PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Annual Report(April 1, 2011 - March 31, 2012)

New Delhi

Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005

Press Council of IndiaSoochna Bhawan, 8, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003

Chairman: Mr. Justice Markandey Katju

Editors of Indian Languages Newspapers (Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3)of Section 5)

NAME ORGANIZATION NOMINATED BY NEWSPAPERS

Shri K. S. Sachidananda Editor’s Guild of India, All India Malayala Manorama,Murthy Newspaper Editors’ Conference and Malayalam Daily,

Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Kottayam, Kerala

Shri Shravan Kumar Garg Editor’s Guild of India, All India Dainik Bhaskar,Newspaper Editors’ Conference and Hindi Daily,Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan New Delhi

Shri Jagjit Singh Dardi Editor’s Guild of India, All India Charhdikala,Newspaper Editors’ Conference and Punjabi Daily,Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Patiala, Punjab

Shri Sheetla Singh Editor’s Guild of India, All India Janmorcha, HindiNewspaper Editors’ Conference and Daily, Faizabad,Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Uttar Pradesh

Shri Anil Jugalkishor Editor’s Guild of India, All India Daily AmravatiAgrawal Newspaper Editors’ Conference and Mandal, Amravati,

Hindi Samachar Patra Sammelan Maharashtra

Shri Bishambhar Newar All India Newspaper Editors’ Chhapte-Chhapte,Conference and Hindi Samachar Hindi Daily,Patra Sammelan West Bengal

Working Journalists other than Editors (Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3)of Section 5)

Shri Rajeev Ranjan Nag National Union of Journalists, Press India News Weekly,Association, Working News New DelhiCameramen’s Association and IndianJournalists Union

Shri Uppala Lakshman National Union of Journalists, Press Samayam,Association and Working News Telugu Daily,Cameramen's Association Hyderabad

Shri Arvind S. Tengse National Union of Journalists, Press Photo Journalist,Association and Working News FreelancerCameramen’s Association

Shri Kosuri Amarnath National Union of Journalists, Press Freelance Journalist,Association, Working News HyderabadCameramen’s Association

Shri Kalyan Barooah National Union of Journalists, Press The Sentinel/Association, Working News The Assam TribuneCameramen’s Association and IndianJournalists Union

NAME ORGANIZATION NOMINATED BY NEWSPAPERSShri Sondeep Shankar National Union of Journalists, Press Photo Journalist,

Association, Working News FreelancerCameramen’s Association and IndianJournalists Union

Shri Arun Kumar National Union of Journalists, Press Navbharat Times/Association and Working News The Times of India,Cameramen’s Association Patna

Owners and Managers of Big, Medium and Small Newspapers*(Clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)

Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra Indian Newspaper Society Punjab Kesari, HindiDaily, Jalandhar,Punjab

Shri Sanjay Gupta Indian Newspaper Society Dainik Jagran, HindiDaily, New Delhi

Shri Gurinder Singh Indian Newspaper Society, All India Indian Observer,Small and Medium Newspapers English Daily,Federation and Association of Small New Delhiand Medium Newspapers of India

Shri V.K. Chopra Indian Newspaper Society, All India Filmi Duniya,Small and Medium Newspapers Hindi Monthly,Federation and Association of Small Delhiand Medium Newspapers of India

Dr. R.I. Lakshmipathy Indian Newspaper Society, All India Health,Small and Medium Newspapers English Monthly,Federation and Association of Small Tamil Naduand Medium Newspapers of India

Vacant — —

Managers of News Agencies (Clause (c) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)Shri Neeraj Bajpai United News of India Joint Editor,

United News of India,New Delhi

Nominees of University Grants Commission, Bar Council of India andSahitya Academy (Clause (d) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)

Shri Rajeev Sabade University Grants CommissionShri Milan Kumar Dey Bar Council of IndiaShri A. Krishna Murthy Sahitya Academy

Members of Parliament Nominated by Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman,Rajya Sabha (Clause (e) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 5)

Kumari Meenakshi Natarajan (Lok Sabha)Shri Harin Pathak (Lok Sabha)Shri Sanjay Dina Patil (Lok Sabha)Shri Rajeev Shukla (Rajya Sabha)Shri Prakash Javadekar (Rajya Sabha)

Secretary : Smt. Vibha Bhargava*Notification of remaining one member under clause 5(3)(b) awaited** Resigned on January 23, 2012

**

ContentsForeword

Chapter I General Review 1

Chapter II Adjudications in Complaints Regarding Threats to 88Press Freedom

Chapter III Adjudications in Complaints Filed Against the Press 98

Chapter IV Finances of the Council 2011-2012 110

Annexures

A Statement of Cases April 1, 2011- March 31, 2012 132

B Colloquium Report-Delhi Declaration 133

C Gazette Notification dated June 15, 2011 139

D Gazette Notification dated October 5, 2011 146

E Graph of Adjudications 2011-2012 147

F Report on Visit of Press Freedom Commission 148of South Africa Delegation on ResearchMission to India on November 23, 2011

G Subject Index of Adjudications in Complaints 150Regarding Threats to Press Freedom (2011-2012)

H Subject Index of Adjudications in Complaints 154filed Against the Press(2011-2012)

I Index of Principles Recorded in Adjudications 165in Complaints Regarding Threats to Press Freedom

J Index of Principles Recorded in Adjudications in 166Complaints filed Against the Press

K Subject Index of Orders Passed by the Press and 168Registration Appellate Board (2011-2012)

Foreword

My association with the Press Council began on October 5, 2011 when myeminent predecessor Justice G.N. Ray demitted office after about six and halfyears’ distinguished service to the institution. It has now been almost six monthssince I took over as Chairman of the Press Council of India. I must admit thatI have gained greater insight into journalism and journalistic practices in the pastmonths. The concept of a body established to promote ethics in the media andsimultaneously safeguarding its interests is important to the progress of ademocratic country.

In a democracy, issues are ordinarily resolved by discussion, persuasionand dialogue and that is the method to be preferred, rather than using harshmeasures. Whereas 90 per cent of the problems can be resolved in this way,in exceptional cases, where a section of the media proves incorrigible despitetrying the democratic method mentioned above, harsher measures may beresorted to. The matter was taken up by me with the Prime Minister requestingfor amendment in the Press Council Act by bringing the electronic media underthe purview of the Press Council (which may be renamed the Media Council)and by giving it more teeth- e.g. giving the power to suspend governmentadvertisement or in extreme cases even the licence of the media houses forsome time. As Goswami Tulsidas said: “Bhaya Bin Hoe Na Preet”. This,however, should be resorted to only in extreme cases and after the democraticmethod proves futile.

I have been supporting the cause of freedom of the media. The recentCourt order asking the channel Times Now to pay Rs. 100 crore as damagesfor an inadvertent inaccuracy appeared to me grossly disproportionate to theoffence. Further, taking note of several reports/complaints from various quartersabout attacks on mediapersons and covert measures adopted to underminepress freedom fact finding teams have been set up by me to take stock of theground realities in various areas. Letters to the Chief Ministers of Jammu andKashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh were sent by me andpositive responses have been received showing their full support to the causeof press freedom.

In the matter of proceedings initiated against mediapersons who reportedthat an MLA watching obscene clips on his mobile, the Karnataka AssemblySpeaker was urged by me to reconsider his decision taking all aspects into

consideration against those MLAs who brought disgrace to the House. I amhappy to say that I have, in keeping with the mandate of the Press Council,attempted to inculcate the ethos of ethics (rather than punishment) by attemptingsettlement between the parties or allowing the respondents to make amends fortheir lapses. This, I feel, is how the Council should function as I intend to makeit an instrument of mediation which is, in my opinion, the democratic approach.I may add that the claim to self regulation is I feel not workable and allinstitutions in a democratic set up are subject to regulation by an independentstatutory authority. I may add that regulation is a concept distinct from ‘control’.In control there is no freedom, whereas in regulation there is freedom but it issubject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest.

For this purpose, I need the help and co-operation and advice of allmediapersons and bodies associated with the media. Further, if the Governmentmakes the relevant amendments to the Press Council Act and Rules under it,as suggested by the Council to strengthen it and to enable it to discharge itsfunctions more efficiently and effectively, the Council is bound to emerge as anauthority to be reckoned with for its support for the freedom of the press whileat the same time asking the press to act responsibly.

I hope and trust the readers will find this report useful and informative asthe earlier ones.

Markandey KatjuPlace: New Delhi ChairmanDated : 31.3.2012 Press Council of India

1

CHAPTER – I

General Review

A democracy and the media complement each other to create a bettersociety and a progressive nation. For a proper functioning of democracy it isessential that citizens are kept informed about news from various parts of thecountry and the world because only then can they form rational opinions. Acitizen surely cannot be expected personally to gather news to enable him orher to form such opinions. Hence, the media plays an important role in ademocracy and serves as an agency of the people to gather news andinformation for them. It is for this reason that freedom of the press has beenemphasised in all democratic countries, while it was not permitted in feudal ortotalitarian regimes.

Earlier, through 2010-2011, the media exposures kept the authorities ontheir toes while in the year 2011-2012 the biggest event was Anna Hazare’santi-corruption movement. It saw the country rally in support and attracted theattention of the public and has been named among the top ten news stories inthe world this year by Time magazine which listed the Arab Spring and killingof Osama Bin Laden as the top attention, grabbing headlines. Hazare’s faststriggered mass demonstrations and wide roar amongst all Indians against corruptionand heaped pressure on the government to create an independent ombudsmancapable of investigating the nation’s political elites – even the Prime Ministerand bringing the corrupt to justice.

The Court orders directing Times Now to deposit Rs. 100 crore as aprecondition for appeal in defamation case involving Justice P.B. Sawant alsobecame a rallying point for the media, both electronic and print in the yearunder review.

Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology KapilSibal’s demands that internet intermediaries i.e. the social networking sitesGoogle, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft to remove inflammatory content as wellas other texts and images that might disturb peace and result in serious law andorder problems also sparked off debates and protests in the world against sucha move.

The year also saw the setting up of a five-judge constitution bench headedby Chief Justice of India, S.H. Kapadia to take up the issue of framing

2

guidelines for media to report cases in courts following complaints aboutmisreporting of court hearings and leak of confidential information to litigants.

On the international plane perhaps the single most important event of theyear that evoked disgust among the British public was Rupert Murdoch’s Britishtabloid News of the World alleged illegal phone hacking scandal. The publicationowned by him was engaged in unethical practices. Its journalists were reportedlyhacking into phones of people, including those of a murdered schoolgirl andsoldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The present chapter provides an insight into the activities of the Councilduring the year and the state of national as well as international press duringthe period under review.

Introduction

The Press Council of India was set up in the year 1966 on therecommendations of the first Press Commission. In the discharge of its two-foldfunction of preserving the freedom of press and maintaining and improvingstandards of press, the Council performs a multi-faceted role. On the one handit acts as a quasi-judicial authority with all the powers of a Civil Court and onthe other, in its advisory capacity, it guides the press as well as the authoritieson any matter that may have a bearing on the freedom of press and in itspreservation. The Press Council is headed by a Chairman who has by conventionbeen a sitting/retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Council consistsof 28 other members of whom 20 represent the press, five are from the twoHouses of the Parliament and three represent the cultural, literary and legalfields and are nominated by Sahitya Academy, University Grants Commissionand the Bar Council of India. The Council is funded by the revenue collectedby it from the fee levied on the registered newspapers of the country on thebasis of their circulation, the deficit being made good by way of grant by theCentral Government. Though to some extent, the Council is dependent on thegovernment for finances, it has remained completely uninfluenced by anyextraneous considerations in discharge of its quasi-judicial functions.

As a quasi-judicial body, the Council is being approached by way of moreand more complaints every year. This is not to say that instances of violationof ethics or that of threats to the press freedom are on the increase. In fact,the Council feels that the press as well as those holding the reins of power areby and large acting responsibly. The reason for the steady increase in thenumber of complaints being lodged with it is that the Council’s forum is beingpreferred over courts where the proceedings, by their very nature, are costlyand time consuming. The Council strives to provide quick justice at the doorstep

3

and to this end, it regularly meets in different parts of the country to hear casesfrom that region.

The complaints received by the Council broadly fall into two categories:Complaints by the Press and complaints against the Press. Any person feelingaggrieved about anything done which is likely to impair or interfere with theindependence of the Press may approach the Council. Similarly, anybodyaggrieved by any publication or non- publication in any newspaper or journalmay lodge a complaint with the Council for breach of the recognised canonsof journalistic ethics and taste. The Council is empowered to make observationsin respect of the conduct of any authority including Government, if it considersit necessary, for the performance of its functions under the Act. On the otherhand, if it finds that a newspaper or a news agency has offended against thestandards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or a workingjournalist has committed any professional misconduct, it can warn, admonish orcensure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist or disapprovethe conduct of the editor or the journalist. Thus, the Council has a lot of moralauthority. Its decisions are final and cannot be questioned in any court of law.The decisions of the Council have generally been honoured and accepted by themedia and the authorities alike.

What sets the Press Council of India apart from other parallel institutionsworldwide is that while it has been set up under an Act of Parliament, andnotwithstanding the fact that a substantial part of its funds comes by way ofgrants-in-aid from the government, it has full functional autonomy andindependence from governmental control in the discharge of its statutoryresponsibilities.

Another extremely healthy feature of the Press Council of India is the factthat the Press Council of India unlike other Press Councils the world overincluding the British Press Complaints Commission adjudicates complaints notonly against the Press but also complaints by the press against governmentaland other authorities.

Working of the Council(April 1, 2011 – March 31, 2012)

Reconstitution of the Press Council of India

The Press Council Act, 1978 provides for re-constitution of the Councilevery three years. The tenth three-year term of the Council came to an endon January 6, 2011 and with a gap of about six months the Council was re-

4

constituted for its eleventh three-year term w.e.f. June 15, 2011 vide GazetteNotification dated 15.6.2011 notifying names of 27 members. (Annexure C) Thenotification of remaining one member in 5(3)(b) category is awaited.

Selection of the Press Council’s Nominee to Nominate the Chairman

As per the provision of the Press Council Act, 1978 the nomination of theChairman is to be made by a Committee constituted of the Chairman of theRajya Sabha, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and a member from among themembers of the Press Council. The Council met at New Delhi on July 15, 2011to select a nominee of the Council on the nominating Committee for theselection of the Chairman. The Press Council members unanimously electedMr. K.S. Sachidananda Murthy to be their nominee on the Committee for thepurpose. His name was forwarded to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha as per therequirement of the rules prescribed in this behalf.

New Chairman

The term of the incumbent Chairman, Mr. Justice G.N. Ray concluded onMay 18, 2011. Justice Ray, however, continued to chair the Council till October4, 2011 under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act when the CentralGovernment notified the nomination of Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, formerjudge of the Supreme Court as Chairman for a three year term w.e.f. October5, 2011. The Gazette Notification issued by the Ministry of Information andBroadcasting in this regard can be seen at Annexure D.

Starting his career as an advocate in Allahabad High Court JusticeMarkandey Katju was appointed as Standing Counsel, Income Tax Departmentand thereafter elevated to the Bench of Allahabad High Court in 1991. He wasappointed Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court in August 2004, ChiefJustice of Madras High Court in November 2004 and Chief Justice of DelhiHigh Court in October 2005. In April 2006 he was elevated to the SupremeCourt of India and superannuated on September 20, 2011.

During his illustrious professional career Hon’ble Mr Justice Katju hasdelivered many a path breaking and unconventional judgments by which he hasexpressed his mind upholding the dignity of human rights. He exhibited anunflinching courage through his judicial pronouncements demarcating theboundaries of the three organs of the Indian Constitution – the Executive, theLegislature and the Judiciary.

The pronouncements of Mr. Justice M. Katju who assumed charge of theChair on October 5, 2011 set off debates and introspection by and among the

5

media as well as the citizenry on the role expected of the media as the fourthestate in a growing democracy. Under his guidance, the Council not onlygave a call to the media to recognize its strength and weaknesses and givedirection to the common man through its ideas, but also strongly advised theauthorities to ensure that the media was able to discharge its functions freelyand fairly.

Meetings of Council and its Committees

The Council carries out its statutory obligations as set out in Section 8(1)of the Press Council Act, 1978 which says: “For the purpose of performing itsfunctions under this Act, the Council may constitute from among its members,such Committees for general or special purposes as it may deem necessary andevery Committee so constituted shall perform such functions as are assigned toit by the Council”.

Pursuant to this provision, the Council not only constitutes StandingCommittees but also ad-hoc Committees from time to time to facilitate thedesignated work. Generally all the Committees are headed by the Chairman ofthe Council. But at times ad-hoc Committees are constituted under convenorshipof one of its members. The important Sub-Committees which were constitutedand functioned during the period under review, were:-

1. Sub-Committee to examine the issue on “Private Treaties by MediaCompanies”.

2. Sub-Committee to examine the issue of safety of journalists in dischargeof their duties.

3. Sub-Committee to examine the issue of threats/problems being facedby the Small and Medium newspapers for non-adoption of the ModelAccreditation/Advertisement Rules framed by the Press Council ofIndia.

4. Sub-Committee to consider draft Cabinet Note on “IndecentRepresentation of Women (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2011” –Comments regarding.

5. Sub-Committee on examining the problems encountered by the press.

6. The Council mooted the proposal to institute National Awards tohonour journalists excelling in their respective field and constituted aCommittee for laying down criteria and modalities for the purpose.

6

Fact Finding Team

1. Fact Finding Team set up to investigate the matter of brutal murder ofShri Chandrika Rai and his family members in Umaria District ofMadhya Pradesh. At the close of the year the report of the FactFinding Team is awaited.

2. Fact Finding Team constituted to go into all aspects of the complaintsof violation of freedom of press in Bihar. The report of this Team isexpected in early next financial year.

With a gap of about six months the Council which was re-constituted forits eleventh three-year term w.e.f. June 15, 2011 vide Gazette Notification dated15.6.2011 held four sittings during the period under review. The workload of theCouncil has increased manifold.

The two Inquiry Committees, which are Standing Committees presidedover by the Chairman of the Council shoulder the largest quantum of theworkload of the Council by holding inquiries in respect of the complaintsreceived by the Council. Their proceedings are open to the public. The partiesto the cases are entitled to substantiate their stand through relevant evidence,oral or documentary. They are also allowed to be represented by lawyers. TheCommittees at the close of inquiry, considering the records and oral submissionsmade before them submit their recommendations with regard to cases inquiredto the Council for final decision. During the financial year, the two InquiryCommittees held 11 sittings and made their recommendations in 109 matters tothe Council for final adjudication. The composition of Inquiry Committeesheaded by Chairman of the Council for the year under review is given below:

Inquiry Committee (I)

Shri K.S. Sachidananda Murthy

Shri Arvind S. Tengse

Shri Kosuri Amarnath

Dr. R. Lakshmipathy

Shri Milan Kumar Dey

Shri Harin Pathak, MP (Lok Sabha)

Shri Jagjit Singh Dardi

Shri Rajeev Ranjan Nag

7

Shri Sanjay Gupta

Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra

Shri A. Krishna Murthy

Shri Rajiv Shukla, MP (Rajya Sabha)

*Kumari Meenakshi Natrajan, MP (Lok Sabha)

Inquiry Committee (II)

Shri Shravan Garg

Shri Bishambhar Newar

Shri Uppala Lakshman

Shri Anil Agrawal

Shri Gurinder Singh

Shri Neeraj Bajpai

Shri Sanjay Dina Patil, MP (Lok Sabha)

Shri Sheetla Singh

Shri Sondeep Shankar

Shri Arun Kumar

Shri V.K. Chopra

Shri Kalyan Barooah

Shri Rajeev Sabade

Shri Prakash Javadekar, MP (Rajya Sabha)

Complaints before the Council

The 10th term of the Council came to an end on January 6, 2011 and thusit remained non functional for almost six months. A total of 885 complaints wereinstituted in the Council during the year under review. Of these, 170 complaintswere by the Press against the authorities of the Government for violation ofpress freedom and 715 complaints were directed against the press for breachof journalistic ethics. With 1047 matters pending from the last year, there were

*Resigned on 23.1.2012

8

a total of 1932 matters for disposal by the Council. Of these 1116 matters weredisposed off during the year, either by way of adjudication or through summarydisposal by the Chairman on account of settlement by the mediation of theChairman or due to lack of sufficient grounds for holding inquiries or non-pursuance, withdrawal or on account of matters having become sub-judice.Out of these, two matters were directly placed before the Council for adjudication.In all 816 matters were being processed at the close of the year. A detailedstatement of the institution and disposal of the complaints is at Annexure –A.

Press & Registration Appellate Board

Section 8C of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 entrusts to thePress Council of India, the Appellate Jurisdiction over the Magisterial Orders ofnon-authentication of a declaration under Section 6 or its subsequent cancellationunder Section 8B of the said Act. The Board consists of a Chairman andanother member to be nominated by the Press Council of India from among itsmembers.

At the beginning of the period under review 10 appeals alongwith a reviewpetition were pending before the Board and six more appeals were preferred.The Board held three sittings during the year after it was constituted on July15, 2011. Out of these 16 appeals, four were disposed off, 12 appeals arepending for consideration before the Appellate Board along with a reviewpetition.

Opinions Expressed By Hon’ble Chairman

Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, Chairman, Press Council of India on assumingthe chair also stressed that the basic task of the media is to provide truthful andobjective information to the people which would enable them to form rationalopinions. Pointing out that the media in the country often portrays non-issueswhile real issues of economic problems, poverty, un-employment, education andmedical care are sidelined. While asserting that “Self-regulation is no regulation”he has reiterated the Council’s proposal that the electronic media should bebrought under the Press Council renaming it Media Council invested withsufficient teeth so that it could oversee the media’s discharge of its duty as avehicle encouraging rationale ideas. He has also stressed the duty of theauthorities to ensure that the press persons are not hindered by any agency ofthe state in discharge of their duties. Taking note of several reports andcomplaints from various quarters about attacks on mediapersons and covertmeasures adopted to undermine press freedom fact finding teams have been setup to take stock of the ground realities in various areas.

9

Seminars and Workshops

During the period under review the Press Council of India encourageddebates on media matters through various seminars/conferences/meets.

National Press Day, 2011

The National Press Day, this year with discussions centered around “Mediaas an Instrument of Public Accountability” was inaugurated by Mr. M. HamidAnsari, Hon’ble Vice-President of India. Hon’ble Minister for Information andBroadcasting, Mrs. Ambika Soni graced the occasion as Guest of Honour whileShri Rajeev Shukla, Hon’ble Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs andMember, Press Council of India and Shri Prakash Javadekar, M.P. and Member,Press Council of India were Special Guests. To mark the occasion a Souvenircarrying articles on the subject was released. The states also commemoratedthe day in befitting manner.

Interaction with World Press Bodies

The Press Council of India is also an active member of the WorldAssociation of Press Councils (WAPC). WAPC Executive Council meet washeld on April 27, 2011 at New Delhi wherein WAPC member countriesparticipated.

This was followed by a two day International Colloquium on “Freedom ofExpression and Human Rights” on April 28-29, 2011 in Delhi. The deliberationslaid special emphasis on Freedom of Expression versus Right of the CivilSociety, Media as a Defender of Human Rights, Reporting Human RightsExcesses and Promoting Peace Journalism. The Colloquium was inaugurated byMrs. Ambika Soni, Hon’ble Minister for Information and Broadcasting andMr. Justice G.N. Ray, the then Chairman, Press Council of India presided overthe function. Media organizations from various countries like Australia, Austria,Turkey, Israel, Tanzania, Nepal, Indonesia etc. besides UN and Indianrepresentatives deliberated on the issue from the international perspective aswell as those of their respective countries. The debates and presentations werepublished and circulated internationally.

The Council also initiated a process of consultation and dialogue withpress/media Councils and similar bodies in different parts of the world for activeencouragement to preservation of the press freedom and promotion of itsstandards and ethics worldwide. Interaction included visits to (i) Kuala Lampur,Malaysia on April 7-9, 2011 for consultation on establishment of Press Councilin the country; (ii) on November 27-30, 2011 to Hong Kong; and (iii) to

10

Indonesia on December 7-8, 2011. The Council also received the representativesfrom Afghanistan on April 26, 2011 and South Africa on November 23, 2011.A short report on the visit of representatives of Press Freedom Commission ofSouth Africa to India in November 2011 on research mission can be seen atAnnexure F.

Transparency Mechanism

The Secretary of the Press Council of India is the Chief Vigilance Officerof the office. The vigilance set up of the Council, consisting of DeputySecretary and Section Officer (Admn.) functioned under the direct supervisionof the Secretary (CVO) and Chairman of the Council. It conducted regular andsurprise checks to prevent/combat any corruption practices in the Secretariat.

The grievance redressal mechanism is in place at the internal and externallevel which comprises of Director of Grievances being the Secretary, PressCouncil of India. The staff related grievances are attended to by the StaffGrievance Officer of the Council being the Deputy Secretary.

The Citizen’s Charter of the Council containing all the necessary details ofthe organization is available in hard as well as soft copy for the public at theoffice address as well as Press Council’s website.

Resignation of Member

During the reviewed year Kumari Meenakshi Natarajan, MP (Lok Sabha)who was nominated as member of the Council for its 11th term under Section5(3)(e) of the Press Council Act, 1978 vide Gazette Notification dated June 15,2011 tendered her resignation on January 23, 2012 owing to pressing engagements.

Tributes

The Council mourned the demise of its two members namely, (i) Shri AjitBhattacharjea (April 2000 to March 2001) who passed away on April 4, 2011and (ii) Shri Maheshwar Dayalu Gangwar (1995-1998 and 1998-2001) whopassed away on January 1, 2012. Paying rich tributes to them the Councilpassed resolution regarding their valuable contributions to the Press Council andtheir dedicated and selfless service to the nation.

Promotion of Official Language

The Council paid particular attention to the propagation of Hindi in itsofficial use. All of its staff members, already notified under Section 10(4) of the

11

Official Language Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) are encouraged to work inHindi. Regular meetings of the Council’s Official Language ImplementationCommittee were conducted during every quarter. Quarterly Workshops relatingto official language were organized for the benefit of its employees.

To emphasise the use of Hindi, Hindi fortnight (Pakhwada) was observedin the Secretariat of the Council from 14.9.2011 to 28.9.2011. The main functionof Hindi Diwas was held on 21.9.2011. Hon’ble Chairman of Press Council ofIndia and other senior officers of the Council delivered their messages andexpressed their views to promote use of Hindi in the Council.

In addition, a debate was conducted on the subject “Hindi Hamari Sangini”.Mr. Justice G.N. Ray, the then Chairman of the Press Council gave away prizesand certificates to the winners/participants of the debate. Simultaneously, theemployees of the Council were also given awards/certificates under ‘ProtsahanYojana’ and Hindi training scheme for their participation/contribution in encouragingthe use of Hindi language in the office practices and procedures.

The adjudications and other pronouncements of the Council were recordedin bilingual form and brought in public domain.

Suo-motu cognizance of the incidents of violation against mediapersonsand threats to press freedom was undertaken by the Press Council ofIndia in the following cases:

1. Suo-motu inquiry on the reported murder of Shri Jyotirmoy Dey,Investigative Journalist of Mid day, Mumbai

The Press Council of India came across many news reports appearing invarious leading newspaper’s issues dated 12.6.2011 regarding brutal killing ofMumbai based Mid-Day’s Investigative Journalist, Shri Jyotirmoy Dey byunidentified motorcycle born assailants in Mumbai suburb. As per the newsreports Shri Dey who reported extensively on crime notably Mumbai underworldhad received threats after recently running a series of reports on the States OilMafia who burnt alive an Additional Collector near Nashik in January, 2011 andled to the murder.

On perusal of the reports, the Council initiated suo-motu cognizance of thematter and requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra for promptinvestigation and to ensure that the media is able to discharge its functionswithout any threat or fear and a written confirmation was received from theChief Minister. Report from the State Government of Maharashtra has beencalled for. The matter is under active consideration.

12

2. Suo-motu action with regard to brutal attack/assaualt on Mr. DavidDevadas, Journalist

The Press Council of India came across a news item captioned “Scribeclaims assault by J&K judge’s escort” published in The Times of India issuedated 14.7.2011. It was reported in the news item that a journalist who hascovered Kashmir for several publications and authored a book on the Valleyalleged that J&K police and security guards of a High Court judge assaultedand abused him after he was accused of blocking his convoy with his car ona Srinagar street. David Devadas had written to the Supreme Court ChiefJustice saying that he fears for his life as a false case had been registeredagainst him. The Times of India tried to contact the police Chief - Shri KuldeepKhoda and Chief Minister, Shri Omar Abdullah but they did not respond. Buta senior police officer pleading anonymity told TOI that the journalist obstructedthe judge’s motorcade and he directed his detention.

The news item with regard to the assault to the journalists was alsopublished in “The Hindu” and “The Indian Express” issues dated 13.9.2011 and14.9.2011 respectively.

On perusal of the reports, the Council initiated suo-motu cognizance of thematter and requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister of J&K for personal directionsto ensure that the media is able to discharge its functions without any hindrance.Report from the State Government of J&K was called for. The matter wastreated as closed for non-pursuance.

3. Suo-motu action regarding beating up of media persons and stoppingthem from discharging their duties by the armed forces in Jammu andKashmir

The Council considered the matter appearing in The Hindustan Timesunder the caption “Media resents curbs” on 8.7.2010 and noted that the thenHon’ble Chairman had written to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Jammu &Kashmir on 5.10.2010 for personal intervention in the matter so that the mediawas able to discharge its duties without any fear or hindrance. In response tothe Hon’ble Chairman’s letter the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir vide hisletter dated 15.7.2010 had informed that the Government of J&K was constrainedto impose restrictions and curfew in some parts of the valley due to which themedia persons had faced some difficulties initially but they provided the curfewpasses to media persons including the hawkers and distributors as per theirrequirements. He further stated that some newspapers of Jammu had carriedbaseless and incorrect story about alleged desecration of a temple in SouthKashmir. This news had the potential to hurt the religious sentiments of a

13

section of the society which could eventually lead to communal flare up. Thusthe government had proceeded against these newspapers for publishing thebaseless and malicious reports. The editors of the newspapers had met theauthorities and gave assurance that they will be careful in future. He assertedthat, he is an ardent supporter of freedom of press but it is equally necessarythat the press conducts itself in a mature and responsible manner and does notdistort or misreport facts.

The Council took on record the assurance given by the Hon’ble ChiefMinister of Jammu & Kashmir.

4. Suo-motu cognizance with regard to the attack on The Times ofIndia building at Mumbai

The Press Council of India came across some news reports appearing invarious newspapers regarding attack on The Times of India building at Mumbai.It has been reported in the news items that a group of miscreants wavingsaffron flags and shouting pro-Shiv Sena slogans barged into The Times of Indiabuilding and vandalized the reception area before the police took charge of thesituation. It has been further reported that the attackers claimed to be upsetwith a news report in Maharashtra Times, a Marathi morninger belonging to theTimes Group of Publications. The attackers appeared angry with a report aboutpossible defections from the Shiv Sena to NCP, a party which is an ally in theState’s ruling Democratic Front alliance. It has also been reported that thePress Council Chief Markandey Katju has condemned the attack on TOI’sMumbai office and asked the Maharashtra Government for a report.

The Secretary, Indian Newspaper Society, New Delhi vide letter dated30.1.2012 while forwarding a clipping of the news item that appeared in NavbharatTimes on 29.1.2012 has requested the Council to take action in the matter.

Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India has addressed a letter dated28.1.2012 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra for suitable action. TheCouncil vide its letter dated 8.2.2012 called for a report from the StateGovernment of Maharashtra. The matter is under active consideration.

Advisory Function

In its advisory capacity the Council provided the government and otherauthorities with its views on many issues. Some of the important ones are asfollows:

1. No Day Yet Named Motion under Rule 189 admitted in Lok Sabhaexpressing concern over vulgar programmes and news reports appearing inelectronic and print media.

14

2. Reference from Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs,Law Commission of India, Government of India, New Delhi regardingastrology advertisement.

3. Reference received from Chief Election Commissioner of India regardingproviding of some concrete parameters to adjudge “Paid News.” — TheCouncil decided to send the four parameters/guidelines that could be usedby the Election Commission of India for performing their functions to paidnews syndrome. It also decided to send these parameters to State ElectionCommission, Maharashtra in addition to five States of UP, Punjab, Uttrakhand,Manipur and Goa in wake of forthcoming elections.

Other Matters considered by the Council

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Department ofConsumer Affairs (Publicity Division), New Delhi vide its letter dated 22.7.2011informed of the setting up of a group of stakeholders headed by Hon’bleMinister of State (I/C), Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution to discussvarious problems faced by consumers due to “Misleading Advertisements” inmedia and ways and means to tackle the menace. The issue of cheating ofconsumers in the garb of Multi Level Marketing (MLM) schemes and themoney circulation schemes shall also be discussed.

Shri K.S. Sachidnanda Murthy, Member, Press Council of India has beennominated to represent the Press Council of India thereof.

