Complaints against the Press Cases heard by Inquiry Committe

Adjudications Rendered by the Council on 22.01.2021

Section 14 – Complaints against the Press

Cases heard by Inquiry Committee-II in its meeting held on 9th, 10th and

11th December, 2020 at New Delhi.

S.No. File No/

Case No.

Subject

1. 14/381/19-20 Complaint of Senior Superintendent of Police, Dist. Police Headquarter, Nandini Hills Samba, Jammu & Kashmir against Editor in Chief & Bureau Chief, State Times

2. 14/328/19-20 Complaint of Jatinder Kumar @Jk Chagran, Hoshiarpur against The Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab

3-4. 29/2020/SM/A & 278/2020/SM/B (tagged matters)

Suo motu cognizance with regard to publication of classified, obscene, vulgar and misleading advertisements by Hindustan, New Delhi. (Censure)

5. 151/2020A Suo-motu cognizance w.r.to publication of fake news by Dainik Bhaskar. (Censure)

6. 14/370/19-20 Complaint of Shri Maruf, Muradabad, U.P. against the editor of Mulk Ki Soch

7-11. 14/247-251/19-20 Complaint of Shri Sandeep Sardana, Sirsa, Haryana against Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Savera, Amar Ujala, Path-Path and Dainik Sach Kahun

12. 14/330/19-20 Complaint of Shri Darshan Singh, President, Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Parsar and Welfare Committee, Sangrur, Punjab against The Editor, Ajit, Sangrur

13. 14/259/19-20 Complaint of Shri Vivek Shukla, General Manager, Corporate Affairs & The Lalit, New Delhi, against The Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur. (Censure)

14. 14/398/19-20 Complaint of Shri Sanjeev Pariya, Advocate, Secretary Bar Association, Farrukhabad, U.P. against the Editor, Youth India, Dainik Sandhya, Farrukhabad, U.P.

15. 1900/2020/SM/A Suo-Motu cognizance against the Hindustan for violating Journalistic Norms. (Censure)

16. 1796/2020A Complaint of Shri Gagan Anand, Advocate against the editor of Hindustan. (Censure)

17. 14/384/19-20 Complaint of Shri Avdesh Mishra, Advocate, U.P. against the Editor, Youth India, Dainik Sandhya, Farrukhabad, U.P.

Cases heard by Inquiry Committee-II in its meeting held on 16th, 17th and

18th December, 2020 at New Delhi.

S.No. File No/

Case No.

Subject

18. 518/2020A Complaint filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi against the Indian Express. (Censure)

19-20. 14/272-273/19-20

Complaint of Shri Vijendra Kumar Agarwal, Managing Director, Shashi Cables Ltd., Lucknow against the Editor of Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala, Lucknow.

21. 14/221/19-20 Complaint of Assistant Regional Director, U.P. Transportation Office, Agra against Amar Bharti

22.

149/2020/SM/A Suo Motu cognizance w.r.to the publication of news item projecting the Hon’ble President of India in a satirical manner and use of sensational headlines by the Telegraph in its issue dated 17.03.2020 amounting to the breach of Norm 19 (i)(a)(b) and 31 (vi) of Norms of Journalistic Conduct. (Censure)

Press Council of India

S. No. 1 F.No.14/381/19-20-PCI

Complainant Respondent

The Sr. Superintendent of Police, The Editor-in-Chief, District Samba State Times, (Jammu & Kashmir) Jammu (J&K) The Bureau Chief, State Times, Jammu (J&K)

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021

This complaint dated 05.10.2019 has been filed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Samba, Jammu & Kashmir against the Editor-in-Chief and the Bureau Chief, Shri Vivek Sharma, State Times, Jammu for allegedly publishing frivolous, unsubstantiated and defamatory news items against the District Police Samba. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows:

S.No. Caption Date 1 Cases of thefts, vehicle lifting on rise in Samba, police in

slumber 22.8.2019

2 Drug peddler arrested with 6 gm heroin 29.8.2019 3 Ex CM booked in split second; land-grabber wanted under

PSA missing for 6 months – miracles of Jammu Police 17.9.2019

4 Burgalaries, thefts on rise in Samba district – Computers stolen from Amul factory; AIIMS theft case still not registered

22.9.2019

5 People loosing faith in Samba Police – Unbelievable! Irate mob frisks cops before carrying out raid at gangster’s house

27.9.2019

6 Crime graph in Samba on rise – Rs.50,000 snatched from man in broad day light

1.10.2019

The inefficiency of the police has been reported in the various impugned news

item dated 22.08.2019, 29.08.2019, 17.09.2019, 22.09.2019, 27.09.2019 and 01.10.2019. Indicating increase in crime graph in Samba district as two more theft cases have been reported in Bari Brahmana, in addition to numerous reports from the previous week, Police arresting one drug peddler, recovering six gm heroin from his possession, however, actual quantity of seized contraband was much higher than shown, as per sources. Further, report about the former Chief Minister, Shri Farooq Abdullah being booked under Public Safety Act with the administration serving him notice and declaring his home as a jail for lodging him in a split second and stating that six months ago, a designated authority under the Public Safety Act slapped the stringent law on a land-grabber of the Samba district, of which the police is clueless about the accused. Insiders also stated about the transfers of the then honest Superintendent of Police and the SHO concerned. It is reported that the Samba Police is giving new definition to police, evolved a new mechanism of lodging FIRs for only those theft cases where recoveries are almost certain. Otherwise burglaries in the process are being left unregistered, if not noticed. Crime in Samba district is increasing due to low profile policing.

According to the complainant, the Editor-in-Chief along with the Bureau Chief of State Times through his newspaper aimed at tarnishing the hard-earned reputation of the District Police Samba dishonestly on the basis of concocted and baseless stories with an attempt to arm-twist district police to favour him in a case FIR No.84/2016 dated 2.7.2016 and for the sake of underserved publicity by virtue of ill motivated, false and frivolous news items. He further states that Editor-in-Chief along with his Bureau Chief, Shri Vivek Sharma approached him first telephonically and then visited his office on 10.8.2019 in connection with an FIR No.84/2016 dated 2.7.2016 to favour his family in land grabbing case of Blue Moon Banquet Hall. They were informed that the case will be investigated on merits and were conveyed to co-operate with Vijaypur Police by providing desired documents lying with them. The complainant has alleged that since their meeting the respondent started publishing defamatory, frivolous and unsubstantiated news items, which crystal clearly is perfect example of the misuse of liberty of expression unexpected in the civilized system of the society. According to the complainant, the Editor and Bureau Chief are Incharge of day to day affairs of State Times newspaper. They are directly responsible for its acts/publications, more particularly the acts mentioned above the editorial board must be reprimanded. The complainant vide his letter dated 28.9.2019 drew the attention of the respondent, Editor-in-Chief, State Times towards the impugned news items with a request to stop publishing false stories but to no avail. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. Show Cause notice were issued to the Editor-in-Chief and the Bureau Chief, State Times, Jammu on 03.01.2020. Written Statement Shri Raj Daluja, Editor-in-Chief and Shri Vivek Sharma, Bureau Chief of State Times, Jammu vide their joint written statement date 11.02.2020 and 05.12.2020 while denying the allegations of the complainant have stated that these crime reports have been published along with FIR numbers of crime incidents taken place in Samba District by almost all the national and local newspapers and their respective portals. The respondents have also stated that the complainant levelled baseless allegations against State Times probably in frustration as there is increase in crime graph in Samba district after he joined as District Police Chief in Samba. While denying the allegation of the complainant that they sought favour in FIR No.84/2016, the respondents have clarified that they never asked the complainant for any favor and even they are not aware of any such FIR.

The respondents have further stated that to seek details in the stories and

further quotes of officers, they make calls in routine to concerned police stations and officers. Similarly, calls were made to the complainant from time to time for his quotes in respective stories as well. The respondents have stated that the complainant brought out call detail records of their mobiles and attached copy in his complaint to establish that they made calls to him. They also seek Press Council’s support to ask the complainant under which rule and law, he scrutinized CDRs of mobile phones of journalists, who are objectively reporting the incidents and spots. According to the respondents, the complainant has miserably failed to curb thefts, drugs peddling land grabbing menace and unable to catch hold of a notorious gangster.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 09.12.2020

at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. In the

absence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further.

The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for disposal of the

complaint. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India S.No. 2 F.No.14/328/19-20-PCI. Complainant Respondent Shri Jatinder Kumar, The Editor, Hoshiarpur, Dainik Bhaskar, Punjab. Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Shri Parminder Bariana, Journalist, Dainik Bhaskar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab Shri Shiv Kumar Bawa, Journalist, Dainik Bhakar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab Shri Shiv Kumar Raju, Journalist, Dainik Bhaskar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 This complaint dated 14.09.2019 has been filed by Shri Jatinder Kumar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab against S/Shri Parminder Bariana, Shiv Kumar Bawa and Shiv Kumar Raju, Working Journalists of Dainik Bhaskar, Newspaper, Hoshiarpur, Punjab for allegedly indulging in journalistic malpractice and publishing fake, defamatory and paid news. According to the complainant, the respondents are publishing news on the instruction of one Shri Tikshan Sud, Ex Cabinet Minister from Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The complainant has also stated that public servants who release documents under the RTI regarding corrupt activities of Shri Tiksan Sud or any of his followers are defamed by the above mentioned respondents. The complainant has alleged that the respondents published a fake and paid news against Advocate brothers, S/Shri Satbir Singh and Deepinder Singh in Dainik

Bhaskar issue dated 1.9.2019 under the caption “भाजपा पार्षद की शिकायत पर वकील बंधओुं पर स्टेट बार कौंसील का शिकंजा - झूठे केस दजष करवा लोगो को ब्लैकमेल करने वाले आरोपी वकील बंध ुके लाइसेंस होंगे रद्द, पुशलस कारषवाई भी होगी”.

The complainant stated that the respondents takes money from Shri Tikshan

Sud for publishing fake, false and defamatory news items and they have not contacted anyone before publishing the impugned news. The complainant vide letter dated 14.9.2019 drew the attention of the respondents towards the impugned publication but received no response. The complainant has alleged that the respondents threatened him that they will publish more such news.

Show-cause notices were issued to the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Hoshiarpur on 30.9.2019 and to S/Shri Parminder Bariana, Shiv Kumar Bawa and Shiv Kumar Raju, Journalists of Dainik Bhaskar on 7.1.2019. Written Statement of Shri Parminder Bariana, Journalist, Dainik Bhaskar Shri Parminder Bariana, Journalist, Dainik Bhaskar through his counsel, Shri Puru Jarewal has filed Written Statement dated 28.1.2020 in the matter and submitted that he has no relation with the Ex- Cabinet Minister of Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Further, the complainant misleads the Inquiry Committee by writing that “the Bar Council has cancelled the License of one advocate” while plain reading of the news published it comes to the reading that “Lawyers accused of filing false complaint cases against innocent people, action can to be taken against them by Bar Council on the basis of complaints received against them”. He has further submitted that a Criminal FIR no. 0233 dated 9.8.2019 was lodged against the complainant and his brother under Section 323 IPC and Section 3 of SC & ST Act 1989 and many complaints against complainant are pending before the district administration and respective lawyers Councils of his misconduct and corrupt practices. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Affidavit filed by the complainant The complainant vide affidavit dated 13.1.2020 while reiterating his complaint submitted that the respondents should be banned from working as journalists in the light of the offence and requested the Council to take strict action against the respondents. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.12.2020 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. In the absence of the complainant the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed with the complaint. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for disposal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.


