Press Council of India Index of Adjudications rendered by...

Press Council of India

Index of Adjudications rendered by the Press Council in its meeting held on

3.3.2017

Complaints against the Press

Section 14

Inquiry Committee meeting held on 14-16December, 2017 at Lucknow

1 Complaint of Shri P.K. Singh, Chief Forest Officer, Bhopal against Editor, Dainik Bhaskar. (14/135/16-17)

2 Complaint of Shri P.K. Singh, Chief Forest Officer, Indian Forest Services, Forest Department, Bhopal, MP against

(a) the Editor, NavDuniya (14/180/16-17)

(b) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Indore, MP (14/168/16-17)

(c) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Sagar, MP (14/167/16-17)

(d) Dainik Bhaskar, Ujjain, MP (14/169/16-17)

(e) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal, MP (14/171/16-17)

(f) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur, MP (14/165/16-17)

(g) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Satna, MP (14/166/16-17)

(h) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur, MP (14/170/16-17)

(i) the Editor, NaiDuniya, Indore, MP (14/179/16-17)

3

Complaint of MahantGyan Das, Disciple of Late Shri Shayamdas,

AkhilBhartiyaPanchRamanandiya, Faizabad, Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya, U.P. against the

Editor, Dainik Zimmedar (14/27/6-17)

4 Complaint of Shri Kamal Sharma, OSD,TirthankarMahavir University, Muradabad, UP against the Editor, ParivartankaDaur (14/181/16-17)

5 Complaint of Dr. K.S. Gupta, Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Bareilly, UP against the Editor, Dainik Jagran. (14/207/16-17)

6 Complaint of Shri A.K. Singh, Lieutenant Colonel, Officer Commanding, Supply Depot Bareilly, UP against the Editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly, UP (14/158/16-17)

7 Complaint of Smt. YaminiKrishanaChhattar, Assistant Operator, Jawaharlal Nehru KrishiVishvavidyalaya, Jabalpur, MP against the Editor, NaiDuniya.(14/134/16-17)

8 Complaint of Shri Parisdeshmukh, Badmer, Rajasthan against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar (14/42/16-17)

9 Complaint of Senior Superintendent of Prisons, Moradabad, UP against the Editor, Amar Ujala, UP (14/216/16-17)

10 Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, regarding publication of paid news against

a) the Editor, National Duniya (14/142/14-15). (b) the Editor, AajSamaj (14/97/14-15)

(c). the Editor, Bharat Sameep (14/109/14-15).

(d). the Editor, Maru Lahar (14/923/14-15).

(e) the Editor, Shah Times (14/99/14-15).

(f) the Editor, Maru Lehar (14/125/14-15).

(g) the Editor, Dainik Desh Ki Dharti (14/129/14-15).

(h) the Editor, Dainik Raj Vaibhav (14/144/14-15).

(i) the Editor, Paschimi Sandesh (14/878/14-15).

(j) the Editor, Dainik Krantikari Sandesh (14/910/14-15).

(k) the Editor, Dainik Metro Bites (14/920/14-15).

(l) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar (14/143/14-15)

(m) the Editor, National Duniya (14/98/14-15) (n) the Editor, Meri Dilli (14/104/14-15)

(o) the Editor, Awam-E-Hind (14/2/14-15)

(p) the Editor, Jag Utthan (14/112/14-15)

(q) the Editor, Veer Arjun (14/107/14-15)

10(A)

(i)

Complaint of Smt. Sushila Belle, Bhopal, MP against

the Editor, Navbharat (14/486/15-16)

(ii) the Editor, Dainik Jagran, (Satya Katha), Madhya Pradesh (14/468/15-16)

(iii) the Editor, Agni Ban, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (14/470/15-16)

(iv) the Editor, Hindustan Times, Madhya Pradesh (14/467/15-16)

(v) the Editor, Hari Bhoomi, Madhya Pradesh (14/465/15-16)

(vi) the Editor, Pioneer, Madhya Pradesh (14/466/15-16)

11 Complaint of Shri Ramsagar, Begusarai, Bihar against the Editor, Dainik Hindustan (14/44/16-17)

12 Complaint of Shri Amrendra Kumar, Bhagalpur against the Editor, Dianik Jagran and Shri Lalan Rai, Journalist(14/228/16-17)

13 Complaint of Ms. Nargis Khan, Former, SHO, Meerut, UP against the Editor Dainik Jagran (14/223/16-17)

14 Complaint of Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain, UP against the Editor, Amar Ujala (14/252/16-17)

15 Reference received from Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding Paid News in General election- 2014, UP against

A the Editor Tarun Mitra, Lucknow (14/891/14-15)

B the Editor SachchaiAbhiTak, UP (14/875/14-15)

C the Editor Shah Times, Muzaffarnagar (14/880/14-15)

D the Editor BPN Times, MP (14/888/14-15)

E the Editor Raj Express and Yash Bharat, MP (14/593-594/14-15)

F the Editor PushpSavera, Agra, Uttar Pradesh (14/848/14-15)

G the Editor Hari Bhoomi, Chhattisgarh (14/902/14-15-PCI)

H the Editor Dainik Hindsat, Chhattisgarh (14/907/14-15)

I the Editor SamayDarshan, Chhattisgarh (14/906/14-15-PCI)

J the Editor Muzaffarnagar Ujala, Muzaffarnagar, UP (14/858/14-15)

K the Editor Jan Madhyam, UP (14/894/14-15)

L the Editor Shah Times, Muzaffarnagar, UP (14/898/14-15)

M the Editor Bhartiya Jan Manch(14/905/14-15)

16 Reference received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India regarding paid news against

(a) the Editor, Dainik Prakash Kunj. 14/921/14-15

(b) the Editor, Sanchar regarding publication of alleged paid news (14/717/14-15)

(c) the editor, Dainik Raigarh Sandesh, Raigarh regarding publication of alleged paid news (14/911/14-15)

17 Complaint of Shri Rajeev Kaushik, Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur against

the Editor, Burean Times (14/220/16-17)

18 Complaint of Smt. Javitri Devi, Counsellor, Malkhan Singh District Hospital, Aligarh,

UP against the Editor, Amar Ujala, Aligarh, UP (14/190/16-17)

19 Complaint of Shri Ramesh Kumar Bakshi, Assistant Vice President, M/s Birla Corporation, Satna, MP against the Editor, People Observer, Weekly newspaper, Satna, MP

(14/202/16-17) – Referred back to Secretariat –Not Ratified

20 Complaint of Shri Sameer Sardana, Dehradun against

(a) the Editor, Chakravyuh India, Uttar Pradesh. (14/175/16-17)

(b) the Editor, Gomantak Times (14/178/16-17)

(c) the Editor, Deshabhimani (14/164/16-17)

(d) the Editor, Sanjeevni Today (14/163/16-17)

(e) the Editor, Times of India (14/182/16-17)

(f) the Editor, Goa Herald (14/183/16-17)

(g) the Editor, The Gaon (14/176/16-17)

(h) the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar (14/162/16-14)

(i) the Editor, Rajasthan Patrika (14/161/16-17)

(j) the Editor, Jansatta (14/159/16-17)

(k) the Editor, Punjab Kesari (14/160/16-17)

(l) the Editor, Indian Express (14/177/16-17)

(m) the Editor, Hind Times (14/184/16-17)

20 (a) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. to Election Commission of India regarding

Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Rajasthan, 2013 against

(1) the Editor, Kalptaru Express (14/146/14-15).

