14/478/16-17-PCI) 14/486/16-17-PCI)...

Press Council of India

Adjudications rendered by the Council in its Meeting held on 10.6.2016 at New Delhi, 12-13 July,2017 at New Delhi and 16-17 August, 2017 at Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

Complaints by the PressSection-14

Inquiry Committee meeting held on 19-20 June, 2017 at New Delhi

1. Complaint of Shri Baldev Singh against the editor, Hindustan Times, Chandigarh. (14/478/16-17-PCI)2. Complaint of Shri Raj Kumar Jalan, Haryana against the editor, Punjab Kesari. (14/486/16-17-PCI)

3. Complaint of Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, AmarUjala, Uttar Pradesh. (14/396/16-17-PCI)

4. Complaint of Shri Avdesh Mishra, Farrukhabad, UP against the Editor, Youth India. (14/387/16-17-PCI) CENSURE

5. Complaint of Shri Mohd. Nasir, Shamli, UP against the Editor, Amar Ujala. (14/503/16-17-PCI)

6. Complaint of Shri Sanser Pal Singh, Delhi against the editor, Nav Bharat Times. (14/482/16-17-PCI)

7. Complaint of Shri Anilbhai Danjibhai Parmar against the Editor, Navkar Weekly, Gujarat. (14/269/16-17-PCI)

8. Complaint of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Kohli, Advisor-PR, The Kalgidhar Trust, Baru Sahib against theeditor, Rozana Pahredar, Punjab. (14/406/16-17-PCI) CENSURE

9. Complaint of Shri Dev Ashish Bhattacharya, UP against the editor, The Hindu. (14/290/16-17-PCI)

10. Complaint of Shri Dalbir Singh Bisht, Gurugraml, Haryana against the editor, Punjab Kesari, NewDelhi. (14/510/16-17-PCI.)

11. Complaint of General Secretary, Trade Union Coordination Centre, Central Committee, New Delhiagainst the editors Aami Assomer Janagan, Amar Asom and Agradoot. (14/360-362/16-17/PCI)

12. Complaint of Shri G. Prasada Rao, GM-Corporate Communications, Air India Ltd., New Delhi againstthe editor, Union Territory Independent. (14/380/16-17-PCI)

13. Complaint of Shri Arvind Rajvedi, Director ( ), Pashimanchal Power DistributionCorporation Ltd., Meerut, UP against the Editor, Vishav Prikrama Times. (14/491/16-17-PCI)CENSURE

14. Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi against the Editor, Bijnor Times,Bijnor, UP. (14/899/14-15-PCI) CENSURE

15. Complaint of Shri Mohd. Khalid, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan againstthe editor, Dainik Jagran. (14/363/16-17-PCI)

16. Complaint of Ms. Priydarshani Yadav, Jharkhand against the Editor, Aawaj, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.(14/422/16-17-PCI)

INQUIRY COMMITTEE-I SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 12 JULY, 2017 AT NEW DELHI

17. Complaint of Ms. Rashmi, Chandigarh against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh.(14/680/14-15). CENSURE

18. Complaint of Smt. Seema Chouhan, President, Matra Shakti Sangathan, Siwani against the editor, HindGazette, Siwani. (DEFERRED)

19. Complaint of Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, UP against the Editor, the Times of India, Agra. (14/338/16-17).

20. Complaint of Human Rights Protection Forum, Chandigrah, against the editor Dainik Savera Times,Jalandhar. (14/596/15-16).

21. Complaint of Shri Satya Naryan Prasad, New Delhi against the Editor, Rashtriya Sahara, New Delhi.(14/303/16-17).

22. Compliant of Shri Loknath Behera, IPS, Kerala against the Editor Mangalam Kerala. (14/137/16-17)

23. Complaint of Ms. Vandana Nigam against the Editor, Sajag Samachar Parivartan Ka (Hindi), theAryavarth Express (English) and Parivartan Prabha (Kannada). (14/633-635/15-16)

24. Complaint of the Director, Chetna School of Nursing, Jind, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Jagarn.(Nr). (14/298/2016-17).

25. Complaint of Shri Dinesh Chander, New Delhi against the editor, Hindustan, New Delhi.(14/427/16-17).

26. Complaint of Smt. Arti Agarwal, M.P. against the editor, Semariya Express, M.P.(14/549/16-17).CENSURE

27. Shri Hariom Gupta, Satna, M.P. against the editor, Semariya Express. (14/415/16-17). CENSURE

28. Complaint of Shri Navin Gupta, Chandigarh against the Editor, Nagar Vaani, Chandigarh. (14/286/14-15)

29. Complaint of Ms. P.A. Lucia, Advocate, Tamil Nadu against the Editor, Dinakaran, Tamil Daily Newspaper.(14/292/16-17).

30. Complaint of Shri Shivnath Ram, Jharkhand against the editor, Hindustan. (14/433/16-17).

31. Complaint of Shri Ved Prakash, Secretary, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana against the Editor, Dainik Tribune,Chandigarh. (14/496/16-17).

32. Complaint of Ms. Sangeeta Kumari, Ministry I&B, New Delhi against the Editor, Punjab Kesari &Raftaar. (14/44-45/17-18).

33. Complaint of Shri Bijendra Sharma, Muzaffarnagar, UP against The Editor, Hind Darshan,Muzaffarnagar.(14/453/16-17)

THE MEETING OF THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE-II SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 16AUGUST, 2017 AT AHEMDABAD, GUJARAT

34. Complaint of Sri Surendra Kumar Jain, Harda against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, MP. (14/328/16-17).CENSURE

35. Complaint of Shri C.S. Chauhan, State President, Rajasthan Rawat Rajput, Rajasthan against the editor,Rawat Rajput Sandhesh. (14/39/17-18).

36. Complaint of Shri Pramod Sahu, Mahu, MP against the Editor, Pariwarik Dastak, Indore.(14/421/16-17).

37. Compliant of Shri Ram Prasad Patel, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Hari Bhumi,Govindpur, Madhya Pradesh. (14/548/16-17).

38. Complaint of Prof. S.K Jain, Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi Technical University against Editor, DainikBhaskar, Dwarka Sadan, Bhopal, M.P. (14/509/16-17 ). CENSURE

39. Complaint of Shri Vijay Trimbak Gokhale, Mumbai against the Editor, Loksatta, Maharashtra andThomson Reuter (I) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai-400013. (14/579/16-17). Rejoinder filed by the Complainantin respect of 39-40*.

40. Complaint of Shri. Vijay Trimbak Gokhale, Mumbai against the Editor, Loksatta, Navi Mumbai-400710. (14/586/16-17).

41. Complaint of Shri. B.L, Jatav, Jabalpur, M.P against The Editor, Chambal Chetna, Gwalior, M.P.(14/570/16-17). CENSURE

42. Complaint of Shri Rup Lal Sharma, and Shri Narender Singh Bhati, Rajasthan against the Editor,Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan. (14/50/17-18).

43. Complaint of Shri Ajay M. Marathe, Navi Mumbai against the Editor, Indian Express, Mumbai.(14/578/16-17).

44. Complaint of Adv. Jayant Anandrao Balugade, Kolhapur against the editor, Dainik Mahasatta,Kolhapur. (14/501/16-17).

45. Complaint of Shri. Vakiluddin Zahiruddin Ansari, Gujarat against the Editor, The National CrimeNews, Gujarat. (14/376/16-17).

46. Complaint of Shri Swamy A.D. Tirth, Central Prison, Navi, Mumbai-410 210 against the The Editor,Mumbai Mirror, Times of India Building, Mumbai-400 001. (14/571/16-17).

47. Complaint of Dr. Vinod K. Jain, Rajasthan against the Editors, (I) Dainik Bhaskar Gujarat Edition, (II)Dainik Bhaskar Jaipur Edition, (III) Shekhawati Bhaskar Sikar Edition and(IV) Dainik Bhaskar,SikarEdition, Rajasthan. (14/40-43/17-18).

48.


SI. NO. 1 F.NO. 14/478/16-17-PCI

Complainant RespondentShri Baldev Singh,Kapurthala, Punjab.

The Editor Hindustan Times, Chandigarh.