S.No. 3-4 C. No. 29/2020/SM/A & 278/Suo-Motu/2020-B.

Suo-motu cognizance with regard to publication of classified, obscene, vulgar and misleading advertisements by Hindustan, New Delhi


The Press Council of India earlier vide its decision dated 15.11.2019 had censured the Hindustan, New Delhi edition for publication of obscene and vulgar advertisements. Despite that a large number of classified, obscene and vulgar advertisements published by the “Hindustan”, New Delhi edition in various issues have come to the notice of the Press Council, which appears to violate Norm 2 “Advertisements”, Norm 28 “Obscenity and Vulgarity to eschewed” of Norms of Journalistic Conduct (Edition-2019). Rule 170(3) and 170 (4)(iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 as amended by Drugs and Cosmetics (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018 that inter-alia provides: i) Application of Unique Identification number by the manufacturers of Ayurvedic

medicine for advertisements and rejection of; ii) Application for advertisement of Ayurvedic drugs which suggest enhancement

of height and dimensions or capacity of performance of male or female sexual organ.

The Council took suo-motu cognizance in the matter and issued show-cause notices dated 24.1.2020 (in F.No.29/SM/2020-A) and 11.8.2020 (in F.No.278/SM/2020-B) to the Editor, Hindustan, New Delhi. Reply of Hindustan The respondent Hindustan vide written statement dated 3.9.2020 has submitted that the Hindustan newspaper at no point of time has indulged in any activity that goes against journalistic norms. The respondent has further submitted that the advertisements were solely published at the behest of the concerned advertisers based on the contents provided by them. Further, the advertisements were placed under “Classified” category of the newspaper which occupies a very small area. The respondent has further stated that the alleged advertisements are well within the boundaries of reasonable confined limits inasmuch as the description of the services being offered is short, clear and to the point, thereby avoiding unnecessary explanations which might be inappropriate. The respondent has also submitted that the alleged advertisements are not in any manner explicit/obscene/vulgar in nature. The advertisements pertain to some modelling, endorsement or similar kind of assignment. The respondent has stated that the pictures that have been published along with the advertisements should not be viewed in isolation, rather they have to be read with the content of the advertisements. He has further stated that in the event, any, picture or advertisements offends any person, they may avail the remedies available to them under the present legal framework and the law of the land against the advertiser. Thus any attempt to initiate any coercive action against the newspaper due to publishing such advertisements/photographs would amount to prejudging the matter and the same is also contrary to freedom of press as enshrined under Article

19(1) (a) & (2) of the Constitution of India. He has also stated that the Hindustan newspaper has right to express its views in its edition and practice its day to day business within the confines of applicable law and thus any kind of unreasonable restriction on this right will amount to violation of right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. According to the respondent, before publication of any advertisement, the advertisement is scrutinized by the advertising department and in the event the department is in doubt, the assistance of the legal department is resorted to. With regard to advertisements pertaining to sexual content/organ enlargement ads, the respondent has submitted that these are not same advertisements which were censured by the Press Council vide decision dated 15.11.2019. As per Rule 170 (1) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, that the manufacturer of his agent, of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs, shall not participate in the publication of any advertisement relating to any drug for the use of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease, disorder, syndrome or condition; creating such obligation on the advertiser and not the publisher. Further, sub-section 4(iv) states that application for advertisement (which is an obligation of the advertiser and not the publisher) for any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug in terms which suggest or calculated to lead to the use of that drug or medicine for the enhancement of height and dimensions or capacity of performance of male or female sexual organs may be rejected. The respondent has stated that the advertisements are not for any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug but a simple advertisement for consultation with a medical practitioner or a doctor which is not held to be a violation of any applicable law. Hence Rule 170 4(iv) would not apply to Hindustan newspaper and the Hindustan newspaper is not the advertiser but publisher and nor are such advertisements pertaining to such Ayurvedic, Siddha, Unani drugs. The respondent has submitted that the other publications are also publishing similar advertisements which practically demonstrate the standards which the industry as a whole is complying with. The respondent has regretted if any sentiment is hurt due to the alleged advertisements. While referring judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the respondent has requested the Council to withdraw the notice. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.12.2020 at New Delhi. Shri N.B. Joshi, Advocate along with Shri Govind Vijay and Shri Arun Pathak represented the respondent newspaper, Hindustan.

The respondent ‘Hindustan’ was Censured for publication of various advertisements including advertisement inducing “male and female” to earn fortune varying from Rs. 15,000 to 40,000 ‘by meeting’ per day by the Council by adjudication order rendered as back as on November 15, 2019. The Council while doing so observed that such advertisements in substance is to “allure the adolescent mind to prostitution” which is “not only illegal but against the cultural ethos of the country”.

By the said Order, the respondent’s action in publishing advertisements to “enhance the length and width of penis” and treatment for “leucoderma” have been found to be illegal being in violation of Section 3(b) and (d) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 read with its schedule. Despite this, the Council found that the respondent newspaper had published such advertisement unabated on several issues for months together and, accordingly, took Suo-Motu cognizance and directed the respondent to file the reply. Accordingly, the

respondent had filed the reply and once again raised the same pleas as were raised on the earlier occasion.

Mr. N.B.Joshi appears on behalf of the respondent and submits that the advertisements referred to above are colourless and the respondent while publishing those advertisements has not violated any norms of journalistic conduct or the law. Accordingly, he prayed for reconsideration of the earlier Order of adjudication rendered by the Council on November 15, 2019 and drop the proceeding. It is not in dispute that the issue in question is entirely covered by the earlier decision of the Council and the advertisements in question are plainly in teeth thereof.

However, in deference to Mr. Joshi’s submission, the Inquiry Committee has

given its thoughtful consideration and finds no substance in that. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, advertisements are always for the purpose of attracting more number of customers. No advertiser is expected to give a colourless or tasteless advertisement. On perusal of the advertisements in question, the Inquiry Committee finds that those were intended to attract the male and female persons to earn money. Similarly, the advertisement relating to sex organs and treatment of leucoderma were intended to attract those persons suffering from those disease or impediments. Therefore, in the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, these advertisements cannot be said to be colourless or tasteless. There is no reason much less any weighty reason before the Inquiry Committee to reconsider its earlier adjudication rendered on 15th of November, 2019.

The attention of the Inquiry Committee has been drawn to an interim Order

dated 05.03.2020 of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in WP (c) 25.02.2020. It be recorded that this proceeding does not relate to any violation under Rule 170 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rule.

For the reasons stated in the said adjudication Order, the Inquiry Committee

has no option than to hold that the respondents have violated the Norms of Journalistic Conduct with impunity and, accordingly, deserve to be Censured.

The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspaper be Censured. In view of the repeated breach of the norms, it is expected that the Bureau of Outreach and Communication shall take action in the light of the policy decision expeditiously. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Bureau of Outreach and Communication, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Director of Public Relation of National Capital Region.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to Censure the newspaper, Hindustan.


S. No. 5 Case No. 151/SM/2020-A Suo-Motu cognizance with respect to publication of fake news published by Dainik Bhaskar.


Ms. Nidhi Pandey, Additional Director General, Press Information Bureau

vide communication dated 17.3.2020 has drawn the attention of the Council towards

article published in the Dainik Bhaskar under the Caption “मैं बेहद जजद्दी हंू, ना नह ंसुनती, बदलाव तो ऐसे ह आएगा” in its issue dated 8.3.2020.

It has been reported in the article that on the occasion of International

Women’s Day, Dainik Bhaskar’s representative, Mr. Sidharth Rajhans had an interview with Sanna Marin, the Prime Minister of Finland. The Interviewer had claimed to have met Marin in Helsinki. It has been further reported that the youngest Prime Minister gets uncomfortable when addressed as “Woman Prime Minister”, She is of the opinion that biggest obstacles in the path of holistic progress are gender and religious discrimination.

While in one of the websites i.e. https://www.opindia.com, it has been

reported that the entire interview was fabricated as no such interview had taken place. It further states that the published interview was spotted by Finnish Prime Minister’s office on 8.3.2020 itself. The Director of Communication said that “She (PM) was amazed that major Indian Media house has published an interview that never took place”. While going through the answers given by the Prime Minister, it came out that the text was lifted from an earlier interview of the Finnish PM given to German TV channel. It is reported that the Dainik Bhaskar post had confirmed that they had received a request from the Cabinet office of Finland for a correction of the story and they had assured that it would be resolved. After that, the portal removed the interview from its website without issuing any apology or clarification.

While taking suo-motu cognizance of the matter, the Press Council issued

Show Cause Notice to the editor, Dainik Bhaskar on 17.3.2020. Written Statement received from respondent

Mr. Kuldeep Vyas National Political editor, Dainik Bhaskar,New Delhi vide reply dated 17.3.2020 submitted that the Dainik Bhaskar wanted to publish a interview of Ms. Sanna Marin, youngest Prime Minister of Finland, to motivate the women of India on Women's Day on 8 march 2020. Work on this initiative began three months ago in December 2019 and the respondent requested their freelance correspondent in UK Ms. Anna Sophia to arrange an interview with the PM Ms. Sanna Marin. Despite all her efforts, she could not establish contacts with Finland's Prime Minister office. Thereafter, Mr Siddhartha Rajhans, a New York based freelance journalist was contacted by Dainik Bhaskar for arranging an interview with Finland’s PM and received a positive response regarding arranging an interview with the youngest Prime Minister for their special edition of Dainik Bhaskar for the

https://www.opindia.com/

Women's Day. Dainik Bhaskar received an email response from Finland PMO on 22 February, 2020 that confirmed an interview slot of 20 to 30 minutes and requested Dainik Bhaskar for an official letter for record purposes.

He submitted that on 28.2.2020 Mr Siddhartha Rajhans informed Dainik

Bhaskar the date when interview could be done. Mr Rajhans also informed that travelling to Helsinki,the Capital of Finland would be needed to get the interview of PM. The respondent further submitted that Mr Rajhans was paid Rs. 3,50,000 for travel expenses and fees for the interview. On 28 February 2020, Mr Rajhans informed Dainik Bhaskar via WhatsApp message that interview went well and the draft of the interview will be made available to the Dainik Bhaskar after it was approved by the Finland Prime Minister's office. The respondent further şubmitted that on March 3rd 2020 received an email sent from email ID [email protected] with the approved script of an interview with Sana Marine. The respondent submitted that on the basis of the approved script they prepared a lead story on the occasion of the Women's Day and published it on the front page of every edition of Dainik Bhaskar. They also posted this interview on all their digital platforms. He further submitted that since they had tagged the said interview to the Prime Minister of Finland and her office at their twitter handle and it was seen and read at their end. Thereafter Dainik Bhaskar received a message from the Director General, Finland PMO to take off the interview immediately. The team of Dainik Bhaskar was astonished to see such a message. When Mr Rajhans was contacted about the same he said that the interview was genuine. However, the Dainik Bhaskar complied with the request made by Finland Government official and they removed the interview from all digital platforms.