2. On the proposal from Shri Jagjit Singh Dardi, Member, PCI regardingstoppage of issuance entry passes of Punjab Civil Secretariat to the Editors andjournalists of Punjab on the pattern the passes of being issued to the Editors andjournalists of Chandigarh and release of Punjab government advertisements,Council has taken up the matter with the government of Punjab for wideraccess to news for mediapersons.

The Council noted and complied with the directions of the CentralInformation Commission dated 19.9.2011 for displaying on the Council’s websitethe report of its Sub-Committee on ‘Paid News Syndrome’.

State of the Press—India

Year 2011-2012 saw the country surcharged with tension created by theanti-corruption movement spearheaded by social activist Anna Hazare. In theface of this, the media and the electronic media in particular were put to strongtest. The TV media coverage of the epic Anna Hazare fast with all its

15

accompanying twists and turns was a defining moment for Indian media torethink, refurbish and reposition itself. During this period the media became thevoice of people and it’s reporting on the real issues like economic, poverty,corruption etc. is a prime example of the impact the media can have on thepublic opinion and psyche and its role in opinion moulding.

The reporting of such issues brought the media as much acclaim ascriticism. The absence of self-regulation by media covering such sensitive issuesled the government to mull over content regulations.

The period of trials and tribulations for the press which started far backwith the eruption of violence and terrorism in the country continues unabated.Even a cursory glance at the newspaper reports of the year make it abundantlyclear that the year under review cannot be viewed in any positive light fromthe media view point. While journalists in the conflict ridden north and north-east continued to practice their profession in the line of fire, their colleagues inthe rest of the country frequently faced intimidation and attacks from politicalparties and religious extremists.

Taking strong note of Jammu and Kashmir Assembly Speaker, Mohd.Akbar Lone’s remarks claiming that the media was not at liberty to makeclaims without being answerable to the House and that the fourth estate wassubservient to the State Assembly media persons stood up from their seats inprotest and decided to boycott the proceedings of the House demanding that theSpeaker ‘take back’ his words.

Given below are a collection of reports that cover important developmentsin the Indian press during the year 2011-2012.

Cyber activists, bloggers and legal experts are crying foul over the newrules and guidelines under the Information Technology Amendment Act 2008,that lay additional focus on content regulation and information security, besidesdealing with cyber terrorism and data protection. They have termed it anattempt to gag free speech by giving intermediaries like Internet ServiceProviders, web hosting companies, search engines and cyber cafes the right tocontrol content. The new rules require hosts or owners of websites to takeaction against “objectionable content” that is considered “disparaging”, “harassing”,“blasphemous” or “hateful”. Also included is anything that “threatens the unity,integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreigncountries, or public order”. And if an intermediary fails to act on a complaintwithin 36 hours of receiving it, the firm’s top management is liable to face civilor criminal proceedings that could involve huge penalties and even imprisonment.Denying any move to restrict free speech, the government claims “canards”

16

are being spread by “vested interests” that thrive on misuse of the Internet.(The Hindu, New Delhi dated May 11, 2011)

In a bid to keep a check on TV channels owned by political parties, theChief Election Commissioner, Mr S.Y. Quraishi said the Election Commission isworking on guidelines for the electronic media to ensure a level playing field toall. Admitting that political parties-owned TV channels might misuse them forpolitical gains, Mr. Quraishi said, “We are also examining how to account forwhether you are using your own channel for unlimited publicity. We areexamining it. Before the next elections, we will have some policy in place”.Mr. Quraishi pointed out that in some of the states that went to polls, most ofthe channels are owned by political parties. He said these channels wouldchange the complexion as they do not have to buy space on other channels.The EC admitted that it is a very complicated issue and it is making all itsefforts to evolve guidelines so as to keep check on misuse of visual media. “Weare considering it and some guidelines are being evolved. We don’t want to doanything in a haste,” said the Election Commissioner, Mr. V.S. Sampath.Mr. Quraishi also laid stress on self-regulation by media and political parties onpaid news. “Definition and identification of paid news needs to be concrete,”he added. (The Statesman, New Delhi dated May 12, 2011)

The Centre has set up a Broadcasting Content Complaint Council (BCCC)to look into the grievances of television viewers. The 13-member Council, to beheaded by former Delhi High Court Justice A.P. Shah, will began functioningfrom the first week of June. The Council will deal with the complaints relatingto contents telecast by non-news channels, which include general entertainment,current affairs, children’s and special programmes. A self-regulatory guidelinealong with grievance redressal mechanism through the BCCC, formulated byIndian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) for the non-news channels, will also comeinto effect together with the Council. The complaint redressal mechanism willbe a two-tier process, providing a viewer to lodge his or her complaint first tothe broadcaster/channel. The complaint, however, should be lodged within oneweek of the telecast of the offending programme. Under the IBF guidelines,broadcaster will have to set up a special cell with a content auditor as its headto deal with complaints received from viewers or any other body. The contentauditor will be responsible for replying to the complaint with a copy to theBCCC within a week of the complaint filed. In case the viewer receivesunsatisfactory response from the broadcaster’s side the complainant can approachthe BCCC directly. The Council will then take cognizance of the matter and ifthe broadcaster is found guilty, it will take necessary steps including issue ofwarning. The Council can also ask broadcaster to run an apology on thechannel or recommend suspension of license of the broadcaster. “Grievances

17

have to be addressed within three weeks, the Ministry official said. In case, theBCCC’s directives remain unheard by the broadcasters, the complaint couldalso be forwarded to Inter Ministerial Council for suitable action andrecommendation, the official added.

The 13 member Council will include four members of IBF, four eminentcitizens from civil society besides members from National Commission forWomen, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and NationalCommission for Scheduled Castes as its permanent members.

Statutory bodies like National Human Rights Commission and NationalCommission for Scheduled Tribes will also be the members of the Committeeas per the nature of complaints. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore datedMay 28, 2011)

The Law Ministry is working on a proposal to make right to privacy afundamental right in the Indian Constitution. Corporate lobbyist Nira Radia’sphone tapping row and new-age surveillance techniques being extensively usedto crack down on economic offences are the trigger behind the move. “We areworking on making right to privacy a fundamental right. It is likely to be tabledin the monsoon session of Parliament. However, it’s difficult to commit a timeframe,” Law Minister, Veerappa Moily said. The right to privacy would includethe right to confidentiality of communication, confidentiality of private or familylife, protection of his honour and good name, protection from search, detentionor exposure of lawful communication between individuals, privacy fromsurveillance, confidentiality of banking, financial, medical and legal information,protection from identity theft of various kinds, protection of use of a person’sphotographs, fingerprints, DNA samples and other samples taken at policestations and other places and protection of data relating to individual. If thelegislation is passed, it would address several concerns expressed by somesections of the civil society. For instance, there has been outrage overthe ‘compromise’ of an individual’s privacy in a project like UID, where allpersonal data will be available at the click of a mouse. (The Times of India,New Delhi dated June 4, 2011)

The Union Government’s move to draft a law to protect journalists couldcome as a respite for Maharashtra, where political parties are divided on theneed for such legislation. Already there were differences in the State Cabineton whether such a law was necessary, with both Nationalist Congress Party(NCP) and Congress Ministers expressing reservations. There is a feeling thata specific law seeking to make an offence against journalists a non-bailableoffence would open the floodgates for groups such as filmmakers or teachersto demand the same. In addition, the government feels the need for a redress

18

mechanism to enquire into complaints against journalists. A Cabinet Sub-Committee will look into an enabling provision and amend the existing draftState law accordingly, which will then be presented in the next session of theLegislature. The draft ordinance, “Maharashtra Journalists (Prevention of Violenceand Damage to Property) Ordinance 2010, was prepared during the tenure ofAshok Chavan. It notes the increasing attacks on journalists, causing damageto newspaper and electronic media establishments and recognizes the need toprohibit such violent activities and attacks by making the offences cognizableand non-bailable. The draft prohibits any act of violence against newspaperemployees, journalists or damage to property in the newspaper and electronicmedia establishments. Offenders shall be punished with imprisonment for aperiod which may extend to three years and with fines, which may extend toRs. 50,000. In addition, the offenders shall be liable to pay a penalty of twicethe amount of the purchase price of the damaged equipment and loss causedto the property, as determined by courts.If the offender has not paid the finethen it shall be recovered under the provisions of the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code, as if it were arrears of land revenue dues. However, the mainobstacle is that the draft ordinance does not have any provision for complaintsto be filed against erring journalists. Some of the journalists involved with thedrafting had suggested introducing a code of conduct for journalists as well asa redressal mechanism.

“A deterrent”

Senior journalist Jatin Desai said the proposed law was meant to be adeterrent. The question is whether a new law will make a difference withoutpolitical will. From 1991, there were 1,750 cases of attacks on journalists inMaharashtra and not a single conviction. More than 85 per cent of the caseswere withdrawn under pressure, he claimed. Maharashtra Chief Minister, PrithvirajChavan also spoke of a State body on the lines of the Press Council of Indiawhere complaints, if any, could be filed against the media. The former SupremeCourt Judge and former Chairman of the Press Council of India, P.B. Sawant,told The Hindu on the phone that the proposal for a Maharashtra-level bodywas buried many years ago. The former Chief Minister, Vilasrao Deshmukh,had proposed a Maharashtra Press Council, but Justice Sawant said that sincethere was already a national body, the plan was shelved. Justice Sawant alsoquestioned the need for a separate law for journalists. He said the provisionsof the draft were aimed at making the offences cognizable and non-bailable andincreasing the fine. He said a law specifically for journalists would bediscriminatory and could be challenged. “All that needs to be done is to amendthe Indian Penal Code and make these provisions applicable to everybody.” Hesaid he did not see any justification for a separate law and in any case it was

19

not going to prevent attacks on journalists. He agreed that journalists should beprotected but that protection should extend to everybody. In Maharashtra, forinstance, Right to Information activists were being killed. “I feel there is nojustification to treat journalists as a special community,” he said. “This year,there have been 14 instances of attacks on journalists all over the country andtwo deaths, including that of J. Dey. The need for journalists to be protectedagainst attacks is undeniable.” How far a special law will go in protecting themedia or preventing attacks needs to be debated thoroughly. Even the journalistcommunity has been pushing for this law without much debate and thinking.While most feel it will be a deterrent against attacks, the fact is that unlesscases are fast-tracked and there is some closure, it will be just another legalprovision without any meaning.

With a view of expanding the media, broadcasting and entertainment sectorin the country, the government has constituted a 33-member working group toevolve a strategy and propose a roadmap to expand the sector during the 12thFive Year Plan. The group, constituted by the Planning Commission, will makerecommendations for policy framework in media, broadcasting and entertainmentsectors. The terms of reference of the working group state that it has beenconstituted “to evolve an approach for formulation of plans and programmes forthe I&B sector during the 12th plan period, keeping in view the emerging trendsin radio, television, films, non-electronic media and IT enabled media applications.”The working group has been directed to submit its report by August 31 thisyear. The group has also been mandated to recommend a policy framework forstreamlining and restructuring of public sector broadcasting services in thecountry and a policy for moving towards digital transmission from the currentanalogue system. It is also expected to recommend a policy for expansion ofcommunity radio and FM radio stations, which the government feels can helpin reaching out to the inaccessible parts of the country. “The group will evolveappropriate strategies for disseminating information across the country, particularlyin rural and remote areas with special focus on the flagship programmes of thegovernment,” the directive reads. It will devise policies and strategies foroptimally using India’s power in the film and broadcasting sectors. (The AsianAge, New Delhi dated June 30, 2011)

Other than creating a flutter, the recent Mahendra Singh Dhoni-HarbhajanSingh advertisement spoof has put the spotlight on how liquor brands areviolating existing norms by promoting their products through surrogateadvertisements on TV. “The McDowell’s and Royal Stag whisky ads featuringwell-known cricketers, and all other similar ads are in gross violation in existingnorms. The Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry never approved theirtelecast”. All content telecast on television channels, through cable networks,

20

have to adhere to the ‘programme and advertising code’ in the Cable TelevisionNetworks (Regulation) Act. “As per the code, no surrogate ads or ads of brandextensions of liquor brands are allowed,” said the I&B Ministry official. Headmitted, however, that the surrogate ads issue is a grey area. “We are in theprocess of streamlining this complex issue of surrogate ads and are finalising aset of guidelines,” the official said. After the recent controversy over the Dhoni-Harbhajan liquor ad, the I&B Ministry has sent a reminder to the bodiesframing the guidelines to speed up the work. HT had reported earlier that theIndian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and the News Broadcasters Association(NBA) is preparing a set of guidelines for advertisements. In 2010, thegovernment had declared a blanket ban (no-exception) on all liquor advertisements.(The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated July 27, 2011)

The government is preparing to bring in a regulatory mechanism to checka growing number of advertisements in the media that contain misleadinginformation and erroneous claims. Sources said the Prime Minister’s Office hadinstructed the Consumer Affairs Department to prepare the modalities ofcreating such a regulatory mechanism. The department has been asked tosubmit its first draft to the PMO within a month. They said the government waskeen to ensure that this regulatory framework was created within the next oneyear. The matter has been under consideration of the Consumer AffairsDepartment for some time now. The push for a regulatory mechanism came ata review meeting taken in the PMO on the performance of the ConsumerAffairs Department along with other related Ministries and Departments likeAgriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Food and PublicDistribution, and Food Processing. (The Indian Express, New Delhi datedSeptember 17, 2011)

The Union government’s draft ‘Framework and Guidelines for Use ofSocial Media for Government Organisations,’ released earlier this month, is asignificant step towards consolidating these efforts by laying down guidelines onhow government agencies can use this tool to “reach out to this audience at akey stroke.” The policy states that government departments can use this newmedium not only to disseminate information but also to undertake publicengagement in policymaking and to get feedback on delivery of services.

The 40-page document lays down a comprehensive framework dealingwith aspects, both legal and structural. On resource allocation, it recommendsthat government agencies appoint a dedicated team trained and equipped to dealwith this new medium.

The document, which lists the best practices in several countries and theexisting initiatives in government departments, identifies social networking sites,

21

blogs, video-sharing sites, micro-blogs and wikis as the main platforms to beused. It also encourages creating own and independent platforms to do so. Theguidelines are also fairly detailed on topics such as information disclosure,etiquette and infringement of intellectual property rights.

Data handling

On data handling, the draft mandates that records and trails of anyinformation sharing be captured and recorded. It recommends that “privilegedaccess may be mandated by the government along the same lines as ‘take-down notices’ and ‘information requests’ currently being sent to social mediaand other platforms for intellectual property rights infringement and otheroffences”.

Policies for security

For this, it states that specific policies can be drafted for informationsecurity and archiving. This could include “service-level agreements” betweenthe government and the service provider for content storage, shared access andarchival, and setting a response time for removal of offensive content as shortas five minutes and as long as 15 minutes. (The Hindu, New Delhi datedSeptember 19, 2011)

The government on November 17, 2011 expressed concern over misleadingadvertisements and suggested that peer-run Advertising Standards Council ofIndia (ASCI) create a more responsive system to check them. I&B Minister,Ambika Soni asked ASCI to reduce the time lag between the date of complaintsreceived and action taken by ASCI and to facilitate a quick corrective mechanism.Food and Consumer Affairs Minister, K.V. Thomas said the government wasmulling an Inter Ministerial Committee to strengthen laws and regulations toprevent misleading ads. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated November18, 2011)

The government has come out with new rules to show tobacco use on thebig screen and in television which have significantly toned down the originalnotification completely prohibiting tobacco and its use in films and TV programmes.The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare notified the rules for cigarettes andother tobacco products on 14th November. They were revised on 27th Novemberafter consultations and taking into account the views of the Ministry of Informationand Broadcasting to make it more practical and implementable. The newnotification allows smoking scenes and use of tobacco products with certainriders like scrolls at the beginning and middle of the film. However, the filmfraternity is not happy about the new rules. The Health Ministry has filed an

22

affidavit in the Supreme Court in support of the new notification so that itcannot be challenged in other High Courts. According to the new rules allmovies and TV programmes produced before 14th November displaying tobaccoproducts or tobacco products’ use shall have to mandatorily display:

*Anti-tobacco health spots or messages of minimum 30 seconds durationeach at the beginning and middle of the film or the television programme and

*Anti tobacco health warning as a prominent scroll at the bottom of thescreen during the period of such display.

Such programmes will be telecast at timings that are likely to have leastviewership of minors. For new films and TV programmes a strong editorialjustification for display of tobacco products or their use shall be given to theCentral Board of Film Certification (CBFC) along with UA certification, and itwill be accompanied by: a disclaimer of minimum 20 seconds duration by theconcerned actor regarding the ill effects of the use of such products, in thebeginning and middle of the film or television programme.

Anti-tobacco health spots or messages of minimum 30 seconds durationeach at the beginning and middle of the film or the television programme; Anti-tobacco health warning as a prominent scroll at the bottom of the screen duringthe period of such display; there will be a representative from the Ministry ofHealth and Family Welfare in the Central Board of Film Certification. (TheStatesman, New Delhi dated November 29, 2011)

Parliament on December 19, 2011 passed the Cable Television Networks(Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2011 after the Rajya Sabha adopted it throughvoice vote. Winding up the discussion on the bill, Information and BroadcastingMinister, Ambika Soni said the measure aims at regulating cable operators anddigitalising the analogue TV network across the country in a phased manner byDecember 31, 2014. She said the legislation will end the fight for more TRPsamong channels to gain more advertisements. The bill also gives the governmentthe right to cancel licences of cable operators who flout rules. “TRP is a baneof the TV programmes as it leads to showing of obscene materials andsuperstition. The bill will address this issue”, the Minister said. She said thelegislation has provisions for effective monitoring of contents of the programmesaired through designated officers. (The Asian Age, New Delhi datedDecember 20, 2011)

The Union Government on December 19, 2011 said it was in the processof revising the government advertisement rates for newspapers. “In the lasttwo-and-half years, the rates have been revised twice. The Rate Structure

23

Committee is in the process of finalizing the latest rates”, Minister for Informationand Broadcasting, Ambika Soni said while replying to a question during questionhour in the Rajya Sabha. “The rates of publication of advertisements, given outby the DAVP, are reviewed at regular intervals. In addition to that, as a specialmeasure, the commission, which used to be charged by the DAVP has not beencharged in order to enhance the rates being charged by the newspapers”, shesaid. The Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) is the nodalmulti-media advertising agency of the government. Ms. Soni also informed theHouse that as many as 205 applications for empanelment from newspapers andjournals were accepted till July 31 of current fiscal. So far in 2011-12, a totalof 704 applications were received for empanelment. In 2010-11, 788 applicationswere approved against a request of 1, 689. (The Hindu, New Delhi datedDecember 20, 2011)

Union Information and Broadcasting Minister, Ms. Ambika Soni on December20, 2011 said that measures being taken by the government in connection withthe news industry is benefiting the domestic news media. Answering a queryin the Lok Sabha, Ms. Ambika Soni said that according to the print mediapolicy, foreign newspapers dealing with news and current affairs were not beingallowed to bring out Indian editions though a foreign publishing house whichowns a foreign newspaper has been allowed to bring out the facsimile editionof the foreign newspaper through its wholly-owned Indian subsidiary. She said,“Although the facsimile editions of foreign newspapers are allowed, they are notallowed to carry advertisements in any form aimed at Indian subscribers”.Measures such as this and the move to limit the FDI in the print media havebeen of immense benefit to the domestic news industry. (The Asian Age, NewDelhi dated December 21, 2011)

Assembly Speaker K.G Bopaiah on February 15, 2012 said it was for theState government to decide whether or not to follow the Lok Sabha model fortelevision coverage of House proceedings, footages of which are shared withprivate television channels by the State owned Doordarshan.

“Four years ago, the Lok Sabha Secretariat issued guidelines on thetelecast of the proceedings in the legislature. It is for the government to decidewhether they will follow it. Embarrassed by the porngate episode in theAssembly, the government had dropped hints that it was contemplating a banon live telecast of the legislature proceedings by private television channels.Bopaiah said a Legislative Committee, which went into the details of the Statehaving its own telecasting system to cover the proceedings of the Assembly andthe Council, had said that it would cost the State exchequer Rs. 25 crore to putthe system in place. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore dated February 16, 2012)

24

The Broadcast Content Complaints Council (BCCC) has asked televisionchannels to dilute scenes portraying assault, abuse, and com-modification ofwomen and children in their programmes. “We have marked a ‘LakshmanRekha’ (line of tolerance) for TV channels that have been airing serialsportraying atrocities against and mistreatment of women and children. Theyhave been asked to dilute such objectionable scenes”, said Justice A.P. Shah,Chairman, BCCC who has already issued an advisory to the Indian BroadcastingFoundation (IBF) to this effect. The BCCC is empowered to initiate suo-motuproceedings against any programme on any TV channel. There have beenabout 400 complaints against TV channels for airing objectionable content. “Ofthese, about 20 relate to offensive portrayal of women and children”, Shah said.(The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated February 18, 2012)

Industry representatives, including broadcasters and advertisers, haveannounced setting up of Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), whichwill measure TV audience ratings and to that extent, break the monopoly ofTAM.

This will be the first time that media industry representatives will be partof the audience rating body and its equity will be held by the Indian BroadcastingFoundation (IBF), Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) and Advertising AgenciesAssociation of India (AAAI) with a 60%, 20% and 20% stake respectively.

BARC was a key recommendation of the Amit Mitra Committee of TVaudience measurement set up by the I&B Ministry. A 10-member BARC Boardwill soon be announced. At present, TV audience is measured by private firmTAM. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated March 16, 2012)

Attacks

Attacks on journalists are getting worrying more frequent. Attempts atbrowbeating the fearless reporters have been many during the year. Taking noteof several reports and complaints from various quarters about these attacks andcovert measures adopted to undermine press freedom the Council has set upfact finding teams to take stock of the ground realities in various areas. In thisconnection letters have also been addressed by Chairman, Press Council ofIndia to Chief Ministers of respective States.

Given below are a collection of reports that cover the major incidents ofattacks/assaults on media persons during the period under review. Extensivereporting of the incidents can also be perused in the Council’s in house journalsnamely, PCI Reviews for the said financial year.

25

• Murder of Senior Crime Reporter Jyotirmoy Dey*

Mr. Jyotirmoy Dey, editor (investigation) of Mumbai evening tabloid Mid-Day, was shot dead by four gunmen near Spectra Building, at Ghatkopar onJune 11, 2011 afternoon. Dey was the first reporter to expose the Rs. 8,000crore oil mafia racket in the State. According to his colleagues in Mid-Day,J. Dey had been fair and non-controversial. Neither had he reported a threatfrom any quarter of the underworld with which he was quite familiar. He wasnot working on any specific story in the last two weeks, his colleagues said.

Agency reports, meanwhile, quoted un-named police sources as sayingDey, who recently ran a series of news reports on the oil mafia, had receivedthreats from anti-social elements.

Joint Commissioner, Mr.Rajnish Seth (law and order) said five bullets hitthe journalist in the chest, head and abdomen. He was critical when taken tohospital but succumbed to his wounds immediately.

Expressing shock over the killing, Maharashtra PWD Minister, Mr. ChhaganBhujbal said the journalist did not target any gang or mafia in particular.

Asked if the killing could be linked to elements from the underworld or theoil mafia, Mr. Bhujbal, also former Home Minister, said: “Dey was a veryhonest person. He used to write on the underworld. He was not targetinganyone in particular, whether any gang or any (oil) mafia”.

He said Dey’s killing appeared to be pre-planned. “Some mafia will bebehind it,” he said.

Home Minister, Mr. R.R. Patil said the police were yet to ascertain whowere behind the gruesome killing. But he expects police to track down theassailants in two-three days. Mr. Patil said police have been told to provideprotection to any journalist who has asked for it.

Dey had worked with several major newspapers, including Indian Expressand The Hindustan Times.

In Kolkata, West Bengal Chief Minister, Miss Mamata Banerjee condemnedthe killing of Dey, saying that such an act would not be able to stifle the voiceof the media. (The Statesman, New Delhi dated June 12, 2011)

The Editors Guild of India, the Broadcast Editors’ Association, the PressClub of India, and a host of other press organisations strongly condemned Dey’skilling, mourned his death, and demanded urgent action to bring the guilty to

*This incident has also been covered under the head “Court Cases”.

26

justice. Condemning Dey’s murder, the Information and Broadcasting Minister,Mrs. Ambika Soni said: “This act has challenged the freedom of press and theperusal of objective reporting. This incident is a sign of insanity perpetuated bymindless individuals in which innocent citizens are killed. No civilised societycan tolerate this kind of attack on freedom of press.”

Mrs. Soni also hoped that the “Home Minister of Maharashtra (Mr. R.R.Patil) will live up to his assurance of tracking down the assailants in the shortestpossible time.” Maharashtra is ruled by the Congress-led government involvingthe Sharad Pawar-led NCP.

Condemning the incident, the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh’s mediaadvisor, Mr. Harish Khare described it as “shocking and unacceptable.” (TheSunday Statesman, New Delhi dated June 12, 2011)

• Attack on TOI’s Mumbai office

A group of miscreants waving saffron flags and shouting pro-Shiv Senaslogans barged into The Times of India building on January 28, 2012 andvandalized the reception area before the police took charge of the situation.

The attackers claimed to be upset with a news report in MaharashtraTimes, a Marathi morninger belonging to The Times Group of Publications. Themob broke furniture in the lobby, smashed pots, window panes and computers,and also burnt copies of Maharashtra Times. The attackers appeared angrywith a Maharashtra Times report about possible defections from the Shiv Senato the NCP, a party which is an ally in State’s Maharashtra’s ruling DemocraticFront (DF) alliance. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated January 29,2012)

Political parties have condemned January 28, 2012 attack when a mob ofmiscreants carrying Shiv Sena flags and shouting party slogans went on arampage in the Times of India building. (The Times of India, New Delhidated January 29, 2012)

Twenty eight persons, suspected to be Shiv Sena members, have beenarrested for vandalising the reception area of “Times of India”(TOI) building insouth Mumbai on January 28, 2012, police said on January 28, 2012.

The accused were booked under the relevant Sections of IPC includingSection 447(Punishment for criminal trespass), Section 323 (Punishment forvoluntarily causing hurt), Section 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt,assault or wrongful restraint), Section 144 (Joining unlawful assembly armedwith deadly weapon), 146 (Rioting) and Sections of Criminal Amendment Act

27

as well as Mumbai Police Act in Azad Maidan police station. (Deccan Herald,Bangalore dated January 30, 2012)

The Azad Maidan police arrested three more people on January 30, 2012in connection with the attack on The Times of India building on January 28,2012 afternoon. In all, 30 people have been arrested since January 28, 2012 andthe police are looking to nab more than 100 others involved in the attack. Theaccused have been charged for rioting, vandalism and criminal trespass underseveral Sections of IPC. The court had rejected their bail applications and theyhave been remanded to police custody till February 1, 2012. Police sources saidnone of the rioters were from Shiv Sena. Instead, all the men belonged to theCooperative Banking Union, headed by Sena MLA Anandrao Adsul. “They areBank employees working in different cooperative Banks. They were irked afterreading reports alleging Adsul was planning to defect to NCP”, said Inspector,A. Thube of Azad Maidan police station. (The Times of India, New Delhidated January 31, 2012)

Maharashtra Chief Minister, Prithiviraj Chavan has in a letter to the PCIassured the safety of journalists in the State. The letter to PCI Chief, JusticeMarkandey Katju comes after the PCI Chief sent him a scathing missive overviolent attacks on journalists in Maharashtra. A statement issued on March 3,2012 by the PCI said that the Maharashtra Chief Minister had written “statingthat he (Chavan) holds the Press Council in high esteem and that his governmentis committed to guarantee the freedom of the press”. “He has also stated thathe is getting the issues raised in my letter (regarding attacks on journalists inMaharashtra) examined and will revert to me soon with factual details”, thestatement said. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated March 3, 2012)

• Murder of Madhya Pradesh Senior Journalist Chandrika Raiand his family members

The brutal murder of a senior journalist and his entire family on February18, 2012 night in Madhya Pradesh’s Umaria district, over 450 km from Bhopal,has sent shockwaves across the State with fingers being pointed at the illegalcoal mining mafia active in the region. Journalist Chandrika Rai, his wife Durgaand their two teenage children – son Jalaj and daughter Nisha– were murderedusing a sharp object at their residence, police said. The bodies were found infour separate rooms. Mr. Rai was a freelance journalist who contributedregularly to the Hindi daily Navbharat and English daily The Hitavada. He hadbeen writing consistently against the illegal coal mining in the region. He hadwritten a series of articles alleging involvement of a local BJP leader in illegalmining. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated February 20, 2012)

28

A day after a local journalist and his family members were found allegedlymurdered in his house, the Madhya Pradesh government on February 19, 2012announced a Special Task Force-level probe into the incident. (The HindustanTimes, New Delhi dated February 20, 2012)

The Editors Guild of India has demanded that the Madhya Pradeshgovernment institute a high-level probe into February 18, 2012 murder of seniorfreelance journalist Chandrika Rai and his entire family in order to “unravel theconspiracy behind the murder”. In a letter to Chief Minister, Shivraj SinghChouhan, the Guild said it was suspected that the multiple murders were a bidto silence Mr. Rai, who had recently written a series of hard-hitting articlesagainst illegal coal mining activity in the region and the alleged involvement ofa local political leader. “We owe it to the memory of this courageous journalistto ensure that the guilty are arrested speedily”, said the letter. The South AsiaMedia Commission also issued a statement condemning the murders and thenexus between mafia, politicians and bureaucrats that endangers journalists inmany parts of the country. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated February 21, 2012)

The Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police, S.K. Raut on February23, 2012 confirmed that the Umeria journalist Chandrika Rai, who was foundmurdered along with his wife and two children last week, was involved in theabduction of a seven year old son of a government official. Saying that themultiple murder case was solved, Raut said, “Our investigations reveal thatChandrika Rai was involved in the abduction of the child. Those we havedetained for interrogation in connection with the journalist’s murder have confessedto the kidnapping”. The police said the murders were linked to the hefty ransommoney taken for the release of the abducted boy Anant Jhariya, son of PWDSub-Divisional Officer, Hemant Jhariya. Rai was murdered because the boy’sabductors had doubts about the exact amount of ransom money cornered forthe boy’s release, and its sharing led to the massacre at Rai’s home. Meanwhile,a three-member fact finding team was constituted by Press Council Chief,Justice Markandey Katju to inquire into the murder. (The Times of India,New Delhi dated February 24, 2012)

The Madhya Pradesh police on March 1, 2012 claimed to have crackedthe murder case of journalist Chandrika Rai and his family members byarresting the 31 year old driver employed with the scribe. The Special TaskForce (STF) which was entrusted with the investigations also sought to shootdown its earlier claim that that the scribe was killed by a gang of kidnapperswhom he was blackmailing. “Right now, we are in a position to say that thekillings have nothing to do with any kidnapping”, they said. (The Asian Age,New Delhi dated March 2, 2012)

29

• Karnataka Porn Scandal

Even before it could take a decision on summoning the three formerMinisters found watching pornographic video clippings on a mobile phone, theLegislative Assembly Committee— constituted by Speaker, K.G. Bopaiah toprobe the episode has begun the process of grilling representatives of televisionchannels for telecasting the damning footage.

The editor of a Kannada Channel, who appeared before the Committee onFebruary 29, 2012, was asked questions that seemed to suggest that the mediawas wrong in telecasting the episode. “Don’t you know that what you had doneis a violation of Rules 6, 17 and 20 of the Karnataka Vidhana Soudha PressGallery Rules?” was one of the 15 questions posed to the editor.

Five of the 15 questions were part of a dossier circulated among the fourruling party legislators in the seven-member panel. The Congress and the JD(S)have boycotted the Committee. The other 10 questions were asked spontaneously.

Another senior journalist from a Kannada television channel has beensummoned to appear before the Committee on March 1, 2012. A member ofthe panel confirmed to The Hindu that the panel had summoned representativesof another regional television channel on March 1, 2012, where the same setof queries is expected to be posed.

The former Ministers, Laxman Savadi, C.C. Patil and J. Krishna Palemar,had to resign from the BJP government after television channels exposed themwatching pornographic video clippings during the Assembly session on February7.

Meanwhile, Shrishailappa Bidarur, who heads the Assembly Committee,told press persons that the panel, which had received replies from the threeMinisters to the show-cause served on them, would take a decision on March1, 2012 whether to summon them before the panel. The Committee wouldsubmit report by March 13, the deadline set by the Speaker, he said. Apart fromMr. Bidarur, the panel comprises BJP MLAs S.R. Vishwanath, Nehru Olekarand Suresh Gowda. H.C. Mahadevappa and Amare Gowda Bayyapur of theCongress and Dinakar Shetty of the JD(S) have boycotted the panel. (TheHindu, New Delhi dated March 1, 2012)

Defending journalists who reported the porn-gate scandal, Press CouncilChairman, Justice Markandey Katju wrote to the Karnataka Assembly Speakerurging him that proceedings initiated against media persons be dropped. In hisletter to Speaker, K.G. Bopaiah, he requested him to reconsider his decision andwithdraw the proceedings against mediapersons and instead “take strong action

30

against the MLAs who have brought disgrace to the House”. Mr. Justice Katjusaid that he felt that such proceedings against mediapersons jeopardise thefreedom of the media guaranteed as a fundamental right by the Constitution ofIndia and seek to create an impression that it is the media which has broughtthe House into disrepute rather than the MLAs involved. He said the InquiryCommittee set up by the Karnataka Assembly in the matter should seek detailsof this “sordid affair” , though from the questions they had asked it seemedthey were treating journalists like those accused in an offence.