AdjudicationDated 21.9.2017

This complaint dated 30.11.2016 has been filed by Shri Baldev Singh,Kapurthala, Punjab, against the Hindustan Times, Chandigarh. According to thecomplainant the Hindustan Times in its issue dated 28.10.2016 published a reportcaptioned Punjab lives with a troubled legacy. On which the complainanthad sent an email/rejoinder to the respondent Editor to publish the same in thenewspaper. In this connection, the respondent on 3.11.2016 published sixletters/rejoinder of others readers but complainants letter was not published. Beingaggrieved at the arbitrary and discriminatory act of the newspaper, the complainanthad sent several reminders including a notice to the editor of the respondentnewspaper on 11.11.2016 but still his letter remained unpublished. The complainanthas also informed in his complaint that the respondent newspaper had acted illegallyand unethically by allowing an IB officer Shri M.K. Dhar to work as a press reporterfrom 1980 to 1992 at Amritsar and a copy of an article authored by Shri Dhar hasalso been enclosed for reference. The complainant has pleaded the Council to takenecessary action in accordance to the law against the respondent newspaper. Inanother letter dated 8.2.2017, the complainant has reinstated his earlier submissionthat six rejoinders from other writers on the same subject was published by thenewspaper but alleges that his letter was deliberately not published by the newspaperas it shared facts based on history. He has, therefore, requested the Council to takeappropriate action in the matter and has added that the matter deals with the state ofPunjab and the entire Sikh community.

Reply Filed by the RespondentA Notice for comments dated 21.3.2017 was issued to the respondent Editor. A

written submission dated 30.03.2017 was received which states that the article inquestion , headlined Punjab lives with a troubled legacy, was first of a seven-part series on 50th anniversary of re-organisation of Punjab and creation of Haryanaas a new state. The respondent editor stated that the complainant in hisletter/rejoinder had not pointed out any factual inaccuracy in the said article. Thecomplainant has quoted two books of historians which were beyond the scope of thesaid article and the complainant himself was neither quoted or mentioned as a stake-holder on the subject of the article. In addition, the respondent editor submitted thathe receives many letters in response to write-ups published in their daily but due tospace constraints only few letters are selected for publication based on quality andrelevance of argument made therein and publishing a readers letter is an editorialdiscretion. In context of the compliant, the complainants letter was not publishedbecause it made no cogent comment or added any fresh perspective to the subject ofarticle and all it had, was the quotes of two historians and as the newspaper had nomeans to verify the content/quotes of the history books referred in the complainantsrejoinder and hence it was not published. However, the respondent editor has

submitted that the complainant had not disclosed another fact that several of hisletters to the editor have been published regularly in the Hindustan Times.

In response to another accusation of the complainant that an IB Officer hadworked as a reporter at the Hindustan Times in past has nothing to do with him as hehad joined the Hindustan Times in 2009. With these submissions the respondenteditor has clarified that the accusation of the complainant against HT and the editorof arbitrary and discriminatory act has no professional, ethical or legal ground.Counter comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 1.5.2017 submitted that hisrejoinder perfectly fits into the context of the article published on 28.10.2016 whichreveals some important historical and political facts of Punjab and formation ofanother state Haryana. The complainant has submitted that he himself is a researchscholar on Punjab and Sikhs and has authored and edited books related to Punjaband Sikhs and his letter shared some important facts of the history of Punjabauthored by historians like Shri Durga Das and Dr. JS Garewal which the editor hadnot published. In last, he has submitted that in view of the submitted facts,documentary proof and submissions, the complainant has pleaded the Council to askthe editor to publish his rejoinder so that people may know the true facts related toPunjab. Report of Inquiry Committee

The matter came for hearing before Inquiry Committee held on 20.06.2017 atNew Delhi. No one has appeared for the complainant. Shri Arun Pathak , Adovocateappeared for the respondent.

The complainant has not chosen to appear. He has filed an application inter-alia praying for deciding the case on merit. The Inquiry Committee has perused thecomplaint, written statement and all other connected papers. The respondentnewspaper came out with the story with the Headlines Punjab lives with a troublelegacy. The complainant sent several letters in response to the said story and hisgrievance is that although letters written by other readers have been published, buthis letter was not chosen for publication. The Inquiry Committee refers to norms15(c) laid down by the complaint that the editor, with ample discretion exercisedbonafide. It reads Letters to Editor, an Editor who decides to open his columnsfor letters on a controversial subject, is not obliged to publish all the letters receivedin regard to that subject. He is entitled to select and publish only some of them eitherin entirety or the gist thereof. However, in exercising this discretion, he must makean honest endeavour to ensure that what is published is not one-sided but representsa fair balance between the views for an against with respect to the principal issue incontroversy. The Inquiry Committee finds no merit in the grievance of thecomplainant and accordingly, recommends for its dismissal. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of theInquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand Dismiss the complaint.


SI. NO. 2 F.NO. 14/486/16-17-PCI

Complainant RespondentShri Raj Kumar Jalan,House No. 140,E-BlockSirsa Haryana.

The Editor Punjab Kesari, Civil Lines, Pucca Bagh, Jalandhar, Punjab.


This complaint dated 27.12.2016 has been filed by Shri Raj Kumar Jalan, Sirsaagainst Punjab Kesari alleging publication of false, misleading and defamatory news itemunder the caption: Sirsa club mein Niyamo ki dhajjiyan uda rhe safedposh in its issuedated 21.12.2016. It was reported in the impugned news item that Sirsa club,s system hasbadly collapsed as there has been gross violation of reputation. Thereby its prestige has gonedown. It was further reported that the complainant, who is a member of the club, is largelyresponsible for it.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant allegedthat the respondent deliberately published false and misleading news item with a view totarnish his image in the society. The complainant submitted that he issued a legal notice dated20.11.2016 to the respondent, requesting him to withdraw the defamatory news item byprinting a corrigendum in the newspaper and also tender an apology in writing, but receivedno response.

Written Statement

In response to Show Cause notice dated 07.02.2017, the respondent, Shri R.S.Jolly,Editor, Punjab Kesari, Haryana vide written statement dated 14.03.2017 while denying theallegations of the complainant has submitted that the impugned news item in question is merea commentary about the working of the Sirsa club and the mismanagement of the functioningof club. And to be published the public commentary.

Response from complainant

The complainant, Shri Raj Kumar Jalan vide his email dated 12.06.2017 hassubmitted that he does not want to pursue the matter as his grievances will be redressed byPanchayat. Therefore, he has requested to withdraw the complaint

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came for hearing before Inquiry Committee held on 20.06.2017 at NewDelhi. Neither the complainant nor the respondent has chosen to appear.

An application has been filed by the complainant inter alia stating that he does notwant to pursue the complaint and has sought permission to withdraw the same. The InquiryCommittee accedes to his prayer and dismisses the complaint as withdrawn.

HeldThe Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry

Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and Dismiss thecomplaint.


SI. NO. 3 F.NO. 14/396/16-17-PCI

Complainant RespondentShri Subhas Chandra MishraPrathamikVidyalayaTadhbariyaJanpathSantKabir Nagar.

1. The EditorAmar Ujala Publication Ltd.Gorakhpur, UP.

2. The EditorAmar Ujala Publication Ltd.Noida, UP.

Adjudication Dated 21.9.2017

This complaint dated 2.11.2016 has been filed by Shri Subhas Chandra Mishra,Prathamik Vidyalaya Tadhbariya, Janpad Sant Kabir Nagar, against the editor ofAmar Ujala Publication Ltd. alleging publication of imaginary and misleading newsitem in its issue dated 6.8.2016 captioned Pradhan and Head Master ka VivadSuljha. The alleged impugned news item talks about the dispute between the GramPradhan and the Pradhan Adhyapak of Prathamik Vidyalaya, Tadhbariya over theissue of preparation of mid-day meal, which resulted the discontinuance of mid-daymeal in the school for a month and only after the intervention of the DC MDM, themid-day meal was re-started. The Principal (Complainant) has alleged that GramPradhan has not been cooperating in preparation of mid-day meal whereas thePradhan Shri. J.P Mishra states that he has been regularly cooperating with theprincipal.

The complainant has submitted that since, it is the responsibility of GramPradhan to get the mid meal prepared, he is being involved without any reason. Thecomplainant has also informed that he wrote to the respondent editor vide its letterdated 26.08.2016 for clarification but did not receive any response.

Reply Filed by the Respondent

In response to the Show Cause notice dated 23.2.2017 the respondentnewspaper vide its written statement dated 28.03.2017 denied the allegations of thecomplainant has submitted that alleged impugned news item was published in goodfaith without any malicious intent in the public interest. The object of the publicationwas to make the general public aware about the incident happening in the societyand not to defame anyone. The respondent editor had also submitted that they haveno personal grudge or vendetta against the complainant and stated that the presentcomplaint is not maintainable.