Dainik Bhaskar was not satisfied with the explanation offered by Mr Rajhans, he attempted to convince by sending travel ticket to Finland visa issued by America and Finland immigration stamp. Despite such clarifications, the Dainik Bhaskar felt that investigation is needed in this matter. Thus, they requested the Finland Embassy in India to help them understand the truth behind the validity of this interview as well as authentication of the communication they received allegedly from Finland government. On 18.3.2020, they received a response stating that the email ids used to communicate with Dainik Bhaskar were the fake one. The respondent submitted that they were astonished to note that the interview with Ms. Sanna Marin, PM, Finland never took place and they are defrauded. He submitted that necessary steps are being taken against Mr. Rajhans. An apology letter has been sent to Finland Prime Minister and Finland Embassy in India. He submitted that such mistake will not be repeated in future.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.12.2020 at New Delhi. Shri Shambhu Nath Choudhary, Director, Press Facilities, Press Information Bureau appeared on behalf of the Additional Director General, Press Information Bureau and there was no appearance on behalf of the newspaper.

The Council took suo-motu cognizance when it was brought to its notice that

the alleged interview of the Prime Minister of Finland published in the respondent

newspaper in its issue dated 08.03.2020 is fake and accordingly notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent has filed their written statement but when the matter is taken up by the Inquiry Committee nobody has appeared on its behalf. In the written statement, the respondent admits that “Interview with Ms. Sanna Marin, Prime Minister, Finland never took place” but they have tried to plead that they are victim themselves. The respondent has explained the circumstance under which they have been defrauded and further stated that an apology letter has been sent to Finland Prime Minister and Finland Embassy in India.

As the news story relates to the Prime Minister of another Country, Inquiry

Committee bestowed its most anxious consideration and finds that the conduct of the respondent newspaper in publishing the purported interview of the Prime Minister of Finland is reprehensible. It was expected of the respondent that when the facts of the interview being fake was brought to its notice and the respondent itself being satisfied that it is fake, it ought to have given wide publication of the same and corrigendum ought to have been issued. Nothing has been done in this regard. Not only this the journalist who is alleged to have done this fraud ought to have been proceeded under the criminal law of the country. All this omissions on part of the respondent newspaper smack of lack of bonafide.

Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends that the respondent

newspaper be Censured. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Bureau of Outreach and Communication.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to Censure the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar, New Delhi.

Press Council of India S. No. 6 F.No. 14/370/19-20-PCI Complainant Respondent Shri Mohd. Maroof, Shri Mohd. Faizan Qureshi, Owner, Editor, Maroof Chicken Fry Centre, Mulk Ki Soch, Hindi weekly, Galshaheed, Moradabad (U.P.). Moradabad (U.P.).


This undated complaint, received in the Secretariat on 10.10.2019, has been filed by Mohd. Maroof, Owner, Maroof Chicken Fry Centre, Galshaheed, Moradabad (U.P.) against Shri Mohd.Faizan Qureshi, Editor, Mulk Ki Soch, Moradabad for allegedly publishing false and defamatory news items. The captions and dates of the impugned news items read as follows: S.No. Caption Date

1 गलशहीद प्रभारी ने रंजिश के चलते मौ० मारुफ को मोहरा बना कर ललखा झूठा मुकद्दमा

28.5.2019

2 बबना लाईंसेंस चल रहे मारुफ चचकन फ्राई सेंटर पर नहीं हुई कोई कार्यवाही?

30.7.2020

3 वाणिज्र् कर ववभाग की लमलीभगत से मारुफ चचकन सेंटर कर रहा है िीएसटी की भारी चोरी

17.9.2019

4 मारुफ व वाणिज्र् कर ववभाग की लमलीभगत का खलुासा 24.9.2019

It has been reported in the impugned news item dated 28.5.2019 that the Galshaheed Kotwali Incharge/Sub-Inspector, Shri Dinesh Sharma had maliciously registered a false FIR No.0142/19 under Section 504/384 of IPC against the Owner and Editor of Mulk Ki Soch through owner of Maroof Chicken Fry Centre under a conspiracy. When the Mulk Ki Soch newspaper exposed this matter in the issue dated 7th May, 2019, the Kotwali Incharge took another complaint from the Owner of Maroof Chicken Centre and added one more Section 386 IPC in the FIR and also raided and arrested the Owner and the Editor of Mulk Ki Soch. It has been further reported that a team of food department raided at Maroof Chicken Fry Centre and found that the chicken centre was running without license and team also took samples of spices. It has been reported in the impugned news item dated 30.7.2020 that the team of Food Department earlier caught the Maroof Chicken Fry Centre without any license on 26.4.2019 but no action has been taken. On the contrary, later the department issued license to the Chicken Centre. It has been further reported that the owner of this Centre is not paying GST, even though his annual turnover is more than two crores.

It has been reported in the impugned news item dated 17.9.2019 that Maroof Fry Chicken Centre is not paying GST with the connivance of the Commercial Tax Department. In this regard, a complaint has been lodged on Public Grievance Portal and information is also sought under RTI Act from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Moradabad. The reply of the Commerce Tax Department revealed their relation with the Maroof Fry Chicken Centre, which will be exposed in the next issue of the newspaper. It has been reported in the impugned news item dated 24.9.2019 that the complaint on Public Grievance Portal and the information sought under RTI Act revealed the relations between the Maroof Chicken Fry Centre and Commercial Tax Department. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department in his reply said that no evidence has been presented in this regard by the applicant and no investigation was conducted as the business centre was situated in a very sensitive area. However, a letter has been sent to the Special Research Branch Unit for investigation. It has been further replied that the Owner of Maroof Chicken Centre filed an application stating that the applicant sought information with a view to harass him and he has requested not to provide any information. Denying the allegations, the complainant has alleged that the respondent published false and fabricated news items with a view to defame him. According to the complainant, the respondent editor and his associate used to come to his hotel and on asking the bill he threatened him and also demanded monthly Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, he registered an FIR No.142/2019 under Sections 384/386/504 of IPC in Police Station-Galshaheed against the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent started publishing false and fabricated news items and started filing complaints against him in various government departments. The complainant has further submitted that the respondent is criminal nature person and another case is also registered against him at Police Station Galshaheed. The complainant has alleged that the respondent also extorts money from innocent persons in the garb of the journalism. The complainant vide letter dated 6.8.2019 drew the attention of the respondent towards the impugned news items but received no reply. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent. No Reply A show-cause notice dated 23.12.2019 was issued to the Editor, Mulk Ki Soch, Moradabad but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “Not Known”. The letter dated 23.12.2019 issued to the complainant was also received back undelivered with the remarks “Not known”. Thereafter, show-cause notice was emailed to the respondent on 16.1.2020 but received no reply so far despite issuance of reminder dated 4.2.2020. The complainant vide his letter dated 14.7.2020 has informed that the respondent in connivance with the postman neither himself gets the show-cause notice nor let deliver any communication to him. The complainant has alleged that the respondent is exploiting him mentally and socially.


at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. In his

absence the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. Accordingly, it recommends for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.


S. No. 7-11 F.No.14/247-251/HR/19-20-PCI Complainant Respondent Shri Sandeep Sardana, The Editor, District President, Congress, Dainik Bhaskar, Sirsa (Haryana) Hisar (Haryana) The Editor, Dainik Savera Times, Jalandhar (Punjab) The Editor, Amar Ujala, Hisar (Haryana) The Editor, Pal-Pal, Sirsa (Haryana) The Editor, Dainik Sach Kahun, Sirsa (Haryana)


This complaint dated 29.7.2019 has been filed by Shri Sandeep Sardana, District President, Congress, Sirsa (Haryana) against the Editors (i) Dainik Bhaskar (ii) Dainik Savera Times (iii) Amar Ujala (iv) Pal-Pal and (v) Dainik Sach Kahun for allegedly publishing false and defamatory news items as per details given below: S.No. Name of

Newspaper Caption Date

1 Dainik Bhaskar कांगे्रस आरटीआई सेल का जिलाध्र्क्ष दसूरी बार बबिली चोरी करते पकडा

26.7.2019

2 Savera Times कांगे्रस नेता के घर ववजिलेंस टीम ने की छापामारी

26.7.2019

3 Pal-Pal कांगे्रस आरटीआई सेल के जिला अध्र्क्ष के घर वविली चोरी पकडी

26.7.2019

4 Amar Ujala कांगे्रसआरटीआई सेल के जिला अध्र्क्ष दसूरी बार बबिली चोरी करते पकड े

26.7.2019

5 Sach Kahun कांगे्रस नेता के घर ववजिलेंस टीम ने की छापामारी

26.7.2019

It has been reported in the impugned news items that the Electricity Department raided the house of District President of RTI Cell of Congress at Rania and caught him stealing the electricity second time within 11 months and levelled heavy fine of Rs.20,661/-. It has been further reported that as soon as the team

reached there, he closed the doors of the house and did not open the door even after much efforts. According to the impugned news items, the SDO of Electricity Corporation said that the Officers of Vigilance Team raided home of Shri Sandeep Sardana and found illegal electricity connection from electric pole. The officer also informed that Shri Sandeep Sardana had been charged with electricity theft even a year ago and was fined Rs.63,000/-, which has not been deposited by him as yet. It has also been reported that Shri Sandeep Sardana is a District President of RTI Cell in Congress and stated to have been a good leader in raising voice against corruption.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant has alleged that the respondent newspapers published totally false news items due to which his reputation has been tremendously damaged. The complainant has informed that no raid was conducted by Electricity Department on 24.07.2019 at Rania as per Hisar Vigilance record. The complainant has stated that the LL-1 receipt by local team of the Electricity Department indicated that he was present there at the time of raid and respondent newspaper, Dainik Savera published the said document along with impugned news item, whereas it is government document and private property of consumer and electricity department.

