Adjudications rendered on 2.06.2014 at Goa complaints by ...presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/AdjudicationGOA.pdf · Press Council of India Adjudications rendered on 2.06.2014

Press Council of India

Adjudications rendered on 2.06.2014 at Goa complaints by the Press

Section-13 1. Complaint of Shri Jitender Mishra, Journalist, Rashtriya Sahara, Konch, Gaya, Bihar against

(i) Shri Sunil Saurabh, Journalist, Chauthi Duniya, Gaya, (ii) Shri Gopal Prasad Singha, Bureau Chief, Rashtriya Sahara, Gaya, (iii) Shri Dinesh Kumar Rai, Patna, Bihar. (13/126/12-13)

Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held at New Delhi on 13.5.2014 2. Complaint of Shri Vipin Tripathi, Correspondent, Sach Ka Teer, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

against anti-social elements and police authorities. (13/134/12-13)

3. Complaint of Shri MS Rajneekar, Publisher, Repko News, Faridabad, Haryana against Shri Lekhraj Nonihal, President, Sewa Samiti, and police, Haryana. (13/143/12-13)

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. 13/126/12-13-PCI Shri Jitendra Mishra, The Correspondent, Correspondent, V. Chauthi Duniya, Rashtraiya Sahara, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar. Bihar.

ADJUDICATION Dated: June 02, 2014

Facts This complaint has been filed by Shri Jitendra Mishra, Correspondent of Rashtriya Sahara, Gaya, Bihar alleging that Shri Sunil Saurabh, Correspondent of Chouthi Duniya threatened to kill him due to publication of critical writing against one Magadh Construction under the caption “ek hi varsh mein jarjar ho gayi sadak” on 6.12.2012. The complainant has filed a complaint No.137/12 on 8.9.2012 at Konch PS. The complainant has also alleged that his Resident-editor, Rashtriya Sahara also removed him from services with the connivance of the Shri Saurabh and contractor. Comments of Shri Sunil Saurabh, Correspondent Shri Sunil Saurabh, Correspondent, Chouthi Duniya, Gaya in his comments dated 6.9.2013 stated that after going through the documents it is clear that the complainant was terminated from the services of Rashtriya Sahara. He added that he had not made any complaint against the complainant and he is involved in demanding money for not publishing the news for which the complainant was sacked by his employer. The respondent further submitted that the allegations levelled against him are false and baseless Comments of SHO, Konch-PS Shri Pradeep Kumar, SHO, Konch PS vide his comments dated 23.9.2013 submitted that after scrutiny of the documents it has been found that a case was registered on 8.9.2012 but further proceedings are not mentioned in the documents.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Jitendra Mishra appeared for the complainant. Shri Himanshu Shrivastava appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It noted that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved against his suspension from the newspaper. It held that the Council cannot interfere in the matter under the provisions of the Press Council Act. Hence, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint. The petitioner may if so advised approach Labour Court for proper remedy 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 dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 2 F.No. 13/134/12-13-PCI Shri Vipin Tripathi, Police Authorities & Anti- Editor, Sach Ka Teer, V. Social Elements. Mahasmund, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh


Facts This complaint dated 2.3.2013 has been filed by Shri Vipin Tripathi, Editor, Sach Ka Teer, Mahasmund, Chhattisgarh against anti-social elements for attempting to kill him on 9.1.2013 after getting annoyed with the critical publication under the caption “Bhu-Mafiyon ne bech dala shaskiya zameen” in its issue dated 28.12.2012. He further stated that the criminals tried to burn him alive in his car. He further alleged that the police had filed a case in Reservation Center Saraipali u/s 294, 325, 506, 34 of IPC against them but after some time the police released all the accused. He alleged that the land mafia has filed a false complaint against him with the help of police authorities. Further, he levelled allegations against Shri Sehedev Singh Thakur, SHO and Shri T.A. Paikra, Superintendent of Police, Mahasmund for tampering with the law to help the land mafias. Comments Shri Sunil Vijayvargiya, Under Secretary, Chhattisgarh Administration, Home Department, Ministry, Raipur vide letter dated 18.7.2013 has submitted that a criminal case No. 5/13 u/s 325, 294, 506, 34 of IPC was registered on 9.1.2013 in Saraipali Police Station at the betest of the complainant's and a Challan was prepared on 19.3.2013 on the basis of the medical inspection of the complainant and it was presented before the Court. He further submitted that a bound over proceeding was also initiated against both the parties in Istgasa Court under Istgasa No. 55, 57/13 u/s 107/16(3) of JaftaFauzdari. Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 16.8.2013 has informed the Council that on the basis of the Challan filed in the Court, a case was filed against the accused in Hon’ble Court of J.M.F.C. He stated that vide letter dated 12.2.2013, he has requested the police authorities to provide security and in response, the Chhattisgarh Administration (Home Department) vide his letter dated 18.7.2013 informed him that a case No. 5/13 u/s 325, 294, 506, 34 of IPC was registered in Saraipali Police Station on a complaint of the complainant. During the investigation, Amitabh Pal @Munna Pal, Animesh Dey, Yogesh Sharma and Titash Banik were found guilty. After that they were arrested and presented before the JMFC Court on 19.3.2013. He further submitted that a bound over proceeding was also initiated against both the parties in Istgasa Court under a Istgasa No. 55, 57/13 u/s 107/16(3) of Jafta Fauzdari so that peace be

maintained between them as there was a land dispute between them. The complainant denied any land dispute as he only exposes the illegal activities of land mafia which was perpetrated with the help of the administration. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 15.11.2013 and 10.2.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted the facts of the case and decided that since there was no appearance from either side despite calling the case twice, the Council may 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. 3 F.No. 13/143/12-13-PCI Shri M.S. Rajneekar, 1. Sh. Lekhraj Nonihal, Publisher, REPCO News Daily, V. President, Sewa Samittee, Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad 2. Mr. Ram Sharan Bhatia, Managing Director, Hotel Delite, Faridabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner Mini Secretariat, Faridabad 4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad 5. The Commissioner of Police, Faridabad 6. Mr. Mohinder Pratap Singh, Cabinet Minister, Govt. of Haryana, MLA, Faridabad


Facts This complaint dated 16.1.2013 has been filed by Sh. M.S. Rajneekar, Publisher, REPCO News Daily against Mr.Lekhraj Nonihal, President, Sewa Samiti regarding oppression of press freedom and threats to him. The complainant has stated that he has published various news items against the respondent in the month of Nov-Dec 2012 regarding grab of money, MCF land, mismanagement of Crimination center. He further stated that the respondent tried to oppress the press freedom with notice of Rs. 20 lakhs and also threatened him in public by stating that “iss patrkaar kaa intzaam karwa raha hu, kisi din pel dunga”. He also stated that the police conducted enquiry in this matter and took his statement but no further action was taken because the respondent enjoys of money power and have many links with political leaders. The complainant has published

the legal notice of the respondent in its issue dated 23.1.2013 wherein it was specifically mentioned that they are ready to publish the clarification of the respondent at a prominent place in his newspaper. He further submitted that if the respondent has any objection to the publication of critical news-item, he could have sent his contradiction to the complainant for publication instead of giving threats to him to demolish the whole structure of the newspaper. No Comments A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondent on 18.11.2013 but it was received back from postal authority with remarks ‘refused to receive’. The NSR was then again issued to the respondent through District Magistrate on 17.12.2013 but no reply was received. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.5.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Narinder Singh appeared for the complainant. Shri Kumud Sachdeva, Advocate and Shri Phool Kumar, D.C.P. – NIT, Faridabad (Authorized representative, Commissioner of Police) appeared for the respondent authorities. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The complainant contended that the Sewa Samiti is indulged in many fraudulent activities. Many news items were published against their fraudulent activities by the complainant in his newspaper and due to these critical publications, the respondent threatened him in many public functions. He was however unable to substantiate the charge with evidence. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the news item in question and held that the matter did not call for action under the Press Council Act. The complainant could file a civil suit in respect of the matter concerned before the competent Court, if he so desired. With this it recommended the Council to dispose of 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 dismiss of the matter as above.

Press Council of India

Adjudications rendered on 2.06.2014 at Goa complaints against the Press

Section 14

Inquiry Committee-I Meeting held at New Delhi on 24-25.3.2014 1. Complaint of Smt. Sandhya Acharya and Dr. Lisa Warden, Director, Dogstop, Ahmedabad,

Gujarat against the Editor, Ahmedabad Mirror, Gujarat. (14/635/13-14) (Old F. No. 14/756/09-10-10)

2. Complaint of Dr. Devender Singh, Chairman, Child Specialist and Senior Medical Officer

District Hospital, Sidhi, Hospital Road, Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Navbharat, Bhopal, M.P. (14/637/13-14) (old F. No 14/196/10-11)

3. Complaint of General Secretary, Popuar Front of India, Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi against the

Editor, The Sunday Guardian, New Delhi. (14/149/12-13)

4. Complaint of General Secretary, Popular Front of India, Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi against the Editor, The Asian Age, New Delhi. (14/156/12-13)

5. Complaint of The General Secretary, Popular Front of India, Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi against

the Editor, The Pioneer, New Delhi. (14/620/11-12) 6. Complaint of M/s. Airports Authority of India, Ranchi against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar,

Ranchi. (14/463/10-11) 7. Complaint of Smt. Rinki Singh (through her brother, Shri Ravi Kumar Singh), New Delhi

against the Editor, Jan Sandesh Times, Varanasi, U.P. (14/571/12-13)

8. Complaint of Ms. Kavita Srivastava, General Secretary, Rajasthan Unit of Public Union for Civil Liberties, Jaipur against the Editor, DNA, Jaipur. (14/418/11-12)

9. Complaint of Shri Umashankar Shukla and Saket Shukla, Baskar, Chhattisgarh against the Editor, Channel India, Chhattisgarh. (14/54/13-14)

10. Complaint of Shri Mohmmed Zakir, District Sawai, Rajasthan against the Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (14/298/13-14)

11. Complaint of Shri Santosh Narayan Sharma, Meerut against the Editor, Dainik Janvani,

Meerut, U.P. (14/346/11-12) 12. Complaint of the Executive Committee, Parents Association for Indian Students in Georgia

against the Editor, The Pioneer, New Delhi. (14/297/13-14) 13. Complaint of Shri L. K. Mahajan, Shimla, H.P. against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Shimla, H.P.

(14/504/11-12) 14. Complaint of Shri P.K. Jadeja, DSP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad against the Editor,

Leader of the Crime News, Ahmedabad. (14/256/11-12) 15. Complaint of Shri Damji Bhanushali, Secretary, Sri Kutchi Bhanushali Samaj Sarovar, Kutch,

Gujarat against the Editor, Kutch Uday, Kutch, Gujarat. (14/345/11-12) 16. Complaint of Shri Rajendra Prasad Brijbhushan Chaube, Municipal councilor, Mumbai

against the Editor, Toofan Samachar, Mumbai. (14/136/11-12)

17. Complaint of Cornel K. Gonsalves, Secretary, The Salsette Catholic Cooperative Housing

Society Ltd., Mumbai against the Editor, DNA, Mumbai. (14/549/11-12) 18. Complaint of Shri Hari Krishna Vapta, Pune against the Editor, The Times of India, Pune.

(14/650/10-11) 19. Complaint of Mrs. Jayanti Chatterjee, District - Asansol (W.B.) against the Editor, Sambad

Pratidin, Kolkata. (14/200/12-13) 20. Complaint of Shri Manas Das Gupta, District - Hooghly against the Editor, Sangbad Pratidin,

Kolkata, W.B. (14/210/12-13) 21. Complaint of Shri Madan Mohan Soren, Chief Ticket Officer (Line), Jharkhand against the

Editor, Prabhat Khabar, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. (14/789/12-13) Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held at New Delhi on 13.5.2014

22. Complaint of Shri R. N. Shaikh, Dy Traffic Manager, Mumbai Port Trust, Traffic Department,

Mumbai against the editor, Afternoon Dispatch and Courier, Mumbai. (14/709/12-13) Inquiry Committee-I Meeting held at New Delhi on 15.5.2014 23. Complaint of Shri L. R. Vishwanath, Additional Director General (I/c) Song and Drama

Division, MIB, New Delhi against the Editor, News Horn', Gurgaon. (14/418/12-13) 24. Complaint of Shri Gazi Ram Meena, Commissioner of Police, Rewa District, Rewa, Madhya

Pradesh against the Editor, Pradesh Today, Bhopal, M.P. (14/166/11-12) 25. Complaint of Shri Rajesh Bhargava, Chairman, CHL Group of Hospitals, Indore, M.P. against

the Editor, Dainik Agniban, Indore, M.P. (14/73/12-13) 26. Complaint of Dr. Zaheeruddin, Dental Surgeon, Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, New Delhi

against the Editor, Daudti Dilli, New Delhi. (14/835/12-13) 27. Complaint of Shri L. S. Herdenia, Bhopal against the Editor, Panchjanya, New Delhi.

(14/635/12-13) 28. Complaint of Dr. Charu Walikhanna, Member, National Commissioner for Women, New Delhi

against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Noida, U.P. (14/345/13-14) 29. Complaint of Dr. Rajeev Joshi, Pune against the Editor, Lokmat, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

(14/669/11-12) 30. Complaint of Shri Christopher Fonseca, Secretary, Communist Party of India, Goa State

Council, Goa against The Editor, Navhind Times, Panaji, Goa. (14/674/11-12) 31. Complaints of Shri Shankardayal Nathulal, Amravati, Maharashtra against the Editor,

Amravati Darpan. (14/687/10-11). 32. Complaint of Smt. Usha Yadav, Chairman, Nav Uday Nari Utthan Samiti, Bhopal, M.P. against

the Editor, Patrika, Bhopal, M.P. (14/611/12-13) 33. Complaint of Shri Nitin Kumar Agarwal, District Churu, Rajasthan against the editor, Dainik

Nav Jyoti, Ajmer, Rajasthan. (14/58/11-12) 34. Complaint of Shri Nitin Kumar Agarwal, Churru, Rajasthan against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar,

Rajasthan. (14/57/11-12)



Sl. No. 1 F.No. 14/635/13-14-PCI Old F.No.14/756/09-10 Dr. Lisa Warden, The Editor, Director, DOGSTOP, V. Ahmadabad Mirror, Ahmadabad. Ahmadabad.


Facts This complaint dated 19.4.2010 has been filed by Dr. Lisa Warden, Director, DOGSTOP, Ahmadabad against ‘Ahmadabad Mirror’ for publication of allegedly irresponsible, short-sighted, inaccurate article under the caption “Sterilized dog bites five after giving birth to litter” in its issue dated 4.12.2009. It was reported therein that two weeks ago, a sterilized dog gave birth to three pups and this is not an exceptional case, other sterilized dogs in the area gave birth to litter recently. The dog bit at least six people in the area. The people have every reason to doubt the sterilization campaign run by the Municipal Corporation. The complainant, working in the field of management of dog population, claimed that the report was incorrect and published without verification. The complainants oral and written communication with the respondent did not lead to any corrective step. Written Statement The respondent in his written statement dated 14.7.2010 submitted that the impugned article is about the sterilization campaign of Dogs by the Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation (AMC). Before writing the article, they spoke to the local residents and Municipal Councilor, Shri Imran Khadawala. The respondent has denied the allegation that he targeted any agency/organization by publication of impugned article as no injury is caused to the complainant with the publication. He asserted that the publication was in public interest and bonafide and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) had not objected to it. It was also contended that as no injury was caused to the complainant, she could not claim any relief. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 28.10.2013 and 7.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri A.B. Pandey, Advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The complainant stated to as being the NGO that supported the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in the sterilization programme contended that the impugned report was incorrect as the dogs had never been sterilized. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned news item and felt that

the inaccuracy was not such serious as to merit action under Section 14 (1) of the Press Council Act, 1978. It therefore decided to dismiss the complaint. Held

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



Sl. No. 2 F.No. 14/637/13-14-PCI Old F.No.14/196/10-11 Shri Devender Singh, The Editor, Senior Medical Officer, Navbharat, Seedhi, M.P. Bhopal.