Counter comments

A counter comment dated 2.05.2016 was received from the complainantstating that the news has damaged his social reputation.

Report of Inquiry Committee

The matter came for hearing before Inquiry Committee held on 20.06.2017 atNew Delhi. No one has appeared for the complainant. Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary,Deputy Manager, appeared for the respondent.

Despite service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant,the respondent is represented. The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint,the reply and all other connected papers and is of the opinion that the respondentnewspaper has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for actionby the Press Council.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of thecomplaint.

Held


Press Council of IndiaSl. No. 4 F.No.14/387/16-17-PCI

Shri Awdhesh Mishra, Advocate,R/o Paliwali Gali,Baber Road Bholepur Fatehgarh,Distt. Farukhabad, U.P.

The Editor,Youth India,Farukhabad,Uttar Pradesh


This complaint dated 24.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Awdhesh Mishra, Advocate,

Farukhabad, U.P. against the editor, Youth India for publishing false, factless, baseless and

defamatory news items in its various issues mentioned below:-

Police ke kukhyat dalal tantric avdesh mishra ne avaidh kamai senawabganj mein 40 beegha zameen kharid li. Beimaani se paise sedegree college banana ka tana bana bunna shuru kiya hai. Tantricne najaane kitne logo ko thagi ka shikaar banaya.

5.11.2016

Tantric ke sang daroga ne duty chod ardh raatri mein masanichinta par damru bajaya. Kursi khisakti dekh daroga ne apnetantric guru dalal ki sharan li.

3.11.2016

Bin byahi maa ke navjaat shishu ki bali ki tayaari mein tantricvakeel avdesh mishra, diwali ki raat masani takat ko chadai bakreki bali, pareva ke din sathiyo sang khaya maans.

1.11.2016

Chhalal tantric avdesh mishra ne apne guru indrapal urf tota ramjatav se seeekha kala jadu. Jis makaan ka banaya niwas uski malkinaaj tak gayab.

30.10.2016

Ucch nayalayaya ka aadesh na mane par tula pariya aur tantricdalal vakeel avdhe. Vidwaano mein rosh ki lahar. Bar counciladyaksh par tantra ki vidhya karne par tantric vakeel aaj pit te-pitte bacha, kachheri se jaan bacha kar bhaga.

27.10.2016

Tantric dalal ne patni ko banaya thagai ki taal jahan khud hotaasafal waha biwi ko aage kar banata kaam.

26.102016

Tantric avdesh mishra ne purva S.P. ke khilaaf shadyantra mein juteavaidh portal sanchalak ka liya sahara.

24.10.2016

Dalal khukyat tantric ke ghar jaane wale police karmiyo parnigrani shuru. Ilakai logo ne vakeel ke ghar aana jaana kiya band,kaha kar leta hai vashibhoot.

23.10.2016

Vakeel sanjeev pariya ke ishkbaaz gurgo ne vaar association kobana dala ayyashi ka adda. Sham dhalne ke baad pariya ke gurge

12.9.2016

rangraliya manane pahuchte hai

Police ke dalal vakeel avdesh mishra ne ab CO City ko shuru kiyabechna. Nagar shetradhikari ke karyalaya ke chakkar laga kar logoko bhramit karne ki shuru ki shajish.

31.8.2016

Police ke khukhyat dalal vakeel avdesh ki patni ke khauf se pidit abveva ko dhamkane mein juti hai. 2 lakh ki rangdari maangne meinjuti vakeel ki patni ke khauf se pidit parivaar ka jeena dhurbhar hai.Dhamki de rahi hai ki mera pati hi IG, DIG aur Judge hai, jochahte hai vehe karte hai.

15.5.2016

The complainant alleged that the respondent is a notorious person havingcriminal character and dozens of cases are pending against him in court. An arrestwarrant has also been issued against him followed by an action of kurki. Thecomplainant further submitted that he is advocate in a case against respondenteditor. He alleged that respondent has pressurised him many times asking him notto appear as advocate in the cases against him. When the complainant did notsuccumb to pressure, the respondent published series of news against him and hiswife using filthy languages. The complainant vide legal notice dated 21.3.2015 drewthe attention of the respondent towards the impugned news reports but received noreply.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Youth India, U.P.on 6.12.2016.

Written Statement

In response, the respondent editor vide its undated written statementsubmitted that the report was published on the basis of press release received againstthe complainant and not out of any enmity with him. He further stated that paperhas never published news against his wife.The respondent referred to his earliercomplaint filed by him against the complainant in the Council (F.N.13/179/14-15),stating that he did not get justice and the complainant and his accomplices are stillharassing him.

Counter comments

The complainant vide letter dated 10.1.2017 while reiterating his complaintsubmitted that the impugned news report are false, manipulated and publishedwithout taking his version or proof.

Vide his further letter dated 29.01.2017, plaint the reiterating his complainant,has stated that the respondent reply is illegal and based on false facts. He has furtherstated that his version was never published and the impugned news items publishedagainst him are baseless.

Further Comments from the Respondent

The respondent in his letter dated 20.6.2017 has submitted that theallegations levelled by the complainant in his reply are absolutely false and baseless.

He further stated that the cases filed against him by the complainant are false. Healleged that the complainant is a blackmailer and a broker of police. He has statedthat he always follow the norms of journalist conduct and requested the Council totake necessary action in the matter.


Following an adjournment dated 11.4.2017, the matter came up for finalhearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.6.2017 at New Delhi. Shri AvdeshMishra, the complainant appeared in person. Shri Tausif Khan, Reporter appearedfor the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and has perused thecomplaint, the written statement and other connected papers.

The respondent has also filed another reply today through Shri Tausif Khan. The respondent newspaper has published series of news items against the

complainant. It is the allegation of the complainant that the contents of the newsitem are false and concocted. The respondent in his written statement has stated thatthose are published on the basis of Press Releases received against him. Therespondent has not placed on record those Press Releases. The Inquiry Committee isof the opinion that the respondent has published the impugned news to malign thecomplainant and that too without any basis. Further, no opportunity was given to thecomplainant to give his version. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion on perusal& impugned publication couched in undesirable langauge that the respondentnewspaper has violated the code of journalistic ethics and deserves to be Censured.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council to Censure the respondent newspaper, Youth India, Farukhabad, U.P.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of theInquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand Censure the respondent newspaper, Youth India, Farukhabad, U.P. A copy ofthis order be forwarded to the Director, Information & Public Relations Departmentof Government of U.P., the Director General, DAVP, the District Magistrate,Farukhabad, U.P. and the District Magistrate, Lucknow, U.P. for appropriate action.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 5 F.No.14/503/16-17-PCI

Md. Nasir,Shamli, Uttar Pradesh.

The Editor,Amar Ujala,Noida.


This complaint dated 28.2.2017 has been filed by Md. Nasir, Shamli, U.P. against theeditor, Amar Ujala, Noida alleging publication of misleading a news item in its issue dated22.1.2017 under the caption . It is reported in theimpugned news item that Md. Nasir Ali filed his nomination as BSP candidate fromBantikheda under the Thanabhawan constituency along with his advocates and others.

The complainant submitted that he is a candidate of Bahujan Mukti Party notBahujan Samajwadi Party. The respondent in his news item wrongly mentioned that he hasfiled his nomination as a Bahujan Samajwadi Party candidate. He has submitted thatpublication of false news has lowered his image in the society and has caused him immensemental agony and damaged his election prospects. The complainant vide letter dated22.1.2017 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publication andrequested him to publish contradiction of the same, but received no response.

The complainant vide another letter dated 28.2.2017 informed the Council that therespondent published another misleading news regarding another candidate Shri SandeepKumar who has filed his nomination as a candidate of Bahujan Mukti Party, but therespondent mentioned him as an independent candidate. Similarly, in news item dated25.1.2017, the respondent published that Shri Arvind Kuamr filed his nomination as acandidate of Bahuijan Mukti Morcha instead of Bahujan Mukti Party, thereby placing wrongfacts before the general public and harmed the winning prospects of the candidates of hisparty. The complainant submitted that he drew the attention of the respondent towards thesame on 28.2.2017, but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Amar Ujala, Noida on23.3.2017.