“In my respectful opinion the Inquiry Committee can certainly askmediapersons concerned questions to ascertain correct facts about this sordidaffair. But from what I could gather, the question being asked give theimpression that the mediapersons are being treated as an accused of someoffence, and are being grilled accordingly”, Mr. Katju noted. He said as peopleare the masters and the legislators only their representatives, the public has theright to be informed of the activities of the legislators. “And the media is anagency of the people to give them this information. Hence I do not see whatwrong the media has done by telecasting the watching of porn by the MLAsin the House.

“To my mind the media were only doing their duty to the people ofinforming them of the shameful manner in which some of their representativeswere behaving”, Mr. Katju said. He said all proceedings in a Assembly mustbe freely telecast and reported so that the people, who are the supremeauthority in a democracy, know how their representatives are behaving. “Theremay, of course, be exceptional situations where this cannot be done. Forexample, in the Second World War many secret sessions of the House ofCommons were held so that Nazi spies may not know the views of the Britishpolitical leaders.

“But such secrecy can only be in exceptional situations. I fail to see whatwas the exceptional situations in Karanataka which could justify prohibitingmediapersons to report events in the House” Katju said. He also quoted the USSupreme Court judgement in Pentagon Papers case which said, “only a freeand unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. Andparamount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent anypart of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off todistant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell”.

“In my view far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting,The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other newspapers deserve tobe commended for serving the purpose which the Founding Father saw soclearly. In revealing the workings of the government which led to the Vietnam

31

War the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped andtrusted they would do”, he said quoting the judgement. (The Statesman, NewDelhi dated March 13, 2012)

Legislative Assembly Speaker, K.G. Bopaiah has said that he was yet toreceive the letter written by Press Council of India Chairperson, MarkandeyKatju urging the withdrawal of probe against mediapersons who reported on theporngate scandal. When contacted by Deccan Herald, Bopaiah on March 13,2012 said even his office had not received the letter. Asked whether he wouldconsider the suggestion of Katju, the Speaker said, “I can react only after goingthrough the letter”. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore dated March 14, 2012)

The Legislative Assembly Committee probing the porngate scandal hasdecided not to issue notices to eight other MLAs who allegedly watched sleazyvideos inside the House.

Disclosing this to reporters on March 15, 2012 Committee Chairperson,Srishailappa Bidarur said the panel had been asked to probe the incidentinvolving only the three former ministers – Lakshman Savadi, C.C. Patil andKrishna Palemar. It is beyond the scope of the Committee to find out whetherother MLAs also watched porn clips, he said. BJP MLA, Nehru Olekar, oneof the Committee members, had recently alleged that eight other legislators hadwatched porn videos, and notices would be issued to them. He, however, didnot reveal the names of the legislators. Asked about Olekar’s statement,Bidarur said that while watching the CCTV footages of the House, theCommittee found many MLAs using mobile phones. “But the terms of referencesay the Committee should probe only the three former ministers”, he added. OnPress Council Chairman, Markandey Katju’s recent letter urging the StateLegislature to drop proceedings against mediapersons in the porngate episode,he said he had not received any letter. Bidarur said the Committee wouldsubmit its report before March 20.

“Do Not Indict Media”

The Law Department officials are learnt to have informed the Committeethat the media cannot be indicted in the porngate scandal as they have onlydone their duty. The media, especially TV news channels, were well within theirrights to telecast what some members were doing in the House, the officials arelearnt to have said.

The Committee had recently grilled representatives of two private newschannels for exposing the three former ministers watching porn clips in theHouse. The Committee, at its meeting on March 15, 2012, consulted the Law

32

Department officials on various aspects of the scandal. It is scheduled to holdanother meeting on March 16, 2012 before submitting its final report. (DeccanHerald, Bangalore dated March 16, 2012)

Legislative Assembly Speaker, K.G. Bopaiah on March 15, 2012 expresseddispleasure over the public statements of Srishailappa Bidarur, Chairman of theHouse Committee probing the porngate episode, and panel member NehruOlekar. Addressing the media in Bangalore, he said a House Committee shouldprobe and submit the report to the Speaker, after which it will be tabled in theHouse. “This has been the practice. Disclosing the details of the probe beforesubmission of the report is inappropriate. It is not a good convention”, he said.

Bopaiah also said the terms of reference for the Committee was to onlyprobe the issue related to the three former ministers, Lakshman Savadi, C.C.Patil and Krishna Palemar. “Despite the order clearly stating the scope of theprobe, Olekar has said that eight to 10 MLAs have watched porn clips insidethe House”. This is not correct. However, I don’t want to drag the issue, hesaid.

The Speaker reiterated that the trio will not be allowed to participate in theproceedings till the report is tabled in the House. “I won’t take any action basedon the report. I will leave it to the House to decide on an appropriate action.If need be, let there be a vote on the issue. Let people know who is siding withthe porngate ministers and who is opposing them”, he said, adding that thereport will be submitted on March 20. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore datedMarch 16,2012)

“The minister was reading a government order even as a porn clip playedout on his mobile phone. And he had no intention of watching porn”. This wasan observation of a BJP panel in its report which indicted former MinisterLaxman Savadi, accused of viewing a porn clip during proceedings in the statelegislative assembly on February 7. The report was tabled in the House onMarch 30, 2012.

The 28-page report (excluding annexures) prepared by a panel headed byBJP MLA Srishailappa V. Bidarur concluded while there’s prima facie evidencethat Savadi had watched sleazy clips on a mobile but not enough to recommendharsh punishment.

“As Savadi has already apologized to the Committee for using a mobileinside the House and the trio faced suspension from the assembly proceedingsin the last one-and-a-half months as punishment, the Speaker may warn him notto resort to such things in future and admonish him”, it said.

33

However, two other former Ministers— C.C. Patil and Krishna Palemar—accused of watching and sharing the porn clip with Savadi were let off.“There is no evidence to suggest that former Minister C.C. Patil viewed pornon the mobile and Krishna Palemar was responsible for providing it”, the reportsaid.

It noted there were some similarities in the visuals viewed on the mobileby Savadi and the clip in a pen drive with him. However, it said, when themobile was on, the member was also reading a government order and theirwatching the sleazy clip was not intentional. To ensure such incidents don’trecur, the report recommended banning of mobiles in the House. (The Timesof India, New Delhi dated March 31, 2012)

• Journalists Attacked in Karnataka Court

Lawyers on March 2, 2012 clashed with mediapersons at a Bangalorecourt which was hearing the CBI’s request for the custody of former KarnatakaMinister, G. Janardhan Reddy in an illegal mining case. Several people on bothsides were injured and media vans damaged. The clashes started soon afterReddy was taken away from the court when the lawyers refused to let themediapersons inside the compound to interview advocates involved with Reddy’scase. The lawyers threw stones; the journalists retaliated but, out-numbered,were chased into the Government Arts and Science College next door andseveral were beaten up. When the police intervened, the lawyers on the upperfloors of the court threw down chairs and benches on them, injuring several,including Deputy Commissioner of Police, G. Ramesh, who was in charge ofsecurity at the court. Some TV channels later reported that a policeman namedChandrappa had died of injuries but Bangalore Police Chief, Jyothi PrakashMirji refuted the claim.

Though the immediate spark to March 2, 2012 violence was the lawyers’refusal to let the journalists enter the court, tension between the two sides hadbeen simmering since January, when the media strongly criticised the lawyers’snap strike in Bangalore over the beating of one of them by the police for atraffic violation. In fact, even during that strike, which had crippled traffic,leaving even ambulances stranded, lawyers had attacked journalists and policeoutside a Magistrate’s court. The media’s severe criticism of the attacks furtherstrained the relations, so much so that in the past few weeks, lawyers had beenwarning individual journalists visiting the city and the Magistrate’s court of“retaliation”. Meanwhile, Chief Minister, Sadananda Gowda ordered a judicialprobe into March 2, 2012 clashes. “After gathering information from variousquarters and discussing the issue with Home Minister, R. Ashok, the governmenthas decided to initiate a judicial probe into the shameful and dastardly act of

34

a section of lawyers”, Gowda said. The Chief Minister, however, added that hisgovernment would help ease the tension between mediapersons and lawyersrather than exacerbate it with arrests. (The Indian Express, New Delhidated March 3, 2012)

Condemning the attack on journalists at Bangalore’s civil court complex onMarch 2, 2012, Press Council of India Chairman, Justice Markandey Katju hascalled for “severe punishment” to be meted out to lawyers who allegedly “tookthe law into their own hands and physically attacked mediapersons”. (TheHindu, New Delhi dated March 3, 2012)

A day after the brutal attack on the media at the civil court complexallegedly by the lawyers, the journalist fraternity on March 3, 2012 took out aprotest march in Bangalore and demanded arrest of the culprits who wereresponsible for the inhuman and unprovoked attack on journalists.

Meanwhile, a delegation of senior journalists representing all scribes’associations met Governor, H.R. Bharadwaj who also condemned the incidentand assured the journalists that he would take necessary action in this regard.

Meanwhile, Corporate Affairs Minister, M. Veerappa Moily sought to blamethe BJP Government in Karnataka for the attack on journalists, saying it failedto act beforehand as the trouble was brewing for some time.(The Pioneer,New Delhi dated March 4, 2012)

The police on March 3, 2012 cracked down on the lawyers and arrestedRanganath, Santosh, Suresh and Arun Nayak, allegedly accused in March 2,2012 arson in which the lawyers had attacked and injured the media andpolicemen under Sections of the Indian Penal Code for rioting, arson, causingmischief and grievous injuries and obstructing officer on duty from performinghis functions. “We have identified around 40 lawyers and they will soon bearrested. We have registered 31 cases against the accused”, said AdditionalCommissioner (Law and Order), T. Sunil Kumar. (The Asian Age, New Delhidated March 4, 2012)

The Broadcast Editors’ Association has expressed serious concern over thegrowing incidents of attacks on the media. The association has constituted afive-member fact-finding Committee to investigate the assault on journalists inBengaluru and also to look into the Karnataka Assembly incident. Headed byBEA General Secretary, N.K. Singh, the Committee will submit its report withina week. “There seems a pattern in all these incidents suggesting that an attemptis sought to be made to frighten the media into submission”, said the top bodyof electronic media professionals. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated March4, 2012)

35

Law Minister, S. Suresh Kumar on March 4, 2012 said the governmentwas trying to arrange a meeting between representatives of the advocate andthe media to bring about peace between them. The Minister told DeccanHerald that the lawyers were planning to boycott courts for a day on March5, 2012. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore dated March 5, 2012)

The Registrar General of the High Court has promised that mediapersonscovering the City Civil Court proceedings will be given protection. Acting uponthe directions of the Chief Justice (CJ), he also promised to initiate actionagainst the advocates who misbehave with them. (Deccan Herald, Bangaloredated March 6, 2012)

The media and the police in the state came under severe criticism fromKarnataka High Court Chief Justice, Vikramjit Sen on March 23, 2012 duringthe hearing of a series of PILs filed by advocates in connection with theclashes in Bangalore on March 2 between the media, police and lawyers.

He indicated that the police was showing reluctance in identifying itsofficials responsible for the violence.

Justice Sen said a CBI inquiry would have to be ordered if the policecannot set its house in order.

“There is a reluctance on the part of the police in identifying the guiltyoffenders. This is an interference in the functioning of the judicial system. Idon’t want the functioning of my courts affected again”, Justice Sen said withreference to an 18 day strike by lawyers demanding action against the policeand the media.

“We don’t want to step into the anarchy that took place that day. We wantthe truth to emerge as to who was responsible and action must be taken”, hesaid.

On the role of the media, he said there are theories that the police andmedia were hand-in-glove. “What right does the media have to contrivedreporting. Prima facie it seems they wanted things to happen in a certain wayand reported it that way”, Justice Sen said. (The Indian Express, New Delhidated March 27, 2012)

Court Cases

The Supreme Court on May 26, 2011 expressed its inability to restrain themedia from reporting the inquiry proceedings of the Impeachment Probe

36

Committee against the Sikkim High Court Chief Justice, P.D. Dinakaran, whosecounsel made a plea for in-camera hearing by the probe panel.

Though agreeing that media reporting on unsubstantiated allegations andsub-judice matters might cause a “life-long” damage to the reputation of aperson if the charges against him were later proved to be untrue, a bench ofJustices, G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad told Justice, Dinakaran’s counsel thatthere was no escape from it as the media dominance was a “new trend.” Hiscounsel argued that media reporting has the “danger” of causing prejudice.(The Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad dated May 27, 2011)

The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Government and MumbaiPolice to submit a status report on the investigations into J. Dey’s murder onJune 21, even as the investigators claim about having achieved a breakthroughin the case fell flat on their face.

On a day when the embarrassed city crime branch sleuths justified theirdecision to release the three gangsters within hours of detaining them inconnection with Dey’s murder, the High Court also directed MaharashtraAdvocate General, Ravi Kadam to remain present in the court on June 21, toargue the matter.

The HC division bench of Justices, Ranjana Desai and R.V. More, whichis hearing two petitions filed by senior lawyer, V.P. Patil and former journalist,Ketan Tirodkar seeking a CBI inquiry into Dey’s murder, allowed two interveningapplications made by two journalist organisations — Press Club, Mumbai andMarathi Patrakar Parishad, which have also made a similar plea.

Opposing the transfer of the Dey murder case probe to the CBI, PublicProsecutor, Pandurang Pol informed the High Court that since the investigationsin the case were going on in a right direction, there was no need for handingover the case to the CBI at this stage.

The Judges, however, asked the State Government and Mumbai Police tolet them know of the progress made in the murder probe, through a statusreport on June 21. (The Pioneer, New Delhi dated June 17, 2011)

The Bombay High Court asked the Maharashtra government to file a replyon police officers talking to the media about the J. Dey murder case, while itis under investigation.

Expressing concern over varied reports on the case, a division bench ofJustices Ranjana Desai and R.V. More said: “This is not restricted to this case.Why should police officers talk to the media about cases which are underinvestigation?”

37

“Which police officers are the media approaching? Or are some policeofficers approaching the media? Is this a publicity stunt?” the bench askedAdvocate General, Ravi Kadam after the lawyer for the intervention petitioner,‘Press Club’, Mumbai, submitted a compilation of newspaper articles about theinvestigation in the case.

Advocate, V.P. Patil and journalists Ketan Tirodkar and S. Balakrishnanhad filed separate petitions in the High Court seeking a probe by the CentralBureau of Investigation (CBI) into the case.

Counsel for the Press Club, Navroz Seervai raised questions about theimpartiality of the Mumbai Police in probing the J. Dey murder case. “How willthe police investigate impartially if J. Dey had written articles about the nexusbetween the underworld and a section of the Mumbai Police,” he asked.

“I have a compilation of articles which are very irresponsible. It is shockingto see that the police are deliberately leaking wrong information to the media.They have been contradicting themselves,” Mr. Seervai told the court.

He said the police were leaking information about not just the professionallife but also the personal life of J. Dey. “There are only three ladies in thefamily (J. Dey’s family) — an ageing mother, a sister who is not 100 per centnormal and the wife. Such articles disturb them,” he said.

There was also a reference to the alleged call of fugitive gangster ChhotaRajan to a TV channel correspondent a few days ago claiming that he orderedthe killing. The Advocate General told the court that the reporter was summonedand his statement was recorded after that.

Justice Ranjana Desai said the police had already made eight arrests.“They should be given more time to find who is behind this.”

“The question is not how much time the Mumbai police will take to crackthe case. The question is whether the probe is independent or not. We wantto address the qualitative aspect,” she said.

Mr. Seervai claimed that the police had not been able to find the realculprits or the masterminds in the case and had only arrested the “small fish.”“If you leave it to them [Mumbai Police], rest assured, you will not get to thebottom of this,” he said.

National significance

He said the attack on J Dey was of national significance. “This is a partof the frontal attack on our democratic policy itself in the form of brazenly

38

trying to silence the press, which is one of the guardians of Article 19(1)(a)[freedom of speech and expression] of the Constitution,” he said.

The court also directed to State to respond about the allegation of thepolice-underworld nexus. Another petitioner, Mr. Tirodkar said there was nodoubt about the integrity and character of the police. (The Hindu, New Delhidated July 7, 2011)

The Bombay High Court dismissed a bunch of petitions seeking CBI probeinto the ghastly murder of senior crime reporter Jyotirmoy Dey, after observingthat it was difficult for the court to consider this an exceptional case warrantingits transfer to the country’s apex investigating agency.

“We must state that having perused the report (submitted by the police onJuly 7, 2011) and having heard learned Advocate General, it is not possible forus to come to a conclusion that investigation of this case is lackadaisical,perfunctory or is not on proper lines,” Justice Ranjana Desai observed a set ofPILs filed by advocate, V.P. Patil, veteran journalist, S. Balakrishna and formerjournalist, Ketan Tirodkar. The Press Club, Mumbai and Marathi PatrakarParishad had filed intervening applications.

Dey, who used to work as an editor (Special Investigations) with Mid-Day,was gunned down from a close range by a group of gangsters at Powai inNorth-East Mumbai on June 11.

The petitioners’ basic contention was that the Dey murder case be handedover to the CBI on the ground they did not expect the Mumbai Police toconduct an ‘impartial’ and ‘honest’ investigations in the Dey case. The petitionershad also averred that the police-underworld nexus would come in the way ofeffective investigations into the case.

However, disagreeing with the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners,the Judge noted, “Though we have power to transfer investigations to CBI, thispower has to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases. In the absence of anymaterial on record substantiating the allegation that Mumbai Police, who areinvestigating this case, have links with the underworld, it is difficult for us tohold that this is an exceptional case warranting transfer to the CBI”.

She added, “Assuming that this case has not only national but internationalramifications, we do not feel that Mumbai Police cannot successfully investigateit”. As she reposed faith in the abilities of the Mumbai police, the Judge citedthe investigations into the 26/11 attacks, in which Pakistani terrorist MohammedAjmal Kasab was involved, as a case in point.

39

“In our opinion, the allegation that because Dey was conducting investigativejournalism, he has been silenced by underworld and that because the MumbaiPolice have links with underworld, they will not carry out impartial investigationis extremely general in nature…. However, there is nothing to even prima facieestablish that the officers investigating Dey’s murder have links with theunderworld. The necessary material particulars are lacking,” she said. (ThePioneer, New Delhi dated July 19, 2011)

A Special Court dealing with organised crime on December 1, 2011rejected the Mumbai police plea to conduct narco-test on journalist, Jigna Vora,arrested last week for her alleged involvement in the murder of scribe JyotirmoyDey, but extended her police custody till December 5, 2011.

Vora has been charged under Sections 120 (b) (conspiracy) and 302(murder) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). Theinvestigating team contended that Vora had “instigated fugitive gangster SadashivNikakalje aka Chhota Rajan against Mid-Day journalist J. Dey”.

The public prosecutor had initially sought an eight-day extension in hercustody, saying that it was necessary to recover Vora’s cell phone, which shehad sold and retrieve the phone records. “It was a case of professional rivalryover sources”, police said on November 25, 2011 in a press meet whileannouncing Vora’s arrest. Dey had eulogised Chhota Rajan and thereafterstarted writing stories having a slant towards Rajan’s rival Chhota Shakil.

Vora, who had started her career as a film journalist before becoming acourt reporter, had stated dabbling in police and crime reporting for the lastcouple of years. The two scribes once had an argument over a small-timestoolie and fixer Farid Tanasha. Following Tanasha’s murder, both Dey andVora had described Tanasha as “source”.

Irked by this behaviour, Vora had allegedly instigated Rajan against Deyover phone, records of which the police claims to have ferreted out. (DeccanHerald, Bangalore dated December 2, 2011)

The Special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA)court on December 24, 2011 rejected the application of arrested scribe JignaVora seeking gag on the media on the ground that it was allegedly publishingdefamatory information about her.

Jigna Vora, Deputy Bureau Chief of Asian Age has been under arrestunder MCOCA charges in the case of the murder of senior crime reporter ofMid-day, J. Dey.

40

“The court observed that prima facie, no case could be made out fordefamation. The judge said that no restraint can be ordered on the media asit is not a party to the case”, special public prosecutor, Dileep Shah said: “Thecourt also said that MCOCA court is not the proper authority to hear defamationcases”, he said.

Ms. Vora had moved an application in the court seeking restrictions on themedia reporting of the J. Dey murder case. She had said that reports on thecase were being published without naming the source of the information andthat the content about her was defamatory in nature.

She had pleaded that the media should print the names of the sources whohad been giving information about the case.

Move lower court

“The court stated that no prima facie evidence was produced by theapplicant showing her defamation. There is no material to show that she isdefamed by virtue of the press printing the proceedings of the court hearing.

“Moreover, the court is not the proper authority for hearing defamationcases. For that, the applicant will have to move a lower court”, Mr. Shah said.

Ms. Vora had also pleaded earlier that the entire trial be conducted in-camera. The other accused objected to the plea and wanted their say in thematter also to be recorded. She later withdrew that plea.

Copies given

Meanwhile, the court on December 24, 2011 handed over the truncatedcopies of the confession statements of three accused, Arun Dake, DeepakSisodiya and Vinod Chembur, to their lawyers. This will enable them to file theirbail plea.

The court also provided copies of the statements of three witnessesrecorded by the police.

Retracts confession

One of the accused has retracted the confession statement saying that hewas threatened by the police and he did not know the contents of thestatement. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated December 25, 2011)

Five years after it had upheld the expulsion of 11 MPs in the cash-for-questions scam, the Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Police’s bid to prosecutethe two journalists who had conducted the sting operation.

41

As a corollary, a 2010 Delhi High Court ruling that corruption can beexposed by undercover journalists without informing authorities has attainedfinality.

A bench headed by Justice Aftab Alam dismissed the special leave petitionfiled by the police against the High Court verdict quashing the charge sheet inrelation to Aniruddha Bahal and Suhasini Raj of cobrapost.com. The SC agreedwith the HC view that if the journalists had taken the police into confidenceabout their operation to expose MPs accepting bribes to ask questions inParliament, “the respective MPs would have been given information by thepolice beforehand and would have been cautioned about the entire operation.”

This has scuttled the police’s attempt to prosecute the journalists along withthe MPs and middlemen on account of their alleged failure to act as complainantsbefore the story titled “Operation Duryodhan” was aired in December 2005.The police had tried to implicate the journalists on the ground that every personaware of the commission of an offence was obliged to inform the nearest policeofficer.

The implication of the SC’s decision is that undercover journalists can wellclaim immunity under Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act whichstipulates that a statement made somebody who offered a bribe to a publicservant “shall not subject such person to a prosecution” on the charge ofabetting the offence. This is the first time the SC was to decide if they shouldbe tried. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated October 18, 2011)

The Delhi High Court agreed to hear a plea whether there should beprohibition against any write-up that does not confine criticism to a verdict but“personally attacks” a judge and his judicial acumen.

Admitting a petition that highlighted a lawyer’s “defamatory” article on hiswebsite relating to the verdict in the 1999 Shivani Bhatnagar murder case, adivision bench of Acting Chief Justice, A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv SahaiEndlaw decided to hear the arguments on the issue if there could be a restraintin the form of a judicial order against such practice.

The petition filed by a lawyer had brought to the notice of the court anarticle written by advocate Ashok Arora, a former Secretary of the SupremeCourt Bar Association, on the verdict delivered by a division bench of the courton October 12.

The verdict had acquitted former Haryana IGP, R.K. Sharma and twoothers serving a life term in the killing of The Indian Express journalist, ShivaniBhatnagar, clearing them of all charges.

42

The judgment, which overturned a trial court verdict, was inconclusive onwhy and at whose instance Shivani was killed. However, it said, it could notconvict the three accused on the basis of the insufficient and unreliableevidence put before it by the prosecution, giving the three “benefit of doubt”.Only Pradeep Sharma’s life sentence was upheld, with the High Court sayingthere was adequate evidence to prove his guilt.

Arora, in his article dated October 17, had commented on the merits ofthe judgement, prompting advocate Manish Kaushik to seek initiation ofcriminal contempt proceeding against him. The petition sought immediate orderto block the content on the website and also stop the circulation of theimpugned article.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General, A.S. Chandhiok, appearingfor the Central Government, and Delhi Government’s standing counsel, NajmiWaziri requested the bench to widen the ambit of the petition and ensure byway of a judicial order that nobody through a write-up could attack on thejudges with respect to any verdict.

“Any article cannot state that judges did not have the knowledge of law.There could not be any personal attack. We would request the lordship to lookinto this,” Chandhiok said.

At this, Justice Sikri accepted his request and agreed to hear the legalarguments on the issue.

Also accepting that the matter involved immediate intervention, the courtordered the DCP, Cyber Crime Cell, to immediately take steps to remove thearticle and stop its circulation henceforth.

It also issued notices to Arora and to the Central and State Governments,Delhi High Court, Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi for November9. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated October 25, 2011)

Fair reporting of court proceedings and fair comments on the legal issuesdo not amount to contempt, the Supreme Court has ruled.

“The power to punish for contempt is inherent in courts of record anddescribed as a necessary incident to every court of justice. The power is analienable attribute of court and inheres in every court of record. This power,though inherent to the High Court, is given a constitutional status by Article215”, said a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C. K. Prasad.

Writing the judgment, Justice Prasad said: “It (contempt power) is tosecure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. Rule of law is the

43

basic rule of governance of any civilized democratic polity. It is only through thecourts that rule of law unfolds its contours and establishes its concept”.

For the judiciary to discharge its obligations effectively and true to the spiritwith which it was sacredly entrusted with the task, constitutional courts hadbeen given the power to punish for contempt. But the greater the power, thehigher the responsibility, said the Bench.

In the instant case, H.G. Rangangoud was aggrieved by the KarnatakaHigh Court order initiating contempt proceedings suo-motu, taking a seriousview of a communication sent by the State Government to the Centre for grantof a mining lease in favour of a company. While the State recommended grantof the lease in favour of the appellant, the Centre issued a notification reservingthe area of iron ore deposits for exploitation by the State Trading Corporationand returned the recommendation.

A single judge of the High Court, however, quashed the notification. Evenas a writ appeal was pending before a Division Bench, the State again sent acommunication to the Centre for grant of the mining lease to the appellant. TheBench construed this as interference with the due course of judicial process andinitiated contempt proceedings against the appellant and K. Jayachandra, thenUnder Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries.

Allowing the appeal against this order, the Supreme Court said: “Merefiling of the representation and making a recommendation thereon in no wayprejudice or interfere, or tend to interfere, with the due course of any judicialproceeding. It is criminal contempt to voice opinion on a case pending in courtas that would seem to influence the outcome of the matter and to prejudice theparties. However, we hasten to add that fair reporting of court proceedings andfair comments on the legal issues do not amount to contempt.”

Holding that initiating contempt proceedings against the appellant and Mr.Jayachandra was not just and appropriate, and was an abuse of the process ofthe court, the Bench set aside the order. (The Hindu, New Delhi datedNovember 15, 2011)

The Supreme Court on November 14, 2011 declined to relax a BombayHigh Court order asking Times Now TV Channel to deposit Rs. 100 crore –Rs. 20 crore in cash and the rest as bank guarantee – before taking up itsappeal against a trial court verdict in a defamation case.

Former Supreme Court Judge, Justice P.B. Sawant, had sued Times Nowfor mistakenly displaying his photograph in a report on September 10, 2008,about a person (with a phonetically similar sounding name) allegedly involved in

44

the multi-crore Provident Fund scam. A Pune trial court had decreed the suitfor Rs. 100 crore against the TV channel. Times Now had appealed against thetrial court verdict, but the Mumbai HC in September this year had asked theTV channel to first deposit Rs. 20 crore and provide Rs. 80 crore as bankguarantee as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. Appearing for the TVchannel, senior advocate Harish Salve said the channel had apologized for themistake and had run an apology for five continuous days and requested theapex court to relax the stiff condition of depositing Rs. 100 crore as a pre-condition for appeal.

A bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya declined togrant relief to petitioner Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd., whichowns the TV channel, saying there was no error in the High Court’s interimorder. “We find no reason to interfere with High Court’s order directing thepetitioner to deposit Rs. 20 crore and furnish bank guarantee for the rest”, thebench said.

However, the bench clarified that the HC would decide the appeal on itsmerit without being influenced by the apex court’s decision to dismiss the appealagainst the pre-condition of depositing the amount.

When contacted, Times Now channel head, Arnab Goswami said, “We areextremely apologetic to Justice Sawant for the mistake and any personaldamage done to his reputation because of the inadvertent error of running hispicture instead of another judge. The picture ran for only about 15 seconds, andwas a genuine oversight in the course of a broadcast. We deeply regret themistake and assure Justice Sawant that it was not part of any intentional malicein reporting”. (The Times of India, New Delhi dated November 15, 2011)

The Supreme Court has directed the Chhattisgarh government to permitthe broadcast of Etv channel, seven days after the channel was “blacked out”by the state for running a report about the alleged involvement of ChiefMinister, Raman Singh’s relatives in a scandal involving allocation of mines.

The order by a Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Dipak Misracame on a petition filed by the channel’s Chhattisgarh Bureau Chief, ShaileshPandey, contending that their “abrupt silencing” was a violation of free speechand expression under the Constitution.

The court also issued notices to Chief Minister, Raman Singh, who is aparty by name, the State Home Secretary, Raipur Collector, among other seniorofficials concerned.

They have to represent their case by January 5.

45

“Respondent 1 (State of Chhattisgarh) is directed to permit the broadcastingof Etv in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and we hope andtrust that the petitioner would maintain sanctity of freedom of speech andexpression”, the Bench observed in its order on December 16.

Pandey, who was represented by senior advocate, Abhishek Manu Singhvi,argued, “against the high-handed approach and arbitrary exercise of power byRaman Singh, Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, whereby a prominent newschannel of the area, Etv, Chhattisgarh, has been abruptly silenced after a storyshowing favouritism in allocation of mines to in-laws of the CM was airedby it, eventually leading to a forced blackout of the channel in whole of theState of Chhattisgarh because of the ire of the Chief Minister”. The story wasaired on December 7. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated December20, 2011)

A sessions court on February 1, 2012 ordered issue of summons toN. Ram, former Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, and B. Kolappan, SpecialCorrespondent, for their appearance on March 5 on a complaint by the CityPublic Prosecutor (CPP), on behalf of Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, for publishinga news item, which “defamed” her.

In the complaint, the CPP stated that the newspaper, while reporting theattack on the office of Nakkheeran here on January 7, purportedly repeatedan article, which had appeared in the Tamil bi-weekly, relating to the ChiefMinister.

The impugned news item has been “published by the accused solely withthe intent to malign the reputation of the Hon’ble Chief Minister in thedischarge of her functions and duties”.

The complainant prayed the court to punish the accused for allegedoffences under Sections 500 and 501 IPC. Mr. Kolappan, author of the newsitem, and Mr. Ram have been cited as accused in the complaint.

Taking the complaint on file, Principal Sessions Judge (PSJ) P. Kalaiyarasanordered issue of summons to the two for their appearance. The PSJ alsoordered issue of summons for the appearance of the Nakkheeran Gopal, Printer,Publisher and Editor, A. Kamaraj, Joint Editor, and Umarmukhtat, reporter ofthe bi-weekly, on March 1.

The Judge passed the order on a complaint by the CPP stating that thearticle ‘defamed’ the Chief Minister. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated February2, 2012)

46

The Supreme Court on February 3, 2012 permitted industrialist, Ratan Tatato approach the Centre for disclosure of certain contents of the confidentialreport placed before it over the interception of secret conversations of politicians,bureaucrats and media personnel with their corporate lobbyist, Nira Radia.

A bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, which allowedthe submission of counsel, Mukul Rohtagi for the Tatas’, asked the Centre topass an appropriate order as to whether it can disclose the contents or wasseeking immunity from disclosure of the information.

The apex court said it will examine at a later stage the alleged role ofsome private operators in the telephone tapping controversy. The bench furtherdirected the court staff to re-seal the confidential report placed before it onJanuary 31 by the Government and adjourned the matter.

Earlier, the Centre had informed the apex court that the Radia tapes, whichfound its way into the hands of media organisations, were tampered andGovernment agencies were not responsible for its leakage.

Placing a report in a sealed envelope before the bench, the Governmenthad said that 8 to 10 agencies were involved in the tapping of conversations offormer corporate lobbyist Nira Radia which included service providers.

The report said the starting and the end point of the conversations do notmatch with the original tapes, Justice Singhvi had earlier said while referring tothe report.