(2) The Editor, Rashtradoot Rajasthan (14/926/14-15).

(3) The Editor, Dainik Bhor (14/932/14-15).

(4) The Editor, Punjab Kesari (14/930/14-15)

(5) The Editor, Bureau Sandesh, Rajasthan (14/931/14-15)

(6) The Editor, Dainik Bhaskar (14/928/14-15)

(7) The Editor, Samachar Jagar, Rajasthan (14/929/14-15)

(8) The Editor, Rajasthan Patrika (14/927/14-15)

(9) The Editor, Dainik Navjyoti (14/933/14-15)

(10) The Editor, Dainik Jagran (14/849/14-15)

(11) The Editor, Dainik Aas Pass, Rajasthan (14/934/14-15)

(12) The Editor, Mail Today, (14/935/14-15)

(13) The Editor, Asian Age (14/936/14-15)

(14) The Editor, Rajasthan Patrika (14/937/14-15)

(15) The Editor, Punjab Kesari (14/938/14-15)

(16) The Editor, Indian Express (14/939/14-15)

(17) The Editor, Hindustan (14/940/14-15)

20 (b) Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, U.S. to Election Commission of India regarding

Legislative Assembly of Delhi, 2015 against the various newspapers (14/996/14-5).

(b1) The Editor, Dainik Jagran (14/190/14-15)

(c) The Editor, Ratnagiri Times, (14/736/14-15)

(d) The Editor, Hindustan (14/850/14-15)

(e) The Editor, Jan Sandesh (14/851/14-15)

(f) The Editor, ChaugamakiAwaz (14/845/14-15)

(g) The Editor, Royal Bulletin (14/876/14-15)

(h) The Editor, Hindustan (14/879/14-15)

(i) The Editor, Mudgal Times (14/881/14-15)

(j) The Editor, SachchaiKaKhulasa (14/882/14-15)

(k) The Editor, Aaj (14/883/14-15)

(l). The Editor, Rashtriya Sahara (14/892/14-15)

(m). The Editor, Dainik Prayan, (14/896/14-15)

(n) The Editor, Royal Bulletin (14/900/14-15)

(o) The Editor, Dainik Jankarm, 14/908/14-15

(p) The Editor, Dainik KeloPravah (14/909/14-15)

(q) The Editor, Mahanagar Mail, 14/913/14-15

(r) The Editor, Dainik Naya India (14/917/14-15)

(s) The editor, Dausa Gazette (14/925/14-15)

Inquiry Committee meeting held on January 9-10, 2017 at New Delhi

21 Complaint of Shri Saurabh Swami, Regional P.F. Commissioner, Grade II, EPFO, Haryana against the Editor, Times of India, New Delhi. (14/301/16-17)

22 Complaint of Shri Krishan Kumar, President, SirsaBardana Manufacturer, Haryana against the Editor, Total Haryana News (14/309/16-17)

23 Complaint of Shri Harish Sharma, Counsellor, Panipat, Haryana against the Editor, Sughav Vani, Panipat, Haryana.

24 Complaint of Shri Ashok Singh, Jalore, Rajasthan against the Editor, MarwadPrahari, Jalore, Rajasthan (14/368/16-17-PCI)

25 Complaint of Shri Kiran Singh, New Delhi against the Editor, Punjab Kesari.(14/218/16-17)

26 Complaint of The Kalgidhar Trust, New Delhi against the Editor Amar Ujala (14/195/16-17)

27 Complaint of Shri Alok Bhatnagar &MukeshBabu, New Delhi against the Editor, Inderprastha News (14/214/16-17)

28 Complaint of Shri Kedarnath Saini, Incharge, RajkiyaKrishi Beej Bhandar, Hilauli, UP against the Editor, Dainik Jagran (14/264/16-17)

29 Complaint of Shri Chandra Prakash Yadav, SantKabir Nagar, UP against the Editor, Dainik Jagran (14/327/2016-17-PCI)

30 Complaint of Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Janakpuri, Delhi against the Editor, Hindustan (14/632/15-16)

31 Complaint of Col. Shivraj, Convenor, Poster Hatao Campaign, New Delhi against the Editor, Times of India, Delhi (14/266/16-17)

32 Complaint of S/Shri Rajinder Singh and Darshan Singh, Punjab against the Editor, Daily Ajit, Punjab (14/153/16-17)

33 Complaint of Shri Mukesh Sharma, Uttarakhand against the Editor, Amar Ujala (14/282/16-17)

Inquiry Committee meeting held on February 6-7, 2017 at Kolkata

34 Complaint of Shri Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, Kolkata against the Editor, Anand Bazar Patrika, Kolkata. (14/105/15-16)

35 Complaint of Shri Ashok Kumar Datta, West Bengal against the Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika

for publishing advertisements in contravention of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

(14/369/15-16)

36 Complaint of Dr.Dipyendu K. Roy, Kolkata against the Editor, Patrika. (14/624/15-16)

37 Complaint of Shri Yunus Patel, Indore, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Prabhat Kiran.

(14/336/16-17)

38 Complaint of Shri Aditya Narayan Singh, Patna, Bihar against the Editor, Dainik Jagran and

Hindustan, Patna, Bihar. (14/399-400/16-17-PCI)

39 Complaint of Smt, Usha, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh against the Editor, Shabd Exclusive.

(14/281/16-17)

40 Complaint of the Public Relations Officer, Municipal Corporation of Gwalior, MP against the

Editor, NaiDuniya. (14/254/16-17)

41. Complaint of the Public Relations Officer, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, MP against the

Dainik Bhaskar. (14/275/16-17)

42. Complaint of Dr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Vice Chancellor, Meghalaya against the Editor, Shillong

Times (14/172/16-17)


Sl. No. 1-2

F.No. 14/135/16-17 -PCI

14/180/16-17-PCI

14/168/16-17-PCI

14/167/16-17-PCI

14/169/16-17-PCI

14/171/16-17-PCI

14/165/16-17-PCI

14/166/16-17-PCI

14/170/16-17-PCI

14/179/16-17-PCI

Complainant Vs. Respondent

Shri P.K. Singh, IFS,

Chief Conservator of Forests,

Forest Deptt. of Madhya Pradesh

Bhopal

The Editors,

1. Dainik Bhaskar, (Gwalior &

Shivpuri Edition), M.P.

2.

3. Nav Duniya, Bhopal Edition, M.P.

4.

5. Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal Edition, M.P.

6.

7. Dainik Bhaskar, Ujjain Edition, M.P.

8.

9. Dainik Bhaskar, Sagar Edition, M.P.

Dainik Bhaskar, Indore

Edition, M.P.

Dainik Bhaskar, Satna Edition,

M.P.

Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur

Edition, Chhatisgarh,

Nai Duniya, Indore Edition,

M.P.

Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur

Edition, M.P.