The complainant drew the attention of the respondent newspapers on 29.7.2019 requesting them to enquire into the matter and take action against the reporters concerned. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Show-cause Notices were issued to the respondent-Editors, (i) Dainik Bhaskar (ii) Dainik Savera (iii) Amar Ujala (iv) Pal-Pal and (v) Dainik Sach Kahun on 16.9.2019. Written Statement of Bureau Chief, Amar Ujala Shri Sanmeet Singh, Bureau Chief, Amar Ujala, Sirsa vide his reply dated 8.10.2019 has stated that impugned news item is true and informed that the electricity department raided the home of the complainant and fined him of Rs.20,681/- and due to non-depositing of fine, an FIR No.1923 dated 26.7.2019 was filed against him. The respondent further informed that the electricity department raided earlier in 2018 and fined Rs.6,12,291/- and an FIR No.5942 dated 21.9.2018 was also filed against him for the same reason. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Counter Comments The complainant vide his undated counter comments, received in the Secretariat on 13.11.2019, has stated that he has not hidden any information with respect to checking on electricity theft in his complaint but he has mentioned in the complaint that respondents published distorted news items. According to the complainant, the respondents published that the Hisar Vigilance Team had raided his house, while fact is that it is nowhere mentioned in LL-1 (government document) that Hisar Vigilance Team raided his house. It is also mentioned by the respondents that the door of house were closed at the time of raid, while the fact is that the raid was conducted in his presence. The complainant has also stated that he has no criminal record except the FIR registered in the electricity case and in pursuance of the Court’s direction he has paid the amount to the electricity department. He has

submitted that the Bureau Chief of Amar Ujala has obtained copy of LL-1 illegally. He has requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondents. Written Statement from Pal Pal newspaper

Shri O.P Verma for Pal Pal newspaper vide Written Statement dated 18.1.2020 submitted that the complaint is completely baseless. He has further enclosed (i) Receipt of LL-I in respect of electricity theft (ii) copy of FIR got registered by Electricity Department (iii) News published in several newspapers (iv) the link of news telecast on TV channels.

He has submitted that the Council may take its decision based on the

documents. He has further submitted that if the Press Council is not satisfied with given documents, they can personally join the hearing. Further Written Statement from Amar Ujala

Shri P.R. Rajhans for Amar Ujala Publication limited vide Written Statement dated 2.3.2020 submitted that the impugned news item was a general news item and was published within the journalistic norms & ethics, in good faith and based on FIR i.e. (i) FIR no. 5942 dated 21.9.2018 under Section 135 of India Electricity Act (ii) FIR no. 1923 dated 26.7.2019 under Section 135 of India Electricity Act. He has further submitted that both the FIRs were registered at I & P Police Station, Hisar, Haryana. He has submitted that there is nothing stated or mentioned in the said news item particularly against the complainant. The publication of the news is neither objectionable nor the newspaper or editor has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics nor the editor has committed any professional misconduct. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Written Statement from Sach Kahun newspaper

Shri Prakash Singh, Editor, Sach Kahun has submitted documents in support of his defense at the time of hearing held on 9.12.2020 which states that Shri Sandeep, complainant has been fined by Haryana Vidhyut Nigam, Hisar and till the publication of the news, he had not paid the fine. He has further submitted that he has tarnished his image in the society after indulging in electricity theft case. He has submitted that the evidences w.r.t. action taken by Police and complainant’s arrest are available in the electronic media. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.12.2020 at New Delhi. Shri Sundeep Sardana, complainant appeared in person. Shri Neeraj Kapoor and Shri Vivek Singh represented the Amar Ujala. Shri Rishipal Arora, Editor, appeared on behalf of the Sach Kahun newspaper. Shri Akash Dwivedi, Reporter for Dainik Savera Times appeared after the hearing.

The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant, the Counsel for the

respondent Amar Ujala, Mr. Neeraj Kapoor and has also perused the petition of complaint, the Written Statement and all other connected papers. The complainant does not deny that a case of theft of electricity has been lodged against him. An F.I.R was lodged against him in connection with theft of electricity earlier also. The respondent newspapers have published the news on the basis of the allegation made in the First Information Report.

It is the assertion of the complainant that all these allegations are false. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation made against the complainant shall be decided by the Court of law.

The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the respondent newspapers while publishing the news have not violated any norms of journalistic conduct so as to call for action. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for dismissal of the complaint.

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


S.No.12 F.No.14/330/19-20-PCI. Complainant Respondent Shri Darshan Singh, The Editor, President, Daily Ajit, Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Prasar & Jalandhar, Welfare Committee, Punjab. District Sangrur (Punjab)

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 This complaint dated 24.8.2019 has been filed by Shri Darshan Singh, President, Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Prasar & Welfare Committee, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur (Punjab) against the Editor, Daily Ajit, Punjabi Daily, Jalandhar, Punjab for allegedly publishing false and defamatory news items under the caption “Directions of relocating of students in nearby academies” and “Matter of annulment of affiliation of Akal Academy, Cheema-The Government has taken significant decision keeping in view the future of students-Congress leader” (English translations as provided by the complainant) in its issues dated 2.8.2019 and 3.8.2019 respectively. It has been reported in the impugned news item dated 2.8.2019 that the altercation of Akal Academy running in town Cheema of Sangrur has surfaced once again. Kalgidhar Trust Barru Sahib claimed that the Education Department of Punjab Government has ordered for annulment of the affiliation of Akal Academy, Cheema and has ordered for relocating of the students studying in Akal Academy Cheema in nearby academies. Whereas Ms. Manjit Kaur, Principal of Akal Academy stated that the education is going on in good atmosphere and there is no matter of annulment of affiliation and they have not received such letter from the CBSE. In the impugned news item dated 3.8.2019 it is reported that the significant decision has been taken by Punjab Government vide Order No.7/52 of 2018 which is regarding children studying in Akal Academy for their relocation to other nearby academies on account of annulment of affiliation of Akal Academy Cheema, the Govt. to implement it early, so that the future of the students may be saved from any risk. It was disclosed by a senior congress leader, Shri Harpal Singh Nanu, who is in proximity with the affairs of Akal Academy. It has been further reported that the application of Akal Academy has been annulled on minutely perusal of acts submitted to Govt. by Kalgidhar Trust, so that on this account the atmosphere may not be spoiled. So the Govt. should implement this decision strictly and to make suitable arrangements for transfer of students to nearby academies. Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant has submitted that the Akal Academy Cheema is being run by the office bearers of Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Parsar & Welfare Committee and there is clash between office bearers of Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Parsar & Welfare Committee and Kalgidhar Trust, Barru Sahib, Himachal Pradesh since 2016. The office bearers of Kalgidhar Trust intended to grab the Akal Academy by illegal manner and by approaching the administration, police and other illegal acts, whereas the Kalgidhar

Trust has no concern with Akal Academy, Cheema. The complainant has further submitted that the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali vide letter dated 11.4.2017 has already given affiliation certification in favour of Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Parsar & Welfare Committee. The complainant has also submitted that the Secretary, School Education Punjab, SAS Nagar vide letter dated 17.5.2019 has made order for annulment of letter dated 30.8.2001 which was with regard to NOC of Kalgidhar Trust Barru Sahib. Vide said letter dated 17.5.2019 the Secretary, School Education, Punjab neither annulled the affiliation of Akal Academy and nor de-affiliated Akal Academy. He has not passed any orders against Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Parsar & Welfare Committee, but the respondent wrongly published false and defamatory news items with regard to cancellation of affiliation of Akal Academy. In fact, NOC of Kalgidhar Trust has been annulled. No affiliation of Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Parsar & Welfare Committee has been annulled. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent published the impugned news items in connivance with Kalgidhar Trust and due to publication of impugned news items the office bearers of their Committee have suffered great loss and also created doubts in the minds of parents of students. In response to complainant’s letter dated 8.8.2019, the respondent vide reply dated 30.8.2019 while denying the allegations has submitted that the impugned news items were based on the information received from Shri Harpal Singh Nanu, Sr. Congress leader and official documents. A show-cause notice dated 7.1.2020 was forwarded to the Editor, Daily Ajit, Jalandhar. Written Statement Ms. Sarvinder Kaur, Chief Executive, Ajit Group of Publications, Jalandhar vide written statement dated 23.1.2020 while denying the allegations has submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. The respondent further submitted that the complainant has also concealed the material facts that there are numerous litigations pending between the Sant Attar Singh Ji Vidya Parsar and Welfare Committee, which is under the Presidentship of the complainant and Kalgidhar Trust, Baru Sahib pertaining the ownership and other rights of the Akal Academy School, Cheema. The respondent has further submitted that the impugned news items have been published on the basis of true facts based on the information received from the respectables along with official documents i.e. Order No.07/52 dated 25.4.2019 bearing endorsement no.2019/47648-650 dated 17.5.2019 and disaffiliation record of CBSE. The respondent has also submitted that the version of Ms. Manjir Kaur, Principal, Akal Academy Cheema, has been mentioned in the impugned news item dated 2.8.2019 and even when their correspondent contacted offices of the complainant for version/comments, same was refused. Moreover, in response to the notice dated 8.8.2019, the complainant was asked vide their reply dated 30.8.2019 to provide better particulars with original documents of his version and respondent newspaper would publish the correct version, if any put forth but the complainant did not provide the same. According to the respondent, District Education Officer, Sangrur has affixed Notice outside the Akal Academy, Cheema thereby notifying the general publication regarding the disaffiliation of the Akal Academy. The respondent has further submitted that the newspaper has no personal concern either with the complainant or any Trust.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 10.12.2020 at New Delhi. Despite service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear. Respondent is represented by Mr. Kranti Vaidya. The respondent has also filed a Written Statement stating that the news has been published on the basis of the material collected from various sources. In the absence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and recommends for disposal of the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.


S.No. 13 F.No.14/259/19-20-PCI. Complainant Respondent Shri Vivek Shukla, The Editor, General Manager, Dainik Bhaskar, Bharat Hotels Limited, Jaipur, Corporate Affairs & The Lalit Hotel, Rajasthan. New Delhi.


This complaint dated 12.8.2019 was filed by Shri Vivek Shukla, General Manager, Bharat Hotels Limited, Corporate Affairs & The Lalit Hotel, New Delhi against the Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur, Rajasthan for allegedly publishing false,

misleading and defamatory news item under the caption “होटल लशलत के स्वीशमगं पूल में डूबी 4 साल की बच्ची, मौत” in its issue dated 10.8.2019.

It was reported in the impugned news item that a four year old girl died after drowning in the swimming pool of the Lalit Hotel in Jaipur. The family alleges that neither the hotel has any security equipment nor any staff or swimmer to monitor the swimming pool. The girl's father lodged a case against the hotel management in the police station. The girl’s father also alleged that the hotel manager refused to show the recordings of the CCTV camera. Denying the allegation levelled in the impugned news item, the complainant has stated that the impugned news item was devoid of facts and printed without any proper investigation being carried out and the newspaper was quick to pronounce its judgement by blaming the hotel for the incident. The complainant has further stated that it was brutal on part of the newspaper to report a living and playful four years old as dead. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent newspaper on 10.8.2019 requesting for publication of contradiction but to no avail. No Reply Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur on 24.9.2019 but no reply was received despite issuance of reminder dated 1.11.2019. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.12.2020 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

Despite service of notice as also Summons to the respondent, it has not chosen to appear nor has filed any reply.