Facts This complaint dated 25.6.2010 has been filed by Dr. Devender Singh, Senior Medical Officer, Seedhi, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Navbharat for publication of false and baseless news item under the caption “Mahila Doctor ne kiya manavta ko taar-taar, prasav ke liye bharti mahila ke saath amanviya vyavahar kar maut ke muhane par pahuchaya” on 18.6.2010. It was stated in the impugned news item that Dr. Manju Singh w/o Dr. Devender Singh performed delivery operation of Smt. Sunita Devi in such a way that the head of the child stuck inside the stomach of the lady and the rest part of the body of the child was out. After this incident, Dr. Devender Singh shocked his annoyance on the relatives of the patient and forced them to move out from the hospital and treated them in very offensive and wrongful manner. It was also alleged that the doctors refused to operate further on the lady patient whose life was in danger at that time and referred her to Reva Medical College for further treatment. Denying the allegations levelled by the respondent in the impugned news item, the complainant alleged that the news item was published to blackmail and extort money from him. It was completely false and baseless as the child was already dead in the stomach of the lady around 6-7 days ago and the infant had many inherent diseases which endangered life of the lady. The complainant further stated that he has filed a criminal case against the four journalists in Seedhi Court under Section 156(3), 34, 501, 294 & 506 of IPC on 13.7.2010 for abusing and threatening to kill him for which the court directed the police authority to file a criminal case against the journalists. He has sent a letter on 25.6.2010 to the Editor of Navbharat and other newspapers to publish his rejoinder but in vain. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 6.12.2010 but no response has been received despite issuance of reminder on 8.3.2011.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 28.10.2013 and 7.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant whereas Shri Sanjay Kumar appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the respondent. It noted that since there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant despite calling the case twice and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 3 F.No. 14/149/12-13-PCI The General Secretary, The Editor, Popular Front of India, V. Sunday Guardian, Noida Road, Kalindi Kunj, Delhi Edition, New Delhi – 110025 New Delhi.


Facts This complaint dated 27.04.2012 has been filed by the General Secretary, Popular Front of India against the Editor, the Printer & Publisher and the Reporter, Sunday Guardian for publishing a false, baseless and defamatory news item under caption “IB report says extremist PFI has shifted base to Delhi” on 11.03.2012. It was stated in the impugned news item that the Intelligence Bureau has expressed its concern over the expansion of Popular Front of India which as per its report shifted its base to Delhi. It was further stated that PFI cadres have been trained in the use of sharp-edged weapons and in fabrication and deployment of crude bombs and IEDs and securities agencies see this as a serious security threat to the VIPs living in the city. The complainant while denying the allegations stated that spreading such kind of false and baseless news item clearly shows that the respondents indulging in mudslinging on without any evidence. He also stated that the respondent was intentionally and maliciously trying to link the complainant with Maoists and SIMI. The complainant further stated that the allegations such as the cadres of the complainant have been trained in the use of sharp edged weapons and in fabrication and deployment of crude bombs and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), the complainant is a serious security threat to VIPs living in the city, and organizing secret camp for its recruits from different parts of the country, etc. are completely false and baseless as police had not registered any case against them on these charges and none of the investigating agencies has issued any statements in connection with these allegations. He further stated that the actions of the respondent clearly deputed professional misconduct are a clear blot on the face of genuine and transparent journalism. He has also sent a letter to the Editor of Sunday Guardian on 17.03.2012 requesting him to publish the rejoinder with an apology in their newspaper but received no response. It has been further stated that the complainant being aggrieved against the said impugned news item, issued a legal notice on 26.03.2012 through its General Secretary to tender unconditional apology with the admission of their false and concocted reporting at the same space in their newspaper within a stipulated period after the receipt of the said legal notice. But the respondent has failed to comply with the contents of the said legal notice.

Written Statement Shri Arun Monga , advocate for the respondent Sunday Guardian vide his written statement dated 17.4.2013 while denying the allegations levelled against his client has stated that the allegations in the report are totally false, defamatory and baseless . He also stated that the news was based on the minutes of the meeting of national level conference of the Director General of Police which was also attended by senior intelligence officers. The news item is based on the documented observations by IB officer and not on any hearsay or conversation. He denied the allegation that the respondent is trying to portray the complainant as a terrorist organization. He further stated that he has given the reply of the legal notice to the complainant on 18.4.2012 by registered post. He further stated that the complainant is guilty of deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation and intentional concealment of material facts. Ist Hearing The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.7.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Bahar U. Barqui, Advocate, Shri K.P. Mohamad Shareef, Advocate and Shri A. Mohamad Yusuff, Advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant is present but the respondent is not present although he is served the notice. The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant and noted that the respondent newspaper projected it as a terrorist organization. Perusing the news item the Inquiry Committee noted that the news was purportedly based on input from Intelligence Bureau. The Inquiry Committee decided that the Intelligence Bureau be asked to confirm or deny that they made such observations against the complainant organization. IInd Hearing The matter came up for hearing again before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Bahar U. Barqui, Advocate, Shri K.P. Mohamad Shareef, Advocate, Shri A. Mohamad Yusuff, Advocate and Shri Maroof Ahamed, Advocate appeared for the complainant. S/Shri Arun Monga and Aviral Dhirendra, Advocates appeared for the respondent. Shri Arjun Ambalapatta, Advocate appeared on behalf of NIA. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties as well as the representative of NIA(National Investigation Agency). It noted that the NIA vide letter dated 4.10.2013 and Intelligence Bureau vide undated letter had denied the observations attributed to it in the publications. The representative of the NIA informed the Committee that PFI is not a banned organization but two cases are running against some members of the PFI and not against the organization. The Inquiry Committee felt that the onus lies on the respondent as the Intelligence Bureau has not given any information. Had PFI been a banned organization, the situation would have been different. It opined that the respondent is required to publish the clarification in his newspaper. The counsel of the respondent however submitted that he needs to seek instructions and comments of the client first. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, decided to adjourn the matter with the direction to the learned counsel of the respondent to seek instruction regarding the publication of the clarification and report to the Council accordingly.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment of 7.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Maroof Ahemad, Advocate, Shri A. Mohamed Yusuff, Advocate and Shri Sapan A. Sheikh, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Varun Kumar, Advocate and Shri Sonu Gupta appeared for the respondent. Shri Surender Singh, Prosecutor, MHA appeared on behalf of NIA. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and the representative of NIA. The counsel of the respondent submitted that they will publish the version of the complainant as well as of NIA but they will not publish an apology. The representative of NIA contended that no information terming the petitioner organization as terrorist organization was given to the respondent newspaper from NIA. The Inquiry Committee with the above observations asked the respondent whether he will publish the statement. The respondent counsel agreed to publish the NIA statement. The Inquiry Committee, in view of the above undertaking, decided to dispose of 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 decided to dispose of the matter.



Sl. No. 4 F.No. 14/156/12-13-PCI The General Secretary, The Editor, Popular Front of India, The Asian Age, Nodia Road, KalindiKunj, V. Delhi Edition, New Delhi – 110025 Green Park, Main Market, New Delhi.


Facts The complaint dated 16.04.2012 has been filed by the General Secretary, Popular Front of India against the Editor, The Asian Age for publishing the false, fictitious, baseless and defamatory news item under caption “PFI national HQ shifted to Delhi” on dated 25.09.2011. It was stated in the impugned news item the Popular Front of India has shifted its national headquarters from Kerala to Delhi resulting in serious concerns for the security establishment. It was further stated that the PFI cadres have been trained in the use of sharp edged weapons and in fabrication and deployment of crude bombs and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The complainant has stated that the Popular Front of India has shifted its national headquarters from Kerala to Delhi is completely false and fictitious as the complainant is actually shifted from Bangalore to Delhi and not from Kerala to Delhi. He further stated that the respondent is trying to link the complainant with the Maoists and SIMI without any evidence. Also, they try to portray the complainant as terrorist organization. The complainant alleged that the respondent published these news items with an intention to tarnish/malign his image and reputation. He further stated that the activities of the respondent clearly establish professional misconduct and a clear blot on the face of genuine and transparent journalism. The complainant sent a letter to the Editor of Asian Age on 26.09.2011 requesting him to publish the news item with an unconditional apology in the next immediate issue of their newspaper. Upon this, the respondent published a small article in his newspaper on 30.09.2011 in page no. 06 under the caption “Baseless Allegations”. The complainant is not satisfied with the rejoinder published by the respondent as they did not publish an unconditional apology for the said fictitious and untrue report. It has further stated that being aggrieved against the said impugned news item a legal notice was issued on 01.02.2012 through its General Secretary to tender unconditional apology with the admission of their false and concocted reporting at the same space in their newspaper within a stipulated period after the receipt of the said legal notice. According to the complainant, the respondent has failed to comply with the contents of the said legal notice till date.

No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 6.8.2012 for written statement but no written statement has been filed despite reminder dated 5.3.2013. Ist Hearing

The matter came up for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.7.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Bahar U. Barqui, Advocate, Shri K.P. Mohamad Shareef, Advocate and Shri A. Mohamad Yusuff, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Rajendra Kumar Mishra, Deputy Manager, Admn. appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. The Inquiry Committee after carefully perusing the news item noted that the news was purportedly based on the input from Intelligence Bureau that the outfit is trying to develop link with Maoists elements, Human Rights groups and other Dalit Bodies. The Inquiry Committee decided that Intelligence Bureau be asked to confirm or deny that they made observations against the complainant organization. IInd Hearing The matter came up for hearing again before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Bahar U. Barqui, Advocate, Shri K.P. Mohamad Shareef, Advocate, Shri A. Mohamad Yusuff, Advocate and Shri Maroof Ahamed, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri R.K. Mishra appeared for the respondent. Shri Arjun Ambalapatta, Advocate appeared on behalf of NIA. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties as well as the representative of National Investigation Agency (NIA). It noted that the NIA vide letter dated 4.10.2013 and Intelligence Bureau vide his letter dated 15.10.2013 denied the observations made by the complainant regarding the publications. The Intelligence Bureau informed that the matter has been examined in consultation with the Central Investigation Agency and it is found the no such observation/comments were made by the Intelligence Bureau. The representative of the NIA Informed the Committee that PFI is not a banned organization and there are two cases being processed against some members of the PFI but not against the organization. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that had it been a banned organization, it would have been a different situation. It, therefore, felt respondent sought to publish the clarification in his newspaper. However, since the respondents counsel in related case had sought adjournment to seek instruction from his client, it decided to list the matter together for disposal. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment of 7.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Maroof Ahemad, Advocate, Shri A. Mohamed Yusuff, Advocate and Shri Sapan A. Sheikh, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri R.K. Mishra appeared for the respondent. Shri Surender Singh, Prosecutor NIA, MHA appeared on behalf of NIA.

The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and the representative of NIA. The representative of NIA contended that no information terming the petitioner organization as terrorist organization was given to the respondent newspaper from NIA. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent whether to publish the statement of NIA. The respondent’s counsel agreed to publish the NIA statement. The Inquiry Committee, in view of the above undertaking, decided to dispose of the complaint. Held




Sl. No. 5 F.No. 14/620/11-12-PCI The General Secretary, The Editor, Popular Front of India, V. The Pioneer, Noida Road, Kalindi Kunj, Delhi Edition, New Delhi. New Delhi.


Facts This complaint dated 28.2.2012 has been filed by the Public Relation Officer, Popular Front of India against the Editor, the Printer & Publisher and the Reporter, The Pioneer for publishing of the false, baseless and defamatory news items under caption “SIMI bodies wakes Muslims up to woes of vote politics“and “SIMI-backed party alarms NIA” in its issues dated 7th and 19th February, 2012 respectively. The complainant also submitted that the newspaper earlier published an allegedly false and defamatory news item in its issue dated 27.11.2011 linking them with SIMI but has not provided copies of the impugned news item and the letter written by him to the respondent. It was stated in the impugned items that SIMI-backed Popular Front of India is fast becoming a major internal security headache for the Government. The National Investigative Agency (NIA), which is tracking the outfit, has specific information on its effort to mobilize Muslims for seeking a “state within state” to address the community woes. It has been further stated that the Front urged the Muslims to remain vigilant against the vote bank politics of the political parties. The outfit has advised them to vote for those candidates who can serve the community better. The impugned publication further stated that the second choice should be backing candidate of parties which seems comparatively more favorable to Muslim issues. The publication further stated that PFI is a suspect terror organization and has recently shifted it’s headquarter to the National Capital and is trying to make forays into the political arena in North India. Its cadres had chopped off the hands of a Christian Professor for allegedly hurting Muslim’s sentiments. The complainant stated that spreading such kind of false and baseless news item clearly shows that the respondent is trying to portray the complainant as a terrorist organization and anti-national. It has been further stated that the respondent intentionally and maliciously trying to link the complainant with SIMI/Indian Mujahedeen. The complainant further alleged that the respondent published these news items with an intention to tarnish/malign his image and reputation. He has also alleged that the allegation levelled against them in the impugned publication is totally false and baseless as it charged serious allegation against them by portraying it as a terrorist organisation and anti-national. The impugned publication is nothing but a pack of lies against them. He has drawn the attention of the respondent

toward the impugned publication vide his letter dated 10.2.2012 and 21.2.2012 requesting him to publish the rejoinder with an apology in their newspaper but in vain. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 16.10.2012 but no written statement has been filed despite reminder dated 28.1.2013. Letter from National Investigation Agency In response to the Council’s letter dated 11.9.2013 the Deputy Inspector General (Policy), NIA vide his letter dated 4.10.2013 stated that they made Popular Front of India as accused in their two cases and also denied the observations made in the petition regarding the media report and they never shared any such thing with the media. Ist Hearing

The matter came up for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.7.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Bahar U. Barqui, Advocate, Shri K.P. Mohamad Shareef, Advocate and Shri A. Mohamad Yusuff, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Varun Kumar, Advocate and Shri Om Prakash Gupta, HR Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee heard the parties and noted that the respondent newspaper projected complainant organization as a Terrorist organization. Perusing the news item the Inquiry Committee noted that the news was purportedly based on the input from Intelligence Bureau and NIA. The Inquiry Committee decided that Intelligence Bureau and NIA be asked to confirm or deny that they made such observations against the complainant organization. The Inquiry Committee gives six weeks’ time to the Intelligence Bureau as well as NIA to file their statement. IInd Hearing The matter came up for hearing again before the Inquiry Committee on 28.10.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Bahar U. Barqui, Advocate, Shri K.P. Mohamad Shareef, Advocate, Shri A. Mohamad Yusuff, Advocate and Shri Maroof Ahamed, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Varun Kumar, Advodate, Shri O.P. Gupta, AR, Pioneer and Shri Rakesh K. Singh, Special Correspondent appeared for the respondent. Shri Arjun Ambalapatta, Advocate appeared on behalf of NIA. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties as well as the representative of National Investigation Agency (NIA). It noted that the NIA vide letter dated 4.10.2013 and Intelligence Bureau vide its undated letter received on had denied the observations made by the complainant regarding the publications. The representative of the NIA informed the Committee that PFI is not a banned organization and there are two cases being processed against some members of the PFI but not against the organization. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that had it been a banned organization, it would have been a different situation. It, therefore, felt the respondent ought to publish the clarification in his newspaper. However, since the respondents counsel in related case had sought adjournment to seek instructions from his client, it decided to list the matters together for disposal. IIIrd Hearing The matter came up for hearing once again before the Inquiry Committee on 7.1.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Bahar U. Barqui, Advocate, Shri K.P. Mohamad Shareef, Advocate, Shri A. Mohamad Yusuff, Advocate and Shri Maroof Ahamed, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Varun Kumar, Shri O.P. Gupta, AR of the Company and Shri Rakesh Singh, Special Correspondent appeared for the respondent. Shri Arjun Ambalapatta,

Advocate appeared on behalf of NIA. Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhya, Under Secretary, MHA appeared on behalf of IB. The Inquiry Committee has been requested by the parties that they want to exchange some documents related to the case and need time for reply. The Inquiry Committee accepting the request, decided to adjourn the matter. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Maroof Ahemad, Advocate, Shri A. Mohamed Yusuff, Advocate and Shri Sapan A. Sheikh, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Varun Kumar, Advocate and Shri O.P. Gupta, AR appeared for the respondent. Shri Surender Singh, Prosecutor, MHA appeared on behalf of NIA. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and the representative of NIA. The representative of NIA contended that no information terming the petitioner organization as terrorist organization was given to the respondent newspaper from NIA. The Inquiry Committee directed the respondent whether he will publish the statement of NIA that the petitioner’s organization is not a terrorist organization. The respondent’s counsel agreed to publish the NIA statement. The Inquiry Committee, in view of the above undertaking, decided to dispose of the complaint. Held




Sl. No. 6 F.No. 14/463/10-11-PCI Airport Controller, The Editor, Airport Authority of India, V. Dainik Bhaskar Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi. Ranchi.