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

This complaint dated 31.5.2016 has been filed by Shri P.K.Singh, Bhopal, against the

respondent editors, of newspapers as per details given below for allegedly publishing

fabricated, baseless and false news in their issues dated 2.4.2016 in connivance with a

political leader with an intention of defaming him as per following captions:

Bhrashtachaar ke aarop mein bifre IFS Officer, Mauganj

Vidhayak ne mare thappad

Dainik Bhaskar,

(Gwalior & Shivpuri

Edition), M.P.

Riva se congress vidhayak ne ki CCF ki pitayi Nav Duniya, Bhopal

Edition, M.P.

IFS officer ko vidhayak ne mare thappad Dainik Bhaskar,

Bhopal Edition, M.P.

IFS officer ko Mauganj vidhyak ne sareaam jade thappad Dainik Bhaskar,

Ujjain Edition, M.P.

IFS ko vidhayak ne sareaam mare thappad Dainik Bhaskar,

Sagar Edition, M.P.

IFS officer ko Mauganj vidhyak ne sareaam jade thappad Dainik Bhaskar,

Indore Edition, M.P.

IFS officer ko vidhyak ne sareaam jade thappad Dainik Bhaskar,

Satna Edition, M.P.

IFS officer ko vidhyak ne sareaam jade thappad Dainik Bhaskar,

Raipur Edition,

Chhatisgarh,

Riva se congress vidhayak ne CCF Singh ko peeta Nai Duniya, Indore

Edition, M.P.

IFS officer ko vidhayak ne mare thappad Dainik Bhaskar,

Jabalpur Edition,

M.P.

It is reported in the impugned news reports that during an argument on issue of

corruption in Tiger Safari, an MLA slapped an IFS officer. The IFS officer has neither given

any statement nor has made complaint. The matter deteriorated further when the supporter

of MLA also joined him and manhandled the officer. The officer has not given any statement

nor filed complaint in this regard.

The complainant submitted that Madhya Pradesh govt. had started planned a Safari

Project at Mukundpur, District Satna of Rewa Division in 2012. That time the complainant

was posted as a Chief Conservator of Forests and the construction work of Mukundpur Safari

started under his technical guidance which was appreciated. The incident mentioned in

impugned news related to a general discussion held at station when he was returning to

Bhopal by Rewanchal Express and he was telling his fellow colleagues that cut motion is the

privilege of every MLA and it can be raised in Assembly by any member and they should

never respond and “we should not have unwanted talk with any member of legislative

Assembly”(sic). At the same time Mr. Suhkhendra Singh Banna, MLA (to whom the

complainant was not familiar with but later introduced by other person to him) told that he

(MLA) has raised a cut motion in the Assembly, and then the complainant told that it was his

(MLA) privilege. After that the complainant and MLA had dispersed from Rewa station.

According to the complainant, this was the only incident that happened and there was no

incident of manhandling and abusive talks between MLA and the complainant. But the

respondent has published totally opposite, contradictory and false news which is beyond

truth. Had such incident occurred, the complainant would had lodged the complaint at

Police Station against MLA, who had tried to achieve the false publicity by boasting of

slapping him (complainant).

The complainant added that he is an honest, hardworking and duty bound officer,

known for his excellent contribution in the Department of Forest, Madhya Pradesh but the

respondent has tarnished his image locally, nationally and globally with nexus and criminal

conspiracy of MLA and media without knowing the facts.

The complainant vide notices dated 12.5.2016 drew the attention of the respondents

to publish the unconditional apology in all the editions in print and e-editions and in all

those places and pages in which he has published the defamatory news but received no

response.

Show Cause Notices issued to the respondent Editors, 1) Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior &

Shivpuri Edition, 2) Nav Duniya, Bhopal, 3) Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal, 4) Dainik Bhaskar, Ujjain,

5) Dainik Bhaskar, Sagar, 6) Dainik Bhaskar, Indore, 7) Dainik Bhaskar, Satna, 8) Dainik

Bhaskar, Raipur, Chhatisgarh, 9) NaiDuniya, Indore, 10) Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur on

29.6.2016, 1.8.2016, 27.7.2016, 29.7.2016, 28.7.2016, 29.7.2016, 27.7.2016, 29.7.2016,

1.8.2016, 29.7.2016 respectively.

Written Statement of Satna and Jabalpur

The respondent, Dainik Bhaskar, Satna and Jabalpur edition vide letter dated

10.8.2016 submitted that the impugned news item was prepared by Shri Anil Gupta,

Correspondent of Dainik Bhaskar, Bhopal and selection/publication of the same was carried

out by the Editor as well. It was published in the Satna and Jabalpur edition believing to be

true without manipulating or editing the report, so the accountability lies only upon the

correspondent and editor of Bhopal. Further, it is clear from the published Satna and

Jabalpur edition that the correspondent of Bhopal edition had verified the facts from the MLA

and published his version accordingly. The respondent added that Shri Anil told him on the

phone that the complainant did not cooperate to give information about the incident. When

the complainant was contacted for information in his mobile, he had disconnected the call

several times and thereafter then gave phone to his servant who intimated that the

complainant does not want to talk.

Written Statement of NavDuniya

The respondent vide its letter dated 28.9.2016 submitted that the impugned report

was published in public interest, on the basis of the statement given by the MLA. The

complainant was also contacted for comments but he was not available and the report had

been published accordingly on the basis of verified documents and reliable information.

The authenticity of the event can be substantiated through the written complaint lodged by

the MLA to the Chairman of Vidhan Sabha, Bhopal against the complainant allegedly for

misbehavior and manhandling him on 26.5.2016. The respondent submitted that the

complainant has tried to mislead the Council deliberately by hiding the facts. The

complainant never reacted or contacted the respondent after publishing the report. Had the

complainant contacted, the respondent, his comments would have also published in the

newspaper but he remained quiet in this regard. The impugned report was not published to

defame or malign anyone but about the acts of the leaders in public interest on the basis of

facts while adhering to journalistic norms.

Order of Inquiry Committee on 8.9.2016

The Inquiry Committee in its meeting held on 8.9.2016 at New Delhi passed the

order/directions “The Inquiry Committee notes that there are other cases also which were

filed by Shri P.K. Singh in the Secretariat of the Council. It directs the Secretariat to tag this

case with the other cases of Shri P.K.Singh. The matter accordingly stands adjourned.”

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 14.12.2016 at

Lucknow. Dr. Hemant Kumar Chand appeared on behalf of the complainant. Shri R.K. Dubey

appeared for Nai Duniya and Shri Gyanprasad Yadav appeared for Dainik Bhaskar.

The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of both the parties. It is the assertion

of the complainant that he was not assaulted by the MLA bit such news was published in

various editions of the respondent newspaper. It is the stand of the respondent that such an

incident had taken place and the MLA had claimed that he assaulted the complainant and he

never sent any contradiction to that.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is

of the opinion that no case for taking action against the respondent newspaper is made out.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

Held

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

Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to

dismiss the complaint.


Sl. No. 3 F.No.14/27/16-17-PCI.

Complainant Respondents

Shri Gyandas, Monk

Akhil Bhartiya Ramanandiya Nirvani Akhada,

Sagariya Patti, Hanuman Gadhi,

Ayodhya, Faizabad, U.P.

The Editor,

Dainik Zimmedar,

Faizabad, U.P.