The complainant’s grievance is in relation to a news story published in the Jaipur edition of the respondent newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar in its issue dated 10th of

August, 2019 with the heading “In Hotel Lalit’s swimming pool a 4 year old girl died due to drowning in its swimming pool.” It is the assertion of the complainant that no child died in the swimming pool of the hotel. It has further been stated that the news story suggests that the Hotel was responsible for the incident. The complainant has further averred that attention of the newspaper was drawn to the aforesaid story which has unnecessarily caused damage to the name and prestige of the Hotel. In the absence of any reply from the respondent, the Inquiry Committee is inclined to accept the assertion of the complainant. The story about the death of child in the swimming pool of the hotel is false. Further, despite request by the complainant, the respondent newspaper has not issued any corrigendum. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent newspaper is in utter violation of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct and accordingly, recommends that the newspaper be Censured. The respondent is directed to publish the report of the Inquiry Committee in its issue in Jaipur edition of the newspaper within two weeks from the receipt of the Order. The Inquiry Committee further directs that a copy of this Order be forwarded to the Director of Public Relations, the State of Rajasthan and the District Magistrate, Jaipur for appropriate action in accordance with law. A copy of this Order also be forwarded to the Bureau of Outreach and Communication for appropriate action. With the aforesaid recommendation the Inquiry Committee upholds the complaint. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to Censure the respondent-newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur edition.


S.No. 14 F.No.14/398/19-20-PCI. Complainant Respondent Shri Sanjeev Paria, Editor, Advocate/Secretary, Youth India, Bar Association, Farrukhabad (U.P.) Farrukhabad (U.P.).

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 This complaint dated 9.10.2019 has been filed by Shri Sanjeev Paria, Advocate/Secretary, Bar Association, Farrukhabad (U.P.) against the Editor, Youth India, Farrukhabad for allegedly publishing false, baseless and defamatory news items. The complainant has stated that earlier he filed a complaint against the respondent before Hon’ble Press Council of India, where the respondent newspaper was Censured. Despite that, the respondent continuously published false and derogatory news against him and the same was again reported to the Press Council. The Council in its decision dated 22.8.2019 disposed of the case. Thereafter, the respondent published a news item in its issue dated 27.9.2019 by distorting the

decision of the Council under the caption “वकालत से डडवार संजीव पाररया और दलाल अवधेि शमश्रा सहहत पोटषल संचालक की प्रेस काउंशसल ने झूठी शिकायतों को ककया खाररज”

reporting that the Press Council of India out rightly dismissed the false complaints made by Shri Sanjeev Paria. The complainant submitted that he issued a notice dated 1.10.2019 to the respondent but received no reply. The complainant submitted that the respondent also published false and defamatory news items under the captions

“संजीव पाररया के एक और झूठ का हुआ खलुासा” (dated 20.8.2019), “पाररया को चार लाख छयाशलस हजार का नोहटस शमलने पर िरुू हुई रार” (dated 4.9.2019), “पाररया के चलैेंज को प्रिासन ने स्वीकारा, छावनी बनी कचहर ” (dated 5.9.2019) and “नौननहालों की जजंदगी से खखलवाड करने वाले पाररया को अब एआरट ओ से जान का खतरा” (date not

mentioned). The complainant alleged that he is also being defamed on social media by the respondent. The complainant further alleged that the respondent also used unparliamentary language in the impugned news items. A Show-cause notice dated 4.2.2020 was issued to the Editor, Youth India, Farrukhabad. Written Statement Shri Sharad Katiyar, Editor, Dainik Youth India, Farrukhabad vide written statement dated 12.6.2020 has submitted that the complainant is habitual of filing the false complaints with a view to harass him. The respondent has further submitted that the impugned news items are entirely based on facts and evidence. According to the respondent, the impugned news item dated 27.9.2019 was based on the decision

passed by Press Council of India and other impugned news items were based on the notice issued by the ARTO. The respondent has submitted that the complainant had committed a fatal attack on the ARTO and the Goods Tax Officer because they had issued a notice for inspection of the illegal buses being operated in the complainant’s school. The respondent has submitted that the complainant cheats the innocent people in the garb of advocacy and he is also malicious towards him. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.12.2020 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. In the absence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to

proceed in the matter any further. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends for the disposal of the

complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.


S.No.15 F.No.1900/Suo-Motu/2020-A. Suo-motu cognizance with regard to publication of advertisement as news by Hindustan newspaper

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 The Press Council has come across a full front page advertisement published as news by Hindustan newspaper in its issue dated 24.8.2020 under the caption

“उपलजब्धयों से अव्वल बना ग्राकिक एरा” stating that the Graphic Era Deemed

University has been included in the list of top 100 Universities by the Central Government, which is a matter of pride for Uttarakhand. It has been further stated that no other university in the State of Uttarakhand has been included in Top 100 list. Students of this University remain the choice of the corporate world even during lockdown. While taking suo-motu cognizance of the matter, Show-Cause Notice dated 26.8.2020 issued to the Editor, Hindustan, New Delhi. Written Statement The respondent vide written statement dated 24.9.2020 has submitted that since there is no violation of the relevant norms pointed out in the notice, there is no sufficient ground for holding an inquiry on the subject issue and this is a fit case of withdrawal, by the Hon'ble Press Council of India. The respondent has further submitted that the subject advertisement dated 24.08.2020 was published in the newspaper solely at the behest of the concerned advertiser. The advertisement was based on the content provided by the advertiser. Subsequently, the content of the advertisement was published in accordance with the provision of applicable laws as amended upto date. The said advertisement is within the boundaries of reasonable confined limits. The respondent has further submitted that they take the issue of Advertisement very seriously and their editors and journalists always emphasise the fact that a news item has to be neutral and devoid of any favoritism. The relevant advertisement was published in a different way so that reader can understand the difference between other news. The respondent has also submitted that the impugned advertisement was published in a box and wherein specifically the word “Advt.” was written in right side of the said advertisement. The impugned advertisement has been published in a font and style, which is different from that is used to publish editorial content. This is to enable the readers to distinguish between an advertisement and the editorial content. The respondent submitted that in exercise of their right to trade and profession enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India r/w freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), have published the advertisement, which is the main source of revenue and is an accepted newspaper business model globally. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also time and again held that the publication of advertisement is a fundamental right of Press. The respondent has submitted that in many prominent and widely read newspapers, namely Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran dated 21.8.2020, the subject advertisement appeared in the same form and style. He has requested the Council to withdraw the notice.

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.12.2020 at New Delhi. Shri Govind Vijay, Deputy General Counsel and Shri Arun Pathak, AR appeared on behalf of the respondent newspaper.

The Council took Suo-motu cognizance when it came to its notice about a publication in an issue dated 24th August, 2020 of the respondent newspaper, Hindustan. The material published prima facie looked like an advertisement but projected as news and, accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent newspaper. The respondent newspaper has filed the written statement in which it has been admitted that what has been published in the entire page is not collection of news but advertisement based on the content provided by the advertiser. It is relevant here to state that the respondent though admits that what has been published is an advertisement but has not said so at the top in the page containing the advertisement.

Mr. Govind, Deputy General Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent

and states that the letters “ADVT” have been printed on the same page. It took considerable time of the Inquiry Committee to locate the place where

those letters have been printed and ultimately it found that almost in the middle of the page and the right-hand side the letters “ADVT” have been printed.

For the purpose of making distinction between a news item and an

advertisement, under the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, the newspaper is obliged to print advertisement/vigyapan in such a manner that readers notice that easily. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the newspaper published in Hindi language putting the words “ADVT” in Roman does not achieve the purpose. No ordinary reader would have noticed it.

Clause 2(xxvi) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct framed by the Council

states as follows: “Newspaper while publishing Advertisement/Advertorial similar to news,

shall be printed with a heading ‘Advertisement/Advertorial’ in bold letters with font size equal to sub-headings appearing in the page”.

A plain reading of the aforesaid norm clearly shows that the newspaper while

publishing advertisement similar to news is required to print “advertisement/advertorial” in bold letters with the font size equal to sub heading appearing in the page. Undoubtedly, the advertisement is similar to news and the respondent newspaper has not printed advertisement there. In fact, nothing has been stated about the advertisement in the language in which the news has been published.

The newspaper has thus plainly violated this norm. Mr. Govind, then contends that the font and presentation of the

advertisement is not in the same fashion as that of the news. The Inquiry Committee has perused the page of the advertisement and other pages where news items have been published. There is no distinction so that an ordinary reader can think that it is

an advertisement. In fact, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that a little variation here and there were made to attract more readers.

For all these reasons, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the

respondent newspaper has gravely violated the Norms of Journalistic Conduct and, therefore, needs to be Censured. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends that the respondent newspaper Hindustan, New Delhi and Dehradun editions be Censured. A copy of this Order be forwarded to Bureau of Outreach and Communication, the Director, Information & Public Relations Departments of State of Uttrakhand and Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for appropriate action as permissible in law.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to Censure the respondent-newspaper, Hindustan, Delhi and Dehradun editions.


S.No. 16 File No.1796/2020-A Complainant Mr Gagan Anand Advocate Panchkula (Haryana)

Respondent Mr Ramesh Vinayak Sr. Resident Editor Hindustan Times, Mohali (Punjab)

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 This complaint dated 20/07/2020 has been filed by Shri Gagan Anand,

Panchkula (Haryana) against the Sr. Resident Editor of Hindustan Times, Mohali (Punjab) for allegedly publishing false, unverified and malicious news item concerning Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala (Punjab) in its issue dated 24/05/2020 captioned “Patiala Law University under scanner after CAG finds financial irregularities”.

It has been reported in the impugned news item that the Punjab Government has put Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala, under scanner after Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) listed serious financial and administrative irregularities in its functioning. The CAG in its report highlighted that tenders worth crores of rupees were awarded to ineligible contractors by the university, the construction of the campus building was started without even approval of its plan and irregular appointments were made. It has been further reported that the Punjab Higher Education Department has initiated a probe into the financial matter of RGNUL and has sought year wise details from the varsity. The Higher Education Minister has also sought explanation from the university on various issues stating that the further action will be taken after receiving the reply.

The complainant has submitted that since his son is a student of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala, he took up the matter with RGNUL authorities, so as to ascertain the true facts. According to the complainant, after examining the information and documents by him obtained from the RGNUL authorities it became evident that the impugned news item is based on selectively picked up and incomplete information and has been published with malafide intention. The complainant has further submitted that though the CAG has raised some question on the financial management of the University but later the charges were dropped/settled by CAG during the years 2017 & 2019. Therefore it is evident that the newspaper has reported incomplete facts which are a deliberate attempt to bring disrepute to the RGNUL and disgrace the highly qualified academicians and faculties of the university.