He said the report also said officers, who had conducted the probe, do notknow who had leaked the tapes. “It is quite possible that someone else hasdone it”, the bench said. (The Pioneer, New Delhi dated February 3, 2012)

The Delhi High Court on February 8, 2012 asked the government toconstitute a Committee on a plea that sought guidelines to regulate mediareporting and disclosure of details about children in cases like that of the two-year-old battered baby, Falak, who is admitted at AIIMS.

A bench headed by the High Çourt Chief Justice took suo-motu cognizanceof a letter written to him for framing of guidelines for media reporting on suchsensitive issues. The court also sought a response from the Centre as well asthe state government within a week.

Falak was admitted to AIIMs on January 18 with severe head injuries andhuman bite marks all over her face.

47

The HC said the Committee will comprise the presiding officer of theJuvenile Justice Board, representatives of the Central and Delhi Governments,National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Press Council of India,media and NGOs.

The letter pointed to the media rush to report on Falak and the teenagerwho allegedly brought the baby to the hospital.

“Media reporting has sensationalized the life of both children in a way, andto such an extent that these children will never be able to get away from thememories of this time”, the letter said. The lawyer also argued: “India being asignatory to United Nations Convention on Child Rights is under obligation toensure protection of law against any unlawful intervention into the privacy ofa child or any attack on child’s honour”.

“The Committee will deliberate on the issue and file a report by March 7”,the bench said taking note of the central argument of the lawyer that even inthe past several reports by media had disclosed details of children and otherjuveniles even though this is prohibited under law. (The Times of India, NewDelhi dated February 9, 2012)

The High Court on March 8, 2012 ordered notice to the Centre, Informationand Broadcasting Ministry, the State Government, print and electronic media,following two PILs seeking directions to the media to telecast the visuals ofthe attack on lawyers during the violence in the City Civil Court complex onMarch 2.

The petitioners, Advocates Association of Bangalore, sought a direction tothe print and electronic media to publish or telecast the clippings and videosshowing the assault on lawyers.

They contended that the act of the electronic media in showing “one-sidedversion” of the incident and its “failure” to broadcast the footage which showsthe alleged assault on the advocates was against “professional ethics andconduct”.

A similar PIL filed by advocate, Prasad Hiremath also sought a similardirection and blamed two regional channels for “wrong and false reporting” ofthree police constables having died during the violence, which was later openlyrefuted by City Police Commissioner, Jyothiprakash Mirji in one of the localchannel.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice B.V.Nagarathna ordered issue of notices to the respondents in the two PILs and

48

adjourned the matter to March 14, 2012. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore datedMarch 9, 2012)

A five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear from thethird week of this month suggestions on framing guidelines for the media oncourt reporting with a view to ensuring that day-day-proceedings are notdistorted or misreported.

Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, heading a three-judge Bench, gave this indicationon March 13, 2012 after referring to a news item pertaining to the former CJI,K.G. Balakrishnan, that appeared in an English newspaper.

Justice Kapadia said: “We are all upset at the report. Some statementshave been attributed to Attorney – General, G.E. Vahanvati which he neverstated in court. We constitute a Constitution Bench to frame guidelines forreporting by the media”.

The CJI then asked senior lawyers Fali Nariman and K.K. Venugopal andthe Attorney- General to assist the court in formulating the issues and inframing guidelines.

Justice Kapadia referred to a complaint made to him by Mr. Venugopal,during the hearing of writ petition relating to the former Central VigilanceCommissioner, P.J. Thomas about misreporting of his arguments by an anchorand his request that the court take action against the television channel concerned.The CJI told Mr. Venugopal that he did not file any application in this regard.However, after the CJI made a request, Mr. Venugopal readily agreed to assistthe court.

Recently, Mr. Nariman also took exception to a news item, published in asection of the media, about an agreement between Sahara Investments and theSecurities and Exchange Board of India even before the Supreme Courtapproved it. On the CJI’s advice, Mr. Nariman has already filed an applicationto bring on record the misreporting. Now, the Constitution Bench is expectedto hear specific instances as well as general issues and frame guidelines. (TheHindu, New Delhi dated March 15, 2012)

In what may spark a debate on the judiciary’s role to advice the media onreportage, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice ofIndia, S.H. Kapadia on March 20, 2012 convened to take up the issue offraming guidelines for media to report cases in courts.

The short hearing in the morning was followed by a public notice issuedon the SC’s official website later in the day, indicating that the Bench will start

49

hearing the matter “relating to the framing of guidelines for reporting of casesin media” on and from March 27.

The notice said the Chief Justice of India has “directed that any party, whodesires to make submissions in the matter may do so by way of intervention”in the case.

The guidelines, once framed, may significantly draw the line for the mediain exercise of its derived right to freedom of press under Article 19 of theConstitution without interfering with justice administration.

The Bench, also comprising Justices D.K. Jain, S.S. Nijjar, J.S. Kheharand Ranjana Prakash Desai, has called upon eminent senior advocates from theSupreme Court Bar like Fali Nariman, K.K. Venugopal, T.R. Andhyarujina toassist it.

The setting up of the Constitution Bench by the CJI follows complaintsabout instances on misreporting of court hearings and leak of confidentialinformation causing prejudice to litigants. The CJI on March 20, 2012 indicatedthat the issue involves “values” and needs a full hearing.

Advocate Anup Bhambhani, who appeared for the News BroadcastersAssociation, which intervened in the case, said the guidelines would apply toreporting from all courts in the country as it may cover issues like protectingthe “right to fair trial” without trial by media for an accused, leak of confidentialinformation which would prejudice parties in a case pending in a court and alsotouch on the right to witness protection. (The Indian Express, New Delhidated March 21, 2012)

The Supreme Court on March 27, 2012 indicated it might lay down do’sand don’ts for the media on the reporting of sub-judice criminal cases with aview to protecting the right of the accused to a fair trial.

“We have to balance Article 21 with Article 19(1)(a),” a Constitution benchheaded by Chief Justice, S.H. Kapadia said.

Article 21 of the Constitution entitles all accused to a fair trial, whileArticle 19(1)(a) deals with the freedom of speech and expression, including thefreedom of the media.

The bench was hearing a petition from Sahara India, which has complainedabout the media reporting of a proposal it had made to the Securities andExchange Board of India. The company claims the news reports affected itsmarket valuation.

50

Justices D.K. Jain, S.S. Nijjar, Ranjana Desai and J.S. Khehar expressedconcern at the so-called media trails.

“The media creates a mindset about what is right or wrong. When thejudgment is not on those lines, the judge’s image is tarnished and all sorts ofmotives are attributed to him”, Justice Khehar observed.

He said the bench was especially concerned about instances of the mediaprojecting an accused as guilty as soon as he was arrested, reporting the trailin the same vein, and pushing for a particular sentence.

Sahara counsel Fali S. Nariman created a stir, saying the court could issueorders in specific cases but not lay down general guidelines. “Even it is does,how is the court going to enforce it in the absence of a law backing it?” hewondered.

Justice Kapadia said the court was not interested in controlling mediacontent but added that 11 complaints about misreporting of court proceedingswere pending.

Nariman continued to insist that, in the absence of a law, the court lackedthe power to lay down guidelines that would result in punishment for erringreporters. “It can’t be a judge’s whims, “ he said. “All sorts of lawyers andjudges say all sorts of things. We can’t build a wall around us…This is not aclub”.

Nariman counselled self-restraint on the part of judges as well as themedia. He said he could not suggest any general principle to deal withmisreporting as that would amount to unnecessary restrictions on the media.

Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati said any guideline could only be normativeand not coercive. “The media is the public surrogate”, he said and then quotedthe 18th century English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham: “Publicity is thevery soul of justice”.

An aggrieved person can always seek damages or press defamationcharges. Vahanvati pointed out, but advised the media to regulate itself.

The bench expressed dissatisfaction at the media’s practice of issuingdenials or clarifications after the damage has been done and sought to know ifthe court could take preventive action.

Hearing continues tomorrow. The Press Council of India, Editors’ Guildand the National Broadcasters’Association are representing the media but areyet to present their views. (The Telegraph, Kolkata dated March 28, 2012)

51

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati on March 28, 2012 told the SupremeCourt that the Centre was considering Law Commission’s 200th report titled“Trial by Media”, which recommended amendments to the contempt of courtlaws to empower the judiciary to impose restrictions on reporting to curbpossible interference in the administration of justice, protect fair trial and rightof accused.

The AG’s response came after senior advocate Fali S. Nariman told thecourt that the Law Commission’s August, 2006 report elaborately dealt withreporting of sub-judice matters but the government had neither rejected it norbothered to act on it.

The Commission had said, “There is a need to empower courts to pass‘postponement’ orders as to publication. While courts have held that conditionsfor passing orders of prior restraint should be permitted only under stringentconditions, it is, however, accepted that temporary postponement of publicationcan be passed. This is accepted in several jurisdictions across the world”.

The Commission also said publications prejudicial to the person after hisarrest relating to his character, previous convictions and alleged confessionscould also amount to contempt of court. It said interviewing witnesses afterfiling of chargesheet was highly objectionable even under the existing law, buta lack of knowledge of contempt laws in the media resulted in its abuse.

The court pointed out to page 171 of the Law Commission report whichreferred to an Australian Law Reforms Commission report on Contempt andPrejudice to Jury saying that reports of legal proceedings might contain materialwhich could prejudice a jury trial. The Australian panel said that a court shouldhave the power to postpone publication of a report of any part of proceedings“if it is satisfied that the publication could give rise to substantial risk that thefair trial of an accused for an indictable offence might be prejudiced becauseof the influence which the publication may have on jurors”.

The court said it would lay down guidelines which would remain in forcetill the government framed appropriate law. “If administration of justice isaffected, we will act”, it said. (The Times of India, New Delhi datedMarch 29, 2012)

The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether the printer andpublisher of a newspaper or magazine is a necessary party in criminal defamationproceedings when the editor is already cited as an accused in a defamationcomplaint.

52

A Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar in a brief orderon March 16, 2012 said: “The important question arises (in this petition), namely,in a case of complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 506 Indian Penal Code,whether the ‘Publisher’ in a newspaper is a necessary party in the saidproceedings apart from editor who has been shown as one of the accused”.

Special Leave Petition

The Bench framed the important question on a Special Leave Petition filedby a reporter of Punjab Kesari challenging the exclusion of the publisher ofDainik Bhaskar newspaper on the ground that he was not a necessary partysince the editor had already been cited as an accused in the defamationcomplaint filed under IPC Sections 499(Criminal Defamation), 500 (Punishmentfor Criminal Defamation) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation). After hearing counselfor the petitioner, the Bench issued notice to Haryana and the publisherreturnable in four weeks.

In the instant case, appellant Dal Singh Roherian, Punjab Kesari reporter,was aggrieved by a news item published in Dainik Bhaskar with his photograph.

Alleging that the news item was published with a malafide intention toharm his reputation and to lower his image in the eyes of the public, he fileda defamation complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, who issuedsummons to three respondents including the printer and publisher, RameshChand Aggarwal.

After the sessions court declined to interfere with the order, the publisherfiled a revision petition and the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside theorder of summons issued by the lower court in so far as he was concerned.The present appeal is directed against this order.

“Malafide intent”

The appellant contended that Mr. Aggarwal being the printer and publisherof the newspaper would be a necessary party in criminal defamation proceedingsas the news item was published with a malafide intention. He prayedfor quashing of the High Court order. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated March16, 2012)

Media Round Up

Shri Vibhuti Sharma, Resident Editor, Nai Duniya, Jabalpur was awardedwith Makhanlal Chaturvedi Award on April 22, 2011 for excellent journalism by

53

Madhavrao Sapre Samachar Patra Sanghralaya Avum Shodh Sansthan. (NaiDuniya, New Delhi dated April 19, 2011)

The Chennai based English national daily The Hindu decided to appointSiddharth Varadarajan, National Bureau Chief, New Delhi, its editor. He willreport to Editor-in-Chief, N. Ram. The daily has also decided to adopt theprinciple of separating ownership and management “not only on the editorialside” but “also on the business side”. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore datedApril 23, 2011)

In its latest report on the state of internet, Freedom House – a US basedorganization monitoring democratic changes, human rights and freedom ofspeech – ranked India 14th among 37 countries that were assessed on the basisof free and unrestricted access to the web. Estonia topped the list.

According to the report, the internet is only “partly free” in India – eventhough there is no substantial political censorship, bloggers and online users havebeen arrested in the last two years. Among Asian countries, India ranks second.The country scored 36 on a scale of 100. South Korea (32) topped in thecontinent. In 2009, India’s score was 34.

“The Indian blogosphere is quite active and eloquent, complementing therise in internet use by different interest groups and civil society actors. Bloggersare rarely forced by the government or private individuals to take down theirwritings, but there have been a few instances in which this has occurred”, thereport says.

As far as global trends are concerned, in democratic countries like Brazil,India, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and the UK, internet freedom isincreasingly undermined by legal harassment, opaque ownership procedures, orexpanding surveillance.

“The new internet restrictions around the globe are partly a response to theexplosion in popularity of advanced applications like Facebook through whichusers can post own content”, the report says. (The Times of India, NewDelhi dated April 24, 2011)

Dainik Jagran was awarded with WAN IFRA 2010 award a prestigiousaward of International Newspapers World in breaking news category for itsnews “Abhutpurv Muftkhori”, 74 Crore Kee Tickets Banti Thi Muft’. DainikJagran is the only Hindi newspaper that won the WAN IFRA 2010 Award forits breaking news revealing the free distribution of tickets scandal in CommonWealth Games by its Bureau Chief, Shri Anshuman Tiwari. Financial Times

54

and Yaman Observer were two other newspapers who had won this award.(Dainik Jagran, New Delhi dated April 30, 2011)

The Express Group has entered into a content partnership with the FinancialTimes in India. The agreement, formally announced by Group Editor-in-Chief,The Express Group, will soon see FT content carried on branded pages in TheFinancial Express and The Indian Express. With a strong line up of columnistssuch as Meghnad Desai, Rajesh Chakrabarti, Surjit S. Bhalla, M. Govinda Rao,Arindam Bhattacharya, Mahesh Vyas, Ila Patnaik, Sunil Jain and M.K. Venu,new content from the Financial Times will provide readers of The FinancialExpress and The Indian Express indepth analysis with a global perspective. Inaddition to daily news and features from the Financial Times, readers willbenefit from access to reporting from FT bureaus around the world andcolumns by eminent writers such as Martin Wolf, Lucy Kellaway and SimonSchama. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated May 4, 2011)

The Congress has decided to re-launch National Herald, a newspaperstarted more than 70 years ago by India’s first Prime Minister, JawaharlalNehru. Preparations are in full swing as can be seen from the swankyrenovated building – Herald House at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg in nationalcapital – from where the newspaper published its last edition on April 1, 2008.The building has been renovated giving it a new look with silver grey tiles andglass windowpanes dominating the front of the building. The Congress isplanning to reopen the office to coincide with the birth anniversary of JawaharlalNehru on November 14. “We are working to re-launch the paper in next fewmonths”, said Motila Vohra, Congress treasurer. The party is also planning tore-launch the Urdu edition of the paper – Qaumi Awaz. It will be publishedfrom the same building. Both National Herald and Qaumi Awaz were startedby Nehru in 1938 in Lucknow. “We will bring out both English and Urdu editionat the moment”, Vohra said. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore dated May 6,2011)

Mr. Naresh Mohan, an outstanding print media industry professional withover 51 years experience in business management, is joining the Board ofTrustees of The Tribune Trust as a member. He was chosen unanimously at aTrust meeting presided over by the President, Mr. R.S. Talwar, in New Delhion May 6, 2011. (The Tribune, Chandigarh dated May 10, 2011)

Following the footsteps of most southern political parties which have theirown media outlets, the Telangana Rashstra Samiti led by K. ChandrashekharRao too had launched a television channel some time back mainly to propagateits views on Telangana. Now, it is adding media band-width by coming out witha daily next week. To be called Namaste Telangana, the multi-edition daily,

55

TRS leaders say, will counter the media offensive launched by anti Telanganaformations. Set up as a private venture called Telangana Broadcasting Corporation,the party’s news channel called, “T News” is already competing with othermedia networks for eyeballs in the Telangana region. (The Indian Express,New Delhi dated May 31, 2011)

Chief Election Commissioner, S.Y. Quraishi launched the Delhi edition ofthe Tamil daily Dinamani from The New Indian Express group, Chennai onJune 3, 2011. This is the eighth edition of the popular newspaper. (The Hindu,New Delhi dated June 5, 2011)

A staff reporter and three contributors for Prajavani were selected forCharkha awards 2010. Rajashekhar Koti of ‘Andolana’ newspaper in Mysorehas been chosen for the Mentor Award for Encouragement to DevelopmentJournalism, instituted by the Communication for Development and Learning forExcellence in Development Journalism in Kannada. Dr. T.R. Chandrsekhara’sreport, “Vyavasaya Vyathe Abhivridhiya Kathe” and Dr. Leela Sampige’s write-up on “HIV/AIDS” won them the award. Sharada Gopal’s “StreeSabalikarnadatta Mattondu Hejje” got her the award in the women’s category,and Prajavani staff reporter Manjushree M. Kadakola’s report on sanitationwon her the recognition. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore dated June 25, 2011)

Shri Vikas Kumar Jha, journalist and writer of Bihar was awarded with16th International Indu Sharma Story Award by Ms. Nalini Suri, HighCommissioner of India in House of Commons in Britain. Hindi writer Ms. NinaPal was also awarded with 12th Parmanand Literature Award. (Nai Dunia,New Delhi dated June 29, 2011)

The Sanskriti Pratishthan announced Sukhada Tatke, Senior Correspondent,The Times of India, Mumbai as the recipient of the Prabha Dutt Fellowship forExcellence in Journalism for the year 2010. As part of the fellowship, Tatke hasbeen selected to study the ‘condition of the children left behind by the farmerswho commit suicide due to debt in Vidarbha’. The fellowship is for a period of10 months, and offers an amount of Rs. 1,00,000. “This fellowship, exclusivelyfor print journalists, is to encourage dedicated women journalists in the agegroup of 25-40 years to pursue meaningful projects, including research or abook in English, Hindi or any regional language”, read an official statement.

The Prabha Dutt Fellowship is organised and conducted under the auspicesof Sanskriti Pratishthan, New Delhi. “The Sanskriti-Prabha Dutt Fellowship wasinstituted to honour and perpetuate the memory of late Prabha Dutt, whosebright and promising career as a fearless journalist with The Hindustan Times

56

and India Today was cut short”, the statement read. (The Indian Express,New Delhi dated July 13, 2011)

For the first time since its inception 15 years ago, the Prem Bhatia Awardsfor excellence in political reporting and analysis as well as that for excellencein environmental reporting have been shared by two journalists each. The awardfor political reporting goes to Josy Joseph of The Times of India for hisconsistently fine reporting of the scandals that have made headlines like the2-G Spectrum allocation, Commonwealth Games and Adarsh Housing Societyscams. Jyotirmoy Dey of Mid-Day shares the award posthumously for hissuperlative work all through his career in exposing Mumbai’s underworld andcorruption in the police and bureaucracy, and he had to pay for that with hislife. Dey was recently killed by one of the Mumbai mafias. The two winnersof the environmental award are Madhuraj, Chief News Photographer ofMatrubhumi, for his vivid photographs that focused national and internationalattention on the catastrophic consequences of the use of endosulfan pesticidein Kerala, and G. Nirmala, who has written powerfully on the same subject inone of the publications of Samakalika Malyalam Vaarike. Both awards willpresented at the annual Prem Bhatia Memorial Lecture on August 11. (TheTribune, Chandigarh dated July 27, 2011)

Veteran journalist and former parliamentarian Inder Jit, who was theManaging Director and Editor of India News & Feature Alliance (INFA), diedon July 31, 2011 following a prolonged illness. Inder Jit played an active rolein the creation of the Tripartite Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council in 1989 and wassubsequently elected to the Lok Sabha in 1989 and 1991-96 from Darjeeling.He started his journalistic career with The London Times, The Daily Telegraphand was the political and parliamentary correspondent of The Times of Indiabetween 1954 and 1962. He joined INFA as its Editor in 1962. (The IndianExpress, New Delhi dated August 1, 2011)

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh paid rich tribute to late K.M. Mathew,the iconic Chief Editor of Malayala Manorama, describing him as an “Indianlegend”, as he received an album containing commemorative stamp on Mathewissued by the Department of Posts from HRD Minister Kapil Sibal on August2, 2011. The album also contained the First Day Cover honouring Mathew,which was released on August 1, 2011 Mathew’s first death anniversary. Sibalsaid Mathew was a true nationalist who promoted great values through hisnewspaper and worked hard for national integration and communal harmony.(The Indian Express, New Delhi dated August 3, 2011)

Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. (HMVL) has been named by Forbes asone of the Best Under A Billion companies in the Asia Pacific region. It is one

57

of the 39 Indian companies that have found a place on Forbes Asia’s list of200. HMVL, the publisher of Hindustan, one of India’s leading Hindi languagedailies, is the only Indian media company in the list. To qualify for the list,companies must have annual revenue between $5 million (Rs. 23 crore) and $1billion (Rs. 4,500 crore) and be publicly traded for at least a year. “Beingincluded on this list is a testament to our commitment towards our readers andcustomers,” said Amit Chopra, CEO, HMVL. “This honour has bolstered ourobjective of maintaining the highest standards of journalistic integrity and remainingthe preferred daily across the Hindi belt. (The Hindustan Times, New Delhidated September 5, 2011)

The Hindu’s Chhattisgarh correspondent, Aman Sethi, has won theInternational Committee of the Red Cross award for the best Indian print mediaarticle on humanitarian issues. His article on three Chhattisgarh villages ruthlesslytorched by police commandos in March 2011 was selected as the best of nearly80 entries from across the country. At the ICRC awards presented on October19, 2011 at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, Tehelka’s Umar Baba took thesecond place, while the third prize went to Reji Joseph of Rashtra Deepikaand the consolation prize to Anup Sharma of The Times of India. (The Hindu,New Delhi dated October 20, 2011)

The Indian Express is now available on iPad. Within days of its launch,it was among the top 10 free applications on Apple iStore on November 21,2011. The reader-friendly app has much more than the regular newspaper app— it also has the day’s e-paper, an electronic version of the print edition.“There’s a growing need across the world for news and analysis from Indiathat’s insightful, credible and trustworthy. That’s what The Express is all about.The e-paper on app, the first of its kind, allows readers across the world toread the day’s newspaper on their iPad just the way they would read a printedcopy. The e-paper has pages and sections of the paper’s different editions.There is a dedicated photo section with swiftly downloadable pictures of theday. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated November 22, 2011)

Soma Basu, a reporter with The Statesman in Kolkata, was on December6, 2011 conferred the CMS-PANOS Young Environment Journalist Award 2011in the print media category at the inaugural ceremony of the sixth internationaledition of CMS Vatavaran environment and wildlife film festival. The CMSawards are presented for excellence in environmental journalism to individualswho have done “exemplary investigative and inspired reporting on environmentalissues in the country. Manu C. Kumar of Manorama News, Mumbai, won theaward in the electronic media category. (The Statesman, New Delhi datedDecember 7, 2011)

58

Deccan Herald, has launched its edition on December 10, 2011 in thenational capital. It is the seventh for the newspaper, and the first outsideKarnataka. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore dated December 11, 2011)

The first edition of T. S. Satyan Memorial awards for photojournalism waspresented to six distinguished photographers from the field on December 18,2011.The award is named after Satyan, considered the country’s foremost and oneof the first photojournalists. Lifetime Achievement award: Yagneshwara Acharya‘Yagna’ (Mangalore), Best Newspaper Photography: K. Gopinathan (Bangalore),Best Professional Photography: Netra Raju (Mysore), Best MagazinePhotography: Bhanu Prakash Chandra (Bangalore), Best Freelance Photography:Regret Iyer (Bangalore) and Best Online Photography: M S Gopal. (DeccanHerald, Bangalore dated December 19, 2011)

Lokmanya Tilak Rashtriya Award was given to Shri Shravan Garg, GroupEditor, Dainik Bhaskar Newspapers Group, Member, Press Council of India,and Member, Rashtriya Akta Parishad for his remarkable contribution in journalismon the occasion of 131st establishment day of Kesari, Marathi Dainik. (DainikBhaskar, New Delhi dated January 3, 2012)

All India Yunani Tibbi Congress decided to give award to Shri Ras Bihari,Metro Editor, Nai Dunia for his creative work in journalism. On the occasionof 9th Rashtriya Adhivesan of Vishwa Yunani Day on January 12 the awardwas given to Shri Ras Bihari in the presence of eminent personalities. (NaiDunia, New Delhi dated January 9, 2012)

Homai Vyarawalla, India’s first woman photo-journalist, passed away onJanuary 15, 2012.

Vyarawalla clicked some memorable pictures between 1938 and 1970. Thepictures of first tri-colour-hoisting after Independence, the death of MahatmaGandhi, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru releasing a pigeon and othershave become part of national archives.

She also worked for British Information Service for many years.

She was awarded Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian award,last year and was also conferred with Lifetime Achievement Award by theInformation and Broadcasting Ministry in 2010. (The Indian Express, NewDelhi dated January 16, 2012)

Vinod Mehta on February 1, 2012 quit as Chief Editor of Óutlook’, afterbeing in the post for 17 years. He will continue as advisor of the magazine.Krishna Prasad, at present the Editor, will now assume the post of Chief Editor.

59

One of the senior-most editors of the country, Mehta has been editor of severalpublications, including Pioneer, The Sunday Observer, The Independent andThe Indian Post. (Deccan Herald, Bangalore dated February 2, 2012)

The big media group Dainik Bhaskar started its printing unit from Raigarhon February 18, 2012. The function was inaugurated by Dr. Raman Singh, ChiefMinister of the State. (Dainik Bhaskar, New Delhi dated February 18, 2012)

The Culture Secretary, Mr. Jawahar Sircar, is to be the next CEO ofNational Broadcaster, Prasar Bharati after a three member panel headed by theVice-President, Mr. Hamid Ansari recommended his name to the government.(The Statesman, New Delhi dated February 18, 2012)

Devi Cherian, journalist and social worker was awarded with Amar ShahidLala Jagat Narayan Memorial Award for her specialization of analysis in socialand political matters and her contribution in journalism. The award was presentedto her by Shri Prem Singh Dhumal, Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh.Daughter of Shri Desraj Mahajan, former Speaker of Himachal PradeshLegislative Assembly and former Cabinet Minister, Devi Cherian is also Patronof Dipalaya, an orphanage for physically handicapped and orphan children inDelhi. (Navbharat Times, New Delhi dated February 24, 2012)

India’s youngest and most vibrant newspaper, Mail Today, which waslaunched four-and-a-half years ago in Delhi and has since registered its presencein Chandigarh, now arrives in London. Providing news for the new Indian in theUnited Kingdom, Mail Today— a joint venture between the Daily Mail ofLondon and the prestigious India Today Group of India – now enlarges itsfoot-print. Targeting the large south Asian population in London, Mail Todaywants to connect with the diaspora by bringing the best of Indian newspackaged in a modern avatar. (Mail Today, New Delhi dated March 5, 2012)

Tusha Mittal of news magazine Tehelka was on March 13, 2012 honouredwith the prestigious Chameli Devi award as Outstanding Woman Mediapersonat New Delhi. The awards jury was impressed by her reports on the lives ofpeople trapped in Naxal conflict zones or villagers in crossfire between cadresof political parties in West Bengal.(The Indian Express, New Delhi datedMarch 14, 2012)

Historian, author and leading journalist of Rajasthan, Rajendra ShankarBhatt passed away on March 19, 2012. Also a pioneer in the field of publicrelations, Mr. Bhatt had been the Press Advisor to the late Harideo Joshi duringthe latter’s two tenures as Chief Minister of the State in the eighties. (TheHindu, New Delhi dated March 20, 2012)

60

Britain’s Press Awards on March 20, 2012 night honoured the Daily Mailas the Newspaper of the Year and its website, Mail Online, was awarded theWebsite of the Year. The Guardian, which made news with its series of storieslast year on phone-hacking, claimed the award for Scoop of the Year for itsstory, “Milly Dowler Phone Hacked”. This story ultimately led to the closure ofthe News of the World tabloid and put the focus on media practices in Britain.(The Asian Age, New Delhi dated March 22, 2012)

World Media in Indian Press

United States of America

What began as steamy gossip about an affair between a famous Britishsoccer player and a reality TV star has quickly become another test over howfar the rights to privacy and free speech extend online, where social mediaoperate in countries with vastly different laws. The soccer player has beengranted a so-called super-injunction, a stringent and controversial British legalmeasure that prevents media outlets from identifying him, reporting on the storyor even from revealing the existence of the court order itself. But tens ofthousands of Internet users have flouted the injunction by revealing his name onTwitter, Facebook and online soccer forums, sites that blur the definition of thepress and are virtually impossible to the police.

Last week, amid growing outrage in Britain over the use of super-injunctions, the athlete obtained a court order in British High Court demandingthat Twitter reveal the identities of the anonymous users who had posted themessages. A Twitter spokesman, Matt Graves, said the company could notcomment on the court order or how it planned to respond.

Eric Goldman, Director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa ClaraUniversity, said, “It’s really going to the core of Twitter’s service and trying tobalance the speech of its users and the fact that countries have different lawsand norms about speech.”

And while a debate centering on an athlete’s love life might not seem tobe the most pressing example of free speech online, there are broader andmore urgent implications, analysts said.

“If you step back, that same sort of protection is really vital to have inplace when you’re talking about the individuals involved in a revolution or asocial movement like the Arab Spring,” said Thomas R. Burke, a Chairman ofThe Media Law Practice at the firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

61

In a company blog post in January, Biz Stone, a Twitter founder, and AlexMacgillivray, its general counsel, wrote, “Our position on freedom of expressioncarries with it a mandate to protect our users’ right to speak freely andpreserve their ability to contest having their private information revealed.”Twitter removes spam and illegal posts, they wrote, but tries to limit thoseexceptions. It releases information when required by law but notifies usersbefore the disclosures unless it is legally prohibited from doing so.

Because Twitter is based in the US, it could argue that it abides by thelaw and that any plaintiff would need to try the case in the US, legal analystssaid. But Twitter is opening a London office, and the rules are more complicatedif companies have employees or offices in foreign countries.

Still, Twitter has resisted turning over this type of information in the past.Mr. Macgillivray, when asked about international laws at a conference inMarch, said, “We tell them, we’re a US company, we have CDA 230 here, andyou’re welcome to come and try your hand at suing us here,” referring to theCommunications Decency Act, which says Web companies are not liable forwhat their users post.

There is no question that the Twitter posts about the soccer player wouldbe considered legal in the United States, Internet law experts said, because ofthe Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment’s protections foranonymous speech. Further, an injunction to prevent this type of informationfrom being exposed would be unheard of in the US. But the issue gets murkieracross borders.

“You would think at this point in the Internet you would have a clear bodyof law about what laws the Internet is subject to, but that is anything but clear,”Mr. Burke said. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated May 24, 2011)

The New York Times broke with its 160-year history on June 1, 2011 whenit appointed, for the first time ever, a woman Executive Editor, Jill Abramson.Ms. Abramson is currently the Managing Editor of the venerable voice of liberalAmerica and in her new role will step into the shoes of the renowned BillKeller. Mr. Keller, the NYT announced, will “become a full-time writer for thepaper” after he hands over the top job to Ms. Abramson in September.

Mr. Keller steps down from his role after seeing the newspaper scoop up18 Pulitzer prizes and boosting its online audience size to nearly 50 millionreaders worldwide.

In the face of the economic downturn and the inexorable drift of readersand advertising to online editions, Mr. Keller was said to have proposed more

62

“rigorous editing” and promised an ongoing commitment to “hard-hitting ground-breaking journalism”. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated June 4, 2011)

Four of the five largest US tobacco companies sued the Food and DrugAdministration, over new graphic cigarette labels including the sewn-up corpseof a smoker and a picture of diseased lungs, saying the warnings violate theirfree speech rights and will cost millions to print.

The companies, led by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co.,said the warnings no longer simply convey facts to allow people to make adecision whether to smoke. They instead force them to put government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently on their packs than their own brands, thefirms said.

“Never before in the US have producers of a lawful product been requiredto use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally— chargedgovernment message urging adult consumers to shun their products,” the firmswrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The FDA refused to comment, saying the agency does not discuss pendinglitigation.

The FDA approved nine new warnings to rotate on cigarette packs. Theywill be printed on the entire top half, front and back, of the packaging. The newwarnings also must constitute 20 per cent of any cigarette advertising.