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

This undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on 4.4.2016 has

been filed by Shri Gyandas, Monk, Akhil Bhartiya Ramanandiya Nirvani Akhada, Sagariya

Patti, Hanuman Gadhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad, U.P. against the editor, Dainik Zimmedar,

Faizabad, U.P. allegedly for publication of false, baseless and derogatory news items and

also for blackmailing by the editor. The impugned captions are as follows:

Sl. No. Caption Issue dated

1. महंत ज्ञानदास का मखु्तार मनोज आठ वर्षो से रहस्यमय तरीके से है गायब ?

3.1.2016

2. महंत ज्ञानदास के आवास की खुदाई हो तो पता चलेगा लापता मखु्तार मनोज की गमुशदुगी रहस्य – महंत अवदराम दास

10.1.2016

3. दो-दो आतकंवादी घटनाओ का प्रहार अयोध्या में हो चुका, लेककन हनमुानगढी के श्रीमहंतों को अवधै वसलूी प्यारी है ?

12.2.2016

4. हुटर बजाने वाले थानेदार के ववरुद्ध सीओ अयोध्या ने की जांच शरुू 18.2.2016

5. महंत रंगनाथचायय ने श्री 420 महंत ज्ञानदास की गगरफ्तारी की मांग 20.2.2016 6. काननू से बड़ा कोई नहीं – डॉ सम्राट – महंत ज्ञानदास की हो जल्द

गगरफ्तारी 21.2.2016

7. श्री 420 महंत ज्ञानदास क्या गौरीशकंरदास को करेंग ेननष्कावर्षत ? 10.3.2016 8. अयोध्या हनमुानगढ़ी के नागापनी समारोह मे बार-बालाओ का जमके

हुआ डांस, अयोध्या हुई शर्मिंदा 21.3.2016

It has been reported in the in first impugned news item dated 3.1.2016 that the monks

of Ayodhya have their own lawyers for their cases as well as their personal service. It has

been further reported that Monk, Shri Gyandas also has his lawyer, Shri Manoj Shrivastava

who lives in the temple premise and is mysteriously missing from last eight years.

In the second impugned news item dated 10.1.2016, it has been reported that Monk

Shri Gyandas is fond of girls like Bapu Asharam and lawyer, Shri Manoj Shrivastava supplies

girls to him. It has been also reported that if anything got wrong, he kills the girls and buries

them in his house. It has been further reported that digging in his house will reveal the truth.

In the third impugned news item dated 12.2.2016, it has been reported that the monk

runs a illegal parking business in the courtyard of Rajkiya Shri Hanumant Sanskrit University

for last eight years.

In the fourth and fifth impugned news item dated 18.2.2016 and 20.2.2016, it has been

reported that Shri Gyandas made a setting with the local police and gave Rs. 5,000/- to the

police for playing the hooter.

In the sixth impugned news item dated 21.2.2016, it has been reported that the

shooters of Shri Gyandas want to spread terror in the Ayodhya.

In the seventh impugned news item dated 10.3.2016, it has been reported that despite

being defamed in the society, why does Shri Gyandas has not expelled Shri Gaurishankar

from Hanumangadhi?

In the eight impugned news item dated 21.3.2016, it has been reported that during a

program in Nagapani, the monk spread bunch of notes over the lady bar dancers who

performed in the function.

The complainant alleged that the respondent by publishing these series of impugned

news item defamed the monks of Ayodhya and also defamed his image/reputation in the

society. He has stated that the impugned news items are false, baseless and derogatory. He

further stated that due to these publications, he is in mental stress which has jeopardised his

health. He has stated that he contacted the respondents and explained the real position but

despite that the respondent continued to publish against him. The complainant has

requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent.

A Show Cause Notice was issued on 17.8.2016 to the respondent editor, Faizabad,

U.P.

Written Statement

The respondent Shri Harishakar Safrivala, Chief Editor, Dainik Zimmedar in his

written statement dated 9.8.2016 has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and

stated that the complaint is absolutely baseless. He has stated that Monk Shri Narendra Giri

is in favour of Prime Minister Shri Modi and Monk Shri Gyandas hated Shri Modi, this is the

reason Shri Gyandas is against Shri Narendra Giri. He alleged that this complaint is nothing

but an eyewash in order to hide the truth. He has stated that if there is any truth in these

allegations then why did he not registered an FIR. He further alleged that the complainant

has filed a false Declaration before the Council as a Cr. Case no. 10/16 u/s 420/506 is

pending against the complainant before the ACJM-I Court. He has further stated that the

complainant also filed a case against Shri Mahendra Tripathi, President, Press Club.

Counter Comments

The complaint in his counter comments 29.9.2016, while denying the statements made

in the written statement by the respondent, stated that he is neither related to any political

party nor against any political party. He has further stated that there is no personal grudge

with Monk Shri Narendra Giri as alleged in the written statement. The complainant has

submitted that he sent notices to the respondents as also the persons whose names are

mentioned in the impugned news items. His advocate received replies from Shri

Ranganathcharya vide letter dated 2.4.2016 and from Mohd. Aslam Khan vide letter dated

9.3.2016 in response to the aforesaid notice and they both stated that their names have been

used in the news item without their information. He also stated that he has no criminal history

nor he found involved in any criminal acts as alleged by the respondent in his written

statement. He alleged that since he had not fulfilled a demand of Rs. 20 lakhs of the

respondent, the respondent published these baseless news items against him. He further

submitted that he never saw Shri Sankata Prasad Mishr and he is not even related to Shri

Mishr whose name is mentioned by the respondent in his written statement. He further stated

that no other civil or criminal case against the respondent has ever been filed before any

other Court after filing this complaint before the Council.



Lucknow. Mahant Gyan Das, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Harishankar

Safrivala, Chief Editor appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant as also the respondent and has

perused the complaint, the written statement and all other connected papers. On perusal of

various news items, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper

has used intemperate language in general against the complainant in particular.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for disposal of the complaint with

the direction to the respondent to be careful in future.

Held



dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid direction.


F.NO. 14/181/16-17-PCI

Sl. no. 4

Complainant Respondent

Shri Kamal Sharma,

OSD Kuladhipati,

TeerthankerMahaveer University,

Delhi Road, Muradabad, UP.

The Editor

Parivartan Ka Daur

Muradabad, UP.

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

This complaint dated 17.06.2016 has been filed by the Chancellor, Teerthanker

Mahaveer University, Moradabad, UP against the Editor Shri Pawan Agarwal from Parivartan

Ki Daur, Moradabad, UP. The complainant has submitted that the editor of the respondent

newspaper is trying to malign the reputation of Teerthanker Mahaveer University,

Muradabad by publishing series of allegedly false, fabricated, misleading and malicious

news items in its issue dated 25.04.2016 captioned “Teerthanker Mahaveer University me

dafan hua Neeraj Bhadana hatyakhand”, wherein the paper has presented various facts

while analysing the mysterious death of a student in the University premises. In another

news item dated

02.05.2016 captioned “TMU ki Practical Lab me khap rahi lawaris lashein” & “Suresh Jain ne

opening se pehlay bandh karaya medical”, it has been represented that the University has

been illegally using unclaimed dead bodies in its Medical College, The other news item

alleges that the Chancellor of University doesn’t let anyone to open medical store in its

vicinity and the University sells medicine at higher price and in the same issue with another

caption “TMU prakaran: Moradabad ke muh par puth gaye Kalikh” the newspaper had

allegedly published defamatory contents against the higher authorities of the University”.