The complainant vide his letter dated 05/06/2020 drew the attention of the respondent towards the false news published and requested to publish the correct facts in its newspaper. However, the respondent vide his email dated 11/06/2020, denied all the allegations of the complainant and further stated that the news article was published with due and adequate verification of facts and the news article was published in public interest at large. The complainant being unsatisfied with the reply of the respondent has pleaded the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

A Show-cause notice dated 07.09.2020 was issued to the Editor, Hindustan Times, Mohali. Written Statement Shri Arun Pathak from Hindustan Times, Mohali vide written statement dated 05.10.2020 while denying all the allegations has submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint in the matter. The respondent has further submitted that the impugned news item was published in usual and ordinary course to discharge their duties as responsible journalists, with due and adequate verification of the facts contained in the impugned news item. According to the respondent, the impugned news item was based on CAG Report regarding the funds of the University. The respondent has further submitted that neither the University nor CAG authority have objected to the impugned news items. Moreover, the partial documents have been admittedly referred by the complainant in his legal notice dated 5.6.2020, which itself shows that the impugned news item was published based on the facts and circumstance of the issues involved therein. The respondent has also sent reply to the complainant that he has no locus stand to send the notice. The respondent has stated that impugned news item neither pertains to complainant nor to his son as neither his name nor his son’s name has been mentioned in the impugned news item. The respondent has stated that the same news item was also published by The Tribune, Chandigarh in its issue dated 23.05.2020. The respondent has further stated that the allegations were levelled against the university on various aspects and a letter was addressed to Vice Chancellor, RGNUL by the National Commission for Women in relation to the some other incidents. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. Counter Comments The complainant-Shri Gagan Anand vide counter comments dated 9.11.2020 while reiterating his complaint has submitted that the written statement of the respondent is misleading and vague. The complainant has further submitted that the respondent deliberately published incomplete information in the impugned news report and thereby violated the norms of journalistic ethics. The complainant has also submitted that the respondent did not mention that the CAG objections stood settled by the CAG itself much prior to the publication of the impugned news report. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.12.2020 at New Delhi.

The complainant is aggrieved by a news story published in the Mohali edition of the Hindustan Times in issue dated 24.5.2020 captioned “Patiala University Under Scanner- CAG Finds Financial Irregularity”. It is the assertion of the complainant that he is the reader of the respondent newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’ and had interest in the subject matter of the story as his son studies in the University in question. It is the assertion of the complainant that the impugned news item has been published based on incomplete information. Complainant admits the CAG has raised some objections on the financial management of the University but the same were dropped/settled in the years 2017-2019 much before the date the story was published i.e. May 24th, 2020. It has been pointed out that reference to the CAG report has been made several times in the impugned story but the fact that same has been dropped much before the publication of the news has not been stated. It is

further the case of the complainant that he drew the attention of the respondent newspaper about those facts even then they have not chosen to publish any corrigendum.

The complainant appears in person, the respondent is represented by its

counsel, Mr. N.B. Joshi. Mr. Joshi at the outset questioned the locus standi of the complainant to file

the complaint. He says that the complainant has nothing to do with the ‘University’ about which the story has been published. Accordingly, he prays that the complaint be thrown at the threshold on this ground alone. The Inquiry Committee has given its thoughtful consideration to the said submission of Mr. Joshi and finds no merit in that. The complainant is a reader of the respondent newspaper and further his son is studying in the University about which the story has been published. Thus it cannot be said that he is interloper and has no interest in the story. Thus the Inquiry Committee overrules this objection of Mr. Joshi.

Mr. Joshi then submits that the story which has been published is true. He

points out that such an objection was raised by the CAG and, therefore the respondent newspaper has not violated any Norms of Journalistic Conduct. The Inquiry Committee finds that the irregularities which have been pointed out by the CAG were re-examined after the submission of the report by the University and dropped much before the publication of the story in the newspaper. This has not been denied by the newspaper. In this way, the respondent newspaper has not published the complete story. Even if the Inquiry Committee assumes in favour of the newspaper that on the day of the publication, it may not be aware of the outcome of the CAG report but the fact that complainant brought this to the notice of the respondent has not been denied. Despite that respondent had not chosen to issue any corrigendum.

The complainant points out that the information sought for by the

newspaper under the Right to Information Act itself disclosed that the CAG has dropped the audit objection later on before the publication of the news but the respondent newspaper purposely omitted to take note of that.

Be that as may, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that when full facts

were brought to the notice of the respondent newspaper, it ought to have published the same with such editorial stand as deemed necessary.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Committee is of the

opinion that the respondent newspaper has violated the Norms of Journalistic Conduct and needs to be Censured.

Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends that the Mohali edition of

the respondent newspaper be Censured. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Bureau of Outreach and Communication, the Deputy Commissioner of SAS Nagar Mohali and the Director of Public Relation, Punjab for taking action in accordance with law. With the aforesaid recommendation, the Inquiry Committee upholds the complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to Censure the respondent-newspaper, Hindustan Times, Mohali edition.


S.No. 17 F.No.14/384/19-20-PCI . Complainant Respondent Shri Awdesh Mishra, Editor, Advocate, Youth India, Farrukhabad (U.P.) Farrukhabad (U.P.).

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 This complaint dated 9.10.2019 has been filed by Shri Awdhesh Mishra, Advocate, Farrukhabad (U.P.) against the Editor, Youth India, Farrukhabad for allegedly publishing false, baseless and defamatory news items. The complainant has stated that earlier he filed a complaint against the respondent before Hon’ble Press Council of India, where the respondent newspaper was Censured. Despite that, the respondent continuously published false and derogatory news against him and the same was again reported to the Council. The Council in its decision dated 22.8.2019 disposed of the case. Thereafter, the respondent published a news item in its issue dated 27.9.2019 by distorting the

decision of the Press Council under the caption “वकालत से डडबार संजीव पाररया और दलाल अवधेि शमश्रा सहहत पोटषल संचालक की प्रेस काउंशसल ने झूठी शिकायतों को ककया खाररज” reporting that the Press Council of India dismissed the false complaints made

by Shri Sanjeev Paria and Awadesh Mishra. The complainant has submitted that he issued a notice dated 1.10.2019 to the respondent but received no reply. Annoyed with this, the respondent published another false, objectionable, and defamatory impugned news item in his newspaper issue dated 7.10.2019 & 8.10.2019 under the

caption “कुख्यात वकील अवधेि ने सीओ शसट व भाजपा नेताओं के खखलाि दषु्कमष का झूठा मुकद्दमा शलखाने का रचा प्रपंच, पीडडता बोल बना रहे दबाव” and “अबला डाल को शमल रह लगातार धमककयों, अब न्याय के शलए खटकायेगी मुख्यमंत्री का द्वार” with sub-

heading “दलाल वकील अवधेि की बंदर घुडकी अखखलेि पाण्डये से बोला शमल गये तो धो बैठोगे जान से हाथ, मेर ररवाल्वर ह बनेगी तेर मौत का कारण”.

The complainant has further alleged that he is also being defamed on social media by the respondent. The complainant has further alleged that the respondent also used unparliamentary language in the impugned news items. A Show-cause notice dated 10.1.2020 was issued to the Editor, Youth India, Farrukhabad. Written Statement Shri Sharad Katiyar, Editor, Dainik Youth India, Farrukhabad vide written statement dated 24.1.2020 while denying the allegation has submitted that the complainant is habitual of filing the false complaints with a view to harass him. The respondent has further submitted that the impugned news items are entirely based on facts and evidence. According to the respondent, the impugned news item dated 27.9.2019 was based on the decision passed by Hon’ble Press Council of India and

the impugned news items dated 7.10.2019 and 8.10.2019 were based on the statement given by the victims. The respondent submitted that the complainant cheats innocent people in the garb of advocacy and he is also malicious towards him. The respondent has stated that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in suit No.2/18 filed by him against the complainant, found the complainant guilty. The respondent has also submitted that the complainant implicated him in false case in the past as well, and now again wants to implicate him in false case. Counter Comments The complainant vide counter comments dated 24.2.2020 while denied the written statement of the respondent has submitted that no harassment case is registered against him. The complainant has further submitted that he has not been found guilty in suit No.2/18 before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant has also submitted that the Circle Officer City, Fatehgarh furnished a false report under the pressure of the respondent. The complainant vide further communication dated 2.3.2020 submitted that the respondent again published false and defamatory news items in its issues dated 28.2.2020 and 29.2.2020. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 11.12.2020 at New Delhi. There was no appearance from either side.

Despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear. In the absence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to

proceed in the matter any further. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends for the disposal of the

complaint.

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India S.No. 18 Case No. 518/2020-A Complainant Dr. Joy. N. Tirkey Dy. Commissioner of Police, Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime(HQ), New Delhi,

Respondent The Editor, The Indian Express, Delhi, Indian Express Building, Noida Shri Mahendar Manral, Correspondent, The Indian Express, Delhi.


This complaint dated 12.5.2020 was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime (HQ) Delhi, against the Indian Express for publication of an alleged misleading, factually incorrect and unverified news item in its issue dated 09/05/2020 captioned “Tablighi FIR: Police probe indicates Saad audio clip was doctored”. As per complainant’s submission, the article has been published concerning an under investigation Case, FIR no. 63/2020 dated 31.03.2020 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, r/w 51/58(1) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, r/w Section 14(1)(b) Foreigners Act, 1946, r/w 304/308/336/188/269/270/271/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Crime Branch. The Complainant submitted that the article in question reports that the Crime Branch investigation has found that the audio clip mentioned in the aforesaid police FIR against Markaz Nizamuddin head Maulana Saad Kandhalvi in which he had asked Tablighi Jamaat members not to follow social distancing norms and gave prohibitory orders is a ‘doctored audio clip’. The report further stated that highly placed sources told The Indian Express that police recovered a laptop from the Markaz member who put out their audio clips, and had gone through all. After scanning them, police found there are over 350 audio clips in three forms — raw clips of Markaz events; audio clips sent to their followers, and ones uploaded on their YouTube channel. It further stated that a team led by Inspector Satish Kumar, has been trying to find the specific audio which went viral and was mentioned in the FIR, has so far recovered no such clip from the laptop. On the other hand, the investigators found that Saad’s comments on police and religion from other events had been taken out of context and doctored. According to the complainant, the claims made in the impugned article regarding the investigation are incorrect. Complainant has stated that the news is not only factually incorrect, but based on wholly unverified sources and purely conjectural imagination. Further, Delhi Police has submitted that it has issued a rejoinder to the Indian Express on 09/05/2020 for publication of clarification however on 10/05/2020 The Indian Express, while publishing the rejoinder, added its response to the same which is reproduced below,

“The Indian Express Replied: The report is based on conversations with sources and officials aware of the

probe against Maulana Saad, Before publication, calls were made to Special CP (Crime) Praver Ranjan on Friday. Also, a message was sent to him seeking his comments on the key points made in the report. No response was received”

As the publication of the rejoinder was not satisfactory and did not rectify the

alleged misreporting carried out by Indian Express, the police to probe into the matter issued a Notice dated 10/05/2020 under Section 160 Cr.PC calling the concerned reporter, Shri Mahender Singh Manral. However, police has stated that the reporter reiterated the false claims made in the article and also stated that he had tried to verify facts from a Special Commissioner of Police over phone but he did not respond, which is also incorrect, as on asking the phone number of the police personnel, concerned reporter denied showing the contact number by saying that his phone contains much confidential information so he is not carrying it with him.