Facts This complaint dated 12.11.2010 has been filed by Shri Raju Raghvendera Kumar, Airport Controller, Airport Authority of India, Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi against the editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Ranchi for publication of baseless and misleading news article under the captions “Runve par chehelkadmi aur utar gaya vimaan” and “landing asurakshit” in its issues dated 29.10.2010 & 31.10.2010, respectively. It was alleged in the impugned news items that an unsafe & risky landing of two planes was done today when the Becon Light was not working properly which helps the planes to land safely at the Airport. It was also alleged that this careless attitude of airport staff endangers the life of passenger. It was further alleged that a huge number of bird hit case occur at the airport and the main reason for this is the bush growth at the airport which supplies food to the birds. It was stated that the Safety Team of AAI investigated the Bird Hit cases and found the Ranchi Airport risky. The complainant, while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items stated that they published the news items without any evidence and for front the truth. He also stated that these were published to malign the image of the Airport Authority in public. He further stated that the news of the investigation in the Bird Hit case was completely wrong as it was a Routine Safety Audit of Airport Authority and not the investigation of Bird Hit case. He stated that without the permission of ATC no plane can land, so if the Becon Light was not working then the ATC will never give permission of unsafe landing. He denied that any such incident as reported occurred. The complainant wrote to the editor on 29.10.2010, 2.11.2010 and 24.12.2012 in this regard but received no response. Written Statement The Resident Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Ranchi vide his written statement dated 25.10.2013 stated that the news item was published on the basis of the minutes of the meeting held at Birsa Munda Airport in November 2010 about how to avoid bird hit cases at Airport and all the incidents of bird hits were recorded in the minutes. The meeting was called by the Controller of the Airport. The respondent further stated that all the incidents were registered in incident register of the Airport which was published in the newspaper.

The Airport Authority of India in its rejoinder dated 31.12.2013 asserted that respondent published baseless and misleading news article and did not publish contradiction in spite of repeated reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following four adjournments dated 15.7.2013, 22.8.2013, 28.10.2013 and 7.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Suresh Kumar Mohanty, JE(HR) appeared for the complainant. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant and noted that there is no appearance for the respondent despite the Notice being served. It noted that the petitioner alleged that a incorrect report was published as no such incident was occurred. He further contended that the news of the investigation in the Bird Hit case was completely wrong as it was a Routine Safety Audit of Airport Authority and not the investigation of Bird Hit case. The respondent had earlier contended that the news item was published purely on the basis of the minutes of the meeting held at Birsa Munda Airport in November 2010 which was about how to avoid bird hit cases at Airport and all the incidents of bird hits were there in the minutes of the meeting. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the report of the Airport Authority of India which mentioned bird hit cases in 2009 the petitioner said that proper remedial measures has been taken up to stop such type of bird hit incidents. The Inquiry Committee opined that the version of the complainant was natural. It therefore directed the respondent newspaper to publish the version of the complainant expeditiously. With the above direction, it decided to dispose of the complaint. Held




Sl. No. 7 F.No. 14/571/12-13-PCI Smt. Rinki Singh, The Editor, Through V. Jan Sandesh Times, Shri Ravi Kumar Singh, Varanasi New Delhi

ADJUDICATION

Dated: June 02, 2014 Facts This complaint dated 7.12.2012 has been filed by Smt. Rinki Singh through her brother Shri Ravi Kumar Singh, New Delhi against the Editor, Jan Sandesh Times, Varanasi for publishing a defamatory, objectionable and scandalous news item against Smt. Rinki Singh, Enquiry Cum Reservation Clerk, Varanasi Cantt. Railway Station in its issues dated 31.8.2012, 1.9.2012 and 16.10.2012 under the captions “Arakshan Kendra par CBI ka chhappa”, “Mahila ko bachna pad raha bhari”, “Mahila Lipik ne patrakar ko daudaya” and “Mahila Lipik bejhi gayi record room”, respectively. It has been stated in the impugned news item that Rinki Singh has relations with the brokers and CBI team got 22 tickets and 40,000/- cash from her counter. It has further stated that A.K. Srivastava, Sr. DCM of Lucknow is trying to protect her. It has also stated in the impugned news item that she has misbehaved with the Sr. Correspondent of a newspaper. On his complaint to the higher officials, she has been transferred to the record room. While denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant stated that the false, fabricated and malicious news item was published along with photograph in order to defame and tarnish her image in the department and in the society. The respondent editor has deliberately distorted the facts and published the false, malicious and defamatory news item in order to blackmail her. The complainant’s father in law sent two letters dated 21.10.2012 and 25.10.2012 to the respondent to publish the corrected but yet did not receive any response. Written Statement The respondent editor vide letter dated 15.2.2013 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant, submitted that a false complaint has been filed in the Council in order to put pressure on the Chief Editor and to malign his image. He has stated that a public servant must take permission from department before filing any complaint in the Council but in this case no permission was taken and hence this complaint deserves to be rejected. He further stated that the CBI team got 22 tickets and 40,000/- cash from the complainant’s counter and

they have only published the news item which is true and correct. He also stated that due to this incident, the complainant has been transferred from her current place of posting to other place. He added that the news items were completely true and published on the basis of the facts. Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 18.4.2013 while denying the allegation levelled by the respondent stated that the respondent is a businessman and doing the business of iron in Varanasi and involved in the illegal business of railway tickets for the last 22 years. He has stated that he has been using journalism to put pressure on the railway staff and officers to cover up his illegal activities. He has further stated that his modus operandi is to publish false report in the local newspaper and send to the offices of Divisional Railway Office at Lucknow. He has further stated that he blackmails the railway staff at Varanasi Cantt. on the basis of his reporting. He alleged that he also writes false public complaint against the railways staff in order to blackmail them. He has further stated that he joined newspaper Hindustan and Jan Sandesh Times and continued complaining against the railway staff and interfering in the railway administration for his vested interest. He further stated that he continued taking reservation tickets for himself and for others from inside the reservation counter misusing his profession. He alleged that 22 tickets were obtained from a person outside the reservation counter about which the complainant was neither aware nor responsible. He objected that the respondent has deliberately distorted the facts with ulterior motive. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 29.10.2013 and 7.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Ravi Kumar Singh and Shri Ajit Sharma, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, Reporter, Jan Sandesh Times appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It noted that the petitioner's objection against the impugned report in Jan Sandesh Times making various allegations including allegations against the character of a lady. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned news item and found that the respondent could produce no basis for the statement made in the newspaper against the petitioner. It noted that making allegations against the character of a lady is a serious matter which cannot be condoned and warranted being Admonished and censured. It recommends to the Council to upheld the complaint against the respondent editor, Jan Sandesh Times admonish and censure and direct the newspaper to publish an apology prominently in its newspaper. 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 matter as abvoe. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of NCT for necessary action as they deem fit.



Sl. No. 8 F.No. 14/418/11-12-PCI Ms. Kavita Srivastava The Editor, General Secretary Daily News & Analysis People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) V. Jaipur. Jaipur. The Executive Editor, Press Trust of India, New Delhi.


Facts This complaint dated 2.11.2011 has been filed by Ms. Kavita Srivastava, General Secretary, People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Jaipur for publication of allegedly false news-item under the caption “Maoist wanted in Jaipur, held in New Delhi” in its issue dated 5.10.2011. According to the news-item, a 36 - year old suspected woman Maoist, wanted by Chhattisgarh police, was arrested from South Delhi locality where she was allegedly hiding. It is stated in the impugned news-item that Soni Suri a primary school teacher and an aunt of Lingaram Kodopi was recently arrested for allegedly acting as a conduit between Maoists and Essar was apprehended by the Delhi Police. It is further alleged in the impugned news-item that the Chhattisgarh Police raided the house of rights activist, Ms. Kavita Srivastava in Jaipur to apprehend Suri but could find her there. The complainant has alleged that on bare reading of the report indicated that the impression is made that the she is sheltering Maoists and a Senior Police Officer by commenting the raid on her house; said that they raided the premises on a tip off provided by Chhattisgarh and arrested Soni. The complainant has submitted she immediately sent an E-mail protesting against the publication of the aforesaid item and asked for the publication of a correction next day. But the Editor, DNA, Jaipur was adamant and tried to shift the burden on PTI and said that DNA had only published PTI report and it was for the PTI to apologize. Denying the allegation, the complainant submitted that the news-item is not only factually wrong but also deliberately tried to malign her. She submitted that police found no one in the raid and also Soni Suri was picked up in Delhi on 4th October. The complainant has requested the Council to take strict action against the respondent and also news-agency on which the newspaper tried to shift the burden. No Written Statement A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Daily News & Analysis, Jaipur on 15.3.2013 but no written statement has been filed despite reminder.

Reply filed by PTI Shri V.S. Chandrasekar, Executive Editor, The Press Trust of India vide letter dated 16.12.2013 has stated that PTI in its issue dated 4.10.2011 has published a news item relating to the arrest of woman under the caption “Suspected woman maoist arrested in capital”. PTI was careful in its description of the woman whereas the newspaper changed it when it published the news item. PTI further admitted that in a paragraph of their news item there was a mistake where negative “not” was missed in sentence. The impugned paragraph is “Chhattisgarh Police had yesterday raided the house of rights activist Kavita Shrivastava in Jaipur to apprehend Sori but could find her there”. There should have been word “not” between the word “could” and “find”. He further submitted that PTI does not have any personal axe to grind in any matter. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 28.10.2013 and 8.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Apar Gupta, Advocate appeared for the complainant whereas no one appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the counsel of the complainant. The counsel of the complainant contended that DNA has filed only a single reply in which DNA stated that the source of information is PTI while PTI has submitted its reply in which they stated that PTI was careful in its description of the woman whereas the newspaper changed it when it published the news item. He further contended that the first story published by the newspaper DNA contained factual inaccuracy while the second story published on 6th October on the information of DNA correspondent is also a reference of the first story. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned news items and opined that the version of the complainant must be published by the newspaper DNA. Accordingly, it directed the respondent DNA to publish the version of the complainant at a prominent place and also directed the complainant to furnish his version to the respondent DNA. With the above directions, it dispose of the complaint 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 decided to dispose of the matter.



Sl. No. 9 F.No. 14/54/13-14-PCI Shri Umashankar Shukla & The Editor, Shri Saket Shukla, V. Channel India, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh Hindi Evening Daily, Jagdalpur.


Facts This joint complaint dated 10.3.2013 has been filed by Shri Umashankar Shukla & Shri Saket Shukla, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh against the Editor, Channel India, Hindi evening daily, Jagdalpur, Chhatisgarh for publication of allegeding false and defamatory news item under the caption “Umashankar par laga gou-hatya, gou-taskari kaa aarop” and “Gaay taskaron ke khilaf bhadke graamin” in its issues dated 2.1.2013 & 4.1.2013, respectively. It has been published in the news items that an Animal Welfare Officer and Members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad has alleged that Congress leader Shri Umashankar and Youth Congress leader Shri Saket Shukla are indulging in the smuggling of cows. It was further stated that Shri Mahesh Kashyap issuing press release, alleged that in Bastar Area, the meat of cow is being supplied to Orissa. It was further reported that Shri Umashankar and Saket Shukla threatened the villagers to not to interfere in the matter. The complainant denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item submitted that they are the members of the Congress Party in Bastar Area, belong to Brahmin community having deep belief and faith over God and Mother Cow and worship them regularly. They further submitted that the Navbharat has also published the same news item on 3.1.2013 but according to the norms and standards of journalism. The complainants have also stated that the matters of both the newspapers have been taken on the basis of a press release, issued by one ‘Mahesh Kashyap’, a member of Vishwa Hindu Prishad in Bastar. They have submitted that the respondent has intentionally acted, keeping aside the laid down norms and standards of journalism, only to create the defamatory environment against them which is bad in law and falls under the perview of yellow journalism which has created the heart teasing and shameful atmosphere against them for the sake of none because the counter FIR’s have been made by some V.H.P. activists and applicant No. 2. They added that even the FIR lodged by VHP activists make it clear that the cause of quarrel was some 5 to 6 “Buffalos” and not a single cow was the matter of issue on the date of the incident at the said village. The complainants vide legal notice dated 14.1.2013 drew the attention of the respondent editor and requested to publish an apology with clarification but in vain.

Written Statement The respondent vide letter dated 11.9.2013 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainants has stated that the news article was not published intentionally to defame the image of the complainants. He also stated that the same news item was published in many other newspapers. He further stated that as a responsible newspaper, they have the duty to publish the all the news items according to the norms of journalistic conduct. Counter Comments

The complainant vide letter dated 17.12.2013 has submitted his counter comments and while denying the allegation levelled by the respondent has stated that the editor is completely responsible for impugned publication. He alleged that the respondent is trying to misguide the Council by giving false statement in is reply. He also stated that the respondent intentionally published this news item. He further stated that the FIR nowhere mentioned the murder of cows but it was reported in the impugned news item.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following are adjournment dated 8.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Umashankar Shukla appeared in person. Shri Pawan Dubey, Editor, Channel India appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The Complainant contended that the news item was published on the basis of the press note issued by VHP in Bastar but deviated from its contents and so was not published according to the norm of journalistic. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned news item and noted that the grievance of the complainant is that a false news item was published in the respondent newspaper under the captions “Umashankar par laga gou-hatya, gou-taskari kaa aarop” and “Gaay taskaron ke khilaf bhadke graamin” making allegation that Congress leader Shri Umashankar and Youth Congress leader Shri Saket Shukla are indulging in the smuggling of cows. It further noted that the respondent has not able to produce any FIR which shows that any criminal case was filed against the petitioner with such allegations. In fact, as per the press statement issued by the VHP the cause of quarrel was some 5 to 6 “Buffalos” and not cow. The Inquiry Committee was not inclined to go further into the allegations. On the facts of the case, the Inquiry Committee was satisfied with charge of the complainant that a false news item was published in the newspaper. It, thus, decided to Admonish and censure the respondent newspaper, Channel India and also directed the respondent to publish clarification. With the above direction, it dispose of 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 decided to Admonish and censure the respondent editor, Channel India. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of Chhattisgarh for necessary action as they deem fit.