Written Statement

The respondent in his written statement dated 7.6.2017 has stated that the publicationof news item is neither objectionable nor the newspaper or editor has offended against thestandards of journalistic ethics or public taste nor the editor has committed any professionalmisconduct. He has further stated that the impugned news item was published inadvertentlywithout any ulterior motive against the complainant. He has submitted that after receiving thecomplainants legal notice dated 22.1.2017, they published the corrigendum in the newspaperon 29.1.2017 with the caption Nasir Ali Choudhary Bamupa Ke Pratyashi and thereafter areply dated 3.2.2017 was also sent to the complainant.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.6.2017 at NewDelhi. Mohd. Nasir, District President and Ex-MLA along with his advocate, Shri RajeshKumar appeared for the complainant. Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary, Deputy Managerappeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the representative of therespondent. It is the grievance of the complainant that he was the candidate of the BahujanMukti Party but the respondent newspaper in its issue dated 21.2.2017 described him as acandidate of Bahujan Samaj Party thereby adversely impacting his election prospects. Therespondent in his reply has not denied this fact and according to the newspaper it was aninadvertent error. Further, the plea of the respondent is that when it came to his notice, thenewspaper issued a corrigendum on 29.1.2017 stating that the complainant is a candidate ofBahujan Mukti Party. The election was to be held on 11th February, 2017.

The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper whilecovering the news of election ought to have been more careful. The complainant admittedlywas a candidate from Bahujan Mukti Party but shown as the candidate of Bahujan SamajParty. Noting that the corrigendum was published well before the date of election, the InquiryCommittee stresses that a little care on part of the respondent would have avoided thisconfusion.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends to the Council for disposal of thecomplaint with an observation that the respondent should be careful in future in such matter.

HeldThe Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry

Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and Dispose ofthe complaint with observation.


Sl. No. 6 F.No.14/482/16-17-PCI

Sanser Pal Singh,Delhi.

The Editor,Nav Bharat Times,New Delhi.


This complaint dated 11.1.2017 has been filed by Shri Sanser Pal Singh, Delhiagainst the Editor, Nav Bharat Times, Delhi for publication of a news item under thecaption James Bond Ka Pan Bahar Wala Ad Ban in its issue dated17.10.2016. It is reported in the news item that the Advertisment of Pan BaharMasala a mouth freshner which Pierce Brosnan @ James Bond had presented, hasbeen banned. It is further reported in the impugned news item that the Chairman ofCBFC has imposed ban on the said advertisement.

The complainant stated that he has filed an RTI application before CBFCseeking information on the said ban and in reply thereto the PIO of CBFC denied anyban imposed on the said advertisement. The complainant vide e-mail dated26.12.2016 drew the attention of the respondent regarding authenticity of the saidnews but no reply was received. The complainant again on 28.12.2016 send an e-mailto the respondent and requested him to verify the news in question but neither thenewspaper replied nor published any corrigendum. No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Respondent Editor, Nav Bharat Times, Delhion 22.2.2017. No written statement has been filed by them.


The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on19.6.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Sanser Pal Singh, the complainant appeared in personwhile there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the complaintand the papers filed by him. Certain queries have been made to which thecomplainant states that he is not bound to reply. The Inquiry Committee is of theopinion that the grievance made by the complainant is misconceived and intended toachieve oblique purpose.

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

HeldThe Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the

Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand Dismiss the complaint.


F. No. 14/269/16-17-PCI

Item no. 7

Shri Anilbhai Danjibhai Parmar,B/H Gandhi Hospital,Opp. Kansara Boarding,Amardeep Park Society,Devi SmrutiSurendranagar

The Editor,Navakar Weekly,Surendranagar.

Adjudication 21.9.2017

This complaint dated 11.08.2016 has been filed by Shri Anilbhai DanjibhaiParmar from Surendranagar against the editor of Navakar Weekly objecting toprinting of religious photograph on the front page of their Weekly. The complainantstates that he had communicated his objection to the Editor of Navakar Weekly videhis letter dated 26.03.2016 stating that after reading the weekly, any person canuse/throw the weekly anywhere, including an impure place and thus such ignorantuse of religious photo can hurt public sentiment he had requested the editor toremove the religious photograph from their weekly which the respondent has beenusing as a trademark for their Weekly. The complainant had also informed therespondent that according to the Honble Supreme Court Judgement newspapers arenot allowed to use religious photographs or related matters as a trademark ofnewspapers but no action has been taken by the respondent editor. He has also filedthe same complaint before the Registrar of Newspapers India but no action taken hasbeen taken by them.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor on 9.11.2016.

Written Statement

The respondent in his written statement dated 10.12.2016 stated that thecomplainant has misunderstood, misinterpreted the provisions of the law. Thecomplainant has wrongly pointed out the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court,which is not relevant to the fact of this matter and submitted that at no point of timethe Weekly had used the said photograph as its trademark and Navakar is thetrademark of the Weekly and this name is not illegal or prohibited under any law.The respondent further submitted that Navkar Weekly has always maintained hightraditions of journalistic ethics over the period of time and the photograph which isprinted on the front page, that is of Lord Krishna and Arjuna riding on the ,,,,,,,,,,according to the respondent, indicates the pious message of war against injustice andhas no intention of making money by using such picture. The Respondent hassubmitted that their Weekly is very old and hence filing a complaint with suchmeagre cause states that the complainant is having ill intention to move against theeditor of the paper without any substantial evidence.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide his letter dated 25.12.2016 had referred to anotherjudgement of the Honble Supreme Court of India Lalubabu Priyadarshi vs. Biharin which the Honble Supreme Court has passed an order stating that the desire toget business/benefit under the name and photo of Lord or printing of any religious orrelated photo on market selling commodities are prohibited and had directed therespondent of that case to remove the picture of Ram-Sita and Laxman from Incensepacket and hence as the respondent had been using photograph of Lord Krishna andArjuna depicting a plot of Mahabharata on the newspapers front page which hasreligious importance, he should also be directed to remove.


The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on19.6.2017 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen toappear. However, he has submitted an application inter-alia stating that he, being ahandicapped person, unable to appear before the Inquiry Committee and has prayedthat the decision be taken on merit. There is no appearance on behalf of therespondent.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the reply and all otherconnected papers and is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant ismisconceived.

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

Held



Sl. No. 8 F.No.14/406/16-17-PCI

ComplainantThe Kalgidhar Trust, New Delhi.

RespondentThe Editor,RozanaPehredar,Jagraon, Punjab.

The Editor,RozanaPehredar,Ludhiana.

Adjudication Dated 21.9.2017

This complaint dated 2.11.2016 has been field by the Kalgidhar Trust, NewDelhi against the editor, Rozana Pehredar for allegedly publishing of false anddefamatory news against the Trust in its issue dated 4.10.2016 under the captionFestival of Navratri was celebrated at Baru Sahib(English translation). It isreported in the impugned news item that the Baru Sahib which is in the limelight dueto controversies, have now stooped low to dishonour the Sikh principles and thedecorum of Shri Akal Takht Sahib, pictures viral on social media shows studentsperforming songs and dance program on stage on this occasion of Navratri with thepictures of Baba Attar Singh Ji. It is further reported in the impugned news item thatthe trustee of the said Trust blamed how the Trust has now mingled up with RSS andprofit earning companies in taking free possession of lands for their selfish gain. It isreported that there was news of detention of a lady for two days after havingselflessly served the Gurdwara with two girls who were later on released by sangat ofCheema Sahib. Due to this the local residents took the control of Cheema SahibGurdwara and Akal Academy Management. The lady spoke to newspersons severaltimes regarding this and this news got published in various newspapers.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item the complainant statedthat the news report is defamatory and falsely mentions that the Kalgidhar TrustBaru Sahib has stooped low to dishonour the Sikh Principals and decorum of AkalTakht Sahib. The complainant stated that the news regarding detention of a lady fortwo days is also false and the author has not cared to verify the news, which is a basicethical requirement. The complainant submitted that no Navratri function has everbeen held in the aforesaid school in the past or in the year 2016 and the photographin question does not even belong to the aforesaid school, and the photographs relateto Akal Nursing College at Baru Sahib. He has also submitted that the function was

held during International Nursing Conference, which was held in the presence of theinternational delegates where the children performed skits for the promotion of thesentiments of religious brotherhood. The complainant further stated that therespondent threw all journalistic standards and ethics to the winds by alleging thatthe principal of Bathinda Academy did something vulgar which is slanderous anddefamatory in nature. The complainant vide legal notice dated 2.11.2016 drew theattention of the respondent towards the impugned news report and requested him topublish apology, but received no response.