One warning label is a picture of a corpse with its chest sewed up andthe words: “Smoking can kill you.” Another label has a picture of a healthy pairof lungs beside a yellow and black pair with a warning that smoking causesfatal lung disease. The lawsuit said the images were manipulated to be especiallyemotional. The tobacco companies said the corpse photo is actually an actorwith a fake scar, while the healthy lungs were sanitised to make the diseasedorgan look worse. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated August 18,2011)

As part of expanding its global reach, the New York Times has launched‘India Ink’, an English-language website offering news and analysis aboutIndian politics, culture, business, sports and lifestyle.

The site, which is the New York Times first-ever country-specific site fornews and information, provides a distinct perspective on news and events thatmatter most to Indians and those who follow news about India, both on thesubcontinent and abroad, said the paper.

63

“India is a vibrant country with a wealth of urgent news and compellingstories. India Ink is an exciting expansion of The Times’s global reach”, saidThe New York Times Executive Editor, Jill Abramson.

“Expanded coverage of India is a natural fit for The New York Times andits Global Edition, the International Herald Tribune said Stephen Dunbar—Johnson publisher of the International Herald Tribune.

“We are delighted to better serve our readers and advertisers in India andabroad who care deeply about news in the region”. India Ink is edited by TheNew York Times in India and the International Herald Tribune in Hong-Kong,led by lead writer Heather Timmons, who has covered business in India for TheNew York Times for the last four years. It would feature contributions fromNew York Times journalists as well as from top writers in India and the Indiandiaspora.

“We will be reporting from the Ram Lila grounds in Delhi to the boardroomsof Silicon Valley, tracking the triumphs and frustrations of daily desi life and thechanges sweeping the nation.

“As we do, we plan to collaborate with readers in new ways, spark newdebates and re-think old ones — all while producing more of the high-qualitynews that The New York Times is known for”, it added.

With an expanded team in India, India Ink will provide on—the groundcoverage of the world’s biggest democracy — and of a people who know that“no matter how far they roam, their hearts will always be Indian”, said NYT.(The Hindu, New Delhi dated September 14, 2011)

Asserting that freedom of expression applies equally to the internet as itdoes in the real world, the United States has said that it is in talks with Indiangovernment over the regulatory mechanism on Internet.

“We believe that freedom of expression applies equally to the internet asit does in the real world”, the US State Department Spokesman, Mark Tonertold reporters when asked about the efforts of the Indian government toregulate or monitor content postings on the internet and social networkingwebsites such as Facebook.

The US State Department Spokesperson, however, clarified twice that itsposition on internet freedom is not necessarily India specific, but in generalglobally. “We are concerned about any effort to curtail freedom of expressionnet, “Toner said.

64

Union Telecom Minister, Kapil Sibbal had said that the government hasasked companies, including Google and Facebook, to block offensive material,especially content that could hurt religious sentiments.

With India, Toner acknowledged that it is indeed one of the topics ofdiscussion with the Indian government and is part of the strategic dialogue. “Interms of India, we do have a working group on information and communicationtechnology between the US and India, and it’s part of our overall strategicdialogue.

“Of course, within that working group, we do talk about issues on informationtechnology, discuss approaches our governments can take to create investmentfor example, of regulatory environments that maximize the development of thesesectors”, the spokesman said. (The Times of India, New Delhi datedDecember 9, 2011)

The number of jailed reporters has hit a 15-year high, with Iran, Eritrea andChina holding the most, according to a report released on December 8, 2011 bythe Committee to Protect Journalists. The New York-based Rights Group said 179writers, editors and photojournalists were in jail as of December 1- up 34 from2010. Nearly half of those jailed were online reporters and 45% of themfreelancers. (The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated December 9, 2011)

India-Origin journalist Davan Maharaj has been named the new Editor andExecutive Vice President of the Los Angeles Times in succession to RussStanton, who led the paper to three Pulitzer Prizes, the paper announced. The49 year old Trinidad-born Maharaj takes over as the 15th editor of the paperand is currently the Managing Editor. (Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad datedDecember 15, 2011)

The New York Times Co. is in advanced talks to sell all of its small, regionalpublications. The company said Halifax Media Holdings, owner of the DaytonaBeach News-Journal in Florida, is preparing to purchase the Times’ RegionalMedia Group Division. The unit consists of 16 regional newspapers. Financialdetails of the transaction were not disclosed. The New York Times, The BostonGlobe, The International Herald Tribune and the About Group are not part ofthe sale.(The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated December 21, 2011)

For the second consecutive year, Pakistan has been identified as the mostdangerous country for journalists with the killing of seven scribes there in 2011out of a total of 43 murdered worldwide.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said, in thepast five years 29 journalists have been killed in Pakistan in relation to their work.

65

“The CPJ research shows Pakistan to be among the worst countries in theworld in bringing the killers of journalists to justice”, the body said in its year-end report.

“The best known case in Pakistan this year involved Saleem Shahzad, areporter for Asia Times online who died in May after writing a report whichalleged that Al-Qaeda had infiltrated Pakistan Navy”, the CPJ said.

CPJ’s report comes amid a probe by a Pakistani judicial commission in thedeath of the journalist. The journalists’ organization quoting Human RightsWatch said Shahzad had complained of receiving threats from Pakistan’s ISIbefore his death and added that the case remains unsolved.

The CPJ annual report pinpointed Mexico as another country with an“atrocious record” of treatment of journalists, saying that three reporters hadbeen killed in the country, most of them after taking on its powerful and ruthlessdrug mafia.

The report said that the Arab Spring revolution across the Middle East andNorth Africa has also led to first cases of journalists’ death in Syria and Tunisia.

It also noted that there were no deaths of journalists in India this year.

The CPJ executive director summarized that the year 2011 was one of themost “exacting” for journalists with political conflict and unrest proving deadly.(The Pioneer, New Delhi dated December 22, 2011)

At least 46 journalists were killed across the globe in 2011 and Pakistancontinues to be the most deadly country for the second year in running, a rightsgroup has said.

Pakistan reported seven deaths followed by five each in Iraq and Libyawhile attacks have continued in Iraq despite the U.S. withdrawal, Libya witnessedintense fighting following a revolt against strongman Muammar Qadhafi.

The figures were brought out by New York-based Committee to ProtectJournalists.

“Seventeen journalists died while on dangerous assignments, many of themwhile covering the chaotic and violent confrontations between authorities andprotesters during the uprisings that swept the Arab world”, the report said. Thegroup also reported an increase in the deaths of Internet journalists, who “rarelyappeared on CPJ’s death toll before 2008".

CPJ said it was still investigating another 35 deaths in 2011 that may havebeen work- related. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated February 22, 2012)

66

United Kingdom

Take the common-law principles of fairness, add a dash of EuropeanHuman-Rights Legislation, a lucrative tabloid trade in kiss-and-tell stories, anineffective press watchdog, a touch of angst about secret justice and a technologythat makes everyone into a publisher, and what do you get? The mess ofBritain’s privacy laws, now under sweeping review by a Joint Committee ofboth Houses of Parliament.

The latest and most spectacular episode involves a married footballer, RyanGiggs of Manchester United, who went to court to stop news organisationsreporting on his alleged affair with a woman who, a judge said, may have beentrying to blackmail him (she denies this). Mr. Giggs gained the remedy hesought, but not the result: his private life became a public scandal, with hisname featuring in fans’ catcalls in the stadium, used as a catchphrase on talk-shows, broadcast by 75,000 Twitter users and ultimately, on May 23, mentionedin the House of Commons by a Liberal Democrat MP, John Hemming. Orderingthe parliamentary inquiry, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said the situationwas “unsustainable”. Few would disagree.

Britain, unlike France, does not have a formal privacy law. The EuropeanConvention of Human Rights, incorporated into national law in 1998, madethings messier by enshrining two clashing principles: a strong defence offreedom of speech, and a more qualified right to the “respect of private life”.Judges (as Parliament requested them) have been chewing over that ever since,issuing closely reasoned rulings that also reflect the Press ComplaintsCommission’s definition of public- interest journalism. For example, the courtsruled that the Daily Mirror was justified in 2001 in printing most parts of astory of a model, Naomi Campbell, visiting a drug-rehabilitation clinic (becauseit exposed her as a hypocrite), but not the accompanying pictures (whichintruded on her privacy).

Punishing those who gratuitously destroy privacy is one thing - and featuresin legal systems all over the world. Penalties for those who identify rapevictims, for example, are usually severe. The real problem comes when judgestry to protect privacy by stopping newspapers from breaching it in the firstplace.

The argument is a strong one: that a breach of privacy causes irreversibleharm. In libel cases, untruthful damage to a reputation can be restored by anapology and damages; but once embarrassing private information has beendisclosed, it stays public, no matter how the leaker is punished. However, thepractical difficulties of protecting court ordered privacy are increasingly daunting.

67

Anonymity orders are often issued against newspapers a few hours beforepublication as an interim measure pending a full hearing. That may keep theoffending material from appearing explicitly in the mainstream media. But itdoes not prevent coyly coded references to a story appearing – which can beglaringly obvious to those in the know. And it does not stop a story – or perhapsexaggerated or incorrect versions of it – appearing on blogs, Twitter andFacebook. Tracing the identities of those who post such illicit material on social-networking sites, mostly based overseas, may prove impossible.

Once the news is out on the internet, Britain’s fiercely competitive tabloidsbecome frenzied in their attempts to reveal the full story first. In Mr. Giggs’scase, the big breach came when a Scottish paper, The Sunday Herald, ignoredthe injunction issued by the London court. This is a legal grey area: Scotlandhas its own legal system, and prudent lawyers usually make sure that they applyfor an “interdict” there to match any injunction obtained elsewhere. Mr. Giggs’sdid not.

The courts’ inability to stem the tide of technological tittle-tattle riskseroding the authority of the whole legal system. But secrecy corrodes it too.Some anonymity orders in recent years have been accompanied by suchdrastic restrictions that even their existence may not be reported: these arethe so-called “super injunctions” which, though rare, epitomize to many theproblems in the current set up. The same worries surround secrecy in family-law cases. Some MPs feel that judges have got too big for their wigs – forexample, by becoming too fond of ordering litigants to talk to nobody aboutthe case.

This raises deep questions. When one kind of supremacy – of a courtorder – clashes with the sovereignty of Parliament, Britain’s unwritten constitutionis frustratingly fuzzy. Mr. Hemming’s remark came in flat defiance of twosenior judges who had considered and rejected applications to lift Mr. Giggs’sinjunction, in the light of careful legal arguments and their own expertise.Mr. Hemming’s party leader, Nick Clegg, rebuked him, saying that MPs whodislike the law should “change it not flout it”. It is unclear who might punishhim, or how.

Diagnosing the problem is one thing, solving it is another. Mark Stephens,a media lawyer, argues that tabloid stories are soon forgotten if not accompaniedby a legal kerfuffle. “You take it on the chin and it’s tomorrow’s fish-and-chippaper,” the counsels (although betrayed spouses may not be so sanguine). Inother words, treat privacy like libel, with penalties and remedies available onlyafter publication.

68

Such an approach could be accompanied by a beefed-up version of thenow-voluntary Press Complaints Commission, with statutory powers to protectprivacy and punish newspapers that breach it, and tighter definitions of “thepublic interest” and of who counts as a “public figure”. Tabloid editors wouldnot like this, or a formal privacy law if it were similarly restrictive.

Many, not just self-serving tabloids, fear that such a law would be twistedby the rich, powerful and well-lawyered to conceal their misdeeds. Yet the ideaof the press taking Twitter as its benchmark of newsworthiness seems equallydistasteful. Privacy law, like the lives it sets out to protect, is a messy business.(The Indian Express, New Delhi dated June 3, 2011)

The use of a private investigator by a Rupert Murdoch-owned daily tohack into phones for information has snowballed into a major crisis for Britishtabloid journalism with Prime Minister, David Cameron on July 6, 2011 promisinga public inquiry into the sordid affair.

New revelations that the News of the World tabloid commissioned privateinvestigators to access messages left in phones of celebrities has raised freshquestions about sensationalism in Britain’s tabloid press.

People whose phones were allegedly hacked include Prince William, victimsof the July 7 London bombings, and victims of crime such as murderedteenager Milly Dowler, whose case was widely covered in the news media.

Calling the incident “disgusting”, Prime Minister, Cameron has called for aprobe into the scandal.

“We do need to have an inquiry, possibly inquiries, into what has happened.We are no longer talking here about politicians and celebrities, we are talkingabout murder victims, potential terrorist victims, having their phones hackedinto,” a visibly enraged Cameron said in the House of Commons on July 6,2011.

“It is absolutely disgusting, what has taken place, and I think everyone inthis House and indeed this country will be revolted by what they have heardand what they have seen on their television screens,” he added.

When reports of phone hacking allegedly indulged in by the News of theWorld appeared earlier this year, a statement was issued by Rupert Murdoch’scompany apologising unreservedly to those whose cases met “specific criteria”.

However, Murdoch’s News International now faces renewed heat withnew revelations that the victims of phone hacking included politicians, celebritiesand also victims of crime.

69

Rebekah Brooks, Chief Executive of News International, who was theEditor of News of the World when the alleged hacking took place, is reportedto have been “deeply shocked” at the revelations amidst calls from politiciansasking for her resignation. (The Pioneer, New Delhi dated July 7, 2011)

Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloid News of the World which has been atthe centre of a storm over allegations of widespread illegal phone hacking is toclose down, it was announced on July 7, 2011 amid growing public outrage overits newsgathering tactics.

In a statement, James Murdoch, Chairman of News International whichpublishes NoW, The Times and The Sun, said the forthcoming Sunday issue ofthe 168-year-old newspaper would be its last. (The Hindu, New Delhi datedJuly 8, 2011)

Rebekah Brooks, Former Chief Executive of Rupert Murdoch’s Britishmedia group News International and a family friend of the Murdochs, becamethe most high-profile figure to be arrested in connection with investigations intothe phone hacking scandal. Her spokesman said she was arrested when shewent to the police station for a “pre-arranged interview with the police.”

Ms. Brooks’ surprise arrest on suspicion of conspiring to interceptcommunications and corruption allegations came amid reports that several othersenior News International executives, including Mr. Murdoch and his son andcompany Chairman, James, were being investigated for any alleged role incovering up the scale of the scandal.

Ms. Brooks, who resigned following intense public and political pressure,was to appear before the House of Commons’ Media Committee to answerquestions about her role in the scandal. That may not happen now because hertestimony could be used by the police against her. It could also prejudice policeinvestigations.

“The arrest puts her in a difficult position in terms of her scheduledappearance at the meeting,” her spokesman said.

Ms. Brooks was the Editor of the News of the World during the periodto which many allegations of phone hacking relate. (The Hindu, New Delhidated July 18, 2011)

Amid high drama that included an attempt by a comedian to attack himwith a plastic plate loaded with shaving foam, Rupert Murdoch told MPs thatuntil recently he had no knowledge of the phone hacking scandal at the Newsof the World (NoW) and was let down by “people I trusted.”

70

‘Shocked, ashamed’

Earlier in his testimony, Mr. Murdoch said he was “absolutely shocked,appalled and ashamed” that NoW journalists had been involved in hacking thephone of the murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler.

This was also the line taken by his son James Murdoch, Chairman of hisBritish media group News International, and its Former Chief Executive,Rebekah Brooks, who said the first time she heard that Milly Dowler’s phonewas hacked was two weeks ago.

All three offered profuse apologies for what happened and describedNoW’s actions as “shameful” and “inexcusable” but denied that there was anycover-up.

Ms. Brooks, who was NoW’s Editor during the period to which many ofthe hacking allegations relate, acknowledged that the newspaper used privatedetectives to dig up stories but claimed at the time it was a “common practicein Fleet Street.” She also admitted that payments were made to police forinformation but said she never personally made any payments and was notaware of any specific payments.

Mr. Murdoch said he got to know about the practices at NoW only earlierthis year when News International discovered new evidence and startedinvestigating.

Was he “misled” about what was going on in his company? Mr. Murdochwas asked.

“Clearly, yes,” he said.

In reply to a pointed question whether he felt responsible for the “fiasco,”he said: “No.”

Mr. Murdoch argued that he ran a global business of 53,000 people andNoW was “just 1%” of this and that was perhaps a reason why “I lost sightof it.”

Asked who he thought was responsible for what went on at NoW, he said:“The people I trusted to run it and may be the people they trusted.”

Apologies

James repeatedly apologised to the victims of phone hacking. He said thecompany failed to live up to “the standards they aspired to” and was “determinedto put things right and make sure they do not happen again.”

71

Both Rupert and James said there was no evidence that phones of victimsof 9/11 were hacked. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated July 20, 2011)

The News of the World phone-hacking scandal, pushed out of the frontpages in the wake of the London riots, was back in the news after the Houseof Commons Media Committee investigating it released an explosive letter froma former NoW journalist claiming the practice was “widely discussed” ateditorial meetings and senior figures knew about it.

The claim by Clive Goodman who was sacked after being jailed in 2007for hacking into the phones of the royal family, blows a hole in the official NoWversion that it was confined to Mr. Goodman who it described as a “rogue”reporter. He wrote the letter to his employers appealing against his dismissal.

“This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, untilexplicit reference to it was banned by the Editor,” he wrote calling his dismissalunfair.

Embarrassing

The letter is also politically embarrassing for Prime Minister, David Cameronas it claims his former Communications Chief, Andy Coulson, who was Editorof NoW at the time, offered to let Mr. Goodman keep his job if he agreed notto implicate the paper.

Mr. Coulson was hired by Mr. Cameron after he quit NoW over theGoodman case. He has denied any knowledge of hacking under his watch.

The 160-year-old tabloid, owned by Rupert Murdoch and published byNews International headed by his son James, was shut down last monthfollowing fresh allegations.

Tom Watson, Labour Member of the Commons Committee, described theletter as “the most significant piece of evidence that has been revealed so far”.

“It completely removes News International’s defence. This is one of thelargest cover-ups I have seen in my lifetime,” he said.

Mr. Goodman’s assertion echoes that of the former NoW Editor, ColinMyler, and the company’s former Legal Manager, Tom Crone, that senior NewsInternational executives, including Mr. James Murdoch, knew what was goingon.

In his evidence before the Committee last month, Mr. Murdoch denied anyknowledge of hacking. The Committee is likely to recall him amid concerns thathe may have “misled” MPs. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated August 17, 2011)

72

News Corp funded the former editor of the News of the World tabloidwhen he worked for David Cameron in opposition, the BBC said, in newevidence of the close links between Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch.

The Labour opposition has repeatedly questioned Cameron’s judgment inhiring Andy Coulson as his spokesman in 2007, shortly after the editor quit overthe jailing of his royal reporter for phone hacking.

Allegations now that Coulson maintained financial links to the owner of theinfluential Sun and Times newspapers is likely to cause further damage.

The BBC said Coulson, who was arrested earlier this year on suspicion ofbeing involved in phone hacking, received several hundred thousand poundsfrom News International, the British newspaper arm of the News Corp mediaempire, as part of a severance package that ran in installments until the endof 2007.

He also received benefits such as healthcare for three years and kept hiscompany car, the BBC said, quoting sources. Cameron’s right of centerConservative party has long been criticized for being too close to Murdoch.

A spokesman for the Conservative Party said senior party officials had notknown about the severance arrangements. Downing Street declined to comment.

Opposition Labor called for transparency on the issue. David Cameronneeds to say whether he knew about the payments to Andy Coulson, said IvanLewis, Labor’s culture affairs spokesman.

Coulson was specifically asked during a Parliamentary Committee hearingin 2009 whether he had received any other income when he worked for theConservative Party, and said no.

Coulson quit his government job earlier this year when police furtherinvestigated the hacking allegations. He has since been arrested by police and isfacing questions over what he knew about the phone hacking, which was usedto secure stories. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated August 24, 2011)

American-Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch’s company NewsInternational has been hit by new lawsuits as new allegations about the victimsof the phone-hacking scandal emerge.

Former News of the World editor, Andy Coulson is suing News GroupNewspapers, the publishing arm of News International, over lack of paymentfor his legal fees, “We can confirm that proceedings have been issued,” lawfirm DLA Piper, which represents Mr. Coulson, said.

73

The news of legal action by Mr. Coulson comes just as the lawyer ofmurdered school girl Milly Dowler’s family said that he plans to take legalaction against main Murdoch holding company, News Corp, in the US. Britishlawyer Mark Lewis, who represents the Dowler family, has confirmed that heis consulting with lawyers in the US about taking legal action against NewsCorp.

“The action will be looking at News Corp’s liability for action as far as itssubsidiaries. It will raise issues of corporate governance,” Mr. Lewis said.

News International is holding negotiations for compensation payment withthe Dowlers, with reports pointing out that a package of £3 million, including a£1 million donation, is being finalised. In a more damning revelation, it has beenalleged that Neil Wallis, the former Deputy Editor of News of the World whohad been employed by the Met Police for a short period, was paid more than£25,000 by News International while working at Scotland Yard. The DailyTelegraph has claimed that Scotland Yard records show that Wallis, who wasarrested over hacking claims, was paid for providing News International withdetails of a suspected assassination attempt on the Pope during his visit to theUK last year. New hacking allegations emerged against the News of the Worldwith British celebrity Jade Goody’s former agent and PR consultant MaxClifford saying that Goody, who died of cervical cancer in 2009, believed thather phone was being hacked.

He said Goody had told him “she was convinced her phone messageswere being listened to and intercepted.” The Met Police, however, did notcomment on the allegation. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated September25, 2011)

British lawmakers said they will grill James Murdoch about phone hackingat the now-defunct tabloid News of the World for a second time on November10. Meanwhile, Les Hinton, former publisher of the Murdoch owned Wall StreetJournal, testified before a House panel and said he had no idea hacking wasrife when he approved a quarter of a million pound payment to Clive Goodman,the News of the World reporter jailed in 2007 for hacking. (The IndianExpress, New Delhi dated October 25, 2011)

UK Police has widened its probe into the phone-hacking scandal to themost prestigious of Rupert Murdoch’s UK papers, The Times, a top Labour MPsaid on February 2, 2012. The Times is facing allegations of e-mail-hacking.Labour MP Tom Watson said the police had confirmed to him that The Timeswas also being investigated for allegations of computer hacking. (The Pioneer,New Delhi dated February 3, 2012)

74

In an explosive revelation on February 14, 2012 The Times newspaper hasrevealed that News Corp, the parent company of Murdoch owned NewsInternational in the UK, has disclosed details and identities of some of TheSun journalists to Scotland Yard. News Corp’s Management and StandardsCommittee, which is conducting an internal probe into the phone-hacking andthe issue of illegal payments to the police and public officials by News of theWorld and Sun journalists, disclosed the identity of the sources as “there isevidence” that they may have been paid for the information. The Committeewas instructed by News Corp to cooperate fully with police and it is searchingmillions of e-mails, expenses claims, payments records and other documents forany evidence that public officials may have been paid for information byjournalists at News International, which also publishes”, The Times said, addingthat the Committee is also planning to investigate Times and Sunday Times.

The identification of the confidential sources led to three arrests of a policeofficer, a Defence Ministry employee and an armed forces officer.

“It is not clear whether the MSC identified the sources without consideringwhether the publication of stories based on their information was in the publicinterest”, the report said.

The revelation comes after The Sun’s associate editor Trevor Kavanaghcriticised the police investigation and arrests of Sun journalists in the inquiry.

The Met police was quick to defend its investigation and the arrests. “Thelinked Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta are extremely difficult andcomplex with literally millions of pieces of documentation needing to be scrutinisedand examined. Given the seriousness of the allegations currently under investigationand the significant number of victims, the MPs does not believe that the levelof resources devoted to the three inquiries is in any way disproportionate to theenormous task in hand”, Scotland Yard said after Kavanagh critcised the policefor its “disproportionate” targeting of Sun journalists.

“There are 169 officers and staff currently deployed to the three linkedinvestigations. Of these, 91 officers and staff are deployed to Operation Weeting;61 to Operation Elveden; and 16 to Operation Tuleta with a Detective ChiefSuperintendent overseeing the three investigations. These resources are constantlyreviewed and where they relate to corrupt payments to police officers theIPCC have oversight”, the Met police said. (The Asian Age, New Delhidated February 15, 2012)

Cherie Blair, wife of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair became the latestin a long list of high-profile figures to sue Rupert Murdoch’s media group, NewsInternational, claiming that her phone was hacked by the News of the World.

75

She is also suing Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective jailed in 2007 forintercepting voicemails of members of the royal family for NoW.

Ms. Blair’s lawyer, Graham Atkins, said in a statement: “I can confirm thatwe have issued a claim on behalf of Cherie Blair in relation to the unlawfulinterception of her voicemails”.

The move will embarrass Mr. Murdoch given his close relations with theBlairs in the past. Mr. Blair, who cultivated Mr. Murdoch heavily to win hisnewspapers’ support, is godfather to Mr. Murdoch’s youngest daughter, Chloe.

It is also likely to cast shadow over the News International’s plannedlaunch of a new paper — The Sun — to replace NoW, which Mr. Murdochshut down last summer in a bid to draw a line under the hacking scandal.

During Mr. Blair’s Prime Ministership, the NoW published a number ofstories about the Blair’s private life. At the time it was suspected that someonefrom inside Downing Street, including Ms. Bair’s style guru Carole Caplin,might be leaking information but that view changed after the hacking scandalerupted. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated February 24, 2012)

News International has been accused of deleting e-mails linked to phone-hacking, according to documents released by the High Court in London. JusticeVos, who is hearing civil claims by hacking victims, released the documents tothe media after an application by The Daily Telegraph and the details from theclaims filed by victims of phone-hacking for damages were also published inThe Guardian, the BBC and The Times. The documents released by the HighCourt have evidence that senior News International executives were allegedlyinvolved in a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence. The documents alsorevealed that private investigator Glenn Mulcaire had hacked phones 2,226times for News of the World, the now defunct tabloid at the heart of thescandal. (The Asian Age, New Delhi dated February 26, 2012)

The Lazarus newspaper is rising from the dead. Only seven months afterthe News of the World was closed following revelations of extensive voice-mailhacking, the Sun on February 26, 2012 is expected to launch on February 26,2012. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated February 27, 2012)

British newspapers from 19th century are now available online for the firsttime as British Library has started digitising its newspaper archives.

Upto four million pages are available for online viewing at present and thearchive will ultimately contain papers from 1700 to 1950, making it a treasuretrove of 250 years of historical newspapers. (The Asian Age, New Delhidated November 30, 2011)

76

British journalism on February 2, 2012 lost one of its most respected warreporters when Marie Colvin of The Sunday Times, often spoken of in thesame breath as Martha Gelhorn for her extraordinary courage to venture intothe most feared of danger zones and her passion for war victims, was killedwith a French photographer Remi Ochlik in Syria.

With her trademark black eye-patch that she wore since losing her left eyein a grenade attack while covering the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka in 2001, Ms.Colvin was regarded as the finest foreign correspondent of her generation in theBritish media. She had reported from almost every hot spot and won respectespecially for the compassion with which she wrote about war victims.

“Marie was an extraordinary figure in the life of The Sunday Times,driven by a passion to cover wars in the belief that what she did mattered. Shebelieved profoundly that reporting could curtail the excesses of brutal regimesand make the international community take notice”, said The Sunday TimesEditor John Witherow.

Ms. Colvin, who was in her 50s had been its foreign correspondent formore than two decades and won many awards for her frontline despatches,especially from West Asia.

In Parliament, Prime Minister David Cameron said Ms. Colvin’s death was“a desperately sad reminder of the risks that journalists take to inform the worldof what is happening and the dreadful events in Syria.”

At least two other foreign journalists were reported wounded —— aBritish freelance photographer Paul Conroy, who was working with Ms. Colvin,and Edith Bouvier of the French newspaper, Le Figaro. (The Hindu, NewDelhi dated February 23, 2012)

France

A widening phone-hacking scandal is prompting a broad reassessment ofthe balance between press freedom and privacy in Britain, even as Francegrapples with the consequences of its tradition of protecting the powerful.

If Dominique Strauss-Kahn walks free now that the sexual assault caseagainst him in New York seems to be weakening, will the French public havea right, or, indeed, an appetite to know more than what emerged in US courts?And if less-exalted people in Britain feel that their secrets should be protectedtoo, how should they shield themselves from journalists hacking into their voicemails?

77

The questions underscore the contrasts between cultures that, in the past,have made Britain a temple to strident disclosure and France a whisperedhaven of discretion. In both countries, the debate has reached what might, atfirst, seem like a tipping point.

In London, tabloid newspaper, News of the World, was accused ofeavesdropping on the cellphones of a kidnapped and murdered schoolgirl, therelatives of people who died in the 2005 London transit bombings and possiblythe families of British war dead.

Such was the public revulsion that an embattled Prime Minister, DavidCameron, was forced to order two separate inquiries — one into thephonehacking scandal itself and the other into the behaviour of the freewheelingBritish press. In a news conference, Cameron insisted that the British presstradition of self-regulation had failed. “I believe we need a new systementirely,” he said, prompting an outcry from British journalists who have longresisted statutory restrictions on their freedoms. Yet, the broad rules remainfreighted with ambiguity, governed by two apparently conflicting clauses of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights: one endorses the right to privacy,another the right to free expression.

France — like much of Continental Europe — has long chosen a different,less swashbuckling attitude towards matters of privacy, offering the powerful adegree of protection that would be unthinkable in Britain or the US. Frenchpoliticians have been able to hide behind some of Europe’s tightest privacylaws. The sexual reputation of Strauss-Kahn, for instance, was known to manyjournalists but rarely publicised. The extent of that knowledge emerged onlywhen he was arrested in New York and charged with trying to rape a hotelhousekeeper at the Sofitel in Manhattan.

In France and Britain, the past weeks have shown both models of reportingto be strained to the point of failure, leaving journalists to define the role theyought to play. (The Indian Express, New Delhi dated July 11, 2011)

France’s Prime Minister condemned an apparent arson attack early onNovember 2, 2011 that destroyed the offices of a satirical French newspaperthat had “invited” the Prophet Muhammad as a guest editor this week.

A police official said the blaze broke out overnight at the offices ofCharlie Hebdo weekly, and the exact cause remains unclear. No injuries werereported.

French Prime Minister, François Fillon called on the authorities to findthose responsible and bring them to justice. “Freedom of expression is an

78

inalienable value of our democracy…No cause can justify a violent action”,Fillon said in a statement. The front-page of the weekly, subtitled ShariaHebdo, a reference to Islamic law, apparently depicted the Prophet.

Newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in 2005 by aDanish newspaper triggered protests in Muslim countries. The President of anumbrella group representing France’s Muslim community, at some five millionthe largest in Western Europe, also condemned the apparent attack. (TheIndian Express, New Delhi dated November 3, 2011)

The weekly Charlie Hebdo whose office was fire bombed after it printeda cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad has reproduced the image with othercaricatures in a supplement with one of the country’s leading newspapers. Itdefended the “freedom to poke fun” in the four-page supplement, wrappedaround copies of the left-wing daily Liberation on November 3, 2011 a dayafter an arson attack gutted the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo. (TheIndian Express, New Delhi dated November 4, 2011)

Reporters Without Borders has prepared a list of 10 most dangerous areasin the world for journalists including Kahira capital of Misra, Misrata of Libyaand Baluchistan of Pakistan. While showing Misra and Libya as most dangerousareas for journalists has informed that 66 journalists were murdered in the yearand more than 1,000 were arrested in the year. (Dainik Jagran, New Delhidated December 23, 2011)

Geneva

At least 106 journalists were killed in 2011, among them 20 who reportedon the Arab spring uprisings, a group said. (The Hindustan Times, NewDelhi dated December 21, 2011)

Vienna

Giving a call for ensuring freedom of press in West Asia, the WorldNewspaper Congress and World Editors Forum have cautioned that people’saspirations for freedom will come out through “unanticipated” channels iftraditional media is curtailed.

President of global media organisation WAN-INFRA, Jacob Mathew saidthe changes taking place in the Arab world prove that if traditional media areput under tethers, aspirations for freedom would get expressed throughunanticipated channels.

“The media is undergoing rapid changes in the tablet age. The mediashould make use of all possibilities of the digital world to gather news.

79

Newspapers which have the strength to face the challenges of the technologicalrevolution would continue to be relevant,” said Mr. Mathew.

The two global organisations said media should make use of all possibilitiesof the digital world to gather news.

Mr. Mathew said people had more trust in newspapers than in any othernews media. “Even today, 180 crore people are connected to the world of newsthrough newspapers. This is 20 per cent more than the consumers of internet,”he said.

The WAN-INFRA also presented its ‘Golden Pen of Freedom Award—2011’ to Dawit Isaak, who has been in jail since 10 years in Eritrea. His brotherEsayas collected the award on his behalf. (The Hindu, New Delhi datedOctober 16, 2011)

Madrid

All 90 people wanted information deleted from the Web.

Among them was a victim of domestic violence who discovered that heraddress could easily be found through Google. Another, well into middle agenow, thought it was unfair that a few computer key strokes could unearth anaccount of her arrest in her college days.

They might not have received much of a hearing in the United States,where Google is based. But here, as elsewhere in Europe, an idea has takenhold – individuals should have a “right to be forgotten” on the Web.

