Press Council of India Agenda Item No. 5 Draft ...presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/January.pdf · Chhattisgarh against Shri R.K. Mishra, In-charge, City Kotwali, Koriaalleging

Press Council of India

Agenda Item No. 5 Draft Adjudications based on

recommendations of Inquiry Committee (Meetings held

on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi)

Complaints by the Press

Section-13

Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held at New Delhi on 15.11.2013

1. Complaint of Shri Vaidh Ramesh Chander Vashist, Editor, Vashisht Times, District Koria, Chhattisgarh against Shri R.K. Mishra, SHO, District Koria, Chhattisgarh. (13/43/09-10)

2. Complaint of Shri Harjeet Dua, Free Lancer, Delhi against the mafia and police authorities. (13/103/12-13)

Soochna Bhawan, 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. 13/43/09-10-PCI

The Chief Editor, Shri R.K. Mishra, Vashisth Times Vs. In-charge, City Kotwali, Koria (Chhattisgarh).

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 6.8.2009 has been filed by Chief Editor, Vashisth Times Distt. Koria, Chhattisgarh against Shri R.K. Mishra, In-charge, City Kotwali, Koria alleging harassment due to the publication of critical news items against activities of the police authorities from time to time. The complainant alleged that due to publication of the critical writings police authorities harassed and tried to implicate him in false cases. When he visited the District Office Baikunthpur to gather the information regarding scam of teacher’s appointment, he was threatened to face dire consequences instead of being provided information. The complainant further stated that the station In-charge misbehaved with him during investigations. In response to the Council’s Notice for Statement in Reply dated 15.4.2010, the respondent Superintendent of Police, Koria vide his comments dated 25.8.2010 has submitted that the matter was enquired by the Station In-charge who found that the complainant is habitual of taking maney for publishing advertisement from various offices and Panchayat’s. The respondent further submitted that a case was registered against the complainant under SC/ST Act and Charge Sheet was filed in the court of law by the respondent Shri R.K. Mishra, Station In-charge and to escape from further investigation in the matter the complainant filed this complaint as reprisal measure. Comments

In response to the comments of the respondent Superintendent of Police, Koria the complainant, vide his counter comments dated 11.2.2011 submitted that he is not satisfied with the comments of the respondent. The complainant submitted that while performeing his journalistic duties, Shri R.K. Mishra followed him and threatened him with dire consequences and used unparliamentarily language further he made a verbal complaint with Shri K.P. Gupta, SHO, Bainkuthpur and Deputy Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken against the erring police official. Hearing before the Inquiry Committee Two adjournments when allowed on 21.12.2012 and 19.9.2013 with direction for personnel appearance of the prime respondent Shri R. K. Mishra, S.I. Koriya. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter once again took up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent has requested for adjournment but since there was no appearance from the complainant’s side, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the case for default.



Sl. No. 2 F.No. 13/103/12-13-PCI

Shri Harjeet Dua Police Officials and Freelance Journalist V. Mafia Delhi

ADJUDICATION

Shri Harjeet Dua, Freelance Journalist, Delhi vide an e-mail dated 9.11.2012 complaint against police officials and builder mafia about to lodging of fabricated FIR against him. The complainant has submitted that he is an accredited journalist of Delhi and wrote against builders, schools/namkeen mafias, theft of government revenue and corruption. Further, some time ago the complainant wrote against the Assistant Assessor & Collector – Mrs. Kusum Khurana residing near his residence. She in connivance with local traders whose (alleged) illegal activities, he reportedly expressed implicated him as false cases. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Harjeet Dua and Shri Sunil Magon, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Yashvir Singh, SHO, Jagat Puri, Shri Amit Kumar Singh, ACP, Preet Vihar, Shri M. K. Shukla, OSD (Home), Shri Dharmender Kumar, SHO, Krishna Nagar appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both parties. It noted that the grievance of the petitioner is that he is been harassed by the local police authorities due to his writings. No such writings are on record. It observed that the petitioner should have approached the higher police authorities with his grievance. With this observation, it decided to dismiss the matter.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the

Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose off the complaint.

Press Council of India

Agenda Item No. 6 Draft Adjudications based on

recommendations of Inquiry Committee (Meetings held on

15.11.2013 at New Delhi)

Complaints by the Press

Section - 14

Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held at New Delhi on 15.11.2013

1. Complaint of Shri R.B. Suri, Satna, M.P. against the editor, Maruti Express, Satna, M.P. (14/657/09-10)

2. Complaint of Reliance Natural Resources (P) Ltd., Mumbai against the editor, "Nai Duniya", Indore, M.P. (14/614/09-10)

3. Complaint of Smt. Aditi Das Rout, Director, Department of Commerce, New Delhi against the editor, Realpolitik, New Delhi. (14/232/11-12)

4. Complaint of Shri Abhishek Goyal, Ahmedabad against Sandesh, Gujarati Daily. (14/281/11-12)

5-6. Complaint of Shri Omkar Gupta, Principal, Nutan High Secondary School, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh against the editors, (i) Hindustan and (ii) Dainik Jagran, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. (14/376-377/10-11)

7. Complaint of Shri M.S.V.C. Varma, Assistant Manager (Transport), A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against the editor, Andhra Jyothi. (14/487/12-13)

8. Complaint of Shri Dabru Anand, Chief Executive-Parakletor Worldwide Intelligence Network, New Delhi against Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh. (14/537/11-12)

9-10. Complaint of Shri Sudhanshu Dhar Tripathi, Allahabad, U.P. against the editors, (i) Amar Ujala, Agra & Allahabad edition; and (ii) Dainik Jagran, Kanpur & Allahabad edition. (14/711-712/10-11)

11. Complaint of Shri Dhruv Gupta, Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (14/226/11-12)

12. Complaint of Shri Jagannath Mohanty, OAS, (S) Project Director, Dhenkanal, Odisha against the editor, Raktachabuk, Odisha. (14/209/12-13)

13. Complaint of Shri P. K. Nigam, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, M.P. against the editor, B.P.N. Times, Indore. (14/230/11-12)

14. Complaint of Shri Mithilesh Kumar, Teacher, Raj High School Road, Jharkhand against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Bihar. (14/305/12-13)

15. Complaint of Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, Bureau Chief, Raj Express, M.P. against the editor, Nav Prabhat, M.P. (14/484/12-13)

16. Complaint of Md. Tarik, City Officer – Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against the editor, Amar Ujala, New Delhi. (14/765/12-13)



Sl. No. 1 F. No. 14/657/09-10-PCI Shri R.B. Suri, The editor, Satna (M.P.). V. Maruti Express, Satna, (M.P).