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Rozana Pehredar,Punjab on 9.1.2017. In response to that the respondent vide letter 28.1.2017 informedthe Council that due to nervous breakdown from last six months he is unable to replyto the Show Cause Notice and requested the Council to give him minimum onemonth time for filing the reply, however, no response was received to the date ofhearing .


The matter came for hearing before Inquiry Committee held on 19.06.2017 atNew Delhi. Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Kohli, Advisor PR, appeared for the complainantand Shri Major Singh, Staff Reporter, appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the representativeof Rozana pehredar, Shri Major Singh. By letter dated 28.01.2017, the editor ofRozana Pehredar, had asked for one months time to file the reply. Till date no replyhas been filed. The representative of the respondent again prays for time to file thereply. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accede to his prayer.

The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint as also impugned news item.The Inquiry Committee holds that the contents of the news were published withoutdue care/verification and intended to create hatred amongst different communities.It was provocative, acidic and to a great extent intended to create disharmony. TheInquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper while publishingsuch a news has committed breach of journalistic ethics and deserves to be censured.The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspaper becensured. A copy of the Order be forwarded to the Director, Information & PublicRelations, Punjab, Director General of DAVP and District Magistrate, Ludhiana forappropriate action.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of theInquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand decides to Censure the respondent newspaper.


Sl. No. 9 F.No.14/290/16-17-PCI

ComplainantShri Dev Ashish Bhattacharya,Noida, UP 201304

RespondentThe Editor,The Hindu,Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

Adjudicaiton Dated 21.09.2017

This complaint dated 27.8.2016 has been filed by Shri Dev Ashish Bhattacharya,Kendriya Vihar, Noida, U.P. against the Editor, The Hindu for publication of allegedlymisleading, unfounded news item in The Hindu on 29.7.2017 captioned Priyanka need notreveal Himachal land details: HC. It is reported in the impugned news item that relief toCongress President, Sonia Gandhis daughter, Priyanka Vadra, the Himachal Pradesh HighCourt has ruled that she need not reveal land details or house plans under any RTI. It is alsoreported in the impugned news item that the court in its verdict said that the RTI activist hadno requirement of the information on the land records of Ms. Vadra in Mashobara, HimachalPradesh.

According to the complainant, the contents of the news item published are totallymisleading, unfounded and not at all based on the facts and contents of the order of the HighCourt. In fact The Hindu, by quoting the name of the Honble Judge and the High Court haspublished such a news which has created confusion and suspicion in the mind of the vastnumber of readers of The Hindu in the country and abroad too.

The complainant vide his mail letter dated 30.7.2016 drew the attention of therespondent towards the impugned news item and requested them to rewrite the news itemgiving factual details, but received no response.

A Notice for comments dated 16.12.2016, was issued to the respondent newspaper.

Comments of Respondent

In response to the Councils Notice for comments dated 16.12.2016, Shri Jacob,Senior Managing Editor, The Hindu, Chennai Tamil Nadu vide letter dated 27.12.2016 hasfiled his comments in which he stated that the complainant, Shri Dev Ashsish Bhattacharyahad written to The Hindu soon after the report in question was published on July 29, 2016

and the Readers Editor of The Hindu had looked into the matter. Realising that an error hadcrept into the report from Shimla Correspondent, the Readers Editor had effected thepublication of a correction/clarification in all editions of The Hindu on August 3, 2016. Hehas requested the council to decline to entertain the complaint.

Counter Comments:

In response to the comments of the respondent, the complainant vide his countercomments dated 11.01.217 has stated that he is really astonished to see the reaction of thesenior functionary of The Hindu on the serious issue. The Hindu management has tried tobrush away with contempt the said issue just because on the one side is Smt. Priyanka Gandhiand on the other side is a common citizen of India. In fact, The Hindu chose to spreadbaseless news giving high edge to Smt. Priyanka Gandhi very prominently, as is evident fromthe placement of the news item dated 29.07.2016. He further stated that the Senior ManagingEditor is trying to wriggle out of the situation by terming it as a routine error and publishingthe same without mentioning a single word owning any type of responsibility in their socalled clarification. A bare reading of the clarification submitted by The Hindu Management,is indicative of its branch, high headed and audacious attitude which needs to be tackled withiron hands as nobody is above the law. He further submitted that this act of the managementclearly, that the news dated 29.07.2016 was published intentionally in collusion with theHigher Management of The Hindu to please Smt. Priyanka Gandhi by spreadingunprofessional rumor using its prominent platform.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.06.2017 at NewDelhi, Shri Dev Ashish Bhattacharya, the complainant appeared in person. Shri S.Ramanujam, Regional General Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent. The InquiryCommittee has heard the complaint and the representative of the respondent newspaper. Inview of the assurance given by the respondent newspaper that they will come out with furtherclarification within two weeks, the Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter anyfurther. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for disposal of the complaint withthe direction to send the published clarification to the Council and to the complainant.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the InquiryCommittee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and Dispose ofthe Complaint.


Sl. No. 10 File No. 14/510/16-17-PCI.

Complainant Respondents

Shri Dalbir Singh Bisht, The Editor,DLF Phase-2, Punjab Kesari,Gurugram-122002, Ring Road,Haryana. Delhi-110 035


This complaint dated 14.2.2017 has been filed by Shri Dalbir Singh Bisht, Gurgaon,Haryana against the editor, Punjab Kesari, New Delhi alleging publication ofunverified, false, fabricated and biased story under the caption Bhutan NareshKe Purv OSD aur unki patni se dhokhadhadi in its issue dated 30.12.2016.It is reported in the impugned news item that the former OSD of Bhutan Prince andhis wife were cheated by the complainant and they have lodged complaint with thepolice. It is further reported in the impugned news item that after the intervention ofthe DCW, their FIR has been lodged by the police. It is also reported in theimpugned news item that the complainant along with his three friends, among whomone was Sanjeev Kumar(Property Dealer), had demanded a sum of Rs. 3500/- forelectricity bill which was actually of Rs. 1190/-. When the tenant questioned thecomplainant for excess amount, he got anger and pushed the wife of ShriBhattacharya, the former OSD.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news item, the complainantstated that he is the owner of the flat and had rented the flat to Mr. SanjoyBhattacharya. He stated that he (Mr.Bhattacharya) filed a false complaint againsthim for misbehaving with his wife in connivance with the DCW. The complainantstated that neither the DCW nor the police verified or cross checked the authenticityof the complaint. According to the complainant, the news item was published just tomalign his name in the society, family and friends. The complainant vide letter dated31.1.2017 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned publicationand requested him to publish corrigendum and apology, but received no response.He requested the Council to take action against the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Punjab Kesari,22.02.2017.

Written statement

In response, the respondent Punjab Kesari vide its written statement dated1.4.2017 has submitted that the news item was published on the basis of an FIR filedby Mrs. Ananya Bhattacharya with Police Station, Dwarka, New Delhi on 27.12.2016.The respondent attached a copy of the FIR. The respondent has stated that ifcomplainant has anything to say in this regard, he may meet them along withdocumentary evidence and would be happy to publish the version of thecomplainant.

Counter comments

The complainant vide counter comments dated 25.4.2017 submitted that theFIR against him is without any evidence and the story published is one sided totallypartial and shielding a bad person. Mrs. Ananya Bhattacharya had lodged a falsecomplaint with the DCW and under pressure from DCW, Police authority has lodgedan FIR. He stated that he never involved Mrs. Bhattacharya in anyissue/transactions. He further stated that he pays bill online, tenant transfers moneyto his account and their accounts were settled by 15th December, 2016. Hence, thereis no motive for any fight or aggressiveness towards the tenant. He requested theCouncil to go through all the supporting documents, correspondence, evidence,proofs and HDFC Bank statement considering the gravity of material.

Further Response from Complainant

The complainant vide further comments dated 20.06.2017, while reiteratinghis request, has submitted that the respondent is to make amends by publishing hisversion with apology in prominent place and confirm the action taken in reply byregistered post.


The matter came for hearing before Inquiry Committee held on 20.06.2017 atNew Delhi. The complainant, Shri Dalbir Singh Bisht appeared in person. ShriRavinder Shanda, News Editor, Punjab Kesari and A.K Jain, Advocate, appeared forthe respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the Counsel for therespondent newspaper and has also perused the complaint, the written statement andall other connected papers. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the impugnednews item was published on the basis of an FIR lodged against the complainant thecorrectness or otherwise thereof is not for a newspaper or the council to adjudge. TheInquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper has not breachedany journalistic ethics while publishing the impugned news item. The InquiryCommittee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held



Sl. No. 11 File No.14/360-362/16-17/PCI

Complainant RespondentsThe General Secretary,Trade Union Coordination Centre,Central Committee,Lokhande Bhawan, F-52,

The Editors1. Aami Asomor Janagan,

Guwahati,2. Amar Asom ,

Assam,3. AgradootDainik,

Assam.