Sl. No. 10 F.No. 14/298/13-14-PCI Mohd. Zakir, The Editor, District Sawai Madhopur, V. Rajasthan Patrika, Rajasthan Jaipur, Rajasthan

ADJUDICATION

Dated: June 02, 2014 Facts This complaint dated 30.7.2013 has been filed by Mohd. Zakir, Rajasthan against the Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Vyavahar nahi sudhra to nilamban tay” in its issue dated 17.7.2013. It was alleged in the impugned news item that Chief Medical Officer, Shri Hari Singh Meena has made an inquiry in the hospital in the incident of misbehaviour with the relatives of the patient by the hospital staff. After inquiry, the CMO called and advised all the medical staff to improve their behavior within 15 days but one compounder, Mohd Zakir was not present at that time despite being called by the Medical Officer, Shri K.C. Soni. The complainant, while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, stated that he was not present in the medicine room when the incident took place. He further clarified that he was on leave when the CMO and the Medical Officer enquired in the matter in the hospital and also no intimation was given to him about this. He stated that he was nowhere related to this incident and the respondent has intentionally published this news item against him in order to malign his reputation in the public at large. The complainant has sent a letter to the respondent editor on 30.7.2013 clarifying this but in vain. Written Statement The respondent editor vide letter dated 11.11.2013 has stated that the news item was published on the basis of true facts and information received from the persons present at the time of the incident and the available records. He alleged that the complainant has filed this false complaint in order to save himself from the departmental enquiry. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 8.1.2014 the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Mohammed Zakir, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Manish Sharma, Legal Associate, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It perused the news item in question

carefully and found no serious allegations against the petitioner establishing violation under Section 14 (1) of the Press Council Act. In view of the above, it recommended the Council to dismiss the case. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 11 F.No. 14/346/11-12-PCI Shri S.N. Sharma, The Editor, Father of Jitender Sharma, V. Dainik Janvani, Meerut Meerut

ADJUDICATION

Dated: June 02, 2014 Facts This complaint dated 19.10.2011 has been filed by Shri S.N. Sharma, Meerut against the Editor, Dainik Janvani, Meerut for publication of false, baseless and defamatory news item under the caption “Hatyarospi ke ghar police kaa chappa” & “Rajviri hatyakand: police ne chana hatyaropi kaa ghar” in its issue dated 22.9.2011. It was alleged in the impugned news items that one Jitender alias Jeetu and Ankur Chouhan of Issepur Village were arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Lalkurti Police Station on charge of robbery of Rs. 7000 and around 50 grams of gold at MDA Society of Meerut and also for the murder of Smt. Rajviri Devi, mother of Smt. Sushma Chaudhary, Sub-Inspector during the robbery. It was further alleged that the police have found some robbed jewellery and one gold ring from the house of the accused Jitendra Sharma who stays with his father Shri S.N. Sharma. It was further stated that the main accused of the robbery and murder is one Sunil Seherawat who has not been nabbed by police. It was also mentioned that the accused Jiterder has purchased agriculture land sometimes back and also built his own house in the village. It was also alleged that both the accused were taken on remand by the police. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item stated that the news item was completely false, baseless and defamatory. He has stated that the respondent has published this news item intentionally in order to malign his image in public at large. He has further stated that the police had not sought any remand of the accused Jitender Sharma and the Hon’ble Court has accepted it. He further denied the allegation of recovering of gold chain from the house of Jitender Sharma and also any purchase of agriculture land. He also denied construction of a house in the village. The complainant wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper regarding this but no response was received. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Janvani, Meerut on 27.1.2012 for written statement but no written statement has been filed despite reminders.

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following on adjournment dated 8.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Anand Agnihotri appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the respondent. It noted that since there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant despite calling the case twice, 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 decided to dismiss the case for default.



Sl. No. 12 F.No. 14/297/13-14-PCI The Executive Committee The Editor Parents Association for Indian V. Pioneer Students in Georgia, New Delhi Chennai.


Facts This complaint dated 1.7.2013 has been filed the Executive Committee, Parents Association for Indian Students in Georgia (Formerly named as Tbilisi (State) Medical University Parents Association), Chennai against the editor, “The Pioneer” , New Delhi alleging publication of defamatory news item under the caption “MCI Delists Four Varsities Abroad” in its issue dated 2.5.2013. It has been reported in the impugned news item that the “Medical Council of India (MCI) has decided not to issue eligibility certificates to medical aspirants seeking admission to MBBS or postgraduate medical courses from two universities in Armenia and Georgia and as many in Caracas. The two universities under the scanner are Yerevan State Medical University, Armenia and Tbilisi State Medical University in Georgia and St. Martinus University, Faculty of Medicine and Avalon University, School of Medicine, both in Curacao in Caracas. The move to delist these educational institutions comes in the wake of numerous complaints from Indian embassies in these countries alleging several deficiencies in their education standard being delivered to medical students. The Ministry has already given its nod to delist the two universities located in Caracas while in the case of Georgia and Armenia, a decision is yet to be taken. The Indian Embassy in Caracas has also expressed doubts about other medical universities granting degree in Curacao. “We are in the process of delisting more such institutions”, the official said adding "once we get the approval from the Health Ministry, we will de-recognize the two universities in Georgia and Armenia". It has been reported that thousands of Indian doctors, who completed their medical degree abroad, are failing en masse for the past four years in clearing the mandatory screening test that allows them to practice in India. Only 21 per cent students who received foreign medical degrees and appeared in the screening test qualified in 2012”.

The complainant vide letter dated 11.6.2013 drew the attention of the respondent editor and protested against incorrect and improper news-item. It was submitted that the Medical Council of India (Previous) Board of Governors meeting held on 17.9.2012 has decided to stop issuing Eligibility Certificates to their Indian students (subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health and family Welfare), based on communication from the first Secretary of Indian Embassy in Yerevan. This decision is contrary to the Hon’ble Delhi

Court judgment dated 8.2.2012. The complainant added that the students are entitled to receive the Eligibility certificate as per judgment dated 8.3.2002 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Case No. 2779/2000 followed by amendment in the IMC act and as per Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002. The complainant submitted that most of their Indian Medical Graduates have cleared Screening Test and working successfully in India. The students are also working in places like USA, UK etc. The complainant has requested the respondent to publish this information in his paper but received no response. It was submitted that the news is one sided without verifying the real facts and the respondent is not even ready to listen their side.

Written statement The respondent’s Counsel’s in his undated written statement has denied each and every allegation, averment and submission made by the complainant in the complaint. The instant complaint is baseless devoid of any merit and misconceived attempt to gag the freedom of press. The contents of news article published on 2.5.2013 are substantially true and have been published after verification from relevant documentary and other available sources. Counter comments The complainant in his counter comments stated that the news was published on 2.5.2013 approximately 7-8 months after the publication on 17.9.2012 of the minutes of the meeting of the Medical Council of India – BOG. He alleged that the respondent intentionally published this to disrupt the reputation of Tbilisi State Medical University, to affect this university’s admission process in India and to affect the job opportunities of this University’s Indian medical graduates. He further stated that the MCI has never listed or delisted Tbilisi State Medical University. Also, the minutes of the meeting by the MCI-BOG clearly states that SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH, the MCI will stop issuing Eligibility Certificates to the students of Tbilisi State Medical University but the respondent have manipulated these minutes for their malicious intention. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment dated 8.1.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.3.2014 at New Delhi. Smt. Payal Juneja, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Nakul Sachdeva and Shri Yogendra Mishra with Shri O.P. Gupta appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It carefully perused the impugned news item and found it factually correct. It noted that the news item was published on the basis of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India (MCI) dated 17.9.2012. much after the Delhi High Court order of February, 2012. In view of the above, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the case. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the case.



Sl. No. 13 F.No. 14/504/11-12-PCI Shri L K Mahajan, The Editor, Shimla, V. Amar Ujala, Himachal Pradesh Noida, U.P.

ADJUDICATION dated 2.6.2014

Facts This complaint dated 26.11.2011 has been filed by Shri L K Mahajan, Shimla, Himchal

Pradesh for allegedly publication of wrong, baseless and defamatory news-item under the caption in English “Farzi NOC Par Bizli Ka Meter” in its issue dated 27.4.2011. It was alleged in the impugned news-item that in Chhota Shimla Sub-Division, one customer has two electricity meters at one floor. The first NOC was issued to the customer in 2004 and second NOC in 2011 for the same floor. But during scrutiny, it was found that the second NOC submitted by the customer is Xerox copy of the earlier one. On this ground, the electricity department has disconnected one electricity connection with immediate effect and fined the customer for Rs.20, 000/-. Denying all the allegations, the complainant submitted that he had written to the respondent newspaper under RTI Act requesting him to furnish information from where they got the news. The respondent vide letter dated 13.9.2011 intimated him that Right to Information Act, 2005 does not apply in private institutions, but applicable to the government organisation only, hence his letter was not entertained. Comments In response to Council’s notice dated 17.4.2013, the respondent editor, Amar Ujala in his comments dated 18.9.2013 submitted that the news-item was objective and fair reporting made in good-faith in discharge of public duty devoid of any malice and based upon true facts that one consumer had obtained two electric meters on a floor, which is illegal by producing fake NOC of Nagar Nigam. The respondent further submitted that neither the name nor the identity of the consumer was published in the impugned news-item. It is beyond the understanding of the newspaper as to how the complainant had related himself with the said news-item when he had not been named. The respondent has further submitted that the press is not bound to reveal the source of information and the press cannot be compelled to disclose such source. The impugned news-item is self-explanatory and SDO, Chota Shimla, Sub-Division had confirmed this incident. The respondent has alleged that this shows the malafide intention and ulterior motive of the complainant.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri L.K. Mahajan, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary, Assistant Manager and Shri P.R. Rajhans, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It carefully perused the impugned news item and found that the complainant name was nowhere mentioned in it. The complainant averred that the incident published is related to him. Therefore it affected his reputation. The Inquiry Committee noted that the complainant's name was not mentioned in the impugned news item and the facts under report were correct. Therefore the complainant was not maintainable. It recommended 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 decided to dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 14 F.No. 14/256/11-12-PCI Shri P.K. Jadeja The Editor, Deputy Superintendent of Police, V. Leader of the Crime News, Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Ahmadabad. Ahmadabad.


Facts This complaint dated 29.8.2011 has been filed by Shri P.K. Jadeja, Deputy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmadabad against the editor ‘Leader of the Crime News’ Gujarati Weekly, Ahmedabad for publication of misleading, malafide, malicious and slanderous baseless and defamatory news items without mentioning his name in its issues which are as under:

S.No. Caption (English translation) Dated 1. Who is the officer enthroned in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau,

Gujarat State situated at Ahmadabad and fond of beauty and body? 4.7.2011

2. Oh ! What is this….? The cat itself has been appointed guard of milk…….!!! 11.7.2011 3. Who is the Millionaire officer enthroned in the office of the Anti

Corruption Bureau, Gujarat State situated at Ahmadabad who is himself defaming his office?

18.7.2011

It has been alleged in the news item dated 4.7.2011 that the hot gossips of one of the officers fondness for beauty and body are talk of the town of the Anti Corruption Bureau of Gujarat Police Department. Earlier, this gentleman was designated to a creamy-key post and he had chosen one of the police persons belonging to his community as his administrator who collected bribes and brought for his boss after deducting his commission. It is also published that this police personnel cordially invited his boss to have dinner and at the first glimpse itself, there was genesis of love between them. His boss took undue advantage by taking full care of his administrator’s wife and his own house. In another news item dated 11.7.2011 it was published that the police official of ACB has gathered such huge amount during his duty which do not have any limit during his duty. It was also published that this officer is even nurturing his other relatives who are functioning and on duty and some of relatives of the officers are employed and recruited in the police. Therefore, it is the necessary to investigate this high designated police officer of the ACB. The news item dated 18.7.2011 stated that the Gujarat State Anti Corruption Bureau has been established to catch the corrupt red handed and unveil the truth but this gentleman is immersed in corruption while performing his duties dishonestly in the main office. This officer instead of serving the public, he has only gathered bribe and indulged in corruption.

The complainant has submitted that the aforesaid news item reveals sinister design of the respondents who have indulged in character assassination. He also stated that the contents of the news items are absolutely misleading malafide, incorrect and without any basis. The complainant had issued the legal notice dated 23.7.2011 to respondent through advocate seeking following details- i) the name of Police Officer of whose details were published without giving his name; ii) the source of information against the allegations; iii) the details of evidence on which the allegations were made; and iv) the mode of evidence which is with him. The complainant has submitted that the said notice was received by the respondent also without furnishing details gave vague replies dated 27.7.2011. The complainant has submitted that as vague reply was sent by the respondent, he was constrained to give counter reply dated 11.8.2011 to the reply of respondent but he had not furnished the details sought by him. The complainant charged the respondent with blackmailing tactics. The complainant vide letter dated 18.10.2011 drew the attention of the respondent editor and requested to give any reply or explanation to him but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice dated 21.12.2011 was issued to the respondent Editor, Leader of the Crime News, Ahmadabad for his written statement.

Written Statement In his written statement dated 29.12.2011 the respondent has denied the allegation

leveled by the complainant and submitted that the notice was issued to him without any evidence. According to the respondent, the impugned news items are about Shri H. K. Waghela, who is a relative of the complainant, in respect to the crimes which were committed in his area and regarding that he will submit a detailed report with evidence before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gandhidham as Mr. Waghela has also filed a case in the court at Gandhidham and he tried to expose this so that the government and the public at larger interest can notice the fact that this all crimes are going on in that area without any steps taken by the concerned police officer which is in his duty bound to do. The respondent has submitted that the contents of the complaint are different from which were mentioned before in the notice of the complainant and they are silent about the officer Mr. Waghela as a news was published against him. The respondent has stated that the complainant used the word that Crime newspaper is blackmailer and he has initiated legal action regarding this word before the Court being CRMA-35/11 under Section 499 r/w 500, 120 B, 34 of IPC to Court. According to him, he had not published the name of the complainant in the news item. Counter comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 27.1.2012 denied the allegation levelled by the respondent. He has stated that the respondent newspaper is not a reputed and authentic newspaper and published only to extort money from the government officials by publishing illegal articles and delivers the copies of the newspaper free of cost in the government offices. He alleged that respondent has not submitted the details about the impugned news items. He informed that no summons has been served upon him or to Mr. H.K. Waghela from the court. The complainant in his reply dated 2.3.2012 has informed that he had not filed any complaint/suit against the respondent except the complaint made to PCI. He has submitted that the respondents played mischief that a proceeding is pending before the court.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Priank Adhyaru, Advocate appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the counsel of the complainant. It carefully perused the impugned news item and the written submissions and observed that the complainant’s name was nowhere mentioned in news item. In the absence of identification the complaint is not maintainable. It, therefore, recommended 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 decided to dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 15 F.No. 14/345/11-12-PCI Shri Damji Bhanushali, The Editor, Secretary, V. Kutch Uday, Sri Kutchi Bhanushali Samaj Sarovar Gandhidham, Kutch Kutch, Gujarat Gujarat


Facts This complaint dated 16.10.2011 has been filed by Shri Damji Bhanushali, Secretary,

Sri Kutchi Bhanushali Samaj Sarovar, Kutch. Gujarat against Kutch Uday for publication of highly objectionable news-item under the caption “The locality of Gandhidham with the majority of Bhanushali community – 32 virtuous’ persons playing ugly role behind rotting of the Ashapura Society (colony)” in its issue dated 9.4.2011. The complainant has alleged that the respondent had labeled himself uncrowned Monarch of ‘Akhil Bharatiya Sidhi Bhanushali Samaj Sarovar’ and ‘Kutch Bhanushali Samaj’ and tried to impose self on Kutch Bhanushai Samaj by any means hook and crook. To achieve this target, the respondent started unfair tactics through his newspaper to malign the leaders, to break the unity and to develop mistrust in the general members of Kutchi Bhanushali Community against its leaders. For this reason, the respondent published defamatory news against the complainant, his community Sri Kutchi Bhanushali Samaj and its leaders using offensive and objectionable language in the said news-item. The complainant has alleged that the respondent intentionally maligned the whole community to achieve dirty goals using his newspaper as a weapon. The complainant vide letter dated 17.11.2011 has requested to publish the rejoinder but received no response.