The complainant has stated that as the matter relates to Tablighi Markaz incident at Nizamuddin concerning the spread of COVID 19 during lockdown period, is a highly sensitive matter and is under investigation stage hence any misreporting/unverified facts reported in media may adversely affect the investigation process and create or propagate a fictitious and conjectural narrative for a wider national and international audience over the subject matter of investigation. Therefore, the complainant has requested the Council to take appropriate action against the Indian Express on the same. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent editor, The Indian Express on 20.5.2020 followed by Time Bound Reminder dated 29.10.2020. Written Statement of Editor, Indian Express Shri Rakesh Sinha, Editor, The Indian Express, Delhi vide his written statement dated 12.12.2020 submitted that the impugned news report was carried in good faith, in public interest, based on information/documents received from reliable sources, believing the same to be true and correct and without malice towards the complainant or anyone else. The news report was clearly based on confidential sources. The respondent has further submitted that the Correspondent, Shri Mahender Singh Manral had earlier spoken to Special CP (Crime) and also sources, who are quoted verbatim. According to the respondent, the impugned news report covers an FIR against Markaz Nizamuddin head, Maulana Saad Kandhalvi, based on an audio clip, that he had allegedly asked Tablighi Jamaat members not to follow social distancing norms and prohibitory orders. The respondent has further submitted that neither Special CP (Crime) nor anyone else have till date sent any letter to the newspaper denying their quotes appearing in the news report. The respondent has also submitted that the Delhi PRO, Shri Mandeep Randhawa sent a rejoinder on 9.5.2020 for publication and the same was carried on the very next day in the Indian Express, Delhi issue dated 10.5.2020. The respondent has alleged that the police also harassed and pressurised Shri Manral to reveal its sources. He has stated that there is no ground to warn admonish or censure the respondent newspaper.

Written Statement of Shri Mahender Singh Manral, Correspondent, Indian Express Shri Mahender Singh Manral, Special Correspondent, India Express vide written statement dated 16.12.2020 pointed out that he had not been served with copy of complaint, show-cause notice or any reminder to this effect. He learnt about the complaint from Shri Rakesh Sinha, designated editor. In his short reply he has submitted that the impugned news item was prepared by him in good faith, in public interest based on information received from reliable sources, believing the same to be true and correct, after verification and without malice towards anyone. The respondent further submitted that the Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) on its official website uploaded a report by a Union Home Ministry think tank on “how to spot and investigate” fake news, which red-flagged the targeting of minorities over the COVID-19 pandemic and mentioned the audio clip of the Tablighi Jamaat chief as an example of fake audio. The 40 pages guide is for law enforcement agencies. It bears out the information provided to him by his source. Referring the written statement submitted by the Editor, Indian Express, he stated that the contents thereof are adopted by him and may be treated as his reply. The respondent further stated that it is correctly recorded that when he attended the enquiry on 11.5.2020, the Investigating Officer inter-alia pressed him to reveal his sources. However, he refused to disclose his confidential sources. The respondent submitted that the complaint contains only bald denials and fails to disclose any fact in his news report which factually incorrect. Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 18.12.2020 at New Delhi. While the complainant appears in person, Shri Sahil, Counsel and Shri Mahender Manral, Special Correspondent, Indian Express appeared on behalf of the respondents. This complaint has been filed by Dr. Joy. N. Tirkey, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi alleging that the story published in the ‘Indian Express’ Delhi in its issue dated May 9, 2020 is factually incorrect and misleading. The published story carried the headline “Tablighi FIR: Police probe indicates Saad audio clip was doctored”. The story went on to state that “initial investigation by the Delhi Crime Branch has found that an audio-clip mentioned in the police FIR against Markaz Nizamuddin head Maulana Saad Kandhalvi which suggested he had asked Tablighi Jamaat members not to follow social distancing norms and prohibitory orders may be ‘doctored audio-clip’”. According to the story “highly placed sources” disclosed that the investigators found that Saad’s comments on police and religion from other events had been taken out of context and doctored. The story went on to indicate that the “investigation team” noticed that the viral audio clip is a mixture of several clips which have been edited and doctored.

According to the complainant till date audio-clip has not been found to be doctored and thus the story is false and misleading.

Mr. Sahil Garg, the learned counsel representing the newspaper and the

author of the story submitted that use of the words ‘may’ and ‘allegedly’ in the story clearly go to suggest that the story did not convey that the audio-clip is certainly doctored and the plea of the complainant is, therefore, unsustainable. The Inquiry Committee has bestowed its consideration to the merit of these submissions and in

its opinion, the story in question in no uncertain terms goes to suggest that in police investigation, the audio-clip was found to be doctored. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that an ordinary reader after going through the published story will come to the conclusion that the audio clip has been found to be doctored. Use of the expression ‘may’ and ‘allegedly’ in the story cannot be read in isolation and have to be read in context.

In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the story that initial investigation by

the Delhi Police that audio-clip of Maulana Saad may be doctored read with the headline that ‘Tablighi FIR: Police probe indicates Saad audio clip was doctored’ in no uncertain terms convey that audio-clip has been found to be doctored during the course of investigation. The story that the audio-clip is doctored is based on purported findings of the Delhi Police Crime Branch which gives credence to the story. Had the author of this story not sure about this, as sought to be contended during the course of enquiry, it ought not to have been published with the headline as indicated above.

From the reading of the headlines and the contents of the story, there is no escape from the conclusion that what has been projected in the story is that audio-clip was doctored. The complainant has emphatically stated that no such conclusion has been reached during the course of investigation and, therefore, in the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the story is false and misleading. Another defence of the respondent is that the story is a source story based on highly placed sources and, therefore, they cannot be fastened with the liability in case the story turns out to be incorrect. The Inquiry Committee is conscious of the fact that source is sacrosanct and an important channel for information. Further, journalist cannot be asked to divulge the source. However, in the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, in case where a journalist is not prepared to volunteer source, he shall be solely responsible for correctness and authenticity of the story and personally liable for violation of any norms. The situation may be different when the journalist opts to volunteer source and in such circumstances, his liability will depend upon the nature of source. If the story, in the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, had come from reliable source, that may be relevant consideration for deciding the liability of the journalist. From the conspectus of what has been observed above, the Inquiry Committee has no hesitation in holding that the story in question is untrue and misleading. To put the record straight Mr. Mahender S. Manral by his email dated December 15, 2020 had raised the plea on non-receipt of Show-Cause Notice, copy of the complaint, the reminder and the notice of hearing but when the matter is taken up, his counsel states that those have been received and under misconception such a communication was made. On consideration of the complaint, the written statement and all other connected papers, the Inquiry Committee holds that the impugned story is untrue and misleading and, accordingly, recommends that the respondent newspaper as also the concerned journalist Mr. Mahender Singh Manral be censured. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee upholds the complaint and Censures the respondent. The respondent newspaper is directed to publish the gist of the

order of adjudication in its newspaper with same prominence within two weeks of its receipt. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Bureau of Outreach and Communication, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Director of Information and Public Relation, and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for information and action as permissible in law. Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to Censure the respondent-newspaper, Indian Express, Delhi and Shri Mahender Singh Manral, Special Correspondent, Indian Express.


S. No. 19-20 F.No.14/272-273/19-20-PCI. Complainant Respondent Shri Vijendra Kumar Agarwalla, 1. The Editor, Managing Director, Dainik Jagran, Shashi Cables Limited, Lucknow (U.P.) Lucknow (U.P.). 2. The Editor, Amar Ujala, Lucknow (U.P.)

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 This complaint dated 6.8.2019 has been filed by Shri Vijendra Kumar Agarwalla, Managing Director, Shashi Cables Limited, Lucknow (U.P.) against (i) Dainik Jagran; and (ii) Amar Ujala for allegedly publishing defamatory news items in

their issues dated 29.5.2019 under the captions “68 कंपननयां घहटया सामान की आपूनत ष में ब्लैक शलस्टेड” (Dainik Jagran) and “घहटया ववद्युत सामग्री आपूनत ष करने वाल 68 कंपननयां ब्लैकशलस्ट” (Amar Ujala).

It has been reported in the impugned news item published in Dainik Jagran that Power Corporation has blacklisted 68 companies for supplying substandard transformers, cables and other materials. It has been further reported that the Corporation has taken this step after failing of 15% percent samples of material taken from all over the state. Action was taken on the instructions of the Minister of Power. The Chairman of Power Corporation has warned of strict action against companies supplying substandard materials and Corporation banned these companies for purchase of materials. A total of 1066 samples of transformer, cable etc. had taken, in which 159 samples failed. The Principal Secretary said that a large number of transformers are damaged due to poor quality. The impugned news item mentioned names of blacklisted companies along with complainant’s company name i.e. Shashi Cable. It has been reported in the impugned news item published in Amar Ujala that Power Corporation management has blacklisted 68 companies for supplying substandard electrical materials. The Chairman of Power Corporation has issued order for blacklisting these companies. It has been further reported that the Minister of Power was receiving various complaints about the poor quality of the electrical material and also buying it at a higher price. On the direction of the Minister, the Power Corporation management conducted an inspection of the quality of the electrical material. A total of 1066 samples of transformer, cable etc. had taken, in which 159 samples failed. Denying the impugned news items, the complainant has alleged that the impugned news items distorted their public image and has given a grievous blow to their business as now they are unable to receive any order for conductors from other utilities and private customers from anywhere in the country. The complainant has

stated that the impugned news items have evidently distorted his public image and have given a grievous blow to his business. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent newspapers Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala on 1.7.2019 and 24.7.2019 respectively and subsequent reminders dated 2.8.2019 with a request to apprise them of source of information and its authenticity as published in newspapers. In response thereto, the respondent newspapers Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran vide their letters dated 25.8.2019 and 11.9.2019 respectively informed that the impugned news items were based on a Press Note issued by Public Relations Officer of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Written Statement of Dainik Jagran The Editor, Dainik Jagran vide his written statement dated 11.11.2019 while denying the allegations levelled by the complainant has submitted that the complaint is totally false, baseless, misleading and filed with a view to pressurize them. The respondent has further stated that the impugned news item was based on a Press Release issued by Shri K.K. Singh, Public Relations Officer, U.P. Power Corporation Limited wherein 68 companies including complainant’s company were blacklisted for supplying sub-standard materials and an instruction for taking necessary action against the companies was also given to the companies by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. The respondent has stated that other newspapers also published the same news. The respondent has further stated that the complainant was apprised about the facts of the impugned news item vide letter dated 11.9.2019. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint. A copy of the written statement of Dainik Jagran was forwarded to the complainant on 18.11.2019 for counter comments. Written Statement of Amar Ujala The Counsel for the Amar Ujala vide his written statement dated 26.11.2019 while denying the allegation has stated that the impugned news item was based on the Press Release issued by the Public Relation Officer of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited on 28.5.2019. The respondent has stated that the news item was general news and published within the journalistic norms and ethics, in good faith and based upon statement made by concerned authority. While denying any violation of norms of journalistic ethics, the respondent has further stated that the impugned news item is true reporting and not defamatory, as alleged. The respondent has submitted that the Amar Ujala duly replied to the notices of the complainant. According to the respondent, news report does not disclose identity and name of the complainant. It is established law that in the absence of defamatory words written against one or the other person, no action is permissible against the newspaper. He has not published any content contrary to law. The respondent has further stated that the impugned news item is on the basis of the aforesaid press release and not on the basis of perception of the reporter of the newspaper. Amar Ujala has not made any comments on its own. The respondent has stated that he has no personal grudge or vendetta against anyone including the complainant. He has requested the Council to dismiss the complaint.


at New Delhi. Shri Prateek Yadav, Advocate appeared for the complainant and Advocates, Shri B.K. Mishra and Ms. Poonam Atey with Legal Manager, Shri Kapil Yadav appeared for Dainik Jagran and Advocates Shri Neeraj Kapoor & Shri Vivek Singh appeared for Amar Ujala.