This complaint dated 28.09.2016 has been filed by General Secretary, Trade UnionCo-Ordination Centre, New Delhi against the editors t, there respondent newspapers viz:1) Aami Asomor Janagan,2) Amar Asom and 3) Agradoot Dainik for publication of a storyin their respective edition on 25.9.2016 quoting the statement of Mr.G.R.Shivshankar underthe caption as mentioned below:-

Sl.No

Caption Newspaper

1. New TUCC State Committee for Assam constituted (EnglishTranslation)

Aami AsomorJanagan

2. Ratneshwar Gogoi being expelled as President of state TUCC(English Translation)

Amar Asom,Assam

3. S.P Tiwari & Ratneshwar Gogoi expelled from Trade unioncoordination centre (English Translation)

Agradoot Dainik,Assam

It is repeated in the impugned news items that Shri S.P. Tiwari, General Secretary ofTUCC and Shri Ratneshwar Gogoi (President of TUCC) of Assam had been expelled fromTrade Union Coordination Centre, a fraternal organization of All India Forward Block. It isalso reported in Agradoot and Aami AssomerJanogon that they have not placed accounts ofthe TUCC before the Committee therefore this decision has been taken. It is also reported thatthe President of TUCC misused the funds and letter pad also by sending a complaint to thePolice Commissioner of Guwahati, hence a new committee is elected.

The complainant submitted that when the Assam State President Ratneshwar Gogoicame to know about the Press Conference of Mr. G.R. Shivshankar, reached there andprotested during the press Conference and issued a clarification to press, but still the story gotpublished in the three dailies on 25.09.2016. He has also submitted that after receiving thenews clippings from Assam, he has issued a press release on 26.09.2016 along with hiscredentials and copy of the court order restraining Mr. Shivshankar to use the logo, emblem,letterhead and banner of TUCC, but the respondent did not take any cognizance of his pressrelease and nor published any clarification. The complainant requested the Council to takeaction against the respondents.

Written Statement received from Aami Asomor Janagan

A Written Statement dated 12.06.2017 has been received from S.K Sinha, Editor, AamiAsomor Janagan, whereby, he has submitted that the news was published on the basis of aPress Meet organised by TUCC, Guwahati on 24th September 2016. The news was based onlyon the brief described by the Secretary, TUCC Central Committee Shri G.R. Shivshankar andother office bearers. Aami Asomor Janagan did not report any additional facts in the news.

No Written Statement from Amar Asom and Agradoot DainikA Show Cause Notices were issued to respondents, Amar Asom and AgradootDainik

on 26.12.2016 but no response has been received.


The matter came up for hearing before Inquiry Committee held on 19.06.2017 at NewDelhi. No one has appeared for the complainant. Shri Durjay Kumar, Chief Manager(Marketing) appeared for the respondent paper, Aami Asom Asomor, Janagan.

Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. Respondent

No.1, is represented by its correspondent, based at Delhi. The Inquiry Committee has perusedthe complainant, the reply filed by the Aami Asomor Janagan and other connected papers.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee deems it expedient thatnewspaper, Amar Asom and Agradoot Dainik publish the clarification given by thecomplainant. The Inquiry Committee directs, for disposal of the complaint with the aforesaiddirections.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the InquiryCommittee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and Dispose ofthe complaint with direction to publish clarification.


Sl. No. 12 F.NO. 14/380/16-17-PCI

Complainant RespondentsShri. G. Prasada Rao The Editor,GM- Corporate Communications Union Territory Independent, Air India LTD. 8-B, Behind Tej Press,GurudwaraRakabganj Road, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi.


This complaint dated 13.10.2016 has been filed by Shri. G Prasada Rao, GM-Corporate Communications, Air India LTD. New Delhi, against the Editor of UnionTerritory Independent, on English fortnightly for publication of allegedly defamatorycontent in the newspaper, Union Territory Independent against Air India. Details ofthe alleged impugned news items are given herein below,

S.No.

IssueDated

Caption Brief

1. 01.10.2016 Lohani ruins AirIndia?

The impugned news item allegesthat Mr. Ashwani Lohani, CMD, isunder the sway of the Director(Personnel) Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jain,who is exploiting the weakness ofMr. Lohani to keep him undercontrol, in order to fulfil his vestedinterests and favour the privateplayers. The news item also statedthat the accused have changed theno firm to hire pilots on contractbasis only with first class GATE(Graduate Aptitude EngineeringTest) results on therecommendation of Mr. NikhilKumar Jain to favour his trustedpeople.

2. April 16-30,2016

Reward forcorruption!

This article claims that the Air Indiais ruined by the former civilaviation minister when he decidedto merge the Indian Airlines withAir India and from that time thebad days of Air India has started.Though present CMD of Air Indiaclaimed to revive the condition of

Air India, but senior officials of AirIndia, who after retirement, holdsenior positions in the sameorganisation, are putting hurdles inhis initiatives. Competent officersare not given chance to work andhence corruption is ruining AirIndia.

3. April 1-15,2016.

Multi-Crore Pilot Recruitment.

The article states that Air India isbeing ruined by the corrupt officersand politicians. It went into hugelosses when Praful alias Bidi Patelwas Union Civil Aviation Minsiter.He decided to merge IndianAirlines with Air India and itbecame a cause that made nationalcarrier a loss making company. Toserve his vested interests Mr PrafulPatel allowed private players to flyon profitable routes.

The complainant alleges that the said newspaper has been time and againcarrying spurious stories related to Air India without any foundation factual reality,cogent proof or confirmation of the same from authorized spokespersons of AirIndia. The complainant further alleges that the articles are being published by thesaid newspaper without adhering to any journalistic ethics with the sole purpose toharm the reputation of Air India and its employees in crude and vulgar manner.

The Complainant further submits that several legal notices were sent to therespondent newspaper, warning them against publishing malicious content againstAir India without any regard for factual accuracy. The first legal notice was sent on25.04.2016, followed by a reminder dated 20.06.2016 and another Notice was senton 6.10.2016 with reference to another alleged impugned news item accusing theChairman-cum-Managing Director of Air India of ruining the airline. However,despite repeated warnings, the respondent newspaper did not publish anyclarification nor has apologised for the wrongdoing. The complainant alleges that theseries of capricious, fabricated and humiliating reports are being publishedunabatedly which reflects the deliberate malafide intent of the newspaper to bringdisrepute, disrespect and mass ignominy to Air India. In light of the above grievancethe complainant has requested the Council to take appropriate action against therespondent newspaper to curb its unethical, immoral and unprofessional conduct inconstantly attempting to tarnish the image of the national carrier.


A Show-Cause notice dated 21.12.2016 was issued to the Editor of therespondent newspaper to which the editor vide letter dated 16.01.2017 has submittedits reply which states that the Newspaper is a leading fortnightly known for its highstand against corruption and nepotism in Government and public offices and claimsthat its editorials always stand with the people and stand against the people whowant to silence the fight against corruption. The matters reported are true to theirknowledge and hence the claim of Air India that the newspaper is publishing

defamatory articles against Air India is untrue and the complaint should bedismissed.


Following an adjournment dated 11.04.2017, the matter came up for finalhearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.06.2017 at New Delhi.

Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant. Earlier also they had notchosen to appear. The respondent is represented by his Counsel, Shri Thomas JosephAdvocate. The Inquiry Committee recommends for dismissal of the complaint forwant of persuance.

Held



Item No. 13 F.No.14/491/16-17-PCI

Shri Arvind Rajvedi,Director (Administration)Western Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd., Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

The Editor,Vishwa Parikrama Times,Meerut, U.P.