Written Statement In response to the Show-Cause Notice dated 20.1.2012, the Editor, Kutch Uday in his

written statement dated 6.2.2012 has submitted that the news does not contain the name of the complainant and therefore the news published on 9.4.2011 does not aim at the complainant. Further, the respondent has submitted that he had published a clarification on the request of Shri Vasantbhai, the Municipal Councilor of Gandhidham Nagar Palika in his newspaper on 20.4.2011. This fact has been concealed by the complainant in his complaint addressed to the Council. Counter-Comments The complainant in his counter-comments dated 13.2.2012 has submitted that respondent thrown all the ethics and conducts of journalism by using very offensive and abusive language, the content published does not carry any public importance and the intention is

malafide to defame the targeted person that amounts to blackmailing and extortion of money and to exhibit his own power.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Damji M. Bhanushali appeared for the complainant. Shri Manoj G. Bhanushali and Shri Hardik H. Desai appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The complainant contended that twice the Registrar has written a letter to the Collector for cancellation of the respondent’s newspaper which itself reveals that the respondent newspaper is a faulty newspaper. The respondent contended that the name of the complainant was not mentioned in the publication and the news item was completely published in public interest. He further contended that no personal allegations on the complainant or allegations on the society were made in the impugned news item. He also stated that a clarification was also published in the newspaper on 20.4.2011. The complainant, in response, contended that he was not satisfied with the contradiction and requested to publish an apology in the newspaper. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the facts and available records of the case and opined that no letter was written by Bhanushali Samaj and also there was no resolution on behalf of the society. When asked the respondent whether he is ready to publish an apology, he replied that they will publish an apology but in terms of their written statement dated 6.2.2012. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied with the offer of the respondent to publish an apology which the complainant accepted and decided to recommend to the Council to dispose of the complaint in the above terms. 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 complaint.



Sl. No. 16 F.No. 14/136/11-12-PCI Shri Rajendra Prasad Brij Bhushan Chaube, The Editor, Municipal Councillor, V. Toofan Samachar, Mumbai. Mumbai.


Facts This complaint dated 18.6.2011 filed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Brij Bjushan Chaube, Municipal Councillor, Mumbai through his counsel pertains to publication of a series of false, defamatory, malicious and mischievous articles in its issues between 29.4.2011 to 1.7.2011. The impugned articles alleged the complainant indulged in illegal activities, earning black money by capturing land and doing illegal construction work on the illegal land. Allegation of attack on Editor, who exposed the corruption of the complainant through his column “Corruption Chaalisa”, also levelled against the complainant in the impugned articles.

Denying the allegations levelled against him in the impugned news items, the complainant alleged that the respondent intentionally published a series of false, defamatory, malicious, mischievous articles against him. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent lowered his image in the eyes of people. According to the complainant, he is a respectable person and is a Municipal Councilor of Ward No. 3 and commands a great respect amongst his friends, relatives and he maintains a respectable social circle. The complainant requested the respondent to publish unconditional apology and also stop publishing such type of defamatory news article against him. Written statement In response to the Council’s Show Cause Notice dated 28.9.2011, the respondent editor vide his letter dated 21.10.2011 has submitted that impugned news items are true and they have complete documentary proof in this regard. The respondent further submitted that a case has already been filed in Mumbai High Court and local police also investigated the matter. Complainant’s further letter The complainant vide his another letter dated 14.11.2011 has submitted that the respondent has been continuously publishing false, fabricated, malicious and defamatory articles against him and also alleged that the respondent publishing similar defamatory and false articles against other businessmen with an intention of extracting money.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that the respondent vide letter dated 12.3.2014 has informed the Council of the death of the complainant. In such situation, the Inquiry Committee was not inclined to pursue the matter further. It thus recommended 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 decided to dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 17 F.No. 14/549/11-12-PCI Cornel K Gonsalves The Editor Secretary V. Daily News & Analysis (DNA) The Salsette Catholic Co-operative Mumbai Housing Society Ltd. Bandra, Mumbai


Facts This complaint dated 20.1.2012 has been filed by Cornel K Gonsalves, Secretary, The Salsette Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Bandra, Mumbai against the editor of DNA, Mumbai alleging publication of false and fabricated news-item under the caption “Members Allege Massive Fraud In Deal With Developer” in its issue dated 12.12.2011. It has been alleged in the impugned news-item that The Salsette Catholic Co-operative Housing Society sold 20 acres of land in Malad (west) at a mere Rs. 12 crore to Conwood Developers against the government valuation of Rs.50.12 crore. The present market valuation of same plot is nearly Rs.127 crore, a conservative estimate. It is further alleged that of a total of 60 committee members of the Salsette Catholic Co-operative Housing Society, 20 members raised an objection to the suspicious deal. The complainant has alleged that the respondent published the report on misleading information, unverified facts and totally one sided biased version with intention to project his society in bad light. He further submitted that transaction of his society’s property at Orlem is sold to Transcon Properties Pvt. Ltd. and not to Conwood Developers. The valuation of Rs.50.12 crore or Rs.127 crores falsely alleged in the impugned news-item is at the behest of hostile elements of the society. The complainant also forwarded three relevant Orders of Hon’ble Court in this regard. The complainant sent a rejoinder dated 22.12.2011 to the respondent editor, DNA to publish an unconditional apology but received no response.

No Written Statement A show -cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, DNA, Mumbai on 10.10.2012 but no written statement has been filed despite reminder dated 15.3.2013. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side but the petitioner vide letter dated 11.3.2014 has requested to decide the case on merit. The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned news item and observed that the news item alleged the fraud land with Conwood Developers. The complainant had challenged the allegations and relied on court order in support of his contentions. The

Committee noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order to the Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 21181 of 2011 dated 16.9.2011 had declined to interference in the matter directing the High Court and the society to disposs off the matter. The complainant had not provided any order of the High Court between this date and the date of publication to settlement of the dispute. The Inquiry committee thus, was not inclined to take any action in the matter. Accordingly, it recommended 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 decided to dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 18 F.No. 14/650/10-11-PCI Shri Hari Krishna Vapta, The Editor, Pimpri, Pune V. Times of India, Pune


Facts This complaint has been filed by Shri Hari Krishna Vapta, Pimpri, Pune against the editor, Times of India for non publication of his response to an article published in its issue dated 17.11.2010 under the caption “The Spirit of Sacrifice”. The complainant has submitted that the respondent did not publish his letter dated 19.1.2011 sent in response to articles captioned “Don’t kill in the Prophet’s name” and “Blasphemy and the Islamic Way” published in its issue dated 10.1.2011. Comments The respondent-Times of India vide letter dated 12.8.2011 while denying the allegations levelled in the complaint, has denied having offended or violated any accepted norms of journalistic conduct. The respondent has stated that he has a great respect for every religion and it is never his intention to hurt feelings or religious sentiments of anybody. It is anathema for the paper to display and bias towards any community. The respondent mentioned that any big religious event from any faith is celebrated by the newspaper by taking a special masthead. The respondent has informed that the author of the article, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is an Islamic spiritual scholar who has adopted peace as the mission of his life and is known for his Gandhian views. The respondent has further informed that he has authored hundreds of books on Islam, prophetic wisdom, spirituality and peaceful co-existence in a multi-ethnic society and he has received many International and National awards. According to the respondent, the author’s book, “God Arises” has been accepted as the standards Islamic position on modern thought and has been incorporated in the curricular of Universities in Arab countries. Its Arabic version has been published under the title of Al-Islam Yatahadda and has become popular throughout the Arab world. The respondent has further stated that this paragraph is written just to show how reputed and well versed is the author on the subject. With regard to the complainant’s objection towards mentioning Hajira is not Abraham’s wife but wife’s servant in the impugned article “Spirit of Sacrifice”, the respondent has submitted that the complainant in the passage himself cites as proof, it is clear that Abhraham married his wife’s servant, who later became his wife. Therefore, there is no error in describing her as his wife (as everyone knows, taking more than one wife was common in those days). The respondent has submitted that since the impugned

article was not about Abhraham’s marriage, the author does not need to dwell in great detail on the history of those marriages. With regard to the complainant’s complaint about the impugned article titles “Blasphemy and the Islamic Way”, the respondent has submitted that it is a question of interpretation. Every religion can be interpreted in a peaceful/tolerant way and in other way, and one can find quotes from religious texts supporting either view. The respondent has further submitted that the author of the article argued that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, surely there can be nothing wrong in arguing this and in fact the complainant wants to argue that Islam only preaches hate, which is not the way to foster religious amity. According to the respondent, he (editor) gets thousands of letters and has space to publish only a very small fraction. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 17.11.2011 has stated that the statement made in the articles under references are not only wrong according to the accepted religious books of writers but also misled the general public and glorify the Islam. He has stated that the respondent has not only helped in giving wrong information but has failed in its duty to present the correct position even after pointing out the mistake. Complainant’s further letter The complainant in his another letter dated 3.12.2011 has furnished a copy of the news item captioned “1921 Malabar fatwa against British discovered” published by the respondent on 2.11.2011 and alleged that the respondent consistently been publishing incorrect/misleading articles but not published his rejoinder in response to the published articles. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from either side despite calling the case twice and it recommended 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 decided to dismiss the complaint.



Sl. No. 19 F.No. 14/200/12-13-PCI Mrs. Jayanti Chatterjee, The Editor, Police Lines Asansol, V. Sambad Pratidin, District Burdwan, Kolkata, West Bengal West Bengal


Facts This complaint dated 18.5.2012 has been filed by Mrs. Jayanti Chatterjee, West Bengal against the Editor, Sambad Pratidin, Kolkata, West Bengal for publication of false, baseless and derogatory news item under the caption “Role of one of the officer in charge of Asansol” in its issue dated 29.3.2012. It was published in the impugned news item that one Mr. Lakshan Seth (Ex-member of Parliament Lok Sabha) while in custody of Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal being arrested in a case confessed during interrogation that Shri Atul Kimar Chattopadhyay supplied arms from Asansol Sub-Division. Further, it was published that during 20 years of Shri Atul service tenure, most of the period he was posted in Mines area for which he used to give a huge amount to Alimuddin Street (CPIM Party Headquarter of W.B.) and District CPIM Party Headquarter Fund. Also, it was published that Shri Atul got promotion in 2009 while he was at Salanpur Police Station and again posted at Salanpur Police Station. It was further published that Shri Atul was involved in illegal trafficking of coal with the connivance of one Jaideb Mondal and changed the root of transportation of coal and in lieu of that, he gave huge amount to party fund and took the responsibility to supply sophisticated arms which was confessed by Lakshan Seth during interrogation by CID. It was also alleged that Shri Atul has partnership in illegal coal and other business and the complaint of arms supply against him has come to light that is why he has not joined at Balurghat, his new place of posting. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item stated that the respondent had published a derogatory, false and baseless news article against her huband Atul Kumar Chattopadhyay which degrade the social prestige and status of her family. She submitted that the correspondent of the newspaper made her husband criminal alleging supplying of arms though neither CID nor any investigating agency interrogated her husband or called him in connection with investigation of any case in West Bengal or anywhere in India. She alleged that the correspondent without making any enquiry about the confession and without giving any opportunity of being heard to her husband, published this news item. Further she clarified that the actual service of her husband is 28 years and he never gave any amount to any political leader to

get any posting of his choice because political leaders are not supposed to transfer a Police Officer. Also, she denied the fact that her husband got promotion in 2009 as he was promoted to the rank of Inspector from District Intelligence Bureau, Burdwan in 2005 and not from Salanpur Police Station. She further stated that her husband does not have any illegal coal or any other business. The complainant vide letter dated 2.4.2012 drew the attention of the respondent editor and requested him to publish the rejoinder but in vain. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 30.7.2012 was issued to the respondent editor seeking the written statement which was not filed despite several reminders Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant whereas Shri Sharba Shyam Chatterjee, Genereal Manager, Sambad Pratidin appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from the complainant’s side despite calling the case twice and recommended the Council to dismiss the complaint for default. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint for default.



Sl. No. 20 F.No. 14/210/12-13-PCI Shri Manas Das Gupta, The Editor, District Hooghly, V. Sangbad Pratidin, West Bengal Kolkata, West Bengal


Facts This complaint dated 30.6.2012 has been filed by Shri Manas Das Gupta, District Hoogly, West Bengal against the editor, Sangbad Pratidin for publication of allegedly objectionable, baseless and concocted news item under the caption “State Government Land in the Business interest to Private Sector, allegation against RUPCHAND (English Translation)” in its issue dated 14.6.2012. According to the impugned news item, the former Member of Parliament of CPI (M) had illegally given the land belonging to a (State) Government College HIT to a ‘Trust’ named Hooghly Engineering and Technology College. It was further stated that as soon as it was known, on the basis of an order from the Office of Sripriya Rangaragan, Hoogly D.M. process has been initiated to cancel the same lease. It was also stated that Shri Manas Das Gupta made allegation that AITC, the Central Regularity Body after visiting the college recommended that a Degree College may be set up in its unutilized land. It was further stated that in the year 2003-04, 3 acres of Bandel Survey College land and another piece of land in Hooghly Mor was given on lease by Ex MP Shri Rupchand Pal, CPI(M) leader Shri Manas Dasgupta, Shri Md. Selim, Shri Banshagopal Choudhury and the then Director Technical Education to a Trust named HETC at a low price. The condition was that in lieu of the old Hostel of HIT, Rupchand would give Rupees Seventy Five Lacs from MPLADS Fund to build a new hostel. Also, Shri Manas Majumder on behalf of TMC CP has written to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Land & Panchayet Ms. Swati Khandekar, TMC MLA who has asked the administration to enquire into the matter. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item has stated that the respondent had published absolutely baseless and concocted news item. He alleged that the respondent published the article with a motive to solely malign a respected man and vilify the image of a growing Educational Institution. He also alleged that such misinformation and disinformation is an attempt to malign and defame a distinguished Left Leader and former M.P. like Shri Rupchand Pal. He further alleged that publishing of the news item at the time of admission in Ist Semester has been done intentionally to damage the reputation of the College and its students. The complainant has sent an e-mail dated 28.6.2012 to the respondent editor, Sangbad Pratidin requesting him to publish a rejoinder but received no response.

No Written Statement A Notice for Comments dated 3.10.2012 followed by Show Cause Notice dated 7.8.2012 was issued to the respondent editor for written statement but no written statement has been filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant whereas Shri Sharba Shyam Chatterjee, Genereal Manager, Sangbad Pratidin appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance from the complainant’s side despite calling the case twice and it recommended the Council to dismiss the complaint for default. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint for default.