ADJUDICATION This undated complaint received on 8.3.2011 has been filed by Shri R.B. Suri, Satna, M.P. against the editor, Maruti Express, Satna for publication of false, baseless, frivolous and defamatory news item under the caption “Railway station parisar mein aatankwadiyo se jyada khatarnak Suri” in its issue dated 23.1.2011. It was alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant a member of Human Rights Commission is misusing the power of his post by using kerosene and big stoves to run his canteen at Satna railway station instead of Gas Cylinder, which is very risky. It was alleged that the complainant used 100 litres kerosene per day which is meant for poor people. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item the complainant has stated that the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- and when he declined, a false, concocted and baseless news item was published to tarnish his image. The complainant denied misusing his position as a member of Human Rights Commission. The complainant submitted that he has issued a legal notice dated 28.1.2011 to the respondent editor, Maruti Express, Satna for publishing unconditional apology. In response to the legal notice of the complainant, the respondent editor vide his reply dated 15.2.2011 clarified that they have not called the complainant a terrorist but his activities, which can endanger the life of the people at Railway Station. Written Statement In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 25.5.2011, the respondent vide his written statement dated 5.6.2011 submitted that the news was published on the basis of the available facts and photographs. He also stated that the news item was published for the awareness of the general public as well as police. The respondent submitted that they have not published the impugned news item to defame or malign anyone but the news item was in general and which could cause big mis-happening at Satna Railway Station any time. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. He also denied of demanding any money from the complainant. Hearing before the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 21.12.2013 at Bhopal. Shri Rajeev B. Suri appeared for the complainant while S/Shri Devendra Mishra appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the parties and noted that it is not possible for it to verify the genuineness of the photographs which were published in the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee therefore, directed the DRM, Jabalpur to investigate the matter thoroughly and submit report.

-2- Report of the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment of 19.9.2013 the matter once again took up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent DRM, Jabalpur had requested for adjournment but since there was no appearance from the complainant’s side, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default.

Held




Sl. No. 2 F.No. 14/614/9-10-PCI

1) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd., 1) The Chief Editor, Mumbai V. Nai Dunia, Indore 2) Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., 2) Mr. Vinod Agnihotri Mumbai Correspondent, Nai Duniya, New Delhi

ADJUDICATION

This complaint dated 28.10.2009 has been filed by Reliance Natural Resources (P) Ltd., and Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai against Nai Dunia, New Delhi for publication of a series of allegedly false, misleading and defamatory news items written by Mr. Vinod Agnihotri, Correspondent, Nai Duniya. The complainant has alleged that the impugned articles levelled various unfounded and malicious allegations which are completely wrong and incorrect. The tone and tenor of these articles are designed to defame them and the ADAG companies and to bring down their name and reputation. The complainant has further alleged that the impugned articles illustrated examples of transactions which are alleged to have contravened financial laws and regulations and by innuendo suggesting that various government bodies and officials are acting in concert with and at their behest. The complainant has also alleged that the impugned articles contain lots of false and incorrect information and malicious and defamatory statements with regard to the various group companies of the ADA Group. The entire attempt is to cause their loss and damage to complainant and other ADA Group companies and reputation of Shri Anil Ambani, the Chairman of ADA Group. According to the complainant, these impugned articles have purported to bring out their transactions and of the ADAG to show the alleged financial wrong doings. Both these transactions allegedly involved using the foreign subsidiaries of the ADAG to amass foreign exchange and to invest the foreign exchange in other subsidiaries of ADAG thereby changing their share structure. Another related allegation is that by these transactions an attempt has been made to artificially raise the price of the shares to these subsidiaries companies, in particular for the IPO of Reliance Power Ltd., which is a company of ADAG. The complainant has submitted that they had sent two notices dated 13.10.2009 and 14.10.2009 to the respondent with a view to refrain them from publishing any further article concerning them. In the notices, they also asserted that the respondent is acting at the behest of their corporate rival who has funded the respondent in excess of Rs. 100 crores.

The complainant has stated that the Mukesh Ambani Group has lent and advanced over Rs.100 crores to the Vinay Chhajlani Group, M/s Suvi Management

(Indore) Pvt. Ltd., and Ms/ Nai Duniya Media (P) Ltd., The respondent newspaper is owned by Nai Dunia Media (P) Ltd. The respondent newspaper is, therefore, directly or indirectly obliged to or under control of the Mukesh Ambani Group and respondent is acting on their instruction and are publishing false and malicious information for malafide purposes to bring down their reputation. The complainant has further stated that Vijay Chhajlani Group owns Suvi Info Management and Nai Dunia (P) Ltd., which is a 100% subsidiary of Suvi Information Management. This is evident from the annual return of Suvi showing Vijay Chhajlani Group as shareholders and directions and from balance sheet Suvi Info Management (P) Ltd., for financial year 2007-2008 showing investment in Nai Dunia. According to them, it is also important that Mr. Vijay Chhajlani who owns Indi Media (P) Ltd., has acquired the INX News Channel. This is evident from the report published by Business Standard on January 10, 2009. The complainant has alleged that the news channel of INX has carried a TV report on 18.10. 2009 which is per-se defamatory and malicious. Several defamatory and malice statements have also been made with regard to ADAG. The complainant has submitted that they also sent a legal notice dated 23.10.2009 to the respondent.