Again, in its issue dated 14.5.2016 captioned “TMU ke Suresh Jain ke muh per laga katl ka ek

aur kalank” the article covers another death case that has occurred in the university

premises in which a medical student from West Bengal “named Diksha was found hanging in

her hostel room and the newspaper has accused the Chancellor of the University Mr. Suresh

Jain who had allegedly tried to project the murder case as a suicide case to the outsiders in

the same issue the newspaper has also alleged that the aforesaid University is involved in

human organs trade. Again in its issue dated 26.5. 2016, captioned “Balatkar ke bad hui thi

Diksha aur Neeraj bhadana ki hatya” the newspaper under this caption alleged that the two

girls were murdered as they got to know the secret of Mr. Suresh Jain and his illegal

business and Parivartan Ka Daur will continue its fight for justice against the killings of the

innocent students in the University premise and other victims.

The complainant has accused the respondent newspaper for publishing malicious

and defamatory news against the higher authorities of the University and blackmailing them.

In this regard the University has also filed a complaint against the respondent newspaper

with District Magistrate, Moradabad and RNI, Delhi, recommending to pass an order for the

cancellation of the Registration of Parivartan Ka Daur. The Complainant further submits that

the respondent is misusing the press for his personal benefits and a person with this kind of

mind-set in the profession of journalism is dangerous for the society. The complainant

submitted that vide its Notice dated 01.06.2016, the University even warned the editor of

Paribartanki Daur and had asked the editor to stop publishing malicious news items against

the University. The complainant has requested the Council to take appropriate action

against the respondent newspaper.

No reply from the respondent

A Show Cause Notice dated 02.08.2016 was issued to the editor of the respondent

newspaper to file a reply to which the Editor of Parivartan Ka Daur has requested for copies

of complaints and had requested for some time for filing their reply. On 14.11.2016, the

respondent editor filed its written statement alleging that the complaint is bogus and is

liable to be rejected and the complainant had failed to present any particulars in his

complaint that proves that the published news items are objectionable. The respondent

further submitted that before filling the complaint with the Council, the Complainant did not

write his grievance to the editor expressing his objections against impugned articles and

had filed a case against him (the respondent editor) in the Court; hence the Declaration

submitted by the complainant is wrong. Regarding impugned news articles, the respondent

submitted that the same were related to events that had occurred during a particular period

of time and none of the publications were published out of any personal grudge or with an

intention to hurt anyone’s sentiment. The respondent further informed the Council, that the

same events were also covered by other newspapers and if needed he (the respondent

editor) can submit the news clippings of other dailies covering the same event. Hence, the

respondent states that the complaint is baseless and frivolous and has been filed with an

intention to harass the respondent.



Lucknow. Shri Ambrish Singh Yadav, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant. The

respondent has sent an application for adjournment of the case.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the reply of the respondent and

all other connected papers. It seems that the complainant has resorted to a criminal

proceeding against the respondent in respect of the news items which are the subject

matters of this complaint.

In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the

matter any further. The Inquiry Committee would, however, to cautions, the complainant for

filing a false declaration.

The Inquiry Committee, taking note of the aforesaid fact, recommends for dismissal of

the complaint.

Held




PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 5 F.No.14/207/16-17-PCI


Dr. K.S. Gupta,

Senior Consultant,

Orthopaedic Department,

District Hospital, Bareilly, U.P.

The Editor,

Dainik Jagran

Bareilly.

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

This complaint dated 20.7.2016 has been filed by Dr. K.S. Gupta, Senior Consultant,

Orthopaedic Department, District Hospital, Bareilly against the editor, Dainik Jagran,

Bareilly alleging publication of a series of false, baseless, concocted and defamatory news

items which read as follows:

S.No. Caption Dated

1. Since Doctor Gupta is senior he will not treat the

patients

6.5.2016

2. Dr. K.S. Gupta has been entrapped in a Bribe taking

and he was prima facie found guilty

8.5.2016

3. BJP follows opened front against doctors 15.5.2016

4. CB CID will enquire into the charges against Dr.

K.S. Gupta

24.5.2016

5. Dr. K.S. Gupta entrapped in Diesel scam 27.5.2016

6. Preparation to make J.D. an accused in corruption

case

28.5.2016

It is reported in the first news item that Orthopaedic Doctor K.S. Gupta (Complainant)

is senior to CMS of the Hospital so he does his work in his own way and he is not ready to

listen even if the patient standing in queue for long time groaning with pain. Patients allege

that the Doctor was not giving time to them.

In the second news item it has been reported that a Committee was formed to

enquire into the charges of taking bribe and misbehaviour against the complainant. Prima

facie doctor was found guilty and the enquiry committee recorded his statement also and

team would send his report to senior officer within a day or two.

In the third news item it has been reported that the difficulties of Dr. Gupta of District

Hospital, Bareilly and that of Dr.Nirmal are not going to be reduced as BJP workers are now

vocal against the Doctor’s misbehaviour and they demand money doing operation. They

have opened a front against both the doctors and have submitted a representation to District

Magistrate to improve the system of the Hospital.

It is reported in the fourth news item that CBCID may now conduct enquiry into the

charges of corruption levelled against Dr. Gupta. This has been indicated by Chief Minister

on the complaint made by a leader of Lohiya Vahini and the Chief Minister made it clear that

in enquiry, if found guilty, action against the doctor is certain. It is also reported in the

impugned news item that some employees of the hospital gave their representations to

Chief Minister against Dr.Nirmal and very serious charges were made against him also and

Chief Minister gave assurance to take action after enquiry.

It is reported in the fifth news item that the name of Dr. Gupta has come to light in a

diesel scam and this has been disclosed in the RTI reply. The matter has reached the CBI

which is investigating the NHRM Scam. Dr. Gupta was posted as Medical In-charge, Bilaspur

in the year 2005-2008.

It is reported in the sixth news item that many serious charges including that of

corruption are levelled against the Doctor posted in District Hospital, now the senior officers

of Health Department are considering to promote him to the post of A.D. It is also reported

in the impugned news item that government has called for some information from

Directorate and until the enquiry of the charges is completed, the Doctor’s dream of being

J.D. or A.D. is not going to be true.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items the complainant

submitted that the news items are false and fictitious to defame him in the eyes of the public,

family and friends. The complainant submitted that there was huge rush of patients so there

was a long queue and patients were examined and attended to. The complainant stated that

no enquiry is being conducted and he had not even seen the patient who made allegations

against him and no one levelled charges against him. The complainant also submitted that

the expenditure of money on diesel is not much, the expenditure is shown in the RTI report

is probably the expenditure made on Diesel on whole of the District and there is nothing like

scam. The complainant vide letter dated 31.5.2016 drew the attention of the respondent

towards the impugned news reports and requested him to tender an unconditional written

apology and publish correction withdrawing all allegations, but no response has been

received.