Sl. No. 21 F.No. 14/789/12-13-PCI Shri Madan Mohan Soren, The Editor, Railway Ticket Examiner, V. Prabhat Khabar, Tatanagar Jamshedpur, Jharkhand


Facts This complaint has been filed by Shri Madan Mohan Soren, Railway Ticket Examiner, Tatanagar against the editor, Prabhat Khabar for alleging publication of false, baseless and defamatory news items under the caption “Haath dene se rukti hai train, bina ticket bhada vasulte hai T.T.E” and “Doshiyon par hogi karyavahi” in its issue dated 18.2.2013 and 24.2.2013, respectively. It has been reported in the impugned news item dated 18.2.2013 that T.T.E. is required to collect money against illegal ticketless travelling in train and illegal transportation of goods. It has been published that during the checking TTE is collecting illegal money and distributed the same to officials i.e. Train Driver, Guard and TTE. The photograph of the complainant is also published along with the impugned news item. The impugned news item dated 24.2.2013 assists that action against the complainant be taken and to this effect, the Superintendent of Police (Special Branch) has dispatched a letter to the Deputy Commissioner. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item has stated that he has never committed such offence in the course of his (ticket checking) duties as he is to issue relevant receipt in this effect and deposit the collected amount in Railway Fund in prescribed manner. He also stated that the photograph is showing that he is conducting ticket checking inside the train compartment and what he did next was not shown in the photograph. He alleged that there was some vested interest to taint the image of TTE by showing that TTE is collecting money for personal gains. He also alleged that the news items are ill motivated. He submitted that the entire episode of the news items is based not upon the investigation and report of Special Correspondent, but due to vested interest. He alleged that there was a Jamshedpur based businessmen who once clicked a photograph of him through his mobile while he was conducting ticket checking inside the train compartment. That businessman illegally transported his goods from train by threatening the TTEs. And investigation would shows that the businessman, who had a vested interest, has handed over the photograph to the special correspondent of the respondent newspaper. He also denied the fact that the money collected is distributed along with other Railway Officials like Guard and Drivers. The complainant

vide letters dated 25.2.2013 and 7.3.2013 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news items but in vain. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice dated 18.7.2013 was issued to the respondent editor for written statement but no written statement has been filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Madan Mohan Soren, the complainant appeared in person. Sri Ranjeet Prasa Singh appeared for the respondent and filed written submissions. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It noted that the complainant is aggrieved over the publication of impugned news items on dated 18.2.2013 and 24.2.2013 against him with allegation of collecting money without receipt from ticketless travelers and illegal transportation of goods in the train. It further noted that the respondent has published another news item dated 8.3.2014 in which he has published the version of the complainant. The complainant now has no grievance as his version was published. The Inquiry Committee decided to dispose of the complaint with the direction to the respondent ensure pre publication verification and carry the version of the affected person. 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 complaint accordingly.


24366745-46-47-49, Ext. 331; Fax 24368723/726

Email: [email protected] Website: http://presscouncil.nic.in Sl. No. 22 F.No. 14/709/12-13-PCI Shri R N Shaikh The Editor Dy. Traffic Manager V Afternoon Dispatch and Courier Mumbai Port Trust Mumbai Mumbai

ADJUDICATION Dated 2.6.2014

Facts This complaint dated 10.1.2013 has been filed by Shri R.N. Shaikh, Dy. Traffic

Manager, Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai against the Editor, ‘Afternoon Dispatch and Courier’ for publication of a false and baseless news item under the caption “Tainted, but rewarded!-Mb PT appoints ‘tainted’ person to sensitive and crucial post” in its issue dated 7.9.2012. It was reported in the news item that a confidential report by the MbPT identifies, the then CSO, R.N. Shaikh, now in-charge as a Deputy Traffic Manager along with additional charge of the CSO at the port, to be a ‘tainted’ person. The report, however says that the authorities have assigned Shaikh with one of the most sensitive and crucial deputation at the port. . It has been reported that the report drafted by the then CSO, S. Tripathi, which also has authorization from the then chairperson, RaneeJadhav and A.K. Bal, the then deputy chairman, which clearly states that the theft that took place at Timber Point, Sewree, in the year 2005, highlights the commission of the crime by the then Chief Security Officer R.N. Shaikh, M.A. Sonawane (ASO), G.R. Sawant (ASO) and N.S. Acharekar (ASO).The report states that though these officers were aware of the commission of the crimes, they did not initiate any action. They choose to share the booty and the facts also indicate that they abetted the crime by aiding the criminals.

The complainant has alleged that the report published by Smt. Santoshee Mishra, Special Correspondent, was solely aimed to tarnish his image and reputation in the public and in his organization on the basis of a report submitted by Ex-Chief Security Officer of Mumbai Port Trust in 2007 on an incident of 2005, which after examination by the concerned competent authorities was not accepted by the Administration. He further stated that the correspondent has relied on the statements of an ex-Assistant Security Officer, MbPT, Shri S.D. Shinde who had faced numerous major penalty proceedings and finally compulsorily retired a couple of years ago.

The Secretary Mumbai Port Trust vide his letter dated 11.9.2012 drew the attention of the respondent and informed that the report of the then Chief Security Officer referred by the correspondent is of the year 2007 which was not accepted by the then Chairperson. He also informed that in all the 5 criminal case, the accused were acquitted and names of Shri R.

N. Shaikh and 3 Asstt. Security Officers had been neither mentioned in the FIR nor were they listed as accused in the cases filed. Written statement In response to show-cause notice dated 20.8.2013, the Editor, Afternoon Despatch & Courier in his written statement dated 14.10.2013 has denied that the report was published to tarnish the image of the organization or complainant in the public. Further, he was not aware of the fact that Shri SD Shinde faced numerous major penalty proceedings and finally compulsorily retired couple of years ago. The respondent has submitted that he informed the complainant to supply certain documents but till date there is no compliance on the part of Shri R N Shaikh and the clarification rejoinder to the impugned news-item has not been published so far. Counter comments The complainant vide letter dated 10.12.2013 has submitted his counter comments and stated that the news item was published to tarnish his reputation as well his organization. He denied that the ADC ever tried to obtain relevant information. He further stated that the respondent has not incorporated any response of MbPT officials. He submitted that it is not justifiable for a newspaper like ADC to publish an article against a responsible and senior officer of the Port and then expect the officer to submit his explanations on the various allegations made by providing supportive evidence/documents. He further alleged that Ex-Asstt. Security Officer Shri Shinde has been making all efforts to malign him and was facilitated by ADC for defaming and throwing mud on public authority. He added that the story is clearly one sided and without going through the various Judgments delivered by the Court in the matter of criminal cases. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for fresh hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.5.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Rubabuddin N. Sheikh, Dy. Traffic Manager and Shri G. Brahma, Sr. Deputy Decretary, Mumbai Port Trust appeared for the complainant. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant. It noted that the notice of hearing has been served to the respondent but he is not present for hearing although written statement has been filed by him. It carefully perused the publication dated 7.9.2012 in the respondent newspaper. It was mentioned in the publication that the complainant who is Deputy Traffic Manager, Mumbai is a tainted officer. It noted that the allegation was based on the report of the Ex-Chief Security Officer which had not been accepted by the Administration. Since the report was not accepted by the administration, it assume significance that the officer was not tainted officer as per the Administration. The Inquiry Committee hence accepted that the reputation of the complainant was damaged by the respondent through this publication. With the above observations, it decided to recommend to the Council to Censure the respondent editor and direct him to publish an apology at a prominent place along with the rejoinder stating that the publication calling the complainant as 'tainted officer' was not correct and done by mistake. It also directed the respondent editor to publish the apology along with rejoinder within a month from the service of this order. 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 Censure the respondent editor, Afternoon Dispatch and Courier. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of Maharashtra for necessary action as they deem fit.



Sl. No. 23 F.No. 14/418/12-13-PCI Shri L R Vishwanath, The Editor, New Delhi V. News Hone, H.W. Gurgaon


Facts This complaint dated 6.9.2012 has been filed by Shri L.R. Vishwanath, Additional Director General, Songs & Drama Division, New Delhi against “News Hone”, Hindi Weekly, Gurgaon for publication of an allegedly false, derogatory, misleading and

defamatory news item under the caption “भारत सरकार के सूचना एव ंप्रसारण मंत्रालय का गीत एवं नाटक प्रभाग तांत्रत्रक के कब्जे में” in its issue dated 5.9.2012. The allegations

of corruption and misappropriation of money had been levelled against the complainant. The impugned news item also referred to the complainant as “Tantrik”. It was also alleged in the impugned news item that the complainant is not eligible under the rules for the post of Director and the allegations of corruption and Tantrik Art needed to be investigated by the police and CBI. Denying the allegations, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news item is derogatory and published without verifying the facts. According to him, prior to publication of the impugned news, the respondent sent a pre-publication notice dated 28.8.2012 to him giving seven days time to reply which was received in the office on 3.9.2012 but the respondent published the derogatory news on the issue dated 5.9.2012 without taking or waiting for his reply. According to him, since the points raised related to official discharge of duties and are of very serious in nature and were under consideration of Vigilance Section of their department and also the police authorities and District Court, the publication of these points without proper verification amounted to the misconduct and had been published to favour the culprits involved in the departmental proceedings which was being investigated. The complainant sent a point wise clarification to the respondent on 6.9.2012 for publication of his version but in vain. Written Statement In response to the Show-Cause Notice dated 14.9.2012, the Chief Editor, News Hone, in his written statement dated 24.9.2012 has submitted that when the complainant sent a letter to him on 6.9.2012 he should have waited for his reply. Without getting his reply, he filed the complaint on 6.9.2012 to the Council which is ill-conceived and pre-

mature. Further the impugned news-item dated 5.9.2012 was based on facts & evidence and it was not derogatory.

The respondent in his further written submissions dated 20.2.2014 stated that

every averment and allegation levelled by the complainant are not true. The respondent stated that published news item is based on facts and they have not any ill-will against the complainant and the said news item is published in public interest and there was no intention to damage the reputation of the complainant. He further stated that before publishing the said article they had given time to the complainant to rebut the allegations, but instead of filing his rejoinder or rebutting the allegations the complainant made a complaint in the Press Council of India. The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 29.10.2013, 7.1.2014 and 24.3.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Ambar Qamaruddin appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri Sumit Verma, Adovcate along with Shri Navdeep Verma (A.R.) appeared for the respondent. The complainant contended that the respondent has published the derogatory news item against which they contacted the respondent within reasonable time but the respondent did not reply. The respondent countered that the letter was sent to the complainant before publication in which they had asked the complainant to respond within seven days failing which they would publish the charges against him in their newspaper. As the complainant did not respond to their letter, they published the allegations in their newspaper on 5.9.2012. He also submitted that in their publication, they never called the complainant ‘Tantrik’ and it was just the allegations against the complainant which they had published. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and carefully perused the news item in question. It observed that the complainant enjoyed a right to place his version before the readers. It therefore put it to the respondent to publish the version of the complainant. The respondent replied in positive. The Inquiry Committee directed the complainant to give afresh comprehensive rejoinder to the respondent for publication at an early date in his newspaper. In thus decided to recommend 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 and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the matter.



Sl. No. 24 F.No. 14/166/11-12-PCI Shri Gaji Ram Meena, The Editor, Inspector General of Police, V. Pradesh Today, Rewa, M.P. Bhopal, M.P.


Facts This complaint dated 25.6.2011 has been filed by Shri Gaji Ram Meena, Inspector General of Police, Rewa, M.P. against the Editor, Pradesh Today, Bhopal for publication of allegedly defamatory news item under the caption “Gaji par gaj tay” in its issue dated 25.5.2011. It was stated in the impugned news item that a fake encounter was staged by the complainant on 13.2.2002 in which two young boys were killed terming them as terrorist. It was also stated that the encounter was found fake by the SDM who conducted enquiry on the direction of the High Court but no action was taken. A petition was also filed in the Supreme Court which found the encounter fake. The complainant, while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item stated that the news item was not only misleading and defamatory but also gave wrong impression about the police officials. He also sent a notice to the respondent on 25.5.2011 requesting them to publish his version. As per the reply received from the respondent vide letter dated 10.6.2011, the impugned news item was published on the basis of the information received from Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, who was habitual of being involved in yellow journalism and was a suspended worker of the Irrigation Department of the State Government. Written Statement The respondent editor vide letter dated 24.8.2011 while denying the allegation levelled by the complainant has stated that the complaint is false and unclear as he failed to represent all the evidences before the Council. He further stated that the news item was published completely on the basis of the evidences adduced by Shri Vijay Kumar Singh in front of the Press and a copy of these evidences were also sent to the complainant to know that if these evidences were false then an immediate rejoinder could have been published. He submitted that so far as the dispute between the complainant and Shri Vijay Kumar Singh is concerned, the matter is pending in the Court of Law and he did not want to comment on this. Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 7.9.2011 while denying the contents of the written statement submitted by the respondent, stated that the respondent intentionally published the defamatory and false news item to malign his image in public at large. He also denied the fact that he had not adduced enough evidences in support of his complaint.

He asserted that the respondent could not publish any news item without knowing the version of the concerned person. Rejoinder The complainant vide his rejoinder stated that the news item was published intentionally to malign his image in public at large. He further stated that he has been implicated in the case No.4/2002 which was mentioned by the respondent and in that case the Court gave its judgement on 6.10.2009 and 23.6.2011 in which the accused found guilty and they were sentenced with 4 years imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- He also stated that the media should not publish anything about the case which are pending in the court as the media trials are very dangerous for the society as it change the mind-sets of the Magistrate, Advocates, witness, etc. who are reading he false, baseless news articles. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 29.10.2013, 7.1.2014 and 24.3.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of either side but both the parties vide their letters has requested the Council to decide the case on the basis of available records. It carefully perused the news item in question and other available relevant records of the case and noted that the news item in question mentioned the name of the petitioner who is Inspector General of Police, Rewa, M.P. in connection with an encounter case. It further noted that apart from the judgement dated 6.10.2009 and 23.6.2011, the M.P. High Court in its Writ Petition No. 1513/2009 in the Judgment dated 1.10.2013 in the paragraph 30 has stated that the findings recorded against the petitioner in the judicial enquiry dated 17.1.2008 in regard of involvement of the petitioner in the incident is quashed and no order as to costs. Hence, it is obvious that the news item in question mentioning the name of the complainant is false and baseless. The Inquiry Committee in view of the above allows the complaint for inadequent verification of facts and recommend to the Council to Admonish & Censure the respondent newspaper. It may also direct the respondent editor to publish this order in his newspaper at an early date. 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 as above to Admonish & Censure the respondent editor, Pradesh Today, Bhopal. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of Madhya Pradesh for necessary action as they deem fit.



Sl. No. 25 F.No. 14/73/12-13-PCI Shri Rajesh Bhargava, The Editor, Chairman, V. Agniban, CHL Group of Hospitals, Madhya Pradesh Indore, M.P.