Written Statement The respondent Nai Dunia vide written statement dated 29.11.2010 while denying

the allegations of the complainants has submitted that he has not offended or violated the professional norms of journalistic conduct in any manner. The respondent has further submitted that the complainant has not come to the Council with clean hand and has suppressed the material facts. The respondent has also submitted that the complainant did not give any explanation or details to prove that the contents of the impugned articles were false. According to the respondent, the present complaint is not maintainable as it has not been filed by the competent person, Shri Anil Ambani. It is a settled law that the legal remedy is only available to a person who is defamed and no none else can being a claim of defamation on somebody else’s behalf. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be rejected for having instituted by third party/incompetent person, Shri Surendra R. Khot who has no locus to file the present complaint. The respondent has submitted that the impugned articles are based on details available in public domain including the Enforcement Directorate, RBI Notice to ADAG (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group) and the articles have been published for public good and are not in any event defamatory in nature or against journalist ethics. The respondent has further submitted that they have requested Mr. Tonny Jesudasan, Group President, Corporate Communication, ADAG to give the version of ADAG so that the same could be published in the next article. On 12.10.2010 Mr. Jesudasan met with them in their office and the matter was discussed at length and it was promised by Mr. Jesudasan that he shall give the version of ADAG but no version of ADAG came out. The respondent has mentioned that the impugned articles were published without fear or favour and in an impartial manner. He never had any mal intention to malign Shri Anil D. Ambani. The respondent pointed out that in their magazine “Sunday Nai Duniya” issue dated 11.10.2009 an article was published in faovur of Shri Anil D. Ambani. Counter Comments The complainant vide his counter comments while reiterating his complaint has denied each and every allegation and averment made in the written statement. The complainant has alleged that the contents of the written statement filed by the

respondent are highly extraneous and superfluous and deserve to be completely disregarded by the Council. According to him, the impugned articles levelled various unfounded and malicious allegations which are completely wrong and incorrect and as soon as they know about the articles, they had sent legal notice to the respondents asking them to refrain from publishing any further articles concerning them failing which they would be compelled to initiate legal proceedings against the respondent. The complainant has stated that the respondent paid no heed to the legal notices and continued to publish defamatory statements against them to tarnish their image in the eyes of the public at large. The complainant has stated that they have valid reasons to believe that the respondents have done the said acts at the instigation/behest of their rivals, namely Mukesh Ambani Group. The complainant has also stated that the respondent did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the same. The complainant has denied the allegations that he has not come to the Council with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The complainant has alleged that the respondent without attempting to verify the true facts in details, deliberately published the offending impugned articles about the financial dealings of their companies and other ADA Group of companies. He has also denied that Mr. Tony Jesudasan, Group President had ever spoken to the respondents and others telephonically and ever attended a meeting as alleged. The complainant has also denied that the respondent called for an explanation from them before publications of the impugned articles. Report of the Inquiry Committee Having been adjourned several times viz. 27.4.2012, 27.8.2012, 20.2.2013 and 19.9.2013, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Tanmaya Mehta, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri B.K. Mishra and Smt. Poonam Atey, Advocates appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The counsel of the complainant pressed his prayer for the respondent editor to publish an apology alongwith the rejoinder. He also submitted that his client will not provide any written contradiction to the respondent editor as it is the duty of the respondent to make an apology in the newspaper and publish the contradiction by himself. The counsel of the complainant further submitted that the publication is irresponsible as they are trying to damage their reputation by publishing a false and incorrect news items. As the respondent is not agreed to publish the contradiction with apology, he requested the Council to either Censure the respondent Editor or their conduct be disapproved by passing such Order which is within the scope of the Council.

The counsels of the respondent contended that the article had been published in good faith and denied that its contents are defamatory. They further submitted that the management of the newspaper Nai Duniya, Delhi Edition has been changed and taken over by Jagran Prakashan Ltd. and the new management is ready to publish their version. They stated that as impugned article would have been published by the previous management on the basis of facts, they by their own volition will not be able to publish the apology without instructions from their client but they agree to obey the order passed by the Council.

The Inquiry Committee after carefully perusing the record of the case and after carefully observing the contentions of both the complainant and the respondent noted that the factual accuracy or otherwise of the contents of the impugned article could not be determined by the Press Council within its mandate and only determination of ethical

standards by the newspapers was within its purview. Right to rejoinder constitute an important ethical action which left the final decision to the judgment of the public. It therefore asked the respondent to publish the contradiction in toto. The respondent agreed upon it. The complainant counsel requested the Committee to record that such direction was not as an agreement between the parties but as per directions of the Council. The Inquiry Committee took this on record and directed the complainant to give his version to the respondent within 15 days and recommended to the Council to dispose off the matter accordingly. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose off the matter in terms of the above directions.



Sl. No. 3 F.No. 14/232/11-12-PCI

Smt. Aditi Das Rout, The Editor, Director, Realpolitik, Department of Commerce, V. New Delhi. Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi.

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 19.8.2011 has been filed by the Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry Smt. Aditi Das Rout, Director, Department of Commerce, New Delhi against the editor, Realpolitik, English Monthly Magazine, New Delhi alleging publication of false and libelous news item captioned “ÜPA Actors in Bellary Saga” in its issue dated August, 2011. It was alleged in the impugned news article that the UPA Ministers have caused a loss of thousands of crores rupees to the public exchequer by reversing allotment of a high grade iron ore mine to MMTC Ltd. It was also stated in the impugned news article that the mine that could have yielded thousands of crores of revenue to the Government in the process of being given away to private players.