The complainant is aggrieved by publication of a news items in the respondent

newspapers with the heading that “68 companies have been found black-listed for supply of defective materials”. It is the assertion of the complainant that the aforesaid news item is false and that has severely damaged its reputation.

The Inquiry Committee has heard Mr. Prateek Yadav, Advocate for the

complainant and Mr. B.K. Mishra, Ms. Poonam Atey and Mr. Kapil Yadav for the respondent Dainik Jagran and Mr. Vivek Singh and Neeraj Kapoor for Amar Ujala. It is the assertion of the respondents that the impugned news has been published on the basis of a Press Release issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. The Inquiry Committee has perused the Press Release and finds that the name of complainant is mentioned in the said Press Release. Mr. Yadav states that the statement given in the Press Release that the complainant has been black-listed is false. The Inquiry Committee is not inclined to go into this question in the present proceeding. Be that as it may, the respondent newspapers had the basis for publication of the impugned news item and while doing so they have not committed any breach of Norms of Journalistic Conduct. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee recommends for dismissal of the complaint. However, the complainant may take recourse to any other remedy available to it in law.

Held

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

Press Council of India S. No. 21 F.No.14/221/19-20-PCI. Complainant Respondent Shri Kapil Dev, The Editor, Assistant Regional Manager, Dainik Amar Bharati, U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation, Agra (U.P.) Bah De port, Bah, Agra (U.P.)

Adjudication dated 22.01.2021 This complaint dated 11.7.2019 has been filed by Shri Kapil Dev, Assistant Regional Manager, U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation, Bah Deport, Agra (U.P.) against the Editor, Dainik Amar Bhararti, Agra for allegedly publishing false,

baseless and defamatory news items under the captions “कर बी कमषचाररयों से नौकर नह ं कराते एआरएम साहब!” with highlighted lines in the said impugned news as “साहब व कमषचाररयों के बीच लेनदेन पर चल रह नौकर and आठ कमषचार अपनी जगह संववदा कशमषयों से करा रहे ड्यटू ” and “खदु की जान िंसती हुई देख प्रभंजनको बचाने में जुटे साहब” in its issues dated 22.5.2019 and 24.5.2019 respectively.

In the impugned news item datged 22.5.2019, it has been reported that the corruption is prevailing in Roadways Corporation. On the direction of the Minister of Roadways, an investigation was done and it was found that the contract workers are driving buses in place of regular employees of Roadways Corporation. It has been further reported that a total of 20-22 drivers-conductors are appointed on regular basis in Bah Depot and the remaining about 210 driver-conductors are appointed on contract basis. It has also been reported that eight regular drivers, who are close to the Assistant Regional Manager (ARM), are not attending their duties for several months and these regular employees are paying Rs.8,000/- per month to Assistant Regional Manager to escape from duties. The Assistant Regional Manager in similar manner had earned lakhs of rupees during his previous postings.

The news item dated 24.5.2019 reported that the Assistant Regional Manager forced the contact employees to work in place of regular employees and thus the contract employees were found to be driving buses instead of regular employees on 20th May and thereafter an Audit Team was sent to investigate the matter. The audit team checked the files of all the staff posted in Bah Depot in the Regional Manager’s Office. After hearing about the visit of audit team, the ARM did not come to the office. If investigation is done, then accused is sure to be caught.

Denying the allegations levelled in the impugned news items, the complainant has submitted that the respondent have published false, baseless news items levelling allegation of corruption against him without any evidence due to which his reputation has been tremendously damaged. The complainant has further alleged that no pre-publication verification was done by the respondent before publishing the impugned news items. The complainant has further submitted that after publication of the impugned news items, he spoke to the Editor of the respondent newspaper and also to the

Reporter concerned but they could not give satisfactory reply. Thereafter, he wrote to the respondent editor on 24.5.2019 but received no reply. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter. No Reply Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Dainik Amar Bharati, Agra on 31.10.2019 but the same was received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “Left”. Thereafter, the show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on another address on 27.11.2019 and the same was also received

back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks “हदये गये पते पर इस नाम की कोई िमष नह ं है-अतः प्रेर्क को वावपस”. Therefore, the show-cause notice

issued to the respondent through email on 6.1.2020 (Not Bounced). The complainant was also requested vide Council’s letter dated 28.2.2020 to provide latest address of the respondent but received no reply. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2020 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on either side.

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

absence of the complainant, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further and, accordingly, recommends for disposal of the complaint.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Committee and decides to dispose of the complaint.

Press Council of India S. No. 22 Case No. 149/SM/2020-A Suo-Motu cognizance with regard to publication of news item projecting the Hon’ble President of India in a satirical manner and use of sensational headlines by the The Telegraph in its issue dated 17.3.2020.


The Press Information Bureau (PIB) vide letter dated 17.3.2020 has forwarded a news article published by the Telegraph newspaper in its issue dated 17.3.2020 under the caption “Kovind, not Covid, did it”. The news article under the sensational headlines “Kovind, not Covid, did it” has used the name of the First Citizen of India in a satirical manner reporting that the President of India Shri Ramnath Kovind handed the Rajya Sabha nomination to Justice Shri Ranjan Gogoi on Monday only after five months of his retirement from the post of Chief Justice of India (CJI), which in itself is the first time in the Indian history as never before a former CJI has been nominated to the Upper House in such a short period. It has been stated that the nomination of Justice Gogai is a political nomination quoting Shri Dushyant Dave, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The article further states that this nomination is a reward to Justice Gogoi in return to his earlier verdicts in the matter of Ayodhya site dispute, the decline of the plea to probe the Rafale Fighter plane deal and for publicly defending the National Register Citizen in Assam, aligning with the ideologies of the ruling party. PIB has stated that the news item in question has projected the President of India in a satirical manner and thus has requested the Council to take suo-motu cognizance on the news article. Smt. Gayatri Borpatra Gohain and Shri Utpal Kumar Ray vide emails dated 18.3.2020 and 23.4.2020 respectively also drew the attention of the Council in this regard. The Council while taking suo motu cognizance of the matter issued Show Cause Notice to the editor, The Telegraph on 17.3.2020. Written Statement

A reply dated 16.12.2020 has been received from respondent newspaper denying the contents of the complaint and stating that the Press Council of India has no jurisdiction to take action in the matter under the Press Council Act 1978 and Regulations 1979. Accordingly, he requests for withdrawing the proceedings. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 16.12.2020 at New Delhi. Ms. Kanchan Prasad, Additional Director General, Press Information Bureau appeared but there was no appearance from respondent.

The Council took Suo-motu cognizance when it came to its notice the news

item regarding nomination of the former Chief Justice of India as a member of the

Rajya Sabha with the headline “Kovind, not Covid, did it” and accordingly issued notice to the respondent newspaper.

Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to file any reply nor anybody has appeared on its behalf today (16.12.2020) when the matter was taken up by the Inquiry Committee. Paragraph 31 (vi) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct (Edition 2019) inter alia provides as follows:

“Satirical comments, ridiculing and denigrating the first citizen of the country are uncalled for and beyond the call of fair journalistic comment.”

From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that any

comment ridiculing and denigrating the first citizen of the Country is not only uncalled for but beyond the call of fair journalistic comment. The heading “Kovind, not Covid, did it” refers to the Hon’ble President of the Country and that surely ridicules and denigrates the first citizen of the Country. The respondent has not chosen to appear or file any reply to justify the said heading.

After the Inquiry Committee met and made the recommendation to censure

the newspaper, a letter dated 16th of December, 2020 was received in the office of the Council. Besides making submission on the merit of the case, other objections have been taken with regard to the validity of the inquiry. In the application, it has been stated that the allegations are not such in which the Chairman should have taken cognizance of the case. It has further been stated that the statutory requirements for sending the matter to the Inquiry Committee have not been followed. It has further been stated by the respondent that the notice is issued without jurisdiction and therefore, same be recalled and consequently proceedings be dropped.

The Inquiry Committee does not find any substance in all these submissions.

Section 14 of the Press Council Act inter alia, confers power to the Council to censure a newspaper and such a power can be exercised on receipt of a complaint made to it or otherwise. Therefore, besides the complaint, the Council has the authority to act in the matter otherwise also. It is further relevant here to state that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26 of the Press Council Act, the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 has been framed and Rule 13 thereof which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:- Power to take suo-motu action

“The Chairman may suo motu issue notice or, as the case may be, take action in respect of any matter which falls within the mischief of section 14(1) of the Act or in respect of or relating to any matter falling under Section 13(2) thereof and thereupon the procedure prescribed by these regulations from regulation 5 onwards shall be followed as if it were a complaint under regulation 3”.

From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the Chairman has been conferred with the power to take suo-motu cognizance and issue notice in respect of any matter following within mischief of Section 14 (1) or Section 13 (2) of the Act. The conduct of respondent being prime-facie in violation of Section 14 of the Act. The Chairman took Suo-motu cognizance and issued notice to the respondent and thereafter directed for placing the matter before the Inquiry Committee. It is further relevant here to state that Rule 13 of the Rules in specific

terms provides that in case the Chairman has taken cognizance and directed for issuance of notice, the procedure prescribed by these Regulations from Regulations 5 onwards shall be followed as if it were a complaint under Regulation 3 of the Regulation. Thus after the exercise of the aforesaid power the matter was treated as complaint and ultimately placed before the Inquiry Committee for its opinion. Thus, the Inquiry Committee does not find any substance in these pleas of the respondent.

As the matter concerns the prestige and reputation of the High office of the

President of India and the heading plainly in violation of the norms, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to take a lenient view and recommends that the respondent newspaper be Censured.

A copy of the order be forwarded to the Bureau of Outreach and Communication and the Director of Public Relation of the State of West Bengal for the appropriate decision.

The respondent newspaper is directed to publish the report of the Council

prominently in newspaper within two weeks. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and Report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the Report of the Inquiry Committee and decides to Censure the respondent newspaper, the Telegraph, Calcutta.

Complaints against the Press Cases heard by Inquiry Committe

Documents