Facts Shri Rajesh Bhargava, Chairman, CHL Group of Hospitals, Indore (M.P.) in his complaint dated 23.4.2012 has alleged that the respondent-Agniban published series of false and defamatory news items with a view to blackmail them. The impugned news items along with dates read as follows:

S.No. Captions Date

1 वैध नह ीं हो सकेगा अवैध कैं सर अस्पताल 27.2.2012

2 कैं सर हास्स्पटल अवैध, सील करने का नोटटस 11.2.2012

3 कैं सर अस्पताल से है पूरे इलाके में रेडिएशन का खतरा 13.2.2012

4 ड्रग ट्रायल के महाघोटाले में भी सीएचएल अपोलो फीं सा 16.2.2012

5 धोखा-अवैध कैसर अस्पताल को बचाने के ललए नगर ननगम न ेखेला ररमूव्हल का ड्रामा

13.4.2012

6 सीएसएल से अपोलो ने नाता तोिा – नह ीं ल रेडिएशन की एनओसी- स्वास््य ववभाग की आींखों में भी धलू झोंकी, ववभाग न ेनकारा

22.2.2012

7 होटल की जगह खोल िाला हास्स्पटल 19.3.2012

8 अवैध कैं सर अस्पताल को वैध करवाने का प्रयास शुरु 24.2.2012

9 अवैध अस्पताल ह उद्घाटटत कर आए मींत्रीजी 9.2.2012

10 नक्शा घर का पास कराया और तान टिया अस्पताल 10.2.2012

11 कैसर हास्स्पटल नामींजूर लसफफ पाललस्क्लननक चलेगा 5.4.2012

12 रसूखिारों के अवैध ननमाफण तोिने और गर बों के आवास बनाने पर चचाफ आज

18.4.2012

13 अवैध कैं सर हास्स्पटल का उपयोग प्रनतबींधधत, ताले िालेंगे Not mentioned

14 बींि कैं सर हास्स्पटल को खलुवाने की नतकिमें Not mentioned

It has been alleged in the impugned news items that the hospital illegally opened

on a residential area and even the Chief Minister cannot legalize the unauthorized hospital. It has been further alleged that the hospital is an instrument of death for nearby people and even AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) is kept in dark about the facts of the case. According to the impugned news items, Apollo has closed tie-up with CHL because of fraudulent drug trial, putting patient’s life at risk and doing various illegal and unethical practices. It has been further reported that the hospital is unauthorized and illegally run on hotel premises. Denying the allegations, the complainant has alleged that the respondent published the false and defamatory news items with a view to blackmail them. According to the complainant, in the year 2008, a residential building was proposed on 11000 sq.ft. plot at A.B. Road for doctors, nurses and technical staff near the existing 200 bed super specialty hospital. While taking the building permission, 50% of the land valuing worth Rs.4,25,00,000/- was taken as setback by Indore Municipal Corporation for proposed A.B.Road widening, which was declared as commercial in the new Master Plan and road wide was increased to 100 mtrs. from existing 50 mtrs. Due to reduced building size they decided to convert it to a Cancer Center in collaboration with CBCC. The complainant has further submitted that their mistake was that they were under the impression that hospital can be opened in a residential building so there will be no issue to operate the cancer centre on the proposed building. The complainant has stated that they already got the permission from Town and Country Planning for change of land uses and if area restriction is true than all the hospital opened in the city after the declaration of Master Plan 2021 are illegal and wrongly constructed. With regard to the allegation of radiation, the complainant has stated that the radiation machine cannot be installed for cancer hospital or even bought without the permission of AERB, which they have duly complied and they have also constructed a bunker as per the drawing sanctioned by AERB and the same was inspected by their scientist from time to time. According to him, no death in the hospital occurred due to drug trial and all the documents related to the patient consent are available with the hospital. While denying the allegation of link with the Apollo, the complainant has stated that the franchise agreement was for 10 year with the Apollo and it ended in the year 2011. Now it was decided by the CHL management to discontinue the brand Apollo and continue with its own brand name “CHL”. With regard to the allegation that they operate hospital at the place of hotel, the complainant has stated that the hotel as initially purchased by the owner of the respondent newspaper in a bank auction and later approached the existing director of the hospital to buy the existing building and convert the same into a hospital. After getting proper approval from T&CP and Housing Board, then the hospital operation were commenced.

Written statement The respondent in his written statement dated 1.1.2014 while denied the allegations levelled in the impugned news items. The respondent submitted that their correspondent

never met with the Chairman of the CHL, Hospital. The respondent stated that the complainant not only misguide the government authorities but also Press Council of India. After publication of the impugned news item the complainant fully exposed in the eyes of the Municipal Corporation, Indore and did not get certificate to run his Cancer Hospital and approached High Court of Indore in this regard. The respondent also submitted that the impugned news items were published after due verification of facts and in public interest. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 29.10.2013, 7.1.2014 and 24.3.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that complainant had failed to counter the written statement despite specific direction in the last hearing and now there was no appearance despite calling the case twice. It therefore recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 26 F.No. 14/835/12-13-PCI Dr. Zaheeruddin The Editor Dental Surgeon Daudti Dilli (Hindi) Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, vs. Delhi. Delhi.

ADJUDICATION 2.6.2014

Facts This complaint dated 9.11.2012 has been filed by Dr. Zaheeruddin, Dental Surgeon, Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, Delhi against the editor, Daudti Dilli, Hindi fortnightly, Delhi for publication of false, frivolous and baseless news-item under the captioned “Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital Ke Purv Vibhaga Adayaksh Dr. Zaheeruddin Par Bharshtachar Va Gaban Ka Aroap Se Harkamp” in its issue dated 20.10.2012. The impugned news-item alleged that West Delhi’s prestigious hospital Deen Dayal Upadhyaya’s former Head of Dental Department Dr. Zaheeruddin is involved in corruption and serious criminal allegations of embezzlement of official drugs and other stuff. It is further alleged in the impugned news-item that Dr. Zaheeruddin performs private practice along with the government service. The complainant has his own private clinic in Vikaspuri where he conducts practice in the evening and on holidays. The complainant has submitted that the respondent has levelled multiple serious allegations against him. The respondent failed to obtain or publish the complainant’s version or outcome of the enquiry report. The complainant has alleged that the impugned news-item has tarnished his image in the eyes of his officers, colleagues, friends and caused irreparable loss. He sent a letter on 23.11.12 to the respondent and drew his attention but received no response. Written Statement In response to Show cause notice dated 17.7.13, the editor, Daudti Delhi vide his written statement dated 24.7.2013 has submitted that the respondent is unable to submit his reply because the complainant mischievously and deliberately had not supplied page No. 4 & 5 of the enquiry report with the intention to mislead the Press Council. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following two adjournments dated 8.1.2014 and 24.3.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. Shri C.P. Namda, Advocate and Dr. Zaheruddin appeared for the complainant. Shri Ishwinder Singh, Proxy Counsel appeared for the respondent.

The respondent contended that the allegations were published in his newspaper on

the basis of the enquiry conducted by the MS-DDU Hospital. He further conducted that the complainant has not furnished him the complete Inquiry report. The complainant contended that he was exonerated in the complete Inquiry report and the respondent intentionally published a false and baseless news item against him in order to defame him in public. The respondent further contended that the allegations against the complainant were found true in another enquiry conducted by the Hospital. The committee was informed that the impugned report had preceded that inquiry. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and carefully perused the news item in question. It noted the allegation of corruption published against the complainant in the respondent newspaper. It further noted that before the impugned report an enquiry was held in this connection and all the allegations were held incorrect and baseless. Hence, the report published by the respondent was also baseless. The Inquiry Committee, thus, allows the complaint and recommended to the Council to Admonish and Censure the respondent newspaper. It may also direct the respondent editor to publish this order at a prominent place at an early date. 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 as above to Admonish & Censure the respondent editor, Daudti Dilli, Delhi. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of NCT for necessary action as they deem fit.



Sl. No. 27 F.No. 14/635/12-13-PCI Shri L S Herdenia The Editor Bhopal VS. Panchjanya Madhya Pradesh New Delhi

ADJUDICATION dlyated 2.6.2014

Facts This complaint dated 10.10.2012 has been filed by Shri L S Herdenia, Bhopal

against Panchjanya, Hindi Weekly, New Delhi for publication of allegedly false, distorted and provocative news-item under the caption “Bangladesh Infiltrators organize Bloody Game- Assam on Fire-Anti-National Politics of Sonia Party” in its issue dated 12.8.2012. It is alleged in the impugned news-item that ‘‘after Bangladesh separated from Pakistan, its Intelligence agency ISI hatched a conspiracy to make Assam a Muslim-majority State and pave the way for its secession from India. After emergence of Bangladesh as an Independent nation, Muslim infiltrators in lakhs entered Assam and most of them are still living there. These Bangladeshi infiltrators are targeting India. According to rough estimates, more than four crore Bangladeshi Muslims are living in India. The complainant has alleged that the news-item is an attempt to give a bad name to Muslims residing in Assam. The contents of the report provoked the potential of Hindus and led to communal tension. The complainant further alleged that a picture of huts burning and an old woman along with five other persons in sad mood give a clear cut impression that they are the victims of the communal activities of Bangladeshi Muslims infiltrators. The complainant has submitted that the Indian Express in its Delhi edition dated 8.8.2012 carried a report and exposed falsehoods contained in Panchjanya’s news-item. The complainant vide letter dated 3.9.2012 drew the attention of the respondent editor and requested to publish his letter in prominent place in his weekly but the respondent did not even acknowledge the receipt of the letter. Written statement

The respondent Editor, Panchjanya, in his written statement dated 17.4.2013 submitted that the complainant has a different view points on some of the aspects covered in the articles complained against. He has submitted that the complainant has a right to hold his views not any way less than the right of Panchjanya to hold its views and express them. This right of holding and expressing different views is the very essence of democracy and this does not give rise to any cause of action for filing a complaint before the Press Council. The respondent submitted that the complainant filed complaint about

a picture showing burning huts along with an old woman and five persons in a sad mood but it appears that they looks more of the Hindus and the complainant said that from the caption and the picture, it is apparent that the said persons are victims of the violence perpetrated by Bangladeshi infiltrators. He has further submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that the continuous illegal immigration from Bangladesh to Assam is creating serious problems in Assam. Report of the Inquiry Committee Having once closed the complaint on the ground of locus, the matter was again heard on the request of the complainant and came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. Shri L.S. Herdenia appeared in person while Shri Abhishek Paruthi, Advocate and Shri Alok Goswami, Associate Editor appeared for the respondent. The complainant has contended that the respondent newspaper must be punished for such kind of communal reporting in his newspaper which could create an environment of hostility among the people of India and was contrary to the norms laid down by the Council. The Counsel of the respondent contended that the article was a reflection of their assessment of the situation in Assam and which remained so even today. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties in detail and also perused the records of the case. It noted that the complainant’s main objection is to the publication of the article on the incidents of violation in Assam linking them to the infiltration of the Bangladeshis’. The Inquiry Committee opined while the newspaper was entitled to its analysis and views, it was simultaneously incumbent on the press to ensure that it be cautious against such publication creating communal enmity or hostility. 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 dismiss the complaint accordingly.



Sl. No. 28 F.No. 14/345/13-14-PCI Dr.Charu Walikhanna, Member, The Editor, National Commission for Women, VS. DainikBhaskar, New Delhi Noida, U.P.


Facts This complaint dated 26.7.2013 has been filed by Dr.Charu Walikhanna, Member, National Commission for Women, New Delhi against the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar for publication of allegedly offensive and defamatory news item under the caption “Badle ke liye karna chahta tha murder: sex tak kar chuki thi girlfriend, par baad mein udaane lagi mazak” in its internet edition dated 2.8.2013. She further stated that the impugned news article has sensationalized the incident which appears to be defamatory in nature and reflects an insensitive and misogynist attitude. She alleged that the newspaper continuously published news offensive in nature against a victim of gender violence, who is battling for her life in the hospital. She further stated that the story assassinated the character of a female student of Jawaharlal Nehru University who is battling for her life after getting assaulted by a classmate who later committed suicide. The story not only sensationalizes the gruesome assault for catching eyeballs but also is factually incorrect. She alleged that how did the author of the story know that the victim has had sex with the attacker. She added that the conclusion has been drawn by a line in the suicide note written by the attacker which asserts that “hamare beech bahut kuch tha”. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 11.9.2013 for their written statement. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following one adjournment of 25.3.2014 to afford respondent an opportunity to file written statement the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. Smt. Raj Singh, Deputy Secretary, NCW and Smt. Kanchan Khattar, Coordinator (Legal), NCW appeared for the complainant. Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, representative appeared for the respondent, filed written statement and sought adjournment on behalf of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. It noted that in this case on 25.3.2014, the respondent had appeared and desired to file written statement in the course of the day. However, the written statement was being filed by him on the date of hearing i.e. 15.5.2014. The prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the respondent was not allowed by the Committee.

A perusal of the news item in question shows that serious aspersions had been cast against the character of a young girl. The Inquiry Committee opined that aspersions against the character of a lady could not be condoned at any cost. It therefore held the respondent guilty of unethical conduct and recommend to the Council to Censure and admonish the respondent newspaper with the directions to the respondent editor to publish this Order prominently at an early date. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Admonish & Censure the respondent editor. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of U.P. for necessary action as they deem fit.



Sl. No. 29 F.No. 14/669/11-12-PCI Dr. Rajeev Joshi The Editor Pune V. Lokmat Maharashtra Mumbai, Maharashtra


Facts This complaint dated 16.2.2012 has been filed by Dr. Rajeev Joshi, Pune, Maharashtra against Editor, Lokmat, Mumbai regarding negligent, callous and high handed attitude for not publishing an advertisement in Mumbai edition of Lokmat edition. The complainant submitted that he paid quotation amount of Rs.7, 108/- for an advertisement through M/s. Focus Ads for publication in Mumbai and Nanded editions of Lokmat newspapers on 11.2.2011 regarding sad demise of his wife Mrs. Supriya. The complainant orally informed that the advertisement was published in Nanded edition of Lokmat but he was clueless about its publication in Mumbai edition inspite of search and repeated queries. The complainant was informed on 14.2.2012 that M/s. Lokmat raised a bogey of so-called ‘technical failure’ for non-publication of the said advertisement in its Mumbai edition on 11.2.2011 and also failed to communicate about the inability to fulfil contractual obligation. The complainant alleged that the respondent caused insult to memory of his wife and agony as well as mental torture to him. The complainant submitted that death is certainly not an occasion to claim compensation in terms of money and offered the respondent to publish the pending advertisement in Mumbai edition along with an extra advertisement in its Pune edition as a token remedy but the respondent was not ready to take any remedial steps. The complainant also alleged that the respondent newspaper has not so far provided proof of publication of advertisement in Nanded or Mumbai edition. The complainant also forwarded a copy of the complaint dated 16.2.2012 to the respondent but received no response. He has requested the Press Council to direct the respondent to refund his extra expenses of Rs. 2,500/- incurred by him.

No Written Statement A show -cause notice was issued to the respondent editor, Lokmat, Mumbai on 6.12.2012 but no written statement was filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following adjournment on 25.3.2014, the matter came up final for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance in behalf of the

complainant but he requested the Council to decide the case on the basis of available record. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent either despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee perused the available records of the case. It noted that the complainant has alleged that he has paid an amount for publication of advertisement in both the Mumbai and Nanded editions of the respondent newspaper but the advertisement was only published in Nanded edition. The complainant therefore prayed for refund of extra amount. The Inquiry Committee noted that the Press Council does not have power to grant the relief claimed by the complainant. He can approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy in the matter. Accordingly, it decided to dismiss the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint accordingly.