Denying the allegations the complainant submitted that the charges were entirely false, baseless and malicious. It submitted that the conclusions are conjectural and misconceived and are a figment of the imagination of the correspondent and are not based on any facts. There could be no loss of revenue to the government since the mine in question has not been allotted to anybody so far after the allotment to MMTC had been withdrawn by Ministry of Mines. The complainant has alleged that the correspondent did not confirm the factual position prior to publishing the story. The complainant had drawn the attention of respondent editor vide his letter dated 19.8.2011 towards the impugned news article calling for retracting the published article immediately. Written Statement The respondent editor, in his written statement dated 27.9.2011 dismissing all the allegations submitted that the article in question has been written solely on the basis of un-impeached documents of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the Ministry of Mines, which has not been denied by either of the Ministries. The respondent stated that the article in question did not cast any aspersions on any individual but only chronologically narrates official documents of the two Ministries. The respondent further stated that before publishing the article, views of the Minister for Commerce and Industry were also sought, which were carried in the article and the Minister till date had not denied giving them. He also asserted that in the September 2011 issue of the magazine, the letter received from the complainant Ministry as well as from Ministry of

Mines were carried verbatim with their own reply. The respondent submitted that as a journalist he is duty bound to publish information of public importance. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 28.8.2012, 20.2.2013 and 19.9.2013, the matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. Smt. Aditi Das Rout, Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Mr. Sara Sundaram and Mr. Kartikey Bhargava appeared for the complainant. Shri Shahid Faridi appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It noted that this is a complaint filed by Smt. Aditi Das Rout on behalf of Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi against the editor, Realpolitik, English Monthly Magazine, New Delhi alleging publication of false and libelous news item captioned “ÜPA Actors in Bellary Saga” in its issue dated August, 2011. Subsequently, the Ministry of Commerce & Industry wrote a letter dated 19.8.2011 to the respondent to draw attention towards the impugned article denying any loss to public exchequer which was published in its issue of September 2011 in its 'Letter to Editor' column. Alongside the respondent reiterated the allegations made in the issue of August 2011.

Having considered the facts and documents on record the Committee observed that the Counsel of the complainant further contended that after his version was published in the issue of September 2011, the respondent editor again reiterated the same allegations in the issue. On this, the Inquiry Committee asked the petitioner whether any new allegations were made and he denied the same. The Committee was thus satisfied that the matter was of public importance and the respondent had shown due compliance with journalistic ethics by giving the required space to the version of the Government. Its decision to publish its own reply thus leaving the issue to the judgment of the public was in accordance with the norms laid down by Council. The Inquiry Committee thus decided to recommends to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides dismiss the complaint in hand.



Sl. No. 4 F.No. 14/281/11-12-PCI

Shri Abhishek Goyal, The Editor, Ahmedabad, V. Sandesh, Gujarat Daily, Ahmedabad.

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 27.8.2011 has been filed by Shri Abhishek Goyal, Ahmedabad

against the Editor, Sandesh, Gujarat Daily, Ahmedabad alleging publication of false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 7.7.2011 under the caption "Court keep giving such orders, but are they supposed to be obeyed?" with sub heading "Wife beater husband sent to jail directly from High Court" (English translation). It has been alleged in the news item that the complainant has not only declined to pay fine as ordered by the High Court but also said' Court Keep giving such orders, they are not to be obeyed". It has been further stated that the Hon'ble Court ordered to send him to Sabarmati Jail for a month till penalty amount is not deposited by the complainant. The impugned news item also stated that Pooja Gupta got married to complainant but after a short while, the complainant started misbehaving with extreme cruelty, beating her after along with his family members. The complainant has alleged that the news item is full of falsity and defamatory statement against him and his family members which has caused grave trauma to him and his family members. He has further alleged that the impugned news item grossly misreported the proceedings of the court and looks a very malicious tone in its reporting. The misreporting is so significant that even the headline and sub-headline of the article is completely fabricated with zero basis in fact. According to the complainant, it is one of the principle of fair reporting that when the reputation of an individual is at stake, it is imperative to provide the individuals an opportunity to present his side of the story before the publication of such stories. The complainant vide letter dated 7.7.2011 followed by reminder dated 14.7.2011 drew the attention of the respondent editor to his objection with a request to publish an apology but received no response. Written Statement The respondent editor, Sandesh vide written statement dated 12.9.2013 denied all the contentions, statements, averments and allegations made in the complaint. The respondent mentioned the proceeding of the Gujarat High Court which passed the order of contempt of the court against the complainant for using contemptuous language in which he has been asked to furnish the bond of Rs.50,000/- and surrender his passport on or before 8.7.2011. The respondent also submitted a communication of the complainant dated 10.7.2011 to Ho’ble Chief Justice of India and communication dated 21.6.2011 to Hon’ble Chief Justice of Gujarat complaining about the Division bench of the High Court seeking transfer of his case. He further submitted that the complainant filed a Transfer Petition No.1024 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground of certain

-2- allegations against the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and requested to transfer his case to any other State other than Gujarat because the complainant has no faith in the Judiciary of Gujarat. Rejoinder The complainant vide rejoinder dated 25.9.2013 submitted that the wrongdoing of the respondent clearly shows the intention to cause more trauma and humiliation to him by using insulting language in its reply. He also submitted that the reply of the respondent is not relevant to the matter at all and is just a delay tactic to gain more time and to harass him more. The complainant alleged that the respondent is deliberately hiding a significant fact that the order of Hon’ble High Curt dated 6.7.2011 was just an interim order of the proceeding of MCA 1124 of 2011. The said order is clearly contradictory to the statements of the article proving their wrong intent. The complainant submitted that the contempt case against him was dismissed as non-maintainable on 30.4.2012 after which final order takes over all interim orders. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments of 28.8.2012 and 20.2.2013, the matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. Ms. Shweta & Swati Goel appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri D.N. Ray, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It noted that the complainant alleges that the respondent published a defamatory article against the complainant based on incorrect facts. The respondent contends that the statement was based on oral observation and the only infirmity in the order was that he was arrested and sent to jail whereas he has been give bail. After perusing the records of the case, it appears that an Order was passed by the Court on 6.7.2011 on a Contempt Petition in which it was clearly stated that his arrest was contemplated but based or assurance of complainants counsel for compliance with the orders of the Court, the contempt proceedings were disposed of with direction to furnish the bond of Rs.50,000/- before the police and surrender his passport on or before 8.7.2011 for using contemptuous language. But the respondent published the news on 7.7.2011 stating that the petitioner has been arrested and sent to jail for a month as per the Court Order. Such reporting was incorrect's as no such order of the Court has been passed. No correction was published thereafter in view of above, the Inquiry Committee allows the petition and decided recommends to the Council to Admonish and Censure the respondent editor, Sandesh. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to upheld the complaint and Admonish and Censure the respondent editor, Sandesh. A copy of the adjudication be sent to the DAVP, RNI, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Gujarat for the action as they deem fit in the matter.



