a case was registered against the Waqf Board Chairman, Shri Liakat Ali and nine others in Masjid case. It was further stated that Rajasthan High Court summoned the Investigating

Officer, Pratapnagar Police Station with case diary. Further, the impugned publication stated that accused Shri Shabbir Ali challenged the order of the CJM by filing petition in district court. The complainant objected that the newspaper described him mastermind in the Kalandari Masjid case and made allegation of being involved in said case. The newspaper also published his photograph to malign him. The complainant stated that he is a social worker and such publication lowered his image and the act of the respondent is against the Journalistic Conduct.

A Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Rashtradoot on 3.9.2013.

Written Statement In response, the respondent Shri Shahjad Khan, Bureau Chief Dainik Rashtradoot in his written statement dated 12.2.14 while denying the allegations submitted that the news items published by him was totally true and published after the due investigation of the facts of the matter. The respondent stated that the allegation of the complainant was totally false and baseless. According to the respondent, the case dated 15.1.14 was registered against the complainant in Bhimganj Police station and it was clear that the complainant was directly attached with Kalandari Masjid. Counter Comments: The complainant in his counter comments dated 27.5.14 denied the reply of the respondent and stated that he was not involved in Kalandari Masjid case. The respondents only motive was to defame him. He further stated that the respondent has no right to declare him mastermind in the matter. He also stated that the respondent had published the totally wrong facts in his reply. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 10.2.2015, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 6.4.2015 at New Delhi. S/Shri Ajay Nahar and Shabbir Ahmed Sheikh, Advocates appeared for the complainant whereas Shri Shahzad Khan, Bureau Chief, Rashtradoot, Rajasthan appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The complainant informed the Committee that the final report w.r.t. case dated 15.1.2014 against him in connection with Masjid issue had come wherein he was exonerated of the charges. The news to this effect has not been published by the respondent though he had been regularly publishing development in the aforesaid case which shows his malafide intention towards him. He further contended that respondent has been defaming him through columns of his newspaper as a campaign which is part of conspiracy against him. Inspite of assurance by the paper, the correspondent has been publishing defamatory news against him. The respondent on the other hand informed that appeal has been filed in the Court against the Final Report and news in this regard was published by the paper. The Committee carefully perused the impugned news items and opined that the same were defamatory, motivated and mischievous in nature and thus the newspaper has breached the norms of journalistic ethics by publishing such impugned news articles. It opined that the newspaper deserved to be admonished for such reporting. In view of the observation above, it decided to admonish the respondent newspaper Dainik Rashtradoot, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) with the direction to the respondent newspaper to avoid such kind of reporting in futureand publish the same with due prominence in the newspaper. It recommended to the Council accordingly.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to admonish the respondent newspaper, Dainik Rashtradoot, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).



Sl. No. 18 File No.14/648/12-13-PCI Shri D. Gunasekaran, The Editor, Registrar, Visva-Bharati, Vs. Hindustan Times District Birbhum, Kolkata. West Bengal.


This complaint dated 20.11.2012 was filed by Shri D. Gunasekaran, Registrar, VisvaBharati, Shantiniketan, District Birbhum, West Bengal against the Editor, The Hindustan Times for publication of an allegedly objectionable, biased and false news items under the captions V-B Lands in fresh row with VC at the Centre and VB Vice Chancellor kept out of President function in its issues dated 20.10.2012 and 20.12.2012 respectively. It was reported in the first news item that Mr. SushantaDuttagupta, the vice-chancellor of ViswaBharati University has been accused of concealing his status as pensioner and enjoying both his salary and pension simultaneously. Further, the news item stated that Shri Duttagupta draws a pension of about Rs. 25,000/- from J.L. University and also get a salary of Rs.1.33 lakh from VishwaBharathi. Both central government rules and the VB Act and statutes state he was supposed to get his salary deducted from his pension but the university had been paying him his full salary since he joined in September 2011 which marks a clear violation of the V.B. Act that the governs the VC employment. The impugned publication further stated that the VC also told the Hindustan Times that he had kept the university informed about his pension. HTs probe however, came up with different facts. One, the VB accounts department admitted in an RTI query that they had no knowledge of the VCs pension. The Hindustan Times also accessed his salary slip that clearly shows the pension not being deducted from the salary. Two, HTs also accessed the appointment letter of V.C. dated September 13, 2011 that clearly mentioned the terms & conditions of service. The news item also stated that Mr. Duttagupta claimed a DOPT circular exempted him from deduction of pension but neither he nor the Registrar could produce it despite repeated queries. The accounts department of the University confirmed that they had no such circular with them. In the second news item it was stated that during President Shri PranabMukherjis first visit to his home, VC SushantaDasgupta had claimed that he was a personal friend and even addressed Mukherjee as buddy on his face book account. The complainant submitted that they strongly rebut this fabricated piece of information because Prof. SushantaDuttagupta does not even have a Facebook account and therefore the question of

posting on Facebook does not arise. He alleged that the respondent by publishing the news item seemed to malign Vice Chancellor with impunity.

The complainant stated that they strongly felt that the article presented certain statements to the public at large without allowing the University to justify its course of actions and that this was contrary to recognized ethical cannons of journalistic propriety and public taste. The article was biased making certain allegations that were deeply damaging to the public perception of the Vice Chancellor in particular and to VishwaBharati is general. The complainant alleged that the respondent published the article was based on falsehood and maligned the Vice Chancellor that too involving news regarding the President of India. He further stated that a rebuttal by e-mail and regular mail on 20.10.2012 & 22.12.2012 was sent w.r.t. to the allegations made in the impugned news item but paper did not publish the same. A Show Cause Notice dated 11.8.2014 followed by a Time Bound Reminder dated 13.10.2014 were issued to the respondent editor, The Hindustan Times for written statement. Written Statement The respondent, The HT Media Limited in its written statement dated 27.3.2015 denied all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. He stated that the allegations were baseless and frivolous. He further stated that the complainant intentionally wanted to allege the publication as defamatory which was published on the basis of the correct facts and circumstances. He submitted that the subject of news item was published after due research and conversation with the VC and Registrar of Visva Bharti respectively. He further submitted that the VC had claimed

Documents

Complaints against the Press Section-14 Inquiry Committee ...presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/Adjudication.pdf · Guru, Ramoji Rao has committed yet another crime. A forgery