Spain’s government is now championing this cause. It has ordered Googleto stop indexing information about 90 citizens who filed formal complaints withits Data Protection Agency. The case is now in court and being watchedclosely across Europe for how it might affect the control citizens will have overinformation they posted, or which was posted about them, on the Web.

Whatever the ruling in the Spanish case, the European Union is alsoexpected to weigh in with new “right to be forgotten” regulations this fall,Viviane Reding, the European Union’s Justice Commissioner has offered fewdetails of what she has in mind. But she has made clear she is determined togive privacy watchdogs greater power.

“I cannot accept that individuals have no say over their data once it hasbeen launched into cyberspace,” she said in July. She said she had heard theargument that more control was impossible, and that Europeans should “getover it.”

80

But, Ms. Reding said, “I don’t agree.” On this issue, experts say, Europeand the United States have largely parted company.

“What you really have here is a trans-Atlantic clash,” said Franz Werro,who was born and raised in Switzerland and is now a law professor atGeorgetown University. “The two cultures really aren’t going in the samedirection when it comes to privacy rights.”

For instance, in the United States, Mr. Werro said, courts have consistentlyfound that the right to publish the truth about someone’s past supersedes anyright to privacy. Europeans, he said, see things differently: “In Europe you don’thave the right to say anything about anybody, even if it is true.”

Mr. Werro says Europe sees the need to balance freedom of speech andthe right to know against a person’s right to privacy or dignity, concepts oftenenshrined in European laws. The European perspective was shaped by the wayinformation was collected and used against individuals under dictators like,Franco and Hitler and under Communism, Government agencies routinely compileddossiers on citizens as a means of control.

Court cases over these issues have popped up in many corners of Europe.

In Germany, for instance, Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, whobecame infamous for killing a German actor in 1990, are suing Wikipedia todrop the entry about them. German privacy laws allow suppression of criminalidentities in news accounts once people have paid their debt to society. Thelawyer for the two killers argues that criminals have a right to privacy too, anda right to be left alone.

Google has also faced suits in several countries, including Germany,Switzerland and the Czech Republic, over its efforts to collect street-by-streetphotographs for its Street View feature. In Germany, where courts found thatStreet View was legal, Google allowed individuals and businesses to opt out, andabout 250,000 have.

The issue, however, has had no traction in the United States, whereanyone has the right to take pictures of anything in plain sight from the street.

Google declined to discuss the Spanish cases, instead issuing a statementsaying that requiring search engines to ignore some data “would have aprofound chilling effect on free expression without protecting people’s privacy”.

In a blog post this year, Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel,discussed the subject under the headline, “Foggy thinking about the Right toOblivion.” The blog post made clear that he was speaking for himself, not

81

Google. But he left little doubt that he considered Europe’s efforts to forge newprivacy rights poorly defined and misguided, raising complex legal and technicalquestions.

In fact, the phrase “right to be forgotten” is being used to cover a batchof issues, ranging from those in the Spanish case to the behaviour of companiesseeking to make money from private information that can be collected on theWeb.

Some European experts feel that new rules of play need to be drawn upanyway.

Mr. Werro says many Europeans, including himself, are broadly uncomfortablewith the way personal information is found by search engines and used forcommerce. When ads pop up on his screen, clearly linked to subjects that areof interest to him he says he finds it Orwellian.

A recent poll conducted by the European Union found that most Europeansagree. Three out of four said they were worried about how Internet companiesused their information and wanted the right to delete personal data at any time.Ninety per cent wanted the European Union to take action on the right to beforgotten.

Spain’s Data Protection Agency, created in the 1990s to protect individualrights, believes that search engines have altered the process by which most dataends up forgotten - and therefore adjustments need to be made.

The Deputy Director of the agency, Jesus Rubi, pointed to the officialgovernment gazette, which used to publish every weekday, including bankruptcyauctions, official pardons, and who passed the civil service exams. Usually 220pages of fine print, it quickly ended up gathering dust on various backroomshelves. The information was still there, but not easily accessible.

Then two years ago, the 350-year old publication went online, making itpossible for embarrassing information - no matter how old - to be obtainedeasily.

Mr. Rubi said he doubted that anyone meant for the information to hauntcitizens forever: “The law obliges us to put this info in the gazette. But I amsure that if the law was written today, legislators would say OK, publish this,but it should not be accessible by a search engine.”

The publisher of the government publication, Fernando Perez said it wasmeant to foster transparency. Lists of scholarship winners, for instance, makeit hard for the government officials to steer all the money to their own children.

82

“But may be,” he said, “there is information that has a life cycle and only hasvalue for a certain time.”

Experts say that Google and other search engines see some of these courtcases as an assault on a principle of law already established – that searchengines are essentially not responsible for the information they corral from theWeb, and hope the Spanish court agrees. The companies believe if there areprivacy issues, the complainants should address those who posted the materialon the Web.

But some experts in Europe believe that search engines should probably bereined in. “The say they are not publishing, so you should address yourselfelsewhere,” said Javier de la Cueva, a Madrid lawyer specialising in therelationship between law and technology. “But they are the ones that arespreading the word. Without them no one would find these things.” (The AsianAge, New Delhi dated August 11, 2011)

Italy

Pakistani investigative reporter, Syed Saleem Shahzad was on June 9, 2011posthumously awarded an Italian journalism prize after he was abducted andtortured to death by unknown assassins in eastern Pakistan last month.

Italy’s Ischia Prize Foundation granted Shahzad its International JournalismAward in a unanimous decision by the jury. (The Asian Age, New Delhi datedJune 10, 2011)

Africa

Tim Hetherington, an Oscar-nominated British film director and warphotographer, who covered numerous conflicts and won the 2007 World PressPhoto Award for his coverage of US soldiers in Afghanistan and award winningUS photographer Chris Hondros were killed and two other Western journalistswounded on April 20, 2011 in the besieged Libyan city of Misrata. (The AsianAge, New Delhi dated April 22, 2011)

Protesters are calling it “Black Tuesday”, the darkest day for SouthAfrican democracy since the end of apartheid in 1994.

Members of Parliament will almost certainly pass what is officially calledthe protection of information bill, otherwise known as the “secrecy bill”.

The African National Congress (ANC) says it needs to update apartheid-era legislation safeguarding “valuable information by all organs of state”, and

83

has been emboldened by the revelations of wrong-doing at the News of theWorld and the crisis of press regulation in Britain.

But opposition parties, civil society groups and the media warn of anexistential threat to freedom of expression, a pillar of the progressive constitutiondrawn up under former President Nelson Mandela. The Congress of SouthAfrican Trade Unions, usually an ANC ally, claims the bill puts too much powerin the hands of government. An editorial in the bestselling Sunday Times said:“The South African public will be deprived of the vital oxygen of freeinformation”. A war of words has raged between the two camps for more thana year. On one level, the vigorous debate suggests a teenage democracy in rudehealth. On another, the anger and insults have exposed an ugliness within SouthAfrica’s body politic.

The ANC has dominated party politics for 17 years, gaining almost doublethe votes of all its rivals combined. The media enjoys probably greater freedomthan any other country in Africa and is seen by some as an unofficialopposition. South Africa’s energetic and vocal civil society movements are seenas vital in providing checks and balances to the distribution of power.

For years newspaper readers have feasted on a diet of corruption andfinancial scandals. The ANC is now attempting to muzzle the press, criticsargue, so the powerful can line their pockets with impunity. The new lawswould make it a crime to leak, possess or publish information deemed classifiedby the government, with whistleblowers and journalists facing up to 25 yearsin jail.

A government source told the Guardian that recent events in Britain hadgiven the ANC confidence to override the storm of opposition. “Phone hackingshowed that not even Britain can make press self-regulation work”, he said.“We find it very telling that no South African editors have come out and saidthey never hack phones”. The bill is likely to be steamrollered through Parliament,although it must then go to a National Council of Provinces, and survive courtchallenges, before being signed into law by the President, Jacob Zuma, Activistshave vowed to fight to the bitter end, with the Right2Know Campaign organisingpickets around the country on November 22.

Nadine Gordimer’s reaction

The Nobel Prize winning author Nadine Gordimer, said: “The ANC istaking South Africa back to the suppression of free expression of apartheid”.The National Press Club urged protesters to wear black clothing or a blackribbon or armband on Black Tuesday – the name of the campaign refers to

84

Black Wednesday on October 19, 1977 when the apartheid government bannedtwo newspapers and 19 black consciousness movements after the death ofactivist Stevo Biko. (The Hindu, New Delhi dated November 23, 2011 )

China

China’s propaganda authorities have placed two of Beijing’s most popularand colourful newspapers under new management, state press said, in a movedecried by critics as an effort to censor the news.

Beijing’s Communist Party run media authorities have taken over at thehelm of the popular Beijing News and the Beijing Times, the government-runQianlong website reported late on September 4, 2011.

Both papers routinely run stories critical of local governments aroundChina, as well as articles that defy edicts issued by the party’s propagandabureau ordering media to show Chinese society in a positive light.

Both began publishing about a decade ago and gained widespread popularityfor their colourful stories and advertisements.

The move was aimed at bringing the two papers under the control of localmanagement and reining in an advertising war between the publications, thereport said. The two papers may be merged into one, it added. (The AsianAge, New Delhi dated September 5, 2011)

Days after three reporters from international news organisations wereassaulted, the Beijing-based foreign correspondents’ club in China (FCCC) haswarned its members to be careful and alert while on their jobs.

The journalists from French and Danish news organisations were reportingfrom a village called Panhe in the eastern province of Zhejiang where residentshad protested against local officials recently.

Unidentified groups of people attacked the journalists in two separatecases; in one case note-books, documents handed over to the reporters byvillagers and the memory card of a camera were snatched away. Villagerstalking to the journalist were beaten up. He was then taken away by membersof the local foreign affairs office but continued to be harassed on phone.

In the second case involving a French television journalist, both he and hisChinese assistant were accosted by unidentified men after their vehicles wasforced to stop. The latter was assaulted. This was after another vehicle,allegedly deliberately, crashed into their car forcing them to stop. Compensationwas later paid to the scribe for the broken camera; medical expenses were alsopaid.

85

Police officers later said the young men were from Panhe, adding theywere supporters of the government and were upset that foreign reporters werein their village to cover events.

Subsequently, the FCCC – which is not recognised by the Chinesegovernment — urged journalists reporting from the area to be “especially alert”.(The Hindustan Times, New Delhi dated February 22, 2012)

Australia

Australia on July 21, 2011 moved to introduce a legal right to privacy afterthe phone hacking scandal in Britain, paving the way for people to sue mediaorganisations for serious breaches.

Laws are already in place to deal with criminal offences related to privacybreaches, but not a statutory cause of action.

Home Affairs Minister, Brendan O’Connor said he was acting now afterthe News of the World furore heightened concerns.

“Right now there is no general right to privacy in Australia, and that meansthere’s no certainty for anyone wanting to sue for an invasion of their privacy,”said O’Connor, whose government is in a running battle with some Murdochowned publications.

“The scandal and other recent mass breaches of privacy, both at home andabroad, have put the spotlight on whether there should be such a right.”

O’Connor said Canberra would seek the views of the public immediatelyon introducing a right to privacy, and take it from there.

“This government strongly believes in the principle of freedom of expressionand also the right to privacy. Any changes to our laws will have to strike abalance between the two ideals,” he said. “Privacy is emerging as a definingissue of the modern era, especially as new technology provides more opportunitiesfor communication, but also new challenges to privacy.” (The Asian Age, NewDelhi dated July 22, 2011)

Rupert Murdoch’s embattled media empire found itself facing freshcontroversy on March 28, 2012 after an Australian newspaper published aninvestigative report alleging that News Corporation had engaged a special unitin the mid-1990s to sabotage its competitors.

This has led the Australian government to call for a criminal investigationinto the claims. But News Ltd., the company’s Australian media wing, dismissed

86

the report as “laughable”, saying that it was filled with inaccuracies andbaseless claims that had been dismissed by courts in other countries, includingthe US.

The newspaper, The Australian Financial Review, which is owned byone of Murdoch’s main Australian rivals, Fairfax Media, published more than14,000 internal e-mails from a former News Corporation subsidiary along withthe results of what it said was a four-year investigation into whether thatcompany, NDS Group, encouraged the mass pirating of rival satellite televisionnetworks.

“These are serious allegations, and any allegations of criminal activityshould be referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for investigation”,Suzie Brady, a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy,said in an e-mail exchange.

A spokeswoman for the police said that the agency had not yet receiveda request from the authorities to investigate the allegations in the report, whichcentred largely on the battle for dominance over Australia’s burgeoning pay TVmarket in the late 1990s but also touched on the company’s operations inEurope and the US.

The report states that Australia had no effective laws against pay TVpiracy at the time, so the actions inside the country would not have been illegalat the time.

The report came a day after a BBC documentary made similar allegationsagainst NDS Group in Britain, saying that it had paid a consultant to “crack”and publish on a pirate website the smart-card codes of a pay service that wasstarted by ITV, the country’s free broadcaster. News Corporation has deniedthe claims in the BBC programme, Panorama.

The new e-mails, the newspaper said, had come from the hard drive ofRay Adams, a former commander in the Metropolitan Police in London whoserved as head of operational security for NDS Group in Europe from 1996to 2002.

It appeared to show that a secret unit within the company called “OperationalSecurity” promoted a wave of high-tech piracy that damaged the NewsCorporation rivals Austar and Optus at a time when the company was positioningitself to be the dominant player in the Australian pay TV industry. (TheTelegraph, Kolkata dated March 29, 2012)

87

Sri Lanka

A Sri Lankan court on April 28, 2011 ordered temporary blocking of apopular anti government news portal over the contempt of court charges.

The Pugoda Magistrate’s Court asked the country’s TelecommunicationRegulatory Commission to block the access of the ‘Lankaenews’ website untilthe conclusion of the court hearings regarding one of the portal’s journalists,who had been arrested on the charges of contempt of court.

The website journalist Shantha Wijesuriya was arrested on April 25 afterthe website had carried a piece of wrong information on a case heard in thesame court.

Wijesuriya was asked to be further remanded until May 12, his lawyer,Namal Rajapaksha said. Later its Chief Editor, Bennet Rupasinghe wasremanded for allegedly threatening the brother of one of the two suspectsrelated to arson case on the website’s offices. (The Statesman, New Delhidated April 29, 2011)

q

88

CHAPTER – II

Adjudications in Complaints RegardingThreats to Press Freedom

The Press Council of India has been entrusted with the importanttask of promoting the freedom of the press and the independence of thenewspapers and the news-agencies and journalists, keeping under reviewany development which may interfere with the free flow of informationand dissemination of information, and monitoring development such asconcentration of ownership of newspapers/matters relating to editormanagerial relationship etc. which may affect the independence of thepress.

Cases of alleged harassment of journalists by way of attacks, threatsor denial of facilities or infringement upon the independent working of thepress find a mention in this chapter.

The reviewed year saw 227 complaints pending from the previousone. 170 fresh complaints were filed during the year. A total of 397matters thus required consideration.

Owing to the time gap between the expiry of the term of the 10th

Press Council and reconstitution of the 11th Press Council only 25 matterswere disposed off by way of adjudication which included one matterdirectly considered by the Council while 228 were dismissed at preliminarystage for lack of grounds for inquiry, the matters being outside theCouncil’s charter or having gone to a court of law. 144 matters wereunder process at the end of the period under review.

Text of the adjudications have been carried in the Council’s quarterlyjournal, ‘PCI Review’ in English and ‘Press Parishad Samiksha’ in Hindiand Compendium of Adjudications 2011-2012.

88

89

Categories of Complainants

A. Police/Government AuthoritiesB. Information DepartmentC. Institutions/Private Companies/

Newspaper ManagementD. Private Persons

Categories of Respondents

A4%

C28%

B60%

A64%

D4%

A. English PressB. Indian Languages PressC. Journalist Associations/

News AgencyD. Suo-motu

B32%

D8%

90

Statewise Distribution of the Complainant Publications

No. of A B C D E F G H I J KCases

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

91

Key to AbbreviationTotal No. of Cases : 25

(Including one matter adjudicated directly by the Council)

A. Uttar Pradesh 7

B. Daman and Diu 2

C. Madhya Pradesh 2

D. Delhi 3

E. Haryana 2

F. Bihar 1

G. Rajasthan 2

H. Tamil Nadu 2

I. Karnataka 1

J. Andhra Pradesh 2

K. Jammu & Kashmir 1

92

Harassment of Newsmen

Free expression of views or critical writings by the Press have oftenevoked violent reaction from those at the receiving end. While at timesit takes the form of harassment, very often it leads to physical violence.The journalists working in the rural areas are the worst sufferers. Inthese areas, over enthusiastic low rung police officers harass themfrequently on one pretext or the other.

Endeavours to contain such unsavoury and undemocratic practicesprevailing in the sphere of journalism require the co-operation of allconcerned.

The Council adjudicated a total of 13 such matters in the year. Ofthese, the charges, were found to be substantiated in five matters whiletwo stood dismissed on merits. In two cases the respondents concernedmade or assured adequate amends at Council’s behest. Four complaintswere disposed off for non pursuance or for the matter having becomesub-judice or when no action by the Council was found to be warrantedafter hearing the parties. The chart that follows makes the position moreclear.

93

Harassment of NewsmenTotal No. of Cases : 13

A. Upheld 5

B. Rejected 2

C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 2

D. Dropped for Non-pursuance/ 4Withdrawal/ Sub-judice/Lack of Substance

No. of A B C DCases

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

94

Facilities to the Press

One very severe weapon often used by the governmental and otherauthorities into pressuring the newspapers to toe their line or in any wayputting impediments in way of the free working of the press, is stoppageor reduction in the quantum of advertisements. In such situation the smalland medium newspapers are worst affected. Another lever in the handsof the governmental authorities is the withdrawal or denial of accreditationfacilities.

Though these facilities cannot be claimed as a right, yet, in grantingor distributing the same the authorities as custodians of public funds, haveto ensure equality of treatment and fairness amongst similarly situatedclaimants.

Council rendered 11 adjudications under this head during the yearunder review. Of these 11 complaints that fall under this category threewere upheld, while one was rejected on merit. In six matters the Councildropped inquiry when respondents concerned made or assured adequateamends. Action was dropped in one matter on account of non-pursuance.Graphics below clarify the position further.

95

Facilities to the PressTotal No. of Cases : 11

A. Upheld 3

B. Rejected 1

C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 6

D. Dropped for Non-pursuance/ 1Withdrawal/ Sub-judice/Lack of Substance

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0No. of A B C DCases

96

Curtailment of Press Freedom

One would have thought that with the end of the era of repressivepress laws and with the attainment of Independence by the country andadoption of our Constitution for a liberal, democratic, free society, thedanger to the freedom of the press would disappear. But that was not tobe. It appears that visibly and quietly, many damaging, pernicious anddangerous trends, which are curtailing the freedom of the press both fromwithin and outside, have surfaced during this period. The press in ourcountry, is sometimes in the line of fire of both the law makers and lawbreakers, directly or indirectly. Attacks on the press premises, raids onthe press, organising demonstrations and assaulting and man-handling ofpress staff of newspaper are acts of curtailment of press freedom.

The lone complaint adjudicated directly by the Council under thishead was closed on the basis of the assurance given the respondent. Agraphic presentation follows.

97

Curtailment of Press FreedomTotal No. of Cases : 1

A. Upheld –

B. Rejected –

C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 1

D. Dropped for Non-pursuance/ –Withdrawal/Sub-judice/Lack of Substance

No. of A B C D DCases

1

0

98

CHAPTER – III

Adjudications in Complaints Filed Against the Press

The twin objects for which the Press Council of India has beenestablished are of preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintainingand improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.For the latter, the Council has been enjoined to build up a code ofconduct for newspapers, news agencies and journalists in accordancewith high professional standards; ensuring on the part of the newspapers,the news agencies and the journalists, the maintenance of high standardsof public taste and fostering a due sense of both the rights andresponsibilities of citizenship; encouraging the growth of a sense ofresponsibility and public service among all those engaged in the professionof journalism; promoting a proper functional relationship among all classesof persons engaged in the production or publication of newspapers or innews agencies etc.

In April 2011, 820 complaints were pending inquiry by the Council.During the course of the year, the Council was approached by 715complainants, individually or as representative authorities/organizations.Thus, the Council was to consider in all 1535 complaints against the pressduring the year under review. 86 matters were disposed off throughadjudications including one matter which was directly considered by theCouncil.

777 matters have been disposed off at the preliminary stage, eitherby settling these to the satisfaction of the parties or dismissing thecomplaints for lack of substance or on account of non-pursuance etc.Thus 672 matters were pending in this category at the close of thefinancial year under review. The detailed text of the adjudications can beseen in the Council’s quarterly house journals published in English as wellas Hindi and also the Compendium of Adjudications 2011-2012.

99

Categories of Complainants

Categories of Respondents

A. Government Authorities/Government Officers

B. Private Persons

C. Institutions/PrivateCompanies/NewspaperAssociations

D. Public Persons

A. English Press

B. Indian LanguagesPress

A23.26%C

23.26%

B51.16%

A27.91%

B72.09%

D2.32%

100

Statewise Distribution of the Respondent Publications

No. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q RofCases

25

20

15

10

5

0

101

A. Uttar Pradesh 22

B. Andhra Pradesh 7

C. Karnataka 16

D. West Bengal 2

E. Jharkhand 1

F. Orissa 1

G. Delhi 13

H. Uttarakhand 1

I. Jammu & Kashmir 1

J. Haryana 4

K. Madhya Pradesh 2

L. Tamil Nadu 5

M. Rajasthan 1

N. Assam 1

O. Bihar 2

P. Maharashtra 4

Q. Chandigarh 2

R. Himachal Pradesh 1

Key to AbbreviationTotal No. of Cases : 86

(Including one matter adjudicated directly by the Council)

102

Principles and Publication

Free press in expected to observe truth and impartiality in transmittingnews as well as honesty in the expression of opinion. It therefore, isincumbent on the media to have a large measure of moral commitment.The entire media personnel, including proprietors, managers, editors andjournalists are required to adopt and follow ethical behaviour in theirrespective spheres of functioning.

In today’s competitive race for profiteering monetarily, the press isoften seen to forget the missionary principles traditionally held dear bythose in the profession of journalism. Publication of inaccurate reports,write-ups etc. and the refusal to publish rebuttals, are some of the mal-practices adopted by the press which violate the canons of ethicaljournalistic conduct.

19 complaints including one matter directly placed before the Councilwith these allegations were adjudicated upon during the year underreview. Of these in five matters Council decided that no action waswarranted after the respondents offered to make amends. Six othercomplaints stood rejected while the remaining eight were dropped fornon-pursuance, withdrawal or for the matters having become sub-judice.The chart that follows makes the position more clear.

103

Principles and PublicationTotal No. of Cases : 19

A. Upheld –

B. Rejected 6

C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 5

D. Dropped for Non-pursuance/ 8Withdrawal/Sub-judice/Lackof Substance

No. of A B C DCases

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

104

Press and Defamation

The number of persons approaching the Council, aggrieved by libellouswritings, is increasing at an alarming rate. The defamation, whether it beof an individual or an institute, brands the affected party’s reputation,which is very difficult to retrieve. To ensure the non-recurrence oflegislative attempts at control, it is essential that restraint be observedfrom within.

However the press at times uses the medium to gratify private spiteor personal greed and avarice by defaming persons/institutions throughthe columns of the newspapers. This tendency is comparatively higher inthe smaller or the fly-by night newspapers. Defamatory writings againstindividuals/institutions are published as a reprisal measure due to personalenmity; for blackmailing for money; or some other favours sought fromthe persons/institutions concerned.

In their enthusiasm for reporting, journalists often overlook the basicprinciples underlying the functions and duties of journalists. The Counciladjudicated 63 complaints this year pertaining to alleged defamatorypublications. Of these the press was found guilty of violation of journalisticethics in 18 cases, while charges were rejected in 10. In eight matters,the Council was able to bring about reconciliation between parties while27 complaints were disposed off for non-pursuance or on account ofmatters having become sub-judice or where no action by the Councilwas found to be warranted after hearing the parties. The followinggraphics explains the position.

105

Press and DefamationTotal No. of Cases: 63

A. Upheld 18

B. Rejected 10

C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 8

D. Dropped for Non-pursuance/ 27Withdrawal/Sub-judice/Lackof Substance

No. of A B C DCases

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

106

Press and Morality

Decency and morality occupy an important place in Indian cultureand society. Obscenity and its effect on public morality has for long beena subject of heated debate. There is a section of the Press, which underthe influence of western culture has been carrying reports/columns/advertisements and photographs which militate against the cultural ethoswell entrenched in the minds of Indian society. Further, such publicationsdo not serve public interest in any manner. The Indian Penal Codeincorporates offences relating to public decency and morality. The relevantSections are 292 and 292-A which make it punishable to sell or distributeobscene literature and objects, or to commit obscene acts, etc. Self-regulation however, is known to score over punitive action.

In two matters falling under this head the Council adjudicated uponthe question of obscenity. Action was dropped in one matter when therespondent gave assurance. Remaining one matter was dropped for non-pursuance or where no action by the Council was found to be warrantedafter hearing the parties. The following chart makes the position moreclear.

107

Press and MoralityTotal No. of Cases : 2

A. Upheld –

B. Rejected –

C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 1

D. Dropped for Non-pursuance/ 1Withdrawal/ Sub-judice/Lack of Substance

1

0No. of A B C DCases

108

Communal, Casteist and Anti National Writings

The press has not remained untouched by waves of violence andterrorism lashing the country. While it has often been a victim, it has noless often been the cause of upsurge of these tendencies. The responsibilityof the press in such circumstances cannot be over-emphasised. TheCouncil itself in its various decisions has stressed the need for restraintand caution in writings where sentiments of communities or castes wereinvolved so as not to give rise to communal passions and instead to liveupto the expectation of its role of toning down hatred and enmity.

During the period under review the Council adjudicated two complaintsunder this category. Of these, one matter was upheld while one wasdisposed off by the Council when the respondent gave assurance oroffered to make amends. A graphic presentation follows.

109

Communal, Casteist and Anti National WritingsTotal No. of Cases : 2

A. Upheld 1

B. Rejected –

C. Assurance/Settled/Amends 1

D. Dropped for Non-pursuance/ –Withdrawal/Sub-judice/Lack of Substance

No. of A B C DCases

1

0

110

CHAPTER – IV

Finances of the Council 2011-2012

The funds of the Council are primarily made up of (i) fee levied by theCouncil on newspapers/periodicals registered with the Registrar of Newspapersfor India and from the news-agencies and other miscellaneous receipts, likeinterest on bank account etc., and (ii) Grant-in-aid from the Central Governmentin the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The Budget Estimates of the Council for the financial year 2011-12, asaccepted by the Central Government in 2010-11 was Rs.532.00 lakhs. Revisingthe estimates for 2011-12 in January, 2012 the Central Government acceptedthe budget of same amount i.e. Rs. 532.00 lakhs (the Grant-in-aid element) withCouncil’s revenue receipts estimated at Rs.119.50 lakh. This was against theCouncil’s Revised Estimates demand of Rs.657.53 lakhs.

The Council added to its own revenue taking the final receipts to Rs.151.55lakhs. Accordingly, while Council received grant-in-aid amounting to Rs.532.00lakhs (Rs.5,31,76,762.00 as Grants-in-aid + Rs.23,238.00 unspent balance forprevious year) during the financial year 2011-12 from the Central Government,it collected Rs.47.38 lakhs as fees levied upon newspapers/periodicals and newsagencies and Rs.104.16 lakhs accounted for other miscellaneous receipts, likeinterest on bank accounts, interest on F.D.Rs with the Bank, etc. during theyear under report. An amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs carried forward during thefinancial year 2012-13.

As a result of efforts to realise as much revenue as possible from newspapers/periodicals defaulting in payment of the fee levied on them under the mandate ofthe Act, during the year the Council recovered Rs.17,10,478.00 as outstandinglevy of fee from the defaulters. This figure is included in the total figures ofRs.47,38,424.00 mentioned above.

Section 22 of the Press Council Act, 1978 provides that the accounts ofPress Council of India shall be maintained and audited in such manner as may,in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, be prescribed.The Annual Accounts of the Press Council of India for the financial year 2011-12 which were maintained in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, wereaudited by the Audit party of the office of the Director General of Audit,Central Revenues, New Delhi and certified to be to their satisfaction. TheAnnual Accounts of the Council are annexed hereto.

111

BALANCE SHEETAs on 31st March 2012

112

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIABALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012

LIABILITIES Schedule Current Year Previous Year

CAPITAL FUND 1 74,458,837 67,013,242

C.P.F. FUND 2 65,135,223 71,059,432

CURRENT LIABILITIES ANDPROVISIONS 3 4,135,382 1,104,304

TOTAL 143,729,442 139,176,978

ASSETS

FIXED ASSETS 4 6,539,681 3,976,015

INVESTMENTS-FROM EARMARKEDFUNDS 5 68,966,661 74,160,020

CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS,ADVANCES ETC. 6 68,223,100 61,040,943

TOTAL 143,729,442 139,176,978

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES 13

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES ANDNOTES ON ACCOUNTS 25 14

Sd/- Sd/-(MARKANDEY KATJU) (VIBHA BHARGAVA)

CHAIRMAN SECRETARYPRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Amount Rs.

113

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIAINCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR

THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2012

INCOME Schedule Current Year Previous Year

Income from Levy Fees & Others 7 10,172,429 9,073,730

Grants from GoI 8 41,054,841 43,734,614

Interest Earned 9 7,362,130 6,400,315

TOTAL(A) 58,589,400 59,208,659

EXPENDITURE

Establishment Expenses 10 41,856,980 38,578,198

Other Administrative Expenses 11 12,096,309 9,296,405

Finance Charges 12 29,028 948

Depreciation(Corresponding toSchedule 5) 1,000,105 587,749

TOTAL(B) 54,982,422 48,463,300

Balance being excess of Income overExpenditure (A-B) 3,606,978 10,745,359

- Prior Period Adjustment Cr.(Dr.) 274,846 61,555

- Transfer to/from General Reserve

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) CARRIED TOINCOME & EXPENDITURE A/C 3,881,824 10,806,914

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES 13

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES ANDNOTES TO ACCOUNTS 14

Sd/- Sd/-(MARKANDEY KATJU) (VIBHA BHARGAVA)

CHAIRMAN SECRETARYPRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Amount Rs.

114

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIASCHEDULES FORMING PART OF BALANCE SHEET

AS ON 31.03.2012

SCHEDULE 1 - CAPITAL FUNDCurrent Year Previous Year

A. Capital Fund:

Balance as at the beginning of the year 7,927,500 7,806,529Add: Funds Capitalised During the Year 3,564,142 93,964Add: Amount of fixed Assets understated inPrevious years – 24,822Add: Excess Amount written off in PreviousYears now written Back – 2,185

11,491,642 7,927,500

Less: Amount of Fixed Assets overstated inPrevious Year – –

Less: Amount Written Off on condemned Assets 371 11,491,271 – 7,927,500

B. Income & Expenditure Account:Balance as at the beginning of the year 59,085,742 48,278,828

Add/(Deduct): Balance of net income/(expenditure) 3,881,824 10,806,914transferred from Income and ExpenditureAccountAdd/(Deduct): Other adjustement (PleaseSpecify) – 62,967,566 – 59,085,742

TOTAL 74,458,837 67,013,242

Amount Rs.

115

SCHEDULE 3 - CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS

Current Year Previous Year

A. Current Liabilities:

1 Advances Received

- Advance Levy of Fee 377,048 276,437

- Levy Fee Suspense 101,385 478,433 30,785 307,222

2 Security Deposits 31,000 31,000

3 Unspent Grant 3,221,483 23,238

4 Other current Liabilities 8,187 404,293

5 Payable to Heir of Ex employee 396,279 338,551

TOTAL (A) 4,135,382 1,104,304

B. PROVISIONS – –

TOTAL (A+B) 4,135,382 1,104,304

Amount Rs.

SCHEDULE 2 - C.P.F. FUNDSCurrent Year Previous Year

a) Opening balance of the funds 71,059,432 63,509,463

b) Addition to the Funds:

i. Councils’ Contr. To C.P.F. 1,567,975 1,753,510ii CPF Advance Recovered – 1,447,440iii. Prior period adjustments 216,216 –iv. Employees’ Contr. To C.P.F. 7,720,886 7,895,954v. Interest on C.P.F. Funds from Govt. 5,359,534 14,432,179 5,048,154 16,145,058

TOTAL (a+b) 85,491,611 79,654,521

c) Utilisation/Expenditure towards objectives offundsC.P.F. Withdrawls 6,862,800 2,075,565Final Payments to Outgoing Employees 12,645,945 2,751,624Reversal of excess credit of CPF in pr. Year – –CPF Advances 847,643 3,767,900Recievable from Genral Fund A/c. – 20,356,388 – 8,595,089

Net Balance of Fund as at the yearend (a+b-c) 65,135,223 71,059,432

Amount Rs.