Sl. Nos. 5-6 F.No. 14/376-377/10-11-PCI

Shri Omkaar Gupta, (i) The Editor, Principal, Nutan Higher V. Dainik Jagran Secondary School, Meerut, U.P. (ii) The Editor, Dainik Hindustan

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 23.9.2010 has been filed by Shri Omkaar Gupta, Principal, Nutan Higher Secondary School, Meerut, U.P. against (i) the editor, Dainik Jagran & (ii) the editor, Dainik Hindustan for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news articles under the caption “Dasvi ki manyata mein baravahi ki class” & “Manyata dasvi tak, padhai MBA ki” in its issue dated 14.9.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that Nutan Higher Secondary School is recognized upto 10th class only while classes conducted upto 12th class through Gemini Inter College and by doing this they are befooled the students and teachers of the school. It was also stated that in school campus, a study center of Karnataka State Open University was unauthorisedly running MBA, BBA, PG Diploma etc. courses. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has stated that the news articles were published to malign and tarnish the image of the institute in the public at large. The complainant sent contradiction to both the Respondents on 20.9.2010 but in vain. The complainant filed a copy of the Report of November 2010 of District Magistrate, Meerut finding the complainant innocent. Written Statement of Dainik Jagran Shri R.K. Dubey, Manager-Legal, Jagran Prakashan Ltd vide his written statement dated 9.3.2011 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant stated that the news article was published after due verification. It had been proved from the investigation of the District School Investigator, Meerut that fake courses are being conducted in the school. Written Statement of Hindustan Times The respondent Dainik Hindustan in his written statement dated 25.6.2013, denying all the levelled in the complaint, submitted that the allegations are baseless, false and frivolous. He stated that the article was published on the basis of true facts and to support the fact copies of the letters dated 13.9.2010 and 9.12.2010 sent by District School Inspector, Meerut was sent to Shri Omkar Gupta, Nutan High School, Gyan Kunj contending that it was published on the basis of investigation conducted by Mr. O.P. Arya, District School Inspector as well as on the basis of the complaint dated 9.9.2010 against Mr. Omkar Gupta. The respondent further submitted that a clarification was published on the Hindustan (Meerut Edition) on 12.12.2010 under the heading “Chhatrabrit ghotale me Nutan Inter College ko clean Chit.”

-2- Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 19.2.2013 and 19.9.2013, the matter came for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Sumit Malhotra appeared for the complainant. Shri B.K. Mishra and Smt. Poonam Atey, Advocates appeared for the respondent, Dainik Jagran while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, Hindustan.

The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The Counsel for the respondent Dainik Jagran agreed to publish the version of the complainant. Taking the assessment on record and under simple direction to the Hindustan it disposed off the matter with report to the Council.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides dispose off the matter.



Sl. No. 7 F. No. 14/487/12-13-PCI

Shri M S V C Verma The Editor Assistant Manager (Transport) V. Andhra Jyoti Andhra Pradesh State Road Hyderabad Transport Corporation, Vijayawada.

ADJUDICATION

This complaint dated 21.9.2012 has been filed by Shri M.S.V.C. Varma, Assistant Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), previously known as Chief Inspector (CI), Vijayawada against the Editor, Andhra Jyothi (Vijayawada City Edition) for allegedly publication of incorrect, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “ In RTC they enjoy like god of yama (Yama Darja)-though they are not eligible still they use vehicles and using squad jeeps for own business purposes” (English version) in its issue dated 7.8.2012 and alleged that the CI has been utilizing the jeep meant for squad teams for his personal use and also passing on the time for trips between Tadepalligudem and Guntur. The said vehicles are misused by the said CI for his business purpose etc. Though they do not have the eligibility to use the organization's vehicles. It has been further alleged that another associate person of CI has been utilizing the jeeps or vehicles meant for squads to attend the functions and marriages with APSRTS Logo.

The complainant has submitted that the impugned news item is scandalous and full of lies with intention to defame him. His prestige is damaged in the eyes of the public, co-employees, officers and relatives. The impugned news-item has hurt him immensely and he has suffered deep mental agony. The complainant further submitted that while discharging his duties as a Supervisor in the organization, he has to be tough with so many persons for effectively implementing the instruction or guidelines issued by the higher ups from time to time for smooth functioning of the organization. On a personal vendetta, the respondent might have been utilized as a tool against the officials by unscrupulous persons. The said item was published with an evil intention to defame him and informed that these kinds of tactics will not hamper a sincere official from discharging his official duties. The complainant further submitted that each and every movement of the vehicles is checked and audited and any deviation from the unauthorized use of vehicles observed carefully and acted upon by the higher officials immediately. The complainant vide letter dated 3.9.2012 drew the attention of the respondent editor informing his version and requested to publish unconditional apology and to disclose the source of the news item but received no response.

-2- Written Statement The respondent editor, Andhra Jyothi in his. written statement submitted that news reports is published on the facts available with the news contributor after thorough verification from his end. The respondent submitted that nowhere in the said news item, the complainant’s name is referred and therefore, the complainant has to prove how his reputation has been damaged. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 18.9.2013 stated that the respondent is trying to brush away their responsibility by giving a vague reply and statement. He has submitted that the written statement filed by the respondent clearly shows that he has not followed the norms specified in the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010 and filed the same as per their whim and fancies. He alleged that the impugned publication is manifestly injurious to the reputation of the complainant. The respondent is required to put to strict proof of the sources of the information as well as material available with them, so as the Hon’ble Authority to arrive at just and reasonable conclusion and for effective adjudication of the dispute as no protection can be extended to false information reported under the guise of journalistic ethics. He has denied the allegations levelled against him in toto as they are false, baseless and incorrect. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 5.4.2013 and 19.9.2013, the matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. None appeared for the complainant. Shri A. Krishna Rao, Buerau Chief, Andhra Jyoti, Delhi appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from the complainant’s side and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the case for default.