No written statement

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly on

22.8.2016. No response has been received so far.



Lucknow. Shri Rajesh Kumar Raja appeared for the complainant while Shri Shusheel

appeared for the respondent.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the representative of the complainant as also the

respondent. The Inquiry Committee has also perused the complaint, the reply and all other

connected papers. On perusal of the news item, the Inquiry Committee finds that the version

of the complainant is also incorporated in that. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that

the respondent newspaper, while publishing the impugned news item, has not committed

any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for any action.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the dismissal of the complaint.

Held





Sl. No. 6 F.No.14/158/16-17-PCI.

Complainant Respondents

Shri A.K. Singh

Leiutenant Colonel,

Officer Commanding,

Supply Depot, Bareilly

The Editor,

Dainik Jagran

Kanpur

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

This complaint dated 23.6.2016 has been filed by the Shri A.K. Singh. Lt. Colonel,

Officer Commanding, Bareilly against the editor, Dainik Jagran, Bareilly edition, Kanpur for

publication of allegedly false and baseless news item in its issue dated 22.6.2016 under the

caption “सेना के सप्लाई डिपो मे दाल घोटाला”.

It has been reported in the impugned news item that the Army Depot purchase ration

including dals at local rates and this is done through online procurement. It has been further

reported in the box news that goods of army canteen sell at open market.

Denying the allegations, the complainant stated that the news is absolutely false and

based on complaint of one individual vendor, Mr. Bharat Aggarwal of India Caters, 35/A-7,

Civil Lines, Barielly. It has been learnt that the news has been published by the press

reporter, Mr. Sajid Raja Khan of the said newspaper probably at the behest of the vendor

without substantiating it. He further stated that from the choice of words in the news, it

appears that the individual reporter is causing expression and attributing motives to an

organisation without which also the facts known to him could have been said. He alleged that

the reporter has mixed up the facts albeit wrongly and used words that amounts to defaming

the organisation like Indian Army. He has submitted that the facts have been grossly

misreported and his side of story has not been published. He has further submitted that the

news report not only portrays an elite organisation like Indian Army in poor light but also has

adverse impact on the sentiments of the soldiers. The complainant has requested that the

matter be investigated in the right earnest and action initiated against the erring press

reporter and the irresponsible editorial staff of the newspaper for publication of such

unverified news against the Army without substantial evidence.

No Written Statement

A Show Cause Notice was issued on 28.7.2016 to the respondent editor, Dainik Jagran,

Kanpur but no written statement has been filed so far. Since the complainant, sent rebuttal to

the respondent editor on 22.6.2016, the Council vide its letter dated 23.11.2016 enquired

whether his rebuttal was published by the respondent editor or not and if published whether

he is satisfied with that but no response has been received so far.



Lucknow. Shri A.K. Singh, the complainant appeared in person along with Subedar, Shri Anil

Kumar while Shri Susheel appeared for the respondent.

This complaint has been filed by the Officer Commanding, Supply Depot, Bareilly.

The Inquiry Committee has heard Subedar Anil Singh who has been authorised by him. The

Inquiry Committee has also perused the complaint and all the connected papers. The

impugned news item has been published on the basis of complaint made by one Mr. Bharat

Agarwal. The respondent newspaper has also prominently published the rebuttal given by

the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the

matter any further.


Held





F.NO. 14/134/16-17-PCI

Sl. no. 7


Smt. Yamini Krishna Chattar,

Assistant Director,

Local Fund Audit Department,

Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya,

Jabalpur, MP.

The Editor

Nai Dunia

Jabalpur, MP.

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

This complaint dated 23.05.2016 has been filed by Smt. Yamini Krishna Chattar,

Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya,

Jabalpur, MP, against the Editor of Nai Dunia, Jabalapur, MP, for allegedly publishing

baseless and false news against the complainant with an intention to defame her, in its issue

dated 29.04.2016 and 1.05.2016 titled “Professor ki sikayat par audit vibhag adhikari ke

yahan chhapa” and “Officer se japt bilo ki jaanch puri, sikayat audit vibhag pahuchi”

respectively. In the first impugned news item it has been reported that Smt. Yamini Chattar,

RAD Audit Department has stopped the payment of two hundred bills amounting to more

than crore from January to March. The payment has been stopped for want of commission. In

the impugned news item dated 1.05.2016, the newspaper reported that on the complaint

received against Smt. Yamini Chattar, the Joint Director, Audit Dept., Jawahar Lal Nehru

Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, MP, has taken pending bills in his custody to take

appropriate action. The complainant added that vide letter dated 20.04.2016 the complainant

had asked the respondent newspaper to publish the clarification with an apology in their

newspaper for publishing biased and untrue news item. However she did not receive any

response and therefore, approached this Council for remedy.

Written statement filed by the respondent

A Show Cause Notice dated 28.07.2016 has been issued to the editor of the

respondent newspapers to file a reply. The respondent newspaper vide his its written

statement stated that news items are based on the investigation of the raid and seizing bills

carried out by the Audit Department under the direction of the Assistant Director and hence

contains verified facts and had submitted that the newspaper does not have any personal

grudge against the complainant. Accordingly, pleaded before the Council for the disposal of

the matter.



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

respondent is represented by Shri R.K. Dubey.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint, the written statement and all the

connected papers. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper

by publishing the impugned news item has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics

so as to call for action.


Held




Press Council of India Sl. No. 8 F.No. 14/42/16-17-PCI

Shri Paris Deshmukh, District Superintendent of Police, Barmer, Rajasthan

The Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

This complaint dated 18.4.2016 has been filed by Shri Paris Deshmukh, District

Superintendent of Police, Barmer (Rajasthan) against “Dainik Bhaskar”alleging

publication of false and baseless news item along with photographs under the caption

“Border ke thaano se jaaniye hamari suraksha ka sach – sarhad hai ! khatra yahi

se, par thaano ke jawan gan chalana to dur, load karna bhi nahi jaante” in its issue

dated 17.4.2016. It was reported in the impugned news item that Dainik Bhaskar team

visited six police stations of two Border districts namely Barmer and Jaisalmer where

they were shocked to find that police stations had insufficient weapons and further

morethe police personnels posted there, do not know how to operate or even load them.

While denying the allegations, the complainant has submitted that the police

personnel’s are well trained in operating all the weapons and despite that the

respondent has published false news. The complainant has alleged that the respondent

tarnished the image of the police by publishing the impugned news item which has also

created a sense of insecurity amongst the people which is not in national interest. The

complainant alleged that respondent paper did no pre-publication verification before

publishing impugned news.

The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 18.4.2016 but no reply

was received.


Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur

on 5.7.2016 but received no reply.



Lucknow. Despite service of notice, nobody has chosen to appear.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and the connected papers and

is of the opinion that the respondent newspaper by publishing the impugned news item

has not committed any breach of journalistic ethics so as to call for action.


Held

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

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

and decided to dismiss the complaint.


Sl.No. 9 F.No. 14/216/2016-17-PCI

The Senior Superintendent

District Jail, Vs.

Muradabad, U.P.

The Editor,

Amar Ujala,

Aligarh, U.P.

ADJUDICATION

Dated: 3.3.2017

A complaint dated 28/7/2016 has been filed by Senior Superintendent, District Jail,

Muradabad against the newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’, U.P. for publishing false and misleading

news items in its edition dated 16.07.2016 and 17.07.2016 under the captions

“जजलाजेलकेअस्पतालमेंनेताकेगुगेनेककयारेप” and “जेलअस्पतालमेंरेपकीगूंजलखनऊतक”respectively.