This complaint dated 18.1.2017 has been filed by Shri Arvind Rajvedi, Director(Administration) Western Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd., Meerut, Uttar Pradeshagainst Editor, Vishwa Parikrama Times, Meerut, U.P. alleging publication a seriesof misleading, false and baseless news items which are given below:

S. No. Caption Dated

1 Bijli chori rokne wale daal rahe hai dacoity 21.12.2016

2 Pashimanchal Vidhyut Company mein Supreme Court keaadeshon par hathoda, sura aur sundry ke shaukeen MD nekholi sthantaran ki dukan, mukhyamantri ke naam par ekvarsh me 12 crore ki awaidh vasooli

14.12.2016

3 Free ki chai va hisse ke lalach me muqadma harne walonpar rangeen mijaj PVVNL MD meharbaan

7.12.2016

4 Kabja karwane walon par rangeen mijaj MD meharbaancommission khor engineer G.K. Gupta par prabandhnideshak meharbaan

28.9.2016

5 PVVNL ke mukhya abhiyanta par arbon ka commissionlene ka aarop

28.8.2016

6 Paisa public ka, prachar SPA ka, commission PVVNL Ka 14.6.2016

7 Vidhyut vibhag ke engineer par raj bhwan bhi meharbaan March 2015

8 Pant ki aankhon ke tare brasht engineer February2015

The series of impugned news items depicts the MD as well as Officers ofPashimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam in bad light. They have been shown to becorrupt, misappropriating funds and indulged in electricity theft.

It is further reported that Western Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd.,disobeying the orders of Supreme Court. They are earning illegal money of Rs.12crores using the name of Chief Minister.

The complainant submitted that the respondent is continuously publishingthe false news and defaming the officers of electricity department. The complainant

vide letters dated 24.10.2016 and 18.11.2016 drew the attention of the respondenttowards the impugned news item but received no response.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Vishwa ParkramaTimes, Meerut on 23.3.2017.

Written StatementThe respondent in his written statement dated 6.4.2017 has denied the

allegations of the complainant and submitted that annexure which has been enclosedby the complainant in support of his objections are baseless and false. In the WrittenStatement, the editor elaborates various incidents relating to corrupt activitiesprevailing in the Pashimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam and the series of impugnednews items are factual.

Counter CommentsThe Director (Administration) Western Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd.,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh in his counter comments dated 19.6.2017 while reiteratingthat the respondent has published a series of misleading, false, defamatory andbaseless news items from time to time alleged that the respondent has not producedany evidence in support of his story but used unparliamentry language in his reply.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 20.6.2017 atNew Delhi. Smt. Suman Lata, Dy. Law Officer along with Shri Pradeep Kumar, Dy.General Manager appeared for the complainant. Shri Vinod Malik, Editor appearedfor the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the respondent andalso perused the complaint, the written statement and other connected papers.Ongoing through the contents of the impugned news item, the Inquiry Committeesatisfied that the language used and the manner of presentation of series of newsitems are absolutely unethical. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends forcensure of the newspaper.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand Censure the respondent newspaper, Vishwa Parikrama Times, Meerut, U.P. Acopy of this order be forwarded to the Director, Information & Public RelationsDepartment of Government of U.P., the Director General, DAVP, the DistrictMagistrate, Meerut, U.P. and RNI for appropriate action.


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

Suo-motu action on reference received from the Election Commission of India, NewDelhi against the editor, Bijnor Times, Bijnor, U.P. for publication of paid news.

Revised AdjudicationDated 21.9.2017

A review application dated 3.11.2016 was received from the respondent editor,Dainik Chingari against the adjudication dated 9.9.2016 whereby the paper had beenCensured for publishing paid news, on the ground that another newspaper viz. BijnorTimes from Bijnor had also published the same news item under the same caption as published in Dainik Chingari which wasdismissed by the Council.

The Council considered the review application in its meeting held on 3.3.2017at New Delhi and noted the similarity of impugned publication with adjudication incase against Bijnor Times. It prima-facie found that an inadvertent error hadoccurred in the adjudication dated 9.9.2016 in the related case of Bijnor Times.Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee directed the Secretariat to issue Notice to theBijnor Times as to why the said Order dated 9.9.2016 in File No. 14/899/14-15-PCIbe not reviewed. Both the cases be clubbed and listed together.

Accordingly, a letter dated 17.4.2017 was issued to the editor, Bijnor Times butreceived no response.


The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on19.6.2017 at New Delhi. Shri Ichardramani Raghuvanshi, editor, appeared for therespondent, Bijnor Times.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis ofcommunication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary,Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case ofpaid news against the newspaper Bijnor Times in its issues dated 28.3.2014 and2.4.2014.

The Council has laid down principles for adjudication of paid news which is asfollows:

Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted frommedia in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publicationin any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud anddelivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. Butwhile direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence ofpaid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is toensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible becausethe reputation of publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid downto determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts andcircumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve thecause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news.Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in thenewspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Badjournalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump tothe conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course ofelection, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India,newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates orthe parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not establishedthat consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind thatmany newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particularthought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would notamount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on thedate when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself maynot be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances ofjournalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what isnews and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before makingpublic their findings of paid news ought to have applied themselves judiciously tothe issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputationsof newspapers/periodicals.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item in the light of theaforesaid principles. It also heard the complainant. The only ground urged on behalfof Dainik Chingari is that Bijnor Times had also published the same news butcomplaint against it has been dismissed but the respondent has been Censured.

The Inquiry Committee examined the facts of the case in the light of thesubmissions made and finds that inadvertently the complaint against Bijnor Timeswas dismissed earlier. The Inquiry Committee has recommended for rescinding thesaid order. Thus, the very substratum seeking review of the order has perished.

Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee does not find any merit in the reviewpetition and recommends for its dismissal.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item published inBijnor Times. The tenor and the manner of presentation of the news item clearlyshow that it is paid news. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee upholds the allegationand rescind its earlier order dated 9.9.2016.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the newspaper BijnorTimes be Censured.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand decide to Censure the respondent newspaper, Bijnor Times, Bijnor U.P. A copyof this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bijnor, the Director,Information & Public Relation Department, Govt. of U.P., the Director General,DAVP, RNI and the Election Commission of India for necessary action at their end.


Sl. No. 15 F. No. 14/363/16-17-PCI

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan,C/o Shri Mohd. Khalid, Advocate,The Company Law Chamber, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

The Editor,Dainik Jagran,Meerut, Uttar Pradesh


This undated complaint has been filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhanand other official staff, Office of the Superintendent of Police Gramin, Meerut, U.P.through Mohd. Khalid, Advocate against the editor, Dainik Jagran, for allegedlypublishing false, baseless, misleading news item along with photo under the captionSP dehat ke karayalya mein hua samjhauta in its issue dated 29.9.2016 todefame him in the society and by maligning his service record in the department.

It is reported in the impugned news item that a lot of haggling took place inthe name of compromise arrived at a confidential room of SP Dehat. It is furtherreported that Shri Shahzad and Shri Bilal of Dhauladi, after purchasing mangoesorchids, sold the mangoes at Mandi in Delhi. They both have sold mangoes to ShriHazi Kaloo of Aazadpur Mandi. Shri Hazi Kaloo alleged that they have taken tenlakh in advance from him. However, Sh. Shahzad and Sh. Bilal alleged that evenafter receiving consignment of mangoes, Shri Kaloo has not given payment of Rs. tenlakh to them. In this regard, both the parties filed complaints to the SP Dehat. Boththe parties were made to settle the matter in confidential room of SP Dehat at 5:00p.m. When the photo of the aforesaid incident was being taken, the staff swiftly ranaway leaving both the parties. After sometime, the staff returned to the spot and ShriJ. Ravinder Gaur, SSP showed his ignorance on the incident. He informed that thematter will be investigated.

The complainant submitted that while investigating the matter in question atthe work place, the SP was engaged with the parties. In the meantime, aphotographer with his colleague started to click photos. While they were asked toleave the restricted area, a secret room and in all the chaos, the papers kept on thetable relating to the parties hot scattered and in this way obstructed the official work.The complainant further submitted that it is prohibited for any person to enter at thesecret official place without permission. When they were asked to leave that room,the photographer misbehaved stating that they can access any area and even yourcaptain cant stop us. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent throughthe letter on 7.10.2016 for reply and followed by reminder to publish corrigendum forthe same but no response was received. The complainant alleged that the impugnedreport has badly affected him and defamed him in society/department and malignedhis service record.


A Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Meerut,Uttar Pradesh on 20.1.2017 but no written statement has been filed.

Complainants Further Letter

The complainant vide another letter dated 30.1.2017 informed that thecorrespondent of the respondent newspaper was exerting pressure upon him to settlea case. When the complainant did not bother, the correspondent/photographerplanted the episode reported in the impugned news item and published theimpugned news item.


The matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on19.6.2017 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf ofeither side.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papersand is of the opinion that no case for interference of the Council is made out.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of thecomplaint.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand Dismiss the complaint.