116

PARTICULARS GROSS BLOCK

Cost As on Addition During Sale/Trf. During Cost As on1.4.2011 the Year the Year 31.3.2012

Air conditioners & Coolers 938,085.00 – – 938,085.00

Attendance Recording System 82,000.00 – – 82,000.00

Cars & Bicycle 745,737.00 1,630,694.00 – 2,376,431.00

Computer/Peripharals 3,573,085.00 1,680,250.00 – 5,253,335.00

Conference System 27,820.00 – – 27,820.00

EPABX System 258,800.00 – – 258,800.00

Furniture & Fixture 4,178,761.00 125,036.00 – 4,303,797.00

Heat Convector & Heaters 35,764.00 1,600.00 – 37,364.00

Library Books 747,765.00 73,099.00 371.57 820,492.43

Mobile Phones 11,300.00 19,797.00 – 31,097.00

Refrigerator 52,535.00 – – 52,535.00

Solar Water Heating System 110,227.00 – – 110,227.00

Stabilisers 71,434.00 – – 71,434.00

Tape Recorders 6,618.00 – – 6,618.00

Television 78,190.00 18,176.00 – 96,366.00

Typewriter & Duplicator 133,029.00 – – 133,029.00

Water Dispencer 28,800.00 15,490.00 – 44,290.00

Total 11,079,950.00 3,564,142.00 371.57 14,643,720.43

SCHEDULE 4

SCHEDULE FORMING PART OF

117

DEPRECIATION NET BLOCK

Upto For the Written Total W.D.V. W.D.V.31.3.2011 year Back 31.3.2012 31.3.2011

609,472.00 49,292.00 – 658,764.00 279,321.00 328,613.00

42,405.00 5,939.00 – 48,344.00 33,656.00 39,595.00

559,822.00 279,115.00 – 838,937.00 1,537,494.00 185,915.00

2,472,549.00 291,624.00 – 2,764,173.00 2,489,162.00 1,100,536.00

26,742.00 162.00 – 26,904.00 916.00 1,078.00

172,377.00 12,963.00 – 185,340.00 73,460.00 86,423.00

2,478,054.00 270,629.00 – 2,748,683.00 1,555,114.00 1,700,707.00

21,431.00 2,390.00 – 23,821.00 13,543.00 14,333.00

384,759.70 60,608.00 – 445,367.70 375,124.73 363,005.30

5,402.00 2,370.00 – 7,772.00 23,325.00 5,898.00

31,067.00 3,220.00 – 34,287.00 18,248.00 21,468.00

57,003.00 7,984.00 – 64,987.00 45,240.00 53,224.00

46,157.00 3,792.00 – 49,949.00 21,485.00 25,277.00

4,213.00 361.00 – 4,574.00 2,044.00 2,405.00

54,802.00 4,871.00 – 59,673.00 36,693.00 23,388.00

122,785.00 1,537.00 – 124,322.00 8,707.00 10,244.00

14,894.00 3,248.00 – 18,142.00 26,148.00 13,906.00

7,103,934.70 1,000,105.00 – 8,104,039.70 6,539,680.73 3,976,015.30

SCHEDULE 4

BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2012

118

SCHEDULE 5 - INVESTMENTS FROM EARMARKED FUNDSCurrent Year Previous Year

1. Fixed Deposits with Schedule Banks

- Against C.P.F. Fund 61,566,392 63,416,775

- FDR Interest Accrued thereon 7,400,269 68,966,661 10,743,245 74,160,020

TOTAL 68,966,661 74,160,020

Amount Rs.

SCHEDULE 6 - CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS, ADVANCES ETC.

Current Year Previous YearA. CURRENT ASSETS:

1. Sundry Debtors:- On Account of Levy Fees

Debts Outstanding for a periodexceeding six months 52,155,627 41,350,936Others – 52,155,627 5,266,554 46,617,490

2. Cash balances in hand(including Postage in Hands and imprest)

Imprest Account Balance 11,083 10,000Postage Stamps in Hands – 11,083 1,366 11,366

3. Bank Balances:- With Scheduled Banks:

Saving Accounts- State Bank of Hyderabad -General Account 3,094,532 6,523- State Bank of Hyderabad -Revolving Account 439,677 451,987- State Bank of Hyderabad -Levy Fee Account 114,576 5,349- State Bank of Hyderabad -C.P.F. Account 3,674,145 7,322,930 7,513,754 7,977,613

Deposit Accounts- State Bank of Hyderabad -Revolving Account 2,079,641 2,422,410- State Bank of Hyderabad - Shashi Tandon 191,786 –- State Bank of Hyderabad - Rajesh Kaur – –- State Bank of Hyderabad - Sushila Devi 165,881 2,437,308 165,881 2,588,291

TOTAL (A) 61,926,948 57,194,760

Amount Rs.

119

B. LOANS,ADVANCES AND OTHER ASSETS

1 Loans to Staff:

- Fan Advance – –

- Cycle Advance 3,125 –

- Car Advance 188,010 278,946

- Festival Advance 70,425 60,000

- Housing Building Advance 747,567 40,803

- Scooter Advance 400 1,009,527 5,400 385,149

2 Advances and other amounts recoverable incash or in kind/or for value to be received:

- On Capital Account – –

- Prepayments

- Advance for Books Periodicals 8,340 10,625

- Advance to Parties 3,421,926 2,043,518

- TA Advance 444,582 61,662

- Tax Deducted at Source 778,762 690,858

- Others

- Salary Recoverable – –

- Other Advances 200 10,000

- LTC Advances – 37,228

- C.P.F. Suspense – 4,653,810 – 2,853,891

3 Income Accrued

a) On Deposits of Revolving Account 576,478 581,381

b) On Deposits of Sushila Devi (Ex Employee) 24,753 6,288 (includes income due unrealised-Rs……..

c) On Deposits of Shashi Tandon (Ex Emp.) 12,110 –

4 Deposits with Different Departments 19,474 19,474

TOTAL (B) 6,296,152 3,846,183

TOTAL (A +B) 68,223,100 61,040,943

Current Year Previous Year

SCHEDULE 6 - (continued) Amount Rs.

120

SCHEDULE 7 - INCOME FROM LEVY FEES & OTHERSCurrent Year Previous Year

1 Levy fees received from Newspapers/Periodicals/News Agencies 4,738,424 3,729,442

Add:Demand raised for previos year – –

Add:Advance of Previous Years adjusted – 116,315

Add:Fees outstanding for current Year 7,330,965 6,203,019

Less: Fees received for previous Years 1,710,478 930,175

Less: Fees received in advance/suspense 253,561 10,105,350 156,676 8,961,925

2 Others(Specify)

- Sale of Waste Papers – 4,724

- Profit on Sale of Assets – 8,745

- Fee for Information under Right to Information Act 2,882 3,599- Income from Advertisment in Souvenir 62,500 –

- Other 1,697 67,079 94,737 111,805

TOTAL 10,172,429 9,073,730

Amount Rs.

SCHEDULE 8 - GRANTSCurrent Year Previous Year

(Irrevocable Grants & Subsidies Received)- Central Government (Ministry of I & B)

- Grant Received During the Year 53,176,762 48,678,574

- Add: Unspent Grant for the Previous Year 23,238 221,396

53,200,000 48,899,970- Less: Grant Utilised for Interest on C.P.F.

Funds 5,359,534 5,048,154

- Less: Grant Utilised for Fixed Assets 3,564,142 93,964

- Less: Unspent Grant for the Current Year 3,221,483 41,054,841 23,238 43,734,614

TOTAL 41,054,841 43,734,614

Amount Rs.

121

SCHEDULE 9 - INTEREST EARNEDCurrent Year Previous Year

1 On Term Deposits:

a) With Scheduled Banks- CPF Account (trf to General Fund)

Interest Received During the Year – –Add: Tax Deducted at Source – –Less: Related to Previous Years – 4,588Less: Interest excess booked reversedin Pr. Year – –Add: Interest Accrued for the Year 6,583,741 6,583,741 5,707,594 5,703,006

- Revolving Fund AccountInterest Received During the Year – –Add: Tax Deducted at Source – –Add: Interest Accrued for the Year 250,014 237,426Less: Related to Previous Years – 250,014 – 237,426

- General Fund AccountInterest Received During the Year 117,723 58,972Add: Tax Deducted at Source – –Add: Interest Accrued for the Year – –Less: Related to Previous Years 117,723 58,972

2 On Savings Accounts:

a) With Scheduled Banks- General Fund Account 308,712 109,989- CPF Account (Trf. To General Fund) 58,855 108,643- Levy Fees Account 20,803 10,249- Revolving Fund (Loans & Advances) 15,390 403,760 15,960 244,841

3 On Loans:

a) Employees/Staff- Scooter Advance 4,000 8,301- Cycle Advance – –- Housing Building Advance 2,892 2,892- Fan Advance – –- Motor Car Advance – 6,892 – 11,193

4 Interest on FDR (Ex Employees) – – – 144,877

TOTAL 7,362,130 6,400,315

Amount Rs.

122

SCHEDULE 10 - ESTABLISHEMENT EXPENSESCurrent Year Previous Year

a) Salaries and Wages 31,939,880 30,436,870

b) Arrear of Salaries 658,856 2,562,223

c) OTA 16,096 14,975

d) Tution Fees Reimbursement 500,094 396,639

e) Medical Reimbursement 736,457 928,477

f) Bonus 210,393 206,956

g) L.T.C. 527,873 503,121

h) Encashment of E.L. 2,433,605 705,808

i) Contribution to Provident Fund 1,567,975 1,753,510

j) Expenses on Employees’ Retirement andTerminal Benefits 3,260,411 1,050,919

k) Traning to Staff (Hindi Karyashala) 5,340 18,700

Total 41,856,980 38,578,198

Amount Rs.

123

SCHEDULE 11 - OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSESCurrent Year Previous Year

1 Electricity and Water 1,626,132 682,271

2 Office Expense 351,823 262,292

3 Insurance 5,940 –

4 Repairs and maintenance 2,701,193 2,041,735

5 Vehicles Repairs and Maintenance 262,816 270,154

6 Travelling and conveyance Expenses 1,172,360 2,944,566

7 Rent, Rates and Taxes 325,329 268,976

8 Postage, Telephone and Communication 1,008,327 909,117Charges

9 Printing and Stationary 1,202,609 1,100,480

10 Newspapers & Periodicals 114,708 113,393

11 Liveries to Class IV Staff 59,923 7,205

12 Hindi Protsahan Award 12,190 7,280

13 Subscription Expenses 5,544 –

14 Legal & Professional Charges 137,857 231,985

15 Entertainment 74,494 85,043

16 Exhibition & Seminar 2,579,534 301,925

21 Others(specify)- Sundries 139,684 63,683

22 Provision for Bad and Doubtful lDebts/ – 6,300Advances

23 Tax Deducted – –

24 Staff training Exp. 34,600 –

25 Advertismnet Exp. 281,246 –

26 Other Exp..

TOTAL 12,096,309 9,296,405

Amount Rs.

Note:Electricity & Water Expenses are incurred towards chairman’s residence.

124

SCHEDULE 12 - FINANCE CHARGESCurrent Year Previous Year

a) On Fixed Loans – –

b) On Other Loans (including Bank Charges) 1,875 948

c) Other (specify) – –

d) Interest Paid to Ex-Employee 27,153 –

TOTAL 29,028 948

Amount Rs.

125

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIASCHEDULE FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2012

SCHEDULE 13- SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES:-

1. Accounting Convention

The financial statements are prepared on the basis of historical cost conventionunless otherwise stated.

2. Method of Accounting

Council is following the accrual method of accounting unless otherwise stated.

3. Investments

a) Investments against C.P.F. Fund are classified as earmarked investments

b) Investments against Revolving (Loans & Advances) account are treatedas current assets.

c) Investments are shown at the principal value as increased by the interestaccrued thereon.

4. Fixed Assets

a) Fixed assets are stated at cost of acquisition inclusive of duties and taxesthereon. Other direct expenses related to acquisition are not capitalized.

b) Capital Fund is maintained to denote the cost of fixed assets.

5. Depreciation

Depreciation is being charged as per the rates prescribed in the Income TaxRules at the Following rates i.e. Furniture & Fixture @ 10% and Other Assetsat the general rate @ 15%.

6. Government Grant

a) Government Grants are accounted on cash basis.

b) Grants utilized toward the addition of fixed assets are transferred to theCapital Fund.

c) Grants utilized towards the interest on C.P.F. Fund are transferred to C.P.F.Account.

d) Unspent Grant for the year are transferred to Reserve & Surplus to furtheruse in the next year.

126

7. Retirement Benefits

a) Retirement benefits are accounted on cash basis. No provision for gratuitypayable, leave encashment etc. is made

b) The Council is maintaining its own C.P.F. Fund.

Sd/- Sd/-(MARKANDEY KATJU) (VIBHA BHARGAVA)

CHAIRMAN SECRETARYPRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

127

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIASCHEDULE FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2012

SCHEDULE 14 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES & NOTES OF THE ACCOUNTS

A. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Claim against the Council not acknowledged as debts Rs. NIL (Previous YearNIL)

B. NOTES OF THE ACCOUNTS

1. Current Assets, Loans & Advances

a. Balance in the Sundry Debtors, Advances for Books & Periodicals andAdvances to Parties have not been confirmed from the respectiveparties/departments

b. In the opinion of the management of the Council, the other currentassets, loans & advances have a realizable value equal at least to theamount shown in the Balance Sheet, in the ordinary course of business.

2. Provision for Taxation

In view of the income of the Council being exempt from tax, no provision fortaxation has been made.

3. Corresponding figures for the previous year have been regrouped/rearranged,wherever necessary.

Sd/- Sd/-(MARKANDEY KATJU) (VIBHA BHARGAVA)

CHAIRMAN SECRETARYPRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

128

Receipts Current Year Previous Year

I. Opening Balance

(a) Cash in hand (Imprest Account) 10,000 5,932

(b) Bank Balances

– General Fund 6,523 190,309

– Levy of Fees Account 451,987 479,634

– Revolving Fund (Loans & Advances) 5,349 20,714

– C.P.F. Account 7,513,754 7,977,613 8,917,565 9,608,222

(c) Postage Stamps in Hand 1,366 4,441

II. Grants Received

(a) From Government of India 53,176,762 48,678,574(Ministry of I & B)

III. Interest Received

a) On Bank deposits

– Term Deposits 10,191,597 203,849

– Saving Accounts 403,760 10,595,357 244,841 448,690

(b) Loans, Advances etc. 6,892 11,193

IV. Other Income (specify)

Levy fees received from Newspapers/Periodicals/News Agencies 4,738,424 3,729,442

Others except Profit on Sale of Asset 67,079 103,060

Arrears of Sixth Pay Commission – –Recovered

Sale of Asset 327 9,000

V. Receipts from MaturedInvestments

Encashment of FDRs

– Revolving Fund Account 1,891,939 1,077,413

– C.P.F. Account 56,385,032 7,189,072

General Fund 15,000,000 7,500,000

Towards Employee – 73,276,971 804,307 16,570,792

VI. Any Other Receipts

(a) Refund of Securities

Deposit with Department – –

– Computer Maintenance – – – –

PRESS COUNCILRECEIPT AND PAYMENTS FOR

129

Payments Current Year Previous Year

I. Expenses

(a) Establishment Expenses 41,856,980 38,426,712(Corresponding to Schedule 10)

(b) Administrative Expenses 11,981,224 9,876,838(Correspondent to Schedule 11)

(c) Paid towards Expense Payable 327,713 –

II. Payments made against funds

Against Revolving Fund(Loans & Advances)

– Disbursements of Loans

– Festival Advance 123,750 105,000

– Cycle Advance 3,750 –

– Moter Car Advance – 160,000

– House Building Advance 750,000 877,500 – 265,000

Against C.P.F. Fund

– Advance / Withdrawal to Staff 9,052,790 5,843,465

– Final Payments to Outgoing 12,645,945 21,698,735 2,751,624 8,595,089Employees

III. Investments and deposits made

(a) Out Earmarked/Endowment funds

– Against Revolving Fund(Loans & Advances) 1,549,170 1,077,413

– Against C.P.F. Fund 54,534,649 56,083,819 15,443,511 16,520,924

(b) Out of own funds(Investments-Others) 15,000,000 7,500,000

Towards Employee 191,786 15,191,786 1,089,197 8,589,197

IV. Expenditure on Fixed Assets &Capital work-in-progress

(a) Purchase of Fixed Assets

– Library Books 73,099 4,651

– Furniture & Others 3,471,246 89,313

– Telephone Instruments 19,797 3,564,142 – 93,964

OF INDIATHE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2012

130

Receipts Current Year Previous Year

(b) Recovery of Advances

– Housing Building Advance 43,236 13,236

– Festival Advances 113,325 96,000

– Scooter Advances 5,000 28,000

– Motor Car Advance 90,936 65,336

– Cycle Advance 625 –

– Table Fan Advance – – 202,572

– From Parties 253,122 – –

(c) Recovery from Employee 1,579 76,580

Towards Liability Payable 8,187 –

C.P.F. Contribution and refund loan 9,063,233 9,072,999 9,270,728 9,347,308

(d) Amount trf from General Fundto C.P.F. Fund on account of:

– Council’s Contribution to PF 1,567,975 1,753,510

– Interest on Employees’ Contribution 3,544,633 3,443,152

– Interest on Council’s Contribution 1,814,901 1,605,002

– Others – 6,927,509 – 6,801,664

(e) Amount Excess trf to GeneralFund from C.P.F. Fund

– On a/c of rec.of PCI Contr.to CPF – –

– Others – – –

TOTAL 166,104,421 95,520,890

131

Payments Current Year Previous Year

(b) Expenditure on Capital

V. Refund of surplus money/loans

(a) To the Government of India – –

(b) Excess of Levy fee Refunded – –

(c) Excess Recovery Loan Refunded – – – –

VI. Finance Charges (Interest) 1,875 948

VII. Other Payments (Specify)

(a) Amount trf from General Fundto C.P.F. Fund on account of:

– Interest on Employees’ Contribution 3,544,633 3,443,152

– Interest on Council’s Contribution 1,814,901 1,605,002

– Others – 5,359,534 – 5,048,154

(b) Advance

– for Books & Periodicals 8,340 10,625

– for Capital Assets – –

– for Others 1,818,560 1,826,900 104,460 115,085

(d) Medical Advance to Staff 200 –

(e) Excess trf from C.P.F. Fund toGeneral Fund – –

VIII. Closing Balances

(a) Cash in hand (Imprest Account) 8,708 10,000

(b) Bank Balances

– General Fund 3,094,532 6,523

– Levy of Fees Account 114,576 451,987

– Revolving Fund (Loans & Advances) 439,677 5,349

– C.P.F. Account 3,674,145 7,322,930 7,513,754 7,977,613

(c) Postage Stamps in Hand 2,375 1,366

TOTAL 166,104,421 95,520,890

Sd/- Sd/-(MARKANDEY KATJU) (VIBHA BHARGAVA)

CHAIRMAN SECRETARYPRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

132

Annexure - A

Statement of Cases(April 1, 2011 - March 31, 2012)

S.No. Particulars Section-13 Section-14 Total

1. Cases pending as on 227 820 1047March 31, 2011

2. Cases filed between April 1, 2011 170 715 885to March 31, 2012

3. Cases adjudicated between 24 85 109April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012

4. Cases directly reported to the 1 1 2Council

5. Cases decided under the proviso 228 777 1005to Regulation 5(1) of InquiryRegulations, 1979 betweenApril 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012

6. Cases under process as on 144 672 816March 31, 2012

*Includes two cases remitted back by the Council.

133

Annexure - B

Colloquium Report: Delhi Declaration

“Let the enlightened people all over the world and media and mediaorganizations working in every part of this beautiful planet of ours remainunited in their relentless effort to build a free serving human societiesacross the globe deeply committed and professed to preserve the dignity ofhuman soul and advance the cause for harmony, peace and prosperity foreveryone in the globe with compassion, love and respect for all andrancour to none.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

The two – day International Colloquium at New Delhi, India convened bythe Press Council of India provided an International platform for media toadjudge its promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rightsand fundamental freedoms and also interact and exchange views on variousaspects of the press scenario throughout the world. The deliberations laidspecial emphasis on (i) Freedom of Expression Vs. Rights of the Civil Society(ii) Media as a Defender of Human Rights, (iii) Reporting on Human RightsExcesses and (iv) Promoting Peace Journalism. The deliberations drew uponArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which statesthat “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; thisright includes freedom to hold opinions without interferences and to seek,receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardlessof frontiers, to exchange experience in their respective countries.”

The Colloquium accepted that while freedom of speech and expression isan inalienable human right, well recognized by the United Nations in its Charterof Declaration of Human Rights, paradoxidly, such freedom of speech andexpression is not enjoyed by people in large number of countries. The voice ofthe people in such countries is either partly controlled or largely controlled bythe authorities in power. Consequently, the concept of free media is still adream in many countries where authorities in power are not ready to allow theirpeople and their media to exercise such inalienable human right openly andfreely. The participating countries in the International Colloquium gave insight tothe status of free speech and human rights scenario in their respective countriesand expressed that it is also paradoxical that in many countries including Indiawhere freedom of speech and expression of their people is not only recognizedbut respected and consequently media is fiercefully independent, there is need

134

to regulate media in such countries to ensure that the free Press functionsobserving well accepted media ethics. Conversely in large number of countrieswhere people have been denied freedom of speech and expression and mediain such countries are also not allowed to function as a free press, it is theanxiety of media organizations and associations of media houses all over theworld to work out effective ways and means to achieve for them freedom ofspeech and expression.

Taking stock of the incidents of onslaught on media the stakeholdersobserved that diverse forms of media have been struggling for over past onecentury to promote and strengthen the rights of free speech to express freelyand fairly their view point on matters of public interest and importance. Mediafreedom was thus discussed in the background of human rights so as to evolvea clear view regarding the issues involved.

Media has a freedom, right and duty to supply valid and useful informationto the public because that would help the people to achieve better governance.In this sense media freedom is part of, if not, an amplification of “human rightsof free expression and right to receive information but if media itself abuses thisfreedom, it then commits human righst, abuse”. Trial by media, paid news, stingoperations, whistle blowing and intrusions into private domain are some of thetendencies of the media which may act as a catalyst amounting to human rightabuse directly or indirectly.

In such a situation existence of Press/Media Councils becomes necessaryto promote ethics and standards in profession of journalism to encourage mediato follow ethics specific to respective countries.

Based upon the deliberations, the conclusions and recommendations ofInternational Colloquium were drawn up.

Conclusions

1. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that humanrights are founded upon the inherent dignity of every person. This dignity andthe right of equality, liberty, freedom of the press which stem from it areuniversal, indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent. The stakeholders all overthe world have been promoting and strengthening the rights of the press onbehalf of the public, to express freely and fairly its opinion on matters of publicinterest and importance.

2. Media has a bounden duty to focus on human rights violations. Whilereporting such violations media must be fair, impartial and objective. Free and

135

fair media can be engaged by human rights groups effectively in their strugglefor protection of human rights.

3. Media being a reflection of society is most suitable medium to lend voiceto the victims of human rights violations. It is, however, to be borne in mind thatright to freedom of expression though an absolute basic human right, is notwithout limits. These limitations al beit become operational only in narrowlydefined exceptional circumstances.

4. The new era of media, with the massive distribution of news and information,requires leadership and guidance for better understanding the concepts of valuescherished by the society and also motivation of civil society in the efforts to bemore and more sensitive, tolerant and compassionate to bring a peaceful andharmonious social order.

5. Certain sections of media also suffers from a deep elitist bias. This biasis blatantly clear when the human rights of the rich and the middle class areunder question. While there may be nothing wrong in upholding the rights ofthe privileged, the rights of the underprivileged should receive same attention, ifnot greater.

6. The media views the violation of human rights as sporadic events andisolated happenings. But, the media fails to connect them with the social,political processes and the economic policies that lead to violation of humanrights.

7. Media can help in avoiding and deescalating conflicts and promoting peacemaking efforts. Peace and prosperity of all the nations across the globe mustbe paramount consideration of mankind as a whole and the media serving thecause of humanity and peaceful world order must strive to achieve them.

8. Privacy vs. the right of freedom of speech and expression a delicate anddebatable issue. The predominant view may prevail is that privacy has to beoverridden where public interest is of paramount importance i.e. in cases ofcorruption, where issue of good governance or back room lobbying etc. isinvolved.

Recommendations

1. The Media Regulatory bodies/Media organizations world over need tomobilize world opinion and get active support of U.N. and various otherorganizations working for protection of human rights, so that freedom of speechand expression unjustly denied to some nations against the spirit of a free nationand mandate in the U.N. Charter, is achieved. In isolation, it is difficult for a

136

nation to achieve freedom of speech and expression. A strong voice of protestis needed to be raised by other nations and mobilization of world opinion so thatgiving such rights becomes imperative. Such, restraint is particularly importantwhere society is fragile in view of multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religiousdenominations, very often tormented by evil design of fundamentalists anddivisive agencies.

2. Media reporting needs to show greater sensitivity while reporting on HumanRights violations and should take proper care and caution so that the exhibitionof photos of traumatized victims does not create shock and fear amongst thepublic and induce ‘hate crimes’ in retaliation.

3. Media in its role as the watchdog of the nation can play an important rolein defending and protecting the rights of the civil society. With its enormousreach and power, media can highlight any violation of human rights anywherein the world and can make authorities aware of their duties and also educatethe people and make them aware of their rights and infringement of such rights.While reporting such violations media must be fair, impartial and truly objective.Media must eschew any influence by the government, political parties and otherorganizations in its activities of fair reporting of events and suggest appropriateremedial measure.

4. In the matter of terrorism and insurgencies, the media whether print orelectronic, should be guided by the compulsion of self imposed restraint andanxiety to prevent further violations of human rights and the loss of more lifeon account of media reporting. Experienced hands should be posted who canreport all sides and aspects of events fairly and objectively. Clearly, thepsychological warfare by terrorists, orchestring human rights violation needscareful, unbiased and thorough investigation to isolate the chaff from the grain.

5. Media can make people aware of the need to promote certain valuesincluding protection and preservation of human rights which remained as eternalcore value to the mankind. Peace, non-violence, disarmament, maintenance andpromotion of ecological balances and unpolluted environment and ensuringhuman rights to all irrespective of caste, colour and creed should be theminimum common agenda for the media.

6. In pursuit of commercial interests media must avoid sensationalism ortrivialization of issues.

7. Media must not lose its focus on its role as fourth estate and its concernand devotion to welfare and well being of the society with orientation forwelfare and well being for many. Media plays a constructive role when it gives

137

voice to the inarticulate, when it focuses on the suffering of the oppressed andexploited, indifference and neglect of poor and weaker segments of the society.The journalists and the media organizations must remember that media is not abusiness or profession per se. The business of media and profession of journalistsare richly overtoned with mission – the unfailing mission of being a fourth estateand a vibrant partner in democracy. There is no room for compromise with thisnoble mission.

8. The media advocacy should, therefore, become the voice for theinarticulate. The violation of human rights of the poor are taken as a routineand a daily reality. The violation of human rights of the rich attract hugeattention of the media. The class bias in reporting issues of human rightsneeds to be eliminated.

9. Civil society should act as a watchdog. A critical evaluation of mediashould form part of academic curriculum of schools and colleges. Socialpressure at grass root level would provide a human rights perspective for themedia.

10. The authorities should publicly acknowledge the importance and legitimacyof the work of human rights defenders i.e. anyone who “individually and inassociation with others, promotes and strive for the protection and realization ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.Specific attention must be given to human rights defenders who face particularrisks.

11. Full implementation of laws and policies which guarantee human rights andfundamental freedoms of human rights defenders should be ensured.

12. Efforts should be made to continue making full use of United NationsSpecial Procedures and other international human rights mechanisms whenreporting on human rights violations.

13. The situation of human rights defenders, in particular the most targeted andvulnerable ones, should be continually monitored, and support for their workshould be expressed through, inter alia, interventions before central and stateinstitutions.

14. The media should act as a catalyst for bringing peace and harmony andshould exercise caution and restraint especially in matters which are likely toescalate conflict.

15. Privacy of an individual is sacrosanct, unless outweighed by genuine publicinterest.

138

The International Colloquium at its close:

Recorded: its appreciation of the efforts and hospitality offered bythe Press Council of India in facilitating exchange of views andinformation amongst mediapersons, academicians, Press/Media Councilsof different countries;

Expressed: Confidence that similar meets in future will provideplatform for promotion of Human Rights and Freedom of Expressionand self-regulation in the media world over.

Reaffirmed: In the present era of globalization, journalism and humanrights meet at a point of remarkable and historical change. Goodjournalism is one of the allies striving for democracy and humanrights protection. The media can and has historically played a pivotalrole in not only creating awareness of those inherent rights followingtheir adoption by the UN and the signatory countries but hasconsciously acted as a gate-keeper by reporting excesses againstthese rights.

139

New Members Notified for 11th Term

The Central Government in the Ministry of Information and Broadcastingvide Gazette of India; Extraordinary No. S.O. 1401 (E) dated June 15, 2011notified the names of twenty seven new members for the 11th three year termof Press Council of India. One name awaits notification.

The Gazette Notification is reproduced herein below:–

The Gazette of IndiaEXTRAORDINARY

PART II – Section 3 – Sub-section (ii)

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 1163 NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011/JYAISTHA 25, 1933

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 15th June, 2011

S.O. 1401(E).– In pursuance of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the PressCouncil Act, 1978 (37 of 1978), read with rules 3 and 4 of the Press Council(Procedure for Nomination of Members) Rules, 1978, the Central Governmenthereby notifies the names of the following persons nominated as members tothe Press Council of India for a period of three years from the date ofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette, namely:-

Working Journalists- Editors (nominated under clause (a) of sub-section(3) of section 5)

1. Shri K.S. Sachidananda Murthy,Editor, Malayala ManoramaMalayala Manorama,2/11, INS Buildings Editors of IndianRafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001. Languages Newspapers

Res: C-51, IFS Apartments,Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,New Delhi-110 091

Annexure - C

140

2. Shri Shravan Kumar Garg,Editor, Dainik Bhaskar,402, Rattan Jyoti BuildingRajendra Place, New Delhi-110 008

Res: B3/25, Safdarjung Enclave,Ground Floor, New Delhi-110 029

3. Shri Jagjit Singh Dardi,Editor, Charhdikala,593, SST Nagar, Patiala (Punjab)

Res: 844, SST Nagar,Patiala (Punjab)

4. Shri Sheetla Singh,Editor, Janmorcha Editors of IndianIndustrial Estate, Gaddopur, Languages NewspapersFaizabad-224 001Uttar Pradesh

Res: 9/8/97, Begum Ganj,Makbara, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

5. Shri Anil Jugalkishor Agrawal,Editor, Daily Amravati Mandal,Kharparde Bagicha,Amravati, Maharashtra

Res: Macchhisath, Sath Khiradi,Near Yukubkhaband,Amravati-444 601Maharashtra

6. Shri Bishambhar NewarEditor, Chhapte-Chhapte,26-C, Creek Row, Kolkata-14

Res: 5BD, Laxmi Towers,541, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 003

141

Working Journalists- other than Editors (nominated under clause (a) ofsub-section (3) of Section 5)

7. Shri Rajeev Ranjan NagMedia House,275-276, Captain Gaur MargSriniwas Puri,New Delhi-110 065

Res: 8-D, Skylark Apartments,Gazipur, Delhi-110 096

8. Shri Uppala Lakshman Working Journalists notOff./Resi.: 1-1-651/A/4, Pent House being editors of IndianLalitha Krishana Apartments, Languages NewspapersGandhi Nagar, Street No. 2,Hyderabad-500 080Andhra Pradesh

9. Shri Arvind S. TengseRes: 354, Buticas Navelim,Salcete, Goa-403 707

10. Shri Kosuri AmarnathNews Services Syndicate,3-5-874/4, First Floor,Street No. 5, HydergudaHyderabad-500 029

Res: 6-3-14/101, Sai Residency,Hastinapuri Colony, Sainikpuri,Hyderabad-500 094

11. Shri Kalyan BarooahAssam Tribune3/14, INS Buildings, Rafi Marg, Working Journalists notNew Delhi being editors of

Newspapers other thanRes: 92, Kala Vihar, Indian LanguagesMayur Vihar, Phase-I(Extn.), NewspapersDelhi

142

12. Shri Sondeep Shankar,(Off./Resi.):I-3, Jungpura Extension,New Delhi-110 014 Working Journalists not

being editors of13. Shri Arun Kumar, Newspapers other than

The Times of India, Times House, Indian LanguagesFraser Road, Patna-800 001 Newspapers

Res: Abedin House (Top Floor),Behind Radio Station, Bata Shop,Fraser Road, Patna-800 001, Bihar

Persons who own or carry on the business of management of Newspapers(nominated under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 5)

14. Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra,Punjab Kesari Building,Civil Lines,Jalandhar-144 001,Punjab

Res: ER-129, Pucca Bagh,Jalandhar-144 001 Punjab

15. Shri Sanjay Gupta, From Big NewspapersDainik Jagran, 501, CategoryINS BuildingsRafi Marg,New Delhi-110 001

Res: C-26, Friends Colony (East),New Delhi

16. Shri Gurinder Singh,Indian Observer,F-26, Connaught Place, From MediumNew Delhi-110 001 Newspapers Category

Res: D-253, Defence Colony,New Delhi-110 024

143

17. Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra,Filmi Duniya, B-10, Shiv Apartments,7, Raj Narain Marg, Civil Lines, From Medium NewspapersDelhi-110 054 Category

Res: A-7, Sector 33, Noida-201 301,Uttar Pradesh

18. Dr. Ramasubba Iyer Lakshmipathy,“Health”, Professional Publications(P) Ltd. “Lakshmi” 21, Sathya From Small NewspapersSai Nagar, Madurai-625 003 CategoryTamil Nadu

Res: 27, “Shri Ram”, Sathya Sai Nagar,Madurai-625 003, Tamil Nadu

Persons who manage news agencies (nominated under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 5)

19. Shri Neeraj Bajpai,United News of India,9, Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110 001

Res: 9/60, Judges’ Colony Vaishali,Ghaziabad

Persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect ofEducation and Science, Law and Literature and Culture (nominatedunder clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 5)

20. Shri Rajeev Sabade, Nominated by UniversityDirector, Centre for Media & Grants CommissionPublications, YASHADA,Rajbhavan Complex,Baner Road, Pune-411 007

144

21. Shri Milan Kumar Dey,Senior Advocate, Nominated by BarChairman, Executive Committee, Council of IndiaBar Council of IndiaBehind Apsara Hotel, Circular Road,P.O. Lalpur, Ranchi- 834 001, Jharkhand

22. Shri A. Krishna MurthyPresent Address:208, Amrapali Apartments, Nominated by SahityaI.P. Extension, New Delhi-110 092 Akademi

Permanent Address:S-4, A-BlockShanthiniketan Apartments,ArakereBengaluru-560 076Karnataka

Members of Parliament (nominated under clause (e) of sub-section (3)of section 5)

23. Kum. Meenakshi Natarajan,Present Address: 24, Akbar RaodNew Delhi

Permanent Address:23, MIG, Indira Nagar, Ratlam,Madhya Pradesh

24. Shri Harin Pathak Nominated by the SpeakerPresent Address: 4, South Avenue Lane, of the House of theNew Delhi-110 011 People

Permanent Address: “Madhuram”Prankunj Society, Puspkunj,Maninagar, AhmedabadGujarat-380 028

145

25. Shri Sanjay Dina PatilPresent Address: Maharashtra Sadan,New Delhi

Permanent Address: Nominated by the SpeakerSanjay Apartments of the House of the PeopleDina Patil Est., Station Road,Bhandup (W) Mumbai-400 078

26. Shri Rajeev ShuklaPresent Address: C-I/2, Lodhi Garden,Amrita Sher Gil Marg, New Delhi

Permanent Address: 119/501,Darshan Purwa, Kanpur, Nominated by theUttar Pradesh- 208012 Chairman of the Council

of States27. Shri Prakash Javadekar

Present Address: 24, Mahadev Road,New Delhi-110 001

Permanent Address:11, Suvan Apartment,Mayur Colony,Kothrud, Pune-411 038Maharashtra

(F. No. 4/8/2010-Press)KHURSHID AHMED GANAI, Jt. Secy.