Sl. No. 8 F.No. 14/537/11-12-PCI

Shri Dabru Anand The Editor Chief Executive V. Dainik Bhaskar Parakletos Worldwide Intelligence Network Chandigarh New Delhi

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 17.01.2012 has been filed by Shri Dabru Anand, Chief Executive,

Parakletos Worldwide Intelligence Network against Dainik Bhaskar for publishing false and defamatory news-item under the caption “Partner Ko Payment Ke Liye Diye Cheque Bounce, Case Darz’’ in its issue dated 13.1.2012. The complainant has submitted that two years back, he signed a contract with Shri Ramesh Dutt, owner, Speed Network. It is alleged in the news-item that the complainant with the help of staff of Speed Network, conducted lots of raids. Then, the partner i.e. Shri Ramesh Dutt demanded his commission from the complainant. The complainant has objected to the following points in paragraph 2 of the impugned news-item :

1. Ramesh asked for Rs.14 lacs. 2. Cheques were given of different banks 3. Police registered cheque bouncing case 4. Dabru had fight with police officials for which court fined him Rs. 5,000/- 5. Police disclosed that Dabru had cheated many firms of North India and there are many

cases registered against him. The complainant alleged that the respondent has damaged his image in general public and

published the article without clarification. The respondent acted without authentic and proper evidence. The complainant further asked the respondent editor on 13.1.2012 to clarify the objectionable points and source of information but received no response. He alleged that the Editor is involved in the misconduct of publishing the article without any clarification and authentic proof. The article was written without investigation or collected information from Police Station or District Court or with proper evidential proof. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment on 20.9.2013, the matter came for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from the either side and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 9-10 F. No. 14/711-712/10-11-PCI Shri Sudhanshu Dhar Tripathi, 1. The Editor, Brother of Dr. Rakesh Dhar Triphati, Dainik Jagran, Kanpur & (Cabinet Minister, U.P), Allahabad editions. Allahabad, U.P. 2. The Editor,

Amar Ujala, Agra & Allahabad editions.

ADJUDICATION This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 8.3.2011 has been filed by Shri Sudhanshu Dhar Triphati, younger brother of Dr. Rakesh Dhar Triphati (Cabinet Minister, U.P.), Allahabad against the Editors (1) Dainik Jagran, Kanpur and Allahabad editions, and (2) Amar Ujala, Agra and Allahabad editions for publication of series of false, baseless and defamatory news item which are as follows: S.No. Caption Newspaper Dated 1. Chaura Gaon mein dhare gaye premi yugal Amar Ujala 24.1.2011 2. Mantri ke ghar mili agva chhatra, macha hadkamp Amar Ujala 28.1.2011 3. Paanch din baad mili peedita ko mukti – agva ladki

kaa magistrate ke saame bayan darz Amar Ujala 29.1.2011

4. Adalat mein darz hua balatkar peedit ladki kaa bayan – Sachhai kaa pata lagayega board

Amar Ujala 29.1.2011

5. Durachar peedit par samjhote kaa dabav Dainik Jagran 28.1.2011 6. Durachar ki shikaar seema kaa court mein bayan

kalamband Dainik Jagran 29.1.2011

7. Ab Rakesh Dhar ki gherabandi Dainik Jagran 29.1.2011 8. Sona ho gayi thi police ke hawale Dainik Jagran 29.1.2011 It was reported in the news item that victimized girl was found in the house of Dr. Rakesh Dhar Triphati and the nephew, who resides in the village of the Minister, threatened the family members of prosecutrix to compromise the matter. It was also published maliciously that recovery of the victim has been shown from the house of Dr. Rakesh Dhar and subsequently when nothing was found, clean chit has been given to the Minister in the alleged incident. The complainant has submitted that neither any nephew of Dr. Rakesh Dhar Triphati resides in the said village nor was he involved in any manner in the said incident. He has further submitted that Dr. Rakesh Dhar Triphati has nothing to do with the alleged incident and the recovery of the girl was not made from the house of Dr. Rakesh Dhar but his name is being unnecessarily dragged at every stage and in all news items. The complainant has stated that the respondents have published the objectionable,

malicious and defamatory news items and involved his brother in misleading stories. The complainant vide letter dated 7.2.2011 drew the attention of the respondent editors and requested them to take action against the person responsible for preparing and publishing the news items in the newspapers. He further alleged that the impugned news items were highly objectionable and defamatory. The respondent editor, Amar Ujala vide letter dated 24.5.2011 stated that the notice under reply is misconceived and legally not maintainable. He has further stated that the complainant, Shri Sudhansu Das Tripathi has no locus standi to move the present complaint on behalf of Shri Rakesh Dhar Tripathi as no personal allegations have been made against Shri Sudhansu Dhar Tripathi. He submitted that the news item is neither objectionable nor the newspaper or editor has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that the editor has committed any professional misconduct. He further added that the impugned news items were objective and fair reporting has been made in good faith in discharge of public duty and devoid of any malice and based upon facts. He further submitted that the news items were published on the basis of information received by the local reporter, victim herself who had given statement before the press and recorded in digital form and the CD of the same is in their possession. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment on 20.9.2013, the matter came for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. None appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri B.K. Mishra and Smt. Poonam Atey, advocates appeared for the respondent, Dainik Jagran. Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary and Shri Lalit Chaturvedi appeared for the respondent, Amar Ujala. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from the complainant’s side and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 11 F.No. 14/226/11-12-PCI

Shri Dhruv Gupta, The Editor, Superintendent of Police, Vs. Dainik Bhaskar, District Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh

ADJUDICATION

This complaint dated 14.6.2011 has been filed by Shri Dhruv Gupta, Superintendent of Police, District Mahsamund, Chhattisgarh against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Chhattisgarh alleging publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption ''Shetradhikari ke bantware ko le ubhra asantosh” in its issue dated 10.6.2011. It was alleged in the impugned news item that objections raised in the allocation of the Circles to DSP level officers, Pithora and Tumgaon Cirlces were assigned to DSP Megha Tembhurkar in beggars (Kripapatra) quota, all three DSP’s were allocated charge of different police stations in order to maintain internal management of District Police and discontentment between all three DSP’s arisen due to allocation of different Circles to them. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item stated that the respondent has published false and baseless news item maligning image of entire police department. He alleged that the respondent published the news item without verifying the facts. He denied the fact that there was discontentment amongst the DSPs as there was a very cordial and harmonious relation between them and they are doing their duties with complete satisfaction. He sent a rejoinder dated 15.9.2011 to the Bureau Chief, Dainik Bhaskar but in vain. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. None appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from either side and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 12 F. No. 14/209/12-13-PCI

Shri Jagannath Mohanty The Editor Project Director, Vs. Rakta Chabuk District Rural Development Agency, Odisha Dhenkanal, Odisha

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 22.5.2012 has been filed by Shri Jagannath Mohanty, Project Director, (DRDA) District Rural Development Agency, Dhenkanal, Odisha against the Editor, Rakta Chabuk, Oriya fortnightly for publication of allegedly objectionable and false news-item in issue dated 1.5.2012 to 15.5.2012 asserting that “Project Director, DRDA is collecting money from Junior Engineers, Asstt. Engineers and Block Development Officers”. It has been alleged in the impugned news-item that the present Project Director, DRDA is receiving gratification on monthly basis from JEs, AEs and BDOs. Denying the allegations levelled against him, the complainant submitted that the respondent published the baseless and malicious news-item without verification of facts. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent in another issue dated 16.7.2012 to 31.7.2012, published false news-item alleging that the Project Director (DRDA) is not only receiving illegal gratification from JEs, AEs and BDOs but also from offices like Minor Irrigation, Soil Conservation, Sarba Shikha Abhiyan and other similar departments.Vide letter dated 24.7.2012, the complainant drew the attention to the respondent and demanded proof of bribe reported by him in the newspaper. Instead of giving clarification on corruption charges against the complainant, the respondent asked him for an advertisement in his newspaper. The complainant alleged that the respondent has damaged his image in the department and published the news-items without clarification and acted without authentic and proper evidence. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. None appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from either side, and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 13 F. No. 14/230/11-12-PCI

Shri P.K. Nigam, The Editor, Chief Judicial Magistrate, V. B.P.N. Times, Ratlam, M.P. Indore, M.P Shri Subash Agarwal Bureau Chief, B.P.N. Times, Indore, M.P.

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 27.7.2011 has been filed by Shri P.K. Nigam, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, M.P. against the Editor and Bureau Chief, B.P.N. Times, Indore, M.P. alleging publication of misleading and defamatory news item under the caption “Nayayalaya ke maal khane mein annyaya – lakho ke gaban mein mujrim keval babu” in its issue 31.5.2011. It was stated in the impugned item that around 10-year-ago a matter fraud of about 20 lakhs rupees in the maal khane of the Court notice but the FIR was registered in the year 2009. It was alleged that in order to save the Judicial Magistrate in the matter, the investigative committee turned the investigation report in other direction and made only Babu Bheru as accused in that fraud. It was further stated that Bheru being a Scheduled Tribe did not have such power to commit a fraud of rupees 20 lakhs alone. He further stated that as per the rule of the Court, a weekly inspection of Court maal khane must be performed by the Judicial Magistrate and it was performed by the Judicial Magistrate at that time also as the sign above of the Magistrate was present in the Inspection register. Despite these facts, they were being ignored and only the Babu was implicated in the fraud which clearly shows that some embezzlement was going on in the Court. It was further alleged that the investigation in this case was conducted by the C.J.M Nigam himself against which a report in the police was registered about his behaviuor. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item stated that the matter of fraud was of the year 2009 while the respondent called it a 10 year old matter. He further stated that in the matter of fraud, an FIR was registered against Shri Bheru Singh Dodiyar and afterwards he was terminated from that post. He also submitted that the investigation in the matter is still pending and all the documentary evidences are present in the Station Road Police Station. He submitted that the investigation in that matter was conducted by him as per the order given by the High Court and District Court. He further stated that the respondent earlier also published some defamatory and baseless news articles against him under the caption “Thank You ki garmi mein uble C.J.M” & “C.J.M. Nigam kaa ek aur karnama muft khad nahi bejhne par

-2- sub-inspector ko di dhauns” in its issues dated 12.4.2011 and 25.4.2011, respectively. He sent a letter dated 8.6.2011 to the respondent editor requesting him to clarify the truthfulness of the impugned publication. The Editor in its reply dated 19.6.2011 stated that the said publication was done on the basis of the news received from the Shri Subhash Agarwal, Bureau Chief, Ratlam Branch and all the information related to the source of the news article is with him. He further stated that they are ready to publish the apology, if the complainant is having the documentary evidence which proves that the news item is false. The complainant also sent a notice dated 21.6.2011 to Shri Subhash Agarwal, Bureau Chief and in response the Bureau Chief replied that he had published the news item without knowing the law and there is no intention of maligning anyone’s image in this. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. None appeared for the complainant. S/Shri Ashish Aggarwal, and Amit Bhatnagar, Advocates and Shri Ajay Kumar, Group Editor appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from complainant’s side and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the case for default.