SI. NO. 16 F.NO. 14/422/16-17-PCI

Complainant RespondentPriyadarshini Yadav,NavManav Vikas Kalyan Samiti,Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

The Editor Awaz Newspaper, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand.


This complaint dated 25.11.2016 has been filed by Priyadarshini Yadav,Secretary, Nav Manav Vikash Kalyan Samiti, Dhanbad, Jharkhand against Awaznewspaper alleging the publication of defamatory/derogatory news item by it. Thecomplainant has stated that she has been running a registered NGO namely,NavManav Vikas Kalyan Samiti, Dhanbad, for last ten years and has been working inthe social welfare field for long. She has alleged that one person named Mr. GPBaliya in connivance of the editor/publisher of Awaz Newspaper has got the allegeddefamatory and derogatory news items published wherein it was reported that thecomplainant and her Sister Smt. Pragyapriya are involved in flesh trade businessand running sex racket in the name of an NGO. The defamatory news itemspublished in the respondent newspapers issue dated 12.09.2016 may captionedNGO ki Khilaf Karwahi karne ki mang, in which it has been stated that Mr. G.P.Baliya has informed the authorities against the alleged involvement of Smt.Priyadarshini Yadav in a flesh trade in the grap of running an NGO where the femaleschool students are victimised and are pushed into flesh trade. Mr. G.P. Baliya, hastherefore asked the authorities to take action against these two sisters.

Two legal notices seeking for publication of clarification was forwarded to therespondent newspaper and the clarification was published by the respondentnewspaper in its issue dated 19.11.2016 captioned Spastikaran which says thatSmt. Priyadarshini Yadav has written to the newspaper with regard to the newspublished by the Newspaper on 12.09.2016 alleging that Ms. Yadav and her sisterare running sex trade business in the name of NGO and has stated that all theallegations are false and baseless. The complainant was not satisfied with theclarification published by the respondent newspaper and requested the Council totake necessary action against the respondent newspaper for publication ofdefamatory and derogatory news against the complainant and her family member.


In the Written Statement filed on 16.01.2017 in response to the Show Causenotice dated 5.1.2017, the respondent noticed that a clarification has already beenpublished against the alleged impugned news item on 19.11.2016 and anotherclarification captioned Bhul Sudhar published in its issue dated 16.01.2017 giving aclarification against the publication dated 12.09.2016.

Counter Statement of the Complainant

The complainant captioned on 4.2.2017 that the clarification published by therespondent newspaper is not satisfactory and does not help in erasing theallegations made against the complainant and her family member whose socialimage has got badly affected after the publication because of the alleged impugnednews item.


The matter came for hearing before Inquiry Committee held on 19.06.2017 atNew Delhi. While no one appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri R.N. Tiwari,representative, appeared for the respondent newspaper.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the reply and all theconnected papers. In view of the clarification and apology published by therespondent newspaper, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in thematter any further. The Inquiry Committee however, observes that the respondenthas averted today that the impugned publication was based on a person press notereceived by it. While the complainant contains that the concerned person Shri G.PBhatia holds a personal grudge and was therefore spreading such lies. In view of,the Committee advices that in a matter as directly affected the personal reputation.The complainant ought to have been more careful involved of just publishing thepress note.

The Inquiry Committee recommends for disposal of the complaint with theseobservations.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee

and Dispose of the complaint with observation.


Sl. No. 17 F.No.14/680/14-15-PCI

Complainant Respondent Ms. X, The Editor,(Name withheld to protect identity), Dainik Bhaskar,Chandigarh. Chandigarh.


This complaint dated 31.10.2014 was filed by Ms. X, (Name withheld toprotect identity) against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh for allegedlypublishing a series of news items in its issues dated 14.9.2014, 19.9.2014 and31.10.2014 wherein her name as a rape victim in a rape case was disclosed. Thecomplainant further alleged that the respondent by revealing her identity as rapevictim defamed her, which is a cognizable offence under Section 228A of IPC. Shehas requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent.


Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Dainik Bhaskar,Chandigarh on 19.7.2016 but no reply was filed by the paper.


Following two adjournments dated 4.10.2016 and 9.1.2017, the matter cameup for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2017 at New Delhi. Therewas no appearance from either side, despite service of notice. The respondent hasalso not chosen to file its show cause.

It is the allegation of the complainant that her name has been disclosed in theimpugned news item of being a victim of rape, which is prohibited under Section228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The norms enunciated by the Council alsoprovides that name of the victim of rape is not disclosed. The respondent has notcome out with any explanation for violation of legal as also ethical requirement.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee has nooption but to Censure the newspaper for violating the law as also the code of conduct.The Inquiry Committee upholds the complaint in the aforesaid manner andrecommends to the Council to Censure the respondent editor, Dainik Bhaskar,Chandigarh.


Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committeeand Censure the respondent editor. Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh. A copy of theadjudication be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, the Director, Inforamtion& Public Relations Department, Govt. of Punjab, the District Magistrate, Chandigarhand the Registrar for Newspaper of India for appropriate action at their end.


SI. NO. 18 F.No.14/556/15-16-PCI

Complaint of Smt. Seema Chouhan, President, Matra ShaktiSangathan, Siwani against the editor, Hind Gazette, Siwani

DEFERRED


Sl. No. 19 F.No.14/338/16-17-PCI

Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, The Editor,Circle Officer, Etmadur, The Times of india, Agra Edition,Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Distt. Agra.


This complaint dated 2.10.2016 has been filed by Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh,Circle Officer, Etmadpur, Agra, Uttar Pradesh against the editor, The Times of India,Agra edition for alleging publication of false and untrue news item in its issue dated23.9.2016 captioned Dalit teen beaten over suspicion of buffalo theft andupper caste men whip Dalit teen for stealing buffalo. The news itemreported that the identified accused have been booked under Section 352 of the IPCand provisions of the SC/ST Act The complainant alleged that the news item ismisleading and untrue as the victims father, Virendra Singh Baghel of Nagla Swarupbelongs to gadariya caste (a shepherd caste found in North India) which falls underthe Other Backward Classes(OBC) category but not a Dalit. The complainant issued aNotice dated 28.9.2016 to the respondent newspaper seeking clarification within aweek for publishing such sensitive news.

The complainant submits that the contents of the aforesaid news item areincorrect, misleading and affected the peace and harmony of the region, which thepolice, after a long struggle, had brought under control. The complainant added thatthe newspaper should have published such sensitive news after due inquiry andverification of facts.

The complainant prayed before the Council to take stringent action against therespondent newspaper for publishing misleading and provocative news item that hadadversely affected the peace and public harmony in the region.

Written StatementA Show-Cause Notice dated 15.12.2016 was issued to the Editor, Times of

India, Agra edition. Vide written statement dated 21.1.2016, the respondentnewspaper has informed that it had printed a corrigendum to the report upper castemen whip Dalit teen for stealing buffalo(published on 23.9.2016) in the editiondated 28.9.2016, where the newspaper had regretted the error and made necessaryamendments in the subsequent reports on the issue. The respondent editor hasfurther informed the Council that a copies of the corrigendum were also forwarded tothe complainant, Abhishik Kumar Singh and his senior the District Police Chief,Preetinder Singh and both of them have expressed their satisfaction over the matter,bringing the dispute to a closure.


Following an adjournment dated 15.5.2017, the matter came up for hearingbefore the Inquiry Committee on 12.7.2017 at New Delhi. There was no appearancefrom either side.

This complaint has been filed by the Circle Officer, Etmadpur, Agra, U.P.against the respondent newspaper for publishing an incorrect news. According to thecomplainant, the respondent newspaper published the news item with the headingDalit teen beaten over suspicion of buffalo theft and in continuation another storywith the headline Upper caste men whip dalit teen for stealing buffalo. Thenewspaper went to the extent of saying that a case under the provisions of theSchedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was alsoregistered. It is the assertion of the complainant that the entire news item is false. Nodalit was assaulted and further no case under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered. The respondent in his writtenstatement has stated that after it has come to its notice, the newspaper regretted theerror and made necessary amendments in the reports in the subsequence issue. TheInquiry Committee is of the opinion that admission of an error and publishing acorrigendum itself is not sufficient to absolve the newspaper for its action of printingan incorrect news item in a matter that could adversely impact caste relation andharmony. The newspaper is required to explain the circumstances under which theerror had happened and establish that it was bona fid

Date post:	02-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungdat
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

14/478/16-17-PCI) 14/486/16-17-PCI)...

Documents