Sl. No. 30 F.No. 14/674/11-12-PCI Mr. Christopher Fonsecca, The Editor, Secretary, V. The Navhind Times, Communist Party of India, English Daily, Goa Goa


Facts This complaint dated 22.2.2012 has been filed by Mr. Christopher Fonsecca, Secretary, Communist Party of India, Goa against the editor, The Navhind Times, English daily, Goa for publication of an article under the caption “Parrikar on a strong wicket in Panji” on 21.2.2012, for conducting Exit Poll Survey directly influencing the Poll result of Panaji Assebmbly Constituency and also allegedly indulging in corrupt practices. The complainant vide letter dated 21.2.2012 addressed to Chief Electoral Officer, Panaki, has alleged that the impugned article published that “an interaction with at least four dozens voters of the Panaji Constituency spread across various wards and belonging to different religions, came out with a general observation: Mr.Parrikar is indispensable in the state assembly as a Chief Minister if BJP comes to power, or as the leader of the opposition if Congress regains it. Most of the voters interviewed also recalled gifts of Mr.Parrikar to Panaji City, ranging from new Patto Bridge to the revenue generating Inox Multiplex, renovated Kala Academy complex to beautification of Campal promenade and Joggers’ Park at Altinho to new municipal market”. It is also mentioned that “they also remembered schemes implemented by Mr.Parrikar during his tenure as the Chief Minister, such as Cyber age Scheme, Dayanand Social Security Scheme, Pre-Employment Training Scheme and so on”. It was further stated in the impugned article that “Finally, in retrospection, during the latest tenure of Mr.Parrikar as the city MLA various projects were accomplished such as improvement in the city water supply, infrastructure development at Patto Place, beautification of Rua de ourem, shifting of Central Library to a new building, revamping of Jardim Gracia d aorta, development of Azad Maidan and underground power cabling among other things”. Further the statement under the heading ‘others in the fray’ referring to Christopher Fonseca, a CPI Candidate was also objectionable as corrupt practice and amounted to conducting exit poll and publishing in the print media the poll result of 11 Panaji assembly Constituency during Election Code of Conduct was in force. The said statement is “he stands a weak chance in the face of the battle between the heavy weight candidates”. Similarly statement made another candidate, Shri Domnic Fernandes where a statement is made that ‘he again like Mr. Fonseca has a poor chance to make it to the Assembly' is an corrupt practice which is in

clear violation of Election Code of Conduct and Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1950 and Rules made there under’. The complainant submitted that the article amounted to corrupt practice which tends to influence the poll result of 11 Panaji Assembly Constituency, as the person who conducted the survey is also liable for an offence for conducting Exit Poll Survey and publishing the same in the newspaper on 21.2.2012 during Election Code of Conduct was in operation. The complainant alleged that irreparable loss, damage and prejudice has been caused to Shri Christopher Fonseca, CPI Candidate for 11 Panaji Assembly Constituency. Guidelines on Exit Poll: No newspaper shall publish exit-poll survey, however, genuine they may be, till the last of the polls is over. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 3.10.2012 for his written statement. Written Statement The respondent vide e-mail dated 16.10.2012 has submitted his written statement and stated that the allegations are completely baseless and imaginary. He further stated that his newspaper does not employ any agency or its team of reporters to conduct any Exit Poll ever on the days of polling. His newspaper did not conduct any Opinion Poll before the election either. Also the report in question was one among the many constituency reports published by them before the polls, in which their reporters by touring through the constituencies tried to gauge, as far truthfully as possible, the mood of the voters by talking to as many of them as possible from cross-section of society, based on income, gender, age, locality, etc and the reporters also took into account the past voting trends, post trends, post election analysis, etc for writing their reports. He further stated that the complainant’s baseless complaints to the Council and earlier to the Chief Electoral Officer, Goa amounted to indirect coercion through litigation to compel them to compromise on their inalienable right to freedom of express to make assessments and presentations based on sincere unbiased and truthful news gathering. Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 16.2.2013 has submitted his counter comments and stated that the written statement of the respondent is not acceptable. The newspaper is taking undue umbrage under the principle, ‘inalienable right to freedom of expression, to make assessments and presentation based on sincere, unbiased and truthful news gathering’. He has stated that it is highly objectionable that the respondent makes counter-charge on him that the complaint is baseless and it is indirect coercion through litigation to infringe on their freedom of press. The complainant has further stated that the respondent is taking a very feeble defense by saying that it is normal kind of pre-election constituency report that all newspapers carry. Also the news item itself states that it was based on an interaction with at least four dozen voters of the Panaji. The complainant alleged that this was a deliberate and clandestine way of planting news by powers that be or by the vested interest through the said newspaper reporter which the editor and publisher of the newspaper colluded with and thus facilitated the publication of such news in favour of a particular politician. Respondent’s Further Letter The respondent editor vide letter dated 8.6.2013 has submitted the reply of the counter comments and stated that they never claimed that they conducted any Poll or Survey as stated by the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the charge of the complainant that it was paid news is baseless, ridiculous and defamatory. He also

stated that the constituency reports they carried during the concerned elections were all based on their own inquiries, interviews with all stakeholders and judgments. Also they contain mention of strengths and weaknesses of candidates as well as their track records. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment on25.3.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shri Raja Srinivasan appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that since there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant despite calling the case twice, it recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 32 F.No. 14/611/12-13-PCI Smt. UshaYadav, The Editor, President, Nav Uday Nari Utthan Samiti, V. Patrika, Bhopal, M.P. Bhopal, M.P.


Facts This complaint dated 16.11.2012 has been filed by Smt. UshaYadav, President, Nav Uday Nari Utthan Samiti, Bhopal, M.P. against the editor, Patrika, Bhopal, M.P. for publication of false, baseless and misleading news articles which are as follows

Sl. No. Caption Dated 1. N.G.O. ki aad mein beche jaa rahe jism 2.10.2012 2. Tourist VISA par bulayi jaati hai theke par videshi

balayien 4.10.2012

3. Ratoraat farar saudagar 5.10.2012 4. Deh vyapar par police sakth 8.11.2012 It was alleged in the impugned news items published in Patrika XPOSE that the complainant was running a sex-racket from her NGO. It was published that the respondent editor conducted a sting operation wherein his telephonic talks with the complainant were recorded exposing the sex-racket. It was alleged that Smt. Usha Yadav is working from around six years in the name of women development through her NGO. A board was placed outside her NGO stating that ‘Here training is given to helpless widows and poor women’ but a completely illegal activity was going on in the name of this NGO. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, has stated that the news items are completely false, libelous and scandalous. She further stated that the respondent in the last week of September approached her and demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and blackmailed her to give money else he would publish a libelous and scandalous news items against her and her NGO. She stated that on the very next day she sent a letter to the respondent through registered post and requested to publish the rebuttal but instead of publishing the rebuttal, the respondent again published a false news item. Aggrieved with this, she sent a written complaint dated 6.10.2012 to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal. The police made its enquiries and nothing adverse was found against her and her NGO. She has also sent legal notices to the respondent on dated 20.10.2012 but in vain. She alleged that the respondent made no attempt to elicit the version, comments or reaction of the complainant.

Written Statement Shri Sukumar Verma, Deputy Editor, Rajasthan Patrika vide letter dated 22.3.2014 has submitted his written statement and stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is prima-facie baseless and is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the news item was published completely on the basis of the available facts and documentary evidences and the information received from the telephonic conversation with the complainant. He alleged that the complainant is still indulging in the illegal activities which are against social interest. He stated that all the documentary evidences and CD of the recording will be produced before the Committee. He further stated that the news article was published in public interest and without any intention to defame someone personally or any organization. He also denied that any sum of money was demanded from the complainant by his correspondent. Report of the Inquiry Committee Following an adjournment dated 24.3.2014, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. Smt. Usha Yaday appeared personally for the complainant. Shri Indresh Sharma, Advocate appeared for the respondent. The complainant asserted that the impugned publication had completly destroyed her life. Respondent contended that the basis of the publication was a sting operation by their correspondent with the complainant. He stated that they have an audio CD with them as a proof. The complainant contended that all the proofs produced by the respondents are incorrect and it is just a tabled story. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and perused the news item in question. It noted that the complainant alleged that the respondent newspaper has published a false news item that the complainant is involved in a sex racket. The respondent has stated that this is on the basis of the mobile conversation their correspondent had with the complainant and it was recorded by him. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that when any news item affecting somebody’s character is proposed to be publish in the newspaper on the basis of any CD or other such device then first the authenticity of such evidence should be ascertained through a forensic expert Casting aspersion or somebody’s character is a serious charge and should not be done lightly. The Inquiry Committee also noted that the respondent has admitted that the recorded conversation CD was never sent to forensic expert. Hence, it held that the news published in the respondent newspaper was incorrect. It also opined that the news story was one sided as the respondent never asked for her version before the publication. The Inquiry Committee, thus, allowed the complaint and decided recommend to the Council to Censure and admonish the respondent newspaper with the direction to the respondent to publish this order prominently at an early date. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons and adopts the report of the Committee and decides to Admonish & Censure the respondent editor, Patrika, M.P. A copy of the adjudication be sent to DAVP/RNI, Government of M.P. for necessary action as they deem fit.



Sl. No. 31 F.No. 14/687/10-11-PCI Shri Shankar DayalJaiswal, The Editor Amravati, Maharashtra V. Amravati Darpan, Amravati, Maharashtra


Facts This complaint dated 10.3.2012 has been filed by Shri Shankar Dayal Jaiswal S/o Shri Natthulal Jaiswal, Amravati, Maharashtra against the editors, Amravati Darpan, Maharashtra for publication of false and defamatory articles against the valid liquor license holder since long and inviting the outrage of the general public and business community as well. The complainant submitted that the respondent on dated 12.2.2012 has published a false news under the caption “…aur bhrashtachar ke karan excise ke adhikari bik gaye” in his evening daily, Amravati Darpan which badly hurts the image of the officers of State Excise Department, Government of Maharashtra, Amravati Division, due to which their feelings wounded and reputation torn. In the alleged news item, the respondent levelled serious allegations against the complainant that he is doing illegal business, he mingled with Excise Department etc and so on. The complainant further submitted that another news item dated 11.2.2011 was published in the same newspaper under the caption “…excise ki khabugiri chaluch hai” in which serious allegations were levelled against the officers of Excise Department. The complainant has stated that the newspaper published false news articles about the liquor sellers and then demands money from the officers of the State Excise Department, Government of Maharashtra, Amravati Division to stop the publication of said news. He further stated that due to the illegal activities of the respondent, Amravati District Country Liquor Seller Association, Amravati demanded the cancellation of the newspaper license of the respondent vide letter to Collector, Amravati on dated 27.2.2012. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent editor towards the impugned news item with a request to publish the contradiction vide letter dated 22.3.2012. The respondent has given his reply vide letter dated 31.3.2012 but he has not published the contradiction and also termed the notice of the complainant as falsehood. The complainant stated that several criminal cases were pending against the respondent because of these types of illegal and anti-social activities. He alleged that due to this publication his business has been affected and he became mentally and physically unfit. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Amravati Darpan on 8.1.2013 for written statement.

Written Statement The respondent editor, Amravati Darpan vide letter dated 25.1.2013 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant (younger brother) has stated that the complainant has filed a false complaint against him as he only publish the news item which exposes the corrupt activities of the officers of the State Excise Department. He stated that the complainant is of criminal nature as many cases were filed against him. Also two times, the complainant has been fined with Rs 50, 000 before the District Magistrate due to these corrupt activities. He alleged that the complainant indulged in black-marketing of sale of liquor and illegally sold his liquor with the help of corrupt officials of State Excise Department by giving them bribe. He also stated that the news item is published against the officers of the State Excise Department but it is the complainant who filed this complaint and no complaint was filed by those officers. He alleged that the complainant don’t even know the correct registration no. of the newspaper Ambanagari Samachar and he filed a complaint against this newspaper also while no impugned publication was made out in that newspaper on 30.1.2008, 25.3.2008, 29.10.2009 and 3.2.2012 as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. Ist Hearing The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 25.3.2014 at New Delhi. Shri Sangram Singh P Thakur, Advocate appeared for the complainant. Shri Prabhudayal Jaiswal, Editor appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties. The representative of the complainant challenged the authority under which a newspaper could report a personal issue to grab the license of the complainant. The respondent contended that the counsel of the complainant is himself a criminal and the complainant is also of criminal nature as many cases were filed against him. The Inquiry Committee after hearing the parties and careful perusal of the record of the case, felt that the respondent ought to publish the version of the complainant with apology. The counsel of the complainant requested the Committee to give him some time to seek instructions from his client as to whether his client is ready to give his version to the respondent for publication or not. In view of the above, it decided to adjourn the matter for granting some time to the counsel of the complainant to seek instruction from his client. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while the respondent has requested for adjournment vide letter dated 12.5.2014. The Inquiry Committee noted since there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant despite calling the case twice nor had the complainant compiled with the direction given at the last hearing. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 33 F.No. 14/58/11-12-PCI Shri Nitin Kumar Aggarwal, V. Shri Murlidhar Bochiwal, Churu, Rajasthan, The Editor & Reporter, Dainik Navjyoti, Rajasthan


Facts This complaint dated 30.6.2011 has been filed by Shri Nitin Kumar Aggarwal, Churu,

Rajasthan against Shri MurlidharBochiwal, the editor & reporter, Dainik Navjyoti, Rajasthan for publication of false and baseless news items under caption “Farzi sanstha banakar thagi kaa aropi giraftar” & “Farzi dastavez rachne waale ko Jail bejha” in its issue dated 26.3.2011. It was stated in the impugned news item that the police had sent the accused to jail for creating a fake organization and fake documents. It was alleged that the accused Nitin s/o Shri Suresh ChanderAggarwal previously worked with District Milk Dairy and the Manager of the Dairy sacked him from the job on a complaint of weighing less milk. It was further stated that a complaint regarding creating fake organization was lodged to the Collector and on the basis of that an investigation was initiated by the S.D.M. in which the allegations found correct. The accused arrested for this and on the order of the Court he sent to jail. The complainant while denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item stated that the news item published was completely false and baseless as the editor did not have any proof that the fake documents were produced by him and also they don’t know how certified the statement of the police was. He also stated that the allegations charged against him were not yet proved by the Court. He alleged that his arrest was a mere deceit by the police and against the constitutional right and the respondent without knowing the facts published the news item due to which his image was maligned in public at large. He further alleged that Shri Murlidhar Bochiwal have published this news item after taking money from the concerned dairy department. The complainant sent a letter dated 29.4.2011 to the respondent editor in this regard but in vain.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 24.8.2011 for written statement. Written Statement The respondent editor vide undated letter, while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant, stated that an FIR No. 405 dated 2.11.2010 was registered by the police in Sardar City police station against ShriNitinAggarwal u/s 193, 196, 204, 368, 384, 418, 420, 471 of IPC and 65, 66 of Indian Court Information & Technology Act 2000 (BhartiyaSoochNyayalyaProdhyikiAdhiniyam 2000). He clarified that the news item was

published on the basis of the FIR registered. He further stated that the second part of the news item was related to a fake institution named Crime Free India Bureau due to which two letters were written to the District Collector and Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry, on the basis of which the news item was published. Ist Hearing The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2013 at New Delhi. ShriNitin Kumar Aggarwal appeared for the complainant whereas ShriSumitVyas, Legal Officer appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. It noted that a criminal case is pending against the complainant and therefore, it decided to adjourn the matter till the disposal of the investigation of the criminal case. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. Shru Shivesh Garg appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant despite calling the case twice and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held




Sl. No. 34 F.No. 14/57/11-12-PCI Shri Nitin Kumar Aggarwal, Shri Hanuman Verma, Churu, Rajasthan V. The Editor and journalist, Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan


Facts This complaint dated 29.6.2011 has been filed by Shri Nitin Kumar Aggarwal, Churu, Rajasthan against Shri Hanuman Verma, the editor and journalist, Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan for publication of defamatory and misleading news item under the caption “Farzi prapatr tayaar karne ke aaropi ko jail behja” in its issue dated 26.3.2011. It was stated in the impugned news item that the police had sent the accused to jail for creating a fake organization and for making fake documents. It was alleged that the accused Nitin s/o Shri Suresh Chander Aggarwal previously worked with District Milk Dairy and the Manager of the Dairy sacked him from the job on a complaint of weighing less milk. It was further stated that a complaint regarding creating fake organization was lodged to the Collector and on the basis of that an investigation was initiated by the S.D.M. in which the allegations were found correct. The accused was arrested for this and on the order of the Court he sent to jail. The complainant while denying the allegations leveled in the impugned news item stated that the news item published was completely false and baseless as the editor did not have any proof that fake documents were produced by him and also they don’t know how much certified the statement of the police was. He also stated that the allegations charged against him were not yet proved by the Court. He alleged that his arrest was a mere deceit by the police and against the constitutional right and the respondent without knowing the facts published the news item due to which his image was malign in public at large. He further alleged that Shri Hunam Verma have published this news item after taking money from the concerned dairy department and Shri Hanuman Verma keep on saying that they can publish anything and nobody can do anything. The complainant sent a letter dated 29.4.2011 to the respondent editor in this regard but in vain. No Written Statement A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 26.7.2011 for written statement but no written statement has been filed by the respondent. Ist Hearing The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 22.8.2013 at New Delhi. Shri Nitin Kumar Aggarwal appeared for the complainant whereas Shri Sumit Vyas, Legal Officer appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee heard the parties. It noted that a criminal case is pending against the complainant and therefore, it decided to adjourn the matter till the disposal of the investigation of the criminal case. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 15.5.2014 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. The Inquiry Committee noted that since there was no appearance from either side despite calling the case twice and recommended to the Council to dismiss the case for default. Held


Documents

Adjudications rendered on 2.06.2014 at Goa complaints by ...presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/AdjudicationGOA.pdf · Press Council of India Adjudications rendered on 2.06.2014