146

Annexure - D

The Gazette of IndiaEXTRAORDINARY

PART II – Section 3 – Sub-section (ii)

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 1915] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011/ASVINA 13, 1933

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

NOTIFICATION

S.O. No. 2305(E)— In the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (37 of 1978), theCentral Government hereby notifies the nomination of Justice Markandey Katju,retired judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Chairman of the PressCouncil of India.

(F. No. 4/11/2011-Press)KHURSHID AHMED GANAI, Jt. Secy.

147

*Against the Press

Annexure - E

Graph of Adjudications 2011-2012

Foot Note :-A: UpheldB: RejectedC: Assurance/Settled/AmendsD: Dropped for Non-pursuance/Sub-judice/Lack of Substance

*Against the Authorities

22.52%

32%

A B C D A B C D

77.48%Against the Press

12%

36%

20% 22.09%17.44% 18.61%

41.86%

* Including two matters (one in each category) directly placed before the Council

Against the Authorities

148

Annexure - F

Reporton

Visit of Press Freedom Commission ofSouth Africa Delegation on Research Mission

to India on 23.11.2011

A delegation of five Executives of Press Freedom Commission of SouthAfrica namely, Ms. Ntombifuthi Mthoba, Business Representative, Prof. KwameKarikari, International Representative, Ms. Jabulile Malotsane, Administrator,Mr. Mvuyo Mhangwane, Councillor: Political South African High Commissionand Mr. Manoj Nair, Information Officer, South African High Commission witha view to explore structure of regulation in print media met Hon’ble Chairman,Mr. Justice Markandey Katju on November 23, 2011 at Indian Law Institute,New Delhi. Shri Shravan Garg, Member, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Nag, Member andShri S.N. Sinha and Shri Joginder Chawla, former Members, Press Council,Secretary and other officers of Press Council of India were also present.

Welcoming the delegates, the Hon’ble Chairman traced the history with thestruggle of Father of Nation, Mahatama Gandhi in South Africa which ultimatelyled to independence of India from foreign yore. Admiring the similar struggle byShri Nelson Mandela on the issue of apartheid supported by India, the Hon’bleChairman expressed happiness when South Africa got real independence anddemocracy. Whereas both the countries are politically free, there are stilleconomic problems, poverty, etc. and media has assumed ideal role which isvery important to raise such issue to have a better life.

The objective of the visit of the Press Freedom Commission initiated byPrint Media South Africa and South African National Editors forum followedheavy criticism of print media coverage and its self regulatory methods, toresearch on press freedom in support of enhancing democracy, founded onhuman dignity, equality and freedom and to research the regulation of specificallyprint media, locally and globally. The delegation also discussed self regulation,co-regulation, independent regulation and state regulation in this meet.

During the discussion it was revealed that electronic media is regulated bya statutory body in South Africa and retired Chief Justice heads it.

149

The Secretary of the Council explained the formation of Council since1966 and the matters relating to its present composition, functioning, objectives,powers, complaint, nomination procedure etc. of the Press Council of India,ethics in media, access to and coverage of government information, training inmedia education and funding structure of the media industry were discussed indepth.

The exchange of the information benefited both the countries giving aninsight into the functioning of the media and media regulatory bodies.

150

Annexure - G

Subject Index of Adjudications in ComplaintsRegarding Threats to Press Freedom (2011-2012)

Sl. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

Harassment of Newsmen

1 Complaint of Shri Satish Bhatia, District November 17, DisposedCorrespondent, Rashtriya Sahara, District 2011 off beingSonebadra, Uttar Pradesh against anti infructuoussocial elements and local police authorities.

2 Complaint of Shri Awdesh Singh Patel, ,, DirectionsCorrespondent, Amar Ujala, Banda, U.P.against the police authorities.

3 Complaint of the General Secretary, ,, DisposedUT Journalist Union, Daman against off withthe police authorities. observations

4. Complaint of Shri Satish Sharma, ,, DisposedManaging Editor, Savera India Times, off withNani Daman against the police authorities. observations

5 Complaint of Shri Anurag Srivastava, ,, AdviseCorrespondent, Swatantra Bharat, Kanpur,U.P. against the Station House Officer,Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh.

6 Complaint of Shri Devender Kumar ,, CautionSharma, Owner/Publisher/Editor, Weekly issued toAmar Tanav, Hathras, District Mahamaya authoritiesNagar, U.P. against Shri S.R. Aditya,Superintendent of Police, S.P. Singh,District Social Welfare Department andShri Narayan Lal, Agent of DistrictSocial Welfare Department.

M-Adjudications Merged

M

151

Sl. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

7 Complaint of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jha, March 27, DisposedCorrespondent, Dainik Jagran, Samastipur, 2012 offBihar against Shri Maheshwar Hazari,MLA, Bihar.

8 Complaint of Shri Ram Singh Gautam, ,, Sub-judiceCorrespondent, Manavta Ki Raksha,Bulandshahar, U.P. against Shri NaveenMittal, Advocate, Bulandshahar.

9 Complaint of Shri Mukesh Thakur, ,, DismissedCorrespondent, Agni Blast, MonthlyMagazine, Indore, Madhya Pradeshagainst (i) Shri Uma Shankar Gupta,State Home Minister, Madhya Pradesh,Bhopal (ii) S.S.P., Indore, (iii) IP&RDCommissioner, Madhya Pradesh.

10 Complaint of Shri Ashok Singhal, Publisher/ ,, DismissedEditor, Dholpur Tishan, Dholpur, Rajasthanagainst the District Administration, Dholpur,Rajasthan.

11 Complaint of Shri B.N. Devdas, Advocate ,, Sub-judiceCoimbatore, Tamil Nadu against the Sub-Urban Commissioner, Chennai.

12 Complaint of Shri K. Nagaimugan, Chennai, ,, Sub-judiceTamil Nadu against the police authorities.

13 Suo-motu inquiry on the reported attack ,, Enquiryon the offices of “Kannada Prabha” and Dropped“Jayakirana” published by the “HindustanTimes”, “The Hindu” and “The Times ofIndia” in their issues dated 3.3.2010.

Facilities to the Press

14 Complaint of Smt. Nazma Begum, November 17, DirectionsPublisher/Editor, Hindi Dainik Action, 2011Bhopal, M.P. against the DAVP.

152

Sl. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

15 Complaint of Shri Harjeet Dua, November 17, DisposedFreelancer, Delhi against Directorate 2011 off withof Information & Publicity, Government directionsof NCT of Delhi.

16 Complaint of Shri U.S. Singhal, Editor, ,, Matter(PG), Public News (National Newspaper allowed toon Current Affairs) Pitampura, New restDelhi against Ms. Sushma Gaud, SeniorPRO, DMRC, Delhi.

17 Complaint of Shri Amar Singh Johari, ,, DisposedEditor, Akhiri Koshish, Panipat, Haryana off withagainst the Director, Information & advicePublic Relations Department, Governmentof Haryana, Chandigarh and ChiefElection Officer, Haryana, Chandigarh.

18 Complaint of Shri Kamal Bakshi, March 27, DisposedEditor/Publisher, Divye Prabhat, 2012 off withMuzaffarnagar, U.P. against (i) Chief observationsSecretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,Lucknow, (ii) Chief Election Officer,Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and (iii) DistrictElection Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

19 Complaint of Shri Ramcharan Mali, ,, DisposedEditor, Vanvasi Express, Baran, Rajasthan off withagainst the Director, Information & directionsPublic Relations Department, Governmentof Rajasthan, Jaipur.

20 Complaint of Shri Anurag Shukla, ,, DirectionsJournalist, Satta Express, Kanpur Dehat,Uttar Pradesh against the Director,I&PRD, Lucknow, U.P.

21 Complaint of Shri Vinay Gupta, Chief ,, DirectionsSecretary, Indian Newspapers andJournalist Association, Pitampura, NewDelhi against the Director, I&PRD,Chandigarh, Haryana.

153

Sl. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

22 Complaint of Shri Madan Verma, Editor, March 27, DismissedGood Haryana, Jind, Haryana against 2012the Director, I&PRD, Chandigarh andCultural Affairs Department, Governmentof Haryana, Chandigarh.

23 Complaint of Mohd. Abdul Azeem, ,, Disposed offFreelance Journalist, Hyderabad againstthe Director, Public Relations Officer,Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

24 Complaint of Shri P.V. Ramana Rao, ,, DismissedCorrespondent, PTI, Guntur, A.P.against the District Public RelationsOfficer, Guntur.

154

Annexure - H

Subject Index of Adjudications in Complaints Filed Against the Press (2011-2012)

Sl. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

Principles and Publication

1 Complaint of Shri Amar Kumar Singh, November 17, DismissedHead, Department of English, SKM 2011University, Dumka, Jharkhand againstthe Editor, Prabhat Khabar

2 Complaint Shri Navdeep Singh Virk, ,, Closed forIPS, Additional Superintendent of non-pursuancePolice, Sonipat, Haryana against theEditor, Amar Ujala, Noida, U.P.

3 Complaint of Shri Shiv Kumar ,, RegretFaizabadi, Secretary, Jagruk Nagrik Published-Manch, Faizabad, U.P. against the editor, MatterMaya Avadh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh closed

4 Complaint of Shri Ashok Coomar, ,, DisposedMaj. Gen (Retd.) Bhopal, Madhya off withPradesh against the editor, The Hindustan observationsTimes, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

5 Complaint of Shri M.K. Bainiwal, ,, Dismissed forNew Delhi against the Editor, lack ofThe Hindu, Tamil Nadu substance

6 Complaint of Shri M.K. Bainiwal, ,, Dismissed forNew Delhi against the Editor, lack ofHindustan, New Delhi substance

7 Complaint of Shri N.B. Mani, Under ,, Closed forSecretary, Technology Department non-pursuanceBoard, Ministry of Science andTechnology, New Delhi against theEditor, Rashtriya Sahara, Dehradun

M-Adjudications Merged

M

155

M

Sl. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

8 Complaint of Shri Chander Bhushan March 27, DismissedSharma, Principal, S.S. College, 2012Shastri Nagar, Jehanabad, Biharagainst the Editor, Rashtriya Sahara,Patna

9 Complaint of Shri V.M. Bedse, ,, DisposedNasik, Maharashtra against the off withEditor, Loksatta, Mumbai directions/

observations

10 Complaint of Shri V.M. Bedse, ,, DisposedNasik, Maharashtra against the off withEditor, Sakal, Pune directions/

observations

11 Complaint of Shri V.M. Bedse, ,, DismissedNasik, Maharashtra against theEditor, Maharashtra Times, Mumbai

12 Complaint of Dr. Zora Singh, Chairman, ,, RejectedDesh Bhagat Group of Institutes,Chandigarh against the Editor,The Times of India, Chandigarh

13 Complaint of Shri Nungsanglemba, AO, ,, DismissedJDPR, Directorate of Public Relations,Ministry of Defence, New Delhiagainst the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar,Jodhpur, Rajasthan

14 Complaint of Shri S.V. Mani, ,, ClosedJournalist/Writer, Chennai againstthe Editor, The Times of India,Bangaluru

15. Complaint of Shri S.V. Mani, ,, Disposed offJournalist/Writer, Chennai againstthe Editor, The Times of India,Mumbai

M

156

M

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

16 Complaint of Shri R. Manohar, Head March 27, DirectionsProgrammes, South India Cell for 2012Human Rights Education andMonitoring, Bangalore againstthe Editor, The Times of India,Bangaluru

17. Complaint of Shri R. Manohar, Head ,, DirectionsProgrammes, South India Cell forHuman Rights Education andMonitoring, Bangalore againstthe Editor, Deccan Chronicle,Bangaluru

18 Complaint of Ch. V. Suryanarayana, ,, ClosedSecunderabad, A.P. against the Editor,The New Indian Express, Hyderabad

Press and Defamation

19 Complaint of Shri Anil Kumar November 17, ReprimandedKamal, Bijnor, U.P. against 2011the Editor, Bijnor Times,Bijnor, U.P.

20 Complaint of Shri Anil Kumar ,, ReprimandedKamal, Bijnor, U.P. againstthe Editor, Chingari Bijnor,U.P.

21 Complaint of Shri Anil Kumar ,, ReprimandedKamal, Bijnor, U.P. againstthe Editor, Shah Times,Muzaffarnagar, U.P.

22 Complaint of Shri Anil ,, ReprimandedKumar Kamal, Bijnor, U.P.against the Editor, Royal Bulletin,Muzaffarnagar, U.P.

M

157

M

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

23 Complaint of Shri A.T.M. November 17, No actionRangaramanujam, Senior Advocate, 2011Supreme Court of India, Delhiagainst the Editor, Andhra Jyothi,Andhra Pradesh

24 Complaint of Shri A.T.M. ,, DirectionsRangaramanujam, Senior Advocate,Supreme Court of India, Delhiagainst the Editor, Sakshi,Andhra Pradesh

25 Complaint of Shri D.N. Nagendra Jois, ,, DisposedShimoga, Karnataka against the Editor, off forLakshmeesha Patrike non-pursuance

26 Complaint of Dr. Padmaja Jayaram, ,, CautionedAnuradha Nursing Home, ShimogaDistrict, Karnataka against theEditor, Lakshmeesha Patrike,Kannada Weekly

27 Complaint of Shri Ashok Nath, ,, RejoinderLibrary and Information Officer, PublishedAssistant National Library, Kolkataagainst the Editor, Ananda BazaarPatrika, Kolkata.

28 Complaint of Shri Ashok Nath, ,, RejoinderLibrary and Information Officer, PublishedAssistant National Library, Kolkataagainst the Editor, The Telegraph,Kolkata

29 Complaint of Admiral Arun Prakash ,, Disposed(Retd.), Goa against the Editor, off withOutlook Magazine, New Delhi Directions

30 Complaint of Ms. Rita Sen, Principal, ,, AdmonishedDelhi Public School, Delhi againstthe Editor, The Economic Times,New Delhi.

M

158

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

31 Complaint of Shri Devi Ram through Novermber 17, Admonishedhis advocate Shri Tejbir S. Ahlawat, 2011Rohtak, Haryana against the Editor,Dainik Jagran, Noida, U.P.

32 Complaint of the Secretary, Rajdhani ,, Closed forNagar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Lucknow, non-pursuanceU.P. (through advocate Shri AshutoshPandey) against the Editor, Lokdrishti,Lucknow, U.P.

33 Complaint of Shri R.P. Mishr, Accounts ,, CensuredOfficer, Uttar Pradesh JagadguruRambhadracharya HandicappedUniversity, Chitrakoot Dham againstthe Editor, Prakhar Vichar/Patrika,Astha, Lucknow, U.P.

34 Complaint of Shri Upender Kumar ,, Closed forAgarwal, IPS, Superintendent of Police, non-pursuanceRailways against the Editor, Aaj, U.P.

35 Complaint of Shri Jagdish Prasad, ,, Closed forKanpur, Uttar Pradesh against the non-pursuanceEditor, Amar Ujala, Kanpur,Uttar Pradesh.

36 Shri Riyaz Ahmed Khan, District ,, WithdrawnPresident, District Congress Committee(through advocate S. Zulfekar HasnainNaqvi) against the Editor, Dainik Jagran,Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

37 Complaint of Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, ,, DismissedChairman & Managing Director,R.R. Memorial Surgical Centre Pvt.Ltd., Sonebhadra, U.P. againstthe Editor, Namantar, Hindi Monthly,Lucknow, U.P.

159

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

38 Complaint of Maulana Amir Rashadi November 17, WarnedMadani, Nazim, Jameat-Ur-Rashad 2011Madrsa, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradeshagainst the Editor, Aaj, Varanasi,Uttar Pradesh

39 Complaint of Mohd. Moteen Khan, ,, Closed forAdditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track non-pursuanceCourt - II, Shrawasti, Uttar Pradeshagainst the Editor, Dainik Hindustan

40 Complaint of Shri Braham Kumar ,, DisposedTrimurti, Manager, Khadi off withKaramchari/Shramik Kalyan Samiti, directionsAmbedkarnagar, Uttar Pradesh againstthe Editor, Janmorcha, U.P.

41 Complaint of Shri Suman Dhagra, ,, DisposedChairman, Shri Digmber Jain Panchayat off withMandir Beawar, Rajasthan against directionsthe Editor, Dictator, Beawar, Rajasthan

42 Complaint of Shri P. P. Kapoor, ,, WithdrawnHaryana State Convener, Labour Union,District-Panipat, Haryana against theEditor, Dainik Bhaskar, Panipat, Haryana

43 Complaint of Shri R.D. Rahi, Executive ,, Disposed offEngineer, Public Works Department,Government of Uttar Pradesh, Hardoiagainst the Editor, Dainik Aaj

44 Complaint of Shri Satyendra Veer Singh, ,, WithdrawnSuperintendent of Police, Sultanpur,Uttar Pradesh against the Editor,Dainik Jagran, Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh

45 Complaint of Shri G.N.K. Tomar, ,, ClosedChief General Director, All India BankRecovery Rapid Action Force, Noidaagainst the Editor, Dainik JagranNew Delhi

M

160

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

46 Complaint of Shri G.N.K. Tomar, November 17, ClosedChief General Director, All India 2011Bank Recovery Rapid Action Force,Noida against the Editor, Amar Ujala,New Delhi

47 Complaint of Shri Sandeep Kumar ,, DirectionsVerma, Chief Train Tickets Examiner,Haridwar Railway Station, Haridwar,Uttrakhand against the Editor, DainikJagran, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh

48 Complaint of Dr. Ram Sharma, ,, ProceedingsLecturer, Meerut Cannt, (through droppedadvocate), Uttar Pradesh against theEditor, Amar Ujala, Meerut Cantt, U.P.

49 Complaint of Shri Abhiram Das, ,, CensuredBalasore, Orissa against the Editor,Odisha Khabar, Balasore, Orissa

50 Complaint of Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, March 27, DismissedDeputy Superintendent of 2012Education-Cum-Regional EducationOfficer, Banipur, Darbhanga, Biharagainst the Editor, Hindustan,Muzaffarnagar, Bihar

51 Complaint of Shri S. Kamaraju, Taluk & ,, CensuredDistrict - Parambalur, Tamil Nadu,against the Editor, Vilmurasu MonthlyMagazine, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

52 Complaint of Kumari Neelam Gupta, ,, DisposedAligarh against the Editor, off withAkinchan Bharat directions/

observation

53 Complaint of Kumari Neelam Gupta, ,, DisposedAligarh against the Editor, Dainik off withHindustan directions/

observation

M

M

161

54 Complaint of Shri M.S. Bitta, Chairman, March 27, Disposed offAll India Anti - Terrorist Front, New 2012Delhi against Shri Viresh Shandilya,Chief Editor, Dainik Jyotikan, Ambala

55 Complaint of Shri Om Parkash, Under ,, DismissedSecretary to the Government of India,Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers,Department of Pharmaceuticals, NationalPharmaceutical Pricing Authority, NewDelhi against the Editor, MedicareNews Fortnightly, Rohtak, Haryana

56 Complaint of Shri Lakshmi Vardhan ,, Sub-judiceSharma, Moradabad, Uttar Pradeshagainst the Editor, Amar Ujala,Uttar Pradesh

57 Complaint of Shri Navin H. Pandya, ,, DismissedMalad East, Mumbai against the Editor,The Economic Times, Mumbai

58 Complaint of Shri Deoraj Singh Patel, ,, DismissedMP (Lok Sabha) against the Editor,Praja Taj, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh

59 Complaint of Shri Nilotpal Basu, ,, DismissedMember, Communist Party of India,New Delhi against the Editor,The Economics Times, New Delhi

60 Complaint of Shri Diwan Singh, Election ,, DismissedAgent, Bhiwani, Haryana againstthe Editor, Abhi - Abhi, Hissar, Haryana

61 Complaint of Shri Jagdish Verma, ,, DismissedPrivate Secretary to the Minister ofEducation, Government of HimachalPradesh, District Shimla againstthe Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Shimla,Himachal Pradesh

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

162

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

62 Complaint of Shri Anil Dawra, IPS, March 27, DismissedAdditional Director General of Police, 2012(CID) Chandigarh against the Editor,The Times of India, Chandigarh

63 Complaint of Shri R. Sathasivam, ,, DismissedMadurai, Tamil Nadu against the Editor,Dinamalar, Madurai, Tamil Nadu

64 Complaint of Smt. K. Jayalakshmi, ,, CensuredDistrict - Karur, Tamil Nadu againstthe Editor, Kumudam Reporter,Magazine, Chennai

65 Complaint of Shri H.N. Krishnamurthy, ,, ClosedTudki Village, Shimoga, Karnatakaagainst the Editor, Varadi Shimoga,Karnataka

66 Complaint of Shri H.M. Mahabala ,, ClosedBhatt, Thirthahalli, Shimoga DistrictKarnataka against the Editor, Vidhatha,Thirthahalli, District Shimoga, Karnataka

67 Complaint of Shri M.G. Yathish, ,, DismissedGeneral Secretary, Karnataka StatePollution Control Board, TechnicalOfficers Associations (Regd.)Bangaluru against the Editor, ParisaraMalinya, Bangaluru, Karnataka

68 Complaint of Shri M. Lakshmana, ,, Disposed offConvenor, Association of Concernedand Informed Citizens of Mysoreagainst the Editor, Srinath Patrike,Kannada Fortnightly, Mysore

69 Complaint of Shri Abdul Kalam Azad, ,, ClosedNational Gold Palace, Shimoga District,Karnataka against the Editor,Lakshmeesha Patrike, Kannada Weekly,Karnataka

163

M

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

70 Complaint of Dr. G. N. Shivanna Reddy, March 27, Admonished/District Health Officer & F.W. Officer, 2012 CensuredKarwar, (Uttra Kannada) Karnatakaagainst the Editor, Karavali Munjavu,Karwar, Karnataka

71 Complaint of Shri Nithyananda ,, CensuredDhyanapeetam, Bangaluru againstthe Editor, The New Indian Express,Bangaluru, Karnataka

72. Complaint of Shri Nithyananda ,, CensuredDhyanapeetam, Bangaluru againstthe Editor, Mid Day, Bangaluru

73 Complaint of Shri Nithyananda ,, CensuredDhyanapeetam, Bangaluru againstthe Editor, Deccan Herald,Bangaluru

74 Complaint of Shri Nithyananda ,, CensuredDhyanapeetam, Bangaluru againstthe Editor, “DNA”, Bangalore

75 Complaint of Shri Nithyananda ,, CensuredDhyanapeetam, Bangaluru againstthe Editor, Dainik Jagran,Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

76 Complaint of Shri K. Sudhakar, ,, CensuredDistrict Panchayat Officer Kakinada,Andhra Pradesh against the Editor,Varadhi Daily, Kakinada,Andhra Pradesh

77 Complaint of Dr. P. Subba Reddy, ,, No actionTirupati, Andhra Pradesh against warrantedthe Editor, Eenadu

78 Complaint of Dr. P. Subba Reddy, ,, No actionTirupati, Andhra Pradesh against warrantedthe Editor, Sakshi, Andhra Pradesh

M

164

S. Parties Date of CategoryNo. Decision

79 Complaint of Shri Krishna Rao Patra, March 27, DismissedDistrict Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh 2012against the Editor, Andhra Bhoomi,Andhra Pradesh

80 Complaint of Shri Krishna Rao Patra, ,, DismissedDistrict Srikakulam, Andhra Pradeshagainst the Editor, Andhra Jyothi,Andhra Pradesh

81 Complaint of Shri Krishna Rao Patra, ,, DismissedDistrict Srikakulam, Andhra Pradeshagainst the Editor, Sakshi,Vishakhapatnam

Press and Morality

82 Complaint of Shri Jayanta Deka and November 17, Adviseothers, Mangaldai, District Court, 2011Assam against the Editor, AsomiyaPratidin, Guwahati, Assam

83 Complaint of Smt. Suprita S. Amin, March 27, DismissedPrincipal, MICE, Udupi (through 2012the Deputy Commissioner of Udupi,Government of Karnataka) Karnatakaagainst the Editor, India Today,New Delhi

Communal, Casteist and Anti National Writings

84 Complaint of Col. Sanjay Dikshit, November 17, Agrees toNorthern Command GS (IW) against 2011 PublishEditor, Greater Kashmir, Jammu, RebuttalSrinagar

85 Complaint of Shri D. Venkatesan, March 27, Dropped withChennai against the Editor, Outlook, 2012 observationsSafdarjung Enclave, New Delhi

M

165

Annexure - I

Index of Principles Recorded in Adjudications inComplaints Regarding Threats to Press Freedom

Facilities to the Press

It is the duty of the authorities not to harass the small newspapers and astrustee of public money, it is essential to bring transparency in action of thegovernment so that the decisions are fair and just vis-à-vis similarly placednewspapers and the power not be used as retaliation or placatory measure.(Smt. Najma Begam, Editor/Publisher, Hindi Dainik Action, Bhopal,M.P. versus the Directorate of Advertisement and Visual Publicity,Complaint No. 6, PCI Review, January, 2012)

It is understandable if a person is held guilty and punished by the court fora criminal offence and denied access to accreditation, but the mere factum ofregistration of an FIR cannot lead to inference of his guilt. In a profession likejournalism, such provisions could provide an opportunity to force the journalistsreason to complain to the powers that be and interfere with the free functioningof the press. (Shri Harjeet Dua, Freelancer, Delhi versus The ChiefSecretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Directorate of Informationand Publicity, Government of NCT of Delhi, Complaint No. 7, PCIReview, January, 2012)

166

Annexure - J

Index of Principles Recorded in Adjudications inComplaints Filed Against the Press

Principles and Publication

Selection of material for publication of report/article/letters lies within thediscretion of the editor and the Press Council cannot be used as a medium ortool to force the editor to carry an information. (Shri V.M. Bedse, Nasik,Maharashtra versus The Editors (i) Loksatta, Mumbai, (ii) MaharashtraTimes, Mumbai and (iii) Sakal, Pune, Complaint No. 16, PCI Review,April, 2012)

Press and Defamation

The newspapers are expected to serve the readers with news, views/comments and information on matters in an unbiased and dignified manner.They are expected to exercise due care and caution and timing of any newsreport that could jeopardise, the career progression of a person and ought totone down the language that might create sensationalism. (Shri Ashok Nath,Assistant Library and Information Officer, National Library, Kolkataversus The Editors (i) Ananda Bazar Patrika and (ii) The Telegraph,Kolkata, Complaint No. 20, PCI Review, January, 2012)

The ethical standards on caution against defamatory writings requires thatthe newspapers and journals should not publish anything which is manifestlydefamatory or libellous against any individual unless after due care and verification,there is reason/evidence to believe that it is true and its publication will be forpublic good. (Shri S. Kamaraju, Perambalur Taluk and District, TamilNadu versus The Editor, Vilmurasu Monthly Magazine, Chennai,Complaint No. 24, PCI Review, April, 2012)

The parameter of the right of the press to comment on the acts andconduct of the public officials, local authority or any other organ/institution,allow the press to make fair criticism. Therefore, such bodies cannot bringcharge of defamation for reports critical of their act. (National PharmaceuticalPricing Authority (NPPA), Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry ofChemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India, New Delhi versus TheEditor, Medicare News Fortnightly, Rohtak, Haryana, Complaint No. 27,PCI Review, April, 2012)

167

Press and Morality

The newspaper must be sensitive to public morality and decency as suchpublication may deprave and corrupt the young minds. (Shri Jayant Deka andothers, Assam versus The Editor, Asomiya Pratidin, Assam, ComplaintNo. 41, PCI Review, January, 2012)

Anti National Writing

Press in the Kashmir valley has a specific job i.e. to be conduit betweenthe army, administration and the people. A newspaper cannot publish anythingbe it an article or opinion pertaining to an individual which will have detrimentalrepercussions in the relationship of various sections of authority and public anddisturb the basic fabric of trust, whereas whole system cannot be blamed,details of the Army personnel involved in investigative cases and on completingof investigation, exemplary punished, given could be published. Therefore, anysuch publication should be shouldered with the responsibility to rectify it and itis advisable that the newspaper always has a balanced view of both ends,analyses the ramifications of its reporting/publishing of articles. (Col. SanjayDikshit, Colonel General Staff, Northern Comd GS (IW), C/o 56 APOversus The Editor, Greater Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir,Complaint No. 42, PCI Review, January, 2012)

168

Annexure - K

Subject Index of Orders Passed by the Press andRegistration Appellate Board (2011-2012)

S. Name of Parties Date of OrderNo. Order Passed

1. Appeal of Shri Bikash Swain, Owner/ 23.8.2011 Set-aside thePublisher, Suryaprava, Oriya daily, impugnedBhubaneshwar, Orissa against order orderdated 8.9.2009 passed by DistrictMagistrate, Khorda, Orissa regardingcancellation of declaration.

2. Appeal of Ms. Geeta Handa, Karol Bagh, 23.8.2011 Not-admittedDelhi versus order dated 22.3.2011passed by Registrar of Newspapers forIndia, New Delhi.

3. Appeal of Shri Mansukhbhai Gangashanker 23.8.2011 Not-admittedRaval, District Amreli, Gujarat versusorder dated 2.11.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amreli, Gujarat.

4. Review Application of President/Secretary, 15.3.2012 DismissedMaha Gujarat Dashnam GoswamiMahamandal, Gujarat with reference toorder dated 7.8.2009 of Press andRegistration Appellate Board on appealof Shri Bipingiri K Goswami, Editor,Goswami Prakash and Shri BaldevgiriM. Goswami, Secretary, Shri MahagujaratDashnam Goswami Mahamandal,Gandhinagar, Gujarat versus orderdated 17.7.2008 passed by Sub-DivisionalMagistrate, Gandhinagar, Gujarat-Intervention application of Shri BaldevgiriM Goswami.

q