It was reported in the impugned news item dated 16.07.2016 that a woman prisoner,

who was undergoing life imprisonment, was raped by a politician’s henchman inside

Moradabad District Jail and Jail Administration is trying to hush-up the matter. It is further

stated in the impugned news item that DM has inquired the matter from Superintendent of

Jail but he is trying to mislead. It is also stated in the news item that nobody dares to open

his mouth against that henchman under pressure.

In the second impugned news item dated 17.07.2016 it was reported that a woman

prisoner was taken to the Jail hospital from barrack without informing the Jail Administration.

She was in Jail hospital for five hours and Chief Head Warden of the Jail did not even inform

his seniors. The matter came into light when Senior Superintendent overheard the same and

he confirmed that the Chief Head Warden took that prisoner to hospital without informing

any of his seniors.

The complainant submitted that both the news items are false. He stated that on

10.07.2016 two female prisoners were taken to jail hospital for Medical treatment as a usual

routine i.e. as and when medical aid is required. On 15.07.2016 correspondent of Dainik

Amar Ujala called up to know as to why the Chief Warden was transferred from that barrack.

The complainant replied that since she had not apprised her senior before taking the female

prisoners for medical treatment, she has been transferred to other wing. The correspondent

did not even refer/mention about any rape in his conversation with him. The complainant

requested the Council to take necessary action against the newspaper, Amar Ujala.

A Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.10.2016 to the respondent Editor, Amar Ujala,

Uttar Pradesh but no Written Statement has been filed.

Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee


Lucknow.

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

is represented by Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary, Deputy Managar.

The Inquiry Committee has perused the complaint and all connected papers. The

Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further.


Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry

Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decided

for dismissal of the complaint.


Sl. No. 10 (a) F.No.14/142/14-15-PCI. Reference received from the Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding publication of paid news in the newspaper ‘National Duniya’, S. Madhopur during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Rajasthan – 2013

Adjudication Dated 3.3.2017

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi

vide letter No. 491/Paid News/2013/Vol-IV dated 26.3.2014 has forwarded a confirmed

case of paid news during General Election to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and

Rajasthan – 2013 published in the newspaper ‘National Duniya’, Swai Madhopur as per

details below:

Sl. No. Caption Issue dated

Cost of news item as per DIPR/DAVP rates that was accounted

1. Diya ne khayi baazre ki roti (photo clipping)

13.11.2013 Rs. 540/-

The newspaper has published a photograph of an election candidate, Ms. Diya

Kumari having food served by the villagers.


A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, National Duniya’,

Swai Madhopur on 7.7.2014 but same was received back undelivered. Thereafter, the

notice was served through Sub-District Election Office vide letter dated 4.8.2014 but no

written statement was filed.

The Election Commission of India has forwarded a copy of the minutes of the

MCMC in respect of all newspapers including National Duniya published from Madhopur

covering election campaign of the candidate, Ms. Diya Kumari.


The matter came up forhearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2016 at

Lucknow. There was no appearance either on behalf of the ECI or on behalf of the

respondent, despite service of notice.

The Inquiry Committee notes that this proceeding was initiated on the basis of

communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary,

Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid

news against the newspaper ‘National Duniya’ in its issue dated 13.11.2014.

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

follows:

“Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid

news ought to have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”

The Inquiry Committee has perused the impugned news item in the light of the

aforesaid principles. From the contents, tenor and manner of presentation of the

impugned news item, it is difficult for the Inquiry Committee to come to the conclusion

that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal of the case.

Held



and decided to Dismiss the case.


Sl. No. 10 (b) F. No. 14/97/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of

India regarding alleged publication of Paid News in newspaper “Aaj Samaj” on

19.11.2013, 24.11.2013 and 29.11.2013 for General Elections to Legislative Assembly of

Delhi- 2013

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide

letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’

against the newspaper “Aaj Samaj” for allegedly publishing paid news captioned “Bhram

faila rahi Bhajpa” “Nangloi mein milegi vikaas ko jeet, Dr. Bijendra Singh” and “Lovely

ne raghuvarpura aur seelampur ka daura kiya” in its issues dated 19.11.2013, 24.11.2013

and 29.11.2013 respectively during General Elections of Legislative Assembly of Delhi -

2013 in favour of the Congress and BJP.

It is reported in the news report dated 29.11.2013 that Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely,

Urban Development Minister and Congress candidate from Gandhinagar said in a function

at Seelampur that BJP wants to confuse the public by raising false issues. The candidates of

BJP and AAP have no concern for social work. The BJP is showing hoarding posters on the

issue of electricity whereas in BJP ruling states, the electricity is costlier than Delhi; the

Congress has given subsidy in electricity. The Congress has set up electricity grids in the

Kailash Nagar, Kirti Nagar and Multani Mohalla. Shri Lovely apprised the public about the

achievements made by the Congress during the last five years. Shri Lovely in a function at

Seelampur said that no development has taken place in any legislative Assembly other than

Gandhinagar. He also said that 14 thousand people are provided pension in Gandhinagar.

The copy of impugned clipping dated 19.11.2013 and 24.11.2013 furnished by the

ECI is not legible. A letter dated 2.12.2016 issued to ECI to provide a fresh copy.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Aaj Samaj, Delhi on

23.6.2014 and received back with postal remarks “Left”. The Council vide letter dated

15.07.2014 requested the Deputy Commissioner, South District, Saket, Delhi to deliver the

said Notice through his postal agency and inform accordingly to take further action but no

written statement was filed.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the

ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under

the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of

MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii)

Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news.

Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 29.5.2015 for providing the

aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received

in this case in spite of subsequent reminder dated 3.7.2015.






communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election

Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against

the newspaper ‘Aaj Samaj’ in its issues dated 19.11.2013, 24.11.2013 and 29.11.2013.


follows:

“Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of

a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a

clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is

difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it

is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the

process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of

publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine

the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely,

because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot

be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political

coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad

journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion

that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the

conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an

honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be

paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One

has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of

particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not

amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when

the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to

establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and

therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid

news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to

have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings

would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”

The subject matter of this complaint is three news items published in the respondent

newspapers Aaj Samaj on 19.11.2013, 24.11.2013 and 29.11.2013. The news items dated

19.11.2013 and 24.11.2013 which have been furnished to the Council are not legible and

therefore the Inquiry Committee is unable to express any opinion as to whether they are

paid news or not.

However, on perusal of the impugned news item dated 29.11.2013 in the light of the

aforesaid principle, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that it does not fall within the

mischief of paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for its dismissal.

Held



Dismissthe case.


Sl. No. 10 (c) F.No.14/109/14-15-PCI. Reference received from the Election Commission of India, New Delhi regarding publication of paid news in the newspaper ‘Bharat Sameep’, Delhi during General Elections to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Rajasthan – 2013

Adjudication Dated 3.3.2017

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi

vide letter No. 491/Paid News/2013/Vol-IV dated 26.3.2014 has forwarded a confirmed

case of paid news during General Election to Legislative Assembly of Delhi and

Rajasthan – 2013 published in the newspaper ‘Bharat Sameep’ as per details below:

Sl. No. Caption Issue dated Cost of news item

as per DIPR/DAVP rates that

was accounted

1. B.S.P. kepratyashiavinashguptakechunaavkaryalayakaudghatan

23.11.2013 to 30.11.2013

Rs. 11,040/-

2. ArunJetiely ne kiyasubhashsachdevakekaralayakaudgahatan

23.11.2013 to 30.11.2013

Rs. 21,030/-

Both news items report about the election campaigning done by the BSP and

BJP for their respective candidates. The news items sent by the ECI cannot be clearly

read.