Sl. No. 14 F.No. 14/305/12-13-PCI

Shri Mithilesh Kumar The Editor Assistant Teacher Dainik Jagran Raj High School V. Bhagalpur Distt. Pakur Bihar Jharkhand

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 19.6.2012 has been filed by Shri Mithilesh Kumar, Assistant Teacher, Raj High School, Distt. Pakur, Jharkhand against Dainik Jagran, Bhagalpur, Bihar alleging publication of allegedly false and defamatory news-item under the caption “178 fake teachers will be exposed after enquiry’’ in its issue dated 18.6.2012. It is alleged in the impugned news-item that the inquiry has been initiated to expose these teachers. It is further alleged that all the 178 teachers were reinstated after submitting fake certificates. The complainant has alleged that the focus has been on his name in the impugned news-item. The advocate of the complainant vide letter dated 25.6.12 addressed to respondent submitted that ever since the date of appointment not a single allegation has been brought against his client. Due to direct allegation brought against his client, he is suffering from mental agony and high blood pressure. The advocate has alleged that allegation levelled against his client is full of malafide intention under the influence of others and for personal benefit. The advocate has further submitted that his client is a Principal Secretary of ‘Jharkhand Primary Teacher’s Sangh, District-Pakur’ and his prestige has been defamed in the society due to said news. He requested the respondent to provide proof of allegations against his client. Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha, advocate of respondent vide letter dated 9.7.2012 addressed to complainant’s advocate submitted that the news-item published mentioned one Mithilesh Kumar without any other identification and the concerned person was not known to him. He further submitted that the news-item published was on the basis of the substance without any malice intention to anyone. Written Statement

In response to Show-Cause notice dated 2.1.2013, the respondent vide his written statement dated 9.2.2013 has submitted that news-item was published on the basis of letter No. 36 of PSI-Pakur in which a departmental guideline was sought for the appointment of teachers who were under scrutiny for their appointment in the year 1988. The complainant was also appointed in the same batch, so the news was published without any malice and there was nothing wrong in the news in question.

-2- Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. None appeared from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant had requested to decide the case on merits. It carefully perused the records of the case and observed that the written statement mentioned that the impugned news item was published on the basis of the letter No. 36 of PSI-Pakur in which a departmental guideline was sought for the appointment of teachers who were under scrutiny for their appointment in the year 1988 and the complainant was also appointed in the same batch. No evidence of malafide or identification had been brought before the Council. Therefore the Inquiry Committee was satisfied that there were no malice in the news item and the case deserve to be dismissed.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dismiss the case.



Sl. No. 15 F.No. 14/484/12-13-PCI Shri Satya Narain Sharma The Editor Bureau Chief Nav Prabhat Raj Express V. Bhind Bhind, M.P. M.P.

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 27.9.2012 has been filed by Shri Satya Narain Sharma, Bureau Chief, Raj Express, Bhind, M.P. against Nav Prabhat, Hindi daily, Bhind for publication of false and defamatory news-item in its issues dated September 13 and August 25, 2012 under the captions “अखबार म� खबर छपते ह� बौखलाया सतय ारायय ततार�’’ and “गर�ब – लाचार मिुसलम ममहला कमर ना कक अअभ तक ह�� मल सका याय ’’.It is alleged in the impugned news-items that the complainant hiding behind his profession is doing illegal work and buttering the administration. He is selling guns and pistols to anti-social elements and criminals. It is further alleged in the impugned news-items that the complainant’s mental condition has been destabilized and taking treatment from quacks. The complainant has become unstable in old age. The complainant alleged that the impugned news-reports were published by the respondent newspaper with the sole intention to malign his image and reputation in the society. Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the news-items were falsely uncalled for and the respondent purposely published false and malicious news in order to make sensation for the readers. The complainant has further submitted that on 24.10.12, he wrote the respondent to publish the contradiction and also personally requested the respondent to publish the rebuttal but the respondent failed to respond. He alleged that impugned news-items damaged his personal as well as professional reputation in the society. Written Statement

In response to Show Cause Notice dated 20.2.2013, the Editor, Nav Prabhat in his written statement dated 3.4.2013 submitted that he has already published the corrigendum in his news-paper issue dated 4.4.2013 and expressed regret for impugned dated August 25 and September 13, 2012. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Satya Narayan Sharma, the complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee perused the case and noted that the respondent has already published regret as corrigendum in his newspaper issue dated 4.4.2013 for both the publication viz 25.8.2012 and 13.9.2012. It, therefore, decided to dispose of the complaint with the direction to the respondent 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 and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose the complaint.



Sl. No. 16 F.No. 14/765/12-13-PCI

Mohd. Tariq, The Editor, Circle Officer, Khatauli V. Amar Ujala, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. Meerut.

ADJUDICATION This complaint dated 17.2.2013 has been filed by Mohd. Tariq, Circle Officer,

Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Meerut for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “C.O. va S.O. ke beech nokjhonk” in its issue dated 12.2.2013. It was alleged in the impugned news item that a strong altercation took place in the police station between C.O., Khatouli and S.O., Mansurpur for arresting a man in a case of dowry death. It was further stated that Shri Tariq Mohhmad, S.O., Mansurpur was annoyed with the presence of Sonu, the accused in dowry death case, in the police station for long time as the investigation report of the case to be prepared by Shri R.C. Yadav, C.O., Khatouli was still to be prepared whereas the SO has asked the C.O to record the arrest of Sonu so that he could be sent to jail.

The complainant while denying the incident reported in the impugned news item stated that charge of alleging in preparing the investigation report as review of investigation in dowry death cases is done by S.P or S.S.P. was completely false and baseless but the correspondent was not aware about this and published the story without any basis. He sent a letter dated 14.2.2013 to the editor requesting him to publish the rejoinder but received no response. The respondent Amar Ujala vide letter dated 4.10.2013 has informed that the complainant has no grievances left against him and he wishes to withdraw the complaint. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.11.2013 at New Delhi. None appeared for the complainant. Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary and Shri Lalit Chaturvedi appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted the submissions of Amar Ujala that the complainant did not want to pursue the matter and since there was no appearance from complainant’s side, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the case. Held


Documents

Press Council of India Agenda Item No. 5 Draft ...presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/January.pdf · Chhattisgarh against Shri R.K. Mishra, In-charge, City Kotwali, Koriaalleging