No Written Statement A Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-editor, ‘Bharat Sameep,

Delhi on 27.6.2014 but no written statement was filed.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing on March 11-12, 2015 the paid

news cases references by the ECI at Tirupati observed that to ascertain the paid news

cases under the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i)

Constitution of MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in

MCMCs and (iii) Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding

them to be paid news and (v) English translation of the publications, if any. Accordingly,

Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the aforesaid

requisite details to consider paid news references. No response was received in this

case despite reminders dated 3.7.2015 and 13.4.2016.


The matter came up forhearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2016 at




communication dated 26.3.2014 received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary,

Election Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid

news against the newspaper ‘Bharat Sameep’ in its various issues.


follows:

“Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of publications and journalists is at stake. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely, because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not

amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

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


aforesaid principles. The tenor and the manner of presentation of the news item clearly

show that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the newspaper ‘Bharat

Sameep’ be Censured.

Held



and decided to Censure the respondent newspaper, Bharat Sameep, Delhi. A copy of

this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Central District, Delhi, the Director,

Information & Public Relation Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Director General,

DAVP and the Election Commission of India for necessary action at their end.


Sl. No. 10(d) F. No. 14/923/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India

regarding alleged publication of Paid News in newspaper Maru Lahar, Rajasthan on

3.4.2014 and 28.3.2014 for General Elections to Lok Sabha- 2014

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide letter

dated 20.1.2015 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’

against the newspaper “Maru Lahar” for allegedly publishing paid news captioned “Suthar

samaj ka sneh milan samahroh ayojit” and “purohit samaz ke logo ne bhajpa pratyashi

patel ko samarthan dene ka nirnay liya” in its issues dated 3.4.2014 and 28.3.2014 during

Rajasthan General Elections to the Lok Sabha-2014 in favour of BJP candidates.

It is reported in the impugned news item dated 3.4.2014 that Saneh Milan function of

Suthar community was organized at Vishvkarma Temple Sanchore. During function some

issues were discussed for social development and to eradicate social evils like child

marriage at Akshya Tritiya and they discussed about Dharamshala and hostel construction

work. Suthar samaj welcomed Mr. Devji m. Patel, BJP candidate at his arrival in saneh Milan

function and decided to support him.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Maru Lahar, Rajasthan on

10.4.2015 but no response was received.

The Inquiry Committee of Council while hearing the paid news cases referred by the

ECI at Tirupati on March 11-12, 2015 observed that to ascertain the paid news cases under

the mandate of the PCI, the ECI needs to provide complete details of (i) Constitution of

MCMC’s of the regions (ii) Names of members who participated in MCMCs and (iii)

Proceedings/Minutes of Meetings recording the reasons for holding them to be paid news.

Accordingly, Secretariat of the Council wrote to the ECI on 20.5.2015 for providing the

aforesaid requisite details to consider paid news references but no response was received

in this case in spite of subsequent reminder dated 3.7.2015.

The copy of impugned clipping dated 28.3.2014 furnished by the ECI is not legible.

A letter dated 2.12.2016 issued to ECI to provide a fresh copy.






communication dated 20.1.2015 received from Shri S.K. Das, Under Secretary, Election

Commission of India, New Delhi forwarded the report of confirmed case of paid news against

the newspaper ‘Maru Lahar’ in its issues dated 28.3.2014 and 3.4.2014.


follows:

“Paid news would mean any words appearing in media, or omitted from media in lieu of

a consideration given either earlier, at the time or after publication in any form. It is a

clandestine financial transaction conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, and hence it is

difficult to get direct evidence to establish it. But while direct evidence may not be available it

is possible to infer the incidence of paid news from strong circumstantial evidence.

At the same time, an onerous responsibility on election authorities is to ensure that the

process of identifying paid news is exhaustive and credible because the reputation of

publications and journalists is at stake.

No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula is possible to be laid down to determine

the issue of paid news and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each. Merely,

because a particular news item appears to serve the cause of a particular candidate, it cannot

be concluded that it was paid news. Further, publication of interview of a candidate or political

coverage in the newspaper cannot itself be the reason to term the same to be paid news. Bad

journalism may raise doubt about the credibility of news but from that to jump to the conclusion

that those are paid news would be irrational. During the course of election, subject to the

conditions laid down by the Election Commission of India, newspapers are free to make an

honest assessment of prospects of candidates or the parties and its publication would not be

paid news so long it is not established that consideration passed on for such publication. One

has to bear in mind that many newspapers have editorial policy to support the candidate of

particular thought or region and in such cases writing in favour of such candidates would not

amount to paid news. Mere publication of an advertisement by the candidate on the date when

the news item pertaining to this nature has been published, itself may not be conclusive to

establish the impugned publication as a paid news.

State election authorities have little appreciation of the nuances of journalism and

therefore fell into grave error while making comment on what is news and what may be paid

news. The state electoral authorities before making public their findings of paid news ought to

have applied themselves judiciously to the issue at hand especially because adverse findings

would injure the reputations of newspapers/periodicals.”


aforesaid principles. The tenor and the manner of presentation of the news item clearly

shows that it is paid news.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the newspaper ‘Maru Lahar’

be Censured.

Held



Censure the respondent newspaper, Maru Lahar, Jalore, Rajasthan. A copy of this order be

forwarded to the District Magistrate, Jalore, Rajasthan, the Director, Information & Public

Relation Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, the Director General, DAVP and the Election

Commission of India for necessary action at their end.


Sl. No. 10(e) F. No. 14/99/14-15-PCI

Reference received from Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of

India regarding alleged publication of Paid News in newspaper “Shah Times” New

Delhi on 19.11.2013 for General Elections to Lok Sabha- 2014

Adjudication

Dated 3.3.2017

Shri Rahul Sharma, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi vide

letter dated 26.3.2014 forwarded the suspected case of ‘Paid News’

against the newspaper “Shah Times” for allegedly publishing paid news captioned “BJP ne

logo ko bhramit kiya: Lovely” in its issue dated 19.11.2013 during General Election of

Legislative Assembly of Delhi-2014 in favour of Congress party.

It is reported in the impugned news item that Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely, Urban

Development Minister and Congress candidate from Gandhinagar said in a function at

Seelampur that BJP wants to confuse the public by raising false and manipulated issues. The

candidates of BJP and AAP have no concern for social work. The BJP is showing hoarding

posters on the issue of electricity whereas in BJP ruling states, the electricity costlier than

Delhi; the Congress has given subsidy in electricity. The Congress has set up electricity

grids in the Kailash Nagar, Kirti Nagar and Multani Mohalla. Shri Lovely apprised the public

about the achievements made by the Congress during the last five years.

Date post:	15-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

Press Council of India Index of Adjudications rendered by...

Documents